Stall Legality
Thread Starter
Stall Legality
Hey all,
Quick question I'm having trouble finding an answer to now. It used to be that CASA stated under CAR 155 that a Steady Stall (Can't remember exact phrasing) is not an Aerobatic maneuver I believe but as far as I can see the latest version of CAR 155 no longer has that stipulation.
Under the Part 61 Dictionary it now defines Aerobatics as:
"aerobatic manoeuvres, for an aircraft, means manoeuvres of the aircraft that involve:
(a) bank angles that are greater than 60°; or
(b) pitch angles that are greater than 45°, or are otherwise abnormal to the aircraft type; or
(c) abrupt changes of speed, direction, angle of bank or angle of pitch."
I believe the issue was that Stalls could easily be considered to have an "Abrupt change in angle of pitch" or even in "Angle of Bank" but with the paragraph in CAR 155 designated that it didn't count it was all cool. What now stops CASA from being able to claim that a Stall done by a Non-Aerobatic rated Pilot for the purposes of Flight Training is illegal?
Been looking through the damned regs for ages and can't find it anymore, thanks in advance for any (Useful) help!
Quick question I'm having trouble finding an answer to now. It used to be that CASA stated under CAR 155 that a Steady Stall (Can't remember exact phrasing) is not an Aerobatic maneuver I believe but as far as I can see the latest version of CAR 155 no longer has that stipulation.
Under the Part 61 Dictionary it now defines Aerobatics as:
"aerobatic manoeuvres, for an aircraft, means manoeuvres of the aircraft that involve:
(a) bank angles that are greater than 60°; or
(b) pitch angles that are greater than 45°, or are otherwise abnormal to the aircraft type; or
(c) abrupt changes of speed, direction, angle of bank or angle of pitch."
I believe the issue was that Stalls could easily be considered to have an "Abrupt change in angle of pitch" or even in "Angle of Bank" but with the paragraph in CAR 155 designated that it didn't count it was all cool. What now stops CASA from being able to claim that a Stall done by a Non-Aerobatic rated Pilot for the purposes of Flight Training is illegal?
Been looking through the damned regs for ages and can't find it anymore, thanks in advance for any (Useful) help!
Good question but way down my list of priorities for queries wrt the new regs. So there is a draft update for CAAP 155-1, I couldn't find it? I hope they fix the deficient and dangerous description of manoeuvring speed limitations in it too.
I look forward to the AC replacing CAAP 155-1 in the fullness of time.
Actually, the old Reg 155 did not state that a straight and steady stall was not an aerobatic manoeuvre. The usual vague reverse logic:
It was clear from this that if one did a straight and steady stall with angle of bank less than 60 deg then one did not need an aeroplane in utility or aerobatic category as required by para (1). Does para (3) apply - nowhere did it say that stalls with angle of bank less than 60 deg was aerobatics so why mention it in para (2)? Stalls in a turn?
Certainly can get an abrupt change in angle of bank with a stall in a Cessna 150 and even if less than 60 deg bank it seems like it might be aerobatics. OK in that type as one can spin it in utility category.
I look forward to the AC replacing CAAP 155-1 in the fullness of time.
Actually, the old Reg 155 did not state that a straight and steady stall was not an aerobatic manoeuvre. The usual vague reverse logic:
155 Acrobatic flight
(1) A pilot in command of an aircraft must not do any of the following:
(a) fly the aircraft in acrobatic flight at night;
(b) fly the aircraft in acrobatic flight that is not in V.M.C.;
(c) fly the aircraft in a particular kind of acrobatic flight if the certificate of airworthiness, or the flight manual, for the aircraft does not specify that the aircraft may perform that kind of acrobatic flight.
Penalty: 25 penalty units.
(2) For the purposes of subregulation (1), straight and steady stalls or turns in which the angle of bank does not exceed 60 degrees shall be deemed not to be acrobatic flight.
(3) A person must not engage in acrobatic flight in an aircraft:
(a) at a height lower than 3,000 feet above the highest point of the terrain, or any obstacle thereon, within a radius of 600 metres of a line extending vertically below the aircraft; or
(b) over a city, town, populous area, regatta, race meeting or meeting for public games or sports.
