Acrobatics in a Kingair?
Join Date: May 2005
Location: australia
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually Squawk, case not closed. An AC is certainly not a Regulation and the definition of aerobatic flight used there is not a statutory definition, although it may be used by CASA to demonstrate their interpretation of a regulation.
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stop Squawking
Squawk,
I think you might be barking up the wrong tree.
An aircraft such as the one flown in this instance can climb rapidly with a gentle application of elevator at cruise speed and conversely with gentle application of forward elevator the aircraft could easily progress into a negative G situation. As long as the aircraft G limits are not exceeded I cannot see how this could be deemed as aerobatic, not smart,
but not aerobatic.
Please recheck your facts with your CFI.
BSB
I think you might be barking up the wrong tree.
An aircraft such as the one flown in this instance can climb rapidly with a gentle application of elevator at cruise speed and conversely with gentle application of forward elevator the aircraft could easily progress into a negative G situation. As long as the aircraft G limits are not exceeded I cannot see how this could be deemed as aerobatic, not smart,
but not aerobatic.Please recheck your facts with your CFI.
BSB
BSB, I was about to post a similar thing - you can get a few seconds worth of zero g in just about any aircraft by, for example, getting speed in a dive, pulling up (30 NU would be ample), then pushing forward to get and maintain zero g - all gentle, smooth and non-aerobatic.
However, as Mr Grollo found out to his discredit, if engines or other systems need positive g to function correctly it is not a smart thing to do in machines that have such limitations.
The pitch and bank limits quoted in the AC are angles reference the aircraft's axes, as opposed to AoA which as we hopefully all know is the angle between the chord line of an aerofoil and the relative airflow.
However, as Mr Grollo found out to his discredit, if engines or other systems need positive g to function correctly it is not a smart thing to do in machines that have such limitations.
The pitch and bank limits quoted in the AC are angles reference the aircraft's axes, as opposed to AoA which as we hopefully all know is the angle between the chord line of an aerofoil and the relative airflow.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Back again.
Posts: 1,140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe covered elsewhere or on an earlier thread, but are there any specifics on the damages, how, why, when, etc.? I can imagine that oil was forced to flow where it was not supposed to and not to flow where it was supposed to, but that's only my imagination running rampant. What are the facts?
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Incipient spin
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If one was to fly an aircraft, such as a C182 for example, and attempt a zero 'g' attitude change for approximately 5 seconds, what effects would this have on the engine.
I'll admit engines are a weak area for me.
I'll admit engines are a weak area for me.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Who cares about the regs and bush lawyers will argue until as one would say until the cows come home.
This clown was operating a sophistocated aircraft (at least by my standards) recklessly - he endnagered people's lives and hopefully has learned a lesson. I don't give a sh&&t that his marriage had just broken up - he can go and get pissed and kill himself in a car accident - hopefully on his own.
This stupid event had the potential to cause a lot more damage.
Out of character - hardly.
This clown was operating a sophistocated aircraft (at least by my standards) recklessly - he endnagered people's lives and hopefully has learned a lesson. I don't give a sh&&t that his marriage had just broken up - he can go and get pissed and kill himself in a car accident - hopefully on his own.
This stupid event had the potential to cause a lot more damage.
Out of character - hardly.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: near the hangar , australia
Age: 55
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i'll be surprised if you sent any turbine engine away for inspection and for the engine shop not to find anything wrong . i don't condone aero's in the king air but where is a negative g defined as an aerobatic manouver
Squawk, the quote you are using says "abrupt". I can assure you, that I can achieve zero "g" in an aircraft with a gentle pull up to less than 45 degrees pitch, followed by a gentle lowering of the nose. In fact, I can quite happily do loops, rolls, and stall turns, outside loops etc (in an approved aircraft of course) without anything ever being "abrupt".
Also, you don't seem to understand angle of attack, I suggest you go back to the books on that one (hint: 55 is not a number you'd ever see associated with "angle of attack".)
Also, you don't seem to understand angle of attack, I suggest you go back to the books on that one (hint: 55 is not a number you'd ever see associated with "angle of attack".)
Squawk 7700.
The guide or best practice only of 3000 ft is certainly best practice for ripping off a student. For decades flying schools have perpetuated the myth that recovery from practice stalls must be completed by 3000 ft. It originated from Tiger Moth and Chipmunk days when the propellers of those early types were prone to stopping during aerobatics and stalling.
Because these aircraft were not equipped with starter motors, the only way to get a stationary prop to turn and start the engine was to dive steeply often to Vno. Thus the 3000 ft could be quickly used up in the dive leaving not much time and height to plan a forced landing if the engine failed to start. In fact part of the safety checks prior to stall practice was to ensure a forced landing area was within gliding distance.
Of course, the minimum height for practice stall recovery will vary with aircraft type but to flog a C152, C172 or a Warrior or a Jabiru all the way up to 3-4000 ft just to conduct stall recovery practice, is cheating an unsuspecting student out of lots dollars which ultimately puts the money into the instructors pocket and the flying school account.
One regional CASA's view (I have this on paper) is the minimum height for stall recovery practice is not a regulation. It is whatever height the flying school publishes in its Operations Manual. It can vary from school to school. But whatever restriction is published in the flying school operations manual is what CASA and its lawyer will hang you on. In Australia 3000 ft is the common figure and a common rip-off.
That being said though, a stall is not an aerobatic manoeuvre and can legally be executed at any height. The 3,000ft or so that instructors use is a guide / best practice only.
Because these aircraft were not equipped with starter motors, the only way to get a stationary prop to turn and start the engine was to dive steeply often to Vno. Thus the 3000 ft could be quickly used up in the dive leaving not much time and height to plan a forced landing if the engine failed to start. In fact part of the safety checks prior to stall practice was to ensure a forced landing area was within gliding distance.
Of course, the minimum height for practice stall recovery will vary with aircraft type but to flog a C152, C172 or a Warrior or a Jabiru all the way up to 3-4000 ft just to conduct stall recovery practice, is cheating an unsuspecting student out of lots dollars which ultimately puts the money into the instructors pocket and the flying school account.
One regional CASA's view (I have this on paper) is the minimum height for stall recovery practice is not a regulation. It is whatever height the flying school publishes in its Operations Manual. It can vary from school to school. But whatever restriction is published in the flying school operations manual is what CASA and its lawyer will hang you on. In Australia 3000 ft is the common figure and a common rip-off.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 1,219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
pitch angles an aircraft would be unable to maintain speed, thus any execution of such angles is inherently classified as an aerobatic manoeuvre.
The real word in that reg to examine is "abrupt" (in relation to an abrupt change of airspeed). Mainly because I'll bet my left one.. [well, actually no, maybe a beer] that Grollo didn't get the KingAir going 45 degrees nose up.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Qld, Australia
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
She also ordered him to pay.... and $5000 to the Royal Flying Doctor Service, for which he had been working at the time of the incident.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Enroute from Dagobah to Tatooine...!
Posts: 791
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
3000' AGL may be a guidline from CASA, and an old one at that, but it is not altogether unreasonable. I know of at least one pilot (quite an experienced one) who reckons he would have been dead if it wasn't for the fact he had that extra height BEFORE stalling/spinning. Not only that, but there is a difference between stalling a C152 by yourself knowing full well what you are doing and doing the same with a nervous student who has frozen solid on the controls. A difference again between stalling a C152 and then stalling a twin with a ham-fisted student looking after the throttles (and potential significant assymetric thrust around Vmca). Let me tell you - it is not just a ploy to draw out money from the student and extend a lesson! 