BP

@Obornee You first stated that the aircraft isn't "rated for that climb". Those videos were to show that passenger aircraft are capable of high-performance departures as seen in the original video we're discussing.

@Obornee Documentation or evidence for what? You're a bit touched in the head, clearly, since you're so defensive about a video capturing a segment of flight.

When you retire from flying fighter jets to a corporate job! 📹: burleywelder

@Obornee To address, once again, your specific comment: @Obornee Mar 23 You don't think a steep climb from takeoff relates to operating within structural and performance envelopes? Yes, they do relate. No, aircraft aren't rated for climbs. With the exception of minimum climb gradients.

@Obornee All I've said is that without knowing the specific circumstances of the recorded flight, it's not possible to say whether or not it was legal and without the flight data, it's impossible to say whether or not the aircraft remained within its operating envelope.

@TexasTesler @xAviation Unfamiliar with the soft-field takeoff technique with obstruction clearance climb utilizing ground effect and then a climb at Vx?

@PropBeta @xAviation It makes no sense to perform this maneuver at all. Ever. In a corporate jet. Wanna keep arguing?

@Obornee And I certainly didn't and never would use the term "normal flight situation." 🤣

@Obornee When did I contradict myself?

@Obornee I never said they always do. Now you're conflating regulations with aircraft limitations.

@PropBeta If all these situations always conform with approved operation, why ask the question?

@TexasTesler @xAviation I already have. The possibilities that the video is: an authorized training flight, demo or certification flight, was conducted with waivers, and a new one; took place at a private airstrip. This conversation has become boring. Best of luck to you and your law-busting friends.

Im not the FAA. I don’t have to prove anything. This isn’t court. The FAA decides if he breaks the rules. he’s broken every reg I mentioned. I’ve seen pilots get suspended for exactly what he did. Which is why I cited the regs I cited. So tell me again how he didn’t break the rules if I’ve seen pilots do exactly this and get busted. In your words: I’ll wait.

@TexasTesler @TheSeventhSwell @TexasRust @xAviation I said I see a clean aircraft. Speed brakes, flaps or gear would create a 'dirty' aircraft. I didn't say speed brakes are or should be extended.

@PropBeta @TheSeventhSwell @TexasRust @xAviation Why would speed brakes be extended on take off???

@TexasTesler @TheSeventhSwell @TexasRust @xAviation I've never suggested pilots haven't and won't get busted for it. I just said you don't have any context, and it could, in fact, be a legal flight.

@PropBeta @TheSeventhSwell @TexasRust @xAviation No you haven’t. You have proven you’re a fool. You’re acting as if you know what you’re talking about and don’t. Try this stunt in front of the faa and get back to me. This is not a legal maneuver. I’ve seen pilots get busted for exactly this.

@TexasTesler @TheSeventhSwell @TexasRust @xAviation I've gotten it all right so far. You've proved nothing, with any of your responses.

@PropBeta @TheSeventhSwell @TexasRust @xAviation You finally got something right.

@TexasTesler @TheSeventhSwell @TexasRust @xAviation No, the positive load factor limit with flaps 0 on the Phenom 300 is 3.0 g's and 2.0 g's with flaps extended.

@PropBeta @TheSeventhSwell @TexasRust @xAviation The positive load limitations on aircraft are a hard limitation. Being at or below Va only guarantees the wing will stall before structural damage.

@TexasTesler @xAviation Which I addressed in the second portion of the response.

@PropBeta @xAviation Which is why I said “possibly”. However I’d bet my life he wasn’t wearing one.

@TexasTesler @TheSeventhSwell @TexasRust @xAviation You see flaps, speed brakes or gear extended?

@PropBeta @TheSeventhSwell @TexasRust @xAviation Wrong.

@TexasTesler @xAviation Waivers weren't the only exception I provided...

@PropBeta @xAviation You’re betting your entire argument on waivers? Really?

@TexasTesler @xAviation Yeah, because you haven't proven anything. No, he is not clearly violating them. You don't have enough information.

That’s not an approach. That’s a departure. And a low approach is only allowed for practice go arounds and making sure runway is clear of animals and such. Which he clearly wasn’t doing. He’s clearly violating all the regs I mentioned. N103DE needs to be reported to the FAA. I’m sure it wouldn’t be hard to find out when and what airport that was done at. Wanna keep arguing?

@TexasTesler @TheSeventhSwell @TexasRust @xAviation I see a "clean" aircraft at the time of the pitch input to maintain the climb profile. If it was indeed clean, then clean maneuvering speed, Va, dictates whether limitations were exceeded.

Nothing close to wing separation. But the phonon 300 which this is is only rated to positive 2g’s with flaps down. That high speed pitch up probably easily exceeded that albeit very briefly as the speed bled off. So there’s that. Like I said. Pilot Needs to be reported to FAA. Pilots like this are assholes.

@TexasTesler @xAviation Moral of the story is, you have no idea what the video is capturing. Is it specialized flight training, do they have waivers, was it an authorized demonstration? We don't know.

@TexasTesler @xAviation Type rides are by design, a demonstration of required maneuvers. Is this a required maneuver? No. It would make no sense to perform this during a type or check ride given the fact that it's not a required maneuver.