Narrative:

Purpose of flight: to get engine really hot to reproduce a previously corrected minor engine problem. I did not takeoff with the intent to perform any aerobatic maneuvers. I took off and flew around the traffic pattern once and landed. The engine didn't get all that hot, but the WX was inappropriate for VFR flight. As I was returning to the FBO, I observed a large hole in the overcast approximately 1 mi west of the airport, approximately 3 mi in diameter. I decided to take to the air and climb through the hole and check out the WX 'on top.' after departing the second time, I leveled off at 700 ft MSL and turned towards the hole. Once under the hole, I initiated a maximum performance climb (4500 FPM in my pitts S1.south 220 hp). I leveled off over the center of the hole at approximately 2000 ft MSL. After looking around, I concluded that this was the only hole for miles (a 'sucker hole') and immediately decided to descend back to the airport. Since I had cleared the housing development by approximately 1/4 mi, and was at a safe altitude and clear of victor airways, I acted on an impulse and performed a single slow roll. After completing the roll, I descended through the center of the hole, leveled off at 700 ft MSL, and re-entered the traffic pattern. Upon landing, I received a phone call from an FAA inspector whose house is in the development that was 1/4 mi behind me at the time of the roll. He said I was in violation of the following: aerobatics over a populated area, aerobatics on/near an airway -- he contends I was 3 mi from one of the victor airways, reckless endangerment, aerobatics within class a, B, C, D, or east airspace, the boundaries of an airport. First of all I was absolutely not directly over any houses, nor were there any houses, or anything but woods under my aircraft or its flight path! I do believe he has a valid complaint, that 1/4 mi may look very close when an aircraft is 2000 ft. He says there is precedent for violation in this matter. If this is true, I believe that the regulations should be re-written to read along the lines of: over a 2000 ft radius of a populated area or some other reasonable amount. Secondly, I did not think that I was so close to any airway at the time of the maneuver, nor, on further investigation, do I believe that I was closer than 4 mi. Nonetheless, I believe that violations of this nature can be avoided through better pilot training. Since I am an aerobatics instructor, you can be sure that I will from now on make a point to show my students precisely where they are legal to fly and where they are not. Regarding the regulation on airport 'lateral boundaries' I have queried 10 CFI's and none had any clue as to what the 'lateral boundaries of the surface areas of class B, C, D designated for an airport' is. I'm not trying to justify my own ignorance, really, but if the regulation could make this more clear, it would help all of us. Also, if the airspace above brookhaven is class G until 700 ft AGL, and then class east (at 1100 ft tpa), does this regulation (91.303 C) pertain to brookhaven? Maybe the regulation should just say that aerobatics are prohibited within a certain radius of all airports. With regard to reckless operations, all I can say is that I'm not a stunt pilot, but a precision pilot. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: the reporter is a full time aerobatics instructor on long island, a rather densely populated area. He does a 'little buying and selling' on the side. The FAA inspector that lives near the airport gave the reporter the phone number of an accident prevention specialist, and he has been trying to schedule a counseling session with the specialist. The FAA inspector said that there would be no disciplinary action taken and no '609' check ride. The reporter has not yet been able to get together with the counselor and no paperwork has come his way. The reporter claims that he is squeaky clean and does all of his instruction over the water. The inspector expressed some envy about the reporter being able to fly an aerobatic aircraft for a living. The reporter insists that he was not directly over the housing area, but promises not to mention this when he receives his counseling.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN SMA PERFORMED ONE AEROBATIC MANEUVER, A ROLL, OVER THE HOME OF AN FAA INSPECTOR.

