Draft AC 61-16 v1.0 - Spin avoidance and stall recovery training

[jonkster]

I had not seen this until just now.

They have defined incipient spin (something that has been not stated in CASA docs before AFAIK)
The incipient phase of the spin is the period between the commencement of autorotation and the developed, stable or steady phase of autorotation. The incipient phase of a spin will persist for two to four rotations until pitch, roll and yaw oscillations develop into relatively steady and predictable periods.

As the MOS requires students to demonstrate proficiency in recovery from incipient spin, this seems to me to then imply that RPL/PPL training will require training (for that phase) in an aircraft that is (legally) spinnable.

Am I interpreting that correctly or am I missing something?

If so that will be interesting for schools who don't have access to such aircraft for that phase of the student's training.

I am also curious, will RPCs require this as well?

(NB Comments on this draft advisory close 27 January - 3 days from this post)

[Sunfish]

Sensible. I did mine in an Aerobat.

[Styx75]

My favourite part:
A stalled condition can exist at any attitude and airspeed, and may be recognized by continuous stall warning activation accompanied by at least one of the following:

​​​​​My aircraft doesn't have a stall warning device so guess I won't be able to recognise a stall anymore...

[Cloudee]

I had not seen this until just now.

They have defined incipient spin (something that has been not stated in CASA docs before AFAIK)


As the MOS requires students to demonstrate proficiency in recovery from incipient spin, this seems to me to then imply that RPL/PPL training will require training (for that phase) in an aircraft that is (legally) spinnable.

Am I interpreting that correctly or am I missing something?

If so that will be interesting for schools who don't have access to such aircraft for that phase of the student's training.

I am also curious, will RPCs require this as well?

(NB Comments on this draft advisory close 27 January - 3 days from this post)
i think you are missing this
”Draft AC 61-16 v1.0 will also provide guidance for an upcoming proposed amendment to the Part 61 MOS, to change the practice of advanced stall training. This proposed amendment would remove the requirement for recovery of spins at the incipient stage, in favour of avoiding spins by training recovery from wing drop at the stall, making it consistent with spin avoidance and stall recovery training principles used in International Civil Aviation Organization upset prevention and recovery training (UPRT).”

[jonkster]

i think you are missing this
”Draft AC 61-16 v1.0 will also provide guidance for an upcoming proposed amendment to the Part 61 MOS, to change the practice of advanced stall training. This proposed amendment would remove the requirement for recovery of spins at the incipient stage, in favour of avoiding spins by training recovery from wing drop at the stall, making it consistent with spin avoidance and stall recovery training principles used in International Civil Aviation Organization upset prevention and recovery training (UPRT).”

thanks Cloudee, I didn't see that.

[Sunfish]

What happens to all the aircraft that don’t have a well defined stall as well as ailerons effective in the pseudo stall?

Something like a Sportstar which behaves like an absolute kitten, no stall, just a high rate of descent with effective ailerons, no wing drop.........until really really provoked - then it becomes a handful.

Savannahs, Storches, Zeniths with fixed LE slats also come to mind.

This is starting to sound like what we called in the Army, TEWTS and NEWDS;” Tactical exercise without troops and Night exercises without darkness.”. “Just pretend that you stalled and then pretend that a wing dropped”.

But I am an amateur and maybe this all makes sense. Just asking for a friend.

[Aussie Bob]

It's all bull**** folks and its all bad for you.

Nothing in the flying training syllabus or aviation legislation has improved the training of pilots since the "Flight Instructors Handbook".was the training manual to go by. This was issued by the then CAA, way back when the rools could be contained on the single shelf of a small bookcase. The quality of a pilot is down to both the instruction received and the aptitude of the student and his/her willingness to go out and learn solo, not by definition or legislation.

[Stickshift3000]

The quality of a pilot is down to both the instruction received and the aptitude of the student and his/her willingness to go out and learn solo, not by definition or legislation.

Spot on..!

[djpil]

It's .. all bad for you.

Nothing in the flying training syllabus or aviation legislation has improved the training of pilots since the "Flight Instructors Handbook".was the training manual to go by. This was issued by the then CAA, way back when the rools could be contained on the single shelf of a small bookcase. The quality of a pilot is down to both the instruction received and the aptitude of the student and his/her willingness to go out and learn solo, not by definition or legislation.Maybe so. However, my view is that if this AC is reworked into a usable document then it will have a positive effect. So I encourage people to submit their comments to CASA.

I still have my little old blue Flight Instructors Handbook .... incidentally, the Flight Instructor Manual has to change as well.

