tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-51881876580454086252023-10-02T02:29:31.104-07:00DavidJPilkingtonDavid J Pilkingtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06225630402377448000noreply@blogger.comBlogger23125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5188187658045408625.post-22715714143488734112019-06-18T18:52:00.000-07:002019-06-18T18:52:12.213-07:00A SPIN IS A SPIN<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased !important; background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #545854; font-family: Raleway, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; margin-bottom: 10px;">
<span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: 700;">On 23<span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 12px; line-height: 0; position: relative; top: -0.5em; vertical-align: baseline;">rd</span> May CASA released a Safety update : spin recovery training which “highlighted that there can be varying interpretations of an ‘incipient spin’, and this has led to aircraft not approved for intentional spins being used for incipient spin training and assessment.”</span></div>
<div style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased !important; background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #545854; font-family: Raleway, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; margin-bottom: 10px;">
Issue 2 of CASA’s Flight Instructor Manual of December 2006 has a Chapter on Stalling which includes the technique for stall recovery “when the wing drops”. There is also a Chapter on Spins and Spirals which includes two different techniques for recovery from an incipient spin. On page 52 it explains the situation where the spin is entered in the normal manner and recovering “before the spin develops fully”. On page 53 it describes the same entry technique however it goes on to state “as soon as the aeroplane has stalled and commenced to yaw take the appropriate recovery action.” That recovery action is different than on the previous page and is identical to that explained in the earlier chapter for a stall with a wing drop.</div>
<div style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased !important; background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #545854; font-family: Raleway, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; margin-bottom: 10px;">
<span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: 700;">Incipient spins and training requirements</span></div>
<div style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased !important; background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #545854; font-family: Raleway, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; margin-bottom: 10px;">
The Safety update states “CASA is developing further guidance material in relation to the conduct of incipient spins and advanced stalls and how to meet the flight training and testing standards in the Part 61 manual of standards. We expect to finalise these over the coming weeks.”</div>
<div style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased !important; background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #545854; font-family: Raleway, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; margin-bottom: 10px;">
I note that the Flight Instructor Manual is not listed on the Manuals and Handbooks page of the CASA website although it is still available on the website so I am not sure of its status as current guidance.</div>
<div style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased !important; background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #545854; font-family: Raleway, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; margin-bottom: 10px;">
That Safety update further stated: “The conduct of an incipient spin in an aeroplane that is not approved for spinning places the aeroplane outside the normal operating envelope into the safety margins provided by the aeroplane certification standards for airframe structural integrity and demonstrated ability to recover from the manoeuvre.”</div>
<div style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased !important; background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #545854; font-family: Raleway, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; margin-bottom: 10px;">
To me that is a very clear interpretation of the limitation of an aeroplane type which is not approved for intentional spins. i.e. an incipient spin is a spin and if a type is not approved for intentional spins then conduct of an incipient spin is not permitted.</div>
<div style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased !important; background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #545854; font-family: Raleway, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; margin-bottom: 10px;">
CASA’s definition of aerobatics is also relevant in this situation.</div>
<div style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased !important; background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #545854; font-family: Raleway, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; margin-bottom: 10px;">
<span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: 700;">DEFINITION OF A SPIN</span></div>
<div style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased !important; background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #545854; font-family: Raleway, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; margin-bottom: 10px;">
It is important to note that CASA also stated that “Flight training operators, their Heads of Operations and Flight Examiners are obliged to ensure that aircraft used for training, flight reviews and testing purposes are certified for the manoeuvres being performed.”</div>
<div style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased !important; background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #545854; font-family: Raleway, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; margin-bottom: 10px;">
