Citation Roll

[mshunter]

You can't tell for sure whether the maneuver is approved, or not. Highly likely not approved, but until you have definitive proof, I believe that the US Constitution applies.... "presumed innocent until proven guilty". I will presume the individual, or individuals, are in compliance with applicable FARs, until someone proves me otherwise.

Very very poor argument.

I'll start with this one.

91.13 Careless or reckless operation.

Not knowing the airplanes location, it could also be subject to 91.303, because that was not a normal flight attitude.


There have been people who have ripped wings off of airplanes. And this guy looks like he came close. Listen to the throttles get chopped, and the nose down pitch attitude after completion of the roll. Can it be done, sure. Any airplane can be rolled, once.

 

[Inverted25]

But there are plenty of regs that can be thrown at this one. I have been to an NTSB hearing where a friends certificate was emergency revoked for climbing in an Extra300 at a 35-45 deg angle, because it was "carless and reckless" and "aerobatic."

There no way this is the entire story. I'm guessing your friend did this somewhere that he was not supposed to. The regs are very clear where you allowed to do aerobatic maneuevers. They are also very clear as to where the pitch (30+ degrees) and roll limits (60+ degrees) are when it becomes aerobatic as well. If he was above 3000 feet and not within 5 miles of a airway and not over a congested area I'm sure that there would be no issue with him climbing out at 35-45 degs. Just because the airplane can safety do it on takeoff doesnt make it legal unless you have a approved aerobatic box and you have it hot at that time.



Back to the thread though. I forget who it was, but there was a guy who did airshows in a Lear back in the day. Hes dead now but he son if I remember right still does airshows in a Beech 18.

 

[SteveC]

I'm unaware of the FAR that says you can't roll a Citation II...

Not actually a FAR per se, but you will find a statement just like the one in this training manual in the AFM, which is an FAA approved document outlining the approved aircraft operation:

 

[Sandy]

I'm unaware of the FAR that says you can't roll a Citation II...

14 CFR 91.13(a) is a good starting point.

 

[SteveC]

Not actually a FAR per se, but you will find a statement just like the one in this training manual in the AFM, which is an FAA approved document outlining the approved aircraft operation:

To continue this line of thought:

§ 91.505 Familiarity with operating limitations and emergency equipment.

(a) Each pilot in command of an airplane shall, before beginning a flight, become familiar with the Airplane Flight Manual for that airplane, if one is required, and with any placards, listings, instrument markings, or any combination thereof, containing each operating limitation prescribed for that airplane by the Administrator, including those specified in §91.9(b).

edit to add:
The FAA approved AFM for this transport category aircraft says "Aerobatic maneuvers and spins are prohibited".

 

[mshunter]

There no way this is the entire story. I'm guessing your friend did this somewhere that he was not supposed to. The regs are very clear where you allowed to do aerobatic maneuevers. They are also very clear as to where the pitch (30+ degrees) and roll limits (60+ degrees) are when it becomes aerobatic as well. If he was above 3000 feet and not within 5 miles of a airway and not over a congested area I'm sure that there would be no issue with him climbing out at 35-45 degs. Just because the airplane can safety do it on takeoff doesnt make it legal unless you have a approved aerobatic box and you have it hot at that time.


Back to the thread though. I forget who it was, but there was a guy who did airshows in a Lear back in the day. Hes dead now but he son if I remember right still does airshows in a Beech 18.

Really, where is the FAR that says +60 bank and +30 pitch is aerobatic. See 91.303.

The Fars define aerobatics as

For the purposes of this section, aerobatic flight means an intentional maneuver involving an abrupt change in an aircraft's attitude, an abnormal attitude, or abnormal acceleration, not necessary for normal flight.

And the Yonkins do it on a waiver (Beech18). See 91.905



In My friends hearing, one of the FAA "expert" witnesses said that you fly an Extra 300 the same way as a C-172. They will violate you if they see fit. Had this video shown the tail number, you can gaurentee that this video would no longer be on the internet, and someone would be violated.

BTW, it was Clay Lacy that did the Lear Aerobatics.

 

[SpiceWeasel]

91.13 would not apply in a situation in which the maneuver is pre-approved, as far as I can tell...

however, thanks to SteveC for clearing this up with fact, rather than opinion. Aerobatic maneuvers are prohibited in the aircraft per the AFM. Case closed, dumb pilot, even dumber that the event was filmed.

 

[Inverted25]

Really, where is the FAR that says +60 bank and +30 pitch is aerobatic

Not a FAR thing just what a FAA examiner told me. He said they use that rule for enforcement actions.

They will violate you if they see fit

The FAA cant just take your license because they dont like you. They would have to show that you violated a reg.

BTW, it was Clay Lacy that did the Lear Aerobatics.

I was actually talking bout Bobby Younkin he did aerobatics in a black Lear 23.

 

[MikeD]

edit to add:
The FAA approved AFM for this transport category aircraft says "Aerobatic maneuvers and spins are prohibited".

Makes me chuckle a bit, since the Citation I/II are essentially T-37s that carry pax.

 

[Apophis]

Actually, >60 degrees of bank and/or >30 degrees of pitch are the parameters used for determining whether or not a maneuver requires each occupant to be wearing a parachute (excluding certain maneuvers like spins, in certain training situations):

14 CFR 91.307

(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.

There are instances where a maneuver could be considered aerobatic (per 91.303), and yet not require a parachute to be worn.