My favourite part:
​​​​​My aircraft doesn't have a stall warning device so guess I won't be able to recognise a stall anymore...The word "may" means to "express possibility".

They have defined incipient spin (something that has been not stated in CASA docs before AFAIK)Incipient spin is adequately defined in the CASA Flight Instructor Manual. The problem started with Part 61 (in my opinion) differing from the Day VFR Syllabus and leaving the standard up in the air.

What happens to all the aircraft that don’t have a well defined stall as well as ailerons effective in the pseudo stall?
........
“Just pretend that you stalled and then pretend that a wing dropped”.I'm sure that will happen. Instructors do the lesson in the aeroplane the school has, they finish the lesson and will tick all the boxes.

Flight Examiners determine whether the student has achieved the required standard - how do they treat it - are they ticking the incipient spin box even if it is not done or do they write "N"? Back to what Aussie Bob stated. Pay your money and take your choice.

[Styx75]

The word "may" means to "express possibility".

Sorry sorry... I'll rephrase

My aircraft doesn't have a stall warning device so guess I may not be able to recognise a stall anymore

​​

[The name is Porter]

I still have my little old blue Flight Instructors Handbook

So do I, it never leaves my sight and definitely never gets lent.

[The name is Porter]

The quality of a pilot is down to both the instruction received and the aptitude of the student and his/her willingness to go out and learn solo, not by definition or legislation.

Brilliant! Write a book Bob, it will save many hundreds of students thousands of dollars.

[Centaurus]

As a matter of interest what is the difference between stalling and "advanced" stalling? A stall is a stall is a stall as far as I know. Recovery action is standard.

Also in the old days, once a student pilot was cleared for solo flying in the training area it included doing practice stall recoveries. Is that allowed nowadays or must all stall recovery practice be dual only?

[Clare Prop]

This is worth a read.

An Evaluation of Stall/Spin Accidents in Canada

https://www.richstowell.com/documents/Transport_Canada_TP13748E.pdf

One feature that stands out in all except one of the 39 stall/spin accidents examined is that knowing how to recover from the stall or spin was of no benefit to the pilots in these circumstances. They stalled at altitudes so low that once the stall developed, a serious accident was in progress. Safety will be advanced therefore by preventing stalls and spins.

[Runaway Gun]

So what you’re saying is, it did help someone!

[jonkster]

Also in the old days, once a student pilot was cleared for solo flying in the training area it included doing practice stall recoveries. Is that allowed nowadays or must all stall recovery practice be dual only?
If the student has been assessed as competent to do the manoeuvre solo then they can.

[thorn bird]

The old Pub 45 syllabus was based on the empire flying scheme syllabus from the second world war.
Given that aerodynamic's is the one thing our regulator cannot change no matter how hard they try,
the fundamentals are still the same.
My question would be, and I haven't instructed abinitio students since the early seventies, but has the introduction
of Part 61 and its attendant MOS improved standards at all?
I remember most students solo'd between six and ten hours, now I hear the average solo is way more than that.
I was under the impression that modern aircraft were easier to fly than the old tiger moths and chipmunks I learnt in.
My endearing memory is the smell of them. Dope and leather...intoxicating! Still have the old leather helmet with the PWOOF tube.
Instructor would blow in the tube and you'd sort of hear this mumbled jargon from the back., the old blow in your ear and follow him anywhere.
The good old days.

[drpixie]

Thorn bird: Standards have probably changed but not improved. There's areas where modern students are pretty good: procedures, complex aircraft systems, navigation & GPS, radio calls & CTA procedures (ok, radio calls when under stress can be crap, but nothing new there). But that's the nature of modern training - emphasis on checklists (well, do-lists) and procedures. Lots of emphasis on getting easily monitored stuff accurate (eg. cruising alts).

But other stuff seems to be missing - navigation can be pretty ordinary, because on solo navs they are following the pink GPS line; traffic and situational awareness the same, for the same reason. And handling abnormal attitudes can be lacking. It's almost unheard of for PPL/CPL students to have done more than wing-drops before gaining the license (and if they have, it's likely by rote), and I've seen plenty of students who didn't cope when exposed to something more than S&L or planned "steep" (45deg) turns. They are the ones who have the potential to move onto being AF447 crew :(

And to actually answer your question - I think Part 61 probably has had a negative effect overall. Because there are LOTS more boxes ("competencies") to tick, there is less room to adjust the students' training, and more emphasis on plodding through to meet prescribed standards.

