AOPA Aerobatics Course

[GAZ45]

Hi pprunes,

I’m unsure if this is in the correct forum, but here goes. Purely out of curiosity, I looked at the AOPA Aerobatics Course offered by oxford aviation academy. Does anyone know what this course actually involves and what it enables you to do after completion? The only requirement is a PPL and there is no minimum hours needed to be flown PIC. Would I be right in assuming that you’re able to perform aerobatic manoeuvres in appropriate aircraft types on completion of the course?

Cheers
G

[Fuji Abound]

You would be correct in your assumption. The course is a basic introduction to entry level aerobatics and should leave you with sufficient knowledge and technique to perfom basic level aeroabatics solo in a suitable aircraft.

As you undoubtedly know there is no legal basis for the course in the UK because a rating is not required to fly aerobatics but you would be reasonably silly to teach yourself so the course provides a very good way of obtaining the necessary skills. There are other ways to go about it such as flying with a another pilot who is current in aerobatics, but he may not have the same ability to teach.

In my experience some pilots take to aerobatics and others never do. I think you need to feel comforatble performing aerobatics solo and have sufficient self belief that you can and will recover from any situation that doesnt go entirely according to plan. I really believe that some pilots will always doubt their ability to recover from a spin for example and will never as a result be comfortable with aeros even though they have been through the AOPA course.

[BackPacker]

G, first of all, under current legislation across most of Europe, there is no such thing as an aerobatics rating/endorsement/whatever. Legally speaking, anyone with a PPL can hop into an aerobatics aircraft (subject to tailwheel endorsement, if applicable) and start doing loops, spins, Lomchevacks and whatnot, without any training whatsoever.

Of course whether this is wise is another matter, and this is likely going to change under EASA anyway.

AOPA has created an example syllabus which is in widespread use in the UK. You can also take the Robson book as syllabus, and there are a few more choices. But each offer a rather structured approach to learning aerobatics. Not just the figures, but also the escape routes if things don't go as planned, and the theory behind it.

After completion of such a course a school will typically issue you some sort of completion certificate. Which, as said, has no legal value whatsoever at the moment, but is nice to hang on the wall nevertheless. Plus, you will be proficient at a few basic maneuvers, such as a loop, spin, steep turns, various rolls, cuban eights and maybe reverse cuban eights, stall turns and maybe a few others.

So yes, after such a course you should be able to perform those maneuvers solo and safely in an appropriate aircraft, at a suitable height (2 mistakes high, typically).

[GAZ45]

Fuji,

Thank you for the swift reply! Aerobatics is an area that I would be keen to get into, and as you have mentioned, I certainly don’t fancy teaching myself! I would much prefer to follow a structured course from a flight training provider. Do you have any more information on recommended courses other than that I have mentioned? Also a brief overview of the progression of courses that may be available would be much appreciated; as you did point out that this course would teach the recipient a basic level of aerobatic technique and knowledge.

[GAZ45]

Backpacker,

Thank you for your response. Any thoughts on my previous post?

Cheers
G

[BackPacker]

I don't have the AOPA syllabus to hand, and I have mislaid my Robson book, but I seem to remember there's an eight-lesson plan involved. Just as with normal flight training, each lesson has pre- and post-lesson briefings.

The first few lessons will be spent on very basic maneuvers (loops and rolls separately), getting used to unusual attitudes, building up g-tolerance, and proper botched maneuver recovery. You'll also be introduced to spin, spin recovery, spiral dive and spiral dive recovery early on.

Subsequent lessons will focus on maneuvers that combine pitch, roll and yaw, such as cuban eights and stall turns.

Oh, and something else. I don't know where you're located but the AOPA course is offered in a lot of places. Ultimate High at Kemble is a well-known name but they're not the only one by far. And you don't have to look for Extra-300s, Pitts' or other high-end aerobatics aircraft either for the AOPA course. I'm still quite happy flying the clubs Alpha/Robin 2160 in Standard-level competition aerobatics, and I regularly compete against the GeneralAvia F22 and Fuji FA-200. The Decathlon has about the same capabilities too, and these capabilities will be far better than what's required for the AOPA course.

The only aircraft I would not recommend for the AOPA course (or similar) is the C152 Aerobat.

[stiknruda]

Where are you based?

Have a look at the BAeA webiste

="http://www.aerobatics.org.uk"

[Unusual Attitude]

The words "(subject to tailwheel endorsement, if applicable)" were mentioned earlier ?

