![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Robert Moore wrote in message .7...
(Rich Stowell) wrote FAR 91.303, Aerobatic Flight, states in pertinent part: "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 an abnormal acceleration, not neccessary for normal flight." I wonder where a 45 degree steep turn fall in this context? It depends who's watching, sort of like "careless or reckless operation." For example, a couple has lived under the crosswind approach to a small airport for the last 70 years (and not without animosity towards the airport for that long). During that time, the couple has never witnessed an airplane do anything other than smooth, shallow banked turns to enter the pattern. One day, in comes a pilot fast and low who crisply cranks the airplane into a 45 (heck, why not even 60) degree bank. One could argue that given the precedent set over the previous 70 years, that type of maneuver was "not necessary for normal flight" over the couple's house at that airport. I'm sure the couple could find some lawyer somewhere to make that case. The definition of aerobatic flight is abstract enough that it could be used against a pilot if someone is looking for a reason--any reason--to bust the pilot. Of course, lots of other FARs can be interpreted against the pilot as well. In the context of the Cessna 172, it could be argued (especially by an ornery FAA-type) that the "float the pencil" maneuver results in both "an abnormal attitude" and an "abnormal acceleration," and is "not necessary for normal flight." Attitudes in the roller-coaster maneuver need not exceed the pitch angles encountered in short-field takeoffs and landings. True for some more skilled in performing the maneuver than others. That still doesn't get around the "abnormal accleration" or "not necessary for normal flight" caveats. The point really was to encourage the original poster not to experiment with unfamiliar maneuvers on his own, but to take 0.5 hours of dual for safety's sake. Rich http://www.richstowell.com |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
rec.aviation.aerobatics FAQ | Dr. Guenther Eichhorn | Aerobatics | 0 | January 1st 05 07:29 AM |
rec.aviation.aerobatics FAQ | Dr. Guenther Eichhorn | Aerobatics | 0 | March 1st 04 07:27 AM |
rec.aviation.aerobatics FAQ | Dr. Guenther Eichhorn | Aerobatics | 0 | January 1st 04 06:27 AM |
rec.aviation.aerobatics FAQ | Dr. Guenther Eichhorn | Aerobatics | 0 | December 1st 03 06:27 AM |
rec.aviation.aerobatics FAQ | Dr. Guenther Eichhorn | Aerobatics | 0 | November 1st 03 06:27 AM |