Acrobatics in a Kingair?
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Endor
Age: 83
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Acrobatics in a Kingair?
From this Morning's Age. Is this a slap on the wrist with a feather or what?????
Acrobatics land pilot Grollo in hot water
By Steve Butcher
May 16, 2006
A member of the Grollo construction family has faced court after recklessly piloting a plane over the Victorian alps, taking passengers on a wild aerobatic ride and damaging the plane's engines.
Mark Leon Grollo, 33, son of Rino and nephew of Bruno Grollo, had passengers floating in zero gravity when he performed a steep climb and dive over the Mount Hotham resort on May 11, 2002, a court heard yesterday.
Grollo performed the stunt as he flew a group of friends to a private function at the resort in a hired Beech King Air 200.
Prosecutor Vicky Arjitis told Heidelberg Magistrates Court that damage to both engines was caused by Grollo flying the plane in a way it was not designed for.
Grollo pleaded guilty to seven charges, including operating an aircraft recklessly and making a false or misleading statement.
Terry Forrest, QC, defending, said Grollo's conduct was "so completely out of character as to constitute an aberration".
He said the incident occurred after Grollo's first marriage failed and he "took up with a slightly sportier crowd" who were not as "focused" as his client.
A highly regarded pilot, Grollo had accepted his behaviour was a case of "showing off" to friends.
Mr Forrest said the plane's owners had assessed the damage at $492,000, which indicated Grollo might face civil action.
Magistrate Jill Crowe put Grollo on a non-conviction, two-year good behaviour bond.
She also ordered him to pay $3000 to the court fund, $1000 costs and $5000 to the Royal Flying Doctor Service, for which he had been working at the time of the incident.
Acrobatics land pilot Grollo in hot water
By Steve Butcher
May 16, 2006
A member of the Grollo construction family has faced court after recklessly piloting a plane over the Victorian alps, taking passengers on a wild aerobatic ride and damaging the plane's engines.
Mark Leon Grollo, 33, son of Rino and nephew of Bruno Grollo, had passengers floating in zero gravity when he performed a steep climb and dive over the Mount Hotham resort on May 11, 2002, a court heard yesterday.
Grollo performed the stunt as he flew a group of friends to a private function at the resort in a hired Beech King Air 200.
Prosecutor Vicky Arjitis told Heidelberg Magistrates Court that damage to both engines was caused by Grollo flying the plane in a way it was not designed for.
Grollo pleaded guilty to seven charges, including operating an aircraft recklessly and making a false or misleading statement.
Terry Forrest, QC, defending, said Grollo's conduct was "so completely out of character as to constitute an aberration".
He said the incident occurred after Grollo's first marriage failed and he "took up with a slightly sportier crowd" who were not as "focused" as his client.
A highly regarded pilot, Grollo had accepted his behaviour was a case of "showing off" to friends.
Mr Forrest said the plane's owners had assessed the damage at $492,000, which indicated Grollo might face civil action.
Magistrate Jill Crowe put Grollo on a non-conviction, two-year good behaviour bond.
She also ordered him to pay $3000 to the court fund, $1000 costs and $5000 to the Royal Flying Doctor Service, for which he had been working at the time of the incident.
If it was just high-speed pull-ups followed by zero-g pushovers, they probably couldn't get him for illegal aerobatics, not having exceeded normal pitch or bank limits and staying within the aircraft's g limits, so maybe they were a bit hamstrung by allowable penalties for 'recklessly piloting'.
Paying for the damage caused would probably be a big enough penalty in normal circumstances, but I guess getting hold of some money wouldn't be that difficult for him.
Paying for the damage caused would probably be a big enough penalty in normal circumstances, but I guess getting hold of some money wouldn't be that difficult for him.
They got him easily on the "aerobatic" clause, and can get you very easily because when you climb an angle of attack where you are unable to maintain a constant (flyable) airspeed, that is classified as an aerobatic manoeuvre. Eg, steep pull-up resulting in a negative g push-over. 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.
If you do a "beat-up" down the runway, pull up fairly steeply then push over negatively to regain speed, you have completed an aerobatic manoeuvre and as such require an aerobatic endorsement, low level waiver and an appropriately certified aircraft.
There's always a way for them to snaffle you if they need to.
I also raise the question of whether or not the passengers were qualified to determine if "aerobatics" had actually been performed in the aircraft. A non-aviation individual may not know enough to know better; especially if some pre-dinner drinks had been consumed.
