djpacro

15 hours ago, Thruster88 said:

It would seem unlikely that the student froze on the controls. He had been flying for 10 years and had 250 hours (that is an hour every second weekend over those years so not nothing). He had also previously taken an aerobatic trial flight in a Decathlon. He wanted to do the aerobatic endorsement in the C150. 

 

Would the student do the first spin or would the instructor demonstrate and talk through the procedure? 

The ATSB assessed that "Overall, none of the available evidence indicated that the student was susceptible to freezing at the controls or making other inappropriate flight control inputs." They didn't rule it out however they did speak to other instructors and trainees at that flight school in making that assessment. As the ATSB said "it may be difficult for the instructor to regain control of the aircraft." I've done a whole lot of spin training over the years and never had much difficulty in dealing with trainees who freeze or made the situation worse by incorrect actions. Same with other instructors I know.

 

That same trainee had flown aerobatics twice on the previous day. "It was reported that, during the practical flight phase on that day, the instructor demonstrated each of the manoeuvres before handing control to the student." Good practice.

 

The pre-flight briefing on the day of the accident is most telling:

"One of the students indicated that, during the pre-flight briefing, they were not instructed on what recovery method was recommended in the Aerobat Pilot’s Operating Handbook (POH), or that it closely aligned with the PARE method. Further, they were instructed on the advantages of the Mueller/Beggs method, but not on its limitations; namely, if the Mueller/Beggs method was utilised on an Aerobat, the aircraft would not recover from a spin to the left (see Aerodynamic spins).
Both students were instructed to write down the 2 spin recovery methods on a piece of paper for reference in flight when the practical component of the spin recovery was to be undertaken. One of the students indicated that they believed they were going to utilise both methods of spin recovery during their flight instruction. The first method written down on both students’ spin recovery notes was the Mueller/Beggs method."

 

Another instructor who worked with that instructor at another flight school has publicly stated that they did not teach the spin recovery method in the (non-aerobatic) Cessna 152 POH. "... just relaxation of the back pressure was taught ..".  Catherine Cavagnaro makes the point that the elevator is the primary spin recovery control in the Cessna 

 

"However, the ATSB could not identify if the instructor had sought additional information about the Aerobat’s spin characteristics." Two books by William K.Kershner are readily available and provide exhaustive information on the type in general and spinning in particular. Both should be in the reference library of any flight school teaching spins in a C150/152.

 

The investigators did a very comprehensive job. "The ATSB considered it likely that the instructor was not aware or did not recall that the Aerobat would not recover utilising the Mueller/Beggs method in a spin to the left. Further, the evidence indicates that the instructor intended to utilise both methods of recovery in 2 separate spin sequences on the accident flight. If the Mueller/Beggs method was being used for the first exercise, it would provide a viable explanation of the accident sequence."

 

Time to accept the ATSB report and go forward with the recommendations.

9 hours ago, APenNameAndThatA said:

We don’t know if the student did any spins in the Decathlon. 

"The student had conducted an introductory aerobatic flight in an American Champion Aircraft Corp 8KCAB with an instructor in December 2014. That flight did not include spins." 

3 hours ago, onetrack said:

This ATSB report on a Chipmunk crash in 2014 is interesting ….m

 

10 minutes ago, Thruster88 said:

Vne is the speed that must not be exceeded in smooth air with very minimal control inputs .....

 

Va is max maneuvering speed, the speed at which full or abrupt control inputs can be made. .... because it is all about stall speed protection of the airframe .......

I was at a UPRT Providers Conference sponsored by CASA and aircraft insurance companies last month. My presentation included some comments on the "cesspit of misinformation, half-baked truths and misshapen facts" mentioned in this article https://www.flightsafetyaustralia.com/2017/12/the-unreachables-are-they-unteachable/

 

For a start: Vne is the red-line speed or the never-exceed speed - the key word is "never".

 

At that conference, I specifically discussed the misinformation around regarding the design manoeuvering speed, Va, which is specified by the airworthiness design regulations FAR 23 and explained succintly in FAA Advisory Circular 23-19:

Newly designed and certified aeroplanes should have a Vo, the operating manoeuvering speed which is what many pilots believe Va is. 

 

I also mentioned some general issues with spin training in this country and made some recommendations regarding training of spin instructors. The report on the Cessna 150 spin accident published by the ATSB recently served to emphasise my recommendations.

4 minutes ago, Roundsounds said:

GA schools haven’t caught onto the P in UPRT, ie Prevention.

I see evidence that it is slowly coming. On the other hand I see some UPRT courses advertised with very little on the P.

 

i also see pilots habitually letting the speed decay on the base to final turn because they pull back (as they recall being taught to turn that way).

 

i commented elsewhere today that I don’t recall a CASA AvSafety Seminar ever addressing the risk of loss of control.and the relevance of that P.

