Emergency Descents with ATC COMS - Video

[[email protected]]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxkiT8gWIQo

Had never done an emergency descent with banking as a tool. It was
suggested to me to try this with a 90 degree bank.

Very interesting experience as it really works and works quickly! I
tried 2 without banking and 2 with banking of which the video contains
one of each.

Video contains both outside and instrumentation views but the
instrumentation view unfortunately wasn't as good as I hoped. Camera
power saving feature shut the camera off and I lost my zoom setting.

Comments here or on the video most appreciated on helping me improve
the technique as this was my first time doing this

[a[_3_]]

On Aug 22, 9:51*pm, " > wrote:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxkiT8gWIQo
>
> Had never done an emergency descent with banking as a tool. *It was
> suggested to me to try this with a 90 degree bank.
>
> Very interesting experience as it really works and works quickly! *I
> tried 2 without banking and 2 with banking of which the video contains
> one of each.
>
> Video contains both outside and instrumentation views but the
> instrumentation view unfortunately wasn't as good as I hoped. *Camera
> power saving feature shut the camera off and I lost my zoom setting.
>
> Comments here or on the video most appreciated on helping me improve
> the technique as this was my first time doing this

Question for you -- What are the Sundowner limits on pitch and bank?

Another speedy way down is a slip of course -- it also allows enough
throttle to keep the engine warm.

[BeechSundowner]

On Aug 22, 9:41*pm, a > wrote:

> Question for you -- What are the Sundowner limits on pitch and bank?
>
> Another speedy way down is a slip of course -- it also allows enough
> throttle to keep the engine warm.

Interesting question as I don't think there is a limit for pitch and
bank? I never heard of this?

Per FAR 91.303, 90 degree bank is not considered an acro maneuver as
banks are not abrupt changes in attitude the way I understand it. It
would be considered a commercial maneuver I think.

[Alan[_6_]]

In article > BeechSundowner > writes:
>On Aug 22, 9:41=A0pm, a > wrote:
>
>> Question for you -- What are the Sundowner limits on pitch and bank?
>>
>> Another speedy way down is a slip of course -- it also allows enough
>> throttle to keep the engine warm.
>
>Interesting question as I don't think there is a limit for pitch and
>bank? I never heard of this?
>
>Per FAR 91.303, 90 degree bank is not considered an acro maneuver as
>banks are not abrupt changes in attitude the way I understand it. It
>would be considered a commercial maneuver I think.


91.303 clearly says:
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.

I think it can reasonably be claimed that 90 degrees bank is "an abnormal attitude".


91.307(c) says that if there were any passengers, everyone must be wearing
an approved parachute. I guess you could play with these solo, but it would
be a lot smarter to have an instructor experienced in this along for the first
few times.

Alan

[Flaps_50!]

On Aug 23, 1:51*pm, " > wrote:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxkiT8gWIQo
>
> Had never done an emergency descent with banking as a tool. *It was
> suggested to me to try this with a 90 degree bank.
>
> Very interesting experience as it really works and works quickly! *I
> tried 2 without banking and 2 with banking of which the video contains
> one of each.
>
> Video contains both outside and instrumentation views but the
> instrumentation view unfortunately wasn't as good as I hoped. *Camera
> power saving feature shut the camera off and I lost my zoom setting.
>
> Comments here or on the video most appreciated on helping me improve
> the technique as this was my first time doing this

You were conducting aerobatic flight. Breaking the law is one thing
but are you certified for aerobatics? What about your aircraft? This
could get you killed. Let me remind you that aerobatics are maneuvers
outside those required for "normal" flight FAR 91.303. To get down
quickly you should slip, or use full flaps, The risk of overspeed is
very high, you have to increase drag to dump energy...
Cheers

[a[_3_]]

On Aug 22, 10:41*pm, a > wrote:
> On Aug 22, 9:51*pm, " > wrote:
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxkiT8gWIQo
>
> > Had never done an emergency descent with banking as a tool. *It was
> > suggested to me to try this with a 90 degree bank.
>
> > Very interesting experience as it really works and works quickly! *I
> > tried 2 without banking and 2 with banking of which the video contains
> > one of each.
>
> > Video contains both outside and instrumentation views but the
> > instrumentation view unfortunately wasn't as good as I hoped. *Camera
> > power saving feature shut the camera off and I lost my zoom setting.
>
> > Comments here or on the video most appreciated on helping me improve
> > the technique as this was my first time doing this
>
> Question for you -- What are the Sundowner limits on pitch and bank?
>
> Another speedy way down is a slip of course -- it also allows enough
> throttle to keep the engine warm.

I don't have the documentation handy and my memory may be in error,
but I think the Mooney's limits when used in the general utility
category are 30 degrees pitch 60 degrees bank. Since it's used mainly
for XC, mostly under IFR, there's no reason to ever come close to
those limits. I wondered if the Sundowner certification was markedly
different.

[a[_3_]]

On Aug 23, 7:52*am, a > wrote:
> On Aug 22, 10:41*pm, a > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 22, 9:51*pm, " > wrote:
>
> > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxkiT8gWIQo
>
> > > Had never done an emergency descent with banking as a tool. *It was
> > > suggested to me to try this with a 90 degree bank.
>
> > > Very interesting experience as it really works and works quickly! *I
> > > tried 2 without banking and 2 with banking of which the video contains
> > > one of each.
>
> > > Video contains both outside and instrumentation views but the
> > > instrumentation view unfortunately wasn't as good as I hoped. *Camera
> > > power saving feature shut the camera off and I lost my zoom setting.
>
> > > Comments here or on the video most appreciated on helping me improve
> > > the technique as this was my first time doing this
>
> > Question for you -- What are the Sundowner limits on pitch and bank?
>
> > Another speedy way down is a slip of course -- it also allows enough
> > throttle to keep the engine warm.
>
> I don't have the documentation handy and my memory may be in error,
> but I think the Mooney's limits when used in the general utility
> category are 30 degrees pitch 60 degrees bank. *Since it's used mainly
> for XC, mostly under IFR, there's no reason to ever come close to
> those limits. I wondered if the Sundowner certification was markedly
> different.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Ah, here it is, and it isn't just Mooneys.

a. FAR Section 91.71 defines "acrobatic 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." In addition, Section 91.15(c)
indirectly refers to acrobatic flight in which it specifies that
"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."

[Gauntlet]

atlieb,

Whether your technique is effective or not is one question. Whether what you did was safe is another.

I'm assuming from your initial posts that this technique has not been demonstrated to you by a flight instructor, and is not approved in the Pilot's Operating Handbook or similar. If this is the case, then congratulations! You have now embarked on a career as an amateur experimental test-pilot, stepping boldly into the unknown etc.

Without knowing a whole lot more about you, your aircraft and the exact circumstances of your flight, no-one here is in a position to judge whether what you did was "safe" or not. But I kind of suspect that you may not have considered all the intricacies of your new profession in flight test. So, if I may, I'd like to ask a few questions about how you undertook this experiment:

What is the maximum normal acceleration for your aircraft? What was the maximum normal acceleration you experienced?

What is the corner speed for your aircraft? What was your calibrated airspeed in relation to corner speed?

What is Va for your aircraft? If you were above Va, what is the limiting aileron deflection?

What is the limiting sideslip angle for your aircraft? What sideslip angle did you achieve?

On the instrumentation video it looks like your rate of descent was off the clock. So with high ROD and large angle-of-bank, how much vertical airspace did you calculate that you would require to recover? What height did you enter the manoeuvre? What height did you commence recovery? What height did you recover at?

How much normal acceleration did you use in the recovery?

High normal acceleration equals increase stall speed. What do you think your stall speed was during this manoeuvre? And what are the accelerated stall characteristics for this aircraft?

Remember that whilst this is a theory test, it is not an open-book exam... Especially as you have already conducted the practical!

It may be that you considered all of the above, found satisfactory answers to those questions, and conducted your flight with all risks as low as is reasonably possible. I still think your life expectancy would be better without part-time experimentation, but well done on your testing philosophy.

But, if some of the questions make you stop and think, or you can't see the relevance, or (worse still) you can't understand the question, then amateur test-piloting is not for you and I would strongly advise that you stay safely within the bounds of the aircraft envelope.

Good luck, either way.

[Robert Moore]

"Flaps_50!" > wrote

> You were conducting aerobatic flight.

TRUE

> Breaking the law is one thing

IN WHAT RESPECT

> but are you certified for aerobatics?

PILOTS DON'T HAVE TO BE CERTIFIED FOR AEROBATICS in the USofA

> What about your aircraft?

When properly equipped, the B23 and C23 are approved for limited
aerobatics. (Wikipedia)

> This could get you killed.

Normal takeoffs and landings kill a lot of pilots.

> Let me remind you that aerobatics are maneuvers
> outside those required for "normal" flight FAR 91.303.

LET ME REMIND YOU.... that the Sundowner is approved for Spins.
Google "Beechcraft Sundowner Spins" and you will find a reference
to "The Light Airplane Pilot's Guide to Stall/Spin Awareness By Rich
Stowell". I would suggest that you read the paragraphs on the following
web page.
http://books.google.com/books?id=i8rNn1vFEd0C&pg=PA304&lpg=PA304
&dq=Spins+in+sundowner&source=bl&ots=u0xxM-hDbY&sig=r8g_VtQN_AjTS8Cql-
tWtg0geRo&hl=en&ei=KD2RSo_BKoH8tge9p6TPBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&
resnum=10#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Jeeze...damn amateurs.......

Bob Moore
ATP B-727, B-707, L-188
USN S-2F , P-2V , P-3B
Flight Instructor ASE-I
PanAm (retired)

[BeechSundowner]

On Aug 23, 6:57*am, a > wrote:
> * * * * * * * (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."

Check out the following references.

FARS 91.303 defines Acrobatic flight. http://www.risingup.com/fars/info/part91-303-FAR.shtml
This was only a bank exercise (NOT pitch), recovery was not an abrupt
attitude change as you can see in the video.

FARS 91.307 http://www.risingup.com/fars/info/part91-307-FAR.shtml
defines when a parachute is required. I was solo (I was NOT carrying
other people in this video)

This maneuver I was told is a maneuver for commercial jet jockeys and
they are not certified for aerobatics.

[BeechSundowner]

On Aug 23, 8:17*am, Robert Moore > wrote:
> "Flaps_50!" > wrote
>
> > You were conducting aerobatic flight.
>
> TRUE

Robert,

I am under the impression what I did was a commercial maneuver. This
is done for emergency descents for commercial jet jockeys and of
course Lears wouldn't be doing acro flight..

See http://discussions.flightaware.com/viewtopic.php?p=87546#87546
where I raised this question before undertaking the exercise.
Thoughts?

[Peter Dohm]

"BeechSundowner" > wrote in message
...
>On Aug 23, 8:17 am, Robert Moore > wrote:
>> "Flaps_50!" > wrote
>>
>> > You were conducting aerobatic flight.
>>
>> TRUE
>
> Robert,
>
> I am under the impression what I did was a commercial maneuver. This
> is done for emergency descents for commercial jet jockeys and of
> course Lears wouldn't be doing acro flight..
>
> See http://discussions.flightaware.com/viewtopic.php?p=87546#87546
> where I raised this question before undertaking the exercise.
> Thoughts?
>
First of all, I really doubt that anyone other than the NetKops on UseNet
care whether you were conducting acrobatic flight. Personally, the only
reason I can think of for an emergency descent in a non-pressurized light
single is a fire; and in that case I might not stop at 90 degrees. Besides,
in an actual emergency, "ya gotta do what ya gotta do" and being prepared
under non-emergency conditions is usually more than half the battle!

As to commercial jets, each type may require a type rating and each type
rating may include a recommended procedure. There is an article on flying
corporate and commercial turbine powered aircraft in each issue of AOPA
Pilot, and one of the issues about a year ago did include a simulated
emergency descent. In the aircraft type involved, it was easily possible
for an attendant or passenger to be standing in the cabin at the time that
an emergency might develope; so IIRC the proceedure used in the article was
to roll about 30 degrees and push over sufficiently to feel a little light
in the seat (about 1/2G) while retarding the thrust levers to flight idle.
The article covered the procedure trained by a particular operator of a
particular aircraft type.

Peter

[BeechSundowner]

On Aug 23, 10:02*am, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:

>*Besides,
> in an actual emergency, "ya gotta do what ya gotta do" and being prepared
> under non-emergency conditions is usually more than half the battle!

Exactly why I went out Peter, and it's not like I didn't try to do the
research before doing this
maneuver in the first place.

The intent of this lesson wasn't to learn or fly acro but to better
myself in
see and avoid situations. Last time I did this was 2001 when I was in
VFR training
in a Cessna so why not bring myself up to speed in "currency" in my
own plane?

As you can see, this from the Flight Aware thread I provided, came up
because of the Hudson
River mid air and discussions ensued on evasive maneuvers, thus me
wanting to expand
on my own envelope on avoiding a mid air collision.

I know I may be comparing apples and oranges when comparing jets to
pistons
but the concept of minimal G for the bank lead me to believe what was
posted
in the thread I brought here as it being a non acrobatic maneuver.

I now have expanded my avoidance in two directions rather then one.
Right and down rather
then just down.

[a[_3_]]

On Aug 23, 7:57*am, a > wrote:
> On Aug 23, 7:52*am, a > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 22, 10:41*pm, a > wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 22, 9:51*pm, " > wrote:
>
> > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxkiT8gWIQo
>
> > > > Had never done an emergency descent with banking as a tool. *It was
> > > > suggested to me to try this with a 90 degree bank.
>
> > > > Very interesting experience as it really works and works quickly! *I
> > > > tried 2 without banking and 2 with banking of which the video contains
> > > > one of each.
>
> > > > Video contains both outside and instrumentation views but the
> > > > instrumentation view unfortunately wasn't as good as I hoped. *Camera
> > > > power saving feature shut the camera off and I lost my zoom setting..
>
> > > > Comments here or on the video most appreciated on helping me improve
> > > > the technique as this was my first time doing this
>
> > > Question for you -- What are the Sundowner limits on pitch and bank?
>
> > > Another speedy way down is a slip of course -- it also allows enough
> > > throttle to keep the engine warm.
>
> > I don't have the documentation handy and my memory may be in error,
> > but I think the Mooney's limits when used in the general utility
> > category are 30 degrees pitch 60 degrees bank. *Since it's used mainly
> > for XC, mostly under IFR, there's no reason to ever come close to
> > those limits. I wondered if the Sundowner certification was markedly
> > different.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Ah, here it is, and it isn't just Mooneys.
>
> * * * * * a. *FAR Section 91.71 defines "acrobatic 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." *In addition, Section 91.15(c)
> * * * indirectly refers to acrobatic flight in which it specifies that
> * * * "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."- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Another minor issue -- if you are going to do steep descending turns
in a low winged airplane, you may be a little better off making the
turns to the left. Visibility into the space you are turning into
would be better.

Also, question for the readers -- does anyone flying left seat in a
low wing airplane do their slips with right wing low?

[a[_3_]]

On Aug 23, 9:17*am, Robert Moore > wrote:
> "Flaps_50!" > wrote
>
> > You were conducting aerobatic flight.
>
> TRUE
>
> > Breaking the law is one thing
>
> IN WHAT RESPECT
>
> > but are you certified for aerobatics?
>
> PILOTS DON'T HAVE TO BE CERTIFIED FOR AEROBATICS in the USofA
>
> > What about your aircraft?
>
> When properly equipped, the B23 and C23 are approved for limited
> aerobatics. (Wikipedia)
>
> > This could get you killed.
>
> Normal takeoffs and landings kill a lot of pilots.
>
> > Let me remind you that aerobatics are maneuvers
> > outside those required for "normal" flight FAR 91.303.
>
> LET ME REMIND YOU.... that the Sundowner is approved for Spins.
> Google "Beechcraft Sundowner Spins" and you will find a reference
> to "The Light Airplane Pilot's Guide to Stall/Spin Awareness By Rich
> Stowell". I would suggest that you read the paragraphs on the following
> web page.http://books.google.com/books?id=i8rNn1vFEd0C&pg=PA304&lpg=PA304
> &dq=Spins+in+sundowner&source=bl&ots=u0xxM-hDbY&sig=r8g_VtQN_AjTS8Cql-
> tWtg0geRo&hl=en&ei=KD2RSo_BKoH8tge9p6TPBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&
> resnum=10#v=onepage&q=&f=false
>
> Jeeze...damn amateurs.......
>
> Bob Moore
> ATP B-727, B-707, L-188
> USN S-2F , P-2V , P-3B
> Flight Instructor ASE-I
> PanAm (retired)

I'm wondering why the 60 degree bank 30 degree pitch requirement of a
'chute for all occupants doesn't apply?

[A Lieberman[_3_]]

On Aug 23, 10:40*am, a > wrote:

> Another minor issue -- if you are going to do steep descending turns
> in a low winged airplane, you may be a little better off making the
> turns to the left. Visibility into the space you are turning into
> would be better.

The reason I went right was to practice mid air collision avoidance.
For head on's, your suppose to turn right from what I understand.

> Also, question for the readers -- does anyone flying left seat in a
> low wing airplane do their slips with right wing low?

I find it more comfortable with my left wing low for the very reason
you say above, visibility is better rather then having to look across
the cabin and not seeing the ground as much.

[Blanche]

I was taught a steep spiral for getting down really fast in a very
small area.

I don't have the Sundowner POH but I just checked my Musketeer
POH - 2.9, Maneuver Limits: Bank Angles no more than 60 deg.

Of course on the following page there's the remark
"Minimum flight crew: One (1) pilot"

[BeechSundowner]

On Aug 23, 10:49*am, Blanche > wrote:
> I was taught a steep spiral for getting down really fast in a very
> small area.
>
> I don't have the Sundowner POH but I just checked my Musketeer
> POH - 2.9, Maneuver Limits: Bank Angles no more than 60 deg.
>
> Of course on the following page there's the remark
> "Minimum flight crew: One (1) pilot"

In my plane it's placarded allowed commercial maneuvers (Chandelles,
lazy eights come to mind). I do need to check the POH.to double
check the bank limitations, but I don't remember seeing such a
limitation. VNE is 152 knots.

I do remember seeing the same remark minimum flight crew of one
pilot. I guess that is the legalese way of saying that a pre-solo
student can't fly the plane solo legally LOL

[Steve Hix]

In article
>,
a > wrote:
>
> Another minor issue -- if you are going to do steep descending turns
> in a low winged airplane, you may be a little better off making the
> turns to the left. Visibility into the space you are turning into
> would be better.
>
> Also, question for the readers -- does anyone flying left seat in a
> low wing airplane do their slips with right wing low?

I will if there's a crosswind from the right. That would be flying a
Tecnam Sierra, being the only low-wing aircraft I've flown in a long
time.

[BeechSundowner]

On Aug 23, 8:03*am, Gauntlet >
wrote:

*What
> height did you enter the manoeuvre? *What height did you commence
> recovery? *What height did you recover at?

I can't answer the book questions, only the streetwise questions.

Altimeter hands clearly show that I started the banked descent at
6000. I approached VNE very quickly and recovered at 4500 clearly
seen in the video. In the beginning of the video, I also alerted ATC
that I would work between 4000 and 6000 and told them that I would be
making rapid altitude changes so they could expect that. 325 is my
airport elevation so I had plenty of altitude. Gmeter in my plane
showed a maximum 2 G value on recovery, and there was no negative G
recorded I only banked, no pulling or pushing in the yoke and held the
bank angle until the nose started to drop. Video also shows my
recovery was not abrupt as I let the plane fly out on it's own. I had
a self imposed floor of 4000 and as you can see in the video, VNE came
up before the floor, so I let the plane level on it's own without any
power adjustment.

I did do two emergency descents without bank to get a feel of what was
needed for nose down attitude without pushing on the yoke excessively.

Beech Sundowner is my plane and commercial maneuvers are permitted. I
have a little over 950 hours in my plane I did check out all I could
before doing this maneuver.(see response to Robert Moore) and didn't
do this "blindly" as the intent of my own lesson was to learn how to
descend quickly should an imminent head on be in my future.

I do feel I did all I could research wise to ensure safety, and as you
can see, the outcome does speak for itself. I posted the video for
entertainment, educational value on how I fly, we all know it's not
designed for instructional value nor is this the intent of any of my
videos.

Truth be known, I felt just as safe doing this as doing a power on /
power off stall. Nose dropped just the same. Only difference I felt
was the speed was higher, G forces were non existent and I had to be
on top of my game for energy management..

[Robert Moore]

a > wrote
> I'm wondering why the 60 degree bank 30 degree pitch requirement of a
> 'chute for all occupants doesn't apply?

Because there was no one else on board except for a crewmember.

(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;

If you do not have a copy of the U.S. Aviation Regulations, they can be
found here:

http://www.landings.com/evird.acgi$pass*58994814!_h-www.landings.com/
_landings/pages/regulations.html

Bob Moore

[a[_3_]]

On Aug 23, 2:52*pm, Robert Moore > wrote:
> a > wrote
>
> > I'm wondering why the *60 degree bank 30 degree pitch requirement of a
> > 'chute for all occupants doesn't apply?
>
> Because there was no one else on board except for a crewmember.
>
> (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;
>
> If you do not have a copy of the U.S. Aviation Regulations, they can be
> found here:
>
> http://www.landings.com/evird.acgi$pass*58994814!_h-www.landings.com/
> _landings/pages/regulations.html
>
> Bob Moore

Thanks. The part I read did not have the parans excluding crew
members. It's a non issue for me, My m20J does not (intentionally) see
anything like those pitch and bank limits.

I still maintain the fastest way down is a strong slip. As somone
mentioned, for non preasurized airplanes, the most likely need to get
down fast is a fire, and a slip may keep the flames away from the
cabin. Mooney's slip really well but losing energy while flying
coordinated is a chore -- come in hot for a landing and you'll float
forever. I''ll have to try a turn while slipping sometime although a
turn into the low wing side makes it a little more coordinated and I
would be reluctant to try to turn into my blind (high wing) side.

[John Smith]

a wrote:

> I still maintain the fastest way down is a strong slip.

I once have been caught on top of an overcast. Don't ask me how I
managed to get in that position, it was entirely my mistake and pretty
dumb. Anyway, once there and being only VFR rated, I was happy to know
how to spiral-slip down through a hole.

[BeechSundowner]

On Aug 23, 5:21*pm, John Smith > wrote:
> a wrote:
> > I still maintain the fastest way down is a strong slip.

Just curious A,

What's the POH say for emergency descent speeds for the Mooney?

I know for sure, that I cannot do 152 knots (POH says 152 for
emergency descents) doing a slip in my Sundowner with all that drag.
I couldn't even get to VNE nose down within my own safe parameters
without bank.

Again, the purpose of this exercise for me was emergency descent for
collision avoidance. I wanted to get a feel for what the plane would
do under non emergency situations and it was a huge lesson learned for
me.

[Peter Dohm]

"BeechSundowner" > wrote in message
news:4a61563b-a2b2-4519-a3af-
> ...
> On Aug 23, 5:21 pm, John Smith > wrote:
>> a wrote:
>> > I still maintain the fastest way down is a strong slip.
>
>Just curious A,
>
> What's the POH say for emergency descent speeds for the Mooney?
>
> I know for sure, that I cannot do 152 knots (POH says 152 for
> emergency descents) doing a slip in my Sundowner with all that drag.
> I couldn't even get to VNE nose down within my own safe parameters
> without bank.
>
> Again, the purpose of this exercise for me was emergency descent for
> collision avoidance. I wanted to get a feel for what the plane would
> do under non emergency situations and it was a huge lesson learned for
> me.
>
Be carefull up there!

I have been told several times that the the vertical tail is the weak link
on most aircraft--not just the Airbus 320--and that the maximum speed
permissible for full rudder deflection is frequently less than the stated
"maneuvering speed.

Assuming the above is true, I have no idea how to determine the maximum
speed for full rudder deflection.

Peter

[vaughn[_2_]]

"BeechSundowner" > wrote in message
...
>Again, the purpose of this exercise for me was emergency descent for
>collision avoidance.

I missed this point the first time, so I am glad you repeated it.

Of course! To avoid a collision, you do whatever is necessary and you may
have to decide instantaneously and instinctively. That said...

A spiral (even a fast descending spiral) is not my first choice for
collision avoidance because 1) I prefer a strategy that allows me to keep
sight of the aircraft I am avoiding, You just don't know what the other
aircraft is going to do. and... 2) A spiral takes me back near (or to) to
the bit of airspace that contained the other aircraft. That is the last
place where I want to go! (Yes, I know you are descending for avoidance,
but the other pilot may have seen you and made the same choice at the same
moment)

Just my 2 cents for discussion.

Vaughn

[Mike Ash]

In article
>,
BeechSundowner > wrote:

> On Aug 23, 10:02*am, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
>
> >*Besides,
> > in an actual emergency, "ya gotta do what ya gotta do" and being prepared
> > under non-emergency conditions is usually more than half the battle!
>
> Exactly why I went out Peter, and it's not like I didn't try to do the
> research before doing this
> maneuver in the first place.
>
> The intent of this lesson wasn't to learn or fly acro but to better
> myself in
> see and avoid situations. Last time I did this was 2001 when I was in
> VFR training
> in a Cessna so why not bring myself up to speed in "currency" in my
> own plane?

Let me just toss in my two cents in support of your position. Nothing I
saw in the video looked even remotely dangerous. I can't speak to the
regs, not being a lawyer, but IMO keeping your skills sharp outweighs
following every dotted i and crossed t.

Seems some pilots can't stomach the idea of doing anything out of the
ordinary. 30-degree banks and no more, please! Fly all approaches at
1.3Vso and touch down at exactly 1000ft beyond the threshold!

Now, I don't want to sound like I'm advocating doing dangerous things
just because they're interesting. Quite the contrary: ensuring the
safety of the maneuver should be the top goal. But there is nothing
AUTOMATICALLY unsafe about exceeding 60 degrees of bank, just like it's
not AUTOMATICALLY safe to do anything that stays within the bounds set
by the FARs and the POH.

In short: carry on, and keep posting those videos!

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

[BeechSundowner]

On Aug 23, 8:13*pm, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
> "BeechSundowner" > wrote in message
>
> news:4a61563b-a2b2-4519-a3af-
>
> > ...
> > On Aug 23, 5:21 pm, John Smith > wrote:
> >> a wrote:
> >> > I still maintain the fastest way down is a strong slip.
>
> >Just curious A,
>
> > What's the POH say for emergency descent speeds for the Mooney?
>
> > I know for sure, that I cannot do 152 knots (POH says 152 for
> > emergency descents) doing a slip in my Sundowner with all that drag.
> > I couldn't even get to VNE nose down within my own safe parameters
> > without bank.
>
> > Again, the purpose of this exercise for me was emergency descent for
> > collision avoidance. *I wanted to get a feel for what the plane would
> > do under non emergency situations and it was a huge lesson learned for
> > me.
>
> Be carefull up there!
>
> I have been told several times that the the vertical tail is the weak link
> on most aircraft--not just the Airbus 320--and that the maximum speed
> permissible for full rudder deflection is frequently less than the stated
> "maneuvering speed.
>
> Assuming the above is true, I have no idea how to determine the maximum
> speed for full rudder deflection.
>
> Peter

Agree Peter,

I would never hang any parts of the plane outside the white arc :-)))
much less do a slip for emergency descent..

I learned from this exercise that I can't even get to VNE without
bank without an excessive amount of forward pressure on the yoke. I
am a believer in NOT forcing the plane to doing something it won't
do. Bank sure took care of that problem :-))

[Peter Dohm]

"Mike Ash" > wrote in message
...
> In article
> >,
> BeechSundowner > wrote:
>
>> On Aug 23, 10:02 am, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
>>
>> > Besides,
>> > in an actual emergency, "ya gotta do what ya gotta do" and being
>> > prepared
>> > under non-emergency conditions is usually more than half the battle!
>>
>> Exactly why I went out Peter, and it's not like I didn't try to do the
>> research before doing this
>> maneuver in the first place.
>>
>> The intent of this lesson wasn't to learn or fly acro but to better
>> myself in
>> see and avoid situations. Last time I did this was 2001 when I was in
>> VFR training
>> in a Cessna so why not bring myself up to speed in "currency" in my
>> own plane?
>
> Let me just toss in my two cents in support of your position. Nothing I
> saw in the video looked even remotely dangerous. I can't speak to the
> regs, not being a lawyer, but IMO keeping your skills sharp outweighs
> following every dotted i and crossed t.
>
> Seems some pilots can't stomach the idea of doing anything out of the
> ordinary. 30-degree banks and no more, please! Fly all approaches at
> 1.3Vso and touch down at exactly 1000ft beyond the threshold!
>
> Now, I don't want to sound like I'm advocating doing dangerous things
> just because they're interesting. Quite the contrary: ensuring the
> safety of the maneuver should be the top goal. But there is nothing
> AUTOMATICALLY unsafe about exceeding 60 degrees of bank, just like it's
> not AUTOMATICALLY safe to do anything that stays within the bounds set
> by the FARs and the POH.
>
> In short: carry on, and keep posting those videos!
>
> --
> Mike Ash
> Radio Free Earth
> Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

All I can say to that is: Well said!

Peter

[John Smith]

Peter Dohm wrote:

> I have been told several times that ... the maximum speed
> permissible for full rudder deflection is frequently less than the stated
> "maneuvering speed.

You have been told rubbish. Up to maneuvring speed it is safe to
instantly and fully deflect any ****rol, also the rudder. *But* this is
only true from straight and level flight and for one isolated deflection
of one isolated control. (Which the pilots of that famous Airbus
obviously ignored, who wildly waggled the rudder until it broke off,
creating such urban legends like the one you've cited above.)

[a[_3_]]

On Aug 23, 9:51*pm, Mike Ash > wrote:
> In article
> >,
>
>
>
>
>
> *BeechSundowner > wrote:
> > On Aug 23, 10:02*am, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
>
> > >*Besides,
> > > in an actual emergency, "ya gotta do what ya gotta do" and being prepared
> > > under non-emergency conditions is usually more than half the battle!
>
> > Exactly why I went out Peter, and it's not like I didn't try to do the
> > research before doing this
> > maneuver in the first place.
>
> > The intent of this lesson wasn't to learn or fly acro but to better
> > myself in
> > see and avoid situations. *Last time I did this was 2001 when I was in
> > VFR training
> > in a Cessna so why not bring myself up to speed in "currency" in my
> > own plane?
>
> Let me just toss in my two cents in support of your position. Nothing I
> saw in the video looked even remotely dangerous. I can't speak to the
> regs, not being a lawyer, but IMO keeping your skills sharp outweighs
> following every dotted i and crossed t.
>
> Seems some pilots can't stomach the idea of doing anything out of the
> ordinary. 30-degree banks and no more, please! Fly all approaches at
> 1.3Vso and touch down at exactly 1000ft beyond the threshold!
>
> Now, I don't want to sound like I'm advocating doing dangerous things
> just because they're interesting. Quite the contrary: ensuring the
> safety of the maneuver should be the top goal. But there is nothing
> AUTOMATICALLY unsafe about exceeding 60 degrees of bank, just like it's
> not AUTOMATICALLY safe to do anything that stays within the bounds set
> by the FARs and the POH.
>
> In short: carry on, and keep posting those videos!
>
> --
> Mike Ash
> Radio Free Earth
> Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

As a matter of interest, I asked the intial question re bank and pitch
limits because those are associated with the airplane I fly. The OP's
first reply was that he was not aware of those limits for the
Sundowner, and later seemed to find they did not apply to his
airplane. That's fine, my question was answered. As for advocating
flying outside the limits airplanes are certified for, you do that at
your own risk -- and I submit it's not a smart thing to do. Look at
the g loading for very high banked coordinated turns sometime. I can
peg the gauge at 2500 fpm down with an aggressive slip and stay within
the certified envelope of the airplane, but that's at airspeeds well
below normal cruise speeds. For what it's worth, a non pilot px is
much happier with a 60 degree bank and the associated g's into the
seat than an aggressive slip with only 1 g, if that g's vector is to
the side of the airplane.

The only time we fly the Mooney at pitch and bank limits is when we
are doing under the hood unusual attitude recoveries. The Sundowner
jock can do one better and do spin recoveries under the hood (gotta
find a Sundowner around here, that would be fun to do).


As for collision avoidance, I'm the guy who tends to fly assigned
altitude less 50 feet to provide some automatic margin, but I have
never had to abruptly alter course to avoid another airplane in the in-
route environment. I have had to near airports and descent to avoid in
that environment is not a good option.

Go commit aviation, but do it safely.

[BeechSundowner]

On Aug 24, 8:21*am, a > wrote:

> *As for collision avoidance, I'm the guy who tends to fly assigned
> altitude less 50 feet to provide some automatic margin, but I have
> never had to abruptly alter course to avoid another airplane in the in-
> route environment.

Altimeter not an exact science. How would this 50 foot protect you?
Since 75 feet + or - of error is allowed, wouldn't flying 100 feet
below assigned altitude be a better "automatic margin"?

[a[_3_]]

On Aug 24, 10:14*am, BeechSundowner > wrote:
> On Aug 24, 8:21*am, a > wrote:
>
> > *As for collision avoidance, I'm the guy who tends to fly assigned
> > altitude less 50 feet to provide some automatic margin, but I have
> > never had to abruptly alter course to avoid another airplane in the in-
> > route environment.
>
exact science. *How would this 50 foot protect you?
> Since 75 feet + or - of error is allowed, wouldn't flying 100 feet
> below assigned altitude be a better "automatic margin"?

How would this 50 foot protect you?
> Since 75 feet + or - of error is allowed, wouldn't flying 100 feet
> below assigned altitude be a better "automatic margin"?


I think not. The average pilot may very well have set autopilot to
his altitude, if you assume the average error is zero with excursions
to the tolerances, you can model that my lower altitude is probably 30
or 40% safer and still leaves some margins. That I fly a low wing also
gives me greater visibility toward where possible traffic may be.
Having said that, it probably doesn't much matter, it's one of those
30 or 40% less than an already small number issues. I have never had
to change altitude ON MY OWN to avoid traffic. On many occasions I
have had center issue altitutude changes to avoid possible conflict.
For what it's worth I consider XC flight at less than 3000 agl
something to be mostly avoided, and nearly always am IFR on XC.

DIfferent strokes and differences of opinion keep things interesting.
You posted something that evoked some discussion, good on you. I'm
still suspect of 80 degree banking in a utility class airplane, but
it's hardly worth spending more bytes on, is it?

But it might be generally instructive to see some safety pilot
monitored under-the-hood spin recoveries since your airplane is
certified for spins. I don't think my spin recoveries in high wing
aerobatic airplanes have much application in solving that problem in a
Mooney -- even 25 degree nose at 100 knts dirty equals speeds not good
for flaps or gear in the blink of an eye.

[Ricky]

On Aug 23, 8:17*am, Robert Moore > wrote:

> Jeeze...damn amateurs.......

>Jeeze...grumpy, retired, ex-military, old men.......lighten up. Your experience and knowlege is very valuable here, but it would be much more well received with some grace and kindness.

> Bob Moore

> P-3B

P-3, huh? I am cutting my A&P teeth on a rehab of a P-3, which is what
my company does. My first P-3 is about to take it's maiden flight
after a 3 year rebuild, and after we get all the tank leaks sealed
(again).

Ricky

[Robert Moore]

Ricky > wrote
>
>>Jeeze...grumpy, retired, ex-military, old men.......lighten up. Your
>>experience and knowlege is very valuable here, but it would be much more
> well received with some grace and kindness.

When someone "preaches" as much BS as Flaps_50! did in his post, someone
needs to call it BS in no uncertain terms.

If Flaps_50! wants to instruct pilots, maybe he should study some more
himself.

Bob Moore
CFIing since 1970

[a[_3_]]

On Aug 25, 9:12*am, Ricky > wrote:
> On Aug 23, 8:17*am, Robert Moore > wrote:
>
> > Jeeze...damn amateurs.......
> >Jeeze...grumpy, retired, ex-military, old men.......lighten up. Your experience and knowlege is very valuable here, but it would be much more well received with some grace and kindness.
> > Bob Moore
> > P-3B
>
> P-3, huh? I am cutting my A&P teeth on a rehab of a P-3, which is what
> my company does. My first P-3 is about to take it's maiden flight
> after a 3 year rebuild, and after we get all the tank leaks sealed
> (again).
>
> Ricky

The M20J is a wet wing tank sealed with something that was found to
like to disolve in what ever is added to 100 octane low lead. We had
to fix the leaks a couple of times in an early M20J, I expect the
problem has been solved a long time ago. What is the nature of the
leaks your P-3 has: inital sealant a little better than bubble gum?

[Ricky]

On Aug 25, 7:36*am, a > wrote:
> On Aug 25, 9:12*am, Ricky > wrote:
>
> > On Aug 23, 8:17*am, Robert Moore > wrote:
>
> > > Jeeze...damn amateurs.......
> > >Jeeze...grumpy, retired, ex-military, old men.......lighten up. Your experience and knowlege is very valuable here, but it would be much more well received with some grace and kindness.
> > > Bob Moore
> > > P-3B
>
> > P-3, huh? I am cutting my A&P teeth on a rehab of a P-3, which is what
> > my company does. My first P-3 is about to take it's maiden flight
> > after a 3 year rebuild, and after we get all the tank leaks sealed
> > (again).
>
> > Ricky
>
> The M20J is a wet wing tank sealed with something that was found to
> like to disolve in what ever is added to 100 octane low lead. We had
> to fix the leaks a couple of times in an early M20J, I expect the
> problem has been solved a long time ago. What is the nature of the
> leaks your P-3 has: inital sealant a little better than bubble gum?

Well, you may know the P-3 is a wet-wing also, with a wet belly tank,
too, just behind the bomb bay. The sealing procedure is very, very
extensive after all external and internal reapairs & work have been
done on the wings and belly. Every single Hi-Lok, rivet, Cherry-Max,
bolt, screw, plank, doubler, tripler, etc, etc. is a potential leak.
So, there are literally hundreds, perhaps thousands, of potential
escape routes for the Jet-A. The sealant we use is fine, great,
actually, but with so many potential leaks, it is simply impossible to
aassure the sealant job is leak-proof in every single place.
We pressurised the tanks for the first time 2 weeks ago & there were
several leaks, albeit small ones. This means we must find the leak,
then do a re-sealant job to that area. After two weeks we finally have
almost 100% integrity with the fuel tanks. We have started engine runs/
testing and the plane will go to the paint shop soon, then back into
service until the ancient (but wonderful) bird is retired or replaced
by 737s.

Ricky

[Flaps_50!]

On Aug 24, 1:17*am, Robert Moore > wrote:
> "Flaps_50!" > wrote
>
> > You were conducting aerobatic flight.
>
> TRUE
>
> > Breaking the law is one thing
>
> IN WHAT RESPECT
>
> > but are you certified for aerobatics?
>
> PILOTS DON'T HAVE TO BE CERTIFIED FOR AEROBATICS in the USofA
>
> > What about your aircraft?
>
> When properly equipped, the B23 and C23 are approved for limited
> aerobatics. (Wikipedia)

And was it equipped and what are those limits?

>
> > This could get you killed.
>
> Normal takeoffs and landings kill a lot of pilots.
>

Not intentionally.

> > Let me remind you that aerobatics are maneuvers
> > outside those required for "normal" flight FAR 91.303.
>
> LET ME REMIND YOU.... that the Sundowner is approved for Spins.

Irrelevant. That's not the point and you know it.

> Google "Beechcraft Sundowner Spins" and you will find a reference
> to "The Light Airplane Pilot's Guide to Stall/Spin Awareness By Rich
> Stowell". I would suggest that you read the paragraphs on the following
> web page.http://books.google.com/books?id=i8rNn1vFEd0C&pg=PA304&lpg=PA304
> &dq=Spins+in+sundowner&source=bl&ots=u0xxM-hDbY&sig=r8g_VtQN_AjTS8Cql-
> tWtg0geRo&hl=en&ei=KD2RSo_BKoH8tge9p6TPBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&
> resnum=10#v=onepage&q=&f=false
>
> Jeeze...damn amateurs.......
>
> Bob Moore
> ATP B-727, B-707, L-188
> USN S-2F , P-2V , P-3B
> Flight Instructor ASE-I
> PanAm (retired)

Jeez is that supposed to impress me or is it the PanAm (retired) bit?
Look up "appeal to authority" as a logical fallacy.

Cheers

[Flaps_50!]

On Aug 24, 2:16*am, BeechSundowner > wrote:
> On Aug 23, 8:17*am, Robert Moore > wrote:
>
> > "Flaps_50!" > wrote
>
> > > You were conducting aerobatic flight.
>
> > TRUE
>
> Robert,
>
> I am under the impression what I did was a commercial maneuver. *This
> is done for emergency descents for commercial jet jockeys and of
> course Lears wouldn't be doing acro flight..

You can do aerobatics in controlled airspace without a waver from the
director?

Cheers

[Flaps_50!]

On Aug 24, 3:15*am, BeechSundowner > wrote:
> On Aug 23, 10:02*am, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
>
> >*Besides,
> > in an actual emergency, "ya gotta do what ya gotta do" and being prepared
> > under non-emergency conditions is usually more than half the battle!
>
> Exactly why I went out Peter, and it's not like I didn't try to do the
> research before doing this
> maneuver in the first place.
>
> The intent of this lesson wasn't to learn or fly acro but to better
> myself in
> see and avoid situations. *Last time I did this was 2001 when I was in
> VFR training
> in a Cessna so why not bring myself up to speed in "currency" in my
> own plane?
>
> As you can see, this from the Flight Aware thread I provided, came up
> because of the Hudson
> River mid air and discussions ensued on evasive maneuvers, thus me
> wanting to expand
> on my own envelope on avoiding a mid air collision.
>
> I know I may be comparing apples and oranges when comparing jets to
> pistons
> but the concept of minimal G for the bank lead me to believe what was
> posted
> in the thread I brought here as it being a non acrobatic maneuver.
>
> I now have expanded my avoidance in two directions rather then one.
> Right and down rather
> then just down.

This makes no sense. You just need to turn, diving at 90 degrees bank
may limit your ability to see the approaching aircraft and what if
that aircraft is diving too? But diving at high bank piles on the
airspeed (spiral dive as you may have experienced in spin recovery),
it would be a pity to risk structural failure as you recover...
Second, at high bank a collision is more likely as the intercept area
is larger (wingspans are larger than any other dimension). What I'm
advocating here is safety at all times, not hypothetical better
avoidance turns. Look, I don't want you to have an accident as you
explore your capabilities and those of your aircraft. I say, try your
your tricks in an aircraft you are less likely to break and then if
you are sure you can handle it, put it in your bag of skills for the
unlikely day you will need them.

Cheers

[Flaps_50!]

On Aug 24, 4:02*am, BeechSundowner > wrote:
> On Aug 23, 10:49*am, Blanche > wrote:
>
> > I was taught a steep spiral for getting down really fast in a very
> > small area.
>
> > I don't have the Sundowner POH but I just checked my Musketeer
> > POH - 2.9, Maneuver Limits: Bank Angles no more than 60 deg.
>
> > Of course on the following page there's the remark
> > "Minimum flight crew: One (1) pilot"
>
> In my plane it's placarded allowed commercial maneuvers (Chandelles,
> lazy eights come to mind). * I do need to check the POH.to double
> check the bank limitations, but I don't remember seeing such a
> limitation. *VNE is 152 knots.
>
> I do remember seeing the same remark minimum flight crew of one
> pilot. * I guess that is the legalese way of saying that a pre-solo
> student can't fly the plane solo legally LOL

I think it follows from the definition of flight crew...

Cheers

[Flaps_50!]

On Aug 24, 1:59*pm, BeechSundowner > wrote:
> On Aug 23, 8:13*pm, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
>
>
>
> > "BeechSundowner" > wrote in message
>
> > news:4a61563b-a2b2-4519-a3af-
>
> > > ...
> > > On Aug 23, 5:21 pm, John Smith > wrote:
> > >> a wrote:
> > >> > I still maintain the fastest way down is a strong slip.
>
> > >Just curious A,
>
> > > What's the POH say for emergency descent speeds for the Mooney?
>
> > > I know for sure, that I cannot do 152 knots (POH says 152 for
> > > emergency descents) doing a slip in my Sundowner with all that drag.
> > > I couldn't even get to VNE nose down within my own safe parameters
> > > without bank.
>
> > > Again, the purpose of this exercise for me was emergency descent for
> > > collision avoidance. *I wanted to get a feel for what the plane would
> > > do under non emergency situations and it was a huge lesson learned for
> > > me.
>
> > Be carefull up there!
>
> > I have been told several times that the the vertical tail is the weak link
> > on most aircraft--not just the Airbus 320--and that the maximum speed
> > permissible for full rudder deflection is frequently less than the stated
> > "maneuvering speed.
>
> > Assuming the above is true, I have no idea how to determine the maximum
> > speed for full rudder deflection.
>
> > Peter
>
> Agree Peter,
>
> I would never hang any parts of the plane outside the white arc :-)))
> much less do a slip for emergency descent..
>
> *I learned from this exercise that I can't even get to VNE without
> bank without an excessive amount of forward pressure on the yoke. *I
> am a believer in NOT forcing the plane to doing something it won't
> do. *Bank sure took care of that problem :-))

The need for forward pressure is because you were trimmed for a much
lower airspeed... In your vid, the ASI rapidly goes into the yellow
arc and off the screen, and you said something like "Jeez went over".
Do you hit/pass VNE? Here's another thought, in that high speed
descending attitude what if you hit wake from the other aircraft? Now
some hypergonadotrophic pilots may call me overcautious (I happily do
aerobatics every week) but I like to err on the safe side and I hope
you do too. So, bottom line, do you think that this is a good maneuver
for collision avoidance (in which case it would not be illegal of
course)?

Cheers

[Flaps_50!]

On Aug 24, 10:43*pm, John Smith > wrote:
> Peter Dohm wrote:
> > I have been told several times that ... the maximum speed
> > permissible for full rudder deflection is frequently less than the stated
> > "maneuvering speed.
>
> You have been told rubbish. Up to maneuvring speed it is safe to
> instantly and fully deflect any ****rol, also the rudder.

Is this still true at < MTOW?

Cheers

[Flaps_50!]

On Aug 26, 2:27*am, Robert Moore > wrote:
> Ricky > wrote
>
>
>
> >>Jeeze...grumpy, retired, ex-military, old men.......lighten up. Your
> >>experience and knowlege is very valuable here, but it would be much more
> > well received with some grace and kindness.
>
> When someone "preaches" as much BS as Flaps_50! did in his post, someone
> needs to call it BS in no uncertain terms.
>

Ah, I see YOU say BS 'cos you think the newsgroup is american. LOL

Cheers

[John Smith]

Flaps_50! wrote:

>> You have been told rubbish. Up to maneuvring speed it is safe to
>> instantly and fully deflect any control, also the rudder.

> Is this still true at < MTOW?

Of course. This is the very definition of maneuvring speed. The
maneuvring speed may change with the actual weight, though.

[a[_3_]]

On Aug 31, 1:21*pm, John Smith > wrote:
> Flaps_50! wrote:
> >> You have been told rubbish. Up to maneuvring speed it is safe to
> >> instantly and fully deflect any control, also the rudder.
> > Is this still true at < MTOW?
>
> Of course. This is the very definition of maneuvring speed. The
> maneuvring speed may change with the actual weight, though.

The good thing about this thread is at least some pilots may have
gained second thoughts about on purpose steep banks. The principal
posters have made their points, to which I might add "legal" does not
mean "wise" and the hope is we have become somewhat wiser.

[Flaps_50!]

On Sep 1, 5:21*am, John Smith > wrote:
> Flaps_50! wrote:
> >> You have been told rubbish. Up to maneuvring speed it is safe to
> >> instantly and fully deflect any control, also the rudder.
> > Is this still true at < MTOW?
>
> Of course. This is the very definition of maneuvring speed. The
> maneuvring speed may change with the actual weight, though.

Yes, that's my point, "<" means less than.

Cheers

[John Smith]

Flaps_50! wrote:
>>>> Up to maneuvring speed it is safe to
>>>> instantly and fully deflect any control, also the rudder.

>>> Is this still true at < MTOW?

>> Of course. This is the very definition of maneuvring speed. The
>> maneuvring speed may change with the actual weight, though.

> Yes, that's my point, "<" means less than.

Thanks, I know what < means. But it wasn't your point.

[BeechSundowner]

On Aug 31, 5:46*am, "Flaps_50!" > wrote:

> You can do aerobatics in controlled airspace without a waver from the
> director?

What in the world are you talking about? I was in an area where
sudden changes of flight is expected (practice area) I advised ATC in
the very beginning I would be making rapid altitude changes in the
practice area which I seriously doubt most other pilots would have
thought of doing. Your thoughts of wake turbulence is even further
out of wack as in my area, they don't send commercial traffic through
the practice area nor was anybody above me in the practice area..

Oh yeah, what defines aerobatics in your head? Please provide
references as I am below.

I called my local FSDO regarding my video. Aerobatics is NOT defined
by a number for pitch and roll. 91.303 Aerobatics are defined by
ABRUPT changes in pitch and roll, The word ABRUPT is subjective just
like reckless and carelessness. Unusual attitude in .303 is
subjective and again not defined by a degree of pitch or bank.

Practicing emergency maneuvers, commercial maneuvers or practicing
unusual attitudes (for IMC work or even stalls - think greater then 30
degree pitch) are NOT considered aerobatic per my FSDO. Don't believe
me, call your local FSDO equivelant.

30 degree pitch 60 bank refers to parachute requirements ONLY and
parachutes are ONLY required if I am carrying passengers (instructors
and crew are not considered passengers). 91.307 I confirmed this
with the FSDO so again if you don't believe me, call your local FSDO.

[BeechSundowner]

On Aug 31, 1:18*pm, a > wrote:

> The good thing about this thread is at least some pilots may have
> gained second thoughts about on purpose steep banks. The principal
> posters have made their points, to which I might add "legal" does not
> mean "wise" and the hope is we have become somewhat wiser.

Very well stated. As you stated legal doesn't mean wise for those
exceeding their capability. I did not feel I exceeded my piloting
capabilities and still remained within legal parameters of FARS 91.303
and 91.307. Outcome speaks for itself.

A lesser bank for inexperienced pilots would be potentially a fatal
manuever.

As I stated earlier, I have no need to do this again, but in an
emergency at least now I am a little better prepared for how things
can happen quickly.

Why NOT learn without the duress of an actual emergency?

[Flaps_50!]

On Sep 1, 11:18*pm, John Smith > wrote:
> Flaps_50! wrote:
> >>>> Up to maneuvring speed it is safe to
> >>>> instantly and fully deflect any control, also the rudder.
> >>> Is this still true at < MTOW?
> >> Of course. This is the very definition of maneuvring speed. The
> >> maneuvring speed may change with the actual weight, though.
> > Yes, that's my point, "<" means less than.
>
> Thanks, I know what < means. But it wasn't your point.

Yes, your statement was wrong...

Cheers

[Flaps_50!]

On Sep 2, 12:32*am, BeechSundowner > wrote:
> On Aug 31, 5:46*am, "Flaps_50!" > wrote:
>
> > You can do aerobatics in controlled airspace without a waver from the
> > director?
>
> What in the world are you talking about? *I was in an area where
> sudden changes of flight is expected (practice area) I advised ATC in
> the very beginning I would be making rapid altitude changes in the
> practice area which I seriously doubt most other pilots would have
> thought of doing. *Your thoughts of wake turbulence is even further
> out of wack as in my area, they don't send commercial traffic through
> the practice area nor was anybody above me in the practice area..
>
> Oh yeah, what defines aerobatics in your head? *Please provide
> references as I am below.
>

You really don't (or won't) get it?

-------------
§ 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;

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."
---------
What does "for normal flight" mean?

Cheers

[Flaps_50!]

On Sep 2, 12:40*am, BeechSundowner > wrote:
> On Aug 31, 1:18*pm, a > wrote:
>
> > The good thing about this thread is at least some pilots may have
> > gained second thoughts about on purpose steep banks. The principal
> > posters have made their points, to which I might add "legal" does not
> > mean "wise" and the hope is we have become somewhat wiser.
>
> Very well stated. *As you stated legal doesn't mean wise for those
> exceeding their capability. *I did not feel I exceeded my piloting
> capabilities and still remained within legal parameters of FARS 91.303
> and 91.307. *Outcome speaks for itself.
>
> A lesser bank for inexperienced pilots would be potentially a fatal
> manuever.
>

Lordy. It's you that's inexperienced as your "Jeez" in the cockpit
revealed.
This is heading toward becoming a teaching exercise for human factors.

[BeechSundowner]

On Sep 2, 2:24*am, "Flaps_50!" > wrote:

> You really don't (or won't) get it?
>
> -------------
> § 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;
>
> 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."
> ---------
> What does "for normal flight" mean?
>
> Cheers- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

No you don't get it. I was not within A, B, C or D as described that
you allude to above. I was in a designated practice area.

I wasn't performing normal flight. I was performing an emergency
procedure. What part do YOU not get.

[BeechSundowner]

On Sep 2, 2:30*am, "Flaps_50!" > wrote:

> Lordy. It's you that's inexperienced as your "Jeez" in the cockpit
> revealed.
> This is heading toward becoming a teaching exercise for human factors.

The reaction was recognition of what the plane did and how efficiently
the manuever workd. Reactions by saying Jeez do not dictate
experience.

The plane did EXACTLY what I expected during the maneuver. I banked,
the nose fell through and I recovered.

You really show your cluelessness don't you!

[Flaps_50!]

On Sep 3, 6:37*am, BeechSundowner > wrote:
> On Sep 2, 2:24*am, "Flaps_50!" > wrote:
>
>
>
> > You really don't (or won't) get it?
>
> > -------------
> > § 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;
>
> > 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."
> > ---------
> > What does "for normal flight" mean?
>
> > Cheers- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> No you don't get it. *I was not within A, B, C or D as described that
> you allude to above. *I was in a designated practice area.
>
> I wasn't performing normal flight. *I was performing an emergency
> procedure. *What part do YOU not get.

I don't think you read it carefully. The regs don't say within ABCD
airspace, but within _lateral_ limits of those airspaces. Since you
communicated with ATC I assume you were below one of those airspaces
and therefore within its lateral limits (not vertical). Also how far
away was the nearest highway?

Cheers

[Flaps_50!]

On Sep 3, 6:41*am, BeechSundowner > wrote:
> On Sep 2, 2:30*am, "Flaps_50!" > wrote:
>
> > Lordy. It's you that's inexperienced as your "Jeez" in the cockpit
> > revealed.
> > This is heading toward becoming a teaching exercise for human factors.
>
> The reaction was recognition of what the plane did and how efficiently
> the manuever workd. * Reactions by saying Jeez do not dictate
> experience.
>
> The plane did EXACTLY what I expected during the maneuver. *I banked,
> the nose fell through and I recovered.
>
> You really show your cluelessness don't you!

"Jeez I went through". Yep, exactly as you expected. And now an ad
hominem ...
Why am I not surprised?

Cheers

[[email protected]]

Flaps_50! > wrote:
> On Sep 3, 6:37Â*am, BeechSundowner > wrote:
>> On Sep 2, 2:24Â*am, "Flaps_50!" > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > You really don't (or won't) get it?
>>
>> > -------------
>> > § 91.303 Â* 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;
>>
>> > 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."
>> > ---------
>> > What does "for normal flight" mean?
>>
>> > Cheers- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > - Show quoted text -
>>
>> No you don't get it. Â*I was not within A, B, C or D as described that
>> you allude to above. Â*I was in a designated practice area.
>>
>> I wasn't performing normal flight. Â*I was performing an emergency
>> procedure. Â*What part do YOU not get.
>
> I don't think you read it carefully. The regs don't say within ABCD
> airspace, but within _lateral_ limits of those airspaces. Since you
> communicated with ATC I assume you were below one of those airspaces
> and therefore within its lateral limits (not vertical). Also how far
> away was the nearest highway?
>
> Cheers

Designated practice areas are not within any limits of those airspaces
nor are they near any airway.

