Aerobatic Flight Maneuver

[Justwannafly]

Aerobatic Flight Maneuver
What defines something as being aerobatic or not? One of my students asked me this yesterday & I wasn’t able to give him an answer. AIM RAC 1.11 (I think) has all the info about aerobatics BUT not what defines aerobatic maneuvers.
This is what I think it is…..Banks +45 & Pitch +/-15….also isn’t there a +G/-G number too?....I got these numbers from the back of my brain….not sure where they came from though….

[Freeski]

I'm not sure of a technical reference either.


We all know the following:

Aerobatic Manoeuvres - Prohibited Areas and Flight Conditions

602.27 No person operating an aircraft shall conduct aerobatic manoeuvres

(a) over a built-up area or an open-air assembly of persons;

(b) in controlled airspace, except in accordance with a special flight operations certificate issued pursuant to section 603.67;

(c) when flight visibility is less than three miles; or

(d) below 2,000 feet AGL, except in accordance with a special flight operations certificate issued pursuant to section 603.02 or 603.67.

Aerobatic Manoeuvres with Passengers

602.28 No person operating an aircraft with a passenger on board shall conduct an aerobatic manoeuvre unless the pilot-in-command of the aircraft has engaged in

(a) at least 10 hours dual flight instruction in the conducting of aerobatic manoeuvres or 20 hours conducting aerobatic manoeuvres; and

(b) at least one hour of conducting aerobatic manoeuvres in the preceding six months.

That still doesn't come anywhere close to giving a technical description of what aerobatic flight may be. There must be a particular load factor that determines this.

[Aeros]

CAR 101.01

aerobatic manoeuvre" - means a manoeuvre where a change in the attitude of an aircraft results in a bank angle greater than 60 degrees, an abnormal attitude or an abnormal acceleration not incidental to normal flying; (acrobatie aérienne)

[Hedley]

I might point out that a spin is clearly an aerobatic maneuver, according to the CARs.

[mellow_pilot]

I believe that spins (and spirals) are considered normal to flight training, as we are all required to do them, and is therefore an exception. (I could be wrong )

[Hedley]

Where in CAR 101.01 is a spin, for the purposes of flight training, excepted?

[Pugster]

Hedley - I don't think it is excepted...

Plus, wouldn't it be kind of silly of TC to suggest that the definition of a maneuver changes with the pilot performing it? Oh wait. It's the CARs I'm talking about. Never mind

[Hedley]

I once had a Transport (non-pilot) lawyer argue that I was doing aerobatics with less than 3 miles flight visibility because I was pointing straight down 3/4 of the way through a loop, and I was less than 18,000 feet high Amazingly, the Tribunal "member" agreed with him (I got that overturned on appeal, thank goodness. As a fairly demented precedent, it outlawed all airshows in Canada).

Nothing those crazy bastards do surprises me any more.

Back on topic ... I would be very reluctant to do a spin, given the regulatory landscape, unless I was an aerobatic instructor in an aerobatic aircraft. CAR 101.01 is pretty clear about this, compared to what else has come out of Transport in the past.

Also, even though parachutes are not legally required to perform aerobatic maneuvers such as a spin, you would have a very tough time fighting a CAR 602.01 charge at the Tribunal.

[mellow_pilot]

Ah, but spins are permmitted in aircraft taht don't even have an awerobatic category! Oh this is getting confusing.

[Hedley]

Heh. Good luck at the Tribunal, arguing that you can legally perform an aerobatic maneuver in an aircraft which is NOT certified in the aerobatic category. You would be crucified.

You might argue, "Everyone does it". Reminds me of my uncle, probably before you were born, was singled out by a cop - my uncle was in a bunch of cars, all driving 70 mph in a 55 mph zone. My uncle protested the ticket, but to no avail - he was breaking the law, and so would you be, if you perform an obviously aerobatic maneuver in an aircraft which is not certified in the aerobatic category.

Some things I would attempt to argue at the Tribunal, and some I would not bother trying. This is pretty clearly in the latter category - you would be wasting your time.

[Spokes]

When I did my commercial licence, I was required by TC competancy in this maneuver. Now when I teach I am also required to do this by TC. Maybe TC can use instructor cat upgrades to count how many times you have flown illegal 'Aerobatics'. Class 2 instructor - 10 licences recommended - to infractions....

[mcrit]

Every a/c's POH has a list of approved manouvers. The POH for the 172, 152, Katana, etc all list spins as an approved manouver. I've not seen reference in the CARs to an a/c certified for aerobatics, but if someone will point out a reference I'll accept the correction with grace.

