Jump to content
  • Welcome to Recreational Flying!
    A compelling community experience for all aviators
    Intuitive, Social, Engaging...Registration is FREE.
    Register Log in
Sign in to follow this  
djpacro

Definition of Aerobatics

Recommended Posts

Per the new CASR dictionary when Part 61 was implemented:

 

aerobatic manoeuvres, for an aircraft, means manoeuvres of the aircraft that involve:(a) bank angles that are greater than 60°; or

 

(b) pitch angles that are greater than 45°, or are otherwise abnormal to the aircraft type; or

 

© abrupt changes of speed, direction, angle of bank or angle of pitch.

From CAAP 155-1, the old definition was:

 

"Aerobatic flight is currently defined in CAR 1988 as: “… manoeuvres intentionally performed by an aircraft involving an abrupt change in its attitude, an abnormal attitude, or an abnormal variation in speed.”

 

It then goes on to say:

 

"2.1.2 A more detailed definition based in the United States Federal Aviation Regulations (US FAR) Part 91 is:

 

"Aerobatic flight means manoeuvres intentionally performed by

 

the pilot that involve:

 

(a) bank angles in excess of 60o; or

 

(b) pitch angles in excess of 30o, or otherwise abnormal to the

 

aircraft type; or

 

© abnormal accelerations involving abrupt changes of

 

direction, angles of bank, angles of pitch, or speed."

 

However, CASA's opinion on the USA reg is incorrect. See http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?node=14%3A2.0.1.3.10#se14.2.91_1303 and

 

https://www.faasafety.gov/files/notices/2012/Mar/Guidelines_for_All_Attitude_Training.pdf

 

"FAR 91.303 defines aerobatic flight as an intentional maneuver involving an abrupt change in an aircraft's attitude, an abnormal attitude or abnormal acceleration, not necessary for normal flight."

 

It goes on to state that "Aerobatic flight is often mistakenly assumed to occur only when an aircraft exceeds 30 degrees of pitch or 60 degrees angle of bank ..." That 30/60 rule comes from 91.307 which does not even mention the word aerobatics - just the conditions under which parachutes must be worn.

 

 

  • Informative 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is bit like old cliché of trying to define sexual content as either art form or pornographic, you are not sure about the level of exposure but you know it when you see it. Some good info there djpacro

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bit on All attitude instruction is interesting. This is essential stuff for us eventually,( if not sooner.)

 

Aerobatics definitions would have to involve considerations of accelerations which most don't understand. Energy management and accelerations (except linear)are not dealt with enough. Keeping it simple rather that totally esoteric would be worthwhile as more would understand it even if the definition wasn't perfect. You need both concepts out there Nev

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good to know. I had an encounter with a tower controller at Bankstown the other day after doing a steep climbout, which is normal for my plane, who clearly forgot to take his happy pills that morning (I responded with my normal policy of "politely apologise, comply, and save the fight for another day"). I need to store those references away.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He may have been unhappy only because he wasn't expecting it - at Moorabbin there are potential conflicts - apart from aircraft joining overhead and descending to downwind we have helicopters crossing mid-field at 500 ft as we take off.

 

The Tower guys here are excellent - they know the local MX2 but if you visited they'd probably expect a sedate Stearman type departure.

 

Incidentally: to me, a SID is a standard inverted departure.

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

International Civil Aviation Organization defines aerobatics as "maneuvers intentionally performed by an aircraft involving an abrupt change in its attitude, an abnormal attitude, or abnormal variation in speed."

 

EASA has: “Aerobatic flight means an intentional manoeuvre involving an abrupt change in an aircraft’s attitude, an abnormal attitude, or abnormal acceleration, not necessary for normal flight.”

 

I didn't see CASA's new definition included in any draft for public comment nor have I seen their reason given for the change. I definitely wonder why they made the change and I also wonder how a Grade 3 instructor can teach the advanced stalling exercises per CASA's Part 61 without also having a spin and/or aerobatic training endorsement.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have read my mind. Just going through the stuff you posted (part 61) I feel most of it is pretty comprehensive, (perhaps more so than I have thought previously). How much of it can be complied with by RAAus? I would be interested to know. Nev

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its funny - we are wrapped in cotton wool so much these days - sorry but back in the day - with a Lightwing for example, I was doing many airshows which needed dispensations by CASA to fly on real airport etc.

 

This was no problem from the old boys club - but the department gave me specific instructions to cover all displays on what I could do which was :

 

"You are approved to do anything you like provided you don't loop it or do a barrel role". - Its funny how we now must fly in such a restrictive envelope.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People who write rules should be competent pilots and have a lot of instructing experience. In that situation that individual will have seen or heard about most of the REAL problems pilot's need to face and cope with. I just love talking with really experienced blokes and kick around our views on limit flying. there's a remarkable amount of agreement most times. Theoretical people have a place too, but there are some whacko theories about, that you do or try at your own peril.. Nev

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
People who write rules should be competent pilots and have a lot of instructing experience. In that situation that individual will have seen or heard about most of the REAL problems pilot's need to face and cope with. I just love talking with really experienced blokes and kick around our views on limit flying. there's a remarkable amount of agreement most times. Theoretical people have a place too, but there are some whacko theories about, that you do or try at your own peril.. Nev

What would be wrong with a simple rule?

 

Do what you like, but if you hurt anyone or damage their property through your stupidity, then you will be held responsible. (we don't care if you hurt yourself, but we may send you the bill for fixing your errors)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect we will always need some rules, but it would be nice if they all made sense, and had the desired effect, rather than appearing to do something and just making people less inclined to bother with flying because of the BS. Nev

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is a rule, in any case you still need right of way rules and procedures for doing stuff.

 

Simplify.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The rules have been re written, time and time again, but basicly they havn't changed much in the years I have been flying and they are all based on common sense. Much more so than the road rules. The big pity is that they are being re written by lawyers and becoming less understandable and in some cases so ridiculously worded that they don't work.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just had an epiphany....

 

aerobatics being decreed as illegal for RAA registered aircraft by the powers that be might just be another example of RAA pilots/aircraft being considered 'inferior' in relation to GA pilots/aircraft...

 

if the pilot is endorsed and the aircraft is fully capable and rated for aerobatic manoeuvres, then - Why Not ?

 

I'm just sayin'.....

 

BP

 

 

  • Agree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I spoke briefly to Jill about this at Avalon, there are other threads on the subject of aeros in RAA. My point with this thread was that if someone is not permitted to do aerobatics then this is what CASA says one is not permitted to do.

 

My opinion is that CASA is now discredited as a safety authority on this subject - unless one equates safety with sitting on the ground. Do they have specific rules for aerobatic drones?

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My opinion is that CASA is now discredited as a safety authority on this subject - unless one equates safety with sitting on the ground. Do they have specific rules for aerobatic drones?

Surely, when there is a clear discrepancy within Australian Advisories and Regulations (as against wanting to do what the Americans were doing etc), it should be possible to get an expedited correction of the anomaly.

 

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I just had an epiphany....aerobatics being decreed as illegal for RAA registered aircraft by the powers that be might just be another example of RAA pilots/aircraft being considered 'inferior' in relation to GA pilots/aircraft...

 

if the pilot is endorsed and the aircraft is fully capable and rated for aerobatic manoeuvres, then - Why Not ?

 

I'm just sayin'.....

 

BP

Apart from a very few qualified people, RAA does not:

 

Have any Instructors qualified for aerobatics

 

Have an SMS, and compliance and enforcement structure for aerobatics

 

Have the technical qualifications for the more intense construction and in-service safety controls and so on.

 

So even if the pilot was rated for aerobatics and the aircraft was rated for aerobatics, RAA doesn't have the necessary qualifications and structure to act as a controlling body for aerobatics.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Apart from a very few qualified people, RAA does not:Have any Instructors qualified for aerobatics

 

Have an SMS, and compliance and enforcement structure for aerobatics

 

Have the technical qualifications for the more intense construction and in-service safety controls and so on.

 

So even if the pilot was rated for aerobatics and the aircraft was rated for aerobatics, RAA doesn't have the necessary qualifications and structure to act as a controlling body for aerobatics.

That could be easily fixed, but I suspect that because it involves some extra risk it won't happen unless we (as a nation) can get over the ridiculous legal state of the place.

 

The first thing on your list is the only actual requirement, the rest is just expensive W*nk.

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That could be easily fixed, but I suspect that because it involves some extra risk it won't happen unless we (as a nation) can get over the ridiculous legal state of the place.The first thing on your list is the only actual requirement, the rest is just expensive W*nk.

If I was Casa's lawyer, I would use that social media comment alone to show there was no chance of satisfactory risk control in expanding CASA's risk exposure by allowing aerobatics in RAA. Problem instantly fixed.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think a lot of people appreciate the extra airframe considerations involved and if you aren't competent you may easily expose the plane to very high structural loads as well as losing control which is fatal at low level, usually. The speed you use directly affects the load you can impose and some (especially flick) manoeuvers have a maximum speed for entry for type. You could also encounter slipstream vortex's or other turbulence effects during a display which may momentarily increase your "G" figure and perhaps push it over the limit.. Many more airframe inspections are required and the engine fuel and oil systems are specially designed. The Rotax 912 system will vent oil overboard at a great rate when inverted. Older motors that won't run upside down should have the throttle closed at the negative "G" stage and power not used till the fluctuating oil pressure stabilises as there is generally air in the oil system. A float type carburetter will spill neat fuel when inverted. It used to run all over the windscreen in the Chipmunk. Not something that you really want happening. Nev

 

 

  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are some facts that have not been stated and another opinion of what is happening even now.

 

Funny but way back in the early days of rag and tube - in a thruster and the (then) new two seater days, looping was a breeze and these were Rotax two stroke twin carbed engines. Other things could also be done.

 

I agree you need to have a rating and be trained and GA is the only way at present - but their are many RAA aircraft that can preform these.

 

The thing that a piece of paper says you cant is madness to people who know the industry and the aircraft that are produced. The RAA has its head in the sand with NEW machines coming out as well and are built for aerobatics but fly in LSA mode.

 

Yes its stupid to do aerobatics when not rated and the aircraft is not a known or its age / maintenance is a problem - but some RAA do them very well.

 

Many instructors don't have these ratings - some do. Doing aeros is not for everyone.

 

Focusing now on GA pilots now in RAA that have the training and endorsed to do aeros, do you really think they wont.

 

I also think that anyone trying this without a sound knowledge and is NOT trained is stupid and you could easy die.

 

RAA as stated is in a position of a rock and a hard place to control. Other than threats and the courts, if you can catch me thinking.

 

Also how many people who live not in city areas but live and fly out the back blocks with no current pilot cert or rego or just don't give a damm about rules and regs (in the back blocks).

 

Don't shoot the messenger just open your eyes and think about it.

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having LOW weight limits and promoting aerobatics are a conflict of interests. I'd like stronger and easily inspected airframes but we still persist with absolute weight limits set at a figure where a two seat plane has to be built too light in the structure or has to be of exotic (expensive) materials. Nev

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If I was Casa's lawyer, I would use that social media comment alone to show there was no chance of satisfactory risk control in expanding CASA's risk exposure by allowing aerobatics in RAA. Problem instantly fixed.

Because making a law against it instantly make it stop happening.....right

 

The system is full of people with that mindset, and that is why nothing is getting better.

 

Having read through the RAA incident report list, it is quite clear that all that someone is justifying their position. Seriously, could you imagine the backlash if we demanded that the motoring public report the sort of rubbish RAA members are being told to report.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later for your post to be seen If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...