There is a reason for that.

One can communicate with ATC in any type of airspace.

Your objections are nonsense.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Flaps_50!]

On Sep 3, 5:15*pm, wrote:
> Flaps_50! > wrote:
> > On Sep 3, 6:37*am, BeechSundowner > wrote:
> >> On Sep 2, 2:24*am, "Flaps_50!" > wrote:
>
> >> > You really don't (or won't) get it?
>
> >> > -------------
> >> > § 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;
>
> >> > 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."
> >> > ---------
> >> > What does "for normal flight" mean?
>
> >> > Cheers- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> > - Show quoted text -
>
> >> No you don't get it. *I was not within A, B, C or D as described that
> >> you allude to above. *I was in a designated practice area.
>
> >> I wasn't performing normal flight. *I was performing an emergency
> >> procedure. *What part do YOU not get.
>
> > I don't think you read it carefully. The regs don't say within ABCD
> > airspace, but within _lateral_ limits of those airspaces. Since you
> > communicated with ATC I assume you were below one of those airspaces
> > and therefore within its lateral limits (not vertical). *Also how far
> > away was the nearest highway?
>
> > Cheers
>
> Designated practice areas are not within any limits of those airspaces
> nor are they near any airway.
>

I disagree, practice areas are often below designated airspace. It's
the lateral limits that can be a gotcha for aerobatics.

Cheers

[Flaps_50!]

On Sep 3, 5:15*pm, wrote:
> Flaps_50! > wrote:
> > On Sep 3, 6:37*am, BeechSundowner > wrote:
> >> On Sep 2, 2:24*am, "Flaps_50!" > wrote:
>
> >> > You really don't (or won't) get it?
>
> >> > -------------
> >> > § 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;
>
> >> > 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."
> >> > ---------
> >> > What does "for normal flight" mean?
>
> >> > Cheers- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> > - Show quoted text -
>
> >> No you don't get it. *I was not within A, B, C or D as described that
> >> you allude to above. *I was in a designated practice area.
>
> >> I wasn't performing normal flight. *I was performing an emergency
> >> procedure. *What part do YOU not get.
>
> > I don't think you read it carefully. The regs don't say within ABCD
> > airspace, but within _lateral_ limits of those airspaces. Since you
> > communicated with ATC I assume you were below one of those airspaces
> > and therefore within its lateral limits (not vertical). *Also how far
> > away was the nearest highway?
>
> > Cheers
>
> Designated practice areas are not within any limits of those airspaces
> nor are they near any airway.
>
> There is a reason for that.
>
> One can communicate with ATC in any type of airspace.
>
> Your objections are nonsense.
>

How do you know where he was? My point is that its the _lateral_
limits of airspace that can be a no-no for aerobatics. In places,
practice areas may be below other airspace...

Cheers

[BeechSundowner]

On Sep 3, 6:47*am, "Flaps_50!" > wrote:

> How do you know where he was?

I TOLD YOU. I was in a designated practice area. What part of that
do you not understand outside of ASSuming? Look up KJAN and 10 miles
NE of the outershelf of Charlie is the designated practice area.

>My point is that its the _lateral_
> limits of airspace that can be a no-no for aerobatics. In places,
> practice areas may be below other airspace...

Your point was irrelevant to my situation for two reasons. One is
above. Second was that I was not conducting aerobatics. What part of
that do you NOT understand?

[BeechSundowner]

On Sep 3, 12:00*am, "Flaps_50!" > wrote:

> Why am I not surprised?

If you base someone's acknowledgement / reaction of the behavior of a
plane "as an inexperienced pilot", you really are clueless. Your
latests responses make absolutey no sense to me.

[Robert Moore]

"Flaps_50!" > wrote

> How do you know where he was? My point is that its the _lateral_
> limits of airspace that can be a no-no for aerobatics. In places,
> practice areas may be below other airspace...

You demonstrate that you don't fully understand the pertinent FAR
which I post below. The operable phrase is "of the SURFACE AREA",
not the entire airspace.

"SURFACE AREA"s are normally a 5 mile radius around the airport
for which the airspace is designated. In reading the regulation, I
find no prohibition against conducting aerobatics underneith the outer
rings of a Class B,C,airspace, although, since the outer ring of Class
C airspace can be as low as 1200'AGL, considering 91.303(e), aerobatics
might not be allowed.

Bob Moore
Flying since 1958
CFIing since 1970


Section 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.

[[email protected]]

Flaps_50! > wrote:
> On Sep 3, 5:15Â*pm, wrote:
>> Flaps_50! > wrote:
>> > On Sep 3, 6:37Â*am, BeechSundowner > wrote:
>> >> On Sep 2, 2:24Â*am, "Flaps_50!" > wrote:
>>
>> >> > You really don't (or won't) get it?
>>
>> >> > -------------
>> >> > § 91.303 Â* 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;
>>
>> >> > 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."
>> >> > ---------
>> >> > What does "for normal flight" mean?
>>
>> >> > Cheers- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> > - Show quoted text -
>>
>> >> No you don't get it. Â*I was not within A, B, C or D as described that
>> >> you allude to above. Â*I was in a designated practice area.
>>
>> >> I wasn't performing normal flight. Â*I was performing an emergency
>> >> procedure. Â*What part do YOU not get.
>>
>> > I don't think you read it carefully. The regs don't say within ABCD
>> > airspace, but within _lateral_ limits of those airspaces. Since you
>> > communicated with ATC I assume you were below one of those airspaces
>> > and therefore within its lateral limits (not vertical). Â*Also how far
>> > away was the nearest highway?
>>
>> > Cheers
>>
>> Designated practice areas are not within any limits of those airspaces
>> nor are they near any airway.
>>
>
> I disagree, practice areas are often below designated airspace. It's
> the lateral limits that can be a gotcha for aerobatics.
>
> Cheers

Technically, EVERYTHING is below class A.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Flaps_50! > wrote:
> On Sep 3, 5:15Â*pm, wrote:
>> Flaps_50! > wrote:
>> > On Sep 3, 6:37Â*am, BeechSundowner > wrote:
>> >> On Sep 2, 2:24Â*am, "Flaps_50!" > wrote:
>>
>> >> > You really don't (or won't) get it?
>>
>> >> > -------------
>> >> > § 91.303 Â* 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;
>>
>> >> > 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."
>> >> > ---------
>> >> > What does "for normal flight" mean?
>>
>> >> > Cheers- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> > - Show quoted text -
>>
>> >> No you don't get it. Â*I was not within A, B, C or D as described that
>> >> you allude to above. Â*I was in a designated practice area.
>>
>> >> I wasn't performing normal flight. Â*I was performing an emergency
>> >> procedure. Â*What part do YOU not get.
>>
>> > I don't think you read it carefully. The regs don't say within ABCD
>> > airspace, but within _lateral_ limits of those airspaces. Since you
>> > communicated with ATC I assume you were below one of those airspaces
>> > and therefore within its lateral limits (not vertical). Â*Also how far
>> > away was the nearest highway?
>>
>> > Cheers
>>
>> Designated practice areas are not within any limits of those airspaces
>> nor are they near any airway.
>>
>> There is a reason for that.
>>
>> One can communicate with ATC in any type of airspace.
>>
>> Your objections are nonsense.
>>
>
> How do you know where he was? My point is that its the _lateral_
> limits of airspace that can be a no-no for aerobatics. In places,
> practice areas may be below other airspace...
>
> Cheers

By reading what he wrote and making the assumption he was telling the
truth.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[BeechSundowner]

On Sep 3, 9:30*am, wrote:

> By reading what he wrote and making the assumption he was telling the
> truth.

Shoot, the video has my ATC transmissions including the approach
facility (Jackson Approach) I was headed to the NE practice area so
really not to much assumption needed regarding location of my
activities LOL

[Flaps_50!]

On Sep 4, 2:30*am, wrote:
> Flaps_50! > wrote:
> > On Sep 3, 5:15*pm, wrote:
> >> Flaps_50! > wrote:
> >> > On Sep 3, 6:37*am, BeechSundowner > wrote:
> >> >> On Sep 2, 2:24*am, "Flaps_50!" > wrote:
>
> >> >> > You really don't (or won't) get it?
>
> >> >> > -------------
> >> >> > § 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;
>
> >> >> > 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."
> >> >> > ---------
> >> >> > What does "for normal flight" mean?
>
> >> >> > Cheers- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> >> > - Show quoted text -
>
> >> >> No you don't get it. *I was not within A, B, C or D as described that
> >> >> you allude to above. *I was in a designated practice area.
>
> >> >> I wasn't performing normal flight. *I was performing an emergency
> >> >> procedure. *What part do YOU not get.
>
> >> > I don't think you read it carefully. The regs don't say within ABCD
> >> > airspace, but within _lateral_ limits of those airspaces. Since you
> >> > communicated with ATC I assume you were below one of those airspaces
> >> > and therefore within its lateral limits (not vertical). *Also how far
> >> > away was the nearest highway?
>
> >> > Cheers
>
> >> Designated practice areas are not within any limits of those airspaces
> >> nor are they near any airway.
>
> > I disagree, practice areas are often below designated airspace. It's
> > the lateral limits that can be a gotcha for aerobatics.
>
> > Cheers
>
> Technically, EVERYTHING is below class A.
>

Yes, but the FAR doesn't include class A :-)

Cheers

[Flaps_50!]

On Sep 4, 1:31*am, Robert Moore > wrote:
> "Flaps_50!" > wrote
>
> > How do you know where he was? My point is that its the _lateral_
> > limits of airspace that can be a no-no for aerobatics. In places,
> > practice areas may be below other airspace...
>
> You demonstrate that you don't fully understand the pertinent FAR
> which I post below. The operable phrase is "of the SURFACE AREA",
> not the entire airspace.
>
> "SURFACE AREA"s are normally a 5 mile radius around the airport
> for which the airspace is designated. In reading the regulation, I
> find no prohibition against conducting aerobatics underneith the outer
> rings of a Class B,C,airspace, although, since the outer ring of Class
> C airspace can be as low as 1200'AGL, considering 91.303(e), aerobatics
> might not be allowed.
>
> Bob Moore
> Flying since 1958
> CFIing since 1970
>
> Section 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.

Nope. The FAR is quite clear. It says noting about surface area around
an airport. Just the _lateral limits_ of B,C,D,E airspace. Read it
again.

Cheers

[Mike Ash]

In article
>,
"Flaps_50!" > wrote:

> On Sep 4, 1:31*am, Robert Moore > wrote:
> > "Flaps_50!" > wrote
> >
> > > How do you know where he was? My point is that its the _lateral_
> > > limits of airspace that can be a no-no for aerobatics. In places,
> > > practice areas may be below other airspace...
> >
> > You demonstrate that you don't fully understand the pertinent FAR
> > which I post below. The operable phrase is "of the SURFACE AREA",
> > not the entire airspace.
> >
> > "SURFACE AREA"s are normally a 5 mile radius around the airport
> > for which the airspace is designated. In reading the regulation, I
> > find no prohibition against conducting aerobatics underneith the outer
> > rings of a Class B,C,airspace, although, since the outer ring of Class
> > C airspace can be as low as 1200'AGL, considering 91.303(e), aerobatics
> > might not be allowed.
> >
> > Bob Moore
> > Flying since 1958
> > CFIing since 1970
> >
> > Section 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.
>
> Nope. The FAR is quite clear. It says noting about surface area around
> an airport. Just the _lateral limits_ of B,C,D,E airspace. Read it
> again.

Huh? This is the text of 91.303(c), emphasis added:

"Within the lateral boundaries of the SURFACE AREAS of Class B, Class C,
Class D, or Class E airspace designated for an airport;"

Seems pretty clear to me that it's talking about, well, the SURFACE
AREAS, since it uses those exact words. That is the only section of
91.303 which makes reference to those airspace types.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

[Flaps_50!]

On Sep 4, 1:31*am, Robert Moore > wrote:
> "Flaps_50!" > wrote
>
> > How do you know where he was? My point is that its the _lateral_
> > limits of airspace that can be a no-no for aerobatics. In places,
> > practice areas may be below other airspace...
>
> You demonstrate that you don't fully understand the pertinent FAR
> which I post below. The operable phrase is "of the SURFACE AREA",
> not the entire airspace.
>
> "SURFACE AREA"s are normally a 5 mile radius around the airport
> for which the airspace is designated. In reading the regulation, I
> find no prohibition against conducting aerobatics underneith the outer
> rings of a Class B,C,airspace, although, since the outer ring of Class
> C airspace can be as low as 1200'AGL, considering 91.303(e), aerobatics
> might not be allowed.
>
> Bob Moore
> Flying since 1958
> CFIing since 1970
>
> Section 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.

Thanks for making this interpretation clear to me. I read it simply
as the surface lateral limit of BCDE and that does not, to me, mean
within 5 miles of an airport. If in common US parlance, it is as you
say then shouldn't the FAR be rewritten to make your interpretation
clear? I can see the merit in your definition as C can be huge and
would prevent most aerobatic practice outside special use areas given
by a waiver from the director. From a legal and practical POV I can
see the merit in requiring an application for an aerobatic area as the
risks wold be minimised as ATC would not route planes at the bottom
edge of those air spaces near the aerobatic area.

Cheers

[Flaps_50!]

On Sep 4, 2:58*am, BeechSundowner > wrote:
> On Sep 3, 9:30*am, wrote:
>
> > By reading what he wrote and making the assumption he was telling the
> > truth.
>
> Shoot, the video has my ATC transmissions including the approach
> facility (Jackson Approach) I was headed to the NE practice area so
> really not to much assumption needed regarding location of my
> activities LOL

Nice evasion. What class airspace were you in?

