Bryon Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 it's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission,,,,,,, How do you think I got the wife to agree to flying lessons for me.......... Cost me a new kitchen reno, but it was worth it 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dodo Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 I am just a student pilot, but I think the lack of recovery training is just dumb. I wouldn't teach someone to drive without letting them experience the feeling of losing control, and understanding how to get control back - and how and why it happens. While GA aerobatic training is an obvious answer, I went and tried GFA, which was very useful, and a lot of fun. GFA can stall and spin, and make a habit of it. And think that anyone who doesn't is, at best, a bit strange or inhibited. They teach you stalls and spins very early, and don't hold back with soft level "only just" stalls. It is also instructive when they pull a simulated rope break at 350' and the plan is that you turn back at that point - something that would be suicide in RA. That experience taught me why low level flying is illegal - turning hard at low level with the trees close is just a a mind blowing exhilaration, especially without power. Hard to explain, but you realise just how seductive these maneuvers can be, and just how controlled they need to be, if you want to survive. Using GFA to get stall & spin training has a downside - I found the desire for another expensive hobby. dodo 4 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 Thoughtful contribution dodo. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Powerin Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 Hi Foxy,is there any regulation in RAA that prevents instruction in stall / incipient spin as indeed I asked the question on a couple of posts back? FYI David - from the RAAus syllabus of Recreational flight training (High performance) : Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foxy Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 David.... The first quote you questioned, i was referring to the instructors teaching students how to recognise the situation leading up to this possibly happening, and the recovery process, which will stop the aircraft getting to the situation where the stall/spin, can/will occur... Second, Why do you think that we aren't allowed to spin the aircraft?? teaching a full spin, or indeed unusual attitudes, can surely easily generate into a situation where excess load is put onto the aircraft. Unusual recovery, as I stated earlier, is a fantastic lesson for any pilot, as is spin recovery....these are offered to pilots..although note, they are not in the RAA syllabus are they? they are offered in the GA syllabus.... Third, How do I draw that conclusion?? well....when RAA stipulate that there is limit for us....and the aircraft manufacturers stipulate what is NOT to be done in those aircraft, surely...there must be a reason behind it, other than, 'just because we should say something'.... Yet we are being told that we are failing as instructors if we don't put he student into that situation? Doing things in an aircraft that aren't to be done, can, and has, put aircraft and pilots into very bad situations. I have seen an aircraft, with bolt holes having been sheered into an elongated shape, allowing forward and aft movement of the wing, owing to manouevers above the recommended.... Not something I'd like to see happen to a student or any pilot for that matter.... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Powerin Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 I am just a student pilot, but I think the lack of recovery training is just dumb. I wouldn't teach someone to drive without letting them experience the feeling of losing control, and understanding how to get control back - and how and why it happens. I have to say that me exploring out of control driving (as you do as a farm boy in a wet paddock) has absolutely saved my life at least once. Just an observation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winsor68 Posted September 27, 2011 Author Share Posted September 27, 2011 I am still wondering whether incipient spins are legally doable in Ra-Aus? Anyone have a factual answer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motzartmerv Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 I was taught spin recovery in an RAA aeroplane (AUF) . This is what became of that aeroplane (and the instructor, a good friend) when it clapped hands due to over stressing. For most of you this discussion is merely academic, and so it should be. We have a syllabus, we teach that syllabus, we obey the regs and aeroplane design limitations or SOMEONE may pay the price for your (or your instructors) stupidity. Take it or leave it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mazda Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 As stated previously, CAR 155 has the rules, turns of up to 60 degrees are not aerobatic, turns over 60 degrees are. Plus flight manual limitations must be observed. I agree pilots should do EMT and/or aeros training, but do it with an aerobatic instructor in an aerobatic aircraft. And if you have aeros approval and a suitable aircraft you can turn with more than 60 degrees AOB. Oh, and Dazza38, despite Nigel being the best aeros pilot I have ever seen (sorry DJP) and having 7000 hours, he only has a PPL so I'm assuming your friend who was 'taught' aeros by Nigel either did it in a glider or received some competition advice on top of aeros approval. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motzartmerv Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 Definition of incipient "1. In an initial stage; beginning to happen or develop:" 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motzartmerv Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 I dissagree David. If you know it may happen, and do it anyway, thats intentional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motzartmerv Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 Im sorry my comp is playing up and my replies are taking ages to appear. In the syllabus it says " stall with a wing drop" it says nothing about autorotation. The recovery from a wing drop is the same as a further developed spin. The question you asked regarding what is an incipient spin has been the subject of much hot debate at various cfi forums etc, and the genneral feelings are that the syllabus has the wording we need, ie, stall with a wing drop. I did stalling today and filmed it from inside the cockpit, i will post the video if your interested in what i am teaching. In a nutshell, the stall should be recoverd at the incipient stage, just the wing dropping, anything further would be likely to induce bank beyond 60 deg.s .and if you know that is going to happen then it is intentional. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motzartmerv Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 So if you intentionally stall and the pitch angle abruptly changes more than 45 degrees in a fully developed stall ... that is intentional and therefore aerobatic and therefore illegal as well Motz? Isn't stall and incipient spin training all exempt the definition of aerobatic even though the pitch and bank angles are obviously exceeded?David If it is, im yet to see the reg. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ahlocks Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 As stated previously, CAR 155 has the rules The statement that CAR155 has the rules with regard to RAAus operated aircraft is incorrect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motzartmerv Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 C'mon david, 45 degs nose down is far beyond what an average stall would induce. Im with you, i reckon a quarter rotation etc is needed to see it properly, but unfortunatly the syllabus doesnt allow for it, it is simply a stall with a wing drop like it states. I didnt write it, but im bound by it. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motzartmerv Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 The statement that CAR155 has the rules with regard to RAAus operated aircraft is incorrect. How so lox? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motzartmerv Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 I understand your point Motz; it is just unfortunate that the syllabus uses the term 'incipient spin' which is not what RAA teach. The problem is the students believe that stall with a wing drop is an incipient spin ... so God help them if they ever cockup and enter a real spin, when low and slow turning final with the flame out trying to stretch the glide into some small paddock one day. David Couldn't agree more david. But, I would argue, a fully developed spin at 500 feet would be difficult to recover from regardless of training.;). I guess thats why the emphasis is on the wing dropping stage. I liken the current stance on stalling (and spinning) to pre Columbus sailing, where ya could sail anywhere in the world ya wanted to, provided you didn't go in water over your shoulders and never lost sight of land. Its not just RAA, but GA have backed off spinning as a requirement for issue of PPL and even CPL. They seem to have a "just say no to deep stalling" mentality. Im sure they have their reasons for this, but there has been 2 good reasons recently (RAA accidents) where I feel somewhere something should be done. cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 its a shame some on this thread decided to put the black hankerchief on the head and condemn the content.if they hadnt...it would still be a great advert for RAA. So it was us was it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 I am still wondering whether incipient spins are legally doable in Ra-Aus? Anyone have a factual answer? Foxy outlined an incipient spin. Incipient means it hasn't started. CFI was being provocative, unfairly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 Maybe it was the late hour, but I'm stunned to read some of the evasive rubbish which was posted last night in spite of four Instructors trying to talk some sense into the discussion. The cold hard fact is that the demonstration on the video was irresponsible and could lead to loss of control, and breakup in flight with this pilot or a later one, our aircraft are not tested or built to aerobatic standard, with a couple of exceptions. And I will bet you, after watching the video, and reading some of the less responsible posts, some low hours pilot will go out in the training area and try it out. Who is going to take responsibility for that? Which one of you machos will stand up and say "I encouraged it"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djpacro Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 .... referring to an incipient stall / spin not a fully developed spin ... such instruction which results in abnormal attitudes (read more than 60 degrees), absolutely benefits students ... is there any regulation in RAA that prevents instruction in stall / incipient spin as indeed I asked the question on a couple of posts back? Depends how CAR 155 is interpreted. Plus, an incipient spin is the motion up to the fully developed spin which may take one and a half turns or so - definitely well beyond the flight test regime for an aeroplane which is not approved for intentional spins. (2) For the purposes of subregulation (1), straight and steady stalls or turns in which the angle of bank does not exceed 60 degrees shall be deemed not to be acrobatic flight. Clear what is not aerobatic. Not clear about a stall which is not straight and steady in exactly the same way it is not clear about turns with an angle of bank greater than 60 degrees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-09-21/interest-in-ultra-lights-soars/2910640?section=tas I draw your attention to the above link, particularly the two segments around 1:32 to 1:38 and 1:49 to 1:53 This behaviour has metamorphed step by step into a hair splitting exercise, which appears to be an attempt to justify the activity 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mazda Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 Well that is a new one, if it is unintentional it isn't aerobatic. Does that mean if someone accidentally enters a spin then pulls 5g or more recovering from the dive that it isn't aerobatic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Powerin Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 If I recall, in the US at least, spin training was discontinued because a fair proportion of the fatalities due to spin accidents were happening during the actual spin training. Spin fatalities dropped significantly when spin training stopped and was replaced by incipient spin training. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djpacro Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 If incipient spinning is not aerobatic by definition and the aircraft are certified for incipient spins, it should be allowable to teach stall/incipient spin entry and recovery for very valid reasons ... I did say incipient ... but better minds than me would determine the allowability/legality of that in RAA. ....... BTW a standard C150/152 is spinnable but NOT aerobatic certified ... there is a substantial difference. A standard C150/152 is certified for limited aerobatics, including spinning, in Utility Category - refer the POH.There is no certification for incipient spins as such. This behaviour has metamorphed step by step into a hair splitting exercise, which appears to be an attempt to justify the activity Sorry David, I'm like that. People need to be consistent in the application of the rules, not just pick and choose as we discussed earlier.Was it legal or not? Was it safe or not (if it breached a safety regualtion then it is not safe by definition, if it was legal then it still may not be safe)? Was it sensible or not (in the context of promoting "cowboy behaviour")? I rarely look at videos about flying online that people tell me about as they often involve breaches of safety regulations. Interesting discussion with one of my friends recently who did some training at Sean Tucker's school: Rules #1-#3 were all about "don't in front of a camera". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts