From: rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett)
Subject: Re: Looping Under Bridges
Organization: Capital Area Central Texas UNIX Society, Austin, Tx
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 08:03:43 GMT

In article <BxM7LA.5p7@hfglobe.intel.com> zardoz@rx-db (zardoz@rx-db.hf.intel.com) writes:
>Much discussion about the safety and sensibility of aerobatics in
>non-rated aircraft has taken place.  Not much has been mentioned about
>what exactly might happen and why.  Just a lot of "don't do it", and
>so forth as if simply posting it to a large audience would cause
>someone to try it.  

In fact, I've encountered quite a few personalities that might just try it,
if alerted to the possibilities.  There are plenty of responsible pilots
out there, but irresponsible ones, too.  The CFI-demonstrating-a-barrel-
roll trick seems to be a *very* common practice.  Who knows what goes on
the rest of the time?  What happens when the student, given the benefit of
a couple of barrel rolls, gets his CFI, and goes on to demonstrate it to a 
suitably impressed student?  A whole bunch of stuff seems to go on, on
very shaky ground.

I would be surprised if the accident record didn't show a significant number
of crashes due to aerobatics.


>This attitude is unwarranted.  Lots of crazy tricks
>are shown on TV and movies but I don't read about tragedies in the
>paper from real people trying to duplicate these stunts.  

Seeing it from the magic factory is one thing.  Hearing Joe Bob did it 
in his 172 is quite another: peer competitition starts to set in.  And
that's a very real force among "social" pilots (exhibited by ratings
races, for instance).


>On the other
>hand, Bob Hoover and other experts had to learn somehow.

Sure.  Detailed ground instruction and hands-on flight instruction in 
certified aircraft in the military (or, alternately, civilian aerobatic 
instructors).  Not from books, and not on their own.


>Duane Cole
>has written some books about how to perfrom aerobatics correctly but
>he doesn't mention much about what can go wrong.  

I think we're missing the point if we're talking about learning acrobatics
from a book.  Principles can be learned, technique studied, but the reality
doesn't set in until you've done it.  I think that's what a lot of people
are concerned about: pilots trying "simple," "non-loaded" maneuvers without
the benefit of hands-on instruction (putting aside the aircraft/pilot certif-
ication and furnishings/equipment responsibility issue for a minute).  This 
is a very valid criticism.  The solution is to guide such impulses in an 
appropriate direction: namely, proper aerobatic instruction (or even
demo flights).


> [discussion of risks of various maneuvers]

This is a pretty good idea: but again, I think that what concerns us is a 
lot more fundamental: the issue of responsible conduct.  In the context of
relatively benign maneuvers, such as spins (a valid training maneuver,
but one which some instructors seem terrified of) or barrel rolls by unqual-
ified pilots in inappropriate aircraft.  

You note the risks of various maneuvers, which is a good idea: but what about 
the judgement of a pilot who decides that the regulations are an inconvenience 
to be ignored, reads accounts of low-load maneuvers, written by pilots with 
*tons* of experience, and decides to give it a go in his own airplane?  Peer
censure--which is what we're providing--is one way of making sure this
doesn't happen.




---
Robert Dorsett
rdd@cactus.org
...cs.utexas.edu!cactus.org!rdd
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc