Stall Legality
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 750
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would a "reasonable person" say a stall is aerobatic...?
]
]
Kaz
Join Date: Jun 1996
Location: Check with Ops
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
14 Deg AOA, not stalled, 16 Deg AOA, stalled, a 2 deg pitch change isnt what i would call a significant 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.
Thread Starter
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.
Just like the old line in CAR 155 was attempting to do.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Sydney NSW Australia
Posts: 3,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What happens when, during a straight-ahead, level stall the wing drops and the bank angle exceeds 60 degrees
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?
Join Date: Jun 1996
Location: Check with Ops
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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"
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..
However, you may have come up with a far simpler solution:
is it only illegal if i roll intentionally past 60 deg?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"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.
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.
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 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.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 72
Posts: 774
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
Last edited by fujii; 8th Sep 2015 at 01:12.
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!!
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!!
Pontius:
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.
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.
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.
Last edited by djpil; 8th Sep 2015 at 05:58. Reason: Clarified ICAO definition
Maybe because the airframe doesn't know whether a manoeuvre is intentional or unintentional. 
Then again, the airframe certification basis should not be relevant to Part 61. Maybe that's why the word "unintentional" is in equivalent provisions of other regulatory systems.
Then again, the airframe certification basis should not be relevant to Part 61.
Maybe that's why the word "unintentional" is in equivalent provisions of other regulatory systems.
