djpacro 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? Not new, CASA's definition of aerobatics is “… manoeuvres intentionally performed by an aircraft involving an abrupt change in its attitude, an abnormal attitude, or an abnormal variation in speed.” If some-one accidentally enters a spin and pulls 5g would he/she be liable to be charged with breaching CAR155? I don't think so, so therefore it wasn't illegal aerobatics however else we may unkindly describe it. Hopefully still alive to be able to do some remedial training and maybe discuss any damage to the aeroplane with the owner and insurance company? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mazda Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 CASA would certainly not find them in breach of 155, my point is that the aircraft may have flown beyond its limits, and of course aerobatic manouevres took place. I agree absolutely, tell the owner or maintenance org and consider more training. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bandit12 Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 I must admit that in my basic GA training, we did not do spins. I had to go and do an emergency recoveries course with Matt Handley in the S2B. We trained in Tomahawks, but they didn't want to do spins due to the strain on the airframe (even though it was certified). At least on the Tommy, a stall was pretty much guaranteed to drop a wing each and every time, so it was good training anyway. I was taught that the spin is not stable in most aircraft for the close to the first turn anyway, if not more. So the first rotation was considered an incipent spin, and referred to as a stable spin once it was "stable". That was with a normal stall entry into a spin, the same kind of unrealistic "slowly decelerate, maintaining level flight until stick is full back" stall, followed by rudder. A clean and stable spin entry in aerobatics was done quite differently. And I would suggest that most of the stall/spin accidents are also entered quite differently. I've commented on a few threads about what new privileges RAA should strive for, but if there was one I would back for RAA and GA, it is to bring back spin recovery for everyone. Entered from the sorts of attitudes likely to be a problem, like climbing turns when the engine quits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 Haven't weighed into this for a while.... regarding the definition(s). The main putpose is to prevent overstressing the aircraft. A steady 60 degree turn produces a certain load on the aircraft. It could be asserted that abrupt , manoeuvers do similar. Wing overs and knife edge flying requires less lift from the wings than a steady banked turn with the same degre of bank. If we accept the incipient spin as defined as "wing drop".. Due to assymetric wing stalling, there is definate value in practicing control of this situation using rudder and elevator, ( and not using aileron) as part of our training. I have ALWAYS advocated going beyond this but it can't be done in our aircraft. SPIRAL dive recovery training is not advocated in RAAus planes either. It is dangerous in some aircraft particularly those with a low Vne. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts