Yep no. Regs require a Chute to deploy in 3 seconds. If you are in level flight and you depart the plane at 1000 ft. AGL, you will not hit the ground.** Chutes have saved the lives of many aerobatics, sport plane, vintage war bird, glider pilots.

The debate about egress from tip up, slider, tip over, gull wing canopies/doors has been discussed ad nauseam. Ejection of canopy or door is a given.

** If you are bailing out pull the "D" ring on chute immediately. Don't think you are going to get into some stable skydiver pose. The chute will straighten you out fast.

Nonsense. The RV is a single-crew aircraft. It would be really hard to say that a potential purchaser who has never been in the type before would be any use as Crew.

Yes, the regs do say that when it's for instruction chutes aren't required... 91.307.d.2. So an instructor is perfectly legal doing this, but as you say, a recreational flight is a no-no.

The FAA (and TC) have gone after people who have posted videos on YouTube showing blatant reg violations like this.

Read the following carefully:

(d) Paragraph (c) of this section does not apply to -

(1) Flight tests for pilot certification or rating; or

(2) Spins and other flight maneuvers required by the regulations for any certificate or rating when given by -

(i) A certificated flight instructor; or

(ii) An airline transport pilot instructing in accordance with § 61.67 of this chapter.

Note that not all aerobatic instruction is exempt from the chute requirement, only maneuvers required for ratings and certificates.

Skylor

Hi Gmcjetpilot

Are you saying solo aerobatics still needs a chute? Thanks I appreciate your responses.

This is correct. Specifically, bank angles not over 60 deg, pitch angles needed to teach unusual attitudes and stalls, and spins, are allowed to be taught by cfi?s without chutes. Nothing else, nothing inverted for sure.

So pictures or videos of kids in the plane during acro without chutes, are not good things.

Ah, right... And with no rating or certificate for aerobatics, that makes sense.

Not in the US. In Canada it's fine, as we don't have the parachute requirement. It's still a good idea to wear one, although most don't.

DFW FSDO Inspector told me that I can teach unusual attitudes past 60 / 30 for the interest of aircraft checkout. Not rides. He specifically told me to include a log book endorsement of the student so the flight was legally "training".

For example, A Split S is a great wake recovery maneuver. It demonstrates airspeed build up and G awareness.

I hope you got that in writing on FSDO letterhead. At the very least, that inspector has likely exceeded his authority in making such a ruling (even advising you to make a phony logbook entry!!!!) and you'd be very wise, indeed, to give it the zero credence it merits. That inspector ought to be reported before he causes and/or tacitly approves any other stupid and illegal behavior.

However true that may be, it is not required training for any certificate or rating and, so, does not exempt one from the requirement for all onboard to wear a parachute.

Looking for ways around regulations (up to and, apparently, including fraudulent logbook entries) is both illegal and immoral and, regardless, is no way to approach flying, let alone go through life.