Cheers

[John E. Carty]

> Nice evasion. What class airspace were you in?
>
> Cheers

Finally I know what my grandfather meant about a dog that barks just to hear
himself, thanks for clearing that up :-)

[a[_3_]]

On Sep 6, 12:36*am, "John E. Carty" >
wrote:
> > Nice evasion. What class airspace were you in?
>
> > Cheers
>
> Finally I know what my grandfather meant about a dog that barks just to hear
> himself, thanks for clearing that up :-)

It's clear the OP thinks he conducted a safe flight that enhanced his
skills. For those of us who fly utility certified airplanes with
specific pitch and bank limitations it seems or seemed foolhardy. This
horse is pretty much dead, isn't it? Beating on it just makes
hamburger (horseburger?).

[Robert Moore]

a > wrote

> I don't have the documentation handy and my memory may be in error,
> but I think the Mooney's limits when used in the general utility
> category are 30 degrees pitch 60 degrees bank. ÿSince it's used mainly
> for XC, mostly under IFR, there's no reason to ever come close to
> those limits. I wondered if the Sundowner certification was markedly
> different.-

FAR 23.3

(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 pounds 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 airplane); and

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


> For those of us who fly utility certified airplanes with
> specific pitch and bank limitations it seems or seemed foolhardy.

I would be interested in knowing which "Utility Category" Mooney
that you fly that has specific pitch and bank limits less than those
listed in 23.3.


Bob Moore

[a[_3_]]

On Sep 6, 2:49*pm, Robert Moore > wrote:
> a > wrote
>
> > I don't have the documentation handy and my memory may be in error,
> > but I think the Mooney's limits when used in the general utility
> > category are 30 degrees pitch 60 degrees bank. ÿSince it's used mainly
> > for XC, mostly under IFR, there's no reason to ever come close to
> > those limits. I wondered if the Sundowner certification was markedly
> > different.-
>
> FAR 23.3
>
> (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 pounds 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 airplane); and
>
> (2) Lazy eights, chandelles, and steep turns, or similar maneuvers, in
> which the angle of bank is more than 60 degrees but not more than 90
> degrees.
>
> > For those of us who fly utility certified airplanes with
> > specific pitch and bank limitations it seems or seemed foolhardy.
>
> I would be interested in knowing which "Utility Category" Mooney
> that you fly that has specific pitch and bank limits less than those
> listed in 23.3.
>
> Bob Moore

The manual and placards are pretty specific about pitch and bank
limits.

[Robert Moore]

a > wrote
>
> The manual and placards are pretty specific about pitch and bank
> limits.

I would then suggest that the aircraft is not certificated in
the "Utility Category" and that it is then a "Normal Category"
aircraft.

Bob Moore

Section 23.3: Airplane categories.
(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 pounds or less, and intended for
nonacrobatic operation. Nonacrobatic operation includes:

(1) Any maneuver 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 degrees.

(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 pounds 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 airplane); and

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

(c) The acrobatic 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 pounds or less, and intended for
use without restrictions, other than those shown to be necessary as a
result of required flight tests.

(d) The commuter category is limited to propeller-driven, multiengine
airplanes that have a seating configuration, excluding pilot seats, of
19 or less, and a maximum certificated takeoff weight of 19,000 pounds
or less. The commuter category operation is limited to any maneuver
incident to normal flying, stalls (except whip stalls), and steep turns,
in which the angle of bank is not more than 60 degrees.

(e) Except for commuter category, airplanes may be type certificated in
more than one category if the requirements of each requested category
are met.

[BeechSundowner]

On Sep 5, 8:15*pm, "Flaps_50!" > wrote:
> On Sep 4, 2:58*am, BeechSundowner > wrote:
>
> > On Sep 3, 9:30*am, wrote:
>
> > > By reading what he wrote and making the assumption he was telling the
> > > truth.
>
> > Shoot, the video has my ATC transmissions including the approach
> > facility (Jackson Approach) I was headed to the NE practice area so
> > really not to much assumption needed regarding location of my
> > activities LOL
>
> Nice evasion. What class airspace were you in?

Did you look at the sectional. The answer is there. I already told
you my location.

[Flaps_50!]

On Sep 7, 11:51*pm, BeechSundowner > wrote:
> On Sep 5, 8:15*pm, "Flaps_50!" > wrote:
>
> > On Sep 4, 2:58*am, BeechSundowner > wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 3, 9:30*am, wrote:
>
> > > > By reading what he wrote and making the assumption he was telling the
> > > > truth.
>
> > > Shoot, the video has my ATC transmissions including the approach
> > > facility (Jackson Approach) I was headed to the NE practice area so
> > > really not to much assumption needed regarding location of my
> > > activities LOL
>
> > Nice evasion. What class airspace were you in?
>
> Did you look at the sectional. *The answer is there. *I already told
> you my location.

Nope, but I can see lots of restricted airspace and victors so where
is this NE training area exactly?

Cheers

[Flaps_50!]

On Sep 6, 4:36*pm, "John E. Carty" > wrote:
> > Nice evasion. What class airspace were you in?
>
> > Cheers
>
> Finally I know what my grandfather meant about a dog that barks just to hear
> himself, thanks for clearing that up :-)

Pot - kettle?

[Flaps_50!]

On Sep 7, 4:29*am, a > wrote:
> On Sep 6, 12:36*am, "John E. Carty" >
> wrote:
>
> > > Nice evasion. What class airspace were you in?
>
> > > Cheers
>
> > Finally I know what my grandfather meant about a dog that barks just to hear
> > himself, thanks for clearing that up :-)
>
> It's clear the OP thinks he conducted a safe flight that enhanced his
> skills. For those of us who fly utility certified airplanes with
> specific pitch and bank limitations it seems or seemed foolhardy. This
> horse is pretty much dead, isn't it? Beating on it just makes
> hamburger (horseburger?).

Yes, I agree. At least the awareness of serious issues has been
raised tho'

Cheers

[BeechSundowner]

On Sep 7, 10:04*am, "Flaps_50!" > wrote:

> Nope, but I can see lots of restricted airspace and victors so where
> is this NE training area exactly?

10 NE of KJAN per my post to you. If you see **lots(( of restricted
airspace around KJAN, you need more lessons on reading sectionals.

[[email protected]]

BeechSundowner > wrote:
> On Sep 7, 10:04Â*am, "Flaps_50!" > wrote:
>
>> Nope, but I can see lots of restricted airspace and victors so where
>> is this NE training area exactly?
>
> 10 NE of KJAN per my post to you. If you see **lots(( of restricted
> airspace around KJAN, you need more lessons on reading sectionals.

Sounds to me like someone needs an extensive review of air space and
how to read sectionals at their next flight review.

The closest restricted area to KJAN I could find was about 70 nm away.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Jim Logajan]

wrote:
> BeechSundowner > wrote:
>> On Sep 7, 10:04Â*am, "Flaps_50!" > wrote:
>>
>>> Nope, but I can see lots of restricted airspace and victors so where
>>> is this NE training area exactly?
>>
>> 10 NE of KJAN per my post to you. If you see **lots(( of restricted
>> airspace around KJAN, you need more lessons on reading sectionals.
>
> Sounds to me like someone needs an extensive review of air space and
> how to read sectionals at their next flight review.
>
> The closest restricted area to KJAN I could find was about 70 nm away.

Flaps_50! appears to be posting from New Zealand. No doubt it is difficult
to read a sectional upside down. It's a wonder that people in the northern
hemisphere can even converse on Usenet with those in the south without
posts getting flipped upside down. I imagine the electron spins must flip
or something so the orientation of our posts comes out right. It is bad
enough when posts from Alaska cause my machine to freeze up....

[Morgans[_2_]]

> wrote

> Sounds to me like someone needs an extensive review of air space and
> how to read sectionals at their next flight review.
>
> The closest restricted area to KJAN I could find was about 70 nm away.

Folks, what we have here is another non-pilot troll, trying to act like he
know what he is talking about from reading a little about flying.

Am I wrong? From the combined body of posts he has made, it seems obvious.

I doubt it. Troll alert activated.
--
Jim in NC

[BeechSundowner]

On Sep 7, 11:52*pm, "Morgans" > wrote:

> Am I wrong? *From the combined body of posts he has made, it seems obvious.
>
> I doubt it. *Troll alert activated.
> --
> Jim in NC

I think you are right Jim.

Hate to see his reactions when I post videos of formation flights and
aerobatics in a T6 I was passenger in yesterday. Got about 3 hours
worth of recording to go through.

I wonder how many FARS he will claim we busted LOL as we did the
formation in Delta airspace and surrounding areas of KGWO without a
"waiver", acro in class E enroute from KMBO to KGWO without a
"waiver".

[Flaps_50!]

On Sep 8, 2:42*pm, BeechSundowner > wrote:
> On Sep 7, 10:04*am, "Flaps_50!" > wrote:
>
> > Nope, but I can see lots of restricted airspace and victors so where
> > is this NE training area exactly?
>
> 10 NE of KJAN per my post to you. *If you see **lots(( of restricted
> airspace around KJAN, you need more lessons on reading sectionals.

If you were on the edge of the class C to the NE weren't you within 4
miles of V417 ?

Cheers

[Flaps_50!]

On Sep 8, 3:15*pm, wrote:
> BeechSundowner > wrote:
> > On Sep 7, 10:04*am, "Flaps_50!" > wrote:
>
> >> Nope, but I can see lots of restricted airspace and victors so where
> >> is this NE training area exactly?
>
> > 10 NE of KJAN per my post to you. *If you see **lots(( of restricted
> > airspace around KJAN, you need more lessons on reading sectionals.
>
> Sounds to me like someone needs an extensive review of air space and
> how to read sectionals at their next flight review.
>
> The closest restricted area to KJAN I could find was about 70 nm away.
>

No, the victors are restricted airspace for aerobatics. Have another
look at the sectional.

Cheers

[BeechSundowner]

On Sep 10, 5:35*pm, "Flaps_50!" > wrote:

> No, the victors are restricted airspace for aerobatics. Have another
> look at the sectional.

Before you continue to embarrass yourself, do you know the dimensions
of a victor airway?

Hint one, they don't put practice areas in victor airways.

[BeechSundowner]

On Sep 10, 5:29*pm, "Flaps_50!" > wrote:

> If you were on the edge of the class C to the NE weren't you within 4
> miles of V417 ?

No. Because I wasn't on the edge of Class C.

[Robert Moore]

"Flaps_50!" wrote

> No, the victors are restricted airspace for aerobatics. Have another
> look at the sectional.

That's not the definition of "restricted airspace" here in the USofA.

If you insist on arguing with the Yanks, who have you out numbered by a
very large margin, you would be advised to set forth just who's regs
and terminology are going to be used.

From the Aeronautical Information Manual:
3-4-3. Restricted Areas

a. Restricted areas contain airspace identified by an area on the
surface of the earth within which the flight of aircraft, while not
wholly prohibited, is subject to restrictions. Activities within these
areas must be confined because of their nature or limitations imposed
upon aircraft operations that are not a part of those activities or
both. Restricted areas denote the existence of unusual, often invisible,
hazards to aircraft such as artillery firing, aerial gunnery, or guided
missiles. Penetration of restricted areas without authorization from the
using or controlling agency may be extremely hazardous to the aircraft
and its occupants. Restricted areas are published in the Federal
Register and constitute 14?CFR Part 73.

b. ATC facilities apply the following procedures when aircraft are
operating on an IFR clearance (including those cleared by ATC to
maintain VFR-on-top) via a route which lies within joint-use restricted
airspace.

1. If the restricted area is not active and has been released to the
controlling agency (FAA), the ATC facility will allow the aircraft to
operate in the restricted airspace without issuing specific clearance
for it to do so.

2. If the restricted area is active and has not been released to the
controlling agency (FAA), the ATC facility will issue a clearance which
will ensure the aircraft avoids the restricted airspace unless it is on
an approved altitude reservation mission or has obtained its own
permission to operate in the airspace and so informs the controlling
facility.

NOTE-
The above apply only to joint-use restricted airspace and not to
prohibited and nonjoint-use airspace. For the latter categories, the ATC
facility will issue a clearance so the aircraft will avoid the
restricted airspace unless it is on an approved altitude reservation
mission or has obtained its own permission to operate in the airspace
and so informs the controlling facility.

c. Restricted airspace is depicted on the en route chart appropriate for
use at the altitude or flight level being flown. For joint-use
restricted areas, the name of the controlling agency is shown on these
charts. For all prohibited areas and nonjoint-use restricted areas,
unless otherwise requested by the using agency, the phrase "NO A/G" is
shown.

[[email protected]]

Flaps_50! > wrote:
> On Sep 8, 3:15Â*pm, wrote:
>> BeechSundowner > wrote:
>> > On Sep 7, 10:04Â*am, "Flaps_50!" > wrote:
>>
>> >> Nope, but I can see lots of restricted airspace and victors so where
>> >> is this NE training area exactly?
>>
>> > 10 NE of KJAN per my post to you. Â*If you see **lots(( of restricted
>> > airspace around KJAN, you need more lessons on reading sectionals.
>>
>> Sounds to me like someone needs an extensive review of air space and
>> how to read sectionals at their next flight review.
>>
>> The closest restricted area to KJAN I could find was about 70 nm away.
>>
>
> No, the victors are restricted airspace for aerobatics. Have another
> look at the sectional.
>
> Cheers

I said "restricted area".

You are blithering idiot.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

BeechSundowner > wrote:
> On Sep 10, 5:35Â*pm, "Flaps_50!" > wrote:
>
>> No, the victors are restricted airspace for aerobatics. Have another
>> look at the sectional.
>
> Before you continue to embarrass yourself, do you know the dimensions
> of a victor airway?
>
> Hint one, they don't put practice areas in victor airways.

He has no clue what the word "restricted" means.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Flaps_50!]

On Sep 11, 10:56*am, Robert Moore > wrote:
> "Flaps_50!" *wrote
>
> > No, the victors are restricted airspace for aerobatics. Have another
> > look at the sectional.
>
> That's not the definition of "restricted airspace" here in the USofA.
>
> If you insist on arguing with the Yanks, who have you out numbered by a
> very large margin, you would be advised to set forth just who's regs
> and terminology are going to be used.
>
> From the Aeronautical Information Manual:
> 3-4-3. Restricted Areas
>
> a. Restricted areas contain airspace identified by an area on the
> surface of the earth within which the flight of aircraft, while not
> wholly prohibited, is subject to restrictions.