The USA FAA’s Advisory Circular 23-8C, the FAR 23 Flight Test Guide, describes a spin quite generally:</div>
<div style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased !important; background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #545854; font-family: Raleway, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; margin-bottom: 10px;">
<span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: 700;"><em style="box-sizing: border-box;">“A spin is a sustained autorotation at angles-of-attack above stall.”</em></span></div>
<div style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased !important; background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #545854; font-family: Raleway, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; margin-bottom: 10px;">
It goes on to describe other attributes of a spin and explains when a fully developed spin has been attained. It does not mention an incipient spin at all.</div>
<div style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased !important; background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #545854; font-family: Raleway, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; margin-bottom: 10px;">
There are other descriptions of incipient spins, fully developed spins and spins in general around that pilots may be more familiar with however there is no single definition which is broadly accepted. I am going to use that one in AC 23-8C because that is the one used by flight test pilots and engineers. It is particularly important because they are the people who determine whether a type is approved for intentional spins or not and they write the words in the approved Airplane Flight Manual or Pilot Operating Handbook. After all, AC 23-8C explains how information is to be presented in an AFM or POH.</div>
<div style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased !important; background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #545854; font-family: Raleway, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; margin-bottom: 10px;">
i.e. I would expect the word “spin” in the aircraft manual to be consistent with that description of a spin in the FAR 23 Flight Test Guide. It is a simple description of a spin so it is not too hard for a pilot to determine whether the “incipient spin” manoeuvre being performed is a spin or not.</div>
<div style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased !important; background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #545854; font-family: Raleway, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; margin-bottom: 10px;">
<span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: 700;">SPIN CERTIFICATION IN NORMAL CATEGORY TYPES</span></div>
<div style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased !important; background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #545854; font-family: Raleway, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; margin-bottom: 10px;">
Let’s look at another relevant document from the USA in relation to a small aeroplane type certified in normal category.</div>
<div style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased !important; background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #545854; font-family: Raleway, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; margin-bottom: 10px;">
The FAA’s AC 61-67C, Stall and Spin Awareness Training, explains the background to spin test requirements of normal category types: “Normal category airplanes are not approved for the performance of acrobatic maneuvers, including spins, and are placarded against intentional spins. However, to provide a margin of safety when recovery from a stall is delayed, normal category airplanes are tested during certification and must be able to recover from a one turn spin or a 3-second spin, whichever takes longer, in not more than one additional turn with the controls used in the manner normally used for recovery or demonstrate the airplane’s resistance to spins.”</div>
<div style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased !important; background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #545854; font-family: Raleway, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; margin-bottom: 10px;">
So, normal category aeroplanes are only intended to perform stalls. You may know that the type you fly has been tested for recovery from a one turn spin however that does not mean that you are permitted to intentionally enter a spin and recover before one turn! To emphasise that, the AC goes on to state: “For normal category airplanes, there must be a placard in front of and in clear view of the pilot stating: “No acrobatic maneuvers, including spins, approved.” We now know that the relevant definition of a spin is simply a stalled autorotation which is sustained. It then states:</div>
<div style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased !important; background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #545854; font-family: Raleway, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; margin-bottom: 10px;">
<span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: 700;"><em style="box-sizing: border-box;">“The pilot of an airplane placarded against intentional spins should assume that the airplane may become uncontrollable in a spin.”</em></span></div>
<div style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased !important; background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #545854; font-family: Raleway, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; margin-bottom: 10px;">
<span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: 700;">UPSET PREVENTION AND RECOVERY TRAINING</span></div>
<div style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased !important; background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #545854; font-family: Raleway, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; margin-bottom: 10px;">
