Don't do acro unless you have been trained.

Inverted said:
There is no requirement for aerobatic training, prior to performing aerobatics in ANY aircraft regardless if it is certified or not. The FARs themselves, make no mention of doing aerobatics in aircraft certified for aerobatics or not.
Click to expand...

I know. I already knew the answer. I was bringing up the fact that aerobatics not listed in an approved POH are illegal in a non aerobatic aircraft according to FAR Part 91.9. All the people mentioned above who do it have 1. A waiver from the FAA to do aerobatics in non aerobatic aircraft and 2. Have an additional low level waiver to do it at air shows. The second question of doing aerobatics in approved aircraft without training, while legal, isn't the best idea.
 
Inverted said:
Also according to data, it shows the accident roll being started at 220 feet. Think about that for a second or 3.
Click to expand...

A good roll won't lose any altitude. Needless to say theirs wasn't good. :no:

I self taught myself aerobatics. My first roll I lost 1,000'. Second one 500'. Good on the 3rd. :lol:

I introduced myself to a snap roll by not neutralizing the stick on one roll. That was interesting. :yes:
 
Last edited:
Geico266 said:
A good roll won't lose any altitude. Needless to say theirs wasn't good. :no:
Click to expand...

Well, that is a very general statement. You can't do a competition roll in an aircraft without an inverted fuel/oil system. Or I should say, shouldn't. You have to keep positive G on the airplane.
 
Velocity173 said:
What I've gotten from the thread so far. So it's legal if I go out and do aerobatics in a non aerobatic aircraft as long as I have proper training? It's not legal to do aerobatics in any aircraft, even if it's aerobatic certified, without proper training?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't sweat the legality any. The best lesson to take from this story is one of common sense. The FAA, in many cases, is happy to feed pilots slack... whether or not they hang themselves with it is their own call.

Is it legal to fly VFR, without an IR or IFR-certed airplane, over a solid overcast or fog?
Is it legal to fly a single cross-country at night, provided it has the correct lighting?
Is it legal to fly as low to the surface as you dare, provided you are not in a congested area and at least 500 feet from any structure, person, or vehicle?
Is it legal to fly on an engine past TBO?
 
Velocity173 said:
What I've gotten from the thread so far. So it's legal if I go out and do aerobatics in a non aerobatic aircraft as long as I have proper training?
Click to expand...
There are some "aerobatic maneuvers" that don't require aerobatic aircraft, e.g., Lazy-8's with no more than 60 bank/30 pitch. So, it's certainly legal to do "aerobatic maneuvers" in non-aerobatic aircraft within the placarded limits of the aircraft. That said, rolls are not within the placarded limits of the Cirrus SR20/22-series aircraft.

It's not legal to do aerobatics in any aircraft, even if it's aerobatic certified, without proper training?
Click to expand...
Regrettably, that is not true. Only good judgment prevents that, not the regulations.
 
bbchien said:
And just think. Had he survived, you could have been the next renter of that aircraft....
Click to expand...

dodo was the FBO manager. I think it is safe to assume that this was not the first time this SR22 got rolled or looped and subsequently rented out.
 
How do we know that it was a rental 22?
 
Ron Levy said:
Below maneuvering speed (Va), one full aileron input by itself should not break a Cirrus. Above Va, or with multiple inputs (especially reversals), no guarantees -- see http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20011130X02321&key=1 for details.
Click to expand...

Yeah that's my point, I don't think it was just one control input. We know that he did a few similar maneuvers before that and he could have done a number of similar stuff days before. This last roll could have been all that was needed to loose control authority.

I'm not sure if there is a point of arguing about this. We just don't know the fact and I don't think we'll ever find out.
 
Threefingeredjack said:
"....The investigation found that the right seat pilot (who signed the rental agreement for the aircraft)......"
Click to expand...

Your right. I'm not actually sure where you actually got that quote but I found this as well:

The airplane was operated by Air Orlando Airplane Flight Training and Rental, LLC (doing business as Air Orlando Flight School) as a rental aircraft available for flight training, and was also available for 14 CFR Part 135 flights. According to the operator, the airplane was rented to the right seat pilot for his personal use from November 11, 2011 through November 13, 2011. According to the operator’s rental agreement, “Renter agrees that rented aircraft shall not be used or operated… By any person other than the Renter who signed the agreement without the express written approval of Air Orlando Flight School.” Several rental agreements were on file with the operator for the left seat pilot; however none of the agreements pertained to the accident airplane.
Click to expand...
 
MachFly said:
How do we know that it was a rental 22?
Click to expand...
Dmitry. Did you read the link in the first post...it discusses the RENTAL CONTRACT. ?!!!

Here it is again: http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/new...cord_aerobatic_boynton_november_208824-1.html

First sentence, 3rd paragraph. Now of course, AvWeb could be bogus....

"The investigation found that the right seat pilot (who signed the rental agreement for the aircraft) held a commercial certificate with ratings for single and multi-engine land, rotorcraft helicopter, and instrument airplane and helicopter, all acquired after 2008. His recovered logbooks listed at least 4,384 flight hours with at least 183 in the accident airplane make and model."
 
Last edited:
MachFly said:
Yeah that's my point, I don't think it was just one control input. We know that he did a few similar maneuvers before that and he could have done a number of similar stuff days before. This last roll could have been all that was needed to loose control authority.
Click to expand...

Why is it so hard for you to believe that he was just an unskilled dumbass? :)

Control failures are extremely rare in any aircraft - even the "non-aerobatic" ones subjected to acro. I guarantee you the first thing to fail 99% of the time is the structure, not the control linkages. Doing a roll and then reversing the roll is not consistent with a control failure in my mind. He just blew out the bottom without enough altitude. Do you do aerobatics? It's the classic result of a blown aileron roll. Very common.
 
whifferdill said:
Why is it so hard for you to believe that he was just an unskilled dumbass? :)
Click to expand...

Nah I don't mind believing that. It's just that every time something like this happens we always assume that it was pilot error, I wanted to introduce another possibility. Yes control failures are extreme rare, but it's still possible.


Do you do aerobatics?
Click to expand...

Yep
 
Last edited:
The two guys were just a bunch of douchebags showing off for their buddy in the SU-29. I'm assuming he wasn't impressed.

Tard pilot with a checkered history rents Cirrus to fly low level aerobatics. Tard cousin lacks the maturity to discourage him. Predictable Darwinian result ensues.

Anyone who thinks mechanical failure was a possibility might be a tard too.
 
MachFly said:
Yeah that's my point, I don't think it was just one control input. We know that he did a few similar maneuvers before that and he could have done a number of similar stuff days before. This last roll could have been all that was needed to loose control authority.

I'm not sure if there is a point of arguing about this. We just don't know the fact and I don't think we'll ever find out.
Click to expand...

The NTSB is pretty good about tossing this one in

Flight control continuity was established for all major flight control surfaces from the surface to the cockpit. Elevator trim continuity was also confirmed.
Click to expand...
 
Geico266 said:
Look up the definition of "aerobatics" according to the FAA. ;). If I remember right anything more than a 30 degree bank in the pattern is considered aerobatic, including take off. Hard for me not to break that rule. :rolleyes: :D. ;)

It is not required to have training. :no: Just highly recommended. ;)
Click to expand...

As a reference, here is what FAR part 91.303 states regarding the definition of aerobatics:

"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."

Aerobatic flight is not technically defined by a specific AOB or pitch attitude but FAR 91.307 mandates parachutes, among other things, for flight exceeding 60 degrees AOB and 30 degrees of pitch, causing most people to use that as their definition of aerobatics.

That said, I'm not too smart on the FAR so there may be another instruction that I missed.
 
Brad Z said:
The two guys were just a bunch of douchebags showing off for their buddy in the SU-29. I'm assuming he wasn't impressed.

Tard pilot with a checkered history rents Cirrus to fly low level aerobatics. Tard cousin lacks the maturity to discourage him. Predictable Darwinian result ensues.

Anyone who thinks mechanical failure was a possibility might be a tard too.
Click to expand...


I think this is spot on. Sad and unfortunate nonetheless.
 
Ron Levy said:
There are some "aerobatic maneuvers" that don't require aerobatic aircraft, e.g., Lazy-8's with no more than 60 bank/30 pitch. So, it's certainly legal to do "aerobatic maneuvers" in non-aerobatic aircraft within the placarded limits of the aircraft. That said, rolls are not within the placarded limits of the Cirrus SR20/22-series aircraft.

Regrettably, that is not true. Only good judgment prevents that, not the regulations.
Click to expand...
And as we all know, poor judgement begets more regulation. You'all fly safe and smart. Don't YOU be the next regulation.
 
Come on, everyone knows you need to be at least 450 agl to roll an SR22.
 
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.
 
Anything that has wings can be rolled...even if they're spinning. :)
 
Neither the Beech 18 nor the Shrike Commander are aerobatic category aircraft yet both have been used in sanctioned aerobatic displays. Anyone knows the legalities ? I assume that is done by making them 'experimental R&D' and by wearing a chute.
 
weilke said:
Neither the Beech 18 nor the Shrike Commander are aerobatic category aircraft yet both have been used in sanctioned aerobatic displays. Anyone knows the legalities ? I assume that is done by making them 'experimental R&D' and by wearing a chute.
Click to expand...

Experimental, yes. Chute, no.

See 5:10

 
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...

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.
 
MachFly said:
At this point whether is was certified or not won't change anything, but learning what actually happened can make some of our flying safer.
Click to expand...

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?'
 
MachFly said:
Yeah that's my point, I don't think it was just one control input. We know that he did a few similar maneuvers before that and he could have done a number of similar stuff days before. This last roll could have been all that was needed to loose control authority.
Click to expand...
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.

Where doing acro in a non-acro airplane can be a problem is when the maneuvering limit g-load is repeatedly exceeded without exceeding the ultimate limit g-load (which could result in failure with even one application). Those repeated loadings in excess of the limit load are what creates eventual structural failure, and that happens when untrained pilots try those maneuvers and screw them up.
 
weilke said:
Neither the Beech 18 nor the Shrike Commander are aerobatic category aircraft yet both have been used in sanctioned aerobatic displays. Anyone knows the legalities ? I assume that is done by making them 'experimental R&D' and by wearing a chute.
Click to expand...
Experimental-Exhibition, actually. And with only the pilot aboard, no chute is required.
 
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...

How a Cirrus behaves in aerobatic flight would be helpful to know for upset recovery.

If Cirrus core market were pilots, they would have an aerobatic team on the airshow circuit by now.
 
The legality of flying aerobatics can be loose at times. First, there is almost no such thing as a perfectly 100% legal flight. Regs are broken by the thousands daily. There are a few regularly broken regs that the FAA turns a blind eye to, aerobatics in non-aerobatic aircraft are one of them. They just simply can't enforce a reg like that, because they aren't in the cockpit with to do so. 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. 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.
 
weilke said:
How a Cirrus behaves in aerobatic flight would be helpful to know for upset recovery.

If Cirrus core market were pilots, they would have an aerobatic team on the airshow circuit by now.
Click to expand...

I still think a private company should spins the Cirrus, it would really help to know how they behave. I have only a few hours in Cirri' And they stall perfectly fine, and have the maneuverability to IMHO, get out of hairy situations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top