Is a roll that big of a deal?

[Hacker15e]

I was under the impression that military can do whatever they want, FAA rules don't apply to them. I know that when I was at SLC in a small plane there were some F-22's that were taking off out of SLC. The ATC asked them if they were going to stay within the regulated speed and the pilot responded he wouldn't go more than 100 over it. I was told that the ATC can't tell the military what they can and can't do. However, if the pilots get a major report from an ATC sent to their CO, they could be in trouble. Is that correct or am I wrong?

No, that is false. But the real answer isn't quite so simple:

You are correct that military pilots do not follow FAA regulations. BUT military flying regulations closely follow the 14 CFR rules, and are written (negotiated) with the FAA's direct involvement. While a military pilot (who does not operate with an FAA license) does not fall directly under FAA regulations, he DOES have to abide by the military regs (again, which closely mirror FAA rules and are negotiated with the FAA).

Sometimes the military flying rules are more restrictive than the FAA, and sometimes they are less restrictive. But always they are a product of an agreement with the FAA, since we all share the same airspace.

With respect to the airspeed, there is a specific Letter of Agreement between the DoD and the FAA for airspeed limit waivers for many types of aircraft. The LOA is because some aircraft have minimum safe airspeeds mandated by technical order that are faster than the FAA limit of 250 below 10K. In the F-15E, that waivered limit is usually 300 knots. For some other aircraft (like the Raptor) the waivered limit is 350 knots. So, the fast jets are not immune to following rules, they're simply operating by a different (but still specific) set of limitations.

So, military jets have to "play well with others" -- we have to follow ATC direction just like everyone else. Some areas, however, we have slightly different limitations.

 

[tgrayson]

does not fall directly under FAA regulations

Why do the FARs contain numerous exemptions for military aircraft if those regulations aren't binding on military aircraft?

 

[SteveC]

Utility category can go to 90. Load factor limits would prevent a sustained level bank past about 75 degrees.

Fixed it, I think.

 

[BobDDuck]

Why do the FARs contain numerous exemptions for military aircraft if those regulations aren't binding on military aircraft?

Because civilian and military regs are essentially the exact opposite of each other. The FARs pretty much allow you to do anything except what they prohibit. A whole bunch of "thou shalt nots". If it doesn't say you can't, you are welcome to do it (hence the whole discussion about rolls we are having here). Military regs on the other hand allow for actions to occure. They are written in the form of "thou shall..." If it doesn't specifically allow you to do it, as a military pilot, you can't.

Now the part where I'm (sort of) guessing...

There are many instances that aren't coverd in the permissible nature of the military regs so in those cases civilian rules apply to the airspace operations. Hence the expemptions being needed.

All of this was explained to me by an F16 guy so believe it at your own risk I guess. Crazy single engine flyboys.

 

[Hacker15e]

Why do the FARs contain numerous exemptions for military aircraft if those regulations aren't binding on military aircraft?

I didn't say they weren't binding...I said that military flight does not directly fall under the FARs.

Again, it is a negotiated deal between the FAA and the DoD. I can't tell you why 14 CFR reads the way it does -- how that agreement gets translated into the FAA regs is well beyond my knowledge level.

 

[tgrayson]

Fixed it, I think.

No, you damaged it. It was correct as stated. A sustained, descending 2-g turn will generate pretty much 2-gs. There is a slight reduction, only because a component of drag will replace some of the necessary lift. You can calculate the load factor in a descending turn by the formula

n=cos(descent angle)/cos(bank angle).
​

So if you were descending at even a steep 10 degree angle, a bank of 60 degrees would generate a load factor of 1.97, which is pretty close to 2.

 

[Hacker15e]

For the curious, here is a scan of one page of the LOA for airspeeds. It's a total of two pages, and there is an extensive USAF attachment to the letter that outlines the specific speeds allowed for each aircraft.

 

[Hacker15e]

Military regs on the other hand allow for actions to occure. They are written in the form of "thou shall..." If it doesn't specifically allow you to do it, as a military pilot, you can't.

Well, that is "sort of" true. It is often explained that way for simplicity, but it doesn't reflect the true nature of how those regulations read.

You can check them out for yourself...this is the primary basic flying regulation for the USAF, AFI 11-202 Vol 3, General Flying Rules:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...cQ0no39aub_yod5CA&sig2=ejwI_K-tPjNqfi3y2F3PZQ

 

[USMC-SSGT]

I cant believe this thread has gone on this long... I know a thing or two about aerobatics and its pretty cut and dry.

If you are not trained (trained, not a fun flight or a 4 hour course) DO NOT ATTEMPT ANY AEROBATICS WITHOUT A QUALIFIED PILOT...EVER

If you are trained do not try aerobatics to ANY extent in a non aerobatic aircraft.

Can a cessna physically do an IAC routine? Yes it can physically handle most of the maneuvers up to sportsman if you are skilled and can keep it under the physical load limits which is not that simple on most manuevers. It is a matter of safety and not for you, I could care less if a renter tears the wings off the plane and kills themselves it is the private pilot that takes his girlfriend flying after his checkride and the wings fall off in light turbulence because of stress that worries me.

kids these days

 

[tgrayson]

I didn't say they weren't binding...I said that military flight does not directly fall under the FARs.