[Centaurus]

and more emphasis on plodding through to meet prescribed standards.
In other words box ticking. A well written progress report after each dual session was the norm in the old days. There was nothing about "competencies." Currently, by the time an instructor has ticked all the required competencies (boxes) after each flight, it is no wonder he doesn't feel like adding to a progress report with a meaningful and intelligent description of the student's flight.

That said, the tick in the box requirement so beloved by CASA has one advantage in that it disguises the fact that English writing skills of some instructors barely meet primary school standard.

[thorn bird]

The progress report, colloquially called "the hate sheet" was the first thing you looked at as an instructor.

Very useful to check if there was any weaknesses you should check on or reinforce from the previous sortie.

My, how things have changed.

[Clare Prop]

There are still Hate Sheets but these days they are a bit more comprehensive than "Bloggs did some quite good landings today" as they should include comments and competencies.

Competency based training came in around 15 years before Part 61. The record keeping hasn't changed much.

Back on topic this is more consultation on "should incipient spin be replaced by stall with wing drop".

[aroa]

Hasnt ;competency' been with pilot training ever since it started.??
It not something recently invented by CAsA
The instuctor never let you loose for solo circuits in the Tiger if he thought you'd smash it.
He never sent you off to pracitice spins if he thought you'd crash it.
Having assessed your newly acquired flying 'skills' as A-OK, yet to be totally soliditied by further experience, you got turned loose to learn by doing yourself.
The lazy bureaucratic way,,box ticking...does not tell the full story. Ye olde assessment /comments file by various instructors allowed the next guy to " get your picture",,,and to see what might need a re-run or brush up. ie to see that you were competent in all those things that you would need to demonstrate in the PPL flight test
Low flying, spinning, engine re-start and forced landing into a field ..with a touch down and go ( I would have skittled a few sheep) Lucky for them no landing run! And who does steep, very steep and limit turns these days.
Lucky for me, the crusty old WW2 guys, who had put their "competencies" to the ultimate tests.

[jmmoric]

Wasn't it the US who threw pilots through helicopter training during the 60'ies at such a rate, that it was "common" to loose pilots during training?

[Styx75]

Wasn't it the US who threw pilots through helicopter training during the 60'ies at such a rate, that it was "common" to loose pilots during training?

I remember reading that there were more training losses during WWII then combat losses... Something like a 10% attrition rate...

[jonkster]

I remember reading that there were more training losses during WWII then combat losses... Something like a 10% attrition rate...
FWIW My father was sent from Oz to UK, flew a combat tour (Bomber Command, Lancasters) and then was posted as an instructor converting fresh pilots onto heavies (Wellingtons and Sterlings). I remember him telling me once he saw more killed in training than he did in combat. That may have just been his experience (and perception long afterwards). They were pushing through crews at a great rate, the consequence was training casualties. These were young men most of whom hadn't driven a car before getting trained as pilots. He was flying combat in Lancasters with about 400hrs TT.

[Big Pistons Forever]

In North America the light aircraft fatal accident rate is about 4 times lower in the 2000’s than in the 1950’s. If training was so great in the “good old days” why did so many pilots kill them self ?

There is plenty that could be improved in today’s flight training but traditional flight training concepts need to have the same critical examination as modern flight training concepts.

[thorn bird]

Err, big Pistons,

have you seen Australia's attempt at part 61 and it's attendant Manual of Standards?

Might give you an idea of why it costs almost double to gain a licence here over there and we could only wish
our accident rate was equivalent to your's. It would also be nice if we actually had a GA industry, its pretty much
on it's last legs now. You must recognise that aircraft are in general are a lot different today than in the fifties, much the same as airliners are. There is no doubt technology has had a major impact on flight safety, but there are many who think that general basic pilot standards has suffered because of it.

Standards can be very high here, but that's not because of our regulator, its because a few very dedicated instructors
will not compromise on standards and competency. Unfortunately that doesn't apply across the board.

[HarleyD2]

I see a lot of social chat here about the good old days and training ‘standards’.

I am about to board long haul and have a copy of the document that I have scanned and hope to get to grips with in the coming hours.

Superficially it appears to have been written by a few high school students with little real knowledge or understanding of what constitutes a spin, and the wording changes throughout the text, just to appear like there is experience behind it and to keep the reader a little off balance and constantly cross checking definitions.

it it a poorly written attempt to do something in a place where the writer(s) have little technical experience or knowledge. They would be better to withdraw this document and sit down with a small group of experts to sort some of this out.

that’s on a quick scan. They really do need do this ONCE and to get this RIGHT.