3 minutes ago, Roundsounds said:

The fans of the hands off spin recovery or Mueller / Beggs method take note..

The only spin recovery method to train and apply is that published in the type POH / AFM. 

Sad that two keen and experienced aviators likely lost their lives as the result of an incorrect recovery technique.

 

https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/news-items/2022/spin-recovery/?fbclid=IwAR3p-ChBpKfeH2evZmTr6E07mXR95cyjOaw0zCAiCid-RIbRotd1c4UObcc

I'd been expecting something like that when the report came out!

 

Over the years I have had robust arguments, taking your side, against those who promoted Beggs/Mueller for all types. You still see it in a popular book by a well known instructor. CASA even had that statement in the draft of CAAP 155-1. 

Yes, good advice. Before that we had to make multiple folds in a WAC while flying an open cockpit Pitts. Then try to grab hold of the big ERSA book.

8 minutes ago, Garfly said:

But this is what the AVPLAN website has to say about the screen size bit:

 

"Please note that Paragraph 7.2 of the CAAP is clear about screen size requirements for EFBs;

I might suggest to AvPlan that they update their stuff. The text of the CAAP was clear that there was no regulatory requirement for private operators at all. However "This CAAP looks to provide guidance for the use of EFB by Air Operator’s Certificate (AOC) holders as they are bound to meet the obligations detailed in the AOC conditions set out in Appendix 9 of CAO 82.0. .... The CAAP will also provide general guidance for private operators." That CAO has now gone.

6 hours ago, Garfly said:

Yes, you need at least an iPad mini size screen to legally replace paper maps.

Not true about screen size unless specified in an Ops Manual for a commercial operator. From CASA's AC 91-17 "The screen size and resolution will need to demonstrate the ability to display information in a manner comparable to the paper documents that are being replaced. For flight crew use, this would be evaluated against the aeronautical charts and other data. The recommended minimum size of the screen is 200 mm, measured diagonally across the active viewing area. ..." My iPhone easily displays stuff comparable or better than paper documents that I used when flying a Pitts. My iPad Mini is better but if I'm familiar with the route and it is good weather then the iPhone is fine (I may not even look at it). 200 mm is only a recommendation.

 

In the good old days before EFBs I wouldn't bother calculating the effect of forecast wind once I realised how far off the forecasts used to be on average. Not calculating the wind was just the same situation as encountering actual wind different than forecasts - we were taught to update the flight plan progressively as we flew it and determined the actual wind.

 

Back when I did my CPL training I was given a flight to plan then as we walked to the aircraft I was told that the task had changed so discard that plan and work out a new plan as we go.

 

As well as looking at weather and NOTAMs I do make a point of getting AvPlan to download it for me so I have evidence of it for CASA rules.

 

I rarely submit a plan or SARTIME as I'd rather use a flight note with a trusted friend who gets frequent updates of my progress.

A bit of surgery needed in a jig. 

This one needed more extensive work but easier, not being damaged near the wing spar attach fittings.

This form should work (there is no other) however I suggest that you phone them to confirm.

On 28/05/2022 at 5:42 PM, tcsmith said:

Where can I purchase an EFB? What does it cost for the device and software?

 

Cheers

 

Terry

I suggest that you drop into the AvPlan HQ at Moorabbin Airport to get the best advice https://www.avplan-efb.com/contact/

 

I have an iPad Mini. You'll need the cellular version to get the GPS - I just connect it to the internet via my iPhone when I'm flying and wifi at home to get any data it needs at any time.  

Still some of those around. Replaced by Cirri - quite a few of those to hire at Moorabbin.

I guess that CASA has assumed that everyone has already converted from the old CAR 5 licence to the flash new Part 61 licence so nil guidance on the new system. A lot of rules and procedures have changed in the last 30 years so suggest that you brush up on those as much as you can before you start paying a flight instructor. This is a good place to start: https://www.casa.gov.au/search-centre/visual-flight-rules-guide

 

Piper Warriors haven't changed much in 30 years. Quite a few online at flight schools around Melbourne. You'll find updated avionics and a GPS installed. I'm assuming that you want to resume in the Warrior and go to $100 hamburger events?

 

The flight instructor giving you a refresher and doing your flight review may not mention Electronic Flight Bags as few flight schools here incorporate them in their training. However definitely worthwhile considering this rather than buying a full set of documents and paper charts as you'll just end up tossing them in the bin. So, read up about EFBs here https://www.casa.gov.au/operations-safety-and-travel/safety-advice/electronic-flight-bag/efb-procedures-and-training

and https://www.avplan-efb.com/ - they have an office at Moorabbin and welcome people dropping in to chat.

 

I suggest that you talk to a few instructors at different flight schools, mention that you want to use an EFB rather than buy paper stuff, consider what you will be doing once you are back into it.

 

I've come across people in your situation before, one earlier this year. He  got current in a Warrior then did a tailwheel endorsement followed by an aerobatic endorsement.

On 2/5/2022 at 7:02 PM, Thruster88 said:

From my reading of accident reports, the accelerated stalls nearly always involve some type of hooning. ….. Fortunately this type of stall spin is not so common.  

My observation is that almost every fatality that follows an engine failure is a consequence of an accelerated stall. RV in country NSW and C172 at Moorabbin a few years back spring to mind. 
Powerline inspection by C172 last year.

 

On 5/5/2022 at 1:57 PM, Garfly said:

I've read that this fixed idea (from training) promotes an exaggerated fear of banking in turns onto base and final and indirectly contributes to the dangerous use of rudder to speed up the (possibly underbanked) turn.   Would DJP or other pros care to comment/advise?

Whether it is fear or a self-imposed limit from their training that is the classic scenario describing the skidded turn stall.

21 hours ago, Garfly said:

.... you don't notice that you're tugging a little on the already back-trimmed stick, and with eyes now back out front it's all a bit mushier and tippier and quieter than normal ...

Pilot develop bad habits from their flight training e.g. from CASA's Flight Instructor Manual:

Quote

MEDIUM TURNS IN LEVEL FLIGHT .....

Entry – lookout, apply aileron in the direction of turn,
rudder in the direction of turn and back pressure on
the control column .....

 

MEDIUM DESCENDING TURNS ....

Roll into the turn as for a medium level turn ...

Instructors repeat Bank Balance Back Pressure for entering a turn.

 

The CASA FIM goes on to state "Emphasize that the selected airspeed is held constant by use of the elevator ..." but instructors are not emphasising that in the circuit so many pilots have the bad habit of applying back pressure, instead of forward pressure, on the base to final turn with the resultant increase in angle of attack. Not good for one's long term health.

 

You will reach many more people at https://www.facebook.com/groups/796324257055294

 

There's space in my friend's hangar beside the Pitts and Husky.

11 minutes ago, APenNameAndThatA said:

Excellent. Now can you tell me *exactly* where it is that a stall ends and a spin starts? 

See my earlier post for the definition of a spin hence the start of a spin.

Cessna's spin document is consistent https://mikeklochcfi.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/cessna-spin-manual.pdf

 

 

 

On 28/04/2022 at 10:24 PM, lee-wave said:

..... early Cessna 150s without the anti-spin strake they would sometimes not recover from a spin due to the pro spin torque....the only way to recover was to switch the motor off and even then it took two or more turns to fully recover.  I read this somewhere.....

Doesn't seem like a Cessna 150. Chipmunks and Tiger Moths may have anti-spin strakes - another discussion on their effectiveness. I have also readabout a type which was sensitive to throttle and, from memory, the manual stated to switch the motor off if recovery was delayed - Zlin 526.

delete

delete

On 28/04/2022 at 9:25 AM, Old Koreelah said:

It was encouraging to hear that skilled, seasoned pilot “chicken out” of actually demonstrating the powered stall he had planned. .....

I know of some instructors who chicken out of required flight exercises for an RPL per Part 61 (see attached image). I see that the RPC syllabus is far less comprehensive. I see some aeroplanes used in training that are prohibited from accelerated stalls so unable to do all of the required Part 61 stall exercises.

 

22 hours ago, APenNameAndThatA said:

Benefits if spinning includes making it less likely that you will freeze if you get out of usual attitude. And it makes that zone between stalling and spinning less mysterious. The way people on here talk, you’d think there was no space between stall and spin. 

 

Another way of looking at this is that since people are still dying from stall and spin, whatever the training there probs should be more. The more/better the training, the safer you are. 

 

 

Seems like an argument for UPRT. See https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/airplane_handbook/06_afh_ch5.pdf

 

There is no space between stall and spin. Suggest that you read the reference above - the pages on stalling are followed by pages on spinning. There is a stall recovery template and a spin recovery template, nothing in between.

https://www.flightsafetyaustralia.com/2022/04/andante-andante/

 

“The aircraft was the aerobatic version of a popular trainer and that might be significant in what happened – different centre of gravity.”

Steve Curtis stated that “sharing the aeroplane type would allow following pilots to review the recommended spin recovery for the type.” He suspected that it was a Cessna 150?

I am going to assume it was a Cessna 150 for the sake of my discussion.

 

Was the CG within limits for spinning? Was the different CG relevant – was it similar to that resulting from different crew weight?

“…..  but the elevators, when I moved them, felt the same as if we were parked on the apron.

 

“Well, I’d read about this sort of thing, so I shoved the throttle to the panel and followed it with the stick. And again and again – allegro!”

I have read about that sort of thing in a few articles too. I’d read about that recovery technique in CASA’s Flight Instructor Manual too.

“… brief on these emergency recovery procedures. ….. In all cases full opposite rudder must be maintained whilst carrying out the following supplementary action …”

Interesting that those emergency recovery procedures didn’t make it into CASA’s CAAP 155-1?

 

I had first heard about that particular emergency recovery action from John Day many years ago. My recollection is that John wrote for the Aviation Safety Digest (I must check his full bio). John indicated to me the origin of that and the type of aircraft where it had been applied successfully.

 

A bit like the Beggs-Mueller emergency spin recovery technique which is popularly promoted in some quarters without regard to the limitations on applicable types clearly stated by Beggs in his publications – he has reported on all of his testing. The Cessna 150 is one of many types where the Beggs-Mueller technique failed.

 

“This meant I was holding the stick to the panel and the throttle ‘bricks to the wall’ long enough to have an effect.”

Yep, as CASA’s FIM advises, on the same page as that emergency recovery technique: “It is important to emphasize that sufficient time must be allowed for the recovery action to take effect and this is particularly important where the spin has become flat.”

 

“Lessons learnt: It was a neural pathway or perhaps a neural superhighway burnt into my mind. I had been going at it too fast. Years have passed and many a first officer has heard me say, ‘andante, andante’. (Piano teacher’s jargon for, ‘Hey, slow down!’)”

Yes, slowing down and taking the correct action generally results in a better outcome than taking an immediate, incorrect action.

 

Unfortunately, there is a lot of disinformation about spinning.

The classic example is the ATSB report on the Chipmunk VH-UPD spin accident and the pilot’s training – it makes me angry every time I think about it. I discuss this with my spin training endorsement trainees.

 

There is some disinformation about certification standards – fine to quote FAR 23 (and if you do, quote the applicable amendment as there are differences) but I often see the latest version only quoted. Furthermore, a lot of aeroplanes around not certified to FAR 23. There were earlier standards which are different. There are also different, earlier standards from other countries. LSA spin recovery standards are different.

 

It is worth mentioning the ATSB report on Diamond DA40 VH-MPM. The ATSB stated: “, the investigation identified incorrect incipient spin recovery guidance provided by CASA. The CASA publication Flight Instructor Manual …”

The report stated: “CASA has advised the ATSB that they have taken the following safety action:

Guidance material review

CASA is reviewing the Spins and Spirals section of the Flight Instructor Manual for correction as required.”

Really? The ATSB report was issued in 2017!

 

CASA published AC 61-16 in April 2020 which provides much information contrary to CASA’s FIM! Fortunately, I don’t know of any flight instructor courses which use the FIM as a reference.

 

Back in August 1975 the FAA in cooperation with Cessna published Flight Instructor Bulletin No. 18 on the spin characteristics of Cessnas. Rich Stowell’s excellent book, Stall/Spin Awareness, explains the background to that:

“In the early 1970s, the Cessna 150 – arguably one of the most spin tested light airplanes in history – came under fire when a couple of flight instructors reported difficulty in recovering from spins. …. The FAA representative then went into the field to address questions about the 150’s spin characteristics. The representative was met with considerable misunderstanding about spins in general and the Cessna 150 in particular.”

 

The FAA sponsored a stall/spin clinic which you can read about in the archives of Flight International magazine of 28 October 1978.

 

Cessna published a detailed pamphlet, Spin Characteristics of Cessna Models 150, A150, 152, A152, 172, R172 & 177. I wonder how many flight instructors who teach spinning in Cessnas are aware of that information? It is included in William K Kershner’s book, The Basic Aerobatic Manual.

 

Andante, andante by Douglas Robertson was an event long ago but still relevant today, thanks.

 

It seems to me that the situation that the FAA found back in the ‘70s with “considerable misunderstanding about spins in general” exists to a large extent today – from my observations and discussions with many pilots. Perhaps time for a series of stall/spin clinics by CASA – after they revise the Flight Instructor Manual?

22 hours ago, APenNameAndThatA said:

I thought that in order to be certified, an aircraft needed to recover using PARE. 

Well, yes and no. Per FAA AC23-8C: 

Quote

Recoveries should consist of throttle reduced to idle, ailerons neutralized, full opposite rudder, followed by forward elevator control as required to get the wing out of stall and recover to level flight. For acrobatic category spins, the manufacturer may establish additional recovery procedures, provided they show compliance for those procedures with this section.

For example, the Pitts S-2A has this cockpit placard:

 

12 hours ago, F10 said:

... ideally, get the stick forward of neutral. ....

Most aircraft should recover. In a fully developed spin, most aircraft should recover, with controls held neutral, otherwise to me, they should not have been certified.

 

Forward of neutral - really?

 

Sure, there are some types which will recover from a fully developed spin with controls neutral however many will not. Not true regarding certification requirements eg FAA AC 23-8C.