Cool video .

Wouldn't advertise....

FAR 91.307(c) identifies the parachute requirements for certain flight configurations, including some aerobatic flight activities. That regulation states that:

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-

A bank of 60 degrees relative to the horizon; or
A nose-up or nose-down altitude of 30 degrees relative to the horizon.
By its language, this regulation does not refer to aerobatic flight specifically or exclusively; rather it relates to any kind of flight maneuver that exceeds 60 degrees of bank or 30 degrees of pitch. Some aerobatic maneuvers could conceivably be performed with a shallower bank and flatter pitch, which would mean that parachute requirements would not need to be met.
 
flyingriki said:
Wouldn't advertise....

FAR 91.307(c) identifies the parachute requirements for certain flight configurations, including some aerobatic flight activities. That regulation states that:

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-

A bank of 60 degrees relative to the horizon; or
A nose-up or nose-down altitude of 30 degrees relative to the horizon.
By its language, this regulation does not refer to aerobatic flight specifically or exclusively; rather it relates to any kind of flight maneuver that exceeds 60 degrees of bank or 30 degrees of pitch. Some aerobatic maneuvers could conceivably be performed with a shallower bank and flatter pitch, which would mean that parachute requirements would not need to be met.
Click to expand...

Looks like a different country to me.
 
flyingriki said:
Wouldn't advertise....

FAR 91.307(c) identifies the parachute requirements for certain flight configurations, including some aerobatic flight activities. That regulation states that:

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-

A bank of 60 degrees relative to the horizon; or
A nose-up or nose-down altitude of 30 degrees relative to the horizon.
By its language, this regulation does not refer to aerobatic flight specifically or exclusively; rather it relates to any kind of flight maneuver that exceeds 60 degrees of bank or 30 degrees of pitch. Some aerobatic maneuvers could conceivably be performed with a shallower bank and flatter pitch, which would mean that parachute requirements would not need to be met.
Click to expand...

ebykowsky said:
Looks like a different country to me.
Click to expand...

Yup. In the USA, you need a waiver for acro below 1500 feet AGL as well, so here in the land of the "free" it'd be multiple violations. But I don't think it was here - I'm calling Italy.

Good pilot, though - He was clearly briefing her before each maneuver so she knew what to expect. That can greatly increase the pax's enjoyment. Well done!
 
It was fun to watch her expressions, no fear at all!

Brazil or Argentina is my guess. Huge RVer crowd down there.

Thanks for posting it.
 
Awesome, though seems like every time I see one of these videos I end up thinking "man, I need some time in an RV."
 
Were it in the US the flight would be illegal. Don't know about other countries.
 
The only thing that would be illegal here in the states would be the lack of chutes. Other than that - have fun!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
steingar said:
Were it in the US the flight would be illegal. Don't know about other countries.
Click to expand...

Not the flight... Only parts thereof. ;)

PAustin said:
The only thing that would be illegal here in the states would be the lack of chutes. Other than that - have fun!
Click to expand...

And the acro below 1500 AGL.

And I bet an FAA inspector could probably find a few other things too. :rolleyes:
 
By the vid it "looked" like they were above 1500'. But, the chutes..... You can tell they're MIA.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top