91.307 Ambiguity

This is something I've wondered about for ~45 years.

14 CFR 91.307 says, in part:

"(c) Unless each occupant of the aircraft is wearing an approved parachute, no pilot of a civil aircraft carrying any person (other than a crewmember) may execute any intentional maneuver that exceeds—"... and continues with the definitions of aerobatic flight.

The "Other than a crewmember" part bugs me. This implies that if ONLY required crew is aboard, no parachutes are required. So if one is flying solo, they don't have to wear a 'chute.

Has there been any formal clarification of this from the FAA?

Ron Wanttaja

Nope. Nothing to clarify. If you are flying an aircraft with one pilot seat and one passenger seat, and you put someone in that passenger seat, you both must wear parachutes if you fly acro.

Most aircraft that fly acro have only one required crew member, the single pilot. If there were two required crewmembers, then with only those two individuals (souls) on board, no parachutes need be worn in acrobatic flight. Off the top of my head I can not think of any US civilian Acrobatic Category aircraft that have more than one required crew member.

Flight test operations, and other types of operations done under FAA Certificates of Authorization are covered by specific operating limitations that may or may not spell out required wearing of parachutes.

So in general, solo flight does not require the wearing of a parachute if aerobatics are flown.

I will note that spins are specifically exempted to be a non-acrobatic maneuver. CFI candidates must do spins. I do not see the local folks wear parachutes for that, although as someone who regularly does spins, (editorial comment) I think that they should as most of that community are under-trained in that area. That said, we do not see CFI candidates spinning into the ground.

Hope this helps,

Wes
N78PS

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rwanttaja

This is something I've wondered about for ~45 years.

14 CFR 91.307 says, in part:

"(c) Unless each occupant of the aircraft is wearing an approved parachute, no pilot of a civil aircraft carrying any person (other than a crewmember) may execute any intentional maneuver that exceeds—"... and continues with the definitions of aerobatic flight.

The "Other than a crewmember" part bugs me. This implies that if ONLY required crew is aboard, no parachutes are required. So if one is flying solo, they don't have to wear a 'chute.

Has there been any formal clarification of this from the FAA?

Ron Wanttaja

---

Just an FYI. There are other definitions within the FARs for "aerobatics." I think that the may be three, but it has been a long time since I looked. One such example is here:

§91.303 Aerobatic flight.

No person may operate an aircraft in aerobatic flight—
(a) Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement;
(b) Over an open air assembly of persons;
(c) Within the lateral boundaries of the surface areas of Class B, Class C, Class D, or Class E airspace designated for an airport;
(d) Within 4 nautical miles of the center line of any Federal airway;
(e) Below an altitude of 1,500 feet above the surface; or
(f) When flight visibility is less than 3 statute miles.
For the purposes of this section, aerobatic flight means an intentional maneuver involving an abrupt change in an aircraft's attitude, an abnormal attitude, or abnormal acceleration, not necessary for normal flight.


BJC

)?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WLIU

...

I will note that spins are specifically exempted to be a non-acrobatic maneuver. CFI candidates must do spins. I do not see the local folks wear parachutes for that, although as someone who regularly does spins, (editorial comment) I think that they should as most of that community are under-trained in that area. That said, we do not see CFI candidates spinning into the ground.

Hope this helps,

Wes
N78PS

---

Wes:

Do I remember correctly that the spin exemption applies only for training (meaning that a CFI is on board) or for demonstrating competency (meaning that a certified flight examiner is on board)?

Thanks,


BJC

I do not venture into that territory, so looking up the text of 91.307 I see

"(2) does not apply to -- ..... spins or other flight maneuvers required by the regulations for any certificate or rating when given by
(i) a certificated flight instructor
...."

So I read it as a single exception for dual instruction. Does not appear to cover examiners during flight tests and I know of no flight test that includes spins as a demonstrated practical test item.

I will note that there is no FAA instructional certificate for aerobatics. If I may editorialize a little, when I see a CFI offer to teach acro, I first look for IAC trophies on the office wall. That is currently the available yardstick for civilian aerobatic experience. If I see even a first place Sportsman trophy, and the word on the ramp is that the individual can teach, my confidence in having a valuable aerobatic instructional experience goes up a notch vs someone who is "just" a CFI. There are indeed non-competitor CFI's who can teach acro, but without some sort of credential or merit badge, you have less confidence in advance that the individual has mastered the topic.

Best of luck,

Wes
N78PS

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WLIU

So I read it as a single exception for dual instruction. Does not appear to cover examiners during flight tests and I know of no flight test that includes spins as a demonstrated practical test item.

Wes
N78PS

---

I was thinking that CFI candidates had to demonstrate a spin during their flight test.


