Page 1 of 1

Far 91.307...

Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2018 7:52 pm
by ScottyB
Unless each occupant of the aircraft is wearing an approved parachute, no pilot of a civil aircraft carrying any person (other than a crewmember) may execute any intentional maneuver that exceeds...
I don't have a parachute but have a ballistic chute... What are the opinions of my fellow pilots
Personally I'd rather use the ballistic shoot

Re: Far 91.307...

Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2018 8:04 pm
by 3Dreaming
If you are worried about it you can file for a waiver based on the airframe chute. I don't know if it will be granted or not. I seem to remember someone being granted a waiver for a S9 doing airshows if I don't have my facts crossed up.

Re: Far 91.307...

Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2018 8:17 pm
by FastEddieB
Worth pointing out that if you’re solo, no parachute is required.

But if you have a passenger, then each occupant must wear one.

I have not heard of any exception for airframe parachutes, which are clearly not “worn”.

Re: Far 91.307...

Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2018 9:50 pm
by smutny
Ballistic chutes are not regulated by 91.307. In fact, in an ELSA or E-AB, there is no regulation that requires you to keep your ballistic chute pack current. In SLSA the manufacturer may do so.

It is, however, a violation of the FAR's if you fly with an emergency chute that is out of pack. So, even though you don't need a chute to fly acro by yourself, if you wear an out of pack chute, you can face FAA action.

Re: Far 91.307...

Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2018 8:39 am
by MrMorden
smutny wrote:It is, however, a violation of the FAR's if you fly with an emergency chute that is out of pack. So, even though you don't need a chute to fly acro by yourself, if you wear an out of pack chute, you can face FAA action.


If true, that sounds like something that affects only certified airplanes. Since manufacturers set all the maintenance requirements for S-LSA, I'm guessing this doesn't apply to those aircraft.

EDIT: I might have misunderstood your post...if you are referring to worn parachutes, this is correct. I thought you were referring to airframe parachutes.

Re: Far 91.307...

Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2018 9:11 am
by smutny
MrMorden wrote:
smutny wrote:EDIT: I might have misunderstood your post...if you are referring to worn parachutes, this is correct. I thought you were referring to airframe parachutes.


Yeah, I was using emergency chute to reference a rig you wear and ballistic chute as an airframe system.

Re: Far 91.307...

Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2018 9:20 am
by 3Dreaming
Upon further reflection what I may be remembering is someone flying in a aerobatic contest with a Rans S-9. The IAC requires a parachute for all competitors. I think they made an exception for this fellow because of the airframe parachute. The IAC rules now allow for either a pilot worn chute or a airframe chute.

Re: Far 91.307...

Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2018 10:35 am
by smutny
IAC competition rules allows for an airframe chute only if the pilot is the sole occupant. If there are two on board, then both need to wear an emergency rig regardless if the airframe has a ballistic chute.

You are not required to wear a chute when flying an air show, some performers don't.

Re: Far 91.307...

Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2018 12:44 pm
by 3Dreaming
smutny wrote:IAC competition rules allows for an airframe chute only if the pilot is the sole occupant. If there are two on board, then both need to wear an emergency rig regardless if the airframe has a ballistic chute.

You are not required to wear a chute when flying an air show, some performers don't.


I understand that. I was trying to pull something from my grey matter that I either heard or read some 30 plus years ago. As I said earlier there was a S-9 pilot flying airshows or maybe a contest that was granted an exemption by either the FAA or IAC. I don't think IAC had the provision for a airframe chute back then. The facts that I do remember are airframe parachute and exemption.

Re: Far 91.307...

Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2018 4:31 pm
by smutny
The IAC changed the rule book to allow for ballistic systems in 2012. There might have been a IAC rule waiver request before that.

There is no requirement to wear a chute to fly an air show, so no waiver of FAA regs would have been needed or done.

Re: Far 91.307...

Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2018 4:47 pm
by 3Dreaming
Still, for the OP I see no reason a request for waiver couldn't be requested. Whether it would be granted or not is a completely different story, but you never know until you ask.

Re: Far 91.307...

Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2018 8:52 pm
by smutny
No FSDO will provide a CoW for 91.307. If you have two people on board, both must wear a parachute. FSDO's do not compromise on issues of safety.

That being said, we've all seen tons of YouTube videos with people flying acro, in the US, with passengers and no chutes. If you end up on the FAA's radar for something, no chutes may be one more thing on your naughty list, but doubtful it is the reason your ended up on their radar to begin with.

Re: Far 91.307...

Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2018 11:08 pm
by ScottyB
Thank you all for your help and information on parachute rules.
I have decided to not do aerobics with a passenger and just use the ballistic chute
ScottyB

Re: Far 91.307...

Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2018 7:57 am
by Jim Hardin
ScottyB wrote:Thank you all for your help and information on parachute rules.
I have decided to not do aerobics with a passenger and just use the ballistic chute
ScottyB


Send pictures :D