 

[Autothrust Blue]

You can't tell for sure whether the maneuver is approved, or not. Highly likely not approved, but until you have definitive proof, I believe that the US Constitution applies.... "presumed innocent until proven guilty". I will presume the individual, or individuals, are in compliance with applicable FARs, until someone proves me otherwise.

Not necessarily. Remember, 14 CFR is administrative law, and it is very much the wild wild west. Normal rules of evidence for administrative hearings do not apply (hearsay is broadly admissible, for one). Title 49 of the United States Code says that flying is a privilege, not a right, and that privilege is subject to the good graces of the Administrator.

See, e.g., FAA Order 2150.3B, at 5-16:

49 U.S.C. § 44709(e) authorizes the Administrator to
make certificate actions immediately effective if the Administrator finds that an emergency
exists and safety in air commerce or air transportation require the order to be effective
immediately. An emergency certificate action immediately deprives the certificate holder of the
right to exercise the privileges of that certificate. The certificate holder may appeal the action to
the NTSB and challenge the agency’s use of its emergency authority. The certificate holder may
not continue to exercise the privileges of that certificate while the appeal is pending unless the
NTSB reverses the emergency nature of the order.

We lead a pretty ephemeral existence.

Frickin' idiots.....I'll never understand why people continue to do this crap in airplanes that aren't supposed to.

Not to make a defense for the pilots (my "callin' FSDO" comment was heavily ) but with proper control inputs, the airplane wouldn't know it was upside down...occupants neither. Not advocating executing this maneuver in a non-certificated airplane...but just sayin'. I'm reminded of a Boeing Flight Test pilot who rolled the Dash 80.

 

[Orange Anchor]

Makes me chuckle a bit, since the Citation I/II are essentially T-37s that carry pax.

 

[jfalco]

How about Mr. Hoover? Think he has them beat.

[video=youtube;9ZBcapxGHjE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZBcapxGHjE[/video]

Ohh yeah, first post. Great forum, looking forward to getting to know you guys.

 

[Alaska45]

What if you are flying a C182 and wearing a parachute. The C182 is a normal certified airplane. Is it then legal to exceed 60 deg bank and 30 deg pitch becuase the pilot is wearing a parachute?

 

[mshunter]

The regs are very clear where you allowed to do aerobatic maneuvers. They are also very clear as to where the pitch (30+ degrees) and roll limits (60+ degrees) are when it becomes aerobatic as well.

Not a FAR thing just what a FAA examiner told me. He said they use that rule for enforcement actions.

The FAA cant just take your license because they don't like you. They would have to show that you violated a reg.

The FAA can do whatever they want if you give them a reason. And historically, the NTSB sides with the FAA, I have seen it first hand. Try and tell me how a C-172 and an Extra300L are similar in any way. Climb a 172 out at 10deg nose up and you hit Vy. Climb an Extra300L at 10deg nose up and you may just hit Vne. That was the argument that the FAA used to bust my friend. He was not climbing at a normal angle (10deg), so it was aerobatic. I think the main reason was because he had his smoke on, and the FED was new, so he was trying to make a name for himself. All you have to do is make them not like you, then they will find a reason. He is a retired Delta CA, with what used to be multiple types, and 20,000+ hours. Now he has just a PPL SEL. He had to re-take his checkride, and he took it in his Extra. Guys have been violated for smoking rivets when they get snippy during a ramp check. Just like a LEO who is crooked, there are Feds that are crooked. Don't give them a reason, and you won't have any problems. It's like every time you drive, there are probably two or three laws you un-knowingly break. If a Fed really wants to,they will find something.

I was actually talking bout Bobby Younkin he did aerobatics in a black Lear 23.

I had forgotten about the Younkins Lear demo's. Way better than what Lacy does. I wonder if the FAA still requires two pilots in that situation?

 

[Apophis]

What if you are flying a C182 and wearing a parachute. The C182 is a normal certified airplane. Is it then legal to exceed 60 deg bank and 30 deg pitch becuase the pilot is wearing a parachute?

Actually, it would be my understanding that this is still an illegal maneuver. Remember the FAA defines an aerobatic maneuver as one that involves any abrubt change in airspeed and/or attitude not necessary for normal flight. I don't think you would be able to convince the FAA that 30 degrees of pitch and/or 60 degrees of bank is "normal" for a C182.

Because the C182 is certified in the normal category, it would not be approved for aerobatic maneuvers (per the AFM/POH), you wouldn't be able to do this. You would also be in violation of 14 CFR 91.9, which prohibits you from operating contrary to the operating limitations established for your aircraft.

Heh, I feel like a lawyer now....

 

[Pilotforhire587]

[video=youtube;hbzwqIxt1q8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbzwqIxt1q8[/video]

I see your Citation and raise it CCR and a 1900.

That was awesome!!!

If you mean posting on the internet, then I agree entirely.​

:yeahthat:

 

[TopGunn]

Here is some more weird

[yt]Enz2YeYI1d0&feature=related[/yt]

 

[SpiceWeasel]

What about aircraft certified in multiple categories?

I seem to remember in the POHs and on placards in cockpits of Cessna piston-singles that they are certified for both normal and utility...

 

[Apophis]

What about aircraft certified in multiple categories?

I seem to remember in the POHs and on placards in cockpits of Cessna piston-singles that they are certified for both normal and utility...

The only C182 version I've flown is the 182RG, and it is only certified in the normal category. Any type of aerobatic maneuvers in that aircraft are contrary to the limitations established in the AFM/POH. I'm not sure about other 182s being certified in the utility category however.

I own a PA28-140, it is certified in both the utility and normal categories. Even in the utility category however, the AFM specifically states, "no inverted maneuvers are approved."