Aerobatics "license" ?
 

I believe that in Norway (where I'm from), you need a special license to do aerobatics (JAA stuff).
How does this work in the US, do you need any special training to legally go do loops etc? Or do you just need to follow the FARs regarding parachutes when pitching more than 30 degrees up and down, and other aerobatic FARs?
Only thing I could think of would be a tailwheel endorsement to fly most of the airplanes that are rated for those things

just need to follow the FARs in the US. The only license perse is a low altitude waiver which is issued by the FAA and difficult to comeby but you dont need that anyway unless you are an airshow pilot.

do not practice acro-
Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement;
Over an open air assembly of persons;
Within the lateral boundaries of the surface areas of Class B, Class C, Class D, or Class E airspace designated for an airport;
Within 4 nautical miles of the center line of any Federal airway;
Below an altitude of 1,500 feet above the surface

and if you are expecting to bank more than 30 degrees or pitch more than 60 throw on a chute. The tailwheel endorsement is not required unless you plan on taking the plane out solo and instruction is not required although it would be near suicide to attempt it without prior training.

I was/am an acro instructor so let me know if you have any questions.

No specific license or endorsement.. but high performance, tailwheel and possibly a complex endorsement can come in handy.

that said, it'd be fairly reckless to teach yourself aerobatics.

Jeremy

more info from the FAA:http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory...hlight=91%2048

REFERENCES. In addition to the sections of the FAR quoted above,
there are other sections of which a pilot should be knowledgeable:
a. Section 91.9 - Careless or Reckless Operation. “No person may
operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the
li.fe or property of another .”
b 0 . Section 91.15 - Parachutes and Parachuting Pilots should
familiarize themselves with the requirements of Section 91.15 which contain
certain parachute wearing and packing requirements.
c. Section 91.71 - Acrobatic Flight. “No person may operate an
aircraft in acrobatic flight:
(a) Over any congested area of a city, town or settlement;
(b) Over an open air assembly of persons;
(c) Within a control zone or Federal airway;
(d) Below an altitude of 1,500 feet above the surface; or
(e) When flight visibility is less than three miles

Isnt is supposed to be the other way around? (30 deg pitch, or 60 deg bank)

(sorry I promise im not nitpicking):D

ha...yea that would make sense.

yea by all means, I have no plans of teaching myself aerobatics :P
Just wondered how it was legally :)

That would be frustrating trying to do steep turns in a 172 with a bulky parachute on.... grrrrr...:D

Not to change the subject, but what do you think of doing practice engine outs down to 50 feet- legal or not? Obviously, you can't do them in non-accord with FAR 91.119 so it would be over a sparsely populated area probably over a grass pasture, and free of structures including fence posts. I think it's legal personally.

I read that other thread and I think that person busting their checkride for going below 500 was a bit BS.... Now going all the way down to 50 feet, I dont think its really necessary, cause if you dont know if you are going to make a field by the time you get to 500 feet AGL, you probably arent going to make it... I teach in an area that has a LOT of open fields/farmland, so we can go low, but I usually break it off at about 500 and then afterwards ask the student why they could or could not make it to the particular field that they picked, and if not what could they have done better... I dont see any need to go that low...

Now I think the main reason for that is that if you get that low and do experience a REAL engine out it could aggrivate the situation esp with a student and they could freak out and potentially stall/spin the plane... and we all know the results of these scenerios that low to the ground... Never good...just my opinion though...

Well I agree it is dangerous and you would want to clear your engine and be ready to land in case it does blink out but I see some value to doing low altitude engine outs occasionally to develop an awareness of what it looks like to actually land off airport. 500 ft will do for most training purposes and this would be an occasional sort of thing, something that would be done alone for practice. I just wondered what the legal aspects of it were.

thats a good question... My person opinion is, if its in question dont try it... Im not gonna risk losing my certificate and career as a commercial pilot just to give a student some good practical training... Now thats not to say that I dont think its good training..

Think about this though (not to sound paranoid), what if the owner of that property was out in his field when you were doing this approach and got your tail number and reported you to the FAA/FSDO... now not only are you facing busting the 500ft rule, but you could get a violation for reckless/dangerous operation....

but as instructors we both know that real world scenerio training can be very valuable if needed in real life.... Big dilemma....

Well this was a nice derailment, but no matter, I got my answer. Thanks guys :)

why not just do your engine out scenario over a lightly used uncontrolled airport....

then you keep all the FAR's legal, adds a degree of safety and they can fly their emergency landing all the way to the ground. It's what i do with my students, in fact I don't solo them until they can demonstrate an aborted take off, what to do in an engine failure after take off and that they can fly an engine out landing all the way to the ground.

I know some other APC'ers did a checkride with the same DPE, but my private checkride engine out scenario was directly over a closed runway.. I was under the hood for a few minutes, he killed the engine as I pulled the hood up.. there was a runway right under us.. hidden by the nose.

Good thing I knew to look there :-D I wish the runway were hidden so close by the other times engines decided to not behave

Thats a good idea... only problem is that here, there arent too many "lightly used" fields... the only other problem I see is that lining yourself up with a runway is much different than lining up with a field that has rivets cut in it, and having to be situationally aware of trees and powerlines and houses.... This is one of those where you CANT really train 100 percent real.... oh well... Still good idea


And sorry for hijacking the thread.... at least the original question was answered....

Yeah sorry to hijack. You hit the nail on the head, there's nothing like thinking on your feet to make certain you can actually do it in a real situation... finding a field long level and clear enough to be suitable plus lined up with the prevailing wind direction, now that takes practice and it cannot be done over existing airstrips it's just too easy. An old airfield may be ok for students but when the engine goes I can promise it will not be over an airstrip. I feel it is worthwhile- as long as it is legal- to find fields on the go and do low level engine outs over them for practice. I do worry about the reckless charge though. If someone gets angry they could probably use that one even if its a remote pasture. I would still argue that every single-engine pilot should do an occasional down low engine out to an empty field, even if it means possible trouble with some farmer. It's that important. You have to be able to do one for real and all too often it comes by necessity.

My DPE did the same to me years ago. It was my first soft field landing.

I have some troubles finding a Aerobatics License in the JARs as well, does anyone know if there is such a thing in Europe? Someone told me, but I'm not sure anymore

go to www.iac.org... I am sure there will be a link on there since its an international club...