[TC Guy]

I would suggest that logic would dictate that spins in the RPP, CPL, Instructor syllibus, although classified as "aerobatic" maneuvers would not be considered breaking the CARS, considering that the Flight Instructor Guide mandates that they are taught, and they are tested at the CPL level, and (possible) at the Instructor level by Pilot Examiners/TC Inspectors.

Flight Training Program Requirements

405.14 Flight training that is conducted using an aeroplane or helicopter shall be conducted in accordance with the applicable flight instructor guide and flight training manual or equivalent document and the applicable training manual on human factors"

Link: http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/Regse ... htm#405_14


Also, the CARS require that a Flight Training Unit have at least one aircraft that is spin-capable.

A flight training unit that operates an aeroplane to conduct training for a private pilot licence, a commercial pilot licence or a flight instructor rating shall have access to at least one aeroplane that is certified under Part V for the spin manoeuvre.

Link: http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/Regse ... htm#406_51


The CPL Flight Test guide (enabled by the CARS) requires the spin exercise.

Aim

To determine that the candidate can enter a spin, maintain full pro-spin control input until the command for recovery is given, or until recognition that the aircraft is no longer spinning and a spiral dive is developing, if that occurs, and can accomplish a prompt, correct and positive recovery without excessive loss of altitude or exceeding any airframe limitations."

Link: http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/gener ... 2/ex13.htm


And, since every Commercial (or higher) pilot in Canada has had to pass that flight test, they have done a spin.

I agree that the CARS could have been better written in this regard, but I think the answer is very clear.

YES. Spins are legal for flight training purposes in Canada.

-Guy

[Hedley]

The POH for the 172, 152, Katana, etc all list spins as an approved manouver

Why on earth would you think that an advisory handbook, written by a foreign manufacturer, would supercede the Canadian Aviation Regulations in Canada?

I've not seen reference in the CARs to an a/c certified for aerobatics

You're kidding, right? You're an instructor, correct? Aircraft can be certified any one (or a number of):

Normal Category
Utility Category
Aerobatic Category

The G limits go up as you go down in my list. Our Maule, for example, is certified in the Utility Category, to higher G limits (both +ve and -ve) than the Normal Category, but is not approved for spins.

Our factory-built, certified Pitts, for example, on their C of A's, in block #4 (Type Certificate and Category) state: "ACROBATIC".

Spins are legal for flight training purposes in Canada.

Sorry, that's clearly not what the Canadian Aviation Regulations state.

I can just imagine, going to the Tribunal, and getting crucifed by the Transport Lawyer, and your defense would be, "Some guy on the internet said it was ok to do it"!

No thank you. I have lost at the Tribunal on much more obtuse interpretations of the CARs.

I repeat: spins are clearly an aerobatic maneuver. Perform aerobatic maneuvers in non-aerobatic aircraft at your own risk. The defense that "everyone breaks the regulations" will not hold up in court.

[TC Guy]

Okay, Headly. I realize I am not going to convince you, so I will stop trying.

I would suggest that any flight instructor that refuses to teach spins during the appropriate phases of training will not hold a rating very long.

It is a required exercise.

And, anyone that requires additional assurance in this matter should contact their Regional Transport Canada Office, and speak to a Flight Training Inspector.

-Guy

[Justwannafly]

So....to conclude...
An Aerobatic manouver is
+60 bank & +2G
????
Or atleast that's what I was told today by someone who organizes a very big Airshow out here in lowermainland BC. Those are the requirments that TC sends him....infact apparently untill a year ago TC was aparently saying it was +45 bank

BTW sorry Hedley, but I have to go with TC guy when it comes to spins....I can't see the gov winning any court case by saying that your doing illegal spins when whereever you look you see them telling us to do them

[Hedley]

Welcome to dealing with Transport Canada. One Inspector (and one region) may apply the regulations entirely differently than another.

One thing you can be certain of: when one Transport Canada Inspector decides to take a run at you, any other Transport Canada Inspector that disagrees with the first, will keep his differing opinion to himself, especially at the Tribunal. The wagon train will circle.

Stupidity can be defined as making the same mistake twice. I have painfully and expensively learned that you do NOT want to be in any "grey" area of the CARs. Even when the CARs are very straight-forward, you are still vulnerable to attack.

I think I mentioned above that Transport has argued at the Tribunal that all aerobatics should be conducted above 18,000 feet, in order to have the required instantaneous forward flight visibility of 3 miles during vertical downlines.

Transport has also argued at the Tribunal and Federal Court that 6 people is a "assemblage of persons" (wrt "populated area" regs).

etc, etc ad nauseum.