Sounds like a nice night out with friends turned bad when a neat little push-over did damage to the engines that the pilot didn't know would happen when executed.
If you do a "beat-up" down the runway, pull up fairly steeply then push over negatively to regain speed, you have completed an aerobatic manoeuvre and as such require an aerobatic endorsement, low level waiver and an appropriately certified aircraft.
There's always a way for them to snaffle you if they need to.
I also raise the question of whether or not the passengers were qualified to determine if "aerobatics" had actually been performed in the aircraft. A non-aviation individual may not know enough to know better; especially if some pre-dinner drinks had been consumed.
Sounds like a nice night out with friends turned bad when a neat little push-over did damage to the engines that the pilot didn't know would happen when executed.
Squawk7700
Ineterested to know where you found your definition of aerobatics?
The old CAR's or maybe even ANR's used to define aerobatic maneouvre as one were pitch exceeded 60 degrees Or AoB in excess of 60 degrees.
Ineterested to know where you found your definition of aerobatics?
The old CAR's or maybe even ANR's used to define aerobatic maneouvre as one were pitch exceeded 60 degrees Or AoB in excess of 60 degrees.
Last edited by RENURPP; 26th May 2006 at 07:11.
I understand where you are coming from, however airspeed must come into play when determining an aerobatic manoeuvre.
Are you suggesting that 55 degrees angle of attack / pitch is not an aerobatic manoeuvre at any altitude? What happens to essentially any aircraft when 55 degrees AOA or pitch is maintained?
Would you pull a 59 degree angle of attack / pitch departure on takeoff at Moorabbin or Bankstown say after holding the aircraft down after takeoff whilst the CASA licencing and airlaws field officer is sitting in the tower? I don't think so....
Are you suggesting that 55 degrees angle of attack / pitch is not an aerobatic manoeuvre at any altitude? What happens to essentially any aircraft when 55 degrees AOA or pitch is maintained?
Would you pull a 59 degree angle of attack / pitch departure on takeoff at Moorabbin or Bankstown say after holding the aircraft down after takeoff whilst the CASA licencing and airlaws field officer is sitting in the tower? I don't think so....
Last edited by Squawk7700; 16th May 2006 at 00:20.
Mate, I am not suggesting anything. Your instructors definition or aero's is way off the mark.
The legal definition may have changed from what I recall, I don't know, I can assure you that what you have said would not come close.
Remember there is a difference between sensible, safe and LEGAL.
The legal definition may have changed from what I recall, I don't know, I can assure you that what you have said would not come close.
Remember there is a difference between sensible, safe and LEGAL.
Originally Posted by RENURPP
Mate, I am not suggesting anything. Your instructors definition or aero's is way off the mark.
The legal definition may have changed from what I recall, I don't know, I can assure you that what you have said would not come close.
Remember there is a difference between sensible, safe and LEGAL.
The legal definition may have changed from what I recall, I don't know, I can assure you that what you have said would not come close.
Remember there is a difference between sensible, safe and LEGAL.
I think you will find I am right... prove otherwise. I await your post.
CAR155 (CAUTION: Large Download 2.2 MB) Clause 2 states that straight and steady stalls and turns in which the angle of bank does not exceed 60 degrees are not acrobatic flight. It makes no specific reference to pitch attitude and I'm not sure if this is covered elsewhere?
Incidentally, SQWARK 7700, I'd like to see any civilian aerobatic aircraft maintain a 55 degree agle of attack. I guess you meant pitch attitude but reread your post. It's an important difference!
PS. Does anyone know if there's an html version of the CARs rather than PDF?
Incidentally, SQWARK 7700, I'd like to see any civilian aerobatic aircraft maintain a 55 degree agle of attack. I guess you meant pitch attitude but reread your post. It's an important difference!
PS. Does anyone know if there's an html version of the CARs rather than PDF?
Last edited by DirectAnywhere; 16th May 2006 at 02:21.
Play on words on your behalf; let's make it broad and say pitch OR angle of attack at 59 degrees.... either way, both of them are bl**dy steep and non-sustainable as you say in practically any Civilian aircraft.
A good example of the rules are at airshows. If you were able to perform a 60 degree pitch / aoa whatever, people in non-aerobatic aircraft would be zooming down the runway and performing steep pullups.. they don't... I wonder why?
Someone find a reg to prove othewise...
A good example of the rules are at airshows. If you were able to perform a 60 degree pitch / aoa whatever, people in non-aerobatic aircraft would be zooming down the runway and performing steep pullups.. they don't... I wonder why?
Someone find a reg to prove othewise...
Sqwak 7700,
I simply asked were you got your definition from. It sounded off the mark.
This is from CAR 155. I will find some more for you and post.
From what I can find the limit on pitch has been removed, therefore I would take that to mean as long as the aircraft doesn't stall, or is a straight and steady stall, then it is not an aerobatic maneouvre.
Don't get so touchy when questioned.
I simply asked were you got your definition from. It sounded off the mark.
This is from CAR 155. I will find some more for you and post.
(2) For the purposes of subregulation (1), straight and steady stalls or
turns in which the angle of bank does not exceed 60 degrees shall be
deemed not to be acrobatic flight.
turns in which the angle of bank does not exceed 60 degrees shall be
deemed not to be acrobatic flight.
Don't get so touchy when questioned.
That's exactly what I said in my earlier post...
I'm looking for the bit that says high pitch / aoa is aerobatic.
"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."
I'm looking for the bit that says high pitch / aoa is aerobatic.
"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."
We're getting off topic but let me make it clear for you. Angle of attack is not relevant to this discussion. If the aircraft was capable of it you can fly a 55 degree angle of attack (your arbitrary figure) and be flying straight and level. This is apparently not an acrobatic manoeuvre.
You brought AoA into the discussion and no civilian aircraft is going to get near 55 degrees AoA before it falls out of the sky. Typical stall AoA for civilian aerobatic aircraft are nearer to 20 degrees than 60.
You need to delete any reference to AoA in your posts and replace it with pitch attitude.
Pedantic? Perhaps. But it undermines your argument when your defined criteria are incorrect.
You brought AoA into the discussion and no civilian aircraft is going to get near 55 degrees AoA before it falls out of the sky. Typical stall AoA for civilian aerobatic aircraft are nearer to 20 degrees than 60.
You need to delete any reference to AoA in your posts and replace it with pitch attitude.
Pedantic? Perhaps. But it undermines your argument when your defined criteria are incorrect.
I now modify my argument to suggest that at extreme angle-of-attack or pitch angles an aircraft would be unable to maintain speed, thus any execution of such angles is inherently classified as an aerobatic manoeuvre.
It was suggested that this is not an aerobatic manoeuvre. I believe this is wrong and am waiting for someone to provide a clear definition of this.
Leading back to the Grollo incident where I believe he DID commit an aerobatic manoeuvre when people said he didn't.
It was suggested that this is not an aerobatic manoeuvre. I believe this is wrong and am waiting for someone to provide a clear definition of this.
Leading back to the Grollo incident where I believe he DID commit an aerobatic manoeuvre when people said he didn't.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Dad's Bag
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Definitions. In this AC the following definitions apply:
aerobatic flight means manoeuvres intentionally performed by the pilot that involve:
(a) bank angles in excess of 60 degrees; or
(b) pitch angles in excess of 45 degrees, or otherwise abnormal to the aircraft type;
or
(c) abrupt changes of direction, angles of bank, angles of pitch, or speed.
copied from:
Advisory Circular
AC 91-075(0) SEPTEMBER 2001
GUIDELINES FOR AEROBATICS
aerobatic flight means manoeuvres intentionally performed by the pilot that involve:
(a) bank angles in excess of 60 degrees; or
(b) pitch angles in excess of 45 degrees, or otherwise abnormal to the aircraft type;
or
(c) abrupt changes of direction, angles of bank, angles of pitch, or speed.
copied from:
Advisory Circular
AC 91-075(0) SEPTEMBER 2001
GUIDELINES FOR AEROBATICS
Thanks Blown Seal, that's exactly what I was looking for!!!
Seems that the interpretation of "abrubt" determines if one has conducted aerobatics, thus I would suggest that negative G's with passengers "floating" in the cabin could be interpreted as aerobatic and as such the aircraft is not certified to perform this action.
As a secondary, if one were to fly at 45 deg pitch and speed was to decay an abrupt change of pitch or roll would be required to regain speed, thus it could be construed as aerobatic.
Abrupt changes in speed could be caused by flying at a high pitch angle... thus it looks like I was right all the time.
It's amazing what you find when you bother to look into the regs and not just make stuff up.
Seems that the interpretation of "abrubt" determines if one has conducted aerobatics, thus I would suggest that negative G's with passengers "floating" in the cabin could be interpreted as aerobatic and as such the aircraft is not certified to perform this action.
As a secondary, if one were to fly at 45 deg pitch and speed was to decay an abrupt change of pitch or roll would be required to regain speed, thus it could be construed as aerobatic.
