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.

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".

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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

I often say the same thing myself about documents by CASA.

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.

You are too late, the closing date for submissions was 27 Jan.

Nothing new unfortunately.


https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....7191b2a52b.png

Laughable.

Not laughable unfortunately as they seem to have written Part 91 to be consistent with that letter.

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...

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.

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

Continuing thread drift
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.

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?

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...

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....