Originally Posted by
Centaurus
Now, that's really asking for trouble. Before the type was approved for training, presumably the aircraft was tested for its stall characteristics by a qualified test pilot - not just any Grade One flying instructor. If the prototype proved bad news at stalling, then the problem is picked up during its certification testing and rectified. ...
The Cessna Skycatcher is a classic example of this at
http://www.flighttestsafety.org/imag...in_Testing.ppt
The FAA notes in their AC 61-67, Stall and Spin Awareness Training, that "Normal category airplanes are not approved for the performance of acrobatic maneuvers, including spins, and are placarded against intentional spins. However, to provide a margin of safety when recovery from a stall is delayed, normal category airplanes are tested during certification and must be able to recover from a one turn spin or a 3-second spin, whichever takes longer, in not more than one additional turn with the controls used in the manner normally used for recovery or demonstrate the airplane’s resistance to spins." LSA requirements are similar to FAR 23 normal category.
Worthwhile considering the meaning of this stuff:
- placarded against intentional spins .... to provide a margin of safety when recovery from a stall is delayed .... that is a significant statement
- Part 61 requires incipient spin training for an RPL but nowhere does CASA define an incipient spin .... personally, I'd take the FAA definition but just my opinion
- if an aircraft is placarded against intentional spins - is it approved for training of incipient spins?
Originally Posted by
Centaurus
If the rules (aka the syllabus of training designed by a flying school) require demonstration (for example) of competency at recovery from a wing drop at the point of stall, I have no problem with that; but do it on an aerobatic type certified and stressed for the job; not an aircraft that is designed and demonstrated to have benign stall characteristics.
I can only agree per my above comments - although Utility Category with approval for intentional spins.
Originally Posted by
Centaurus
The original flying instructors handbook published by the then Department of Civil Aviation warned that use of instant aileron to pick up a wing drop occurring at the point of stall could often cause the aircraft to enter an incipient spin. That point is still taught at some civilian flying schools 75 years later, where instructors still teach use of rudder to pick up a dropped wing. This is incorrect interpretation of the original advice.
It is instructive to read the current CASA Flight Instructor Manual - see both chapters on stalls and spins then compare that with the FAA's new Chapter 4 of the Pilot Flying Handbook at
https://www.faa.gov/regulations_poli...06_afh_ch4.pdf
Originally Posted by
Okihara
Out of curiosity, why isn't the recovery from stalls induced from higher load factors during turns at low speeds taught?
Take a look at the stall exercises required by Part 61 ... still a good question.
Originally Posted by
Centaurus
Some instructors are apprehensive about teaching stalling and stall recovery.
I wonder how many schools and instructors do the required stall training exercises per Part 61?