Is a roll that big of a deal?

[JoelT]

I haven't been following the thread too closely but isn't that a bit harsh?

Not in the slightest. When you are a passenger in the back of an airliner would it give you a warm fuzzy if you knew one of the pilots has no problem busting a FAR or aircraft limitation because they think they know better? It's attitudes like that that cause crashes.

 

[MQAAord]

I think you can still be a very good and safe pilot while breaking a regulation every once in a while,

Wouldn't that sound great in an interview? :laff:

 

[Orange Anchor]

I think the point you're trying to make is that if a pilot shows willingness to break one minor regulation, then by using the "slippery slope" argument, they have no regard to legality and therefore safety and accordingly should not barred from flying. I don't agree. I think you can still be a very good and safe pilot while breaking a regulation every once in a while, in the same way you can be a good safe driver while pushing the speed limit every now and again. Now if you're the kind of person who blows through school zones at 80 mph, you're just as bad as a pilot who does split-s's in a king air. That is to say you have bad judgment. Being safe is all about assessing risk, being familiar with your skills, and operating within the realm of your skills.

a bit late to the party but doing 80 in traffic is not a valid comparison to a split S in a kingair.

But more to the point, you are arguing, it seems, that you are the final arbiter as to what is safe and what is not safe. You are electing 'selective compliance' as a mode of operati0n which means you choose when and where you will abide by guidelines. this a a classic picture of a rogue, one who thinks the rules are for everyone else. The rogue justifies his acts by asserting his superiors skills and abilities enable him to do things others can. Your arguments and your comments demonstrate you lack, at this point, any real expertise, at least in aviation. A 'flip'???

the fact remains that unless this is all a ruse, you are a danger to those who fly airplanes you have flown and you are a danger to yourself. Worse yet, you refuse to listen to the experience that is on this board. some learn one way. some learn another way. some don't learn.

 

[butt]

Wow.

You're telling me you've never broken a regulation? You've never fudged weight and balance numbers? You've never flown with cough syrup in your system? I've come to learn over the years that any pilot who claims to have never done some dirt, to be lying.

 

[Lee D]

The stuff that's bold is not illegal, and not violateable depending on the circumstance, but is opinion, and the stuff in red is opinion.

Let's start with the first red one. That's an opinion, if you fly to the same place five times a day, in the same airplane, is your preflight going to be all that involved? No. You're going to do a quick walk walk around, nothings bent, oils good, you're gone. Why? Because at your post flight yesterday you check the airplane out good before you tucked her there's no maintenance in the book, and nobody's clearly backed a forklift into it. A preflights quality is definately something that's subjective. And since its damn near impossible to know all available information pertaining to the flight, all of our preflights probably aren't too legal either.

Number two, that is subjective there, I know plenty of people who's fuel management is "burn a tank dry, if I'm not over half way there its time to divert or turn back." Is constantly switching tanks every 15minutes any better? Your fuel will be balanced, but you'll be sweating when you have 4 gallons in each tank and the gauges are practically on empty.

Bolded #1, what are dangerous conditions? Slick runway? Gravel? Narrow? Up slope? Crosswind? There is no definition of "takeoff into dangerous conditions," who chooses what is dangerous, nobody. Look, I know people who think a 3000' runway is short, its not, and its not dangerous. None of things are dangerous, not even in combination, they only become dangerous when the extent of the variation exceeds the pilot's ability to safely handle them.

Bolded #2, not illegal. There are plenty of times part 91 when I zip back along dodging moose and trees and looking for fish or bears. If you are 500' from persons or property, you are golden. Your reaction time for reacting to an engine failure maybe reduced, but you're really not any less safe providing you maintain clearance with the ground.

As for the others, booze is bad, so is overweight, and that watch thing is rediculous, however, ice happens. Its not something you want, but sometimes even when planned around you can still run into it. Based on where you are at, and knowledge of terrain, it sometimes may be better to keep on truckin than to turn around and fly back through it, try to keep an open mind. By the way, every time I shoot an approach that terminates in a landing I descend below minimums.

These posts that just blanket statement things tend to aggravate me, though I'm guilty as the next guy for posting them. There is more than one way to skin a cat, and vary few things are set in stone. Sleepy time.