BJC

I doubt that any FSDO would buy into the logic expressed in post #6 if two pilots in a Pitts S-2 or Extra 300 were ramp checked and one pilot represented that he or she had been or was going to fly aerobatics two up.

And as an experienced aerobatic pilot and competitor, I would consider it very very unwise to try to teach while not wearing parachutes. There is a reason that the IAC safety online forum was originally titled "All Airplanes Break". Aerobatic instruction offers a much higher likelihood that a "student" over-stresses the ship. Posters who have not spent time in the aerobatic community do not appreciate how much they do not know.

One benefit of IAC membership is online access to the multi-volume "Tech Tips" books. These books have 40 years of write ups on many many failure issues that have occurred in aerobatic aircraft and how they can be prevented in the future. Some of the articles are very sobering reading. Highly recommended.

And finally, the late Neil Williams could tell you how awful it can be to not be wearing a parachute and wishing you were. His successful "crunch" landing after having a structural failure was a very very near thing...

Best of luck,

Wes
N78PS

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WLIU

I would consider it very very unwise to try to teach while not wearing parachutes. There is a reason that the IAC safety online forum was originally titled "All Airplanes Break".

---

Years ago I bought my first S-1S. All the insurance companies wanted gobs of time in type to insure me, and I hade none. I struck a deal with one company: If Bill Thomas called them and said that I could fly the airplane, they would insure me.

Getting ready for the first flight, I asked: "What will you say if we need to bail out?'

"We will not need to bail out."

"But what if we do?"

"We will not need to bail out."

"OK, Bill. If I decide to leave, you will know because there will be a big hole in the canopy."

Got a long, strange look over that. I thought for a moment that he was not going to fly with me.

He did, and called the insurance company, and they insured me.

BTW, Bill was the best instructor that I have flown with. I learned all about flat spins from him.


BJC

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike M

"Regspeak" thus allows a non-CFI to give aerobatic instruction to a certificated aviator without parachutes which comes pretty darn close to 91.13! :rollseyes:

Or not. Your FSDO may vary.

---

How does the non-CFI, or even a CFI, become a crew member?


BJC

Nope. Required crew is set during aircraft certification and where more than one crew member is required for the operation of the aircraft, it is spelled out in the Airplane Flight Manual(s). Not variable and not mission related unless that "mission" is conducted under a Certificate of Authorization.

Do more reading.

Wes
N78PS

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike M

Set during certification? Reference? In the aircraft flight manual? Reference? How that applies to EAB? Reference? I'd love to do more reading, and I will. Reference? Chapter and verse?

---

Interesting discussion regarding "required flight crew". I could find references in 14 CFR part 23.1523 and 25.1523, both of which state, in part:

"The minimum flight crew must be established so that it is sufficient for safe operation considering..."

and then list stuff that they need to consider. Since these are both in the certification of aircraft sections, my interpretation would be that the MFG of the aircraft needs to determine how many required crewmembers there will be for the aircraft for it to be certified. That then implies that EVERY time the aircraft flies, required crew must be on board. So it's not a pilot's decision, and it's not on a flight by flight basis (I suppose unless the POH lists conditions under which different crewmembers might be required - i.e., VFR = 1 but IFR = 2). The aircraft type will determine how many crew is required.

Now, of course, EAB aircraft aren't type certificated. But using the logic of part 23 and part 25 (and who knows whether the FSDO would do so), the MFG of the plane (in my case, for my COZY MKIV, me) gets to determine how many required crewmembers are needed for the plane (not the aircraft designer, in my case, Nat Puffer - the MFG, by analogy). BUT, using the same logic as 23 and 25, whatever number I choose for required crew is then required for EVERY flight - I can't pick and choose some flights to have a 2nd person (or Cthulhu/FSM forbid, a third) be "required" for that flight so that they can take pics or retract the nose gear or take data or tell me good jokes. If I stupidly chose to get my plane's airworthiness certificate with "2 required crewmembers" (and I have no idea how that would happen for an EAB aircraft, but let's just say...) then EVERY flight would have to have 2 people on it to be legal.

So, I'm not at all sure how this applies to Ron's original question about 91.307, but it at least forced me to do a bit of research on what the hell "required crew" means (or seems to, or might in an EAB environment).

My $0.02.

Great summary.

Wes
N78PS

So... if you're doing aerobatics while wearing a hood for simulated instrument time, you and your safety pilot don't have to wear parachutes because the safety pilot is a "required crew member".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike M

So. A person assigned (by the owner, operator, or final authority as to the operation of the aircraft) to duty during flight time is a crewmember.

---

Interesting set of rulings. The first highlighted section, in response to the EMT related question, is the most interesting one to me and which gives what I see as the ambiguity in the interpretation. It specifically says that:

"...they must be assigned a duty by the certificate holder..."

