A 380 showoff

[pembquist]

Regulations. Almost any airplane can be rolled, but few can be rolled legally. Normal and utility category airplanes are not permitted to exceed a bank angle of 60 degrees. Only acrobatic category airplanes may be rolled legally. Normal and utility category airplanes have never been tested and certified to roll so you're practically a test pilot if you do. What "Tex" did was reckless endangerment... at best.

"Regulations" is a really depressing answer. I'd have preferred "Because you might whiffle it and break something." 

[Golfer]

I'm not saying its not illegal, Im saying with proper training it's not dangerous.

Until the next flight when you find out pieces of equipment that aren't designed to be upside down went upside down and no longer function as you thought they might.

You might think it's pretty dangerous then.  Actually it's somewhere between mildly annoying and deadly depending on where things went awry.

Gyros not made for it or left to their own devices without being caged don't react well to going upside down.  I flew a 172 after it had been upside down inadvertently the day before.  Fortunately it was my regular work airplane flying traffic reports and typically the weather was decent enough to see the ground from my 1500-2000' work altitude.  Today wasn't that day and I'd just started flying with the radio personality that came out of retirement to take his old job that I was doing back.  Instead of doing the broadcasts I did flying and had someone to talk to for morning and afternoon rush hours and got paid the same.  Fine by me.  Anyway we depart at 0615 or whatever before daybreak time it was on an overcast winter morning.  A few minutes into the flight we were on the north side of town when the attitude indicator threw in the towel.  Now, getting vectored back to the airport to do a pretty easy partial panel approach wasn't a big deal.  What made it a bigger deal was the sense of urgency and the snow bands that had come through requiring an approach down to the basement which was real enough for my roughly 800 hour self to be pleased in my training.

I wrote up the attitude indicator and it was replaced.  What I didn't write down was that it was me the day before in the airplane when a buddy and I mistakenly ended up inverted only briefly.  I was a freshly minted CFI and a buddy wanted some spin training so I obliged.  After a demo and a couple spins in either direction it was decided that just at the brink of the stall, loading up the airplane and forcing it into a stall would be a better technique than waiting the 2 seconds it would take for the airplane to get there itself.  Seemed reasonable enough to me so I said give it a go. Well when the rudder was kicked in a little too soon and the still flying wings finally gave way that airplane wound up on its back in a heartbeat. Just as things were going awry I took the airplane but it settled into a normal spin before any additional drama so I just recovered normally. My buddy looked over at me and asked if we were upside down, while white as a sheet.  I looked back at him and said "Nah...just looked funny because of the entry..." as I swallowed the lump in my throat.

Back to the AI failure.  I don't need to tell you that most other weekend warrior pilots might not be as proficient as you think you are today. I don't need to tell you that most other weekend warrior pilots weren't as proficient as I thought I was then.  It's a matter of recency of experience and with flying being both a perishable skill as well as expensive it's easy to let that fall by the wayside.  Having seen some real idiotic things conducting flight reviews and general proficiency training I wouldn't want what should be a relatively minor failure being a link in an accident chain.  The first being their degraded skill level and the last being a smoking hole in the ground with an equipment failure somewhere in the middle.  That wouldn't be fun to live with.

[GScholz]

"Regulations" is a really depressing answer. I'd have preferred "Because you might whiffle it and break something." 

That would be the answer to why there's regulation.

There is something not only impressive but viscerally delightful about turning an airplane on its back and bringing it round upright again; it is the same delight children feel when they turn somersaults in swimming pools. We are not surprised, therefore, to read of a man who, after seeing a Beech 18 and a Baron rolled, wanted to try it in his own newly purchased Baron. I will call him Joe. Joe had over 1,000 hours, acquired over a three-year period, and an instrument rating; he had recently gotten his multiengine rating as well.

A friend of Joe's reported having been with him on the return flight from Sun 'n Fun, where they had seen the Beech 18 rolled in an airshow. As they cruised at 9,500 feet, Joe said, "I want to try something." He banked left and right and then said, "I believe it's possible to roll this airplane." With that, he entered a shallow dive, banked left, pulled back and rolled to the right. The friend in the right seat, displaying an assertiveness and independence of spirit rare among right-seat occupants, grabbed the controls and leveled the airplane, telling Joe, "I cannot do this."

"I believe it's possible to roll this airplane," Joe repeated. He then descended to 7,500 feet, leveled off, inexplicably caged the right engine-nothing was wrong with it, but it did have more hours since overhaul than the left-and continued to Griffin, Georgia, where he restarted the right engine for the landing.

Another pilot, who knew Joe and had flown with him, considered Joe's flying skills to be "below his standards." He "was known for overstressing the planes he flew," said the pilot, who had himself predicted, with remarkable prescience, that Joe "would probably crash an airplane within the next year."

Another friend, when Joe told him that he thought he could roll the Baron, replied that he, Joe, "was stupid," and cautioned him "not to do anything in the airplane that could get him hurt."

