Max Climb Limit

[Captain]

Here's a question for those that may know. Suppose I had a plane capable of vertical accelerated flight. How steep would I be allowed to climb on takeoff and enroute without specific approval?

 

[Geico266]

Anything more than "x" degrees in the pattern is considered aerobatic.

Turns are 30 degrees I think, so it stands to reason more than 30 degrees on take off is considered aerobatic?

 

[Cap'n Jack]

Vertical.

The altitude limits don't specify how you reach them, or how fast. Probably because the issue hasn't come up yet.

 

[flyingron]

Anything more than "x" degrees in the pattern is considered aerobatic.

No, there's no climb angle limitation.

Turns are 30 degrees I think, so it stands to reason more than 30 degrees on take off is considered aerobatic?

It's nose up or nose down pitch attitude of more than 30 degrees and bank angles of over 60.

 

[whifferdill]

Two posts above are not quite correct. Max pitch and bank angles are NOT part of the definition of aerobatic flight. Max 30 degrees of pitch and 60 degrees of bank simply define when chutes must be worn by all occupants when not flying solo. Nowhere in the FARs does it explicitly state that chutes are required when performing aerobatics with a passenger. There's no "rule" regarding max bank angles or pitch attitudes in the pattern. Aerobatic flight is simply defined as:

“an intentional maneuver involving an abrupt change in an aircraft’s attitude, an abnormal attitude, or abnormal acceleration, not necessary for normal flight.”

Is a vertical climb an "abnormal attitude"? Well it would be if an inspector wanted to bust you.

How steep would I be allowed to climb on takeoff and enroute without specific approval?

What type of "approval" do you mean? If we're talking low-level "aerobatics", then waivered airspace is the only "approval" that would apply.

 

[NJP_MAN]

You wouldn't be able to climb at more than 250kts IAS below 10,000 unless prior approval has been granted from the administrator. I'm not a mathematician so I don't know what this translates to rate of climb.

 

[Paul Hamilton]

At St Louis Approach, the "Viking Departure" is a standard way to get F-15s up to altitude while minimizing traffic conflicts. The are cleared cor vertical climb up into the flight levels.

 

[RussR]

You wouldn't be able to climb at more than 250kts IAS below 10,000 unless prior approval has been granted from the administrator. I'm not a mathematician so I don't know what this translates to rate of climb.

250 kts = 25,317 fpm at sea level/standard conditions, and since its IAS, it's obviously increasing as your altitude does.

That would make quick work of the climb to altitude!

 

[NJP_MAN]

250 kts = 25,317 fpm at sea level/standard conditions, and since its IAS, it's obviously increasing as your altitude does.

That would make quick work of the climb to altitude!

Nice climb performance. Another consideration is that climb would need to be less than Mach 1.0. Once again these are very extreme senarios and I'm not sure OP has access to aircraft with these flight characteristics, but they certainly are things to think about.

 

[Captain]

I do not have access to such an aircraft. Just a hypothetical question to spur conversation.

 

[Velocity173]

I don't know of too many civilian aircraft capable of sustained vertical flight. Generally military have specific approval for a vertical climb through operational necessity. Our Hornets would have in the remarks "post maint check" and would request an unrestricted climb to at least FL200. Call center, get approval and let her rip. 3,000-4,000 ft per sweep.

 

[poadeleted20]

Here's a question for those that may know. Suppose I had a plane capable of vertical accelerated flight. How steep would I be allowed to climb on takeoff and enroute without specific approval?

There are several issues.

First, for an IFR departure, if your climb rate is high enough, you're going to bust the initial altitude limit before you can level off. Same thing if you're under the shelf of B/C airspace. When I was in F-4's, if we wanted to show off, we had to ask for an "unrestricted climb" to the flight levels in order to avoid that problem -- that way, the TRACON would coordinate our climb with Center so they didn't have to stop us at 8000 AGL or so for the handoff before getting a higher altitude. (Personal record: 294 MSL to FL280 in 2 minutes 58 seconds from brake release)

Second, since you're pitching way more than 30 degrees, if there's anyone on board other than required crew, everyone is going to need a parachute. See 91.307(c).

