Low-level aerobatics

[25F]

If you may permit a question from someone at the back of the aircraft (but I have handled a Chipmunk and a Cessna in the past) - am I right in thinking that low-level (under one hundred feet) aerobatics are the domain of professional display pilots, and / or the insane?

[Piltdown Man]

Yup (to both). There are loads of dead people who have proved their excellence at low level aerobatics. As for the lowest level, it all depends on who you are, what you are doing and where you are doing it. The basic law is the 500' rule (from person's, vehicles, vessels and structures) and also no aerobatics over congested areas. GASIL suggests that aerobatics should be completed no lower than 3,000' AGL. Also, one shouldn't recklessly endanger and aircraft or those on the ground. To legally perform low level displays, you need a Display Authorisation and these are issued after a test of competence by a CAA examiner.

PM

[BackPacker]

Just for reference, the lowest limit for competition aerobatics, depending on the competence level of the pilot, is between 700 and 1500 feet. Drop below that and your penalized. Drop significantly (>100') below that and you're disqualified.

For training we try to use a lower limit of 3500 feet, airspace and weather permitting. Mainly for safety, obviously, but also to limit noise on the ground.

Display Aerobatics requires a DA, as mentioned, which needs to be renewed regularly - I think every year before the display season starts. And even those with DAs will very carefully plan their sequences so that that lower limit is only reached in a safe, controllable manner.

Brian Lecomber has a column in Flyer Magazine and regularly writes about this sort of stuff.

[25F]

Thanks to both for swift responses. So a reference to a "barrel roll" performed "at 50ft" is at best a typo for "500ft", but probably pure bovine effluent?

[eharding]

Display Authorisations for aerobatics will generally have at least two separate height minima, one for figures deemed to be aerobatic, and a lower one for a fly-by. The set of aerobatic figures which can be performed under a specific DA conform roughly to the different levels of competition aerobatics.

There are very few people around with a zero-base-height Unlimited aerobatic DA.

The barrel-roll has probably killed more display pilots than all other aerobatic figures put together - I'd take your reference to "50ft" with a large dose of salt.

[Saab Dastard]

Or unless you happen to be Alex Henshaw in a spitfire!

Although I think he may have qualified as both professional and display pilot while working at Castle Bromwich, flight testing spitfires.

SD

[Zulu Alpha]

Or unless you happen to be Alex Henshaw in a spitfire!

I wouldn't expect that even/especially someone of his experience would do a barrel roll this low. The margin for error is just too small.

What you will often see is an aerobatic figure done at quite a high altitude but the exit dive is allowed to run out quite low for effect. e.g a loop where the normal pull out would be done at 500 ft but the pilot lets it descend much lower during the last 1/8th. This 'fools' most of the audience but gives a big safety margin for the pilot. I suspect this might be why you see "barrel rolls at 50 ft" in articles.

ZA

[Saab Dastard]

ZA,

Quite right - I was really referring to the OP question, not specifically to the barrel roll. I guess I was just too lazy to quote the appropriate piece!

Here's his own description of a typical display sequence of about 6-7 minutes:

These demonstrations varied over the years according to the audience and the conditions. Like providing a good seat at the cinema, the first thing to do if possible was to fly with the sun on the backs of the audience, so that they were not blinded all the time, and at a distance which did not make them strain their necks. Always, if I could, I operated up and down wind: if the wind was strong and one upward-rolled across it, the manoeuvre could look untidy, and sometimes would put one in the incorrect position for the next manoeuvre.

As a rule the drill was to take off and not climb, but pause with the wheels coming up and the machine just clear of the ground, and at 150-160 IAS pull up slowly but firmly into a half loop, finishing with a half roll at the top. I never really liked this as one cough from the engine and I should have been in real trouble: at the roll stage I was in any case holding the machine by maximum engine power well below the normal stall and the slightest coarse handling on the controls would cause the machine to flick out.

I would continue this in maybe another couple of half loops and rolls until I was over 4000 ft and then, placing myself in the correct position over the aerodrome, half roll again and go into an absolutely vertical dive with full engine and maximum revs to pull out a few feet from the ground and go into a vertical roll to the left, a vertical roll to the right and a half roll to the left with a half loop, and then pull out to repeat the manoeuvre in the opposite direction.