Two days later, Joe, together with two other men and the 13-year-old twin sons of one of them, was returning in the afternoon from a fishing trip to Gulf Shores, Alabama. They were cruising in mild and clear weather at 9,700 feet with a groundspeed of 191 knots. A witness, fishing in a boat on a lake near Hamilton, Georgia, heard the approaching Baron and judged from its engine sounds that it was performing some kind of aerobatic maneuvers. He looked up, but could not spot the airplane. As the engine sounds increased in intensity, he looked again and this time saw the Baron, high and descending rapidly in a steep dive. As he watched, he saw a part separate from the airplane. The Baron disintegrated in flight, raining pieces down over a path almost a quarter-mile long.

When an airplane breaks up in flight, the sequence of events can usually be inferred from the order in which parts lie along the so-called "debris path." The National Transportation Safety Board's report on the accident devotes seven single-spaced pages to a minutely detailed description of the Baron's debris path. The breakup began at the tail and progressed forward. The first item was the rudder, which had torn away from the fin. The tip cap and balance weight had broken off and the rudder showed marks of overtravel in both directions. Next were the left horizontal stabilizer and elevator, which were heavily fragmented, followed by the right stabilizer and elevator. Then came the vertical fin and portions of the aft fuselage structure, followed by the cabin door, left wing, right wing, engines and so on.

Investigators found no indication of engine trouble or other mechanical difficulty, and concluded that the probable cause of the accident was "the pilot's exceeding the design stress limits of the airplane while performing aerobatics in a nonaerobatic airplane." The final record downloaded from the airplane's Garmin 496 showed a maximum groundspeed of 266 knots at 8,500 feet; but GPS records contain no information about the airplane's attitude. The broad sequence of failures, starting with the tail and followed by downward failure of the wings, is typical of what happens when a panicked pilot pulls up too rapidly and at too high a speed. The horizontal stabilizers fail downward; without them to hold the tail down, the airplane pitches over to a negative angle of attack, overstressing the wings in a downward direction. The vertical and horizontal empennage components were close enough to one another along the debris path to have been reordered by the random motions of their descent; most likely, it was the non-simultaneous failure of the horizontal surfaces that twisted the fuselage first one way, then the other, shattering the rudder.

Although the pilot was apparently known for his rough handling of airplanes and had repeatedly declared his interest in rolling the Baron, there was no direct evidence that the breakup was the result of a roll. Given the mild weather, however, the absence of severe turbulence, the reputation and statements of the pilot and the report of the witness, the NTSB concluded that some sort of aerobatics had been involved in the accident, and a barrel roll seemed the most likely suspect.

If, as Tex Johnson said, the roll is "absolutely nonhazardous," why did this accident happen?

[Tupac]

Until the next flight when you find out pieces of equipment that aren't designed to be upside down went upside down and no longer function as you thought they might.

You might think it's pretty dangerous then.  Actually it's somewhere between mildly annoying and deadly depending on where things went awry.

Gyros not made for it or left to their own devices without being caged don't react well to going upside down.  I flew a 172 after it had been upside down inadvertently the day before.  Fortunately it was my regular work airplane flying traffic reports and typically the weather was decent enough to see the ground from my 1500-2000' work altitude.  Today wasn't that day and I'd just started flying with the radio personality that came out of retirement to take his old job that I was doing back.  Instead of doing the broadcasts I did flying and had someone to talk to for morning and afternoon rush hours and got paid the same.  Fine by me.  Anyway we depart at 0615 or whatever before daybreak time it was on an overcast winter morning.  A few minutes into the flight we were on the north side of town when the attitude indicator threw in the towel.  Now, getting vectored back to the airport to do a pretty easy partial panel approach wasn't a big deal.  What made it a bigger deal was the sense of urgency and the snow bands that had come through requiring an approach down to the basement which was real enough for my roughly 800 hour self to be pleased in my training.

I wrote up the attitude indicator and it was replaced.  What I didn't write down was that it was me the day before in the airplane when a buddy and I mistakenly ended up inverted only briefly.  I was a freshly minted CFI and a buddy wanted some spin training so I obliged.  After a demo and a couple spins in either direction it was decided that just at the brink of the stall, loading up the airplane and forcing it into a stall would be a better technique than waiting the 2 seconds it would take for the airplane to get there itself.  Seemed reasonable enough to me so I said give it a go. Well when the rudder was kicked in a little too soon and the still flying wings finally gave way that airplane wound up on its back in a heartbeat. Just as things were going awry I took the airplane but it settled into a normal spin before any additional drama so I just recovered normally. My buddy looked over at me and asked if we were upside down, while white as a sheet.  I looked back at him and said "Nah...just looked funny because of the entry..." as I swallowed the lump in my throat.

Back to the AI failure.  I don't need to tell you that most other weekend warrior pilots might not be as proficient as you think you are today. I don't need to tell you that most other weekend warrior pilots weren't as proficient as I thought I was then.  It's a matter of recency of experience and with flying being both a perishable skill as well as expensive it's easy to let that fall by the wayside.  Having seen some real idiotic things conducting flight reviews and general proficiency training I wouldn't want what should be a relatively minor failure being a link in an accident chain.  The first being their degraded skill level and the last being a smoking hole in the ground with an equipment failure somewhere in the middle.  That wouldn't be fun to live with.

I didn't think of the gyroes and stuff like that - my plane is approved for spins but I wont do them in it because of the gyros. I imagine I'll get to see some pretty frightening things as I start out my career as a CFI here in the next couple months.

[Tupac]

That would be the answer to why there's regulation.

If you go back and read my posts you will see that I said with proper training it is not hazardous. Bubba decided that he could roll his baron and he crashed because he didnt know what the hell he was doing. Taking off and landing is also hazardous without proper training.  

I occasionally fly a friends RV7, and he showed me how to roll it properly. We go grab a couple of parachutes and do loops and rolls. He knows the proper technique to roll an airplane, and so do I. Having an aerobatic or experimental airworthiness certificate does not automatically make it safe to roll. It's just as easy to kill yourself in an RV7 than a 172 or the like. The 152 aerobat is a 152 with more rivets and a beefier spar. It seems to do ok. I agree, however, that doing a roll in an unnapproved airplane isn't a good idea, but with proper training it certainly can be done.

[JOACH1M]

do these planes have fly by wire?

Nope, cables and pulleys.

[colmbo]

a criminal if you don't have a test pilot rating

This "test pilot" rating you speak of, is that an FAA rating?  If so, never heard of it...don't believe it exists.  There is no certification for doing aerobatics (in the US).

[Noir]

Nope, cables and pulleys.

Benoit XVI called he wants his humor back 

[pembquist]

This thread has wandered off into the sunset. To continue the voyage I'd like to say that I am glad I live in a country that for the time being has a healthy Experimental Aircraft culture. Doubtless it's just one RV into a stadium away from being stamped out by the safety conscious. I'm all for regulations but they are no substitute for judgement and experience. Looking at the Baron crash if your conclusion is that a 1 g roll is dangerous or that it was the violating of the limitation on bank angle that was responsible than your not very perceptive. That moron pilot would probably have ended up killing himself while within full compliance with the regulations just like the moron in the B52. The friggin airplane doesn't care if your upside down it only cares if you exceed it's envelope. By definition a 1 g roll doesn't exceed the envelope of anything that flys, the gyro isn't going to take it very well and you might not be able to do the maneuver because you don't have the skill but done correctly it is safe. Only an idiot teaches themselves aerobatics but there is no law against it.  You can buy an aerobatic airplane and kill yourself with warm self regard as you are in full compliance with the law though might it have been better if instead of asking yourself "is this legal" you had asked "what happens if I whiffle this?"

I don't understand why there is such a problem with upside down airplanes. If I was dictator you would not get your ticket unless you had demonstrated proficiency in upset recovery.  Does anybody think that the best time for your first time is during a crisis?

As for the rolling 707 I am still unclear whether or not any laws were being broken.  I thought he was Boeing's test pilot and it's unclear in what context the flight was taking place. If this was such a criminal act why wasn't he sanctioned by the FAA, they are not known for their restraint.

And another thing, where do I go to get my "test pilot rating"?

[GScholz]

Apparently not in the US. I'm more familiar with UK regulation.

[GScholz]

As for the rolling 707 I am still unclear whether or not any laws were being broken.  I thought he was Boeing's test pilot and it's unclear in what context the flight was taking place. If this was such a criminal act why wasn't he sanctioned by the FAA, they are not known for their restraint.

He was Boeing's chief test pilot, and was on a test flight. No legal issues, but he almost lost his job at Boeing and had to explain himself to the Boss.

[pembquist]

So why in response to my question "why wouldn't you?" did you say "regulations?"

Anyway, your comments are thoughtful and succinct and I don't really mean to defend Tex since I really have no idea if he is (was?) one of those oppositional personalities like the moron in the Barron.  From the outside I admire his gumption.  I can imagine he might be a bosses nightmare but at least he is passionate about flying and knows what he is doing. I still can't get over that guy in the buff though.

[Ack-Ack]

thx for the info...

did you guys ever see an A380 up close? the thing is ridiculously huge even compared to a 747

I see them all the time when I look out my office window over looking LAX.  Kind of an ugly plane.

ack-ack

[JOACH1M]

Benoit XVI called he wants his humor back 

last time I heard that I laughed so hard I fell of my dinosaur! 

[-tronski-]

thx for the info...

did you guys ever see an A380 up close? the thing is ridiculously huge even compared to a 747

I thought the A388 was going to be bigger to be honest when I first saw it - same with the B748F - at a glance you can really only tell the difference by the engine covers and the lack of winglets from a vanilla B744. I think the tail and height of the fuse makes the A388 look big but the real "weight" is the size of the wings, - not so much the span but the thickness at the wing root - they are truly monstrous up close. ...on the other hand we all thought the B787 was going to be sleek and skinnier, but it looked like just a tubby B762 with a new nose and wings - but they were a sight to see on short final with that bend

 Tronsky