In 2016 the FAA rewrote their Airplane Flying Handbook and Chapter 4, Slow Flight Stalls and Spins, became Maintaining Aircraft Control: Upset Prevention and Recovery Training. Its explanation of the incipient spin did not change and it still states: “The pilot should initiate incipient spin recovery procedures prior to completing 360° of rotation. The pilot should apply full rudder opposite the direction of rotation. The turn indicator shows a deflection in the direction of rotation if disoriented.</div>
<div style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased !important; background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #545854; font-family: Raleway, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; margin-bottom: 10px;">
Incipient spins that are not allowed to develop into a steady-state spin are the most commonly used maneuver in initial spin training and recovery techniques.”</div>
<div style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased !important; background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #545854; font-family: Raleway, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; margin-bottom: 10px;">
The Airplane Flying Handbook has an excellent description of their Stall Recovery Template which is somewhat different than the explanation in CASA’s Flight Instructor Manual. Interestingly, the stall recovery procedure in the new Airplane Flying Handbook has changed from the previous version and now seems consistent with the FAR 23 Flight Test Guide.</div>
<div style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased !important; background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #545854; font-family: Raleway, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; margin-bottom: 10px;">
The Airplane Flying Handbook goes on to explain their Spin Recovery Template which prompts one further thought. <span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: 700;"><em style="box-sizing: border-box;">If you intentionally put the aircraft into a situation where the spin recovery procedure (per the AFM or POH) is subsequently required for recovery then you have intentionally entered a spin. Only do that in a type approved for intentional spins within the allowable weight and CG envelope.</em></span></div>
</div>
David J Pilkingtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06225630402377448000noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5188187658045408625.post-1539341150993951592018-06-14T19:14:00.000-07:002018-06-14T19:14:25.855-07:00LOC-I in Australian General Aviation<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br /></div>
<b><u>Flight Safety Australia Magazine 2016</u></b><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.flightsafetyaustralia.com/2016/03/angle-attitude-stallspin-crashes-and-how-to-avoid-them/">http://www.flightsafetyaustralia.com/2016/03/angle-attitude-stallspin-crashes-and-how-to-avoid-them/</a><br />
<br />
“According to the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB), in 2014, the number of aircraft ‘control problems’ involving general aviation (GA) aircraft was the highest [it has been] in the last 10 years. This was significantly greater than the 10-year average; however, it was consistent with the general trend (since 2010) of increasing aircraft control occurrences in GA.
Around 70 per cent of these occurrences involved aeroplanes and greater than 50 per cent involved aircraft conducting private/business/sports operations. There were 60 accidents—two fatal and six serious injury accidents—and four serious incidents. Of these occurrences, 22 were investigated by the ATSB. The most common control issues were loss of control, hard landings and wheels-up landings.<br />
<br />
The United States’ ATSB equivalent, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) notes an even stronger trend. According to the NTSB, in the past decade nearly 47 per cent of all fatal aircraft crashes involved ‘loss of control’. Of those cases, nearly 80 per cent were aerodynamic stalls, weighted heavily toward stalls in the early stages of a baulked landing (‘go-around’) of instrument missed approach. In fact, loss of control in flight (LOC-I) is involved in the greatest majority of fatal air crashes in all categories of aircraft operation that fall under the NTSB’s purview—recreational, general aviation, instructional flight, business flying, corporate (professional flight crew) operations and even commercial airline flights.<br />
<br />
Whoever’s data you use, it’s clear that we need to know a lot more about stalls and spins, and how to avoid them.”<br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>It is worth repeating that last statement – CASA's flagship aviation safety magazine stated that “we need to know a lot more about stalls and spins, and how to avoid them.”</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b><u>FAA Most Wanted</u></b><br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/mwl/Pages/default.aspx">https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/mwl/Pages/default.aspx</a><br />
<br />
The FAA's most wanted issues are quite clear - prevention of loss of control in flight for GA is one of them and there is much activity in the USA to address this - education and technology including regulation (new FAR 23, pilot training).<br />
<br />
<a href="https://safetycompass.wordpress.com/2018/05/14/roundtable-discussion-about-loss-of-control-in-flight-yields-some-important-ideas/">https://safetycompass.wordpress.com/2018/05/14/roundtable-discussion-about-loss-of-control-in-flight-yields-some-important-ideas/ </a><br />
<br />
"Incorporate more realistic scenarios into flight training regarding stalls. Ensure pilots have the confidence to do stall recovery."<br />
<br />
The FAA and NTSB are much more active than the ATSB and CASA!