To quote the Aviation Safety Letter, learn from the mistakes of others - you won't be able to make them all yourself.

Spins are clearly aerobatic maneuvers. Don't fly aerobatic maneuvers in non-aerobatic aircraft, which is an unarguable contravention of the Canadian Aviation Regulations. I am aghast that people purporting to be Transport Canada Inspectors are encouraging people to do so, but perhaps my sense of humour is waning, and I need to create a new userid here - say Mary Queen of Scots?

P.S. "TC Guy" - I do not "refuse" to teach spins. Nice threat you are making, about revoking my instructor ratings. I happen to be an aerobatic instructor, with 6 two-seat factory-built, aerobatic aircraft available to me.

When I teach spins, I start with the basic 6-pack matrix:

__________Normal__Accelerated__Flat
Upright_______X_______X________X
Inverted______X_______X________X

I presume that since you claim to be a Transport Canada Inspector, by definition you must be a far superior stick to I, and must be far more experienced than I at spin training. Given that, I was just wondering what your personal favorite methods of accelerating spins were, both upright and inverted? Low wing? High wing? Biplane?

Back on topic, to regulations ... the teaching of spins without parachutes is as obvious a CAR 602.01 contravention as any that I have ever heard of.

[mcrit]

Quote:
The POH for the 172, 152, Katana, etc all list spins as an approved manouver


Why on earth would you think that an advisory handbook, written by a foreign manufacturer, would supercede the Canadian Aviation Regulations in Canada?

This was in answer to your point about the a/c being *certified* for the manuever. The CARs state that you must fly according to the manufacture's POH. Incidently, POHs are not advisory, following the procedures listed in them is compulsory.
Even a/c that are in the aerobatic category are only approved for certain manouvers. Checkout the POH for a Citabria sometime.

You're kidding, right? You're an instructor, correct? Aircraft can be certified any one (or a number of):

Normal Category
Utility Category
Aerobatic Category

You get a bon bon for remembering that I'm an instructor, but you still haven't shown me in the CARs where it says that you can't do spins in an a/c that isn't in the aerobatic category. Please note CARs reference

[Hedley]

The CARs state that you must fly according to the manufacture's POH

Sure. But remember that you must obey ALL the CARs, not just one or two of them, or you may be charged for the OTHER ones that you contravene. The way it works is that each and every one of ALL of the thousands of CARs must be obeyed to the precise letter during every moment, even if you haven't memorized each and every one of all of the thousands of CARs. Ignorance of the law is no defense in court.

Also keep in mind that it is quite common for Transport to restrict the operating limitations beyond that which the manufacturer originally claimed during certification in the foreign country.

IIRC there is a bizjet (Gulfstream?) which is certified by the manufacturer to X feet, but Transport only allows C-reg versions to Y feet, where Y < X. I forget the details, but I'm someone else here will remember. Also, didn't Transport restrict the operations of the C206 in Canada, something to do with the rearmost door? The list goes on and on.

But in any case, you're a big boy. If you want to perform aerobatics in an aircraft which is not certified in the aerobatic category, fill your boots. Loop, roll, hammerhead and snaproll your C-172, see if I care (shrug).

[mcrit]

Let's all read this. It came from the airworthiness manual, available online at

http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/Regse ... sub-ab.htm

523.3 Aeroplane Categories

(a) The normal category is limited to aeroplanes that have a seating configuration, excluding pilot seats, of nine or less, a maximum certificated takeoff weight of 5700 kg (12,566 lbs.) or less, and intended for non-aerobatic operation. Non-aerobatic operation includes:

FAR:

(a) The normal category is limited to airplanes that have a seating configuration, excluding pilot seats of nine or less, a maximum certificated takeoff weight of 12,500 lbs (5670 kg) or less, and intended for non-acrobatic operation. Non- acrobatic operation includes:

(1) Any manoeuvre incident to normal flying;

(2) Stalls (except whip stalls); and

(3) Lazy eights, chandelles, and steep turns, in which the angle of bank is not more than 60°.

(b) The utility category is limited to aeroplanes that have a seating configuration, excluding pilot seats, of nine or less, a maximum certificated takeoff weight of 5700 kg (12,566 lbs.) or less, and intended for limited aerobatic operation. Aeroplanes certificated in the utility category may be used in any of the operations covered under paragraph (a) of this section and in limited aerobatic operations. Limited aerobatic operation includes:

FAR:

(b) The utility category is limited to airplanes that have a seating configuration, excluding pilot seats, of nine or less, a maximum certificated takeoff weight of 12,500 lbs (5670 kg) or less, and intended for limited acrobatic operation. Airplanes certificated in the utility category may be used in any of the operations covered under paragraph (a) of this section and in limited acrobatic operations. Limited acrobatic operation includes:

(1) Spins (if approved for the particular type of aeroplane); and

(2) [ Lazy eights, chandelles, and steep turns, or similar manoeuvres, in which the angle of bank is more than 60 degrees but not more than 90 degrees.]

