Spin Posted September 25, 2011 Share Posted September 25, 2011 Oops wrong thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spin Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 In certain circumstances, stalling in a 60 deg bank could be highly entertaining and will almost certainly lead to aerobatics of the inadvertant sort! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motzartmerv Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 Really? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 I suppose he did say in "certain circumstances". Rather than the foolish and totally artificial nose way up stall entry that we practice, which leads some of the trainee's to think that you will only stall when the nose is way up in the air, we should practice stall recovery and avoidance in steep turns, (or at least in turns) which is the most likely situation to do one, inadvertently, anyhow. Nev 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spin Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 Indeed I did and I would be amazed and not a little disappointed if our cryptic friend wasn't aware of the potential excitement that awaits those who stall with the ball displaced from where it belongs. I well remember spending a lesson or two in a Cessna Aerobat, with an ex airforce instructor doing just that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motzartmerv Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 Stalling in a slip or skid is not what the post was about, i thought you said steep turn. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motzartmerv Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 Appaolagies, that probably came across as being smart. I agree with nev, the classic stall that we teach is not a realistic demo of real life situations. I like to teach recoverys frOm stalls in turns, including steepturns, and the real pilot killer the stall in landing config and a descending turn where the pilot comes back a little bit too much on the controls. The nose is down, the IAS is higher than quoted stalling speed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 Appaolagies, that probably came across as being smart.I agree with nev, the classic stall that we teach is not a realistic demo of real life situations. I like to teach recoverys frOm stalls in turns, including steepturns, and the real pilot killer the stall in landing config and a descending turn where the pilot comes back a little bit too much on the controls. The nose is down, the IAS is higher than quoted stalling speed. So where is the stick at that point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motzartmerv Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 Same position. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 Really? so it's all about angle of attack/stick position???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motzartmerv Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 That a trick question? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 Surely everyone agrees at is an angle of attack we are talking about? We can go from there and consider how we achieve that angle of attack Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djpacro Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 From the J120 POH ....I doubt anyone would question the generally accepted understanding of turns greater than 60 degrees of bank angle are aerobatic. I would question it in the situation where it seems to me that some people are accusing some-one of breaking the rules. i.e. need to specify what the rule is. I don't see where CASA's rules would limit angle of bank specifically. That POH reference certainly doesn't limit bank angle to 60° as long as it isn't stalled. I don't know about RAA rules? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Powerin Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 Been trawling through the rules too and (as usual) I cannot see anywhere which says a bank angle over 60deg is definitely acrobatic. What they do say is that under 60deg bank (and 30deg pitch) is NOT considered acrobatic. They do give a couple specific limits in that over 3G and under -1G is considered acrobatic. How much bank do you need to pull 3G (assuming you are maintaining level flight)? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ahlocks Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 Hey Camster, grab a copy of one of the 95dot CAOs and have a look at the exemptions in section 3. and figure out why I'm gunna give you heaps in the chat room later. (...that'll keep him occupied for a little while..) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djpacro Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 My guess is that this would apply to all aircraft that over 60 degrees is indeed aerobatic flight. The rules are clearly stated in both CAAP 155 and CAR 155, and probably other places. If it is that clear you wouldn't need to guess. Here is the CASA definition of aerobatics (read in conjunction with the Reg that Ignition quoted):“… manoeuvres intentionally performed by an aircraft involving an abrupt change in its attitude, an abnormal attitude, or an abnormal variation in speed.