Narrative: PURPOSE OF FLT: TO GET ENG REALLY HOT TO REPRODUCE A PREVIOUSLY CORRECTED MINOR ENG PROB. I DID NOT TKOF WITH THE INTENT TO PERFORM ANY AEROBATIC MANEUVERS. I TOOK OFF AND FLEW AROUND THE TFC PATTERN ONCE AND LANDED. THE ENG DIDN'T GET ALL THAT HOT, BUT THE WX WAS INAPPROPRIATE FOR VFR FLT. AS I WAS RETURNING TO THE FBO, I OBSERVED A LARGE HOLE IN THE OVCST APPROX 1 MI W OF THE ARPT, APPROX 3 MI IN DIAMETER. I DECIDED TO TAKE TO THE AIR AND CLB THROUGH THE HOLE AND CHK OUT THE WX 'ON TOP.' AFTER DEPARTING THE SECOND TIME, I LEVELED OFF AT 700 FT MSL AND TURNED TOWARDS THE HOLE. ONCE UNDER THE HOLE, I INITIATED A MAX PERFORMANCE CLB (4500 FPM IN MY PITTS S1.S 220 HP). I LEVELED OFF OVER THE CTR OF THE HOLE AT APPROX 2000 FT MSL. AFTER LOOKING AROUND, I CONCLUDED THAT THIS WAS THE ONLY HOLE FOR MILES (A 'SUCKER HOLE') AND IMMEDIATELY DECIDED TO DSND BACK TO THE ARPT. SINCE I HAD CLRED THE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT BY APPROX 1/4 MI, AND WAS AT A SAFE ALT AND CLR OF VICTOR AIRWAYS, I ACTED ON AN IMPULSE AND PERFORMED A SINGLE SLOW ROLL. AFTER COMPLETING THE ROLL, I DSNDED THROUGH THE CTR OF THE HOLE, LEVELED OFF AT 700 FT MSL, AND RE-ENTERED THE TFC PATTERN. UPON LNDG, I RECEIVED A PHONE CALL FROM AN FAA INSPECTOR WHOSE HOUSE IS IN THE DEVELOPMENT THAT WAS 1/4 MI BEHIND ME AT THE TIME OF THE ROLL. HE SAID I WAS IN VIOLATION OF THE FOLLOWING: AEROBATICS OVER A POPULATED AREA, AEROBATICS ON/NEAR AN AIRWAY -- HE CONTENDS I WAS 3 MI FROM ONE OF THE VICTOR AIRWAYS, RECKLESS ENDANGERMENT, AEROBATICS WITHIN CLASS A, B, C, D, OR E AIRSPACE, THE BOUNDARIES OF AN ARPT. FIRST OF ALL I WAS ABSOLUTELY NOT DIRECTLY OVER ANY HOUSES, NOR WERE THERE ANY HOUSES, OR ANYTHING BUT WOODS UNDER MY ACFT OR ITS FLT PATH! I DO BELIEVE HE HAS A VALID COMPLAINT, THAT 1/4 MI MAY LOOK VERY CLOSE WHEN AN ACFT IS 2000 FT. HE SAYS THERE IS PRECEDENT FOR VIOLATION IN THIS MATTER. IF THIS IS TRUE, I BELIEVE THAT THE REGS SHOULD BE RE-WRITTEN TO READ ALONG THE LINES OF: OVER A 2000 FT RADIUS OF A POPULATED AREA OR SOME OTHER REASONABLE AMOUNT. SECONDLY, I DID NOT THINK THAT I WAS SO CLOSE TO ANY AIRWAY AT THE TIME OF THE MANEUVER, NOR, ON FURTHER INVESTIGATION, DO I BELIEVE THAT I WAS CLOSER THAN 4 MI. NONETHELESS, I BELIEVE THAT VIOLATIONS OF THIS NATURE CAN BE AVOIDED THROUGH BETTER PLT TRAINING. SINCE I AM AN AEROBATICS INSTRUCTOR, YOU CAN BE SURE THAT I WILL FROM NOW ON MAKE A POINT TO SHOW MY STUDENTS PRECISELY WHERE THEY ARE LEGAL TO FLY AND WHERE THEY ARE NOT. REGARDING THE REG ON ARPT 'LATERAL BOUNDARIES' I HAVE QUERIED 10 CFI'S AND NONE HAD ANY CLUE AS TO WHAT THE 'LATERAL BOUNDARIES OF THE SURFACE AREAS OF CLASS B, C, D DESIGNATED FOR AN ARPT' IS. I'M NOT TRYING TO JUSTIFY MY OWN IGNORANCE, REALLY, BUT IF THE REG COULD MAKE THIS MORE CLR, IT WOULD HELP ALL OF US. ALSO, IF THE AIRSPACE ABOVE BROOKHAVEN IS CLASS G UNTIL 700 FT AGL, AND THEN CLASS E (AT 1100 FT TPA), DOES THIS REG (91.303 C) PERTAIN TO BROOKHAVEN? MAYBE THE REG SHOULD JUST SAY THAT AEROBATICS ARE PROHIBITED WITHIN A CERTAIN RADIUS OF ALL ARPTS. WITH REGARD TO RECKLESS OPS, ALL I CAN SAY IS THAT I'M NOT A STUNT PLT, BUT A PRECISION PLT. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE RPTR IS A FULL TIME AEROBATICS INSTRUCTOR ON LONG ISLAND, A RATHER DENSELY POPULATED AREA. HE DOES A 'LITTLE BUYING AND SELLING' ON THE SIDE. THE FAA INSPECTOR THAT LIVES NEAR THE ARPT GAVE THE RPTR THE PHONE NUMBER OF AN ACCIDENT PREVENTION SPECIALIST, AND HE HAS BEEN TRYING TO SCHEDULE A COUNSELING SESSION WITH THE SPECIALIST. THE FAA INSPECTOR SAID THAT THERE WOULD BE NO DISCIPLINARY ACTION TAKEN AND NO '609' CHK RIDE. THE RPTR HAS NOT YET BEEN ABLE TO GET TOGETHER WITH THE COUNSELOR AND NO PAPERWORK HAS COME HIS WAY. THE RPTR CLAIMS THAT HE IS SQUEAKY CLEAN AND DOES ALL OF HIS INSTRUCTION OVER THE WATER. THE INSPECTOR EXPRESSED SOME ENVY ABOUT THE RPTR BEING ABLE TO FLY AN AEROBATIC ACFT FOR A LIVING. THE RPTR INSISTS THAT HE WAS NOT DIRECTLY OVER THE HOUSING AREA, BUT PROMISES NOT TO MENTION THIS WHEN HE RECEIVES HIS COUNSELING.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.