Abrupt changes in speed could be caused by flying at a high pitch angle... thus it looks like I was right all the time.
It's amazing what you find when you bother to look into the regs and not just make stuff up.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Author: Nikki Protyniak
Publisher: News Ltd
Publication: Herald Sun, Page 024 (Tue 16 May 2006)
Keywords: Mark (1),Grollo (1)
Edition: 1 - FIRST
Section: NEWS
Grollo fined for antics
THE pilot nephew of retired developer and property tycoon Bruno Grollo will keep his pilot's licence despite dangerous aerial stunts that left a $500,000 damage bill.
Mark Grollo, 33, yesterday admitted ``showing off'' when he ignored safety warnings to perform risky stunts during a joyflight with friends in a hired plane around Mt Hotham.
The Heidelberg Magistrates' Court heard his three passengers were left floating in mid-air above their seats -- an effect of zero gravity -- during the wild ride.
Red engine warning lights came on within seconds of the stunts and Mr Grollo was forced to land, the court was told.
Mr Grollo yesterday pleaded guilty to seven charges, including operating an aircraft recklessly, creating a hazard and making false and misleading statements.
Prosecutor Vicky Arjits, for the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, said he had bragged to his friends before takeoff that he ``would show them what the plane could do''.
Ms Arjits said the plane climbed steeply and dived sharply several times. She said Mr Grollo lied by saying the engines were damaged by turbulence.
Engineers in Canada, where the disabled engines were sent to be checked, ruled out Mr Grollo's explanation.
It took six months and $493,000 to repair the Beech 200 King Air plane.
``Mr Grollo flew the aircraft in a manner for which it is not designed and not certified,'' Ms Arjits said.
But she did not ask the court to revoke his commerical pilot license.
Defence barrister Terry Forrest, QC, told the court it happened in May 2002 when Mr Grollo was very upset and lonely, and had taken up with a racier set of friends after his first wife left him.
``He accepts that he was showing off. It's something he has never done in a plane before or since,'' Mr Forrest said.
Magistrate Jill Crowe placed Mr Grollo on a two-year good behaviour bond and fined him $3000 without conviction.
She also ordered him to donate $5000 to the Royal Flying Doctors' Service.
Actually the damage bill will be more like $800K
Di
Publisher: News Ltd
Publication: Herald Sun, Page 024 (Tue 16 May 2006)
Keywords: Mark (1),Grollo (1)
Edition: 1 - FIRST
Section: NEWS
Grollo fined for antics
THE pilot nephew of retired developer and property tycoon Bruno Grollo will keep his pilot's licence despite dangerous aerial stunts that left a $500,000 damage bill.
Mark Grollo, 33, yesterday admitted ``showing off'' when he ignored safety warnings to perform risky stunts during a joyflight with friends in a hired plane around Mt Hotham.
The Heidelberg Magistrates' Court heard his three passengers were left floating in mid-air above their seats -- an effect of zero gravity -- during the wild ride.
Red engine warning lights came on within seconds of the stunts and Mr Grollo was forced to land, the court was told.
Mr Grollo yesterday pleaded guilty to seven charges, including operating an aircraft recklessly, creating a hazard and making false and misleading statements.
Prosecutor Vicky Arjits, for the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, said he had bragged to his friends before takeoff that he ``would show them what the plane could do''.
Ms Arjits said the plane climbed steeply and dived sharply several times. She said Mr Grollo lied by saying the engines were damaged by turbulence.
Engineers in Canada, where the disabled engines were sent to be checked, ruled out Mr Grollo's explanation.
It took six months and $493,000 to repair the Beech 200 King Air plane.
``Mr Grollo flew the aircraft in a manner for which it is not designed and not certified,'' Ms Arjits said.
But she did not ask the court to revoke his commerical pilot license.
Defence barrister Terry Forrest, QC, told the court it happened in May 2002 when Mr Grollo was very upset and lonely, and had taken up with a racier set of friends after his first wife left him.
``He accepts that he was showing off. It's something he has never done in a plane before or since,'' Mr Forrest said.
Magistrate Jill Crowe placed Mr Grollo on a two-year good behaviour bond and fined him $3000 without conviction.
She also ordered him to donate $5000 to the Royal Flying Doctors' Service.
Actually the damage bill will be more like $800K
Di
Blown Seal well done thankyou.
Squawk7700,
you are a real tosser.
You have offered no information from the regs, that info came from Directanywhere, myself and Blownseal. You relied on info from "what my instructor said".