Pulling out in another half loop in the other direction, the throttle would be snapped back and plummeting down vertically one could get in two complete aileron turns to pull out again and open the throttle to do the same thing in the other direction. Having now used up most of my height and speed, I would pull up vertically to about 1000 ft and in a tight half loop at the right moment flick the machine into a full flick roll.

This I always felt was a tricky one. It took a lot of judgement to do it accurately, because very often the manoeuvre was so sudden and vicious that on checking the machine it would sometimes be slightly out of line and I knew it could look untidy. I could usually get one-and-a-half to two full flicks of a roll on the horizontal but for the sake of control and tidiness I usually settled for one, which I knew I could judge to a nicety. In practice I could get in about the same with the vertical flick rolls, but with these I found it almost impossible for me to judge when to check and come out clean.

I have never seen anyone flick-roll a Spitfire and I must say that I always found it a little frightening to abuse a machine and have it flash out of your control, if only for a few seconds, like a young spirited blood-horse.

On the pull-out from the flick roll sometimes I would open the engine flat out in another vertical climb and, at approximately 1200 ft, push the nose over forward then, with the engine closed, complete the half of an outside loop, usually in those days called a `bunt'.

I never really liked this manoeuvre either: it was easy but required heavy pressure forward on the control column and you could not afford to misjudge at 1200 ft: with the nose going over down towards the ground the speed built up at such an alarming rate that it left no room to change your mind until it was too late. At the bottom of the inverted dive I would usually 'round off' to a few feet above the ground and then, with as much pressure as I dared use on the control column - I say 'dared' because I found it more disconcerting and frightening to 'black-out' from excessive negative `G' than I did from high loads in the positive position - I would push the machine into an almost vertical climb and, as it lost momentum from the negative 'G' position, pull the control gently over to form a half-loop, hoping as I did so that the engine would burst into life as I opened the throttle.

This it usually did with a spectacular sheet of flame pluming from the exhaust stubs caused by unused fuel which had accumulated during the inverted manoeuvres.

With the engine now on full power I would do a series of very low rolls left and right in front of the audience at below hangar height, finishing in the inverted position from which I would 'raise' the undercarriage, pull into a tight, fast engine-off turn and lower the flaps, as I touched down for the landing.

SD

[Pitts2112]

I once had a very experienced pilot tell me that when doing aerobatics, one should always be "two-mistakes" high, especially if trying something new. That was high enough to screw up a maneuver (mistake no. 1) and screw up the recovery attempt (mistake no. 2), and still have altitude left to sort it out. :)

By and large, history would suggest a floor of 3,000 ft AGL is about two-mistakes high!

[englishal]

Didn't someone in a Yak attempt a low level barrel roll at Bournemouth several years ago as their final manoeuvre in a joy ride flight (literally).....

[MichaelJP59]

Saab, having read "Sigh for a Merlin" - I wish someone had filmed one of Alex Henshaw's low-level Spitfire displays - an outside loop from 1200 ft?!

[Sunfish]

Two mistake rule is correct.

The worst position to be in is upside down and nose low at low level, as in doing a barrel roll from low level. It's easy to get in this position if you don't pitch up enough at the start of a barrel roll. I have a sketch in my aerobatics manual of what it looks like..and it's most likely the last thing you will ever see. That's why the victory roll and "garbage roll" (on takeoff barrel roll) were prohibited to military airmen in and after WWII.

[djpil]

one should always be "two-mistakes" highI hadn't heard that one before - its good, I will start using that phrase here.

[the wind]

Well, I know a nice Extra guy, who's got a personal min altitude of 50 feet. He used to be an RAF pilot long ago.
My training started at 2800, and now I am working my way down in 100 feet steps. I think you should know your weaker points and keep from showing those at low altitude. Plus there are some manoeuvres that are notorious killers at low altitudes.

[the wind]

As for 100 feet and below, it sounds a bit unnecessary apart from low passes, which are not aerobatics. As for safety, if I know that since I can remember myself I've never lost any altitude in e.g rolls (and in the worst cases I gained altitude instead of losing) then I probably wouldn't be too nervous about doing the same stuff at 100 feet.

[JEM60]

I always enjoyed watching Brian Lecomber's displays, because they didn't scare me!!. I have seen too many people [11] die at Airshows.
I spoke to him sheltering under a rainsoaked wing once, and asked him why, despite the low levels he attained, I was not apprehensive. He winked and said that the answer was always in the pull-out. If you watch some of these idiots [his words] they are still pulling hard at 100 feet or less. He said he is never pulling hard at low level, and ALWAYS had the option of pulling harder, therefore he could get his manouevers to appear more spectacular than they were, but still with the safety margin.
Drank half a bottle of his scotch at his house once. Still recall the hang-over!
If any of you get to OShkosh and watch the aerobatics there, you one must wonder how any of them survive for more than a couple of years at it. [Some don't of course.]

[Mark1234]

Interesting thread. Note that the rules vary from place to place. I happen to have an aerobatic endorsement from my country of license origin; that gives me a legal 'deck' of 3000agl; any lower requires additional waivers/authorities.

However, in the UK there is no aeros endorsement - as I understand it, there is no special requirement for aeros, other than the requirement for not over a built up area. The usual 'land clear', and 500ft rule apply. Sidenote here, the 500ft rule does *not* say 500ft above, it says 500ft clear - by my understanding, technically that *could* be 500ft laterally, and 1ft off the ground - if you're very sure nobody is within 500ft, you're technically OK. I consider that more a curio though - 500ft is plenty low enough, in fact, as far as I'm concerned, the 3000 deck is just fine..

I don't have the first idea how the DA requirements are worked, nor do I especially care. Aeros for me (the pilot) is just as interesting at height, and a sight less likely to become terminal; I have spun (a glider) from well below 500ft as a checkout exercise - it's a very very different experience I can assure anyone.

To the OP's question, Yes, and YES - in this case the rules and regs are a bit of a side-matter.

[BackPacker]

Sidenote here, the 500ft rule does *not* say 500ft above, it says 500ft clear - by my understanding, technically that *could* be 500ft laterally, and 1ft off the ground - if you're very sure nobody is within 500ft, you're technically OK.

The law actually says "person or *structure*", so you not only have to make sure that there's no person within 500 ft, but also no structure within 500 ft.

Skimming over the wavetops, that means you've got to be sure no divers underwater, less than 500 ft deep, or no structures less than 500 ft deep. Over land, no tunnels etc.

Legally, if you were to find a structure with a 1000ft gap in it, you could even fly through this gap if you wanted to. Maybe that's the reason that they created a no-fly zone around the Millau bridge - otherwise you could legally fly below it.

Millau Viaduct - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millau_Viaduct)

[rocco16]

Low level aeros are very specialised and for display purposes are covered by the DA system with all sorts of controls. (Good old EASA have rejected the UK DA system as it was invented here and saves lives:ugh:) The actual techniques are modified to increase safety margins because low level you don't have many options. The comment above about completing the maneover then adjusting the exit for effect (with light pull) is an example.

Barrell Rolls have a bad history and are not flown in the classical way to make them safer without spoiling the look too much.

Brian used to do a Roll On Take On at 30 feet (didn't like it so much in the Extra as he could see where he was going :) ). He managed to display for 25 years professionally so it can be done with the right focus.

DA pilots must have practiced their display 3 times before every display (and sign to say so) but have mentally rehersed many times more.

Not something to be entertained without a lot of training, supervision and compliance with the associated rules.

[treadigraph]

If any of you get to Oshkosh and watch the aerobatics there, you one must wonder how any of them survive for more than a couple of years at it

I didn't mind the guys aerobatting Edges, Extras and the like low level at Oshkosh, it was somebody well known in a T34 I couldn't bear to watch - the pullouts from loops looked excruciatingly low and fairly hard - I looked at something else the other two days I was there. Mind you, the fact that I'd seen someone go in a few weeks before in a similarly sized aircraft probably didn't help.

Lecomber was always a joy to watch, wish he was still campaigning on the circuit.

By the way, it's not just the ground that can snag you - I can think of at least three people who have hit a tree after pulling out...

[astir 8]

Douglas Bader was reckoned to be pretty good at low level aerobatics..........:=

[JEM60]

TREADIGRAPH.
I agree with your comments re J.... C.... in the T.34. Been around a long time. First seen by me at Harlingen, Texas in 1983, doing the same act. Has come to grief a couple of times,so I believe, but no serious consequences to the pilot. Must be close to retiring!.

[aluminium persuader]

English Hal - no. Rear-seater incorrectly strapped-in & the lower buckle fell & jammed behind the stick.

ap:sad:

[englishal]

Thanks, I stand corrected.

[Dave Bloke]

There's little point doing anything below 100'. No-one at the back of the crowd will see it.

[Heliport]

There's little point doing anything below 100'. No-one at the back of the crowd will see it. A common myth, often perpetuated by people who disapprove of low level aeros. (Not suggesting that's your reason.)
If a display pilot did his whole routine below 100' it would be a valid point.

=========



Too low or not?

Pu7dR0gia6s

[Big Pistons Forever]

A common myth, often perpetuated by people who disapprove of low level aeros. (Not suggesting that's your reason.)
If a display pilot did his whole routine below 100' it would be a valid point.

=========



Too low or not?

Pu7dR0gia6s

An aggressive display for this type of aircraft but not IMO too low or flown in an unsafe manner. The critical factor is the direction of the energy vector of the the aircraft. The rolling manoevers all started with a upward line which keeps the energy of the aircraft pointed away from the ground for most of the manoever. The loop was also ovaled so that as the aircraft approached the ground it did not have a particularly nose low attitude thus ensuring there was not an excessive rate of descent.

[Skittles]

I can't even enjoy watching low level performances live. I'm happy watching them on youtube (when I know there hasn't been an accident) but whenever I'm at a live airshow I cringe every time a trick begins/ends near terra firma.

At some point in my life I hope to experience aerobatic training and flying, so perhaps then I may be bitten by the low-level bug.

[421dog]

One could not judge the height of recovery based on the video supplied.

Furthermore, none of the rolls that guy did were even close to the Barrel rolls discussed earlier in this thread. All he did was point the nose up and flop the stick over. This is an aileron roll, during which the vertical component of lift degrades to zero or negative. This is evidenced by the profound pitch and altitude changes during the rolls in this (admittedly really neat) display.

[421dog]

Relative to the expert's take on the whole low level issue, I got a look inside Patty Wagstaff's plane back in the early Nineties. There was a fairly spartan instrument panel, and a large placard reading:

Instructions for Flight:

1) Fly at Ground

2) Miss Ground

[Pilot DAR]

There are a very few people, who through some special gift, have what it takes to perform low level aerobatics with adequate safety - they know who they are. The rest of us should not consider it!

My first, and last visit, to the EAA Oshkosh event, included a Siai Marchetti demonstration pilot, who was anounced as: "will now demonstrate a one turn spin from 200 feet". With great interest in how such a feat could be accomplished, I watched in awe... I was right to be amazed at the prospect of a one turn spin (and the recovery I presumed would follow) could be accomplished in 200 feet altitude - it could not. I hind sight, the announcer had not said he would recover, I just assumed that part!

The attempt was fatal, and I had just watched my first plane crash. It delayed the show for hours, and we taxied past the flattened wreck as we left. I learned my lesson there and then.

Saying from a mother: "Son, always fly in the middle of the sky, all of the danger is found near the edges".

[TheGorrilla]

Personally, I don't think the ground is sympathetic to experience, knowledge, ego, qualification, approval, respect or ability. My personal SOP therefore is not to mess about or get too close to it, play chicken with it, get too excited about getting close to it or go stupidly fast close to it. IT wins. Always.

I like playing with aeroplanes, most folk aren't that interested in seeing me play about with an aeroplane (not into voyeuristic stuff before you ask!).... So why should I do it close to the ground where all I am going to do is scare
myself, family and friends.

I think before applying for a display authorisation, some folk should really step back and ask themselves, why they are doing it. And then ask themselves if they have the ability to do it..... Finally, ask themselves "am I ready to die?" as they step into the cockpit.

Judging by the lack of wing flex with g-loading, prop motion and obvious lack of inertia, I would say that video is a fake made by mr plastic fake airshow video man. Probably the same guy that did the "wing falls off" stuff on that aerobatic model plane stunt. Very good video work, but sadly lacking in the laws of physics.

[Bushfiva]

You're referring to the C-27J? You're joking, right?