Same thing. Section 1 in 14 CFR Part 91 says these rules apply to aircraft operating in the United States airspace. It doesn't say "civilian" aircraft. If there is an exemption, it must appear in the regulations somewhere, don't you think?

However, 14 CFR 91.903 contains a list of rules subject to waivers, so the FAA clearly has the authority to issue waivers of some regulations, so perhaps this is where the FAA may grant exemptions to military aircraft.

 

[tgrayson]

However, 14 CFR 91.903 contains a list of rules subject to waivers, so the FAA clearly has the authority to issue waivers of some regulations, so perhaps this is where the FAA may grant exemptions to military aircraft.

For the curious, here is a scan of one page of the LOA for airspeeds.

Ok, that answers that. Thanks.

 

[Hacker15e]

Same thing. Section 1 in 14 CFR Part 91 says these rules apply to aircraft operating in the United States airspace. It doesn't say "civilian" aircraft. If there is an exemption, it must appear in the regulations somewhere, don't you think?

However, 14 CFR 91.903 contains a list of rules subject to waivers, so the FAA clearly has the authority to issue waivers of some regulations, so perhaps this is where the FAA may grant exemptions to military aircraft.

Mil pilots do not hold FAA certificates. Military aircraft do not have N numbers and are not registered with the FAA.

You probably won't find anything in the CFR allowing deviations in those two areas, either.

 

[SteveC]

No, you damaged it. It was correct as stated. A sustained, descending 2-g turn will generate pretty much 2-gs. There is a slight reduction, only because a component of drag will replace some of the necessary lift. You can calculate the load factor in a descending turn by the formula

n=cos(descent angle)/cos(bank angle).
​

So if you were descending at even a steep 10 degree angle, a bank of 60 degrees would generate a load factor of 1.97, which is pretty close to 2.

I guess I use "sustained" differently(?). I would consider a "sustained" 75 degree turn as simply keeping the bank angle constant, with no regard to descent angle. To my way of thinking it doesn't have anything to do with applying back pressure, which is what is needed to load up the g's and limits the rate of descent (even in a "steep" (?) 10 degree descent). I use that maneuver in the sim when doing unusual attitude recovery from nose-high, slow airspeed situations - hold or increase the bank angle and let the nose fall through without loading any g's. Wouldn't want to do that for very long though.

As usual, "my way of thinking" is always suspect, so I'll gladly accept your definition as the right one. Just wanted to put my thoughts on the line. :bandit:

 

[tonyw]

You know what, go ahead and roll that plane. Do it not just once, but twice, three times, and do it for an hour straight.

When you turn the plane into a lawn dart, it'll prove Darwin right.

Just make sure you don't take anyone else up with you. Or maybe they will help prove Darwin right as well.

 

[jhugz]

kids these days

I resent that sir. One bad apple...:crazy:

 

[TurdBird]

Three weeks ago I had the chance to go log some multi time dropping meat missles with a friend. Growing up we both knew we wanted to do the whole flying thing. He ended up doing the whole airline thing and I went my way. Now he is back dropping meat missles. I fully trust my life with him. That's why with no hesitation I jumped in the plane with him for some fun. Once the last jumper jumped, he put the twin otter into one of the biggest rolls I have ever done. From there we went into numerous spins. After pulling a few G's to get out of it I asked him not to do it again. He asked, "don't you trust me"? I told him of course I do. I told him I don't trust the plane and what we can't see within. All I could think of was how bad it's gonna suck when a wing rips off and we ride this thing to the ground in a spin. And that was in the all mighty twin we can pack this thing to the rim and loose an engine on climbout and still be fine otter.

Yea, you might be able to do a roll/spin. No matter how good you are at them, you're not gonna be good enough to fly a one wing plane. The plane might be trustworthy and all but all you need is that one crack and a few G's and now you have a disaster.

Moving on... it's such a rush rolling the state's planes.

 

[USMC-SSGT]

Five 0. Your friend is a mental case and unless he was trained by Bob Hoover himself he probably does not have a long aviation career ahead of him.

Rolling a twin otter!? Spinning a twin!? He has officially lost his mind. This does not even touch upon the probability of an engine failure. That plane is a mack truck but he may find himself the subject of an NTSB someday and probably sooner than later.

 

[surreal1221]

Oh no. . rolling an airplane is no big deal.

Go ahead. . .knock your socks off.

Especially if you can live with yourself after the next renter takes it out and for some magical reason it is overstressed doing turns around a point at 1500ft AGL.

Smoking Hole meet ground.

How people can be reckless in a craft that someone else is going to be flying later is just simply amazing. And to think, some of these people end up flying with paying passengers in the back. :banghead:

 

[TurdBird]

Five 0. Your friend is a mental case and unless he was trained by Bob Hoover himself he probably does not have a long aviation career ahead of him.

Rolling a twin otter!? Spinning a twin!? He has officially lost his mind. This does not even touch upon the probability of an engine failure. That plane is a mack truck but he may find himself the subject of an NTSB someday and probably sooner than later.

Best part of it... I have videos and pictures of us doing the whole thing.

 

[surreal1221]

Oh nice. . .you gonna be putting them up on Youtube to show the world?