Really. Where is that in the REGs
You were waffling on about being able to maintain speed at certain AoA, 55 degrees being your chosen figure!
I am not aware of any "civilian" aircraft that can do that at 45 degrees. I would regard 45 degrees as steep. The steepest I see these days is 20 degrees on climb after take-off, and I would suggest not many types climb that steep.
JEEEEEZ
Squawk7700,
you are a real tosser.
It's amazing what you find when you bother to look into the regs and not just make stuff up.
I understand where you are coming from, however airspeed must come into play when determining an aerobatic manoeuvre.
You were waffling on about being able to maintain speed at certain AoA, 55 degrees being your chosen figure!
They got him easily on the "aerobatic" clause, and can get you very easily because when you climb an angle of attack where you are unable to maintain a constant (flyable) airspeed, that is classified as an aerobatic manoeuvre. Eg, steep pull-up resulting in a negative g push-over.
JEEEEEZ
Last edited by RENURPP; 16th May 2006 at 01:25.
Um, like yeah RENURPP says this:
"From what I can find the limit on pitch has been removed, therefore I would take that to mean as long as the aircraft doesn't stall, or is a straight and steady stall, then it is not an aerobatic maneouvre."
- Um, so what CASA pulled parts out of the regulations, and you reckon I'm a tosser!
As if they removed references to pitch. You just removed them because it didn't suit your argument, then you thank Blown Seal for putting them back in again???
I originally said words to the effect of decaying airspeed was an aerobatic manoeuvre to which it was said that I was wrong.
I was not wrong.
I asked for someone to provide the regs to which you replied with nothing useful.
You provided this:
"The old CAR's or maybe even ANR's used to define aerobatic maneouvre as one were pitch exceeded 60 degrees AoB OR in excess of 60 degrees."
- 60 degress, comeone, get off the drugs! You post this crap, then tell me off for posting opinion! 60 degres pitch! Oh and "pitch exceeded 60 degrees AoB," what the heck does that mean?
I said my instructor told me and I believe him; he was right. My instructor probably taught your instructors instructor 20 years ago to perform aerobatics and I absolutely knew he was right.
I didn't need to find the reg myself, because I knew I was right, right from the start.
Boy this forum is full of w*ankers.
You might prefer a forum more suited for your skills and knowledge; it's located at www.ultralight.net.au although your posts would probably be pulled straight away for being crap.
"From what I can find the limit on pitch has been removed, therefore I would take that to mean as long as the aircraft doesn't stall, or is a straight and steady stall, then it is not an aerobatic maneouvre."
- Um, so what CASA pulled parts out of the regulations, and you reckon I'm a tosser!
As if they removed references to pitch. You just removed them because it didn't suit your argument, then you thank Blown Seal for putting them back in again???
I originally said words to the effect of decaying airspeed was an aerobatic manoeuvre to which it was said that I was wrong.
I was not wrong.
I asked for someone to provide the regs to which you replied with nothing useful.
You provided this:
"The old CAR's or maybe even ANR's used to define aerobatic maneouvre as one were pitch exceeded 60 degrees AoB OR in excess of 60 degrees."
- 60 degress, comeone, get off the drugs! You post this crap, then tell me off for posting opinion! 60 degres pitch! Oh and "pitch exceeded 60 degrees AoB," what the heck does that mean?
I said my instructor told me and I believe him; he was right. My instructor probably taught your instructors instructor 20 years ago to perform aerobatics and I absolutely knew he was right.
I didn't need to find the reg myself, because I knew I was right, right from the start.
Boy this forum is full of w*ankers.
You might prefer a forum more suited for your skills and knowledge; it's located at www.ultralight.net.au although your posts would probably be pulled straight away for being crap.
Quote from Squawk:
"I understand where you are coming from, however airspeed must come into play when determining an aerobatic manoeuvre."
Quote from RENURPP:
"Really. Where is that in the REGs"
Supporting regulation:
aerobatic flight means manoeuvres intentionally performed by the pilot that involve:
(c) abrupt changes of direction, angles of bank, angles of pitch, or speed.
CASE CLOSED.
That is all.
"I understand where you are coming from, however airspeed must come into play when determining an aerobatic manoeuvre."
Quote from RENURPP:
"Really. Where is that in the REGs"
Supporting regulation:
aerobatic flight means manoeuvres intentionally performed by the pilot that involve:
(c) abrupt changes of direction, angles of bank, angles of pitch, or speed.
CASE CLOSED.
That is all.