djpacro

8 minutes ago, APenNameAndThatA said:

Stuck controls after they have checked free and full movement though?

I agree, not as common as control locks left in, but FOD moving during flight and jamming controls in aerobatic airplanes is a well known hazard. It has happened to myself and several others that I know over the years.

Good discussion. Great work APenNameAndThatA

Quote

17T. Stuck controls are not a leading cause of crashing on takeoff.

It is a fairly common cause, however.

Quote

"Handing over" and "taking over" are not standard phrases.

They are. Refer CASA's Flight Instructor Manual.

On 29/09/2022 at 3:09 PM, kasper said:

There are NO RAAus planes certified to spin.  Full stop no quibble.

I think you'll find the rule is operational not aircraft certification.

2 hours ago, facthunter said:

... I don't like aerobating planes that aren't well above 5G  safe. NO RAA planes are certified to spin, ... Nev

Hi Nev, is that a new philosophy, as your Citabria was a 5G airplane? And - there are quite a few RAA planes certified for intentional spinning.

6 hours ago, Bosi72 said:

Hi DJP 

Are you referring to flat spins?

Thanks 

Yes, that is the placard (although not actually required for all flat spins, testing revealed specific control actions to get it there).

Interesting that the general spin placard there is not quite correct per the AFM.

1 hour ago, Area-51 said:Regardless of any 16 spin variations - Ailerons centralised …

The factory test pilot found some modes which were not recoverable with that method. Amendment to the AFM and cockpit placard refers.

4 hours ago, RFguy said:

Excellent stuff DJP. thanks for clarifying

 

 

I get a steady stream of curious flight instructors asking about it when they can't get numbers to tie up when they do the  arithmetic. Of course, they must use CAS - are those stall speeds in CAS or IAS? When the manufacturer does the calculations do they use the stall speed at the same CG published in the POH or not - some manufacturers publish stall speeds for both fore and aft CG positions.

There are several reasons why a manufacturer may state a higher Va than Vs.sqrt(n). One is that they are allowing for future growth of that model so just do the certification once at the anticipated higher weight - as you saw, Va is only used to get control surface and tail loads, nothing to do with stresses in the wing. When an engineer first specifies Va it is before the prototype has flown so the stall speed is only estimated and perhaps the engineer builds in a buffer. Perhaps the actual stall speed is less than originally estimated. The structural engineering certification paperwork is largely done, they're not going to revise Va and delay the FAA's review if they don't have to.

5 hours ago, RFguy said:

…..based on the muls, i'd say the Muskateer Va is for about half way between max and min weight. 

I’d say it would be exactly as required by the design airworthiness regulations as explained succinctly by FAA AC 23-19. Vs below is at maximum weight.

36 minutes ago, aro said:

According to the report,

"The instructor’s initial and ongoing aerobatics training was conducted in the Pitts Special aircraft. ...."

 

I would have no problem doing aerobatics training in a 150, BUT I would want the instructor to have extensive aerobatics experience in that type. To me, it sounds like the instructor underestimated the skills required for the 150 compared to the Pitts.

 

Yep, I did state "almost any instructor". Aerobatic customers often consider different schools and sometimes specific instructors before deciding but often don't bother asking about the instructor's experience. I think an instructor like that would've been fine for the general aerobatic training - I would expect some solo aerobatic practice (normal with others I know who transition to other types) rather than pick it up with a student on board paying for it as the report indicates.

10 hours ago, aro said:

The report does prompt a few thoughts -

• Generally, a Pitts would be considered a more advanced aircraft than a C150. But maybe when it comes to aerobatics that isn't the case. I can see it might take more skill to fly the C150, with the less purpose built design requiring larger control movements, and slower responses requiring you to be further ahead of the aircraft. I don't see any problem teaching in it, but perhaps someone stepping out of a Pitts might underestimate the difficulty.
• Following from that, what qualifications are required to teach aerobatics? An instructor teaching a student in an aircraft that they themselves had little experience on seems sub-optimal.

My opinion is that the Cessna Aerobat is a great little aerobatic trainer. I've done quite a bit of instruction in them. Yep, so easy to do a roll in a Pitts or Extra. Students in a Cessna, with its much lower roll rate, must learn more skills in rolling it as well as energy management overall. The Decathlon is an excellent aerobatic trainer. Very few in Australia learn basic aerobatics in a Pitts or Extra - they could learn those correct basic skills to do a roll at low roll rates but won't iniitially. Techniques for hammerheads are quite a bit different in high performance aircraft.

I don't see a problem with teaching aerobatics on different types in general as almost any instructor would've started on a low performance type. Courses for an instructor doing an aerobatic training endorsement should include some little classroom techniques in different types per the MOS. Manuals give good guidance on how to do stuff and most of the skills are transferable. I do enjoy seeing a Pitts pilot try to do a hammerhead (stall turn) in an Airtourer though!

The real issue is spinning. The MOS only requires knowledge of the type which is being used for training.

10 hours ago, aro said:

The report does prompt a few thoughts -

• I wonder about the usefulness of unusual attitude recovery training in aircraft like the Pitts i.e. dedicated aerobatic aircraft. Certainly, it is useful to get experience so you can maintain your composure in unusual attitudes, but advanced aerobatic aircraft are probably much easier to recover than standard aircraft. .... There's probably a catch 22 here - you could train in aircraft that reflect the real world, but you would then have more training accidents.

Unusual attitudes - a good point for more discussion at that other thread on UPRT, perhaps.

When I do a spin endorsement for someone there is classroom work which includes:

• all the aggravated spin modes and how to avoid them
• some characteristics of other types so the recovery method is likely to be different than the type we are using
• the limitations of Beggs-Mueller
• what to do if you apply the correct (or you think it was correct) recovery method and it doesn't work - what do you do?
• especially for flight instructors, what aircraft will they be instructing in, as if not approved for spins they must know the control actions specified in the POH - probably totally different than what I've taught them - and apply them as soon as it starts to spin - certainly before one turn. eg this Diamond
• 

Quote

If an aerobatics instructor couldn't recover a C150 Aerobat from an intentional spin, how useful is the training?

Indeed. I expect (hope) there will be changes to the spin training MOS and instructor training.

1 hour ago, aro said:

... The ATSB report says the method "has proven to be a very effective method of spin recovery in most aircraft types." Is that "most types" that are approved for spinning, within aerobatic CG etc. or is it "most types" in the spin testing conditions required for certification?

Here is the list from Gene Beggs, October 1985 magazine article, which he claims to have thoroughly tested.

Of these, he states that it doesn't work (at least for some spin modes) for the Beech T-34C, North American AT-6 and that Cessna 150. Bill Kershner confirmed that every Cessna Aerobat behaves the same when trying to recover using Beggs-Mueller - even the 152 will not recover.

They weren't certification standard tests, for example, he did not rig the control surfaces to the extremes of the tolerances most adverse for spin recovery. What CG range did he test for each aircraft? How can he guarantee it? 

His book, Spins in the Pitts Special, was published later and it had another statement: "Another aircraft that will not always recover is the 180 Decathlon. This occurs in the inverted left rudder spin. I have not flown the 180 Decathlon extensively. I do not know if the 150 Decathlon also exhibits the same behaviour." Hang on, in that earlier magazine article he stated that he had thoroughly tested it? He goes on "If we could spin-test every aircraft, I am sure we would find others that will lock-in and continue spinning on their own."

An instructor and student were conducting inverted spins in a Decathlon and the Beggs-Mueller technique was being demonstrated. The student was told to bail out and survived. The instructor was killed as he didn't have enough time to get out.

Eric Mueller is quite vague - I have only seen him state that it works for all those aircraft which have a conventional (according to Eric) tail design like that of the Pitts Special. Tell that to Paul Bennet - it doesn't work for his Wolf Pitts.

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.