(1) A pilot in command of an aircraft must not do any of the following:
(a) fly the aircraft in acrobatic flight at night;
(b) fly the aircraft in acrobatic flight that is not in V.M.C.;
(c) fly the aircraft in a particular kind of acrobatic flight if the certificate of airworthiness, or the flight manual, for the aircraft does not specify that the aircraft may perform that kind of acrobatic flight.
Penalty: 25 penalty units.
(2) For the purposes of subregulation (1), straight and steady stalls or turns in which the angle of bank does not exceed 60 degrees shall be deemed not to be acrobatic flight.
(3) A person must not engage in acrobatic flight in an aircraft:
(a) at a height lower than 3,000 feet above the highest point of the terrain, or any obstacle thereon, within a radius of 600 metres of a line extending vertically below the aircraft; or
(b) over a city, town, populous area, regatta, race meeting or meeting for public games or sports.
Certainly can get an abrupt change in angle of bank with a stall in a Cessna 150 and even if less than 60 deg bank it seems like it might be aerobatics. OK in that type as one can spin it in utility category.
Thread Starter
djpil, I thought that was the reason for stating it clearly, instead of going through an exceptionally long list of possible names of Aerobatic Maneuvers they instead set criteria and realised that Straight and Steady Stalls (The sort you'd practice in training) could very well be covered by their description so added in that they aren't a Stall. I realise the 60 degree part makes it a few shades of grey but it was nice that at least they realised it then and make the change! I then take it that they only wanted it applied to Paragraph 1 as they still want it conducted above 3000ft AGL for safety reasons which seems perfectly reasonable IMHO.
This isn't intended to be another thread on how daft the new Regs are though, enough of those around and general experience for everyone except for CASA to realise they are! Just a specific question wrt Stalling.
Fujii, the CAAPs still aren't a Law and nowhere in there can I find any reference to any regulations like the old CAR 155. I've seen the new definition in there but conducting an Intentional Stall for the Purposes for Training which can easily be argued involves an "Abrupt Change in Attitude" which the new definition states.
This still would mean that any Instructor teaching Stalling would also require an Aerobatics Rating before they could do so?
I'm still at a loss as to which Regulation or Exemption makes an ordinary part of any training that Instructors regularly conduct without the Aerobatics Rating legal.
This isn't intended to be another thread on how daft the new Regs are though, enough of those around and general experience for everyone except for CASA to realise they are! Just a specific question wrt Stalling.
Fujii, the CAAPs still aren't a Law and nowhere in there can I find any reference to any regulations like the old CAR 155. I've seen the new definition in there but conducting an Intentional Stall for the Purposes for Training which can easily be argued involves an "Abrupt Change in Attitude" which the new definition states.
This still would mean that any Instructor teaching Stalling would also require an Aerobatics Rating before they could do so?
I'm still at a loss as to which Regulation or Exemption makes an ordinary part of any training that Instructors regularly conduct without the Aerobatics Rating legal.
No CAAP answers your question, because no advisory publication can make the law mean something it doesn't.
Look to the exemptions. It's not possible to know what the rules in Australia are, without an in-depth knowledge of the exemptions.
"Beyond a point, complexity is fraud."
Look to the exemptions. It's not possible to know what the rules in Australia are, without an in-depth knowledge of the exemptions.
"Beyond a point, complexity is fraud."
Referring to the MOS, para A3.5, A5.1 and A 6.6 is helpful
Thread Starter
Lead Balloon, Tried looking through the exemptions but couldn't find anything related to an exemption to stalling as an Aerobatic Maneuver, admittedly I'm not very experienced with looking through the exemptions area, is there anything specific you were trying to point me towards?
Clare Prop, I'm specifically looking for the Regulations that allow for stalling to be done without being considered an Aerobatic Maneuver. As an aside note, would a Testing Officer also be required to have an Aerobatics Rating? I'm sure there are a few out there who don't have one and/or don't have an Approval to teach Aerobatics, so therefore how would they be able to legally perform a Stall without it being considered an Aerobatic Maneuver considering it seems to fit the CASA Definition?