Yes, that what's I understand restricted to mean. I assume we agree
that aerobatics are not permitted within 4 miles of a airway. So, if
the use of that airspace is restricted to non-aerobatic use then isn't
it restricted since: "...the flight of aircraft, while not wholly
prohibited, is subject to restrictions." In this case the restriction
is no aerobatic flight. Is this wrong? Really I want to know -it
could be an exam question!

Cheers

[Flaps_50!]

On Sep 11, 11:15*am, wrote:
> BeechSundowner > wrote:
> > On Sep 10, 5:35*pm, "Flaps_50!" > wrote:
>
> >> No, the victors are restricted airspace for aerobatics. Have another
> >> look at the sectional.
>
> > Before you continue to embarrass yourself, do you know the dimensions
> > of a victor airway?
>
> > Hint one, they don't put practice areas in victor airways.
>
> He has no clue what the word "restricted" means.
>

I'm looking at this sectional

http://skyvector.com/#52-28-3-4391-3470

About 10 miles NE of KJAN I see class C,E and a Victor. The next
Victor centerline is 18m NE. Is this wrong?

Cheers


and

[Flaps_50!]

On Sep 11, 11:15*am, wrote:
> Flaps_50! > wrote:
> > On Sep 8, 3:15*pm, wrote:
> >> BeechSundowner > wrote:
> >> > On Sep 7, 10:04*am, "Flaps_50!" > wrote:
>
> >> >> Nope, but I can see lots of restricted airspace and victors so where
> >> >> is this NE training area exactly?
>
> >> > 10 NE of KJAN per my post to you. *If you see **lots(( of restricted
> >> > airspace around KJAN, you need more lessons on reading sectionals.
>
> >> Sounds to me like someone needs an extensive review of air space and
> >> how to read sectionals at their next flight review.
>
> >> The closest restricted area to KJAN I could find was about 70 nm away.
>
> > No, the victors are restricted airspace for aerobatics. Have another
> > look at the sectional.
>
> > Cheers
>
> I said "restricted area".
>
> You are blithering idiot.
>

Ok, look at this sectional and what do you see 10 miles NE of KJAN?

http://skyvector.com/#52-28-3-4391-3470

My question is, are aerobatics normally allowed in that location?

I'd say no, but if I'm wrong I'd like to know why (being a 'blithering
idiot').

Cheers

I see, thanks for the compliment.

Cheers

[Flaps_50!]

On Sep 11, 10:45*am, BeechSundowner > wrote:
> On Sep 10, 5:35*pm, "Flaps_50!" > wrote:
>
> > No, the victors are restricted airspace for aerobatics. Have another
> > look at the sectional.
>
> Before you continue to embarrass yourself, do you know the dimensions
> of a victor airway?
>
> Hint one, they don't put practice areas in victor airways.

How patronising. Your stated location "10m NE of KJAN" seems to be
within 4 miles of the centerline of a Victor and since you were at
4000' are you maintaining that aerobatics are allowed there?

Cheers

[BeechSundowner]

On Sep 11, 3:12*am, "Flaps_50!" > wrote:

> How patronising. Your stated location "10m NE of KJAN" seems to be
> within 4 miles of the centerline of a Victor and since you were at
> 4000' are you maintaining that aerobatics are allowed there?

I was in a designated practice area. While you may think I was
conducting aerobatics, even if I was, it was within legal airspace
confines. Next you will tell me they allow practice areas to be place
in areas to terrorize airways near them. I will say I was well clear
of the outer shelf of Charlie, so my distance most likely was further
NE. Try to use some common sense if you have any.

BTW, the 10 miles you should know is an approximate so you knew where
to look on the sectional. One minutes flight takes me 2 miles. I am
also based near a VOR with converging airways so other then proving
your point I was near airways, I was in a designated practice area
where abrupt flight maneuvers are expected.

Oh yeah, so if I do a power on stall that exceeds 30 degrees pitch up,
do you call that aerobatics? That's not a normal flight pitch? I got
bunches of videos of these posted flown in the same practice area. I
bet you will avoid this question.

Oh yeah, power off stalls, when the nose pitches down more then 30
degrees. Are you going to call that aerobatics? I got bunches of
videos of these posted flown in the same practice area and I bet you
will avoid this question too.

This maneuver I performed is no different then stalls, it was a flight
maneuver to enhance my safety should a mid air be imminent.

I think I had enough of feeding your trolling characteristics
regarding the legality of this video The video speaks for itself
regarding legality and like I said, I called my local FSDO and they
said I was within the legal FAA parameters based on what he heard from
me so no need to further respond to you regarding the legality of this
video.

[[email protected]]

Flaps_50! > wrote:
> On Sep 11, 11:15Â*am, wrote:
>> BeechSundowner > wrote:
>> > On Sep 10, 5:35Â*pm, "Flaps_50!" > wrote:
>>
>> >> No, the victors are restricted airspace for aerobatics. Have another
>> >> look at the sectional.
>>
>> > Before you continue to embarrass yourself, do you know the dimensions
>> > of a victor airway?
>>
>> > Hint one, they don't put practice areas in victor airways.
>>
>> He has no clue what the word "restricted" means.
>>
>
> I'm looking at this sectional
>
> http://skyvector.com/#52-28-3-4391-3470
>
> About 10 miles NE of KJAN I see class C,E and a Victor. The next
> Victor centerline is 18m NE. Is this wrong?

What has this to do with your total lack of understanding of the terms
"restricted" and "designated practice area"?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mike Ash]

In article
>,
"Flaps_50!" > wrote:

> On Sep 11, 10:56*am, Robert Moore > wrote:
> > "Flaps_50!" *wrote
> >
> > > No, the victors are restricted airspace for aerobatics. Have another
> > > look at the sectional.
> >
> > That's not the definition of "restricted airspace" here in the USofA.
> >
> > If you insist on arguing with the Yanks, who have you out numbered by a
> > very large margin, you would be advised to set forth just who's regs
> > and terminology are going to be used.
> >
> > From the Aeronautical Information Manual:
> > 3-4-3. Restricted Areas
> >
> > a. Restricted areas contain airspace identified by an area on the
> > surface of the earth within which the flight of aircraft, while not
> > wholly prohibited, is subject to restrictions.
>
> Yes, that what's I understand restricted to mean. I assume we agree
> that aerobatics are not permitted within 4 miles of a airway. So, if
> the use of that airspace is restricted to non-aerobatic use then isn't
> it restricted since: "...the flight of aircraft, while not wholly
> prohibited, is subject to restrictions." In this case the restriction
> is no aerobatic flight. Is this wrong? Really I want to know -it
> could be an exam question!

The flight of aircraft is "subject to restrictions" everywhere within
the US and most other countries. For example, can't PIC without a valid
pilot's certificate. Can't fly inside clouds while VFR. Do these
restrictions make the whole country a "restricted area"? Of course not!

"Restricted area" has a specific meaning in the US. It is specific
airspace which has special restrictions applied beyond those found in
normal airspace. On a sectional you will find restricted airspace to be
designated using a solid blue border with perpendicular blue dashes
pointing toward the inside. For an example, pull up NHK on skyvector.com.

Victor airways are not "restricted airspace".

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

[[email protected]]

Flaps_50! > wrote:
> On Sep 11, 11:15Â*am, wrote:
>> Flaps_50! > wrote:
>> > On Sep 8, 3:15Â*pm, wrote:
>> >> BeechSundowner > wrote:
>> >> > On Sep 7, 10:04Â*am, "Flaps_50!" > wrote:
>>
>> >> >> Nope, but I can see lots of restricted airspace and victors so where
>> >> >> is this NE training area exactly?
>>
>> >> > 10 NE of KJAN per my post to you. Â*If you see **lots(( of restricted
>> >> > airspace around KJAN, you need more lessons on reading sectionals.
>>
>> >> Sounds to me like someone needs an extensive review of air space and
>> >> how to read sectionals at their next flight review.
>>
>> >> The closest restricted area to KJAN I could find was about 70 nm away.
>>
>> > No, the victors are restricted airspace for aerobatics. Have another
>> > look at the sectional.
>>
>> > Cheers
>>
>> I said "restricted area".
>>
>> You are blithering idiot.
>>
>
> Ok, look at this sectional and what do you see 10 miles NE of KJAN?
>
> http://skyvector.com/#52-28-3-4391-3470
>
> My question is, are aerobatics normally allowed in that location?
>
> I'd say no, but if I'm wrong I'd like to know why (being a 'blithering
> idiot').

The question is irrelevant as no one was doing "aerobatics" in the area.

There are no restricted areas anywhere in that area.

You are a blithering idiot because in spite of being told the definitions
of "aerobatics", "restricted area", and "designated practice area" you
continue to babble on.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[jan olieslagers[_2_]]

Mike Ash schreef:

> The flight of aircraft is "subject to restrictions" everywhere within
> the US and most other countries. For example, can't PIC without a valid
> pilot's certificate. Can't fly inside clouds while VFR. Do these
> restrictions make the whole country a "restricted area"? Of course not!
>
> "Restricted area" has a specific meaning in the US. It is specific
> airspace which has special restrictions applied beyond those found in
> normal airspace. On a sectional you will find restricted airspace to be
> designated using a solid blue border with perpendicular blue dashes
> pointing toward the inside. For an example, pull up NHK on skyvector.com.

Indeed I think there's confusion between the linguistical significance
of "restricted" and the more strict interpretation in aviation
regulations. For this once, though, I believe the term stems from ICAO
terminology and thus isn't limited to the USA.

[Flaps_50!]

On Sep 12, 3:30*am, wrote:
> Flaps_50! > wrote:
> > On Sep 11, 11:15*am, wrote:
> >> BeechSundowner > wrote:
> >> > On Sep 10, 5:35*pm, "Flaps_50!" > wrote:
>
> >> >> No, the victors are restricted airspace for aerobatics. Have another
> >> >> look at the sectional.
>
> >> > Before you continue to embarrass yourself, do you know the dimensions
> >> > of a victor airway?
>
> >> > Hint one, they don't put practice areas in victor airways.
>
> >> He has no clue what the word "restricted" means.
>
> > I'm looking at this sectional
>
> >http://skyvector.com/#52-28-3-4391-3470
>
> > About 10 miles NE of KJAN I see class C,E and a Victor. The next
> > Victor centerline is 18m NE. *Is this wrong?
>
> What has this to do with your total lack of understanding of the terms
> "restricted" and "designated practice area"?
>

I think you had a comprehension problem leading to your confusion
between retricted area and the topic of my post which was restricted
airspace. That's OK I understand your problem and it is quite common
in some personality types.

Cheers

[Flaps_50!]

On Sep 12, 2:26*am, BeechSundowner > wrote:
> On Sep 11, 3:12*am, "Flaps_50!" > wrote:
>
> > How patronising. Your stated location "10m NE of KJAN" seems to be
> > within 4 miles of the centerline of a Victor and since you were at
> > 4000' are you maintaining that aerobatics are allowed there?
>
> I was in a designated practice area. *While you may think I was
> conducting aerobatics, even if I was, it was within legal airspace
> confines. *Next you will tell me they allow practice areas to be place
> in areas to terrorize airways near them. I will say I was well clear
> of the outer shelf of Charlie, so my distance most likely was further
> NE. *Try to use some common sense if you have any.
>
> BTW, the 10 miles you should know is an approximate so you knew where
> to look on the sectional. *One minutes flight takes me 2 miles. *I am
> also based near a VOR with converging airways so other then proving
> your point I was near airways, I was in a designated practice area
> where abrupt flight maneuvers are expected.
>
> Oh yeah, so if I do a power on stall that exceeds 30 degrees pitch up,
> do you call that aerobatics? *That's not a normal flight pitch? *I got
> bunches of videos of these posted flown in the same practice area. *I
> bet you will avoid this question.
>
> Oh yeah, power off stalls, when the nose pitches down more then 30
> degrees. *Are you going to call that aerobatics? *I got bunches of
> videos of these posted flown in the same practice area and I bet you
> will avoid this question too.
>
> This maneuver I performed is no different then stalls, it was a flight
> maneuver to enhance my safety should a mid air be imminent.
>
> I think I had enough of feeding your trolling characteristics
> regarding the legality of this video *The video speaks for itself
> regarding legality and like I said, I called my local FSDO and they
> said I was within the legal FAA parameters based on what he heard from
> me so no need to further respond to you regarding the legality of this
> video.

Hey, I'm not the FAA and I really don't care what you do -except when
you portray it as something to be tried by others who are not also
encouraged to see training before experimenting with their aircraft. I
hope that you've learnt something from our discussion, but I'll not
expect you to be so magnanimous that you can admit it. I

You might also like to know that stalling is not the same as the
manoever you entered and carries lower exercise risk from the training
a student pilot receives -particlarly the wing drop and incipient
spin. The manouver you carried out is entry to a spiral dive and that
carries much greater risk for inexperienced pilots (such as yourself).
As I said, I recommend you go and take some lessons with an aerobatics
instructor it will improve your skills and you my enjoy it.

My 2c

Cheers

[Flaps_50!]

On Sep 12, 3:48*am, jan olieslagers >
wrote:
> Mike Ash schreef:
>
> > The flight of aircraft is "subject to restrictions" everywhere within
> > the US and most other countries. For example, can't PIC without a valid
> > pilot's certificate. Can't fly inside clouds while VFR. Do these
> > restrictions make the whole country a "restricted area"? Of course not!
>
> > "Restricted area" has a specific meaning in the US. It is specific
> > airspace which has special restrictions applied beyond those found in
> > normal airspace. On a sectional you will find restricted airspace to be
> > designated using a solid blue border with perpendicular blue dashes
> > pointing toward the inside. For an example, pull up NHK on skyvector.com.
>
> Indeed I think there's confusion between the linguistical significance
> of "restricted" and the more strict interpretation in aviation
> regulations. For this once, though, I believe the term stems from ICAO
> terminology and thus isn't limited to the USA.

