Don't do acro unless you have been trained.

Inverted said:
I am not sure about air show regs themselves with regard to requiring a non-aerobatic aircraft to be re-certified experimental but that makes sense to me.
Click to expand...
I am sure. If they're going to be doing maneuvers prohibited by the type certificate during those air shows, they need to recertify Experimental-Exhibition. There is a process for that, and for returning the aircraft to its original certification status after they're done. Rockwell used to sell Shrikes that had used by Hoover with a special plaque in the cockpit noting that fact.

The loopholes that some people can get away with, is that the aircraft might not have specific placards to prohibit aerobatic maneuvers, nor would the POH. This is especially true with utility category aircraft.
Click to expand...
I think you need to check the placards on utility category aircraft again. For example, on the C-172:

This airplane must be operated in compliance with the operating limitations stated in
the form of placards, markings, and manuals.
NORMAL CATEGORY
Maximum design weight 2200 lbs.
Refer to weight and balance data for loading instructions.
Flight maneuvering load factors Flaps up +3.8 -1.52
Flaps down +3.5
No acrobatic maneuvers including spins approved.
UTILITY CATEGORY
Maximum design weight 1950 lbs.
Baggage compartment and rear seat must not be occupied
Flight maneuvering load factors Flaps up +4.4 -1.76
Flaps down +3.5
No acrobatic maneuvers approved except those listed below.
Maneuver Entry speed
Chandelles 115 mph (100 knots)
Lazy eights 115 mph (100 knots)
Steep turns 115 mph (100 knots)
Spins Slow deceleration​
Stalls (except whip stalls) Slow deceleration
Click to expand...
 
Ron Levy said:
I am sure. If they're going to be doing maneuvers prohibited by the type certificate during those air shows, they need to recertify Experimental-Exhibition. There is a process for that, and for returning the aircraft to its original certification status after they're done. Rockwell used to sell Shrikes that had used by Hoover with a special plaque in the cockpit noting that fact.

I think you need to check the placards on utility category aircraft again. For example, on the C-172:
Click to expand...

Ok fair enough. Then it's a reg even more commonly broken.
 
Inverted said:
Ok fair enough. Then it's a reg even more commonly broken.
Click to expand...
No argument there. Seems like many folks believe that they are so good, they'll never exceed the maneuvering limit g-load when doing aerobatic maneuvers, so they do the sort of silly stuff which started this thread, and since their skills are not as great as their ego thinks, they lose control or break the plane. My experience is that generally the folks who are well-trained in acro are the most careful about not doing what the plane is not built to do. There just aren't many folks out there with the sort of skill Bob Hoover had so they can take a production non-aerobatic plane, do acro maneuvers with real assurance that they won't bend anything.
 
Not just being taught how to roll an airplane, but to understand the forces at hand during these aerobatic maneuvers is the key. This jackass clearly rolled the airplane successfully at least two times prior, and mind you only guys with a to the ground waiver attempt aerobatics at 220'. There is a reason you can do this while performing a gentle, positive G roll:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMWxuKcD6vE
 
Ron Levy said:
I think you should read that report and its discussion again. Doing one full-scale deflection one day and then another full-scale deflection the next day is not what they're talking about, and as long as you stay below Va that should not result in structural failure since the limit g-load would never be exceeded. It's full-scale control reversals below Va which are the problem the AA587 accident highlighted.
Click to expand...

The thing is that we just don't know what exactly he was doing before, it could have been a lot more than one full-scale deflection. We do know "It also showed that roll wasn't the aircraft's first."

Anyways, as N35 pointed out the NTSB confirmed that the flight control system was intact....and I was wrong.
 
ClimbnSink said:
How so? Some of us are not going to roll a Cirrus at 220' and someone else will. What on earth(other then a lack of money) will stop the 'let's roll a Cirrus at 220' people?'
Click to expand...

