You spin me round

I provide spin training toward the flight instructor certificate, and even among aspiring CFIs, misconceptions abound. To be fair, the regulations can be confusing, so let’s dive in to see why.

Two main regulations—91.303 and 91.307—concern aerobatic flight, and each defines aerobatics differently depending on where the maneuvers occur and whether parachutes are required, respectively.

Location

FAR 91.303 defines an aerobatic flight as “an intentional maneuver involving an abrupt change in an aircraft’s attitude, an abnormal attitude, or abnormal acceleration, not necessary for normal flight.” There is clearly abundant wiggle room here. When he was a child, my younger son, Pete, begged constantly for the “up and downs,” what others might call zero-G pushovers, to add interest on a cross-country adventure. At times, I convinced myself that if I made the changes gradually enough and the nose never got abnormally high or low, it wouldn’t count as an aerobatic maneuver. But another reasonable person might arrive at the opposite conclusion.

This regulation specifies that such maneuvers should be performed away from areas congested with people or airplanes (no cities, towns, airways, open-air assemblies, or over the ground-based portion of controlled airspace surrounding an airport). Furthermore, flight visibility should be at least three statute miles, although a solid 10 seems prudent. Finally, there should be no aerobatic flight below 1,500 feet agl. Whenever I fly with someone, an aerobatic student or Pete, I double that to 3,000 feet agl. In doing so, we avail ourselves of so many more options should the flight not go as planned.

Parachutes

FAR 91.307 specifies when approved parachutes are necessary and has a more detailed definition. It’s one of the most misunderstood regulations concerning aerobatic flight. Alone in an airplane, a pilot is free to perform any maneuver for which the aircraft is certificated (subject to the location and conditions listed in 91.303) without parachutes. Sometimes I jump in one of my airplanes without wearing a parachute and head up for a few tumbles in the sky to relax after a long day at the office. That’s totally legal.

It’s when another person is on board that the regs kick in. This rule specifies that, 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 a bank of 60 degrees or a nose-up or nose-down attitude of more than 30 degrees from the horizon. But it goes on to say that this reg does not apply for spins or other flight maneuvers required for a certificate or rating when given by a certificated flight instructor. Because spin training is required for the flight instructor certificate, parachutes aren’t necessary if the flight is instructional in nature. So, if Pete were to request a spin on one of our adventures, the answer would need to be, “No!” unless we’re wearing parachutes.

Whether a spin is an aerobatic maneuver depends on the training context. An FAA legal interpretation (Finagin, 2012) implies that spins are not aerobatics if part of dedicated spin training or as part of an upset training course and, therefore, instructors need not abide by 91.303 except for recovering above 1500 AGL. It goes on to say that spins as part of an aerobatic course are considered aerobatics and 91.303 applies. In my book, this explanation only confuses the issue and potentially reduces safety margins. AC 61-67C and FAR 91.307(d) make it clear that parachutes are not required for spin instruction since the maneuver is mandated by regulation for a certificate. But a spin is a wild, altitude-intensive maneuver in which the wings are stalled, so fully abiding by 91.303, no matter the training context, is just plain smart. FT