HD2

[djpil]

Superficially it appears to have been written by a few high school students with little real knowledge or understanding ....I often say the same thing myself about documents by CASA.

They would be better to withdraw this document and sit down with a small group of experts to sort some of this out.

that’s on a quick scan. They really do need do this ONCE and to get this RIGHT.

HD2Agreed, we'll just get one shot at this. I have encouraged others to respond to CASA on that draft document and I have also suggested that a small group continue to assist in developing the AC.

[Clare Prop]

You are too late, the closing date for submissions was 27 Jan.

[megan]

Superficially it appears to have been written by a few high school students with little real knowledge or understandingNothing new unfortunately.


https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1152x1750/casa_e75b6bdecd0b15c11054eed00363027191b2a52b.png

[Lead Balloon]

Laughable.

[djpil]

Not laughable unfortunately as they seem to have written Part 91 to be consistent with that letter.

[Lead Balloon]

In that event CASA will have spent and will continue to spend a lot of time over summer issuing fines to / suspending the licences of pilots who’ve operated in 40C+ conditions without them being covered by the AFM.

If CASA says it’s a safety issue and CASA claims to be a safety regulator...

[Sunfish]

Lead Balloon, it is child’s play to write a computer program that reads AWIS, NAIPS weather forecasts, metar , etc. and reads adsb data as well.

Anyone in an adsb equipped C172N who takes off over +40C can thus be issued an automatic penalty notice.

If CASA was genuine about such a concern, they could have saved the industry much worry by simply writing to a list of manufacturers asking for either data or any reservations.

As for experimental aircraft we are now in the fantasy world where “no data” means “no limits” consequently performance testing is of no value.

[Mach E Avelli]

Inevitable thread drift, but how is that letter from CASA ”laughable”?
Maybe I am thick, but if the manufacturer’s performance charts cut off at 40 deg, either they did not test it beyond that, or did, and decided on the limit for a reason.
Much as I abhor the Nanny State in general and CASA in particular, no public servant is likely to make a courageous decision to over ride an approved AFM. The question was asked, an answer was given.
NO civil aviation authority would agree that AFM charts can be extrapolated. Some such as the UK CAA could possibly conduct their own test certification (they have done so in the past) and produce their own charts - for a cost. But would anyone really want CASA getting into that business?

I can just see the insurance claim now.....
Dear Insurer
Yesterday I wrote off my Bugsmasher Mark 1.
I was taking off from Wood Woop ALA and for some reason did not clear the fence.
I was only carrying one passenger (unfortunately now deceased as a result of the accident) so do not believe the aircraft was overloaded. As well as destroying my aeroplane the farmer is suing me for breaking his fence and letting his livestock loose.

Yours sincerely, Ima Claimant

Dear Claimant
Our claims assessor checked yesterday’s weather at Woop Woop and noted that at the time of your attempted take off the ambient temperature was in excess of 40 degrees.
As this is beyond the approved performance envelope for your type of aircraft your claim is denied.
Further, although we are also carrying your liability insurance, we reserve the right to withhold any payment pending official determination of blame, negligence or regulatory breach.

Yours sincerely
Never Payup Insurance

[YPJT]

Continuing thread drift
Anyone in an adsb equipped C172N who takes off over +40C can thus be issued an automatic penalty notice.
Im waiting for the next generation of cars that are all equipped with GPS tracking, much like that b@stard IVMS that the mining companies use. Do the wrong thing at wrong place ie speed, fail to stop at intersection, heavy acceleration, braking, drive without seat belt, etc. All reported to big brother.

[Sunfish]

The question is; is 40C a “limit” as in “do not use this product above this temperature because something will fail”? or is it the limit of testing? Is it what a graphic artist decided to fit on the page?

[Lead Balloon]

As I said, Mach, CASA should therefore be spending a lot of time over summer issuing fines to / suspending the licences of pilots who’ve operated in 40C+ conditions without them being covered by the AFM.

If CASA says it’s a safety issue and CASA claims to be a safety regulator...

[Clare Prop]

The POH "limitations" section is where to look...if the performance charts were the only parameters we would use then we would be grounded if the headwind went about 15 knots....

[Sunfish]

CASA disagrees with you.

[megan]

From a previous thread https://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/593322-casa-opinion-aircraft-must-grounded-temps-over-40-degrees-7.html I repeat the below in its entirety because the message needs to get out, if only CASA would learn it, an SR-22 T/O chart goes to 50°C and the DH-82 below to 45°C. Have made the chart large so those of us with less than perfect vision should have no trouble.

