Strange flight training practices
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not sure what you're getting at re the 707 and how it links up with what ex-RAAF FOIs would or wouldn't do when confronted with a PFL into an airstrip
Inverted flight in an aerobatic is prohibited due to gravity feeding from the tanks.
Didn't stop us from trying "inverted gliding"!
Dr
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PLovett,
Whilst I do not disagree with your feelings about certain elements of CASA, the circumstances leading up to the loss of that 707 are complex. I knew all five of those Gents well. You really have no idea about the comparisons that you are making.
Whilst I do not disagree with your feelings about certain elements of CASA, the circumstances leading up to the loss of that 707 are complex. I knew all five of those Gents well. You really have no idea about the comparisons that you are making.
FTDK, Section 2 of the Aerobat POH actually does use the words "Inverted flight prohibited" and does not approve "Whip Stalls", aka Stall Turns or Hammerheads.
Having said that, we used to do a pseudo stall turn by taking the aircraft to the vertical and as the speed fell to 40 KIAS, applying full rudder in the desired direction and keeping the wings in the correct plane with judicious use of aileron. Lots of fun and the aircraft never actually "whip stalled".
Having said that, we used to do a pseudo stall turn by taking the aircraft to the vertical and as the speed fell to 40 KIAS, applying full rudder in the desired direction and keeping the wings in the correct plane with judicious use of aileron. Lots of fun and the aircraft never actually "whip stalled".
Join Date: May 2013
Location: have I forgotten or am I lost?
Age: 71
Posts: 1,126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
a whip stall is done by applying full power, accelerating straight and level, then pulling the nose hard up and chopping the power.
the resulting stall is quite violent.
the aircraft pitches forward until it is almost nose vertically down and recovers in a screaming dive.
it was used just once to show me a secondary stall at high speed and prove beyond all doubt that a wing stalls at an angle and not a speed.
so a whip stall is not a stall turn or a hammerhead. it is done straight forward, straight up and most certainly straight down.
dont ever do it, especially in an old aircraft. it would be a wonderful way to create a cloud of tinsel around you.
the resulting stall is quite violent.
the aircraft pitches forward until it is almost nose vertically down and recovers in a screaming dive.
it was used just once to show me a secondary stall at high speed and prove beyond all doubt that a wing stalls at an angle and not a speed.
so a whip stall is not a stall turn or a hammerhead. it is done straight forward, straight up and most certainly straight down.
dont ever do it, especially in an old aircraft. it would be a wonderful way to create a cloud of tinsel around you.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Sydney NSW Australia
Posts: 3,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
almost sounds like a snap roll
cant say i have ever seen a "whip stall" while doing a hammerhead. quite a few tail slides, with forward or backward flip if you let the speed decay to far before kicking over the rudder, but how do you stall with 0G as you begin falling backward? i am assuming this is what might be considered by some as a"whip stall'?
cant say i have ever seen a "whip stall" while doing a hammerhead. quite a few tail slides, with forward or backward flip if you let the speed decay to far before kicking over the rudder, but how do you stall with 0G as you begin falling backward? i am assuming this is what might be considered by some as a"whip stall'?
Last edited by Ultralights; 6th Aug 2013 at 08:13.
The "whip stalls" prohibited in the Aerobat are tailslides.
Per its certification basis, all aerobatics are approved except for those prohibited. Stall turns or hammerhead turns are not listed in the AFM with a recommended entry speed but are not prohibited therefore permitted.
Nil oil pressure inverted as well so the limitation on inverted flying.
Ex-Cessna test pilot Bill Kershner has an excellent book on aerobatting the Cessnas.
Per its certification basis, all aerobatics are approved except for those prohibited. Stall turns or hammerhead turns are not listed in the AFM with a recommended entry speed but are not prohibited therefore permitted.
Nil oil pressure inverted as well so the limitation on inverted flying.
Ex-Cessna test pilot Bill Kershner has an excellent book on aerobatting the Cessnas.
porterpat
Something a little different.
Does anyone know the technical reason casa in Perth are telling at least one charter co. that in future the emergency procedures for b200 endorsements
must be completed in a sim (Ansett in Melb) and completed in an a/c.
The theory at least being that a sim is available.
What about b1900 or conquests. I can't find the relevant cao.
Does anyone know the technical reason casa in Perth are telling at least one charter co. that in future the emergency procedures for b200 endorsements
must be completed in a sim (Ansett in Melb) and completed in an a/c.
The theory at least being that a sim is available.
What about b1900 or conquests. I can't find the relevant cao.
New version of CAO 40.1.0 issued earlier this year?
2A.2 This subsection applies in relation to conversion training for any of the following:
(a) a multi-engine aeroplane with a passenger seating capacity of not less than 10, and not more than 19, seats;
(b) an aeroplane with a passenger seating capacity of not less than 20 seats;
(c) an aeroplane with a maximum take-off weight (MTOW) exceeding 8 618 kg.
(a) a multi-engine aeroplane with a passenger seating capacity of not less than 10, and not more than 19, seats;
(b) an aeroplane with a passenger seating capacity of not less than 20 seats;
(c) an aeroplane with a maximum take-off weight (MTOW) exceeding 8 618 kg.
kookaburra:
I agree with your average but you don't agree with my statement?
I can give the source of that data, it is not opinion. More data: many taking 20 hrs to solo a Jabiru.
kookaburra:
I'd like to see the syllabus to cover upright spins and the aerobatic manoeuvres per CAO 40.0 within 3 hours? Recovery from failed figures/unusual attitudes would be good too.
djpil, sorry don't agree.
....
Average to solo around 10 hrs by my guess. 7 if doing well.
....
Average to solo around 10 hrs by my guess. 7 if doing well.
