Low pass

On Aug 28, 12:33*pm, JJ Sinclair wrote:

where acro in defined as an abrupt maneuver involving a 30 dergee change in attitude

Where did you find that definition JJ? A lot of people confuse the
requirements for wearing a parachute with the definition of
aerobatics. Are you doing the same?

Sec. 91.303 — Aerobatic flight. - 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.

Sec. 91.307 — Parachutes and parachuting. -

(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.



Andy

On Aug 29, 3:32*pm, Andy wrote:
Where did you find that definition JJ? *A lot of people confuse the
requirements for wearing a parachute with the definition of
aerobatics. *Are you doing the same?

Gray area. Advisory Circular 91-48 uses both definitions.

Bart

On Aug 29, 4:50*pm, Bart wrote:
On Aug 29, 3:32*pm, Andy wrote:

Where did you find that definition JJ? *A lot of people confuse the
requirements for wearing a parachute with the definition of
aerobatics. *Are you doing the same?

Gray area. Advisory Circular 91-48 uses both definitions.

Bart

Can you give me a para reference. All I see, under definitions, is a
re-statement of the regs I quoted.

Andy

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

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

On Aug 31, 4:52*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.

While no doubt some pull-ups exceed 30 degrees (and that might be more
fun) there is absolutely no need to, and even 30 degrees looks pretty
steep from the ground and converts speed into height pretty quickly.

120 knots airspeed at 30 degrees nose up is 60 knots vertical speed
(6000 fpm!).

So, we have:

1) missed approaches are standard procedure and fall under the
definition of landing for the purposes of the flying lower than 500 ft
AGL rule.

2) pull ups of 30 degrees or less do not fall under aerobatic rules.

3) at mixed-use airfields there can be other aircraft that normally
approach at 120 - 130 knots on short final.

Hell, where I learned to fly in Traumahawks (PA-38) it was standard
practice to approach at 120 knots until crossing the threshold in
order to keep out of the way of the 737 that was right behind you.
That made for about 1000 m of float slowing down which was perfect for
turning off at the midpoint taxiway.