In this case, per the beginning of the letter, they're referring to the "Part 135 certificate holder", who is the one that makes the determination about crewmember status, apparently. The part 135 certificate is separate from the TC for the aircraft, so the certificate referred to here is NOT the aircraft's TC or AC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike M

Minimum flight crew is listed in certification documents and AFM for certificated aircraft, in operating limitations (if listed at all) for experimental aircraft.

---

Agreed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike M

Crewmembers in addition to certification minimums may be required by regulation, by type of operation, and/or by the operator.

---

In Part 135 ops, that certainly seems to be the case.Would it still be the case for Part 91 ops (what we do with EAB aircraft)? In that case, there's no "certificate holder", in the same sense as the Part 135 operations certificate... there's only the aircraft AC/TC. I'm out of my depth here on interpreting these rules, as I have no experience whatsoever in anything other than Part 91 ops.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike M

The owner or operator may not designate a person as a crewmember for a position requiring an FAA airman certification unless that person holds the appropriate airman certification with any required category, class, etc rating and current medical certificate (with some exceptions on the medical certificate). And no, parachutes are not required when doing acrobatic maneuvers with only crewmembers aboard.

---

Agreed again. Assuming we can determine WTF a crewmember is :-).

I guess the only question left in my mind is whether in Part 91 ops of EAB aircraft (or TC'd aircraft operating under part 91), the "owner/pilot" has the right to assign "crewmembers" above and beyond minimum required crew per the OL's. I don't think the letter shown really addresses that question, since it's only referring to part 135 certificate holder privileges.

Why is this stuff so complex? I guarantee you I could write a logic tree that would indicate exactly who could do what when, if asked, under any given set of circumstances...

"the certificate holder"

For folks who are not familiar with 135 certificates, 121 ops specs, Certificates of Authorization, and other documents that the FAA uses to supplement the FAR's, those certificates call out "required crew members" as well as who can be carried aboard the aircraft at different times. This is mentioned in the docs copied above. It all looks like gobblety-gook to folks who do not deal with it all on a regular basis.

EAB's have "Operating Limitations" that specify who is who.

You can make a career out of FAA (or other regulatory agency) paperwork.

So find a competent aerobatic teacher, 'chute up, and have fun.

Best of luck,

Wes
N78PS

Ron:

You started this on purpose, didn't you.


BJC

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byron J. Covey

Ron:

You started this on purpose, didn't you.

---

Yeah, it was too quiet, and I was worried for Glory's job if she didn't have to step in and supervise the playground on occasion. :-)

Ron "Make him stop looking at me!" Wanttaja

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rwanttaja

Yeah, it was too quiet, and I was worried for Glory's job if she didn't have to step in and supervise the playground on occasion. :-)

Ron "Make him stop looking at me!" Wanttaja

---

You're keeping me on my toes! :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byron J. Covey

Ron:

You started this on purpose, didn't you.


BJC

---

Byron, Ron, et al, I apologize for the thread creep. Have gone back and deleted my irrelevant posts. Thanks, folks, for pointing it out. In response to the original question, "Has there been any formal clarification of this from the FAA?" the answer is "Yes".....

Attachment 5289

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike M

Byron, Ron, et al, I apologize for the thread creep. Have gone back and deleted my irrelevant posts. Thanks, folks, for pointing it out. In response to the original question, "Has there been any formal clarification of this from the FAA?" the answer is "Yes".....

---

No need to apologize to me .... I was just having some fun. I've never felt constrained by a forum thread topic.


BJ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byron J. Covey

No need to apologize to me .... I was just having some fun. I've never felt constrained by a forum thread topic.

---

Mike's diversion didn't bother me, either. And it's covered by the Rules of the Internet!

Sounds like it's time for another repost. See item #2.

The Rules of the Internet – August 2015
By Ron Wanttaja

1. You will never get the last word. No matter how many arguments you make, no matter what insults or threats you post, someone will always come back with a response. When you’ve made your point, or it’s apparent the other person(s) aren’t going to be swayed by your arguments, stop.

2. Thread drift happens. Your topic is going to morph well beyond what you can imagine. Accept it and don’t freak out.

3. Posting anonymously is perfectly acceptable. However, the only respect you will earn is for your demonstrated *knowledge*. Anyone can claim to be an airline pilot or lawyer, but if you show you know the law or a particular airliner’s systems, people will treat you more seriously.

4. Your anonymous “identity” is not *you*. If someone is insulting your online persona, they’re not insulting you, personally. But keep in mind there are a lot of smart people online; your true identity may not remain a secret.

5. Remember that people rely on non-verbal clues to show what they’re thinking, and may not realize that the *lack* of such clues may cause others to interpret their statements in a darker way. In person, “What kind of idiot are you?” accompanied by a grin and a slap on the back is easily recognized as someone kidding. Yet the same words in an online message may raise hackles.

