Aerobatics in a 172?

Sac Arrow

Sac Arrow

Touchdown! Greaser!
PoA Supporter
Joined
May 11, 2010
Messages
20,703
Location
Charlotte, NC
Display Name
Display name:
Snorting his way across the USA
I'm seeing Youtube videos of aerobatics and spin training in 172's. Are there any variants of the 172 that are approved for aerobatics? I can't seem to find any.
 
Spins are approved in the utility category, but I dunno about anything beyond that,
 
As mentioned above some approval for various maneuvers when loaded correctly.

See POH/AFM per model of 172...

But none I know of are rated for the FAA definition of aerobatic flight.

As the models get newer the AFM gets much more specific about maneuvers and bank angles and such, as I recall.
 
denverpilot said:
But none I know of are rated for the FAA definition of aerobatic flight.
Click to expand...

Well, the FAA's definition of aerobatic flight is, an intentional maneuver involving an abrupt change in an aircraft's attitude, an abnormal attitude, or abnormal acceleration, not necessary for normal flight. This could literally be anything besides loops and rolls. As with many FAR's it's deliberately vague and open to the interpretation of the FSDO person who is looking to nail you. ;) Pitch and bank angle limitations are only relevant when it comes to when multiple aircraft occupants must wear chutes.
 
Sac Arrow said:
I'm seeing Youtube videos of aerobatics and spin training in 172's. Are there any variants of the 172 that are approved for aerobatics? I can't seem to find any.
Click to expand...

Depends on what exactly you are calling aerobatics. A spin is not.
 
RoscoeT said:
Sure it is, just not when it's done with a CFI for the purposes of training.
Click to expand...

Receiving training and having a CFI on board doesn't suddenly make a spin nonaerobatic. It does exempt you from the parachute requirement, however.
 
dmspilot said:
Receiving training and having a CFI on board doesn't suddenly make a spin nonaerobatic. It does exempt you from the parachute requirement, however.
Click to expand...

True, and more clearly stated.
 
RoscoeT said:
Well, the FAA's definition of aerobatic flight is, an intentional maneuver involving an abrupt change in an aircraft's attitude, an abnormal attitude, or abnormal acceleration, not necessary for normal flight.
Click to expand...
My nephew used to be an airshow pilot, upside down is a pretty normal way of flying.
 
Ryanb said:
Spins are approved in the utility category, but I dunno about anything beyond that,
Click to expand...
denverpilot said:
As mentioned above some approval for various maneuvers when loaded correctly.

See POH/AFM per model of 172...

But none I know of are rated for the FAA definition of aerobatic flight.

As the models get newer the AFM gets much more specific about maneuvers and bank angles and such, as I recall.
Click to expand...

I've just never flown a 172 that wasn't placarded against intentional spins.
 
172 will spin fine.....but, you may want to avoid snap rolls and inverted flight.

Slipping with flaps is another animal....I got no data on that. lol ;)
 
Sac Arrow said:
I've just never flown a 172 that wasn't placarded against intentional spins.
Click to expand...

Interesting!

I honestly haven’t flown any that new more than a handful of times.

All the old ones allow them when loaded in the Utility category limits.

I don’t own any new enough AFMs for Cessna stuff to refer to the home library to check this at the moment. Piper gets very specific in modern AFMs. Makes sense considering they’re inches thick compared to the old pamphlet sized POHs of old.

Was just looking at logbook. Yeah. I have few flights in restart or newer 172s. The vast majority of time later on is 182 or bigger, and the majority of the rental fleet around here is older — or folks want to fly the older stuff to save $20 or more an hour on the rental cost.

Dunno. The 172 I had access to was sold for an impressive dollar number just before Covid. It was a very early restart model and I think I flew it once. Maybe twice. Don’t remember a placard but our mission wasn’t anything spin related.

Some of the older ones in local fleets have slowly surpassed the capabilities in their labels of the G1000 ones too. That’s been an interesting twist caused by the ADS-B mandate.

Have RIDDEN as a non-participating pilot in them about ten times I suppose. Friends calling up saying they’re going up, wanna ride? Usually those were rentals I wasn’t technically allowed to teach in or whatever. I mean ya can always give pointers or play Safety Pilot type stuff, in that circumstance.

Which is usually what I was sitting there doing. I don’t need PIC hours logged for anything — never was chasing any commercial jobs and such.

Kinda surprised after looking at the logbook here on the laptop at the severe lack of newer 172s really. Just never had a reason I guess.

Uh oh. I’m going to go look but since I’m a high wing fan I can’t publish the results. But I just realized I bet I have more low wing Piper time total by far than new 172 time. Yikes!

If I get back to flying that MUST be rectified!!!

No wonder the planet went crazy in 2020. I displeased the high wing gods.

:) :) :)
 
Sac Arrow said:
I've just never flown a 172 that wasn't placarded against intentional spins.
Click to expand...

From what I know, that is mostly restart models, 2000+, especially G1000 equipped ones because they have a lot of equipment in the tail moving the CG aft.
 
RoscoeT said:
Well, the FAA's definition of aerobatic flight is, an intentional maneuver involving an abrupt change in an aircraft's attitude, an abnormal attitude, or abnormal acceleration, not necessary for normal flight.
Click to expand...
That definition is preferenced with "FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION" which means 91.303 which limits where you can perform aerobatic flight.
It has ZERO meaning for any other part of the FAR,

As you note, it means something else for the requirement to wear parachutes (which doesn't even call it aerobatics). It means something else for aircraft certification and limitations in Part 23. This is where what you CAN and CAN NOT do in a 172 (or any other airplane) come from.
 
Last edited:
flyingron said:
That definition is preferenced with "FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION" which means 91.303 which limits where you can perform aerobatic flight.
It has ZERO meaning for any other part of the FAR,
Click to expand...

I don't get your point. 91.303 is the ONLY section of the FARs that covers "aerobatics" and its sole definition is described there.
 
Did you read my post? Part 23 very much talks about aerobatic operations and what the aircraft has to do to be certified to all them to be performed. This is where the answer to SacArrow's question is. All 91.303 says is don't do them below 1500 or over crowds, etc...
 
flyingron said:
Did you read my post? Part 23 very much talks about aerobatic operations and what the aircraft has to do to be certified to all them to be performed. This is where the answer to SacArrow's question is. All 91.303 says is don't do them below 1500 or over crowds, etc...
Click to expand...

Does Part 23 provide alternate/supplemental definitions of what "aerobatics" is? None that I see.
 
Last edited:
Sac Arrow said:
I've just never flown a 172 that wasn't placarded against intentional spins.
Click to expand...
FYI: Depends on how the aircraft was certified and listed in the TCDS (older aircraft) or in the AFM (newer aircraft).
upload_2020-7-13_13-58-36.png
 
midwestpa24 said:
This was my question, to what is the OP referring to as aerobatics? Which videos in particular is OP referring to?

Wouldn't shock me to find a video of someone looping or rolling a 172. We probably all know "that guy".
Click to expand...


Here's an example. Looks like some full loops, a hammerhead, and some barrel rolls. Lots of spin training videos but that has already been addressed.
 
Sac Arrow said:
Here's an example. Looks like some full loops, a hammerhead, and some barrel rolls. Lots of spin training videos but that has already been addressed.
Click to expand...

Airshow acts are an exception. There are numerous airshow acts using aircraft in ways no manufacturer's POH would ever allow for.
 
midwestpa24 said:
Wouldn't shock me to find a video of someone looping or rolling a 172. We probably all know "that guy".
Click to expand...

Honestly I’ve been lucky enough NOT to know any of those guys since 1992 when they both combined brains in a single cockpit, literally and figuratively, at the bottom of a loop that reached terra firma.

The internet has shown me some of them now that it’s not dialup like it was back then, but I’ve been blessed not to have associated with anybody I suspect behaves anything like those two did.

That was also when the Saturday morning crowd hung out in the FBO telling lies, and nobody there was surprised either.

Good experience for me though back then with probably a whopping 30 hours. I almost think my instructor appreciated the sad circumstances to be able to tell a 19 year old, going on 20 in two months...

“Don’t ever act like they did. You see what happened.”

It stuck.

There was one guy who worried me a bit for a very brief period until I learned he was a FAC in Vietnam. His tendency toward no fear doing some stuff at low altitude was backed by a crap ton of hours doing it, and he knew his risk tolerance. Also quite the stick, after I got to know him.

The one ride I got in his Bird Dog was then, and still is, way above my skill set and comfort zone, but fully controlled and sane throughout. As long as you were ok with the same risk level of course, and for me... super temporarily.

Was worth it for the hour aboard for me. Some might disagree. Nice to see what that Irplane could do and know someone could do it, but not my long term cup of tea. He enjoyed it, but didn’t have much choice when he started flying like that. LOL!
 
midwestpa24 said:
Airshow acts are an exception. There are numerous airshow acts using aircraft in ways no manufacturer's POH would ever allow for.
Click to expand...

RoscoeT said:
Exception to what?
Click to expand...

Technically not an exception. They fly under a written waiver. Well that’s the exception, in writing from a FSDO.

Just off the top of my head, the audio of that clip indicates an upgraded engine. 172 doesn’t usually make prop tip supersonic sounds.

Unknown other upgrades.

One could dig public record and maybe find the exact waivers issued to an airshow act, I think. Never tried that.

But have seen a couple on paper. They’re very detailed.