Third, there is no way you can convince the FAA that this is not an aerobatic maneuver within the meaning of 91.303. That means without an aerobatic waiver, you can't do this:
(a) Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement;
(b) Over an open air assembly of persons;
(c) Within the lateral boundaries of the surface areas of Class B, Class C, Class D, or Class E airspace designated for an airport;
(d) Within 4 nautical miles of the center line of any Federal airway;
(e) Below an altitude of 1,500 feet above the surface; or
(f) When flight visibility is less than 3 statute miles.

 

[Captain]

There are several issues.

First, for an IFR departure, if your climb rate is high enough, you're going to bust the initial altitude limit before you can level off. Same thing if you're under the shelf of B/C airspace. When I was in F-4's, if we wanted to show off, we had to ask for an "unrestricted climb" to the flight levels in order to avoid that problem -- that way, the TRACON would coordinate our climb with Center so they didn't have to stop us at 8000 AGL or so for the handoff before getting a higher altitude. (Personal record: 294 MSL to FL280 in 2 minutes 58 seconds from brake release)

Second, since you're pitching way more than 30 degrees, if there's anyone on board other than required crew, everyone is going to need a parachute. See 91.307(c).

Third, there is no way you can convince the FAA that this is not an aerobatic maneuver within the meaning of 91.303. That means without an aerobatic waiver, you can't do this:
(a) Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement;
(b) Over an open air assembly of persons;
(c) Within the lateral boundaries of the surface areas of Class B, Class C, Class D, or Class E airspace designated for an airport;
(d) Within 4 nautical miles of the center line of any Federal airway;
(e) Below an altitude of 1,500 feet above the surface; or
(f) When flight visibility is less than 3 statute miles.

So you're saying it flat out can't be done without a specific waiver from the FAA for that day / time / airport. Tower couldn't coordinate it with Center / Approach even if all parties wanted to...

And the military I guess is outside the FARs so they get to do it with ATC approval alone.

Sound about right?

 

[RoscoeT]

So you're saying it flat out can't be done without a specific waiver from the FAA for that day / time / airport. Tower couldn't coordinate it with Center / Approach even if all parties wanted to...

Tower is not responsible for your compliance with the FARs, nor can they preempt the FAA regarding waiving FARs. Even if they said go ahead and give us a show, cowboy - doesn't mean the FAA cannot or will not come after you.

And yes, the military doesn't have to play by our civie FAA rules.

 

[poadeleted20]

So you're saying it flat out can't be done without a specific waiver from the FAA for that day / time / airport.

Not sure about the day/time/airport part, but you would need a waiver of some kind for 14 CFR 91.303.

Tower couldn't coordinate it with Center / Approach even if all parties wanted to...

Tower can coordinate all they want with Center/Approach, but unless the also coordinate with the FSDO, 91.303 ends the show.

And the military I guess is outside the FARs so they get to do it with ATC approval alone.

Not exactly. We had our flight manual and our USAF approval making this a "normal" maneuver for us in the F-4. The FAA doesn't get into a fight over that issue. And our pitch attitude in the F-4 probably wasn't "aerobatic" -- we didn't have the same kind of thrust:weight ratio an F-15 does.

But if we decided on our own to put on our own aerobatic show of loops and rolls and such without HHQ approval, we'd have lost our wings and then been court-martialed. I saw that happen in 1981 or so to an F-15 pilot from the 49th Wing at Holloman AFB after he put on an impromptu air show over his home town in West Texas on the way home from a weekend cross-country. He'd probably have got away with it if the town's mayor hadn't immedieatly called the wing commander to tell him what a boost for support of the military it was and thank him for letting their native son demonstrate to the taxpaying townsfolk the capability of that wonderfu and expensive piece of machinery. "It's great that they know they're getting their money's worth for their tax dollars," he said, "You're welcome," said the Colonel -- who immediately called the poor schlub's squadron commander and arranged to meet the kid when he landed back at Holloman -- right there at the parking spot on the ramp.

As for the F-15 Viking departure, I can't say who was involved in the approval process, but I know it's approved and I'm sure all F-15 crewmembers know the conditions under which they're allowed to do it.

 

[poadeleted20]

And yes, the military doesn't have to play by our civie FAA rules.

Correct to a certain extent. The military flight rules (AFR 60-1, OPNAVINST 3710.7, etc.) include a clause that says something like "Unless otherwise authorized, flight rules of local civil authorities shall be obeyed." So, we were allowed to do various aerobatic maneuvers below 1500 AGL as part of our weapons delivery or threat reaction training, even outside R-areas. But in most cases, the military rules require special authorization for aerobatic displays (say, before a crowd), and unauthorized aerobatics in the wrong place can result in what happened to the F-15 pilot above.

 

[Velocity173]

Military pilots aren't immune:

2–13. Flight violations
Policies and procedures for reporting and investigating alleged flight rules violations follow:
a. Violations. Any violation of FAA, International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), host country, and/or any
other pertinent aviation regulation will be reported. Any person witnessing or involved in a flight violation involving
civil or military aircraft will report it as soon as possible.

(1) Reports of alleged violations received from the FAA, ICAO, or a host country will be investigated under the
provisions of AR 15–6.

 

[Geico266]

No, there's no climb angle limitation.


It's nose up or nose down pitch attitude of more than 30 degrees and bank angles of over 60.

Call the local FSDO and ask them.

 

[tmyers]

The Tower Flowers at Eielson used to routinely issue Max Climb approved to the F-15 pilots, just so they could see it. Occasionally one would oblige. The NASA version of the U2 would come up every year and it climbed at about a 45* angle to altitude. Quite a sight to see.

My office was right along the flight line so I had a good view of all things aviation there, including the base commander that hit the wrong switch on roll out and dropped the tip tanks on the T-33.

 

[RoscoeT]

Call the local FSDO and ask them.

About what?

 

[BillTIZ]

No, there's no climb angle limitation.


It's nose up or nose down pitch attitude of more than 30 degrees and bank angles of over 60.

Those are not the definition of aerobatic flight.

 

[MAKG1]

The Tower Flowers at Eielson used to routinely issue Max Climb approved to the F-15 pilots, just so they could see it. Occasionally one would oblige. The NASA version of the U2 would come up every year and it climbed at about a 45* angle to altitude. Quite a sight to see.

My office was right along the flight line so I had a good view of all things aviation there, including the base commander that hit the wrong switch on roll out and dropped the tip tanks on the T-33.

The ER-2s used to operate out of Moffett. They would take off northbound and exit Class B while still over the Bay, topping FL300 before reaching Oakland.

Now, they operate out of Palmdale. They always seem to be in pieces on the hangar floor....I've seen one in the pattern but never taking off.

 

[poadeleted20]

It's nose up or nose down pitch attitude of more than 30 degrees and bank angles of over 60.

Those are not the definition of aerobatic flight.

...per 91.303, but they do trigger the parachute requirement in 91.307.

 

[darrell]

What about aircraft that can climb vertically with a pitch attitude of zero degrees?

 

[poadeleted20]

What about aircraft that can climb vertically with a pitch attitude of zero degrees?

Well, it's not an aerobatic maneuver as defined in 91.303, and doesn't require a parachute per 91.307, so feel free to do that in your helicopter any time you want. Or your powered-lift aircraft once the FAA certifies the Bell/Agusta/Westland 609.

 

[Velocity173]

Well, it's not an aerobatic maneuver as defined in 91.303, and doesn't require a parachute per 91.307, so feel free to do that in your helicopter any time you want. Or your powered-lift aircraft once the FAA certifies the Bell/Agusta/Westland 609.

I saw a CH-54 depart vertically once with an acceleration that wasn't necessary for normal flight. Since it was an air show I cut him some slack and didn't report him to the Feds.

 

[Ted]

The ER-2s used to operate out of Moffett. They would take off northbound and exit Class B while still over the Bay, topping FL300 before reaching Oakland.

Now, they operate out of Palmdale. They always seem to be in pieces on the hangar floor....I've seen one in the pattern but never taking off.

Funny enough, I was looking at FlightAware the other day and saw their ER-2 flying. It was at FL600. Type designator: U2. Caught my eye.

 

[Maverick]

Many years ago my friends and I were getting ready for departure from Willow Run Airport near Detroit. This was on a day of an airshow at that airport. We heard a clearance from the tower to the pilot of a Navy F-14 Tomcat giving him clearance to 10,000 feet on take off. He started his take off roll and when his wheels left the ground he remained level at about 50 feet of so until he neared the end of the runway and then he pulled the nose up into a vertical climb. We only heard the tower not the pilot and I assume he was on the military UHF frequency so I don't know what special clearance he may have asked for.

It was, however, quite a demonstration. This was not part of the show, he was leaving at the end of the show.

 

[poadeleted20]

Many years ago my friends and I were getting ready for departure from Willow Run Airport near Detroit. This was on a day of an airshow at that airport. We heard a clearance from the tower to the pilot of a Navy F-14 Tomcat giving him clearance to 10,000 feet on take off. He started his take off roll and when his wheels left the ground he remained level at about 50 feet of so until he neared the end of the runway and then he pulled the nose up into a vertical climb.

Might have looked vertical from where you were sitting, but I guarantee it wasn't -- F-14 didn't have enough thrust:weight ratio. There's a reason they called those Toms "turkeys" -- a really big bird, up around 72,000 lb MTOW.

 

[flyingron]

Call the local FSDO and ask them.

Why would I want or need to do that? The reg says nothing about climb angle, and the angle quoted in the post I was responded to was half of the bank angle allowed anyhow. Now it's unlikely unless you're flying a helicopter or a harrier to get that kind of ROC without exceeding 30 degrees nose up ATTITUDE, it remains that acro is defined by ATTITUDE not flight path.

 

[DaleB]

I think someone should write the Chief Counsel and ask for an official opinion.

 

[poadeleted20]

Why would I want or need to do that? The reg says nothing about climb angle, and the angle quoted in the post I was responded to was half of the bank angle allowed anyhow. Now it's unlikely unless you're flying a helicopter or a harrier to get that kind of ROC without exceeding 30 degrees nose up ATTITUDE, it remains that acro is defined by ATTITUDE not flight path.

You need to re-read 91.303 again. The only reg in that Subpart with any specific attitude is 91.307 on parachute requirements. 91.303 says only "an intentional maneuver involving an abrupt change in an aircraft's attitude, an abnormal attitude, or abnormal acceleration, not necessary for normal flight." 30 degrees of pitch might not be an "abnormal attitude" for some aircraft such as an afterburning fighter. Pitching that far might be "necessary for normal flight" in order to perform a by-the-flight-manual maximum performance climb, which is a maneuver I'm sure we all agree is not prohibited under that section, or the obstacle clearance takeoff procedure in a 172 would be banned.

 

[Velocity173]

Many years ago my friends and I were getting ready for departure from Willow Run Airport near Detroit. This was on a day of an airshow at that airport. We heard a clearance from the tower to the pilot of a Navy F-14 Tomcat giving him clearance to 10,000 feet on take off. He started his take off roll and when his wheels left the ground he remained level at about 50 feet of so until he neared the end of the runway and then he pulled the nose up into a vertical climb. We only heard the tower not the pilot and I assume he was on the military UHF frequency so I don't know what special clearance he may have asked for.

It was, however, quite a demonstration. This was not part of the show, he was leaving at the end of the show.

Might have requested an unrestricted climb but no special clearance involved. Technically he's suppose to advise ATC that he's doing an afterburner climb but in reality no one really does that.

 

[RoscoeT]

it remains that acro is defined by ATTITUDE not flight path.

Wrong. It might help to read the responses in this thread before continuing to circulate incorrect information.

 

[EvilEagle]

Might have requested an unrestricted climb but no special clearance involved. Technically he's suppose to advise ATC that he's doing an afterburner climb but in reality no one really does that.

Oh yes we do, if we are doing anything more than tech-order climb we have to request it. Taking off in afterburner is normal depending on configuration, temp, runway length, etc, but leaving them cooking and standing it on the tails without asking? Not unless you planned your fini flight that day.

 

[Ted]

Many years ago my friends and I were getting ready for departure from Willow Run Airport near Detroit. This was on a day of an airshow at that airport. We heard a clearance from the tower to the pilot of a Navy F-14 Tomcat giving him clearance to 10,000 feet on take off. He started his take off roll and when his wheels left the ground he remained level at about 50 feet of so until he neared the end of the runway and then he pulled the nose up into a vertical climb. We only heard the tower not the pilot and I assume he was on the military UHF frequency so I don't know what special clearance he may have asked for.

It was, however, quite a demonstration. This was not part of the show, he was leaving at the end of the show.

I've seen similar with no airshow at all either before or after. I enjoyed watching it.

 

[Velocity173]

Oh yes we do, if we are doing anything more than tech-order climb we have to request it. Taking off in afterburner is normal depending on configuration, temp, runway length, etc, but leaving them cooking and standing it on the tails without asking? Not unless you planned your fini flight that day.

I'm talking about phraseology. I've had many aircraft request an "unrestricted" climb but I don't remember anyone request an "afterburner" climb. If an aircraft is going unrestricted I'm sure the use of afterburner will be involved. In that case coordination is necessary.

I suppose it depends on how long they ride the burner as well to determine if it fits in the GP's definition. At NBC our Hornets took off every time in burner and used it during the initial stages of the climb with no ATC notification. It seems some bases are more liberal than others. At NKX they had to have it off prior to their right turnout.

Speaking of unrestricted. I had an Australian F-18 exchange pilot call me a "wanker" on approach because I couldn't approve his request to FL190. Nothing you can do when center won't pick up the line for a point out.

 

[Captain]

He called you a wanker on the radio??? I'd mark the tape and make a call to his squadron commander.

 

[Velocity173]

He called you a wanker on the radio??? I'd mark the tape and make a call to his squadron commander.

Nah, I didn't care. I just looked over at the sup and said "Ha! This guy just called me a wanker!" I imagine he was used to getting unrestricted climbs in Australia but in the States the airspace is a bit more congested. Usually it's not a problem but this day happened to be busy and ZJX was ignoring my landline calls. Creates a problem for the pilot because he's wasting gas, creates a problem for me because now I have to keep my traffic away from him and call FACSFAC for approval for a 10,000 ft handoff.

For a terminal controller, fighters are a blessing. They get out of your airspace fast because of their climb rates. On arrival they mostly do the over head which from a controller's end is easy to work. Now, when it gets busy and the weather goes bad, they can become your worst nightmare.

 

[Ken Ibold]

I don't know of too many civilian aircraft capable of sustained vertical flight. Generally military have specific approval for a vertical climb through operational necessity. Our Hornets would have in the remarks "post maint check" and would request an unrestricted climb to at least FL200. Call center, get approval and let her rip. 3,000-4,000 ft per sweep.

I'm in the process of trying to develop/coordinate FAA procedures for a commercial vehicle that would climb 80-85 degrees nose up (almost right off the runway) and accelerating in the climb up to Mach 3+. The air traffic organization wants to pretend it's not coming. But it is.