I wasnt trying to create a list of things that are simply illegal, rather certain behaviors that tend to get people in to trouble. For lack of desire to type examples I listed things that I have seen that I belive get people into trouble. For example I'm not saying that an inadvertant encounter with ice is reckless. That happens. But someone who takes a non certified plane into known or suspected icing is sticking his neck out.

I have known three pilots who have crash landed because of bad fuel management/planning. (All walked away fortunately.)

I'm with you on the flying low thing. It is a blast and yes it can be done legally and safely. That said, have you ever been a passenger on a plane when the pilot decided to fly less than 10 feet above a frozen lake bed at 185 knots? Low enough that you needed to gain altitude to safely execute a turn and had to pull up to get over the power lines on the shore? I have and it scared the hell out of me. When you have to pull trees out of the landing gear you are flying too low and that is reckless. That's the kind of stuff I am talking about. Not bush flying or back country flying with responsible pilots.

I think we are on the same page with regard to dangerous conditions. I'm talking about things such as people taking off with an obvious gust front bearing down on the field or taking off in a 152 when the cross wind component is 30 knots and gusting, with other aircraft reporting moderate and severe turbulence.

You know what I meant with regard to decending below mins on an approach Mr. Smarty Pants!

 

[butt]

a bit late to the party but doing 80 in traffic is not a valid comparison to a split S in a kingair.

I didn't say "80 in traffic", I said "80 in a school zone", that changes the analogy completely.

But more to the point, you are arguing, it seems, that you are the final arbiter as to what is safe and what is not safe.

No, I am arguing the opposite in fact. You all (referring to the just about everyone posting in this thread) are the ones who are acting as the "final arbitrator" by condemning anyone regardless of skill who dares do a barrel roll as "unsafe". My argument is that with regards to safety, judgment must be withheld, since it is very possible (all though not not necessairly likely) that the maneuver had been done with the proper preparations and safety precautions.

 

[greaper007]

You're telling me you've never broken a regulation? You've never fudged weight and balance numbers? You've never flown with cough syrup in your system? I've come to learn over the years that any pilot who claims to have never done some dirt, to be lying.

I think we've all broken a FAR. The difference is in the intention. Did you break a FAR accidentally, or was there a willful disregard for the rules? I've unintentionally made mistakes especially as a low time pilot, I can't say that I've ever willfully disregarded the rules though.

One thing I always try to keep in mind when flying is something that my dad (who has 25,000+ hours and hundreds of carrier landings) told me when I first started taking lessons. "Whatever airplane you're flying doesn't care how good you are or how many hours you have, it wants to kill you. It doesn't matter if it's me with 25000 hours or you with 10, that airplane will still kill you." With that in mind I always take the conservative approach, even when it makes things difficult for me.

 

[ppragman]

I wasnt trying to create a list of things that are simply illegal, rather certain behaviors that tend to get people in to trouble. For lack of desire to type examples I listed things that I have seen that I belive get people into trouble. For example I'm not saying that an inadvertant encounter with ice is reckless. That happens. But someone who takes a non certified plane into known or suspected icing is sticking his neck out.

I have known three pilots who have crash landed because of bad fuel management/planning. (All walked away fortunately.)

I'm with you on the flying low thing. It is a blast and yes it can be done legally and safely. That said, have you ever been a passenger on a plane when the pilot decided to fly less than 10 feet above a frozen lake bed at 185 knots? Low enough that you needed to gain altitude to safely execute a turn and had to pull up to get over the power lines on the shore? I have and it scared the hell out of me. When you have to pull trees out of the landing gear you are flying too low and that is reckless. That's the kind of stuff I am talking about. Not bush flying or back country flying with responsible pilots.

I think we are on the same page with regard to dangerous conditions. I'm talking about things such as people taking off with an obvious gust front bearing down on the field or taking off in a 152 when the cross wind component is 30 knots and gusting, with other aircraft reporting moderate and severe turbulence.

You know what I meant with regard to decending below mins on an approach Mr. Smarty Pants!

Well played sir, well played. I have been human balast on a couple of those flights, which is why I don't do them with people other than friends and family on board. I've done the 185kts over the lake bed gig, and a couple of other ones too, and I agree with your sentiment. Personally on the roll issue, I tend to think that its something that everyone either does, or wants to do. Those who do it say "holy ####, what was I thinking," and those who don't stay nervous, and probably do stay alive. Discretion, is for the most part, the better part of valor.

 

[ppragman]

a bit late to the party but doing 80 in traffic is not a valid comparison to a split S in a kingair.

But more to the point, you are arguing, it seems, that you are the final arbiter as to what is safe and what is not safe. You are electing 'selective compliance' as a mode of operati0n which means you choose when and where you will abide by guidelines. this a a classic picture of a rogue, one who thinks the rules are for everyone else. The rogue justifies his acts by asserting his superiors skills and abilities enable him to do things others can. Your arguments and your comments demonstrate you lack, at this point, any real expertise, at least in aviation. A 'flip'???

the fact remains that unless this is all a ruse, you are a danger to those who fly airplanes you have flown and you are a danger to yourself. Worse yet, you refuse to listen to the experience that is on this board. some learn one way. some learn another way. some don't learn.

look up beech cocktail on youtube

 

[Goonie]

You seem to be confusing legality with safety. If you were to go the extra mile to get the FAA's approval to do barrel rolls in a non-certified airplane, how does that approval change the safety status? What if the FAA dropped the regulation that forbids aerobatics in non-certified planes? Would it then be safe?

What would you have said If I told you I piloted an aircraft 6 months ago when my last 3rd class medical was 40 months prior to that event? What if I told you yesterday I piloted a plane when my last medical was 40 months ago? One of those situations is illegal, the other is not. But the level of safety is the same. If a pilot is capable of performing a barrel roll in a Beech 1900 without messing it up, it doesn't matter if the FAA has given them permission to do it or not, the level of safety of that maneuver is the same regardless.

What about this example: Lets say you're a professional cargo pilot flying freight between airports. You arrive at your destination and realize you forgot your wallet at home. Your medical certificate, pilot license, and photo ID were in that wallet? What do you do? Do you call up your company and tell them they need to send another plane over to where you are and "rescue" you because you can't legally (and therefore safely) pilot your plane home?

I think the point you're trying to make is that if a pilot shows willingness to break one minor regulation, then by using the "slippery slope" argument, they have no regard to legality and therefore safety and accordingly should not barred from flying. I don't agree. I think you can still be a very good and safe pilot while breaking a regulation every once in a while, in the same way you can be a good safe driver while pushing the speed limit every now and again. Now if you're the kind of person who blows through school zones at 80 mph, you're just as bad as a pilot who does split-s's in a king air. That is to say you have bad judgment. Being safe is all about assessing risk, being familiar with your skills, and operating within the realm of your skills.

I'm sorry I usually keep my cool on this website but do you know anything about airplanes?

I hope you never fly one of my planes. I hope you're not such a dumbass when you're flying.

 

[pacer7a]

I know that you are intentionally just pushing the collective buttons of the group here for your amusement. If I'm wrong about that and you are not (and I don't know your level of training in aviation -- maybe you could give us a hint), possibly you would recognize these terms:

invulnerability
macho
anti-authority

Take a look at your posts to date in light of the above. Something to ponder, isn't it ?

Just curious, how do you feel about this guy:
...
Remember, it doesn't take a military trained test pilot to pull off a barrel roll without stressing the airplane. All it takes is an intermediate level of aerobatic skill.

As someone else pointed out already, in that segment, Hoover says "I have lost a number of friends, simply because they cut their margins too close." He also says that experience has been his teacher. I'm sure he learned from the experiences of those lost friends also.

Now I'm sure that it is possible for an individual to have personally achieved all of the collective wisdom of generations of aviators, the FARs and every other aviation publication written to date, along with thousands of hours of personal experience. Just a gut feeling, but I do not feel that this is likely to apply to you, however.

I know that I learn something from the experienced folks on this site, in every thread that I read. I have learned humility through my experiences in aviation, and that humility allows me to benefit from the collective wisdom here. I hope that you too can benefit from their experience.

 

[Bumblebee]

You're telling me you've never broken a regulation? YES

You've never fudged weight and balance numbers? NO

You've never flown with cough syrup in your system? NO

I've come to learn over the years that any pilot who claims to have never done some dirt, to be lying.

more about your experience . . . you need to go get some life experience . . .then you'll realize how intellegent older folks are. Right now there's no getting
through to you . . . good luck to you and everyone around you.

 

[surreal1221]

This thread just got much better.

From one guy who wants to roll a plane, and doesn't realize the consequences. . .

To another guy who thinks it is okay to willfully ignore Federal Aviation Regulations, and perhaps even his company's respective FOM - if he were to ever be hired by someone.

What a joke.