Such information can be valuable to pilots that actually fly Cirrus'. If you flew a Cirrus wouldn't you want to know how your aircraft will behave in certain situations which you would not typically put your airplane in?
 
MachFly said:
Such information can be valuable to pilots that actually fly Cirrus'. If you flew a Cirrus wouldn't you want to know how your aircraft will behave in certain situations which you would not typically put your airplane in?
Click to expand...

:confused: Aircraft behavior? Airplanes behave in the way pilots tell them. How is a screwed up roll by an unskilled idiot indicative of Cirrus aerobatic qualities? This guy would have done the same thing in many other airplanes. That tells us nothing about the flying characteristics of an airplane. I'm a little mystified by the comments you're making in this thread.
 
Last edited:
MachFly said:
Such information can be valuable to pilots that actually fly Cirrus'. If you flew a Cirrus wouldn't you want to know how your aircraft will behave in certain situations which you would not typically put your airplane in?
Click to expand...
Then if you ever end up flying a King Air, you would be pleased to know that it can do an aileron roll.
 
whifferdill said:
:confused: Aircraft behavior? Airplanes behave in the way pilots tell them. How is a screwed up roll by an unskilled idiot indicative of Cirrus aerobatic qualities? This guy would have done the same thing in many other airplanes. That tells us nothing about the flying characteristics of an airplane. I'm a little mystified by the comments you're making in this thread.
Click to expand...

I guess in this case we know what a Cirrus is going to do in a badly screwed up low alt aileron roll....
But seriously, if he would have succeeded it would have been useful information.

Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
Then if you ever end up flying a King Air, you would be pleased to know that it can do an aileron roll.
Click to expand...

Yep
 
Skylane81E said:
In a SR22 in compliance with the applicable ADs you aren't going to break the control surfaces or system. It is at least as robust as most anything else out there.
Click to expand...

Silvaire said:
I don't understand why you guys are arguing about this. The first thing the NTSB is going to do is verify control system integrity. Even if a control rod was broken they can determine if it had broken in flight or on impact.
Click to expand...

I don't think he was arguing....just stating a fact.
 
MachFly said:
I guess in this case we know what a Cirrus is going to do in a badly screwed up low alt aileron roll...
Click to expand...

A real revelation. ;) I've seen real aerobatic planes do the same thing. Insert any aircraft type for the same result. I'll bet I could also guess what'll happen in a Cirrus if you're cruising along at 50 ft and push full forward on the stick. ;)
 
Completely irrelevant here since the accident being discussed involves stupid pilot tricks but this shows testing done by Avidyne on a Cirrus classed as experimental meaning aerobatic maneuvers were legal.
 
Hi All,

Another consideration is that the airframe may be over-stressed if mishandled and G-Limits exceeded. Unfortunately, the subsequent pilots that hire the aircraft may be unaware of that fact.

In my humble opinion, airmanship dictates that we show more regard for our aircraft and fellow pilots than that.

Cheers,

Owen
 
whifferdill said:
A real revelation. ;) I've seen real aerobatic planes do the same thing. Insert any aircraft type for the same result. I'll bet I could also guess what'll happen in a Cirrus if you're cruising along at 50 ft and push full forward on the stick. ;)
Click to expand...

So true, I have lost at least 2 people I know that were well known air show pilots, that botched a recovery, and are now dead. Unfortunately those are on video as well.
 
peppy said:
Completely irrelevant here since the accident being discussed involves stupid pilot tricks but this shows testing done by Avidyne on a Cirrus classed as experimental meaning aerobatic maneuvers were legal.
Click to expand...

Thanks
 
peppy said:
Completely irrelevant here since the accident being discussed involves stupid pilot tricks but this shows testing done by Avidyne on a Cirrus classed as experimental meaning aerobatic maneuvers were legal.
Click to expand...