Perusing the old Digests kindly provided above in the forum, I came across this article in issue #33, which I reproduce in its entirety. Note density altitude is the focus, temp even goes to 45°C on the chart, and absolutely no mention of temp being a limit, just DA.

LIGHT AIRCRAFT TAKE-OFF PERFORMANCE

Temperature and Altitude Effects

A review of take-off accidents involving light aircraft has shown that an appreciable number of them can be attributed wholly or in part to a failure to allow for the effects of reduced air density arising from high temperature, high altitude, or, more particularly, from a combination of both.

Two separate effects must be considered;

(a) The effect of reduced air density on take-off
distance;

(b) the effect of reduced air density on climb
performance.

Both of these aspects will be examined in turn.

The Effect of Reduced Air Density on Take-off Distance

The normal takeoff consists of a full throttle run along the ground, a lift off at the take-off safety speed, and a climb away at this speed until a height of 50 feet is reached.

The take-off safety speed is defined as 1.2 Vs, where Vs is the power off stalling speed.

The indicated stalling speed of an aircraft depends, principally, on the aircraft’s weight, power setting and flap position. Changes in air density do not change the indicated air speed at the stall. Every pilot is aware, however, that under conditions of reduced air density the true air speed is greater than the indicated air speed; thus, in a take-off under high temperature conditions, the prescribed higher true air speed and the distance required to reach this speed will be greater. Alternatively, for a given take-off distance the gross weight of the aircraft and hence the take—off safety speed will have to be reduced in order to provide for a safe operation within the available distance.

Another major effect to be considered is the reduction of engine power output arising from reduced air density. In most light aircraft, take-off power is the full-throttle setting of its unsupercharged, or normally aspirated, engine. Changes in air density produce changes in the full throttle power of such engines. Any reduced air density means less air available for combustion and a fall-off in take-off power. The reduction in power is approximately proportional to the reduction in air density.* This reduction in available power means that less thrust will be available for accelerating or climbing the aircraft. lt can be seen, therefore, that reduced air density will not only demand longer take-off runs to allow the aircraft to accelerate to the higher true airspeeds but it also imposes the penalty of reducing the power available to achieve this acceleration. The take-off distances required are therefore greatly increased even for small reductions in air density.

The information provided in handbooks by the manufacturers of light aircraft is usually insufficient to take account of all the major variables and the Department of Civil Aviation has undertaken the production of the PL Charts (Performance Charts for Light Aircraft) to assist pilots in their calculations. For most aircraft types, the manufacturers data has been checked by flight testing in Australia and the chart data is based on these test results.

The chart indicates the maximum permissible gross weight for take-off after aerodrome pressure height, outside air temperature, take-off distance available and wind velocity are taken into account. Fifty per cent of the reported head wind component and 150 per cent of the reported tail wind component have been used in the construction of the chart and the take-off distance has been increased by a factor of 1.15 as is shown in the notes on the chart. The following example illustrated in the chart will show how the chart is used.

* In the case of a supercharged engine this effect is overcome, within limits, by compressing the air and thus restoring the air supply.

Airfield pressure height which may be read from your altimeter after setting 1,013.2 mb. = 920 feet

Outside air temperature measured in the shade : 113°F or 45°C

Take-off distance available = 1,550 feet

Wind velocity component = Nil

(1) Effect of Air Density Change

Enter the chart at °“START HERE" and find the intersection of the airfield pressure height (APH) and the outside air temperature (OAT). The point of intersection indicates the density height at which the next segment of the chart to the right should be entered. This density height is determined by the relationship of the APH/OAT intersection with the horizontal lines drawn through the upper three segments of the chart. The bottom line has a zero or standard sea level value as determined by the intersection of the zero airfield pressure and the standard 15°C temperature. Each successive line drawn is a 1,000 feet increment in density height. Thus it will be seen that the density height in this example is 4,500 foot which means that the density of the air under the conditions stated in the examples is the same as would exist at a height of 4,500 feet under conditions of standard atmosphere, At this point it is of interest to note the effect of temperature on density height. If the OAT had been 13‘”C the density height would have been the same as the airfield pressure height, i.e., 920 feet and, with an even lower temperature of 5°C (41°F) the equivalent of sea level standard conditions would prevail. It will become apparent from this why a light aircraft exhibits a lively performance on a frosty morning. Now move on to further corrections in the example.

(2) Effect of Take-off Distance Available

Move to the right on the chart until you intercept the line representing the take-off distance available and then move vertically downwards to the next correction.

It may be seen that, in the particular conditions of this take-off, no reduction of the maximum permissible gross weight would have been necessary had the available length of run been equal to or greater than 2,400 feet. Since the available length is only 1,550 feet, however, it is immediately apparent that the gross weight for take-off will need to be reduced.

(3) Effect of Wind

Continue to move vertically downwards to intercept the ambient wind velocity Line and then move horizontally to the left and read from the scale the maximum take-off weight permitted under these circumstances, i.e., 1.570 lb.

(4) Take-off Safety Speed

Since the stalling speed varies directly with weight, the take-off safety speed will also vary directly with the take-off weight and for this case it may be read directly off the right hand side of the diagram as 43 Kts. I.A.S.

We are now in a position to see that under the conditions prescribed, the combined effects of limited take-off distance available and the reduced air density has demanded a reduction in the maximum permissible take-otf weight from 1,825 lb. to 1,570 lb.

The Effect of Reduced Density on Climb Performance

The Australian performance standards require that all light aircraft have a minimum gradient of climb after take-off of six per cent, This can be expressed as 6 feet of climb for every 100 feet of horizontal travel along the flight path, or 365 feet per nautical mile which is equivalent to a rate of climb of 365 feet per minute if the aircraft’s climbing speed is 60 knots (T.A.S.).

The climb gradient is greatly affected by even a small reduction of engine power because the power available to climb the aircraft is only the power in excess of that required for straight and level flight at the climbing speed.

We have already pointed out that any reduction in air density produces a proportionate reduction in engine power. Reference to atmosphere tables will show that air density falls about 3 per cent per 1,000 feet between sea level and 3.000 feet, reducing to 2 per cent per 1,000 feet at 16,000 feet. Thus it the aircraft is taking off in conditions of pressure and temperature which are equivalent to a height of 4,500 feet under standard conditions (i.e., a density height of 4,500 feet) the engine output under full throttle at constant r.p.m. will fall about 13 per cent. This amounts to a considerable reduction in the power available for the climb and the gradient of climb is correspondingly reduced. If the density is reduced to a point where the minimum climb gradient would not be achieved, the take-off gross weight must be reduced in order to restore the gradient and thus ensure a safe climb out over obstacles.

To show how this adjustment is calculated we must now refer to the Climb Weight Limit diagram in the PL Chart.

Climb Weight Limit

Enter the chart at the airfield pressure height and move vertically until the line intercepts the outside air temperature. Then move horizontally to the left to the point of intersection with the sloping reference line and then vertically downwards to the gross weight scale where it can be seen that the climb weight limit is 1,775 lb.

Points to be Especially Noted

The maximum permissible weight derived from our previous calculations based on runway length available was 1,570 lb., Whilst the weight limitation based on the climb requirements is 1,775 lb. The lesser of these two is the maximum permissible take-off gross weight, i.e., 1,570 lb.

If the aircraft's gross weight is held constant the effect of temperature on the length required for take-off at a particular aerodrome may be seen from the chart. Referring to our example again, you will remember that 1,550 feet was the minimum length required to lift 1,570 lb. when the temperature was 45°C (113"F). Drop the temperature to 13°C (55°F), which is standard for a pressure height of 920 feet, and for the same weight the take-oil length required is reduced to 1,170 feet. Check this on the chart at the point where a density height of 920 feet intercepts the vertical line of our example in the ‘distance available" segment of the chart.

Whenever a take-off in the type of aircraft to which the sample chart applies is to be carried out with a density height exceeding 3,800 feet, Some reduction of take-off (i.e., 1,825 lb.) must be made irrespective of the length of run available. This arises from the climb weight limitations of the aircraft.

Example:

Now try this example yourself using a ruler and sharp pencil.
Airfield Pressure Height ....,. . ,.... 1.500 feet
Outside Air Temperature ..,... . ..... 25°C
Take—off distance available . .... 1,900 feet
Head Wind Component 5 m.p.h.

It you have mastered the system you will agree that the take—off gross weight is 1,785 lb. and the take-off safety speed is 47 knots.


https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1120x2000/to_2dd52ac465f530d3b6bb73b453d2b629a627727d.png
An answer from the horses mouth so to speak. I asked Cessna, Wichita, the following
There is an argument in the community here as to whether the 40°C on the take off charts is a limit, or not.

ie: is take off permissible at temperatures in excess of 40°C.

I note in the 404 manual, dual and single engine, climb charts are provided for temperatures up to 50°C.

Do you consider the following an acceptable means of flight planning on the 404 when temperatures are in excess of 40°C and up to 50°C?

1. Determine from the climb charts the regulatory stipulated gradient.

2. Calculate the density altitude.

3. Determine from the take off chart a temperature and pressure altitude that gives the same density altitude.

For example, 50°C at zero pressure altitude the density altitude is 4,158 feet.

Entering the take off chart 1,000 feet pressure altitude at 40°C will give a density altitude of 4,210 feet.

4. Use the 1,000 feet PA, 40°C take off distance.Is the same principal of using the density altitude to calculate take off distance when temperatures are above 40°C permissible, or is 40°C considered an operating limit for the singles (172, 207 etc)?

A view, which has currency in the community, is that you may not take off if the temperature is over 40°C.
Their replyThe temperatures on the performance charts are provided to cover the majority of average operations. The temperature limits of these charts were not intended as a limitation for the aircraft, but simply what the aircraft was tested to. Simple interpolation as you have performed is appropriate.

[IFEZ]

Thanks Megan (and Clare) for highlighting the stupidity of that letter above #31. This is what happens when the career bureaucrats and legal boffins are put in charge, most of which haven't flown anything more complex than a kite at the local park. No understanding of the technicalities or practicalities of the industry they are supposed to be overseeing. No wonder the regulatory reform process is such a mess. Lead Balloon says laughable..? More like embarrassing I'd say..!

[VH-MLE]

A similar issue revolves around "demonstrated" crosswind values published in AFM's that sometimes includes the statement "not considered a limitation". If the aircraft has a demonstrated crosswind value of 15kts (with the statement that this value is not considered a limitation) & you run off the runway & severely damage the aircraft, where do you stand from an insurance perspective? If the crosswind was 17kts, you may be OK, but if it was 30kts, you may not be. The only way you can be reasonably certain of insurance coverage is to stick with the manufacturer's demonstrated values in my opinion, but this argument has been ongoing for a long time...

[Sunfish]

With crosswinds you may not have a choice..... Same with landing and taxiing >40C.

[Clare Prop]

What was the job description of the person who wrote that letter?

I have had letters from FOIs and AWIs who don't know what Day VFR means, don't know what AWK on an maintenance release means, who invent Air Operators Certificates that don't exist and the threaten to audit you because of your bad attitude when you try, in vain, to explain the difference between an Air Operator Certificate holder and a Registered Operator of an aircraft and tell them you don't actually have an AOC; can't even get the right job description for their colleagues, calling people from the FTTE "FOIs" and pretending they have all kinds of powers and knowledge that they simply don't have.

In response to any letter like that I would be straight on to the phone to their team manager, not take much notice of a lowly jobsworth inspector.

[djpil]

.. I repeat the below in its entirety because the message needs to get out, if only CASA would learn it, an SR-22 T/O chart goes to 50°C and the DH-82 below to 45°C. Have made the chart large so those of us with less than perfect vision should have no trouble.

Perusing the old Digests kindly provided above in the forum, I came across this article in issue #33, which I reproduce in its entirety. Note density altitude is the focus, temp even goes to 45°C on the chart, and absolutely no mention of temp being a limit, just DA.

The thing about those useful old “P” Charts is that CASA withdrew their approval however stated that we could still use them but we take responsibility (I’m unable to even find that statement on the CASA website now). With the 8KCAB there are 5 different powerplant options and my airplane had the one with worse take-off performance so, as I had to take responsibility, I asked CASA to provide the test report as I doubted that the test aircraft used had the small engine and a cruise pitch propeller (the chart simply stated 8KCAB). Nil response so I declined to use those charts. Nil performance information in the approved AFM. The manufacturer’s Operating Manual has some sporting performance information. It goes to a very high density altitude and I may use declared density charts so all good. Data is only provided for a level sealed runway so for the effect of grass and runway slope I go to the UK CAA’s Safety Sense Leaflet 7 (as suggested by Flight Safety Magazine in 2002). After all, the aircraft manual states that “good pilot judgement must be used".

With Part 91 next year I am required to check the take-off performance for every flight and I must use information from the AFM, manufacturer’s manual or other approved data. We will not be able to use those old “P” charts as they are not approved. I only have approved data for a level sealed runway so unable to operate off a grass strip – many airplanes will run across that limitation.

Finally, it is worth noting that with FAR 23 for small airplanes there is nil requirement for any performance limitations and any operating limitations MUST be specified in the airplane flight manual (look in the limitations section).

