Stall Legality

[Ixixly]

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! :}

[fujii]

CAAP 155-1 (0) issued 2007. Recently updated but not yet pudlished.

[djpil]

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:
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.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.

[Ixixly]

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.

[Lead Balloon]

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."

[Clare Prop]

Referring to the MOS, para A3.5, A5.1 and A 6.6 is helpful

[Ixixly]

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?

[Squawk7700]

I stall on average once per flight, at low level.

[Ixixly]

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!

[Ascend Charlie]

(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.

This paragraph is not talking about stalls in a turn.

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.

[Ixixly]

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?

[roundsounds]

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.

[Ixixly]

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?

[josephfeatherweight]

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!

[roundsounds]

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.

[roundsounds]

Im with you Joseph!

[Ixixly]

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?

[roundsounds]

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?

[Ultralights]

14 Deg AOA, not stalled, 16 Deg AOA, stalled, a 2 deg pitch change isnt what i would call a significant manoeuvre

[Draggertail]

Get a nervous, heavy handed student to stall a C150 and see if you get an abrupt pitch change. CASA definition of aerobatics includes abrupt pitch change.

[dubbleyew eight]

I can't stand this mindless stupidity any longer.:mad::mad:

aircraft don't just magically get built. They are designed to a standard that encapsulates knowledge about the strengths that aircraft need to be built to.
The american FAR23 is the most used standard.
there are categories of design that basically reflect the expected strengths needed in a design.
Normal, Utility, Aerobatic.

if you try to do aerobatics in a normal category aircraft you risk structurally overloading it.
the regs about aerobatic manouvers are basically saying that you shouldn't over stress the aircraft.
a stall is not an aerobatic manoeuvre. just about any aircraft can be stalled.
it doesn't significantly load up an aircraft.
Normal Category aircraft can all be stalled.

the whole tenor of questions like "what regulation allows me to...." are generally stupid because regulations are not about permitting but about preventing. ....disasters.

gawd I wonder about you guys some times. is it the water ???

[roundsounds]

The way I see this thread gaining a life is all about the way instructors are trained. Most of the people training instructors haven't had any experience in the world outside of instructing. They don't have the practical experience of working within reg's and live in a theoretical world, looking for strange and improbable application of reg's - this being a classic case. How many people have been taken to task by CASA for "stalling without an aerobatic endorsement" versus exceeding CAO 48?

[LeadSled]

gawd I wonder about you guys some times. is it the water ???

Sadly, no.

It is the inevitable result of years of CASA enforcement of mindless compliance of complex, convoluted and contradictory rule --- it all about the "pingya" system, the only thing that is important is that "they can't pingya".

Have a look at a current CPL or ATPL air law examination paper some time, it will cause your eyes to water and your brain the ache.

Exercising that most uncommon of things in Australian aviation, common sense, is probably a strict liability criminal offense.

Tootle pip!!

[Sunfish]

what about wing overs, figure eights and canyon turns?

I would have though the NZ definition makes more sense.

[djpil]

The NZ definition would have cowboys like me run amok with wing-overs to 90 deg bank and joining the circuit on knife-edge. Of course, many types are limited by their certification to a max of 60 deg bank angle per the Flight Manual.

We currently have a definition which is consistent with the two USA rules for the definition of aerobatics and, separately, the wearing of parachutes.

We seem to agree that a stall, including stall in a turn, stall in descent or climb, and any associated wing drop per the CASA Flight Instructor Manual Chapter on the subject is not aerobatics. When I see "we", I can't speak for CASA however.

Letting it develop further towards a spin I would say is aerobatics. Some trainers are approved for intentional spins in Utility or Aerobatic Category so no issues in letting the spin develop from that aspect. Normal category aircraft have only been proven to recover from a spin entry up to one turn.

Likewise, an extremely steep climb to a stall leading to what may feel like from inside to be a "whip stall" I would also say is aerobatics.

[Old Akro]

many types are limited by their certification to a max of 60 deg bank angle per the Flight Manual.

Surely the missing ingredient in this thread is in fact the flight manual. If a normal or utility aircraft allows stalls, then isn't that inferring that its not an aerobatic manoevre? At least in the mind of the designer.

I think one of the problems with these debates is, in fact, the use of the term "stall".

If stalls are not prohibited, are manoevres below the 1g stall speed allowed with AoA below the critical angle (ie pushover)?

Is level flight above the 1g stall speed allowed with AoA above 15 degrees (ie high speed stall)?

Should the definition be based on AoA?

Or we could just teach pilots to fly properly in all conditions and be done with it!

I seem to recall someone doing negative g turns in the circuit??????

[djpil]

If a normal ... aircraft allows stalls, then isn't that inferring that its not an aerobatic manoevre? At least in the mind of the designer.Nope, in recognition of the USA airworthiness regs (which most of the rest of the world also recognises and copies). So, good to be consistent with the USA rules for a number of reasons, one being that they are generally quite sensible.

I seem to recall someone doing negative g turns in the circuit??????But not aerobatics per the old rules in my opinion!

[Clare Prop]

Might I venture that if the student is nervous and heavy handed they are probably not yet competent enough to be doing the "enter and recover from stall" unit?

Aeroplanes don't yank their own controls around so to do so in a lesson without the student understanding disorientation is unrealistic. So, teach the human factors of disorientation, teach unit A3.5 (Control aeroplane at slow speeds) and make sure they are competent in that before moving on to A5.1 which has the key words "recognise/control/recover" not "push/pull/yank/shove/boot" and if they want to do more extreme stuff then go and do it as part of an aerobatic exercise.

[Lead Balloon]

But I'm not sure whether that has any relevance to Ix's question. And I'm not sure whether a MOS can affect the meaning of term defined in the regulations either.

Ix: I'm not aware of any exemption relevant to your question, but that doesn't mean there isn't one.

[Ixixly]

Thanks Leadie, I was hoping it was something buried deep that perhaps I had overlooked but it would not appear to be the case.

To make things clear from my perspective, I don't believe that a stall should be considered an Aerobatic Maneuver, especially when viewed in the context of Flight Training but as a potential future Instructor whom may have his name appearing in numerous logbooks I do have concerns about the legality of doing so now that the line I mentioned before about "Straight and Steady Stalls" has been removed from CAR 155 and given the current definition of "Aerobatic Flight".

In all honesty, I believe it would be an incredibly brave and exceptionally stupid Regulator whom would try and come after someone for something like this but as far as I can see, if they were to do so for whatever reason, the Defendant would be on shaky legal ground and we are dealing with CASA afterall....

Thanks for the assistance to those that posted.

[djpil]

As I hinted earlier, that bit about straight and steady stalls is irrelevant as an instructor must also teach stalls in climb, descent and turn.

[Judd]

Get a nervous, heavy handed student to stall a C150 and see if you get an abrupt pitch change. CASA definition of aerobatics includes abrupt pitch change.

It sounds like his instructor had taught his student to haul the C150 into a steep nose high attitude for stall practice rather than lead into the stall in level flight at a reduction of one knot per second deceleration. That is how the certification test pilot does it. It is all about correct training.
Even if a wing drops rapidly at the point of stall it can be recovered quite easily if the correct technique is used. A wing drop at the point of stall is often caused by incorrect rigging and the maintenance release should be annotated "Aircraft un-airworthy" which automatically grounds the aircraft until inspected by an LAME and the defect rectified.




.

[zanthrus]

Jesus Christ get a grip people! :yuk:

Stall as much as you want it is not illegal!
It is a required element of your flight training.

FAARK! :mad:

[Lead Balloon]

But you may be missing the point, Z.

If the stalls practised during normal training can constitute "aerobatic manoeuvres" as defined in Part 61, a number of regulatory consequences follow.

For example, do all flying instructors have an aerobatic endorsement?

During training, I did lots of stalls that involved "abrupt changes of speed, direction, angle of bank or angle of pitch." The instructor made sure of that, presumably for a reason.

[josephfeatherweight]

Seriously, some of you guys are just jumping on the bandwagon of over regulation and legalise. Would a "reasonable person" say a stall is aerobatic? No!
Just leave it! All those banging on about more definitions are as bad as you all say CASA is!

[Sunfish]

Joseph, the concept of a "reasonable person" doesn't work here.

To a reasonable person with no light aircraft piloting experience a stall may indeed be "aerobatic" in the sense that, to him, he imagines it to be life threatening.

If you mean a "reasonable pilot" CASA, the AAT and the Courts destroyed that concept many years ago.

What concerns me, as it should concern you, is CASA's attempt to restrict manoeuvring within the manufacturers existing stated flight envelope.

My opinion of that action is that, if it is allowed to stand, will eventually result in CASA proscribing all flight except straight and level, the gentlest of turns and any speed above the green arc.

