Questions re Aerobatic Lower Limit

[StickWithTheTruth]

Aerobatic Guru's,

I have a question or two regarding the lower limit for aero's.

I thought that if you had a 500ft "waiver / excemption" you could go to 500ft, but solo only.

Thus, can you take passengers to 500ft?

I was of the impression that the 500ft waiver was for competition aero's and not passengers and when a waiver is given it's usually given from the ground with a handheld radio.

Is there any situation, even with an aerobatic instructor that an aircraft can carry passengers engaged in aerobatics at 500ft lower limit?

Thanks!

[MikeJulietHotel]

Not an aeros guru but I'm aware that CASA have proposed a new rule on aerobatics which you will find here:

http://www.casa.gov.au/download/caaps/ops/155_1.pdf

Section 6 answers your questions. I think that this rule also points you at the exsiting rule.

Regards

Mike

[djpil]

Is there any situation, even with an aerobatic instructor that an aircraft can carry passengers engaged in aerobatics at 500ft lower limit?
Answer is "NO" for passengers per all of the low level aerobatic approvals that I have seen but things may be different in other states.
The test may be done from the ground but of course that has to be done if it is a single-seater anyway. There aren't many pilots that I'd fly with doing aerobatics down to 500 ft, even fewer if the other pilot had the stick. JL was one.
Regardless of what other answers you may get - there is a CAAP on the way to clarify all of this and standardise the process for all states.

[the wizard of auz]

I did my flight test for the waiver to 500 with the instructor in the aircraft. there was no limitations on the license. it just stated acrobatics low level.

[slackie]

In New Zealand, an Aerobatic Rating can be only be issued by some CAA Rule Part 141 training organisations (like Auckland Aeroclub, New Plymouth Aeroclub, etd.)...this will allow an aerobatic rated pilot to take passengers on aerobatic flights down to a minimum of 3000ft AGL, and will allow the rated pilot to perform aerobatics SOLO down to 1500ft AGL.

"Low level clearances" are only issued (in NZ) by NZ Warbirds Association (under their CAA Rule Part 149 accreditation), and again that only allows aerobatics SOLO down to the level specified UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS.

[kiwi_hockey_guy]

In New Zealand, an Aerobatic Rating can be only be issued by some CAA Rule Part 141 training organisations (like Auckland Aeroclub, New Plymouth Aeroclub, etd.)...this will allow an aerobatic rated pilot to take passengers on aerobatic flights down to a minimum of 3000ft AGL, and will allow the rated pilot to perform aerobatics SOLO down to 1500ft AGL.

"Low level clearances" are only issued (in NZ) by NZ Warbirds Association (under their CAA Rule Part 149 accreditation), and again that only allows aerobatics SOLO down to the level specified UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS.

Cheers for that slackie, cleared up the ambiguity i had regarding the law over here in Aotearoa.... now just to save up for an aeros rating......

[RENURPP]

I can't find my low level approval. How ever I do remember it did NOT state on it that I could not carry passengers.
It did not have an expiry date, it was valid whilst i was considered proficient? Who determined that I don't know. I have had it for around 15yrs and not been checked or observed once since the initial by CASA, at least not aware that I was being watched.
Having said that I was of the impression that carrying pax was not permitted, and I never had the need to, so I have never bothered to check the CAR's etc.
So I guess the answer to the question is, unless there is a CAR or other reg that diss allows the carriage of passengers below 3000' AGL whilst carrying out aerobatic manueouvres, then you may.
Why would you want to?

[podbreak]

Nothing in the actual endo is stated about pax. I do believe it is not permitted though. I cannot find a reference (haven't looked, can't be stuffed) but why you would risk someone elses life down that low, I do not know. Even if I feel competant to take myself to dot feet in an un-heard-of attitude, I cannot justify leaving 3000 just so a mate can taste the trees. Going low looks good from the outside, but from the inside looks the same as your 3000' floor.

[Wizofoz]

I have a 700' Rating. I seem to remember the actual instrument stated you could take passengers to your limit plus 1000', so 1700' for me.

[AerocatS2A]

Going low looks good from the outside, but from the inside looks the same as your 3000' floor.

You reckon? I always thought aeros at 500' looked quite a bit different from aeros at 3000'. Your mileage obviously varies.

[RENURPP]

It looks ****e loads different.

3000' is a different world to 500'.:rolleyes:

[Bendo]

Interestingly the draft CAAP also states explicitly that if you are an approved aerobatics instructor and you have an endorsement for LL Aeros you can instruct down to that level.

Dunno about the wisdom of that - I have done half a dozen sorties at 1000' and no way am I passing my incompetence on to others :eek:

Ok so maybe you can't do LL Aero joyflights but you could always do some aerobatics on that TIF :E

[AerocatS2A]

It looks ****e loads different.
3000' is a different world to 500'.:rolleyes:
After a while 500' looks just like 3000'. Then you have to come down to 50' :E.

[the wizard of auz]

and when you do as many hours at 50ft as I have during my work........ hell, It looks like 3000 and you have to get to 10ft. :} its around there that I transition to closing my eyes for landing because I'm scared. :} :eek:

[RENURPP]

After a while 500' looks just like 3000'. Then you have to come down to 50'
Recovering from an inverted spin at 500' is considerably different to 3000', I guess the recovery would start around 1000'.
I would be interested to watch you start the recovery from one at around 500' be level again by 50' without having to change your duds..
The point being, most pilots who hold low level approval carry out advanced aero's. There is a huge difference between doing them at 3000' and 500'.
A simple barrel roll. snap roll, loop etc no big deal.

[AerocatS2A]

Recovering from an inverted spin at 500' is considerably different to 3000', I guess the recovery would start around 1000'.
I would be interested to watch you try and recover from one at around 500' be level again by 50' without having to change your duds..
Well, the trick is to not get into an inverted spin in the first place.

I've been lucky enough to have never entered an unintentional spin except once where it started rotating coming down off a tumbling manoeuvre, and then I'd recovered after less than a half turn and was level again by the entry height.

However, chap I used to work for managed to kill himself in what appears to have been an unintentional spin (we'll never know) so I'm well aware of the dangers that face the unwary.

That's all behind me now anyway, I haven't turned something upside down for almost 7 years.

The point being, most pilots who hold low level approval carry out advanced aero's. There is a huge difference between doing them at 3000' and 500'.

Agreed, although some pilots who hold low level approval often display aircraft that don't do advanced aeros, warbirds etc.

I never did anything very advanced at any height. A torque roll is probably as advanced as I got.

[RENURPP]

Who mentioned unintentional?

[AerocatS2A]

Who mentioned unintentional?
I did, I misread your post.

BTW, I'm agreeing with you. Aeros at 500' is different to aeros at 3000'.

[Joker89]

I prefer 6000'

[M14_P]

I prefer 6000'

I second that. Unless it is competition box practice, with a set sequence.
Certainly when practicing anything other than loops, or any kind of roll, its truck on up to 4000'+.
I pretty much explored the envelop of the 2160a Alpha with my instructor (flat spinning, snap rolls etc) but having since switched to the '52, its back to basics (with lots of altitude).

[the wizard of auz]

I did my low level stuff in the R2160. wasn't a too bad machine, but suffered the same lack of power most entry level aero capable stuff does. moved into the Pitts and received a pretty big eye opening. :eek:
I prefer to get a bit higher nowadays for aero's, as I enjoy the view from up there far more than down low, where I work all day.

[Buck Rogers]

On my low level aerobatics instrument waiver it states Aerobatics at a height no lower than 500ft above ground level ...Passengers shall not be carried during manoeuvres below 1500ft.