[JEM60]

GORRILLA.
You are SOOOOOooooooo wrong. The C.27 was evolved
from,, and has the same basic airframe as the Aeritalia G.222 which, whenever it attended Fairford Airshow in the U.K. was rolled on every single appearance. It figures on several occasions on my own video's!!!!
Eventually, after several years, Safety Committee got a bit worried, and it was no longer allowed.[sob] Seen by many, many people!!!.

[treadigraph]

Pilot DAR, your memory is slightly out regarding the SF-260 crash at Oshkosh. I was intrigued by the idea of anybody deliberately spinning an SF-260 from 200ft (I once saw Charlie Kulp spin a J3 Cub from perhaps 500ft but that's slightly different!) and looked it up.

Briefly, I-RAID at Oshkosh '83. Aircraft pulled into a half loop from about 100ft, half rolled off the top and entered a two turn spin which was stopped at about 300ft but clearly too low to pull out. Pilot actually survived the impact but succumbed to grievous injuries a few days later. His FAA briefed min altitude for the display was 300ft.

Same sad result though.

[Pilot DAR]

Treadigraph,

I shan't challenge the information you have, as mine is based only upon recollection of all those years ago. The event was very memorable for me though, as a glaring example of how low level aerobatics, even flown by a pro(?) are potentially fatal. We heard it was fatal a few days later, as it was not announced at the time. I do have a photo of the wreck, as we taxied past it to take off that afternoon. Impacting the earth level, but on a somewhat vertical path, with the wheels retracted, and sitting on the wing spar, is doubtful as survivable.

[Human Factor]

I'm always happy to come second in a "who can fly the lowest" competition. ;)

As for the C-27, Tex Johnson barrel rolled the 707 prototype without anything falling off. Just keep positive g and don't pull beyond the limits.

[Pilot DAR]

I happened across the photo of the SF 260 at Oshkosh which I'd taken as we taxied past...

http://i381.photobucket.com/albums/oo252/PilotDAR/IMG_2395.jpg

[treadigraph]

Blimey, one would have imagined that to be survivable. The impact was assesed at about 10deg nose down. The report mentioned the pilot spinal and brain injuries amongst other things; I wonder if he was wearing a bone dome?

The first accident I witnessed was a T-34C at Mildenhall a few months before the SF-260. I had a very clear memory of the sequence of events for twenty five years - then just two years ago I read a synopsis of the accident report which differed markedly from my recollection.

Both accidents not only highlight the inherent potential dangers of low level aeros but, I'd suggest, also the folly of deviating from the planned/briefed display. If the SF-260 pilot had stuck to a base of 300ft he might be around today. The T-34 had completed his display but agreed to fill in a gap in the programme - the accident happened very shortly after take off...

[JEM60]

TREADIGRAPH.
In the case of the SF260, the cause of the injuries, propabaly more than anything else, would be head injuries caused by a very sudden deceleration, which wearing a bone dome would not alleiviate.
I too saw the T.34C accident at Mildenhall. Sadly the first of 11 over the years. I have always felt very guilty about it, because, during his original display, which I didn't feel was flown particularly well [only a PPL myself, but have seen much display flying], I remarked to my friend that I wasn't too impressed. On his next take-off, to fill in,he inverted at about 600 feet. I remarked to my friend 'I bet the guy in the back is having kittens in there'. Ten seconds later, as you know, he killed himself and his pax. Chryptic remark by me. Should have kept my mouth shut.

[Pilot DAR]

Not so survivable...

To put the photo in context, you must first observe that there are no skid/slide marks around the aircraft. It did contact at a 10 degree nose down attitude, but it was moving vertically, not horizontally (in which case slide marks would be visible) when it contacted the ground. I remember watching. The aircraft is facing east, on the east side of the runway, in the photo, he had been flying south in the spin recovery when he crashed. We were taxiing north. He turned from south to east in the final moment before he contacted. The sod on the wing suggests he had a little forward speed, but not as much as the vertical digging force! The tail boom can be seen to be wrinkled down from the crash forces.

I don't know a lot about the seat energy absorbtion characteristics of the SF260, but I'm thinking they're not great. With nothing collapsable (I think he more or less sits on the spar) to absorb the crash forces between the pilot's body, and the ground, the G force would have been very high.

A friend of mine crashed his C150 doing low level foolishness many years ago. We got him out, but the coroner later told me that his deceleration had exceeded 200 G's, and he had done more of a "landing" than the SF 260 pilot. At least my friend had some slide marks!