[Lead Balloon]

The opinion of a "reasonable person" is irrelevant to the question whether a set of circumstances falls within a clear statutory definition, joseph.

Not all stalls result in the same outcome. Have you ever been in a stall that resulted in an "abrupt change[] of speed, direction, angle of bank or angle of pitch"? (Note the word "or" sprinkled through the definition is a very important word.)

If yes, you - like me - have been involved in an "aerobatic manoeuvre" as now defined in Part 61, irrespective of whether you or anyone else considers that to be "reasonable".

(If you have not been involved in a stall with that outcome, your training was, in my opinion, deficient.)

[josephfeatherweight]

I'm no lawyer, far from it, so I'll concede to those above and note the reference to the current regs which suggest a stall COULD BECOME aerobatic.
Yes, certainly I have flown and instructed stall sequences that have become quite dynamic.
Fortunately, I am now in a situation where I don't have to sweat this gumph, I just get on and do it.

[Ixixly]

Where do I get that job Joseph?

[Ultralights]

Or we could just teach pilots to fly properly in all conditions and be done with it!



this is whats needed to be done. but everyone has been taught by the best instructor at the best school. even if the instructor is a 200Hr total hour builder.

aeros courses and engine courses proved that what i thought at the time was the best training and advice, was very far from the best or correct. but unfortunately devloping a syllabus that requires instructors to teach the correct and a unified subject matter, will be costly, and wont happen....

a stall is only related to AOA, nothing more. Upside down, in a steep turn, at 1 G or 6 G, a stall is still a stall, and still only requires a few degrees of pitch change to be unstalled. A small pitch change is not an aerobatic manouever.

[kaz3g]

Would a "reasonable person" say a stall is aerobatic...?
]

Unfortunately, the opinion of the "reasonable person" has been very clearly and deliberately left out of the operation and interpretation of the Regs because everything is proscribed in terms of a strict liability offence.

Kaz

[Pontius]

14 Deg AOA, not stalled, 16 Deg AOA, stalled, a 2 deg pitch change isnt what i would call a significant manoeuvre

What happens when, during a straight-ahead, level stall the wing drops and the bank angle exceeds 60 degrees? According to CASA that is now an aerobatic manoeuvre.

How is an instructor meant to teach stalling in the final turn, when often a wing drop can develop beyond 60 degrees? Come to that, what happens if Joe Bloggs the non-instructor wants to go and practice final turn stalls and the same happens?

On top of all of that I would suggest the pitch change, especially with a power-on stall, could be considered abrupt enough to qualify as 'aerobatic' by CASA's definition.

In my mind it is a very simple case of adding a paragraph that stalls in the clean and approach configuration, with power off and on do not qualify as aerobatic manoeuvres for the purposes of the regulation.

[Ixixly]

Or pure and simple, add in a line to the effect that "Stalls conducted by a Qualified Instructor for the purposes of training in Stall Recovery shall not be deemed an Aerobatic Maneuver"

Just like the old line in CAR 155 was attempting to do.

[Ultralights]

What happens when, during a straight-ahead, level stall the wing drops and the bank angle exceeds 60 degrees Unstall the wing with small pitch change, roll out of the bank, and keep the aircraft balanced, dont want to go into a falling leaf..


so, i guess going past 60 deg AOB is illegal in turbulence? in one case where i have been rolled to almost 120 Deg AOB! or is it only illegal if i roll intentionally past 60 deg?

[Pontius]

Or pure and simple, add in a line to the effect that "Stalls conducted by a Qualified Instructor for the purposes of training in Stall Recovery shall not be deemed an Aerobatic Maneuver"


Stalling is not just for QFIs. Every pilot needs to be able to practice them when he/she deems fit.

Unstall the wing with small pitch change, roll out of the bank, and keep the aircraft balanced, dont want to go into a falling leaf..


I was referring more to the exceedence of bank angle, rather than recovery techniques. I think I've got the bases covered with the latter :)

However, you may have come up with a far simpler solution:

is it only illegal if i roll intentionally past 60 deg?

If CASA were to insert "intentionally" into their definition of aerobatics then I believe stalling would no longer count. It is not the intention to have a wing drop beyond 60 degrees, nor is it the intention to have a rapid pitch change during a power-on stall. The fact that they happen sometimes is accidental but still needs to be trained for and practiced.

[abgd]

Why pick a c152 for the example? I'm told it is possible to stall a Tomahawk wings level, but I'm guessing it's the norm rather than the exception for students to have an abrupt wing-drop.

[Clare Prop]

Good points Ultralights and there is a MOS with all of that in which makes no mention of the student demonstrating entry and recovery from the sort of attitudes being discussed here.

I did my instructor course in another country where recognising and controlling the aircraft at slow speeds and the human factors that can lead to this profile developing was emphasised well before bringing the aircraft to the stall angle and recovering. This was of course a very important exercise prior to learning the approach and landing, just another kind of controlled stall.

I came here and discovered this "yank-boot-shove" method of demonstrating stall entry and recovery which actually exposes the student to very little time in slow flight profiles and isn't required to be demonstrated, nor is it anything an aeroplane will do all by itself or realistic. Hearing people brief the fully developed spin recovery technique for a wing drop was unnerving. But these attitudes are firmly embedded in the industry.

Therefore to answer the OPs question I don't agree that the kind of stall entry and recovery standards on the MOS can constitute an aerobatic manoeuvre unless the instructor choses to push the aircraft into more extreme attitudes in which case yes it probably should be done as part of an aerobatic sortie and briefed as such.

[Clare Prop]

yes abgd you are guessing, I have around 5000 hours in Tomahawks and they will stall straight as long as you keep them in balance. not hard with such a big fin. Any aeroplane will drop a wing if someone stamps on the rudder hard enough.

[thorn bird]

"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."


Bugga!! does that mean I still have to do stalls in a Metro with the SAS off as directed by an un-type rated FOI who said regardless of what the AFM said, if you don't want to do them in the aircraft, you'll just have to do them in a Sim because the reg's require full stalls.
They really should take the word Safety out of CAsA's Title.

[LeadSled]

Thorny,
Not suitable for the sensitive souls that haunt these pages, but ask me some time, and I will explain what CAA and CASA actually stand for.
Tootle pip!!

[Old Akro]

Unfortunately, the opinion of the "reasonable person" has been very clearly and deliberately left out of the operation and interpretation of the Regs because everything is proscribed in terms of a strict liability offence.


The reasonable person was nowhere to be found when CASA prosecuted John Quadrio.

The reading of CASA's interpretation of aerobatic in the court case is chilling. And its determination that John was performing aerobatic manoevres based on edited iPhone video from a person that the court described as an "unreliable witness" is bewildering.

There are many posts regarding John's case. Anyone not familiar should google it. If CASA's behavior toward John is repeated towards an instructor teaching stalls, then the concerns of ixixly and others would be very real.

This is why the detail of the regulations is important.

[fujii]

If people are being so precious about stalling, would they be willing to do a "split arse" turn to avoid a collision or would they worry about what endorsement they held?

[Ixixly]

fujii, once again looking at John Quadrio case I believe he was taking evasive action to avoid birds and CASA still stung him for it...

[Ultralights]

In CASA's eyes, its better to die safely, than live illegally.

[LeadSled]

Folks,
In the Quadrio case, the real angles of bank were highly contentious, even the manufacturer ( along with independent analysis) saw nothing wrong.

He was done for not being a fit and person, which, in this case and in my opinion, amounted to refusing to "admit guilt to the satisfaction of CASA".

It was also established that the U-Tube video was a composite video, with at least one other pilot identified from the video.

Tootle pip!!

[djpil]

Pontius: If CASA were to insert "intentionally" into their definition of aerobatics then I believe stalling would no longer count. It is not the intention to have a wing drop beyond 60 degrees, nor is it the intention to have a rapid pitch change during a power-on stall. The fact that they happen sometimes is accidental but still needs to be trained for and practiced.yes, I just noticed the significant omission of that word "intentional" from the definition of aerobatics per ICAO which stares "intentional". The USA definition is similar, with the word "intentional" and EASA is the same with an additional phrase in an attempt to clarify (but probably doesn't) and the EASA FCL reg does do much better with a statement about instruction for licences and ratings as definitely not aerobatics, except of course, instruction for aerobatics rating.

So, CASA deviated from the ICAO definition of aerobatics by dropping the word "intentional" and adding specific limits to bank and pitch. Must have been a reason for that.

[Lead Balloon]

Maybe because the airframe doesn't know whether a manoeuvre is intentional or unintentional. :confused:

Then again, the airframe certification basis should not be relevant to Part 61. :confused: Maybe that's why the word "unintentional" is in equivalent provisions of other regulatory systems.