No wonder we can't improve the profession.

 

[germb747]

You seem to be confusing legality with safety. If you were to go the extra mile to get the FAA's approval to do barrel rolls in a non-certified airplane, how does that approval change the safety status? What if the FAA dropped the regulation that forbids aerobatics in non-certified planes? Would it then be safe?

What would you have said If I told you I piloted an aircraft 6 months ago when my last 3rd class medical was 40 months prior to that event? What if I told you yesterday I piloted a plane when my last medical was 40 months ago? One of those situations is illegal, the other is not. But the level of safety is the same. If a pilot is capable of performing a barrel roll in a Beech 1900 without messing it up, it doesn't matter if the FAA has given them permission to do it or not, the level of safety of that maneuver is the same regardless.

What about this example: Lets say you're a professional cargo pilot flying freight between airports. You arrive at your destination and realize you forgot your wallet at home. Your medical certificate, pilot license, and photo ID were in that wallet? What do you do? Do you call up your company and tell them they need to send another plane over to where you are and "rescue" you because you can't legally (and therefore safely) pilot your plane home?

I think the point you're trying to make is that if a pilot shows willingness to break one minor regulation, then by using the "slippery slope" argument, they have no regard to legality and therefore safety and accordingly should not barred from flying. I don't agree. I think you can still be a very good and safe pilot while breaking a regulation every once in a while, in the same way you can be a good safe driver while pushing the speed limit every now and again. Now if you're the kind of person who blows through school zones at 80 mph, you're just as bad as a pilot who does split-s's in a king air. That is to say you have bad judgment. Being safe is all about assessing risk, being familiar with your skills, and operating within the realm of your skills.

Interesting that you bring up the concept of risk management; I happen to have a little training in this area. Risk management is obviously not about eliminating risk, it's about mitigating it through implementation of appropriate countermeasures and ensuring that the benefits justify the risk. It's a deliberate and analytical process that looks at all risk factors and applying necessary controls to mitigate the risk.

Since frankly I'm not smart enough to determine on my own what is "illegal but safe" in every given situation, thankfully the work has been done for me through the manuals, placards, and limitations that I'm required to comply with--and since I'm going to do it "by the book", I don't have to worry about taking unnecessary risk.

Can certain rules be waived while achieving an equivalent level of safety? Absolutely! Look at your minimum equipment list (if you've ever seen one before). Rarely is everything working 100% on the C-5s that I fly, but I have official guidance in the form of an MEL that tells me under what conditions I can safely depart with malfunctioning equipment. For example, normally we're required to have an operational weather radar, but suppose it happens to be broken today; I pull out the MEL and it says I can go as long as no portion of my route will take me into areas of known or forecast thunderstorm activity (control measure). Then I also look over and the co-pilot's radar altimeter is busted; I look that one up also and determine it's okay to go as long as I don't do a CAT II ILS. Other rules may be subject to waiver also, but there's always another set of eyes in the form of a waiver authority who is looking at what rule you request to waive and why it is necessary to waive it; this person does a cost-benefit/ORM analysis to determine under what conditions he will grant the waiver to mitigate the risk, by looking at factors such as weather, the priority of the mission, the experience level of the crew, the crew's duty day, etc. Unnecessary risk will be avoided; necessary risk will be mitigated. And I can guarantee you nobody is going to grant me a waiver to do an aileron roll in a C-5 because 1) it's not necessary to achieve any mission objective, 2) the risk is not justified by the potential benefits, and 3) my loadmaster will probably shoot me first.

Just curious--do you mind posting your current level of flying experience and how old you are? I'm guessing you're probably very 'young and invincible' by your posts, but I've been proven wrong before. I learned how to fly at a very young age because the key players involved determined I possessed the necessary maturity level; there were many other 16-18 year olds out there learning how to fly who did not possess the maturity by exhibiting the same attitude we see here--they didn't make it very far in the training process.

In closing, risk management is a very deliberate process, not one that simply employs my "comfort level" to decide which rules I need follow and which rules I need not follow. What really makes me sad is how frequently the FAA goes after people for certificate action who really do try to abide by the rules and just make a mistake; yet there are others out there who violate the regs deliberately and they seem to coast in under the radar.

 

[SpiraMirabilis]

I've probably broken a number of FARs. I have never INTENTIONALLY broke them though.

Additionally, as for the original thread topic -- performing acrobatics in not acro aircraft. You mention Bob Hoover, well despite him having a ton more flying skills than you he also OWNED that aircraft. If you buy your own Cessna and decide to break it by performing acrobatics in it then while I think you're pretty stupid I'm not going to really care. However, if you come and RENT an airplane you should comply with what the owner says are the rules for flying it. Stresing a rented aircraft beyond its load factor limits may get yourself killed or worse get the an innocent renter down the road killed.

 

[Orange Anchor]

I didn't say "80 in traffic", I said "80 in a school zone", that changes the analogy completely.

school zone or traffic...you argue degree instead of point. a car can easily do 80 and there will be others going 80 or faster (especially in ATL). in either case it is a VIOLATION or an act of willful 'disregard'.

and, again your lack of knowledge is showing. there is no way you are going to split S a kingair w/o exceeding some limit, G or airspeed. Notice Hoover rolls the airplane, is trained and experienced in acro (which you are obviously not) and knows how to enter the roll, complete the roll and not wind up in a nose low attitude.

No, I am arguing the opposite in fact. You all (referring to the just about everyone posting in this thread) are the ones who are acting as the "final arbitrator" by condemning anyone regardless of skill who dares do a barrel roll as "unsafe". My argument is that with regards to safety, judgment must be withheld, since it is very possible (all though not not necessairly likely) that the maneuver had been done with the proper preparations and safety precautions.

again the novice shows up. a barrel roll is not the same as an aileron roll and that is what you referred to earlier. The Citation clip is an aileron roll and it seems he winds up nose low. not good. and there is asymetric or rolling Gs which are usually significantly lower than published normal Gs.

and actually considering your posts, one can assume you intend to roll an airplane or have and again, your lack of knowledge and training makes you unsafe. Why? because safety is not a thing but a process and you don't or can't understand that.

Worse yet, your defensive attitude combined with lack of skill makes you a candidate for the next smokin' hole award or someone who flies the airplane you have abused. In the end however you do serve a very good lesson... the old one about wrestling w/ a pig.

now, if you be so kind to tell the forum the tail numbers of aircraft you have rolled or intend to roll, the risks you pose to yourself and others may be mitigated.

 

[Orange Anchor]

look up beech cocktail on youtube

NOT a split S but rather a roll and unless it was their personal 1900, they VIOLATED a number of regs in even the loosest of ops spec manuals.

that they did it proves nothing except a disregard for the envelope.

 

[SpiceWeasel]

Not in the slightest. When you are a passenger in the back of an airliner would it give you a warm fuzzy if you knew one of the pilots has no problem busting a FAR or aircraft limitation because they think they know better? It's attitudes like that that cause crashes.

Well; I wouldn't put too much into a post on an internet forum. People can say a lot more from behind the screen. In the same vein, one might think, on the ground, that something is "cool", etc., but not actually do it when flying.

I almost feel like I have to defend myself now for asking the question, but just FYI I would never intentionally bust a FAR or go around the FOM. Of course, I wouldn't unintentionally bust a FAR either.

Anyways. Perhaps we should review the hazardous attitudes - anti-authority...

 

[SpiceWeasel]

I've probably broken a number of FARs. I have never INTENTIONALLY broke them though.

Additionally, as for the original thread topic -- performing acrobatics in not acro aircraft. You mention Bob Hoover, well despite him having a ton more flying skills than you he also OWNED that aircraft. If you buy your own Cessna and decide to break it by performing acrobatics in it then while I think you're pretty stupid I'm not going to really care. However, if you come and RENT an airplane you should comply with what the owner says are the rules for flying it. Stresing a rented aircraft beyond its load factor limits may get yourself killed or worse get the an innocent renter down the road killed.

The scary part about the rental is that no-one will find out until it's too late. Heck, I found a bent flap rod on a preflight of a 172 that hadn't been written up before. I'm glad people are not respecting flap retraction/extension limiting speeds. anic:

 

[surreal1221]

The scary part about the rental is that no-one will find out until it's too late. Heck, I found a bent flap rod on a preflight of a 172 that hadn't been written up before. I'm glad people are not respecting flap retraction/extension limiting speeds. anic:

Always amazed me as well.

It's not THAT damn difficult to pitch up, allow the airspeed to bleed off, drop the flaps in, then do whatever the hell else it is you need to do to bleed off the altitude you gained during your misadventure in poor airspeed management in the pattern.