[Madbob]

When being taught to fly low safely (well for most of the time) I remember also being taught about the "kill probability" of the various weapons that we we trying to avoid by flying low, eg SAM's and radar laid AAA (guns like the ZSU34-4 :eek:) etc.

The weapons might have say, a 30-40% PK - but the PK of flying into the ground is almost always 100%......

I think the link was "know your enemy"....and respect the ground.

MB

[Mark1234]

As for the C-27, Tex Johnson barrel rolled the 707 prototype without anything falling off. Just keep positive g and don't pull beyond the limits.

Yup, have seen the C-27 display myself, it's real enough.

Mind you, being a pedant, I don't know why everyone (including Tex in the video) claims the 707 as a barrel roll. It's clearly an aileron roll of the 'heave the nose up, reduce back pressure and put the stick on one side' variety. Barrel rolls require a significant heading change.

[John Farley]

Back in the ‘70s I was asked to contribute to an article that had quotes from many display pilots on how to stay safe. There were lots of detailed comments relating to specific manoeuvres seen as ‘secrets’ to safety by their authors. I felt something more general was called for so I said:

“Never use all of the aircraft’s performance, never use all of your own performance and if you don’t understand why these two things are the basis of safety then don’t fly low level demos.”

[Saab Dastard]

John,

I think that quote could cover a lot more than aerobatics! :ok:

SD

[Pilot DAR]

Yes, I agree. John's quote is even more effective, when considered with the last three words removed...

'sounds hash, but so is the ground...

[Flying Lawyer]

treadigraph & JEM60


Small world. I too saw the T34 crash at Mildenhall in 1983. The first crash I’d seen and I’ll be pleased if it’s the only one. I saw the wreckage close up from the back of Stephen Grey’s P51 Mustang (flown by Stef Karwowski) as we taxiied out - the emergency services were still there – a strange sensation to say the least. What made it even worse was that the two Beech test pilots who were killed were on the same table as us at dinner the night before and had been very enjoyable and interesting company. Both were older than most of the other pilots, one late 50s and the other mid 50s.

Jem60 – Interesting comment. Several display pilots had expressed concerns about the T34 display over the weekend.


FL

[TheGorrilla]

I know, I've seen that very C27J rolled... Very badly!! The video looked too good! I've also seen that G222 at Fairford and personally flown head-to-head with a G222 going the wrong way round a circuit at a particular italian airfield. Never been less impressed with any airforce transport flying in my life before!

[TheGorrilla]

Utterly, utterly pointless misuse of a transport aircraft. Flown by overzealous wannabe fighter pilot idiots.

[JEM60]

Ah, Stefan Karwowski
There was a man who knew how to fly!!!! Lost his life in a Pitts that failed to recover from a spin.Greatest Bearcat display pilot ever.!!!

[treadigraph]

Greatest Bearcat display pilot ever

That first display at Biggin '82 - disappeared over the hump in the runway still on the ground, reappeared a few seconds later pulling up into a half cuban. His second flight in it I believe. Remarkable.

I don't recall much about the T-34 display; we'd just arrived and were walking towards the display line as he performed, then he reappeared taking off, climbing steeply as I remember. I recalled a stall turn, but the roll to inverted matches the accident report I think. Subsequently, a number of low level displays have made me feel uncomfortable; two ended in accidents, one one a few seconds later, the other, which seemed a particularly aggressive performance, on the runway a couple of Fridays later during practice - the airshow was cancelled.

On the other hand... Ray Hanna. Over thirty five years he only once gave me pause for thought, during a display in the Spitfire at Biggin. I was much closer to the southern end of the airfield than I realised and he was - of course - comfortably out over the valley!

[Zulu Alpha]

I have heard several people comment about how someones display flying was not safe.... and then later to hear there had been an accident. The comment then is always " I wish I'd said something".

Some time ago I read an article (I can't remember where) and the jist of it was that as display pilots we are our brothers keeper. We do have a responsibility to say something if a manouvre or display looks dangerous.

I have only had 1 person make a comment about my display and I was pleased he did and thanked him.

This doesn't seem to be the norm though and many pilots are too "polite" to make any constructive negative comment about a display. I wish it wasn't this way.