At a small airfield some instructors I know have recently been sending younger people solo in about 5-6 hours in an aircraft type with characteristics similar to the old Piper Colt.
kookaburra:
djpil, sorry don't agree.
Centaurus is spot on.
.......
Average for basic aeros 3hrs or so when done with tail wheel endorsement.
Centaurus is spot on.
.......
Average for basic aeros 3hrs or so when done with tail wheel endorsement.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 465
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Porterpat,
MakeItHappenCaptain's post and reference is on to why most of the training/checking needs to be done in the sim. The asymmetric training crash up in Darwin a few years ago was the final straw. No more check captain delegations or approvals are given to conduct asymmetric training in 'larger' aeroplanes anymore - all needs to be done in the sim.
The problem is the B200 sim is restricted when it comes to visuals i.e. can't do circuits or circling approaches because you can't see out the side window. Therefore, these visual components need to be done in the aeroplane, but the majority of checks (and all emergencies) are done in the sim. Therefore a renewal is usually spread over two days.
MakeItHappenCaptain's post and reference is on to why most of the training/checking needs to be done in the sim. The asymmetric training crash up in Darwin a few years ago was the final straw. No more check captain delegations or approvals are given to conduct asymmetric training in 'larger' aeroplanes anymore - all needs to be done in the sim.
The problem is the B200 sim is restricted when it comes to visuals i.e. can't do circuits or circling approaches because you can't see out the side window. Therefore, these visual components need to be done in the aeroplane, but the majority of checks (and all emergencies) are done in the sim. Therefore a renewal is usually spread over two days.
With King Airs and Conquests replacing Chieftains and 402s, soon these could be the entry level IFR twins for inexperienced pilots. So requiring B200 simulator will be a Good Thing.
However, if Conquests and other similar types that are not supported locally by a simulator are exempt, what risk analysis has CASA really done? A nine seat King Air is exempt (e.g. C90 or B100), but not a ten seater. They all handle pretty much the same, so has this rule been made because they have proved by flight test that the B200 exhibits more dangerous characteristics than the others (I doubt it) or is it the usual application of arbitrary numbers?
However, if Conquests and other similar types that are not supported locally by a simulator are exempt, what risk analysis has CASA really done? A nine seat King Air is exempt (e.g. C90 or B100), but not a ten seater. They all handle pretty much the same, so has this rule been made because they have proved by flight test that the B200 exhibits more dangerous characteristics than the others (I doubt it) or is it the usual application of arbitrary numbers?
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tell me. Were these the same ones that put a perfectly good 707 in the water off East Sale by continuing to demand something that was known in the service as "....practicing bleeding"?
PLovett is online now Report Post
PLovett is online now Report Post
I had never heard of "practicing bleeding" until I left the RAAF. I think the term was used to describe DCA Examiners of Airmen and civilian flying instructors (as well as former military) who had the habit of cutting the mixture control after take off to "simulate" an engine failure in a twin.
Of course it was a real engine failure caused by cutting off the fuel. A dangerous practice that caused several fatalities over the years with the Duchess crash at Camden being one of the most tragic when the aircraft caught fire after hitting the ground.
Last edited by A37575; 7th Aug 2013 at 14:11.
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
my thoughts being a student at present (CPL)
I was taught leaning pre PPL but it was never emphasised until close to my PPL. Of course I lean without second thought now but I believe it's just something to complicate a flight further for a person just learning.
Same goes with climb fuel. I was taught it, but never used it until now; it made no difference in training flights and my first navs. As others have said at altitudes you use on such flights and in little warriors or 172s etc it's just something to complicate things further for a student.
The pre-planned diversion thing sounds a bit scary. I was happy to often have them sprung on me, that's the whole point. What will happen to those students when they have to make one and plan it in the cockpit?
I agree with whoever said lodging flight notifications from early on is a good idea, it certainly helped me get the hang of them, they're fiddly things. You're teaching the student to operate an aircraft where they will be responsible for the entire flight and occupants etc, they won't have someone back at base all the time to hold their hands and ring up if they don't come back. Lodging a SARTIME I thought was something everyone was taught.
I agree wholeheartedly. It's one thing to read about certain conditions, it's another to be in it yourself. Having flown early on in my training (pre PPL) in special VFR conditions, lost all vis, having doors come open in flight and rain coming in everywhere, trying to pick the runway through the muck, etc it opens your eyes the way no textbook can.
I was taught leaning pre PPL but it was never emphasised until close to my PPL. Of course I lean without second thought now but I believe it's just something to complicate a flight further for a person just learning.
Same goes with climb fuel. I was taught it, but never used it until now; it made no difference in training flights and my first navs. As others have said at altitudes you use on such flights and in little warriors or 172s etc it's just something to complicate things further for a student.
The pre-planned diversion thing sounds a bit scary. I was happy to often have them sprung on me, that's the whole point. What will happen to those students when they have to make one and plan it in the cockpit?
I agree with whoever said lodging flight notifications from early on is a good idea, it certainly helped me get the hang of them, they're fiddly things. You're teaching the student to operate an aircraft where they will be responsible for the entire flight and occupants etc, they won't have someone back at base all the time to hold their hands and ring up if they don't come back. Lodging a SARTIME I thought was something everyone was taught.
Also, harking back to when I learned to fly, I would like to see more training done when the wind is howling, rain is bucketing down and the scud is barely above MSA. That approach teaches students to know how far they can go, and a bit of respect for the elements.
Today's flying schools are breeding a bunch of pussies.
Today's flying schools are breeding a bunch of pussies.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Sydney NSW Australia
Posts: 3,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The pre-planned diversion thing sounds a bit scary. I was happy to often have them sprung on me, that's the whole point. What will happen to those students when they have to make one and plan it in the cockpit?