Aerobatics and Federal Airways

Adrock

Adrock

Well-Known Member
Is it a misnomer that flight training maneuvers are considered aerobatic maneuvers? If stalls and other flight training maneuvers were considered aerobatic maneuvers then they would be prohibited within 4nm of the centerline of an airway. One would have to fly tens of miles to be clear of this restriction where I live and in some parts of the country these maneuvers might be impossible to perform due to the congestion of the airspace and abundance of VORs and Airways. It seems to me that flight training maneuvers are “necessary for normal flight” and therefore not aerobatic. Maybe the idea that they are aerobatic comes from the PTS standards that require they be completed above 1500’AGL—simply a figure that is coincidental to one of the aerobatic flight requirements. Any thoughts?
 
z987k said:
They are no where near aerobatic. lol. Where did you get the notion they were?
Click to expand...

I think it comes from an abundance of caution given the open-endedness of words in 91.303 that defines aerobatic maneuvers as maneuvers not “necessary” for “normal” flight. There have been a few cases of pilots doing flybys and turns steeper than 60degrees that have had suspensions. Here’s a NTSB case http://www.ntsb.gov/legal/o_n_o/docs/Aviation/4784.pdf
 
I would imagine that the FAA keeps it vague so they can cover their bases if an accident happens. So even if you agree a fly-by is aerobatic is "playing in ground effect" to demonstrate flying charateristics to a student aerobatic? The FAA might think so if you crashed while you were doing it.
 
here the accusation is that a pilot of a king air exceeded 45 degree bank was performing aerobatics because these maneuvers were not necessary for "normal" flight. Enforcement action was brought against him. He won his case against the FAA and is trying to get someone to pay the lawyer bills here. Just goes to show you that the FAA doesn't even know what the mean. http://www.ntsb.gov/legal/o_n_o/docs/Aviation/4784.pdf​


OPINION AND ORDER
The applicant has appealed from the March 19, 1999 decision
and order of Chief Administrative Law Judge William E. Fowler,
Jr., that denied applicant’s Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA),
5 USC § 504 application for attorney’s fees and expenses.1 The
Administrator has filed a brief in reply, urging the Board to
affirm the law judge's initial decision. For the reasons
discussed below, applicant's appeal is denied and the initial​

1
​
​
A copy of the decision is attached.

2
decision is affirmed.
The underlying order in this case alleged violations of
Sections 91.13(a), 91.303(d), and 91.9(a) of the Federal Aviation
Regulations (FAR), 14 C.F.R. Part 91. Applicant was alleged to
have performed aerobatic maneuvers in a Beechcraft King Air
aircraft after discharging parachutists, within four nautical
miles of the center line of a Federal airway, and contrary to the
operating limitations of that aircraft. The complaint arose out
of the observation of applicant's maneuvers by an FAA inspector
who happened to be at the airport while not on official duty.
The inspector's observation of applicant's seemingly aggressive
maneuvers, including bank angles exceeding 45 degrees, led him to
believe that applicant's operation was not necessary for "normal"​


flight.​
 
Adrock said:
here the accusation is that a pilot of a king air exceeded 45 degree bank was performing aerobatics because these maneuvers were not necessary for "normal" flight. Enforcement action was brought against him. He won his case against the FAA and is trying to get someone to pay the lawyer bills here. Just goes to show you that the FAA doesn't even know what the mean. http://www.ntsb.gov/legal/o_n_o/docs/Aviation/4784.pdf​






OPINION AND ORDER
The applicant has appealed from the March 19, 1999 decision
and order of Chief Administrative Law Judge William E. Fowler,
Jr., that denied applicant’s Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA),
5 USC § 504 application for attorney’s fees and expenses.1 The
Administrator has filed a brief in reply, urging the Board to
affirm the law judge's initial decision. For the reasons
discussed below, applicant's appeal is denied and the initial​

1


A copy of the decision is attached.​

2​

decision is affirmed.​

The underlying order in this case alleged violations of​

Sections 91.13(a), 91.303(d), and 91.9(a) of the Federal Aviation

Regulations (FAR), 14 C.F.R. Part 91. Applicant was alleged to
have performed aerobatic maneuvers in a Beechcraft King Air
aircraft after discharging parachutists, within four nautical
miles of the center line of a Federal airway, and contrary to the
operating limitations of that aircraft. The complaint arose out
of the observation of applicant's maneuvers by an FAA inspector
who happened to be at the airport while not on official duty.
The inspector's observation of applicant's seemingly aggressive
maneuvers, including bank angles exceeding 45 degrees, led him to
believe that applicant's operation was not necessary for "normal"​










flight.​
Click to expand...


Perhaps I did not read with enough care and just missed it. Could you point out exactly where you see that "He" (meaning the pilot) won his case. Thanks.
 
Adrock said:
Just goes to show you that the FAA doesn't even know what the (sic) mean.
Click to expand...

From reading the case, I do not get that same interpretation. The FAA prevailed in front of the Administrative Law Judge. On appeal before the full NTSB, the pilot's attorney made various arguments. All of his arguments were rejected except one. The one that was accepted was that the subjective nature of what constituted aerobatics in various operations was not addressed by the FAA. In this specific case, it was what is "normal" for a skydiving operation. The NTSB also indicated that they were not saying it was not aerobatic as defined in the regulations, but rather that they were saying the FAA lawyer who presented the case failed to address the uniqueness of the operation. Although the pilot avoided enforcement in this case, I would hate to go into court hoping for a similar outcome.
 
Guy said:
From reading the case, I do not get that same interpretation. The FAA prevailed in front of the Administrative Law Judge. On appeal before the full NTSB, the pilot's attorney made various arguments. All of his arguments were rejected except one. The one that was accepted was that the subjective nature of what constituted aerobatics in various operations was not addressed by the FAA. In this specific case, it was what is "normal" for a skydiving operation. The NTSB also indicated that they were not saying it was not aerobatic as defined in the regulations, but rather that they were saying the FAA lawyer who presented the case failed to address the uniqueness of the operation. Although the pilot avoided enforcement in this case, I would hate to go into court hoping for a similar outcome.
Click to expand...

No Doubt, I would never bet on lucking out like this guy. That is the purpose of my original post: What constitutes Aerobatic Maneuvers is not well defined, and perhaps one could be busted for duing routine private pilot maneuvers close to an airway.
 
Adrock said:
No Doubt, I would never bet on lucking out like this guy. That is the purpose of my original post: What constitutes Aerobatic Maneuvers is not well defined, and perhaps one could be busted for duing routine private pilot maneuvers close to an airway.
Click to expand...

I agree. However, there truly is a degree of reasonability that goes into enforcements. You wouldn't know that from listening to a lot of stories from the person receiving the enforcement, but when you dig into it a bit you find there is always more to the story.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top