Clare Prop, I'm specifically looking for the Regulations that allow for stalling to be done without being considered an Aerobatic Maneuver. As an aside note, would a Testing Officer also be required to have an Aerobatics Rating? I'm sure there are a few out there who don't have one and/or don't have an Approval to teach Aerobatics, so therefore how would they be able to legally perform a Stall without it being considered an Aerobatic Maneuver considering it seems to fit the CASA Definition?
I stall on average once per flight, at low level.
Thread Starter
Well, as long as it doesn't involve an "Abrupt Change of Attitude", you should be all good so far as I can see Squawk7700. And that's the Aircraft Attitude, not your own!
(2) For the purposes of subregulation (1), straight and steady stalls or turns in which the angle of bank does not exceed 60 degrees shall be deemed not to be acrobatic flight.
It talks about straight and steady stalls, OR, turns less than 60 deg bank, not stalls in a turn. It just means that you can pull 2g in a level turn at 59 deg bank without needing to be qualified in aeros.
Thread Starter
Entirely agree with you Ascend Charlie, the main issue I have is that this paragraph no longer exists though, so is a Straight and Steady Stall now considered an Aerobatic Maneuver? And if not then which part of the Regulations now state that it isn't?
I'm not sure why stalling would be considered an aerobatic manoeuvre? Stalling is something experienced / practiced in all aeroplane types as part of endorsement training / type familiarisation. Maybe it's the result of the fear of stalling I've observed develop over the last 30 odd years. I've had some very interesting experiences with flight instructors, of all grades, when doing their tail wheel endorsements. As the type is new to the trainee I always start with an upper air familiarisation exercise, then return to the circuit area. This famil' involves normal handling exercise including stalling. I've even had a couple of instructors refuse to do more than allow the stall warning to sound before they initiate recovery (pulling the circuit breaker fixes this!). The recovery sometimes involves a -1G bunt to an almost vertical dive! It really makes one wonder what their poor students are being / not being taught. Perhaps it's because pre-aerobatic checks are expected before commencing a stalling exercise?
There's no dispute stalling exercises should be completed at a height permitting safe recovery, but they're certainly not an aerobatic manoeuvre when conducted in accordance with the manufacturers operating procedures.
There's no dispute stalling exercises should be completed at a height permitting safe recovery, but they're certainly not an aerobatic manoeuvre when conducted in accordance with the manufacturers operating procedures.
Thread Starter
In agreement with you as well Roundsounds, it should be taught and it should be taught properly. I'm lucky enough that I've had instructors whom have done things the right way with me IMHO and that involved not only recovering from a stall but spin recovery as well.
My question has come about during my training now to become a G3 Instructor, I have been asked "Is a stall an Aerobatic Maneuver?", I would have normally said No and referred back to CAR 155 as my "Legal Backup" but as this is no longer there I'm at a loss.
Purely in the name of ass covering, if I was to be an Instructor and be teaching a student some day how to recover from a stall and something went very wrong and CASA got wind, from what I can see of the Regulations at the moment (I have only recently returned to Australia so having to brush up on the tangled mess that is CASA Law again), what would stop them from deciding that me putting the Aircraft into an Intentional Stall which would obviously involve what could easily be described as an "Abrupt Change in Angle of Pitch" is not an Aerobatic Maneuver when it is clearly described as such?
As such would I not therefore be required to hold an Aerobatics Rating and also an Aerobatics Training Endorsement as well? And if not, then "Legally" why not?
My question has come about during my training now to become a G3 Instructor, I have been asked "Is a stall an Aerobatic Maneuver?", I would have normally said No and referred back to CAR 155 as my "Legal Backup" but as this is no longer there I'm at a loss.
Purely in the name of ass covering, if I was to be an Instructor and be teaching a student some day how to recover from a stall and something went very wrong and CASA got wind, from what I can see of the Regulations at the moment (I have only recently returned to Australia so having to brush up on the tangled mess that is CASA Law again), what would stop them from deciding that me putting the Aircraft into an Intentional Stall which would obviously involve what could easily be described as an "Abrupt Change in Angle of Pitch" is not an Aerobatic Maneuver when it is clearly described as such?
As such would I not therefore be required to hold an Aerobatics Rating and also an Aerobatics Training Endorsement as well? And if not, then "Legally" why not?
Just playing devils advocate here, a bit, but aren't some of you guys arguing for more rules and words in our regulations, when so much of the talk on here revolves around our regulations being so bloated?
Does anyone out there consider a stall to be acrobatic (I prefer "aerobatic")?
No?
Well, there's your answer!
Does anyone out there consider a stall to be acrobatic (I prefer "aerobatic")?
No?
Well, there's your answer!
It's a bit of an around about way of "proving" stalling isn't an aerobatic manoeuvre, but go to MOS schedule 2, Section 6, FAE-1 and review the competencies for an aerobatic flight activity endorsement. You'll find there's no mention of stalling. Then go to MOS 2, section A5 Aeroplance Advanced Manoeuvres and you find stall recovery sitting with Steep Turns and Side slipping. So there's a clue - stalling is an "advanced manoeuvre" and not not an aerobatic manoeuvre in CASR Part 61 speak.
Given you're doing your FIR, I'm sure you'd be all across the Part 61 MOS!
If you're being asked such a question, I'd suggest this could be where the whole fear of stall / spin training is created - during instructor training. (I've had several schools send their instructor trainees to me for the spin exposure because they didn't have anyone with a spin training endorsement!.
I support completing an aerobatic endorsement as part of a pilot's basic training. Ideally, RPL (the old RPPL / GFPT), aerobatic endorsement and do 50 or so hours locally learning how to fly an aeroplane and take some mates / family up for local flights. When they get bored with that, then do the Nav training. I had over 400 hours on my RPPL (Restricted PPL) before completing the Nav training to lift the area restriction.
Given you're doing your FIR, I'm sure you'd be all across the Part 61 MOS!
If you're being asked such a question, I'd suggest this could be where the whole fear of stall / spin training is created - during instructor training. (I've had several schools send their instructor trainees to me for the spin exposure because they didn't have anyone with a spin training endorsement!.
I support completing an aerobatic endorsement as part of a pilot's basic training. Ideally, RPL (the old RPPL / GFPT), aerobatic endorsement and do 50 or so hours locally learning how to fly an aeroplane and take some mates / family up for local flights. When they get bored with that, then do the Nav training. I had over 400 hours on my RPPL (Restricted PPL) before completing the Nav training to lift the area restriction.
Thread Starter
It would be lovely to believe that Joseph and I agree entirely, was previously using NZ Regs and found them to be fantastic! But unfortunately the way things are written leaves it far too open to interpretation right now.
For instance NZ define Aerobatic Flight as such:
Aerobatic flight means—
(1) an intentional manoeuvre in which the aircraft is in sustained
inverted flight or is rolled from upright to inverted or from
inverted to upright position; or
(2) manoeuvres such as rolls, loops, spins, upward vertical flight
culminating in a stall turn, hammerhead or whip stall, or a
combination of such manoeuvres:
Makes a lot more clear cut, but CASA try to give a super fancy definition which leaves it open to interpretation which was my understanding for the reasoning behind putting the old line in under CAR 155 so why is it that this has been taken out and has not been put back in in some way, shape or form?
For instance NZ define Aerobatic Flight as such:
Aerobatic flight means—
(1) an intentional manoeuvre in which the aircraft is in sustained
inverted flight or is rolled from upright to inverted or from
inverted to upright position; or
(2) manoeuvres such as rolls, loops, spins, upward vertical flight
culminating in a stall turn, hammerhead or whip stall, or a
combination of such manoeuvres:
Makes a lot more clear cut, but CASA try to give a super fancy definition which leaves it open to interpretation which was my understanding for the reasoning behind putting the old line in under CAR 155 so why is it that this has been taken out and has not been put back in in some way, shape or form?
Its pretty straightforward, stalling never was and never will be classified as an aerobatic / acrobatic or stunt flying simply because it isn't.
What makes you consider stalling to be classified as aerobatics?
What makes you consider stalling to be classified as aerobatics?