Sport Pilot Talk

......

Cool!

1) It does strike me as odd they would do "testing" with passengers.

2) It points out that when the view out the windscreen does not include sky, it can make it feel like you're pointed almost straight down. The wing view shows that clearly not to be the case.

I second both of Eddie's observations and add...
3) Pax had to have been "spin veterans" or that 'new airplane' smell would have been replaced
4) I wish they had shared the altitude used
5) Recovery took almost 2 turns, it appeared to me

Cool video, though.

Merlinspop wrote:I second both of Eddie's observations and add...
3) Pax had to have been "spin veterans" or that 'new airplane' smell would have been replaced
4) I wish they had shared the altitude used
5) Recovery took almost 2 turns, it appeared to me

Cool video, though.

From the in cockpit view it looked like one turn, but the wing tip view showed it to be a little less. There was some pitch oscillation into the second turn. It also looked like they forced into the spin.

Is a spin considered aerobatic? I don't think it is, but ff so, didn't the pax need parachutes?

That looks like fun. They had just complete their spin testing, so the outcome of this demo was never really in doubt to them. They were clearly confident in the airplane!

Aerobatics is not really the criteria for requiring chutes in the US:

91.307
c) 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--
(1) A bank of 60 degrees relative to the horizon; or
(2) A nose-up or nose-down attitude of 30 degrees relative to the horizon.
(d) Paragraph (c) of this section does not apply to--
(1) Flight tests for pilot certification or rating; or
(2) Spins and other flight maneuvers required by the regulations for any certificate or rating when given by--
(i) A certificated flight instructor; or
(ii) An airline transport pilot instructing in accordance with Sec. 61.67 of this chapter.
(e) For the purposes of this section, approved parachute means--
(1) A parachute manufactured under a type certificate or a technical standard order (C-23 series); or
(2) A personnel-carrying military parachute identified by an NAF, AAF, or AN drawing number, an AAF order number, or any other military designation or specification number.

Like many FAR's this one is convoluted enough to remain open to interpretation, especially Paragraph d.

And this may not have been performed in the US.

Although 91.307 does not use the word "aerobatics", elsewhere in the FARs an aerobatic maneuver is defined as exceeding 60 degrees of bank or 30 degrees of pitch. My plane has a placard on the canopy stating "aerobatic maneuvers prohibited, including spins", leaving no room for argument. (I believe the Operating Limitations contain the same language; I'll check.)

Edit: no, that language is not in the Operating Limitations, though it is in the AOI (which is referenced in the Operating Limitations). The AOI Section 2, Limitations, also specifically limits bank angle to 60 degrees max.

drseti wrote:Although 91.307 does not use the word "aerobatics", elsewhere in the FARs an aerobatic maneuver is defined as exceeding 60 degrees of bank or 30 degrees of pitch. My plane has a plackard on the canopy stating "aerobatic maneuvers prohibited, including spins", leaving no room for argument. (I believe the Operating Limitations contain the same language; I'll check.)

From 91.303. "For the purposes of this section, aerobatic flight means an intentional maneuver involving an abrupt change in an aircraft's attitude, an abnormal attitude, or abnormal acceleration, not necessary for normal flight", there is no mention of pitch or bank limits. They are listed in 91.307 for when a parachute is needed. These are often confused.

In another write up about this video (I think it was ANN, but not positive), they mentioned that during spin testing there was a spin parachute in the tail, whole aircraft parachute, and the pilot wore a personal parachute and the test plane was equipped with explosive hinges on all doors.

Don't know if the above applied to all occupants of the plane in the video, though. I have a personal policy wherein if the pilot is wearing a parachute... me too!

Merlinspop wrote: I have a personal policy wherein if the pilot is wearing a parachute... me too!

And I have a personal policy wherein if the pilot is wearing a parachute ... I don't fly with him or her!

3Dreaming wrote:

drseti wrote:Although 91.307 does not use the word "aerobatics", elsewhere in the FARs an aerobatic maneuver is defined as exceeding 60 degrees of bank or 30 degrees of pitch. My plane has a plackard on the canopy stating "aerobatic maneuvers prohibited, including spins", leaving no room for argument. (I believe the Operating Limitations contain the same language; I'll check.)

From 91.303. "For the purposes of this section, aerobatic flight means an intentional maneuver involving an abrupt change in an aircraft's attitude, an abnormal attitude, or abnormal acceleration, not necessary for normal flight", there is no mention of pitch or bank limits. They are listed in 91.307 for when a parachute is needed. These are often confused.

So a week ago when I *very* abruptly nosed down my airplane to avoid a turkey vulture, in a way that I found completely abnormal, I was briefly an aerobatic pilot? Cool!



I don't really buy this definition. If I put the airplane quickly into a turn, or do anything "abrupt", I'm doing aerobatics? Sounds silly, and would cover MANY common flight maneuvers.

MrMorden wrote:I don't really buy this definition. <snip> Sounds silly, and would cover MANY common flight maneuvers.

C'mon now, Andy. we're talking FAA here, and you expect it to make sense?

MrMorden wrote:

3Dreaming wrote:

drseti wrote:Although 91.307 does not use the word "aerobatics", elsewhere in the FARs an aerobatic maneuver is defined as exceeding 60 degrees of bank or 30 degrees of pitch. My plane has a plackard on the canopy stating "aerobatic maneuvers prohibited, including spins", leaving no room for argument. (I believe the Operating Limitations contain the same language; I'll check.)

From 91.303. "For the purposes of this section, aerobatic flight means an intentional maneuver involving an abrupt change in an aircraft's attitude, an abnormal attitude, or abnormal acceleration, not necessary for normal flight", there is no mention of pitch or bank limits. They are listed in 91.307 for when a parachute is needed. These are often confused.

So a week ago when I *very* abruptly nosed down my airplane to avoid a turkey vulture, in a way that I found completely abnormal, I was briefly an aerobatic pilot? Cool!



I don't really buy this definition. If I put the airplane quickly into a turn, or do anything "abrupt", I'm doing aerobatics? Sounds silly, and would cover MANY common flight maneuvers.

There have been pilots violated for making a high speed pass down the runway with smoke on. In the eyes of the FAA observer it was not necessary for normal flight. They may have been looking to make an example of somebody.

3Dreaming wrote:
There have been pilots violated for making a high speed pass down the runway with smoke on. In the eyes of the FAA observer it was not necessary for normal flight. They may have been looking to make an example of somebody.

Definitely sounds like an example being made. I think we all know the FAA can violate any of us at any time. The "careless and reckless" language assures that.

......