Stall Legality
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
I can't stand this mindless stupidity any longer.
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 ???
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 ???
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?
gawd I wonder about you guys some times. is it the water ???
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!!
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.
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.
many types are limited by their certification to a max of 60 deg bank angle per the Flight Manual.
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??????
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.
I seem to recall someone doing negative g turns in the circuit??????
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.
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.
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.
Ix: I'm not aware of any exemption relevant to your question, but that doesn't mean there isn't one.
Thread Starter
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.
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.
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.
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.
.
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.
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.
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!
Just leave it! All those banging on about more definitions are as bad as you all say CASA is!
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.
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.
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.)
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.)
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.
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.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Sydney NSW Australia
Posts: 3,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Or we could just teach pilots to fly properly in all conditions and be done with it!
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.
Last edited by Ultralights; 7th Sep 2015 at 02:20.