6. No one is holding a gun to your head, forcing you to continue an unpleasant online discussion. If you stop, few will notice.

7. You will be judged by what *you* say, not what people say about you. Someone can rant and spew insults about you, but if you keep your head, remain reasonable, and don’t reciprocate, most observers will have a negative view of the other individual. Take the high road; more will respect you.

8. Humor is the best shield, but only when it’s used to deflect away from you, not towards your adversary. A pun or a joke on the situation, not directed at a person or group, shows you’re cool and may get some grudging respect from your adversary.

9. Sarcasm is not humor. Not only is there the probability of escalating the flames, but you stand a good chance of looking like a real idiot if people don't realize your message as intended as sarcasm.

10. Finally, the most important rule of the Internet: There ARE no rules to the Internet. It is anarchy; there’s nothing that compels action in anyone. The only behavior you can control is your own.

Ron Wanttaja

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rwanttaja

In person, “What kind of idiot are you?” accompanied by a grin and a slap on the back is easily recognized as someone kidding. Yet the same words in an online message may raise hackles.

---

Now you tell me!

Good rules Ron.


BJC

[QUOTE=Byron J. Covey;52427]Just an FYI. There are other definitions within the FARs for "aerobatics." I think that the may be three, but it has been a long time since I looked. One such example is here:

§91.303 Aerobatic flight.

No person may operate an aircraft in aerobatic flight—
(a) Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement;
(b) Over an open air assembly of persons;
(c) Within the lateral boundaries of the surface areas of Class B, Class C, Class D, or Class E airspace designated for an airport;
(d) Within 4 nautical miles of the center line of any Federal airway;
(e) Below an altitude of 1,500 feet above the surface; or
(f) When flight visibility is less than 3 statute miles.
For the purposes of this section, aerobatic flight means an intentional maneuver involving an abrupt change in an aircraft's attitude, an abnormal attitude, or abnormal acceleration, not necessary for normal flight.

Byron,
i was the proud owner of the first certificated Pitts S1S for 18 years.
one of the questions I enjoyed asking FAA types was about a placard in the airplane, placed appropriately
just above the throttle.
it stated : "This airplane must be operated as an acrobatic category airplane".
OK, I would ask, what is "normal flight" for an acrobatic category airplane?
if I don't abruptly use the controls, fly in abnormal attitudes, etc. etc. am I in violation because I am not operating as an acrobatic category airplane?
they would invariably ask for a copy of the placard, and I had one FAA guy at Oshkosh photograph the
the placard in the airplane, and tell me it just means I had a poorly written placard.
i asked if there was any way they could violate me for operating as an "acrobatic category airplane"
other than using the catch all "careless and reckless?
i had a lot of fun messing with them. One said he was taking it to OK City to use in the training of
new Inapectors as a "gotcha" question.
N9JT is still flying with her happy new owner. I hated to part with her, but age got in my way.

Jim Klick

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jimklick

Byron,
i was the proud owner of the first certificated Pitts S1S for 18 years.
one of the questions I enjoyed asking FAA types was about a placard in the airplane, placed appropriately
just above the throttle.
it stated : "This airplane must be operated as an acrobatic category airplane".
OK, I would ask, what is "normal flight" for an acrobatic category airplane?
if I don't abruptly use the controls, fly in abnormal attitudes, etc. etc. am I in violation because I am not operating as an acrobatic category airplane?
they would invariably ask for a copy of the placard, and I had one FAA guy at Oshkosh photograph the
the placard in the airplane, and tell me it just means I had a poorly written placard.
i asked if there was any way they could violate me for operating as an "acrobatic category airplane"
other than using the catch all "careless and reckless?
i had a lot of fun messing with them. One said he was taking it to OK City to use in the training of
new Inapectors as a "gotcha" question.
N9JT is still flying with her happy new owner. I hated to part with her, but age got in my way.

Jim Klick

---

Interesting. I haven't flown a Type Certificated S-1S. Do they all have that, or was it just yours?


BJC

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byron J. Covey

Interesting. I haven't flown a Type Certificated S-1S. Do they all have that, or was it just yours?


BJC

---

Hey Byron - the placard was a joke. If they came out of Afton that way, mine would be non-conforming and illegal. :-) Eric

I like the placard that says, "Straight and level flight prohibited."

Ron Wanttaja

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RetroAcro

Hey Byron - the placard was a joke. If they came out of Afton that way, mine would be non-conforming and illegal. :-) Eric

---

Eric:

Yeah, that is what I thought, but I've never met JK, so I thought that I would play it straight.

How are things up there? You still at Raleigh East? How is the gang at 1114?


BJC