ZA

[JEM60]

Treadigraph.
It was the steep climb in such blustery conditions that prompted my remark about the passenger etc., It seemed foolhardy in such blustery conditions. The rolling inverted appeared to me to intentional, but accident report would not commit to this. Good job he just missed the line of parked KC135 tankers!!! Lot of old pilots, lot of bold pilots.. we all know the rest. Zulu Alpha and all the other display pilots who read this, and who give us so much pleasure, fly safe this coming season, we like nice artistic flying. Leave the dangerous flying to the USA. Regards, John.

[treadigraph]

Some time ago I read an article (I can't remember where)

Might have been one by Brian Lecomber in Flyer last year in which he regrets not saying something to another pilot, in fact one of the three to whom I referred earlier in the thread about hitting trees.

Therein he suggested a buddy system (based on a US idea if I recall) where pairs of pilots keep an eye on each other and critique performance from the standpoint of safety.

May I echo JEM60's comment: stay safe guys! I'm looking forward to the upcoming season, may it be blessed with superb weather and delightful flying!

[biscuit74]

25F,

Can I just comment - since there seems to have been some (very interesting) thread drift here -

As a tyro (still) to aerobatics, I find another reason for not doing - or starting - aerobatics low is that it is astonishigly easy to burn off height while practicing and repeating maneouvres.

I have surprised myself a couple of times by getting so wrapped in trying to improve my rolls or loops that I've ended up much lower than I'd like to be. If you are flying something without a lot of excess power it's very easy to lose height steadily without noticing it.

No doubt the experts, like my old acquaintance Brian L will wince at the incompetence of this - but it surprised me my concentration could become so narrowly focussed.

I'd have said surprised and scared me except that it wasn't till well afterwards I had time to reflect and worry properly. At the time it was a fairly casual " Hmm - Those trees are surprisingly large" thought.

Also - it was these 'easy; maneouvres' that were the concern. I realised that maneouvres in which things were more apt to go wrong in 'interesting' ways, like flicks, got more care from me in checking height before start.

Hmm, again.

[25F]

biscuit74,

I've been following the thread and its drift with a great deal of interest, and I'm pleased to have contributed in a very small way to Pprune. (I used to help out a bit in the computers & internet forum but every time I go there now, there seems to be a bunch of competent and well-informed regulars taking care of things).

As a side-comment, the "two mistakes high" rule can be usefully applied to many non-flying situations as well.

Thanks to all.

[Pitts2112]

Biscuit had a good point about altitude awareness when trying new maneuvers and there's a related point about knowing what your maneuver is likely to do. I remember the time I decided to try a snap roll on a downline for the first time. I'd seen it done, knew the inputs and what to expect from the maneuver...except for the altitude loss!! Holy sh&t!

Later, in the clubhouse, I mentioned to Barry Tempest that I'd tried one for the first time. Before I'd even told him my impression he said

"Ah, yes, you have to be careful with those. The altitude loss is PROOO-digous!"

I couldn't have come up with a better word myself!

Then there was the experienced Pitts pilot who told me about the time he decided to use his mini digital camera to get a shot of the clubhouse from the vertical...and the surprise he got when, after getting the shot he wanted, he shifted from viewfinder to real-world view out the windscreen. Somehow the viewfinder seemed to add a couple hundred feet. The camera may have sustained minor damage in the "Oh, sh&t!"-accompanied pull-out!

[421dog]

Duane Cole checked me out in a Citabria, and, in a very understated fashion, made most of the observations you all are making a priori (insofar as I was concerned).

He further taught me how to do a real barrel roll. (though I am still fairly convinced I never did one up to his standard). He insisted that this maneuver is not, in any way rate-dependent, and may be subject to arrest and inspection at any point during the rotation. Should such inspection be demanded when one is in an inappropriate power and control configuration (as, surprisingly, was invariably the case), the resulting flight condition changes are demonstrative of poor airmanship and, for the student, fairly embarrassing (to say the least).

[TheGorrilla]

Biscuit,

I agree, height is your life insurance. What else are you likely to collide with if the ground did not exist? Sadly the ground is also your reference for flying aerobatics, it also happens to be the best place for folk to watch you, and for you to take-off and land.

Double edged sword really. I still think it's better than dying in bed with some horrible, nasty disease. :{