Not approved?

[Pilot DAR]

Should a pilot do things while flying an aircraft which the manufacturer describes as “not approved” or “non-approved”? Maybe…

“Approved” refers to those operations, features, characteristics etc. for which there is a design standard, and compliance with that standard has been shown by the applicant, and found by the approving authority. There are many aspects of certification in which, if the applicant does not request approval, and it is not required to be shown, the aircraft can be approved without that characteristic or feature being approved. An example of this would be aerobatic maneuvers, as stated in FAA FAR 523.151. If the applicant does not request approval for a certain maneuver, it will not be granted. This choice of which approval is sought, will place the aircraft into a particular category, Normal, Utility, of Aerobatic. Normal category aircraft are stated as being “not intended” for aerobatics.

“Approved” in this context has some similarity in meaning to “demonstrated”, which can be taken to mean that a characteristic of the aircraft was satisfactorily demonstrated during certification test flying. An example of this would be the demonstrated crosswind capability of a fixed wing aircraft. The aircraft must show crosswind handling capability, and that, in the hands of a pilot who is not demonstrating “exceptional pilot skill”.

So, if a pilot lands an aircraft in a crosswind with a component value exceeding that which the manufacturer has “demonstrated”, has that pilot done something which was not approved? The pilot has done something which was not “demonstrated”….

And, what about “prohibited”? Well, that’s pretty hard to misunderstand.

Recently in another thread, there was a lot of chatter about what can be done in a Cessna 172, safely, or otherwise. More than one contributor stated that aerobatics were prohibited in a Cessna 172. Well, on all of the Cessna 172 limitation placards I have read recently, the only thing which Cessna chose to specifically prohibit are intentional spins with flaps extended, and use of full control inputs at speeds greater than a certain value (depended upon year and units of measure). Intentional flight into known icing seems to get a mention too sometimes. I think that there would be no doubt in our industry that doing something which the manufacturer has prohibited, is a really bad idea, and is just not to be done. I’m sure we can pre-empt that argument right here.

Non (or not) approved, however, has different implications.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not suggesting that pilots now go out looking for non-approved things to do in aircraft, I have never suggested that. But, can non-approved things be safely done in aircraft? Sometimes, when the correct skill, conditions and caution exist. Landing in a strong crosswind would be an example.

So, have you ever done something which the manufacturer states is non-approved? I did this very day, when I read and followed the guidance of the non-approved section of the manufacturer’s FAA approved rotorcraft flight manual. Ask the FAA if what I did in the helicopter, while complying with this section of the manual, was approved, and I don’t know how they could say it was. The FAA states in the front of the manual that they did not approve that section!

Our industry has a lot of very carefully chosen words by which instruction, guidance, and limitations are conveyed. It’s up to us to apply the intended meaning, and use the resultant understanding to fly safely.

So, don’t go out and roll a 172, it’s a bad idea, and stands a very good chance of hurting you. But also, don’t discount those who simply answer the question: “could it be done?”

Pilot DAR

[Fuji Abound]

Demonstrated = it has been done, and if you are current on type should also be able to do it,

Not approved = there are good reasons why you should not try it, and if you do, you better really understand those good reasons first, and, even then, ensure you dont make the mistake of making any of them,

Prohibited = there are very very good reasons for not trying it, and even if you understand those reasons you are unlikely to be able to avoid them,

Anything else = it is either so stupid no one thought you would even think of it, or it is so obviously possible that it wasnt worth commenting on - make sure you know which is which!

[englishal]

What about the stuff which isn't listed as "not approved" or "prohibited"? By that I mean flying at Va, and pulling had back and pushing hard over as an example?

You may well be right about your statements, but anyone who deliberately does anything that is not approved or prohibited is becoming a test pilot. I think common sense should be a part of any licencing - if you can't exercise common sense, you shouldn't have a licence.

There are plenty of cases of "test pilots" on UTube. I saw one the other day of some lad doing 90 deg lazy 8's in a 172. Although this is ok regarding loads on the aeroplane, the FARs state that this is illegal (and hence prohibited), and for good reason.

People die when a combination of factors adds up usually, and flying outside of the "approved" envelope could be one of those factors, so I try not to do it deliberately....

[draccent]

This may sound silly...but you also have to consider the age of the aircraft as well. I don't care how well you take care of it its going to wear out. I would't try any thing too nutty in say....a twenty, thirty year old or so aircraft. Crosswind landings put a pretty good amount of stress, when you crab with the flaps down as an example. Thats probably why cessna has a demonstrated crosswind component. Of course that number was made up for a plane thats brand new.


.....shrugs.......?

[tigerbatics]

"More than one contributor stated that aerobatics were prohibited in a Cessna 172. Well, on all of the Cessna 172 limitation placards I have read recently, the only thing which Cessna chose to specifically prohibit are intentional spins with flaps extended, and use of full control inputs at speeds greater than a certain value (depended upon year and units of measure)."

The fact is that the flight manual is part of the C of A and flight outside it is illegal. There is no difference between 'not approved for aerobatics' and 'flight into known icing conditions prohibited' as far as whether they are allowed or not.

There are differences either side of the Atlantic about what constitutes aerobatic flight between FAR and CAA regulations. We do not define aerobatics by reference to any particular pitch or bank angle and my understanding is that the FAA do.

If the aeroplane has British registration then CAA rules apply and any flight within the FAA definition but outside the CAA definition of aerobatics is permitted.

This is what matters not whether a pilot may get away with any particular act without the machine disintergrating or becoming irrecoverable.

[englishal]

If the aeroplane has British registration then CAA rules apply and any flight within the FAA definition but outside the CAA definition of aerobatics is permitted.
Aero's in FAA land is defined as > 30 degrees in pitch and >60 degrees in bank. Some "normal" aeroplanes, like the DA40 are certified for bank of up to 90 degrees, which is aerobatic according to the FARS....

You could do it safely in a DA40, but if you are worried about breaking the rules, would bust the FARs unless you wore a parachute - one of the requirements for aerobatics in the USA.

[Cloud Basher]

PilotDAR me old mate. Good to see you are still trying to get people to agree with you that it is ok to do things that are "not approved" or "non-approved" or outside of demonstrated amounts/limits etc.

I am not sure if you are referring to me when you say I discounted your earlier reply on rolling a 172. Indeed I did say that it could be done, just that it shouldn't be.

I don't see why you are still pushing the line about wanting to go outside of what the aircraft is approved for. Can you not afford to do aeros in an aircraft approved for them. DO you HAVE to land at an airfield where the wind exceeds the demonstrated crosswind limit (and by the way it is called a limit for a reason).

For you to continually want to try and find ways around these limits, or prohibitions or non approvals leads me to the conclusion that you are a cowboy and a very dangerous pilot. If the limit on the RPM is 2700, does that mean it is ok to go to 2750 or 2800RPM and operate there? If the CHT limit is 450 degrees is it ok to go to 480 degrees? As you say the aircraft is placarded against intentional spins with flaps extended. So extrapolating unintentional spins with flaps are fine? Or maybe the manufacturer knew that you can't placard against emergencies or unintentional things....

To take this to the extreme the pilots operating handbook says nothing about not flying with 2 feet missing of the end of each wing (other than checking everything is ok on the daily inspection and your controls function correctly and freely...) so because it doesn't say that you can't fly without two feet of wing missing does that mean you would?

Mate give it up.:mad::mad::mad: Any pilot who actually tries and follows the rules and keeps the aircraft within its design limits and those applied by the manufacturer would never agree with you that it is ok to operate outside of those limitations in the course of a normal flight. As I said in the previous post, whilst your flight might go ok, you ARE doing damage to the aircraft and one day maybe the aircraft will fail due to the damage that you caused. Might not be your butt and it might be another 20 years from now (or it could be the next flight), the thing is WE DO NOT KNOW and if you operate outside the limits, as has been said you are a test pilot and are specifically going AGINST what the manufacturer has approved and thus invalidating all their calculations on stress, life, cycles etc. And the operating outside the limit means there is no insurance policy (literally and figuratively) and no guarantees of the aircraft being serviceable afterwards.

As for breaking the FAR’s I could care less if you break those.:= Just don’t go outside of what the POH says and also the INTENTION of the POH. That way if you do live through your flight, at least the next poor sod who hires the aircraft after you won’t be in for any nasty surprises.:ugh:

Cheers
CB

P.S. Anyone wants a read on what PilotDAR was referring to about the previous thread go here:

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=293835

[Final 3 Greens]

Many years ago, I used to own a Colt 1911 pistol, that I used for target shooting.

It was not placarded 'do not shoot brown bears with this gun', but for some reason I never tried to (perhaps the lack of grizzlies in the UK had something to do with it.)

So Pilot DAR, do you think it is a good idea to go out and find a grizzly to shoot with a .45 handgun?

[tigerbatics]

Englishal, I may not have made myself quite clear. What I meant was that for a British registered aeroplane in Britain, say a c152, flight in excess of 30 degree pitch and/or 60 degree bank is not necessarily aerobatic flight, whatever the FARs may say. Consequently may be legal and within limits for a normal, non-aerobatic machine.

The same flight in the FAA world would be illegal.