What is irrelevant? Your example shows an Experimental-Exhibition that's used for testing. The aircraft in question was certified Normal / Utility which is placarded against rolls IAW 91.9. I'm not sure if anyone is questioning if the aicraft is capable. I don't know of any GA aircraft that aren't capable of a roll. it's simple aerodynamics and the 1-2 Gs required is well what a non aerobatic aircraft is capable of. For instance my Velocity is designed for +9 / -7 Gs but rolls are still prohibited in the POH.
 
Last edited:
peppy said:
Completely irrelevant here since the accident being discussed involves stupid pilot tricks but this shows testing done by Avidyne on a Cirrus classed as experimental meaning aerobatic maneuvers were legal.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. There will be operating limitations issued with any Experimental certificate, and they may not permit acrobatic maneuvers the way the one on Hoover's Shrike Commander did.
 
Velocity173 said:
What is irrelevant? Your example shows an Experimental-Exhibition that's used for testing. The aircraft in question was certified Normal / Utility which is placarded against rolls IAW 91.9. I'm not sure if anyone is questioning if the aicraft is capable. I don't know of any GA aircraft that aren't capable of a roll. it's simple aerodynamics and the 1-2 Gs required is well what a non aerobatic aircraft is capable of. For instance my Velocity is designed for +9 / -7 Gs but rolls are still prohibited in the POH.
Click to expand...

There was a comment in a post about the maneuver breaking the controls which I don't believe. The video shows the plane can do similar simple maneuvers and the controls are just fine. There is nothing magical that says the restriction against aerobatic maneuvers means the controls will break if the maneuvers are done. That's all. I said it is all irrelevant because the relevant part is that an idiot crashed a perfectly fine plane. It happened to be a Cirrus but it could have been any of a number of very fine planes. It reminds me a the guy who crashed near Pine Mountain, GA when he rolled his Baron.
 
MachFly said:
Such information can be valuable to pilots that actually fly Cirrus'. If you flew a Cirrus wouldn't you want to know how your aircraft will behave in certain situations which you would not typically put your airplane in?
Click to expand...

Nothing to learn here. If I flew a Cirrus I would not care how it rolls at 220'. The plane is irrelevant, pilot education and training is irrelevant. These guys had enough experience to know better, and still made bad decisions. Welcome to human nature.
 
peppy said:
There was a comment in a post about the maneuver breaking the controls which I don't believe. The video shows the plane can do similar simple maneuvers and the controls are just fine. There is nothing magical that says the restriction against aerobatic maneuvers means the controls will break if the maneuvers are done. That's all. I said it is all irrelevant because the relevant part is that an idiot crashed a perfectly fine plane. It happened to be a Cirrus but it could have been any of a number of very fine planes. It reminds me a the guy who crashed near Pine Mountain, GA when he rolled his Baron.
Click to expand...

Ok, just wasn't sure what you were referring to. I agree.
 
Speaking of aerobatics in non certified, the late Jimmy Franklin used to do an air show in a black Aerostar back in the 80's. Zarr!
 
N801BH said:
Like he could get out of that aircraft quickly... even if he had a chute...:no::nonod:
Click to expand...

That's the thing when it comes to things like spin training. A chute is a nice security blanket but I doubt people like me, with no skydiving experience, could make a timely exit without getting clobbered by some part of the spinning plane in the process, look down, count to x, pull, and land without killing themselves at a pretty alarming rate anyway. lol
 
Ron Levy said:
:sigh:


Don't attempt untrained...
  • Acro
  • Formation
  • Instrument
  • ________________ (fill in the blank)
Some things just keep happening despite all efforts to teach folks better.:(
Click to expand...


How did the first person to do acro learn?
How did the first 2+ to fly formation learn?
How did the first person to fly IMC learn?
How did the first person to ________ learn?
 
EdFred said:
How did the first person to do acro learn?
How did the first 2+ to fly formation learn?
How did the first person to fly IMC learn?
How did the first person to ________ learn?
Click to expand...

The answer to those, is they learned the hard way, and I bet all of them died in accidents. Don't paint these morons to be heroic.
 
Inverted said:
The answer to those, is they learned the hard way, and I bet all of them died in accidents. Don't paint these morons to be heroic.
Click to expand...

Someone had to be the first one to succesfully do it. How did *they* do it?
 
EdFred said:
Someone had to be the first one to succesfully do it. How did *they* do it?
Click to expand...

The same exact way these morons did it. They attempted, it went ok without issue, they thought that it goes that way every time, they try it again under different circumstances, and die.
 
Inverted said:
The same exact way these morons did it. They attempted, it went ok without issue, they thought that it goes that way every time, they try it again under different circumstances, and die.
Click to expand...

So how did we ever end up with any acro/instrument/formation pilots since everyone who does any of that is a moron?
 
EdFred said:
Someone had to be the first one to succesfully do it. How did *they* do it?
Click to expand...

Trial and error during a time that basically had no regulations.
 
EdFred said:
So how did we ever end up with any acro/instrument/formation pilots since everyone who does any of that is a moron?
Click to expand...

Dude, you aren't getting the point. There were pioneers who had to learn the hard way. From them, we have learned what to do, and what not to do. They weren't morons, the pilot who attempts a maneuver for which he is not qualified, at an altitude that no novice aerobatic pilot would be conducting aerobatics is the moron. The now dead Cirrus pilot is going to go down in the history books as being a complete moron, and his friends and family will have to read about it.
 
Inverted said:
Dude, you aren't getting the point. There were pioneers who had to learn the hard way. From them, we have learned what to do, and what not to do. They weren't morons, the pilot who attempts a maneuver for which he is not qualified, at an altitude that no novice aerobatic pilot would be conducting aerobatics is the moron. The now dead Cirrus pilot is going to go down in the history books as being a complete moron, and his friends and family will have to read about it.
Click to expand...

The point is someone has to be the first to successfully do something in order to teach others. At some point someone has to become the first teacher. If one person can successfully succeed at it without instruction, it stands to reason that others can do so as well. The moron chain has to be broken somewhere in order for the moron who never received instruction to suddenly be the expert people learn from.
 
Last edited:
EdFred said:
The point is someone has to be the first to successfully do something in order to teach others. At some point someone has to become the first teacher. If one person can successfully succeed at it without instruction, it stands to reason that others can do so as well. The moron chain has to be broken somewhere in order for the moron who never received instrction to suddenly be the expert people learn from.
Click to expand...


So are you saying that this dead Cirrus pilot is a pioneer, an innovator who has put his life on the line to make aviation history?

News flash, aerobatics are as old as aviation its self. It has all been done, why are we talking about somebody being the first to successfully do something? Aerobatics are over a century old, we know TONS about aerobatics. This Cirrus pilot gets no credit from me.
 
Inverted said:
So are you saying that this dead Cirrus pilot is a pioneer, an innovator who has put his life on the line to make aviation history?

News flash, aerobatics are as old as aviation its self. It has all been done, why are we talking about somebody being the first to successfully do something? Aerobatics are over a century old, we know TONS about aerobatics. This Cirrus pilot gets no credit from me.
Click to expand...


Because you said...

Inverted said:
The answer to those, is they learned the hard way, and I bet all of them died in accidents. Don't paint these morons to be heroic.
Click to expand...

The way this reads is that the pioneers were morons.
 
This thread has gone to the trolls. Time to give up on this one.
 
I don't think demonstrating that you can't complete a roll from 220ft in a SR22 has greatly contributed to the knowledge base in general aviation.

Now, a training outfit with a experimental SR22 to offer upset and spin training in the type would be quite useful and given the size of the fleet may actually do good business. Learning how to get the rubbery side down safely if you come out of a cloud upside down going 190 kts after you got a 'fluxgate error' or a blue-screen is something the pilots among the Cirrus drivers may pay money for.. Cirrus would fight such a provider to the death though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top