Have I missed something? Is this now an actual required rating to fly Tailwheel aircraft ? If it is I hope Grandfather rights are in place as I have no such endoresement though had approx 70hrs Tailwheel from a few years ago before buying my single seat tailwheel permit type....

Now you've got me worried?!?!?!? Not as if I can do differences training on a single seat aircraft and I dont know any instructors in my part of the world that have ever flown the type to give me a conversion anyway!?!?

Regards

UA

[BackPacker]

Is this now an actual required rating to fly Tailwheel aircraft ?

Nobody mentioned the word "rating". It's an endorsement, which means that the instructor who trained you simply writes a statement in your logbook to this effect, signs it and you're good to go. Nothing is added to your license.

[Unusual Attitude]

Ahh, was getting the wrong end of the stick there methinks! Thanks for clarifying.

My original tailwheel training was done about 12 years ago by a VGS on the Vigilant but nothing signed in my CAA logbook at the time, I just transferred the hours over from my VGS logbook (that was back in the days the Vigi could be logged as group A!)

Hopefully with getting on for 100hrs tailwheel it should be enough to not need a signature?

[GAZ45]

Thanks for the info guys! Something to look at for the distant future I think!

[BackPacker]

Hopefully with getting on for 100hrs tailwheel it should be enough to not need a signature?

I would assume it's not the hours that count but the number of landings.

Nevertheless, I don't know of any exception to the "instructor to annotate the logbook to confirm training has successfully taken place" requirement. So without a logbook signature somewhere you may well be flying illegally.

I did search LASORS and the ANO but couldn't readily find the actual regulations. I suspect they're in JAR-FCL somewhere but I don't have those to hand. The only reference in LASORS and the ANO to "tailwheel" was in the context of an NPPL with a SSEA rating.

But isn't there some sort of annotation in your VGS logbook that you are endorsed to fly the Vigilant? Because that would then imply a tailwheel endorsement.

[Unusual Attitude]

Hopefully with getting on for 100hrs tailwheel it should be enough to not need a signature?
I would assume it's not the hours that count but the number of landings.

Given that Vigi G1 sorties were typically 20 or 30 mins and that I typically fly similar short trips in the Cassutt I'm probably looking at 200 or so tailwheel landings..

Nevertheless, I don't know of any exception to the "instructor to annotate the logbook to confirm training has successfully taken place" requirement. So without a logbook signature somewhere you may well be flying illegally.

I did search LASORS and the ANO but couldn't readily find the actual regulations. I suspect they're in JAR-FCL somewhere but I don't have those to hand. The only reference in LASORS and the ANO to "tailwheel" was in the context of an NPPL with a SSEA rating.

But isn't there some sort of annotation in your VGS logbook that you are endorsed to fly the Vigilant? Because that would then imply a tailwheel endorsement.

Alas not seen my Vigi logbook in years. The VGS flying used to be regulated by RAF Central Flying School and as such it was deemed military flying, there were G1 rated pilots with no PPL or other flying licence of any sort so its not just an endorsment rather a military qualification with an entire associated Ab-initio training sylabus. Back when I last flew the Vigi it could be logged as a Group A type however a few years ago it changed and any hours after a certain date could only be logged as TMG / SLMG.

So am I therefore right in thinking that if someone has been flying tailwheel for the last 20 years that they had to go out and get and endorsment in their logbook from an instructor to carry on doing exactly what they'd been doing for the last 20 years ? Doesnt sound right, surely there must be some sort of grandfather rights ? I'll do some more digging myself methinks....

[stiknruda]

UA - the endorsement only came in about 8 yrs ago - so you have grandfather rights. Don't sweat.

Stik

[Unusual Attitude]

Cheers Stik, just found it thanks and checked my logbook, first Tailwheel flight was Jan 98 and majority of tailwheel flying done between then and 2000 so I am indeed granted grandfather rights......feeling very old now....:sad:

[stiknruda]

This is Pprune and there is a lot of well intentioned nonsense spouted! The bloke who put the sh1t up you lives in Holland - so he's well qualified to discuss CAA nonsense!

98? Jeez Old Timer - I was flying DC3s into the African bush in 92 and I didn't get no tailwheel endorsement! Just a bunch of war-stories!

Stik

[BackPacker]

The bloke who put the sh1t up you lives in Holland - so he's well qualified to discuss CAA nonsense!

Come on, give me a break. First of all, I have a CAA-issued PPL, this is all JAA stuff which applies in the Netherlands too, and I did search the ANO and LASORS. So that fact that you and me are separated by 100 miles of water or so isn't entirely relevant.

But furthermore, UA posted a question based on another comment I wrote, and that question thus seemed to be directed at me. I answered to the best of my ability and once the question started to exceed my ability, I became very cautious. "I don't know", "you may well be", "couldn't find", "I suspect"... I have never stated as fact that he was flying illegally.

If, for every question that's being asked on here, everybody just sits on their hands until the true, know-it-all expert comes along and gives the definitive answer, it would be a dull place indeed. And I can point you to numerous examples where it took a couple of experts discussing together to arrive at the final answer, sometimes prompted by further probing from non-experts.

Which brings in my next question: Can you show the regulations where those grandfather rights are introduced? There may be stipulations in there which the OP has to abide by. I can imagine that those grandfather rights are only given when you can show logbook evidence of having been trained on taildraggers.

[Unusual Attitude]

Morning Backpacker,

No stress from my end as I appreciate your good intentions to help and also those from Stik.

I did some digging myself and came across a document last night confirming grandfather rights for those with tailwheel hours prior to some date in 2001, didnt pay huge attention to the date as I knew my tailwheel stuff was pre 2000 anyway.

I'll see if I can find the reference again and post it for info, might help someone else in the future....

Regards

UA

[Fuji Abound]

Aerobatics training should start with a solid introduction to unusual attitudes - perhaps two or three sessions. These should include a review of steep turns (properly steep turns), spiral dives and recoveries and wing overs. This will start to get your brain use to the aircraft behaving in a very different way and hopefully will make the rest of the process far more enjoyable.

From there a start should be made on the basic manouevers including aileron, barrel rolls, loops and stall turns (hammerheads) gradually giving more attention to working within a defined area (box) and using line features to keep the manouevers tight and pretty. Most aircraft suffer from insufficient power (well I guess they all do ;)) so it is a good time to instill the importance of conserving energy and as the lessons progress starting to link the manouevers together.

I think there are different views on how early proper spin training should be introduced. It was introduced to me towards the end of stage 2 (above) which in hindsight I think made a very good fit. Spinning can be unpleasant until you have developed a better awareness of what the aircraft is doing once in an "unusual" attitude and hard until you have some G tolerance.

By this stage you will have a pretty good idea whether aeros are for you and whether you enjoy and have confidence in the whole experience. It is a good time to go off and play solo together with starting to work on some of the more advanced manouevers. As you progress so much will depend on the aircraft. Many aircraft will struggle and be close to the limit of their capability.

Good luck.

[BackPacker]

Many aircraft will struggle and be close to the limit of their capability.

The idea of aerobatics, to an extent, is that you're going to fly the aircraft to the limits of its capability. So that the aircraft will struggle (or downright fail) to perform some maneuvers is a given.

However, some aircraft have far wider limits than others, so it will take a lot more effort, training and g-tolerance to get to those limits.

And let's be honest, flying an R2160 to the limits of its (meagre) capabilities can be almost as rewarding as flying an E300 to its limits. Not quite, but almost...:ok:

[Fuji Abound]

Backpacker

No argument from me there - of course the point I was making is that it is no bad thing for someone new to aerobatics to realise that few aircraft will achieve the performance we are accustom to seeing in the media and if you really wish to fly at that level it will be a costly business. My hours in an Extra are some of the best flying hours but equally so are my hours in far less capable aerobaitc aircraft and as you righly say they are rewarding although in for me I would have to say not as rewarding! :)

[BackPacker]

True. If you expect to be capable of doing Red Bull Air Races or unlimited display aerobatics after eight lessons, you need to think again.

Heck, even competing at the BAeA "Basic" level will take quite a bit more than eight lessons. (Unless you do it accompanied by a safety pilot, BAeA "loop" days style - which comes highly recommended by the way.)

[Fuji Abound]

True. If you expect to be capable of doing Red Bull Air Races or unlimited display aerobatics after eight lessons, you need to think again.


I am not sure whether you are making another point that was never raised (nothing wrong in that) or commenting on my earlier post.

Whichever you are right, eight lessons will at best achieve a basic level of competance from which to start learning your trade. In my experience some will be far from comfortable after eight lessons but inevitably a few will take to it like a duck out of water.

I always doubted my ability to recover when things went wrong and it took me a long time to convince myself that I could probably cope with most eventualties (if not all :\).