Originally Posted by
Judd
While competency at recovery from an incipient spin is still a requirement for the PPL has CASA addressed the situation if spinning is prohibited in the aircraft type (Cessna 172 et al)
The day after the ATSB alert CASA came out with their own:
Safety update: spin recovery training
The recent ATSB investigation into a fatal accident involving a Diamond DA-40 found the conduct of advanced stall training was a contributing factor to the cause of the accident. It also highlighted that there can be varying interpretations of an ‘incipient spin’, and this has led to aircraft not approved for intentional spins being used for incipient spin training and assessment.
The release of the
findings and the
safety advisory notice are a timely reminder of the hazards of conducting an activity in an aircraft for which it is not certified.
Flight training operators, their Heads of Operations and Flight Examiners are obliged to ensure that aircraft used for training, flight reviews and testing purposes are certified for the manoeuvres being performed.
Incipient spins and training requirements
The conduct of an incipient spin in an aeroplane that is not approved for spinning places the aeroplane outside the normal operating envelope into the safety margins provided by the aeroplane certification standards for airframe structural integrity and demonstrated ability to recover from the manoeuvre.
CASA is developing further guidance material in relation to the conduct of incipient spins and advanced stalls and how to meet the flight training and testing standards in the Part 61 manual of standards. We expect to finalise these over the coming weeks.
In the meantime, please contact
[email protected] if you have any questions or require clarification.
CASA knew that they had expanded the scope of flight training with these incipient spins per Part 61, they knew how they described an incipient spin in their Flight Instructor Manual (see the chapters on stalls and spins), they knew what aircraft types everyone was using, they knew that many were not approved for intentional spins, they knew that manufacturers considered an incipient spin as a spin wrt what is written in the AFM. So, CASA knew what it was doing with Part 61!
Incidentally, many C172s are unable to be loaded in utility category without removing the rear seats so not approved for spinning as configured. NASA did some spin tests on a C172 near the aft limit in normal category and found unrecoverable spins.
Originally Posted by
Judd
The ATSB found that the aircraft limitation prohibiting intentional spins was intended to include incipient spins. However, the manoeuvre was not defined and some operators considered that the manoeuvre was not an intentional spin.
As jonkster stated
here is no clear definition of incipient spin, yet we are required to teach it. One person's incipient spin is a minor yaw at stall, another's is up to 2 turns (in some aircraft) before the spin stabilises - others are somewhere in between - it is in the MOS without a definition - what exactly supposed to be taught?
I guess that you get to choose how much of an incipient spin to do if you have a type approved for spinning, if not then don't intentionally enter an incipient spin. CASA should have provided appropriate guidance when they started to implement Part 61 - I wonder what they will offer in "coming weeks"?
Originally Posted by
Judd
The aircraft (Diamond) entered a developed spin during manoeuvres consistent with advanced stall recovery training which likely included intentional incipient spins. The spin continued until the aircraft collided with terrain.
I look forward to reports on the Bristell spin accidents.