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

[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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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

[jonkster]

Originally Posted by Styx75

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]

Originally Posted by HarleyD2

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.

Originally Posted by HarleyD2

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

Agreed, 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 understanding

Nothing new unfortunately.

[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....