A agree, area implies a ground reference. Airspace is often
restricted from certain actvities outside normal flight.

Cheers

[Flaps_50!]

On Sep 12, 3:45*am, wrote:
> Flaps_50! > wrote:
> > On Sep 11, 11:15*am, wrote:
> >> Flaps_50! > wrote:
> >> > On Sep 8, 3:15*pm, wrote:
> >> >> BeechSundowner > wrote:
> >> >> > On Sep 7, 10:04*am, "Flaps_50!" > wrote:
>
> >> >> >> Nope, but I can see lots of restricted airspace and victors so where
> >> >> >> is this NE training area exactly?
>
> >> >> > 10 NE of KJAN per my post to you. *If you see **lots(( of restricted
> >> >> > airspace around KJAN, you need more lessons on reading sectionals..
>
> >> >> Sounds to me like someone needs an extensive review of air space and
> >> >> how to read sectionals at their next flight review.
>
> >> >> The closest restricted area to KJAN I could find was about 70 nm away.
>
> >> > No, the victors are restricted airspace for aerobatics. Have another
> >> > look at the sectional.
>
> >> > Cheers
>
> >> I said "restricted area".
>
> >> You are blithering idiot.
>
> > Ok, look at this sectional and what do you see 10 miles NE of KJAN?
>
> >http://skyvector.com/#52-28-3-4391-3470
>
> > My question is, are aerobatics normally allowed in that location?
>
> > I'd say no, but if I'm wrong I'd like to know why (being a 'blithering
> > idiot').
>
> The question is irrelevant as no one was doing "aerobatics" in the area.
>

That conclusion is at varience with that of others.

> There are no restricted areas anywhere in that area.
>

You keep going back to that point, but you are the only one talking
bout restricted areas while I was talking about airspace.

> You are a blithering idiot because in spite of being told the definitions
> of "aerobatics", "restricted area", and "designated practice area" you
> continue to babble on.
>

Listening is an important part of learning. If you think others with
other POVs are simply babbling you miss the point of communication.
I've learnt something from this conversation and I hope you have too.

Cheers

[[email protected]]

Flaps_50! > wrote:
> On Sep 12, 3:30Â*am, wrote:
>> Flaps_50! > wrote:
>> > On Sep 11, 11:15Â*am, wrote:
>> >> BeechSundowner > wrote:
>> >> > On Sep 10, 5:35Â*pm, "Flaps_50!" > wrote:
>>
>> >> >> No, the victors are restricted airspace for aerobatics. Have another
>> >> >> look at the sectional.
>>
>> >> > Before you continue to embarrass yourself, do you know the dimensions
>> >> > of a victor airway?
>>
>> >> > Hint one, they don't put practice areas in victor airways.
>>
>> >> He has no clue what the word "restricted" means.
>>
>> > I'm looking at this sectional
>>
>> >http://skyvector.com/#52-28-3-4391-3470
>>
>> > About 10 miles NE of KJAN I see class C,E and a Victor. The next
>> > Victor centerline is 18m NE. Â*Is this wrong?
>>
>> What has this to do with your total lack of understanding of the terms
>> "restricted" and "designated practice area"?
>>
>
> I think you had a comprehension problem leading to your confusion
> between retricted area and the topic of my post which was restricted
> airspace. That's OK I understand your problem and it is quite common
> in some personality types.

You haven't a clue what the phrase "restricted airspace" means.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Flaps_50!]

On Sep 12, 2:26*am, BeechSundowner > wrote:
> On Sep 11, 3:12*am, "Flaps_50!" > wrote:
>
> > How patronising. Your stated location "10m NE of KJAN" seems to be
> > within 4 miles of the centerline of a Victor and since you were at
> > 4000' are you maintaining that aerobatics are allowed there?
>
> I was in a designated practice area. *While you may think I was
> conducting aerobatics, even if I was, it was within legal airspace
> confines. *Next you will tell me they allow practice areas to be place
> in areas to terrorize airways near them. I will say I was well clear
> of the outer shelf of Charlie, so my distance most likely was further
> NE. *Try to use some common sense if you have any.
>

Well it was you who told me too look at the sectional and gave an
exact location. So i did. Yet strangely you now say that I need to
guess where your were becuase your could not have been breaking any
regs? Shessh. Like i said, a lesson in human factors and possibly air
nav. I can't help wonder if you understand how the lessons on why
'human factors' may lead to dangerous flying apply to everyone,
including yourself? This is not a criticism but thoughtful advice. As
I said, I don't want you to have an accident and I enjoy your
enthusiasm for flying. But if you do or say something unwise listen to
the other POV and take it on board. It's good pilotage. Good luck.

Anyway, I think this conversation is over.

Cheers

[[email protected]]

Flaps_50! > wrote:
> On Sep 12, 3:45Â*am, wrote:
>> Flaps_50! > wrote:
>> > On Sep 11, 11:15Â*am, wrote:
>> >> Flaps_50! > wrote:
>> >> > On Sep 8, 3:15Â*pm, wrote:
>> >> >> BeechSundowner > wrote:
>> >> >> > On Sep 7, 10:04Â*am, "Flaps_50!" > wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >> Nope, but I can see lots of restricted airspace and victors so where
>> >> >> >> is this NE training area exactly?
>>
>> >> >> > 10 NE of KJAN per my post to you. Â*If you see **lots(( of restricted
>> >> >> > airspace around KJAN, you need more lessons on reading sectionals.
>>
>> >> >> Sounds to me like someone needs an extensive review of air space and
>> >> >> how to read sectionals at their next flight review.
>>
>> >> >> The closest restricted area to KJAN I could find was about 70 nm away.
>>
>> >> > No, the victors are restricted airspace for aerobatics. Have another
>> >> > look at the sectional.
>>
>> >> > Cheers
>>
>> >> I said "restricted area".
>>
>> >> You are blithering idiot.
>>
>> > Ok, look at this sectional and what do you see 10 miles NE of KJAN?
>>
>> >http://skyvector.com/#52-28-3-4391-3470
>>
>> > My question is, are aerobatics normally allowed in that location?
>>
>> > I'd say no, but if I'm wrong I'd like to know why (being a 'blithering
>> > idiot').
>>
>> The question is irrelevant as no one was doing "aerobatics" in the area.
>>
>
> That conclusion is at varience with that of others.
>
>> There are no restricted areas anywhere in that area.
>>
>
> You keep going back to that point, but you are the only one talking
> bout restricted areas while I was talking about airspace.

http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/ATpubs/AIM/Chap3/aim0304.html

Search for the term "restricted airspace".

Note that the term is only used in conjunction with a restricted area.

<snip babble>


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[BeechSundowner]

On Sep 11, 2:58*pm, "Flaps_50!" > wrote:

> Hey, I'm not the FAA and I really don't care what you do -except when
> you portray it as something to be tried by others

Uh, TRY AGAIN????? Show me where I portray this, ANYWHERE!! Come on
now, back your words up with substance here. Show me where I
portrayed this that others should try this maneuver.

I bet you won't find anything and you just talking crap because you
can't post a right answer.

Dayem, you damn near talk the crap Mx does with equal reading
comprehension problems. You quote an incorrect FARS, incorrectly
comprehend FARS based on your responses , accuse me of busting FARS
and now this???? You really are a TROLL.

[Mike Ash]

In article
>,
"Flaps_50!" > wrote:

> On Sep 12, 3:48*am, jan olieslagers >
> wrote:
> > Mike Ash schreef:
> >
> > > The flight of aircraft is "subject to restrictions" everywhere within
> > > the US and most other countries. For example, can't PIC without a valid
> > > pilot's certificate. Can't fly inside clouds while VFR. Do these
> > > restrictions make the whole country a "restricted area"? Of course not!
> >
> > > "Restricted area" has a specific meaning in the US. It is specific
> > > airspace which has special restrictions applied beyond those found in
> > > normal airspace. On a sectional you will find restricted airspace to be
> > > designated using a solid blue border with perpendicular blue dashes
> > > pointing toward the inside. For an example, pull up NHK on skyvector.com.
> >
> > Indeed I think there's confusion between the linguistical significance
> > of "restricted" and the more strict interpretation in aviation
> > regulations. For this once, though, I believe the term stems from ICAO
> > terminology and thus isn't limited to the USA.
>
> A agree, area implies a ground reference. Airspace is often
> restricted from certain actvities outside normal flight.

I did not say that "area implies a ground reference". I said that
restricted airspace is a specifically designated type of airspace by the
FAA in the United States. A restricted area is synonymous with an area
of restricted airspace.

Let me put this as simply as I possibly can: restricted area, and
restricted airspace, when in the context of aviation in the US, mean a
specific type of airspace designated as "restricted" by the FAA. This
airspace has a special designation on sectional charts. Class A, B, C,
D, E, and G airspaces are not restricted airspaces. Victor airways are
not restricted airspace. There is no restricted airspace anywhere near
KJAN.

You want to discuss "airspace where aerobatic flight is restricted" then
go for it, but USE A DIFFERENT TERM FOR IT.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

[Morgans[_2_]]

> wrote

> He has no clue what the word "restricted" means.

He has no idea about how to read a sectional.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

"BeechSundowner" > wrote
>
> Dayem, you damn near talk the crap Mx does with equal reading
> comprehension problems. You quote an incorrect FARS, incorrectly
> comprehend FARS based on your responses , accuse me of busting FARS
> and now this???? You really are a TROLL.

Are you sure he is _NOT_ MX back to haunt us under a new screen name?

I'm not.

I stand by my earlier troll alert. Others should turn their alert on, also.
--
Jim in NC

[Flaps_50!]

On Sep 12, 9:34*am, BeechSundowner > wrote:
> On Sep 11, 2:58*pm, "Flaps_50!" > wrote:
>
> > Hey, I'm not the FAA and I really don't care what you do -except when
> > you portray it as something to be tried by others
>
> Uh, TRY AGAIN????? *Show me where I portray this, ANYWHERE!! *Come on
> now, back your words up with substance here. *Show me where I
> portrayed this that others should try this maneuver.
>

To rec aviation student:

"Had never done an emergency descent with banking as a tool. It was
suggested to me to try this with a 90 degree bank.
Very interesting experience as it really works and works quickly! I
tried 2 without banking and 2 with banking of which the video
contains
one of each. "

To which I said No, don't do this unless you get some training
because its entering a spiral dive.

Since you can't accept my POV there's no point to further discussion.
Although I am not a 'troll' as you assert in yet another ad hominem, I
have found your style to be quite distasteful and frankly chest
thumping. Not a good MO for those that aspire to be good pilots.

Bye.

[BeechSundowner]

On Sep 11, 10:18*pm, "Flaps_50!" > wrote:
> On Sep 12, 9:34*am, BeechSundowner > wrote:
>
> > On Sep 11, 2:58*pm, "Flaps_50!" > wrote:
>
> > > Hey, I'm not the FAA and I really don't care what you do -except when
> > > you portray it as something to be tried by others
>
> > Uh, TRY AGAIN????? *Show me where I portray this, ANYWHERE!! *Come on
> > now, back your words up with substance here. *Show me where I
> > portrayed this that others should try this maneuver.
>
> To rec aviation student:
>
> "Had never done an emergency descent with banking as a tool. *It was
> suggested to me to try this with a 90 degree bank.
> Very interesting experience as it really works and works quickly! *I
> tried 2 without banking and 2 with banking of which the video
> contains
> one of each. "
>
> To which I said *No, don't do this unless you get some training
> because its entering a spiral dive.
>
> Since you can't accept my POV there's no point to further discussion.
> Although I am not a 'troll' as you assert in yet another ad hominem, I
> have found your style to be quite distasteful and frankly chest
> thumping. Not a good MO for those that aspire to be good pilots.
>
> Bye.

You still failed to prove your point. Nowhere did I say try to try
this maneuver or suggest it. I described my experiences and results
of my experiences which further substantiates you have a serious
reading comprehension problem.

Oh BTW, your POV has been WRONG on almost every count from FARS
interpretation, airspace interpretation to saying I busted FARS so why
in the world would I even consider youg POV????

It would be better for you if you don't let the door hit you in your
ass on your way out rather then continue trolling :-)))

BBBBBYEEEEEE

[[email protected]]

BeechSundowner > wrote:
> On Sep 11, 10:18Â*pm, "Flaps_50!" > wrote:
>> On Sep 12, 9:34Â*am, BeechSundowner > wrote:
>>
>> > On Sep 11, 2:58Â*pm, "Flaps_50!" > wrote:
>>
>> > > Hey, I'm not the FAA and I really don't care what you do -except when
>> > > you portray it as something to be tried by others
>>
>> > Uh, TRY AGAIN????? Â*Show me where I portray this, ANYWHERE!! Â*Come on
>> > now, back your words up with substance here. Â*Show me where I
>> > portrayed this that others should try this maneuver.
>>
>> To rec aviation student:
>>
>> "Had never done an emergency descent with banking as a tool. Â*It was
>> suggested to me to try this with a 90 degree bank.
>> Very interesting experience as it really works and works quickly! Â*I
>> tried 2 without banking and 2 with banking of which the video
>> contains
>> one of each. "
>>
>> To which I said Â*No, don't do this unless you get some training
>> because its entering a spiral dive.
>>
>> Since you can't accept my POV there's no point to further discussion.
>> Although I am not a 'troll' as you assert in yet another ad hominem, I
>> have found your style to be quite distasteful and frankly chest
>> thumping. Not a good MO for those that aspire to be good pilots.
>>
>> Bye.
>
> You still failed to prove your point. Nowhere did I say try to try
> this maneuver or suggest it. I described my experiences and results
> of my experiences which further substantiates you have a serious
> reading comprehension problem.
>
> Oh BTW, your POV has been WRONG on almost every count from FARS
> interpretation, airspace interpretation to saying I busted FARS so why
> in the world would I even consider youg POV????
>
> It would be better for you if you don't let the door hit you in your
> ass on your way out rather then continue trolling :-)))
>
> BBBBBYEEEEEE

What I would like to know is what is wrong with being in a spiral dive
when you know you are in one?

The problem with a spiral dive when you don't know you're in one is obvious.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.