FAA Definition of "Aerobatics"

[Empty Cruise]

"...not necessary for normal flight..." - oh my!

That sentence does leave a bit of room for interpretation, to say the least. Normal flight for a 200-hr-PPL-around-the-contryside sort of trip - or normal flight for a cropdusting aeroplane, or a glider tug, or...

If the AFM is not specific in limiting either the range of manoeuvres allowable, or set specific body angle limits or bank limits - the authorities might have a hard time getting a conviction as long as the limit loadfactor is not exceeded.

Have several times exceeded 60 deg. AoB in non-aerobatic aircraft, without having performed aerobatics - after all, the aircraft can be flown perfectly safe at 90 deg. AoB & 0 G for the purpose of e.g. avoiding confligting traffic (often done in gliders). This is by no means an aerobatic manoeuvre - to have done aerobatics, you will need an intentionally executed precision manoeuvre (involving abrupt changing of etc. etc.) with the sole purpose of operating the aircraft being either training, competition or display.

I think the FAA might be a bit out on a limb here. They define aerobatics based on angle of bank & pitch, but these have very little bearing upon the actual execution of a given manoeuvre. Looking at roll, pitch & yaw rate, G load and rate-of-G-onset are probably better measures of how "abrupt" a change of attitude or flightpath is. Secondly, several non-aerobatic aircraft are allowed to spin - and if the aircraft does not exceed 60 deg. bank & 30 deg. pitch in that manoeuvre - we are talking real aerobatics (flat spin). Does this imply that the FAA imposes limitations above & beyond the manufacturers'? If so - it would be easier to state "Manoeuvres exceeding etc. etc. are forbidden, unless the aircraft is approved for aerobatics".

I have no experience with heli aeros - you might want to contact the IAF (International Aerobatic Federation), as I'm convinced they can help.

Brgds fm
Empty