Sean Tucker and Chuck Aaron have also talked about aircraft mods in interviews and that data usually isn’t public.

Chuck specifically talked about it being kept secret for his helicopter because it was just too much to have anyone else basing their own mods off of the ones on his aircraft — for fears of he could handle the risks he knew were inherent but didn’t want anybody else thinking his risk was appropriate for them without doing the homework and engineering themselves.

No idea which interview he talked about that in years ago, but it’s on the internet somewhere where I ran across it.

Tucker talks more about his changes as needed to pull off things he can’t in precious aircraft but also says quite clearly that he has to practice like crazy and make sure his body can handle it more than the aircraft.

Pretty wild biz, airshow work. Very interesting risk management mindset.
 
RoscoeT said:
Does Part 23 provide alternate/supplemental definitions of what "aerobatics" is? None that I see.
Click to expand...
Part 23 didn't provide another definition rather a different certification category for aerobatics. How you operate (91) aerobatics is different than how the aircraft is certified (23) for aerobatics. No different that a Utility certification.
https://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_...AB51E741104F7C1686257996006CAD44?OpenDocument
RoscoeT said:
Exception to what?
Click to expand...
To how the aircraft is certified and what AWC is issued. Most "airshow" aircraft that operate outside their Part 23/CAR3 certification limits are issued a Special AWC (Experimental) and have very specific Operating Limitations for the aircraft.
 
denverpilot said:
Chuck specifically talked about it being kept secret for his helicopter because it was just too much to have anyone else basing their own mods off of the ones on his aircraft
Click to expand...
FYI: that was all part of his "mystique." There are no modifications made to the aircraft. Everything is factory. And the only difference between the Austrian Red Bull BO-105s and the US 105s are the US uses the stretched version of the 105.
 
Bell206 said:
Part 23 didn't provide another definition rather a different certification category for aerobatics. How you operate (91) aerobatics is different than how the aircraft is certified (23) for aerobatics. No different that a Utility certification.
Click to expand...

Yes all I was pointing to is that since aerobatics is defined in no other part of the regs, the definition in 91.303 is the one accepted as what the FAA considers to be "aerobatics".
 
RoscoeT said:
Yes all I was pointing to is that since aerobatics is defined in no other part of the regs, the definition in 91.303 is the one accepted as what the FAA considers to be "aerobatics".
Click to expand...
But that's a non-sensical leap when the definition says it applies only to the 91.303. By failing to follow the actual wording, you'd assume that all flashlights need D cells, etc..
 
Sac Arrow said:

Here's an example. Looks like some full loops, a hammerhead, and some barrel rolls. Lots of spin training videos but that has already been addressed.
Click to expand...
Only took 20 posts to answer the question. That must be a record on PoA
 
flyingron said:
But that's a non-sensical leap when the definition says it applies only to the 91.303. By failing to follow the actual wording, you'd assume that all flashlights need D cells, etc..
Click to expand...

Well I guess it doesn't matter to those who don't fly acro, but when the FAA gives a definition of "aerobatics" in the only section of the FARs that lists the rules regarding aerobatic flight itself, you're being obtuse if you refuse to consider this the FAA's "definition" of aerobatics. Those of us in the aerobatic community must remember what it is, when it matters.
 
aftCG said:
Only took 20 posts to answer the question.
Click to expand...

The question was if there are any 172 variants "approved" for aerobatics. That answer is no, as far as FAA certification goes. That airshow video is from South Africa.
 
midwestpa24 said:
From what I know, that is mostly restart models, 2000+, especially G1000 equipped ones because they have a lot of equipment in the tail moving the CG aft.
Click to expand...

I don't see anything specifically prohibiting spins except for in the normal category. They're ok in the utility category in the S model Nav 3 manual I have.
 
RoscoeT said:
The question was if there are any 172 variants "approved" for aerobatics. That answer is no, as far as FAA certification goes. That airshow video is from South Africa.
Click to expand...
That guy and that plane are in Nevada
 
Sierra_Hotel said:
I don't see anything specifically prohibiting spins except for in the normal category. They're ok in the utility category in the S model Nav 3 manual I have.
Click to expand...
Follow the TCDS, for all details.
 
Bell206 said:
FYI: that was all part of his "mystique." There are no modifications made to the aircraft. Everything is factory. And the only difference between the Austrian Red Bull BO-105s and the US 105s are the US uses the stretched version of the 105.
Click to expand...

Seriously?!

I really thought he was more of a stand up guy than that, to tell that fib to a reporter with a straight face.

Sigh. Show biz.

That’s truly disappointing. Nothing against his flying of course, awesome stuff. Just the decision to lie about it, if true.

Guess it’s time to re-watch House, M.D. and recalibrate expectations. LOL
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top