On Aug 30, 9:52*am, Bart wrote:
On Aug 30, 9:33*am, Andy wrote:

Gray area. Advisory Circular 91-48 uses both definitions.
Can you give me a para reference. All I see, under definitions, *is a
re-statement of the regs I quoted.

"...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.”
b The above bank and pitch tolerances further define the differences
between an acrobatic and nonacrobatic maneuver."

For me, the FARs are clear and I agree with your interpretation. Also,
Advisory Circulars are non-regulatory. But ignore them at your own
peril.

Bart

Back to the Idaho accident,a witness stated (NTSB report) that the
BG-12 pulled up to about 300 feet. This should have been plenty of
altitude to reverse course and put it on the runway. What happened? I
remember reading a FAA report on accidents that happen all the time.
Pilot buys a new ship and decides to buzz his house. Dives down,
buzzes, then pulls up, say 30 degrees. He looses his horizon because
the nose of his ship blocks it. Pilot isn't used to pulling G's and
without realizing it, he relaxes back stick pressure until he gets
back to 1 G. Only problem is,the nose is still up and his horizon is
still blocked. Ship stalls & falls. One happened just like this, here
in Sacramento a few years ago. Experienced buz-job-jockeys know to
lower one wing and pick up the horizon, then finish the maneuver with
nose below the horizon and airspeed 50+.
Did this happen in Idaho?
JJ