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djpacro Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 You are only quoting half of the definition...http://www.casa.gov.au/newrules/parts/091/download/ac091-075.pdf also has the definition stating '4.1 Definitions. In this AC the following definitions apply: ... I quoted the full and complete definition from the regulations. Your latest extract is from a very old draft Advisory Circular - evidence that some of us were working with CASA to try and sort this mess out many years ago. Who knows when the new Part 91 rules will be issued, if ever. DJP: IF you dont think the definition applies, please, as an Aerobatic Instructor, inform us of what you believe the real definition and ruling is, you should know it off by heart more so than any of us in here. The CAAP that you quoted a while back with the USA definition is typically regarded as a sensible definition of aerobatics but it is not the law in this country. Ahlo, DJP: Regardless of whether the documents are recommendations only or that RAAus are exempt from CAR 155, they clearly say CASAs definition of aerobatic and acrobatic flight is 'bank angles in excess of 60 degrees', .... The CAAP borrows from the USA regulations there - it is purely advisory - remember that this discussion is in the context of some-one possibly breaching a regulation and that will be judged on what was done vs what the regulation actually states and some-ones (not me) interpretation of it. To go back to the (almost) original discussion: The Jabiru clearly takes the turn too far, whether or not this was done on purpose for show, who knows... either way, it shouldnt happen again. If it does, there should be some serious implications for the pilot. Yes, let's get back to the original discussion. Takes the turn too far and have some serious implications - why is that again?A zoom climb after take-off to impress the locals is an aerobatic manoeuvre per the regs and is much more dangerous than what I saw on that video. Moral of the story: DONT go aerobatic when your not allowed. We are lucky to have rules that allow us what we have, dont break them and ruin it for the rest of us. Exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SAJabiruflyer Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 When I am being serious ,which isn't often on this forum, I firmly believe every pilot should do unusual attitude recovery, as you say CFI, the aeroplane doesn't know the regs. That's what I'll be doing come summer, in a certified aircraft with a certified instructor, of course. I just cant tell my wife i'm doing training in recovering from unusual attitudes.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foxy Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 if some RAA instructors never take their students beyond 60 degrees demonstrating incipient stall/spin events..they have failed in their duty as an instructor...a/c dont read regs....a/c will go beyond 60 degrees....pilots need to know how to handle it! cfi...seriously?? Most, if not all of the aircraft on the RAA register clearly state that there is to be 'no intentional spinning'. Student pilots are taught the symptoms that can possibly lead to an incipient spin, and are taught the correct process to STOP that happening. Failed their duty as an instructor???? As far as I'm concerned, I've failed as an instructor if I was to put them or any other person who may fly the aircraft after me/them, into a possibly fatal situation, by loading that aircraft beyond its limits....once again...there are rules and limits for a reason. Surely you wouldn't put a student into that situation that could lead to them or others after being seriously, or even fatally injured??? Aircraft don't read regs?? No...but the pilot does, and the manufacturers of the aircraft do............ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djpacro Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 Pull the stick back and the houses get smaller. Push it forward and they get bigger. should be - pull the stick back and the houses get smaller; pull it back further and they get bigger. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ahlocks Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 Hey, it's still a great promo piece CiFi. :thumb_up: And it's been funny watching the 'spurts go ballistic over it too! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Powerin Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 In this AC the following definitions apply: aerobatic flight means manoeuvres intentionally performed by the pilot that involve: (a) bank angles in excess of 60 degrees; or (b) pitch angles in excess of 45 degrees, or otherwise abnormal to the aircraft type; or © abrupt changes of direction, angles of bank, angles of pitch, or speed.' ACs are not legislation are they? But I guess they could be invoked as demonstrating the spirit of the law. they clearly say CASAs definition of aerobatic and acrobatic flight is 'bank angles in excess of 60 degrees', The "law" as far as I understand it says that under 60deg is NOT acrobatic, it does not say over 60deg IS. Moral of the story: DONT go aerobatic when your not allowed. We are lucky to have rules that allow us what we have, dont break them and ruin it for the rest of us. Absolutely. I'm not trying to condone any sort of aerobatic flight (in RAA) or trying to stretch the limits, nor do I condone the apparent bank angle shown in the news story. What I am doing is exploring the legal framework within which I am expected to stay when I am flying. And more and more I am finding it is a fading shade of gray. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SAJabiruflyer Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 should be - pull the stick back and the houses get smaller; pull it back further and they get bigger. ... and in a docile mushy stall like in the 230D (practice in our training area at 4000ft) if you shut your eyes you wouldnt really know how fast you're heading toward those houses!! My seat-of-the-pants meter just isnt that sensitive Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ahlocks Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 ... more and more I am finding it is a fading shade of gray. Pete, Work on the premise that you are not allowed to do anything and then go find the loophole that permits what you want to do. (P.S. and be very wary of coastal bushlawyers...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Powerin Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 Pete,Work on the premise that you are not allowed to do anything and then go find the loophole that permits what you want to do. By the way.....I thought it was a good story too. And I'm willing to bet that there was a cameraman or a producer on the radio telling the pilot "just make the turn a little tighter so we get a good shot....now, let's try it again...." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts