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

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)

Sensible. I did mine in an Aerobat.

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

i think you are missing this
”Draft AC 61-16 v1.0will 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.

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.

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.

Spot on..!

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.

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

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.

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.

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

​​

Quote:

---

I still have my little old blue Flight Instructors Handbook

---

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

Quote:

---

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.

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?

This is worth a read.

An Evaluation of Stall/Spin Accidents in Canada

https://www.richstowell.com/document...a_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.

If the student has been assessed as competent to do the manoeuvre solo then they can.

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.

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.

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.

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.