djpacro

delete

delete

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. 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?

Well, yes and no. Per FAA AC23-8C: For example, the Pitts S-2A has this cockpit placard:

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.

Indeed. A flight manual will have the recovery procedure from a spin. Even types not approved for intentional spins. The certification test pilots define a spin as "a sustained autorotation at angles-of-attack above stall" per FAA AC 23-8C. That's all. Types not approved for intentional spinning are only tested "to assure that the airplane will not become uncontrollable within one turn (or three seconds, whichever takes longer) if a spin should be encountered inadvertently". No need to discuss whether it is an incipient spin or not. If it is autorotating then it is spinning so use the spin recovery method. Only done one turn - may be an incipient spin - doesn't matter, that's all that has been tested and the test pilot tells you in the flight manual how to recover. The people who write the spin recovery method in the flight manual use the above definition of a spin, nowhere in AC 23-8A does it even mention an incipient spin. An incipient spin is a spin so use the spin recovery method in the flight manual. Cessna's Spin Document notes: Note the use of the word "may"! So you recommend simply centralising the controls if in an incipient spin? Before 2-3 turns? AC 23-8A states "Most airplanes will not attain a fully developed spin in one turn." When I demonstrate an aggressive unintentional spin entry with power and aileron it will be fully developed well before 2-3 turns. By all means, if in an aerobatic aircraft and unintentionally enter a spin while conducting aerobatics and take immediate action (so very early in the incipient spin phase), centralise the controls to prevent the spin from developing - it is appropriate then. In other circumstances, this acccident is a good example of what goes wrong when transitioning from a stall recovery method to a different stall recovery method with a wing drop to a different recovery method from an incipient spin then to a different fully developed spin recovery method https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2014/aair/ao-2014-083/ Depends on the aircraft. A type I flew recently stated that these 4 actions "must be carried out immediately and simultaneously. Power lever - idle. Ailerons neutral. Rudder - full deflection against direction of spin. Elevator - fully forward." That type is not approved for intentional spins so that is the required action when it is autorotating ... in the incipient spin phase. I wonder if the flight instructor in the fatal accident of that type knew of that when he was doing stall practice with a student as it is quite different from the method he was taught when he got his spin endorsement?

1. There has indeed been a large number of such posts over the years. 2. Ask the airport management for their reason and compare with what I stated. 3. “consistently fairly” is not what airport managements have experienced over the years trying to invoice RAA registered aircraft cf VH aircraft.

Moorabbin simply had enough of RAA pilots avoiding payments and I can understand that having read a large number of online posts from pilots who avoid paying any landing fee whatsoever.

and how it was done, I should've added. I see that PA-28 and Cessna 172, even the 152 have a MTOW and max ramp weight defined in the POH. The Decathlon AFM simply has maximum weight. Pitts POH has both maximum gross weight and maximum takeoff weight - the same number. The ASTM for LSA has slightly different terminology again "maximum takeoff or maximum design weight". My copy of a Jabiru POH specifies maximum takeoff weight in one section, gross weight in another section (same number 600 kg)

Depends on the certification. These days I only fly small FAR 23 certified airplanes where Sec. 23.25 — Weight limits. (a) Maximum weight. The maximum weight is the highest weight at which compliance with each applicable requirement of this part (other than those complied with at the design landing weight) is shown. The POH for a FAR 23 airplane simply states the maximum weight i.e. cannot have more than that when one starts the engine. More complex types may specify a MTOW and an associated max ramp weight. Australian pilot theory seems to me is a hangover from when Australia had its own certification requirements and unique flight manuals which generally used the term MTOW. (There were also MTOW limits depending on the density altitude for even simple types like a Cessna 150.) Pilots naturally assumed they could make a very generous allowance for additional taxi fuel in the absence of a specified max ramp weight. The term “maximum weight” is simply that.

This may explain https://airfactsjournal.com/2020/12/understanding-vb-turbulence-penetration-speed/ That is for transport category aircraft and does not apply to small aircraft.

Design cruise speed Vc, from which Vno is derived, does increase with weight because whoever wrote the regulations decided that. The ASTM for LSA is quite similar to FAR 23 in this respect. This Advisory Circular explains considerations of design airspeeds (see page 26 etc) https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_23-19A.pdf I know of one airplane where the engine mount is definitely not stronger than the wing. At lighter weights the load factor due to a gust increases (aeroplane flying at the same airspeed, Vno does not vary with weight) so there is more load on the engine mount than at the higher weight where the wing stresses are higher.

Not a regulation applicable to small aeroplanes. Nope. Nope - gust loads are a function of V not V^2. Nope.

A very good question. The link to a chapter of the FAA's Airplane Flying Handbook that I provided earlier provides the typical explanations that pilots are taught. But it only touches on the answer to the question. Page 5-20 describes the "Cross-Control Stall" - a good scenario to have demonstrated however there are many other scenarios with cross controls with different outcomes. Page 5-22 discusses spin awareness with some generic comments and useful advice. It then goes on to explain the normal practice spins. The FAA's document does not directly answer that question and I wouldn't try to answer that question directly myself either.

The Decathlon is very docile but it sometimes bites. Simply applying full throttle can result in "pro-spin inputs" if the pilot doesn't "Advance the throttle promptly, but smoothly, as needed while using rudder and elevator controls to stop any yawing motion and prevent any undesirable pitching motion." per https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/airplane_handbook/media/06_afh_ch5.pdf WagstaffSchoolStallSpinAerosMusic_Trim.mp4

I should’ve added: if you use the Vixen method in the Super Decathlon and it will not recover but instead transition to an inverted spin.

Compare the guidance from the FAA when certifying new aircraft per FAR 23, the Super Decathlon in which I teach spins and the Vixen. An inadvertent spin in a Vixen requires correct actions per its manual promptly rather than attempting a different method as one may have learnt in a Super Decathlon. If the manual states full forward yoke then don't expect halfway to be effective.

All certified types must have the spin recovery method in the AFM and/or placarded. For those types not approved for intentional spinning then that correct recovery method must be initiated within one turn to ensure recovery. Interesting that most I encounter have a different spin recovery technique than types commonly used for spin training.

Pilots were narrower back when the 150 was designed. Standard pilot weight for design was 77 kg for many years. They conceded a little with the bowed doors in 1967 to give extra elbow room.

The 150/152 is a great trainer, including spinning and aerobatics (the last in the Aerobat of course).

A sideslip is inherently spin resistant so I guess that you did something other than keep the sideslip straight just prior to the stall? The Decathlon is very docile, there is a sweet spot of airspeed, power, rate of turn and pitch etc where it will aggressively enter a spin with little warning. The Cessna 150 does it much better, trainee instructors would typically go around a couple of turns in a spin if they weren't expecting it.

I hadn't landed a Pitts in over a year so my brain was a bit rusty.

That is the consequence of some people using airports without paying. If you can talk to the General Manager Aviation my guess is that he'd be OK and nil fees.

Per 1000 kg pro-rata