Cessna 170 Aerobatic?

[Paul-WI]

What's your thoughts?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLYtD3EaPSQ&NR

Merry Christmas!

Paul
N3458D

[dacker]

In case I didn't clarify enough in the other thread... the guy is an idiot and when he crashes everyone will blame the airplane, or the previous owners, or the mechanic, or the airport he took off from, or the FBO owner from the airport he took off from, or his partners, or his instructors....
In any case, he is a blemish to aviation.
If you are in our association... CUT IT OUT!!!
I will climb off my soap box now.
David

[doug8082a]

Makes you wonder what else the plane has been subjected to...

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

Hmmm.

First performing a loop in the 170 is illegal. According the the TCDS the aircraft is approved for only those maneuvers outlined in the AFM. the AFM says that a Chandelle, Steep Turn, Lazy Eight, Stalls and Spins can be performed but only when the aircraft conforms to the utility category as well as other restrictions.

I don't think these guys are being very smart and we very well might read about their next adventure on the TV or in the paper.

I don't think looping any aircraft if you don't know what your doing is smart. I wouldn't loop my 170. I don't even think about it nor would I suggest it.

Having said that.

A loop when properly executed would not have to over stress a 170. I know a few well thought of instructor types that wouldn't think twice about looping their 170 back in the less restrictive 50's and 60's. In fact thought loops and spins where just part of advanced piloting skills.

I wouldn't be surprised if many of the 170's we are flying to day have more than one loop in their history.

[john rogers]

I have not be a real pilot (professional pilot) for 35 years. However I was in the 135th EMU's during my Army days. The 135th was a helicopter unit in Viet Nam with both Austrilian Navy and U.S. Army personnel.

The Austrilian pilots had a story about one of their pilots when they first received Hueys who looped a Huey. He was so thrilled he called his fellow pilots over to watch the second loop. During the second loop the rotor head and blades parted company with the rest of the Huey.

We all know the rest of this story.

[Paul-WI]

OK - I wasn't the person doing this nor do I advocate doing aerobatic maneuvers with a 170. I just saw this and being the controversial person I am, thought I would throw this out there

Paul
N3458D

[GAHorn]

I respect most those pilots who have good pilot skills as well as the discipline to respect the FARs and the limitations of the equipment. Hot-dogging, especially with inappropriate equipment and venue, is not something that gains respect from me. It's been my experience that those who do it are usually the least qualified to do so, have the highest incidence of accidents and sadly, injure their trusting bystanders and the rest of the industry and our flying pastimes are further endangered by the impression they make on the non-flying public. (Kinda like the idiot newly certificated pilot who wants to demonstrate his "skills" by showing new passengers how a stall is performed! I consider that sort of thing a violation of the trust placed in him by the passenger. Such things are to be reserved by CFIs teaching pilot applicants...not for pilots to demonstrate to passengers.)
Most plain-vanilla loops and barrel-rolls, properly executed by competent pilots, are not injurious to the airplane. But when, why, and where they are performed, and with whom aboard,...lends volumes about the judgement skills and integrity of discipline of the pilot.
I would have been more impressed by a video of a nice round loop performed in a Citabria or other purpose-design, ... not the amatuerish L-shaped fall-thru accompanied by the loss of airspeed control displayed in the subject video.
Having said that, there are pilots with skills (and judgement) I would have no qualms about if they wished to demonstrate the capabilities of a non-aerobatic airplane (including a 170) if they observed the limitations of the airplanes and FARs (and if they didn't disrespect the safety of those around them.)
There are two FARs that concern this worth reviewing:

91.303 Aerobatic flight.

No person may operate an aircraft in aerobatic flight—

(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.

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.

and

91.307 Parachutes and parachuting.

(a) No pilot of a civil aircraft may allow a parachute that is available for emergency use to be carried in that aircraft unless it is an approved type and—
...
(c) 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—

(1) A bank of 60 degrees relative to the horizon; or

(2) A nose-up or nose-down attitude of 30 degrees relative to the horizon.

(d) Paragraph (c) of this section does not apply to—

(1) Flight tests for pilot certification or rating; or

(2) Spins and other flight maneuvers required by the regulations for any certificate or rating when given by—

(i) A certificated flight instructor; or

(ii) An airline transport pilot instructing in accordance with §61.67 of this chapter.

...

(*Viewing the video, I see a settlement and roadway below the aircraft.)

My point is, that if you are insistent that you are going to do such things, then don't do it in a location that violates 91.303, and if it's in an aerobatic aircraft use a parachute IAW 91.307.

Whether or not the manevers are "aerobatic" depends on which rule applies.
It has been argued that the definition of aerobatics as that word applies to location, is covered by 91.303... But the definition of aerobatics as that word applies to equipment (airplane type/parachute) is covered by 91.307. A loop performed by occupants not wearing parachutes, that does not exceed aircraft limits as to load factors, operating speeds, engine limits, etc., and that is not performed at a location in violation of 91.303, might be legally performed provided that it be a manuever required by specific flight training conducted by a CFI towards a rating or certificate. It might be difficult to prove that a "loop" is actually a required manuever to teach unusual attitudes. On the other hand, in a 170, it certainly IS an unusual attitude. The same might be said of a "roll". (I've been rolled beyond 100-degrees on ILS to DFW due to wake turbulence. Good skills righting the aircraft were definitely a plus at 500 AGL. But my aerobatics training was received in a CAP-10B,...not a 170. I think a CFI would have a difficult time explaining why that model aircraft were being used for instruction in recovery techniques.)

[GAHorn]

Got an inquiry from one of the members subsequent to my post above,...
According to the rule,... you may not simply go out and "spin" your 170. I know your airplane is approved for it in the utility category. But re-read 91.307. Unless you've got a CFI onboard giving instruction, you are in violation of that rule unless you can perform the manuever so as to not exceed 60/bank, 30/pitch or you are wearing an approved parachute.
Surprise!

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

George very good post. It was along the lines I was thinking.

About 91.307 paragraph (c)

I've always read this paragraph to mean that if any of the occupants are not crew members then parachutes must be worn by all when intentionally exceeding the flight limitations outlined.

In other words a sole occupant of an aircraft, the pilot, who is the crew for the aircraft, does not need a parachute under 91.307.

[GAHorn]

As regards parachute requirement only, that's the way I read it too. But as regards whether or not the PIC is receiving instruction from a CFI....I'd say that he's in violation of the rule if he's showing another person a spin, unless the other person is a CFI conducting spin training.

In other words, you may not (as a non-CFI) go out and show your buddy what a spin is.

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

I don't see where the training or CFI has anything to do with it.

If you are the sole occupant of the aircraft you are not required under 91.307 to wear a parachute while exceeding the flight limitations of 91.307(C)(1) and (2).

Paragraph 91.307 (D) gives the other exceptions, like training , when parachutes are not required to exceed the limitations.

In other words will I'm the sole occupant of my Cub or 170 then 91.307 does not apply to me.

[GAHorn]

Yes, that's the way I read it too, Bruce. I just wanted to point out that you may not demonstrate a spin to another occupant unless you, or he, is either a CFI or is wearing a parachute.

[bsdunek]

Read your flight manual! Loops are not approved!
Back in the '50's at Pontiac (Michigan) airport, I remember a guy looping an Eurcope. After the third loop, some of the flight controls (elevator/stabilator) went off in another direction. CRASH! Not an easy thing for a 14 year old. When I wanted to do aerobatics, I rented a Decalathon. I fly my 170 within it's design parameters!

[spiro]

do the FARs apply to a Brazilian pilot flying a Brazilian registered aircraft in Brazil?

[3958v]

Spiro I don't know but I am sure stupidity kills just as fast down there as it does here. While on the subject of stupid people flying airplanes you guys ought to check out the NTSB site. Theres a recent report of a guy without a pilots license taking three buddies up at night in OK after he had not flown in 5 months. He managed to kill all three of them and he swam away from the accident. Sometimes life just is not fair. Bill K