So, spins = legal.

[mellow_pilot]

Semantics. Will this never end? It's obvious that Hedley has found a loop hole, through which, TC could end your career if the wanted to. That will never happen for 2 reasons;

1- Everyone is required to do it for licencing by TC.

2- The legal system is based on precident etc. which means that allowing it in the past is tantamount to permission/exemption.

Hedley is correct in a strict interpretation of the CARs and I'm sure some bone-head might try to screw you this way if you really pissed him off enough. However, in all probability, no one in Canada will ever be charged for doing a spin safely.

[Aeros]

So....to conclude...
An Aerobatic manouver is
+60 bank & +2G
????
Or atleast that's what I was told today by someone who organizes a very big Airshow out here in lowermainland BC. Those are the requirments that TC sends him....infact apparently untill a year ago TC was aparently saying it was +45 bank

I think I might have just figured out where your confusion is coming from. You need to be careful when talking with airshow folks about aerobatic manoeuvres and what they are.

As I mentioned earlier, the definition of an aerobatic manoeuvre can be found in CAR 101.01. This definition applies to all pilots.

"aerobatic manoeuvre" - means a manoeuvre where a change in the attitude of an aircraft results in a bank angle greater than 60 degrees, an abnormal attitude or an abnormal acceleration not incidental to normal flying;

Note -- in this definition there is no reference to the number of G. It is left as the reather vague "abnormal acceleration".

When you are talking with airshow pilots they may use a differnt deffinition which is found in Standrad 623. This definition applies only in regards to airshows.

"air show aerobatic manoeuvre" - means a manoeuvre where a change in the attitude of an aircraft results in a bank angle greater than 75 degrees or in a pitch attitude greater than 60 degrees above or below the horizon, including a roll, loop, spin, hammerhead turn, tail slide, and a lomcevak;

While these definitions are similar (but the terms are different) it has been known to cause some arguments between airshow types and non-airshow types when they think they are talking about apples but are really comparing apples and oranges (aerobatic manoeuvre vs airshow aerobatic manoeuvre)

[TC Guy]

P.S. "TC Guy" - I do not "refuse" to teach spins. Nice threat you are making, about revoking my instructor ratings. I happen to be an aerobatic instructor, with 6 two-seat factory-built, aerobatic aircraft available to me.

Headly...

I am sorry if you assumed I was threatening your Instructor Rating. I was not. I was simply stating that is is a requirement to teach them for basic flight training.

I have no need to threaten you nor anyone else here. Not only do I not know who you are, I really don't care. Also, I would have no grounds to take such action. I am really not into the game of "us vs them".

I presume that since you claim to be a Transport Canada Inspector, by definition you must be a far superior stick to I, and must be far more experienced than I at spin training. Given that, I was just wondering what your personal favorite methods of accelerating spins were, both upright and inverted? Low wing? High wing? Biplane?

Correct, that is what I claim.

And, I concede that you are most likely far superior aerobatic pilot than me. I was trained as an aerobatic instructor many moons ago, but never kept it up. When I changed jobs, they didn't have an aeroplane I could use to do it. One real regret I have.

I have done my share of spins... mostly in light GA "utility" category aircraft such as the C-150/152, C-170/172, PA28-140. I have never attempted an inverted spin, nor do I intend to, unless I had the proper training in a suitable aircraft.

Again, I am really not here to argue with you. I just want to make sure that the Instructors here realize that they must teach spins to their students. It is a requirement.

If I am processing even a PPL license, and don't see all the required exercises in the PTR (including spins) I will refuse to issue the document (unless, of course, it was a error in record keeping).

Back on topic, to regulations ... the teaching of spins without parachutes is as obvious a CAR 602.01 contravention as any that I have ever heard of.

<sigh>

I realize I cannot change your mind. I am not here to win the arguement, just state the facts as I see them. You will do what you wish, I am sure.

-Guy

[Chop&Drop]

Thanks TC Guy for you continued patience and helpful information.

[Justwannafly]

Welcome to dealing with Transport Canada. One Inspector (and one region) may apply the regulations entirely differently than another.

Sad but True....Especialy BC which seems to be a LOT different then the rest of the country.

@TCGuy: Don't worry, some of us here still love you