PPRuNe Forums - Aerobatics Rating

Page 2 of 2

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)

- The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions (https://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions-91/)

- - Aerobatics Rating (https://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/471498-aerobatics-rating.html)

djpil

14th Dec 2011 22:16

Must be nearly 100 years ago that the term "aerial acrobatics" was shortened to "aerobatics" in the vernacular.
And, yes, the CAAP does explain it all and the word "acrobatic" appears often.

601	15th Dec 2011 11:25

Quote:

These Regulations are the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988.

2 Interpretation

(1) In these Regulations, unless the contrary intention appears:

acrobatic flight means manoeuvres intentionally performed by an aircraft involving an abrupt change in its attitude, an abnormal attitude, or an abnormal variation in speed.

This is the one that counts.

MakeItHappenCaptain

15th Dec 2011 13:11

Thanks djpil.

Yeah, I'd put a nut on it.

CAR 2 only interprets the words as they are used in the regs.

CAAP 155
Definitions, first paragraph

Quote:

2.1.1 Current regulations refer to 'acrobatic flight', however 'aerobatics' is a more specific term which is in widespread use and will be used in the proposed new CASRs Parts 91 (General Operating and Flight Rules) and 61 (Flight Crew Licensing). Therefore this CAAP will use the term 'aerobatics' in relation to 'acrobatic flight'.

The times they are a changin'
:cool:

Mark1234

15th Dec 2011 15:20

Quote:

acrobatic flight means manoeuvres intentionally performed by an aircraft involving an abrupt change in its attitude, an abnormal attitude, or an abnormal variation in speed.

Seems to me the only thing defined there is an abrupt change in altitude. Being inverted etc is an entirely normal attitude, is it not? :E

osmosis

15th Dec 2011 21:50

Q. How many shiny bum legal professionals does it take to make a regulation?

A. As many as it takes to make it confusing.

(look anywhere you like for your evidence)

601	15th Dec 2011 22:55

CAAPs are not law. The CARs are. Big difference.

MakeItHappenCaptain

15th Dec 2011 23:31

Mark,

Straight up and down reply,

CAR 155 Para 2

Quote:

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.

FAR's go one further and include 30 degrees of pitch attitude.

Amused reply,

Is there a definition for retentive in there?:}

601, did I say the quote was law? No.
Read the content. I've still got that nut out.:E

All times are GMT. The time now is 09:03.

Page 2 of 2

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page