[Clare Prop]

And yet those old so-called Cessna charts with the boxes (Cessna actually use tables) are still in the PPL exam, apparently

[Stickshift3000]

And yet those old so-called Cessna charts with the boxes (Cessna actually use tables) are still in the PPL exam, apparently

The take off and landing distance charts certainly are included in the PPL exam work book (link to work book below). Cessna may not use these charts but certainly some other manufacturers do (e.g. Piper).

https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/default/files/rpl-ppl-cpl-aeroplane-workbook.pdf

[djpil]

The take off and landing distance charts certainly are included in the PPL exam work book (link to work book below). Cessna may not use these charts but certainly some other manufacturers do (e.g. Piper).

https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/default/files/rpl-ppl-cpl-aeroplane-workbook.pdfThey don't actually. The CASA "P" charts include the effect of different runway surfaces and runway slope. Piper PA-28 charts look somewhat the same as those in the CASA workbook but they are only for a level, paved runway.

So, when a student goes off to a grass runway (perhaps with a bit of slope) to do the short field takeoff and landing for the PPL flight test - and as part of the test demonstrated determination of the distance required - where did that student get the takeoff and landing distances for a PA-28 on a grass runway? What will the Flight Examiner say about it, especially once Part 91 comes into effect?

The PA-28 manual states "Effects of conditions not considered on the charts must be evaluated by the pilot, such as the effect of
soft or grass runway surface on takeoff and landing performance,"

At least the tables in the Cessna manual state to increase the distance by 15% of the ground roll figure for takeoff on grass. For landing increase the distance by 45% of the ground roll figure. They're effectively just using the same information as the UK CAA in their https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/modalapplication.aspx?appid=11&mode=detail&id=1913

There is a big disconnect between pilot theory training, what CASA thinks and real aircraft operation.

[aroa]

The regulatory reform program.. Laughable? Embarassing? Disgusting, Yes and many other words to describe what Governments of all persuasions have let happen to let rot away an industry so vtal for this country.
A cast of 1000s, costs of billions and GA fcuked. The lucky country, my arse.

[Lead Balloon]

I have had letters from FOIs and AWIs who don't know what Day VFR means, don't know what AWK on an maintenance release means, who invent Air Operators Certificates that don't exist and the threaten to audit you because of your bad attitude when you try, in vain, to explain the difference between an Air Operator Certificate holder and a Registered Operator of an aircraft and tell them you don't actually have an AOC; can't even get the right job description for their colleagues, calling people from the FTTE "FOIs" and pretending they have all kinds of powers and knowledge that they simply don't have.Where does CASA find these arseclowns? Or are they grown in-house?

[Kagamuga]

Whilst the subject of 'P' charts is s slight digression from thread topic. I'll throw in my two bits worth, based upon operational experience.
Slope limits is generally presented as +/- 2%; this being a typical day to day requirement. OEM electronic performance data, for biz jet aircraft will calculate within those parameters. So is Ops outside of +/- 2% not permitted? Absolutely not! The manufacturer has not tested the aircraft outside of +/- 2%. Special charts may be made available by request.
Answer is very simple; clear the individual runways with your insurance underwriter.
Scenario? Goroka in PNG, good slope, outside of 'slope' performace data, but the final acceptance is that the airfield is used by Fokker 70/100, Dash 8's of various models, previously Fokker F28 and even Fokker 27/50, turbo props. In my case the Underwriter was happy with the assessment as being 'sound' and CASA even accepted the argument as being sound (in writing) All take-off at Goroka are downhill, landings are all uphill.

[Lead Balloon]

Are you completely insane? That’s like taking off with a 20kt headwind when the charts only go to 15!

[Clare Prop]

Where does CASA find these arseclowns? Or are they grown in-house?
Industry rejects.

They don't realise how the network functions and that we can easily find out their history before they entered the sheltered workshop. Also that trying to encourage industry people to become "part of the team" isn't going to work when it would mean sharing an office with these drongoes, despite the bloated salary package.

I will say there are some really good people in CASA who chose to leave the industry rather than being pushed but they are the minority...and some of them do come back to GA.

[Stickshift3000]

A cast of 1000s, costs of billions and GA fcuked. The lucky country, my arse.

I agree wholeheartedly. However, I suggest you read up on the history of reference to Australia as 'the lucky country', it continues to be very apt:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lucky_Country

[aroa]

Sticks yre right of course. And I even have Donald Horne's ? book somewhere.
Compared to most of the world we are very, very lucky indeed.
But in our laid back , 'she'll be right' attitudes, bureaucraczies feel free to grow like Topsy and bugger things in their bloated processes. So all is ;not right'
eg... as with CAsA...the aviation industry and GA is very unlucky.
Its a worry