The flight training industry in the USA is also much more active than in Australia.<br />
<br />
<b><u>What the NTSB and FAA Do</u></b><br />
<br />
Refer <a href="https://www.flyingmag.com/preventing-loss-control-with-training-technology?src=SOC&dom=fb" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;">https://www.flyingmag.com/preventing-loss-control-with-training-technology?src=SOC&dom=fb</a><br />
<br />
“Loss of aircraft control remains the No. 1 killer of general aviation pilots, according to the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). At an industry roundtable hosted by the NTSB at its Washington, D.C., headquarters in April, the hot topic was how better training and technology can help pilots do a better job of flying their airplanes safely. (For a complete video archive and transcript of the discussion, visit the NTSB.)<br />
<br />
Several of the participants suggested that flight instructors generally need more experience with slow flight and stalls so that they can teach their students to quickly and confidently recognize and recover from these conditions.”<br />
<br />
“The FAA Airplane Flying Handbook was updated in 2016, and the chapter on slow flight and stalls is now titled Maintaining Aircraft Control: Upset Prevention and Recovery Training. The FAA defines an upset as “an event that unintentionally exceeds the parameters normally experienced in flight or in training,” such as excessive pitch attitudes and/or bank angles, or “flying at airspeeds inappropriate for the conditions.”<br />
<br />
The handbook suggests that to avoid upsets, pilots should receive upset recovery and prevention training, including slow flight, stalls, spins and unusual attitudes.”<br />
<br />
Also refer <a href="http://www.boldmethod.com/learn-to-fly/regulations/the-faa-updated-their-guidance-on-flight-reviews-will-it-make-flying-safer/">http://www.boldmethod.com/learn-to-fly/regulations/the-faa-updated-their-guidance-on-flight-reviews-will-it-make-flying-safer/</a><br />
<br />
“The FAA just released AC 61-98D to help beef up what pilots and instructors cover in their flight reviews. While it doesn't change the regulation and minimum training requirement of FAR 61.56, it does recommend where pilots should spend their time in the review, in an effort to lower accident rates.<br />
<br />
<b><i>Loss Of Control Is The Major Concern</i></b><br />
<br />
According to the FAA, Loss Of Control (LOC) was the number one cause for GA fatalities from 2001 through 2010.”<br />
<br />
From that AC 61-98D:<br />
<br />
“Regardless of the pilot’s experience, the flight instructor should review at least
those maneuvers considered critical to safe flight, such as:<br />
• Takeoffs;<br />
• Stabilized approaches to landings;<br />
• Slow flight;<br />
• Stall recognition, stalls, and stall recovery;<br />
• Spin recognition and avoidance;<br />
• Recovery from unusual attitudes; and<br />
• Operating the aircraft by sole reference to instruments under actual or simulated conditions.”<br />
<br />
<b><i>It is worth repeating this item: “Spin recognition and avoidance”!</i></b><br />
<br />
The FAA’s AC 61-67C Stall and Spin Awareness Training is also relevant on the subject of flight training for stalls:<br />
<br />
“The flight training required by part 61 does not entail the actual practicing of spins for other
than flight instructor-airplane and flight instructor-glider applicants, but emphasizes stall and spin
avoidance. The most effective training method contained in Report No. FAA-RD-77-26 is the
simulation of scenarios that can lead to inadvertent stalls by creating distractions while the student is practicing certain maneuvers. Stall demonstrations and practice, including maneuvering during
slow flight and other maneuvers with distractions that can lead to inadvertent stalls, should be
conducted at a sufficient altitude to enable recovery above 1,500 feet AGL in single-engine
airplanes and 3,000 feet AGL in multiengine airplanes. The following training elements are based
on Report No. FAA-RD-77-26:<br />
a. Stall Avoidance Practice at Slow Airspeeds. ………<br />
b. Power-On (Departure) Stall. ……<br />
c. Engine Failure in a Climb Followed by a Gliding Turn. This demonstration will show the student how much altitude the airplane loses following a power failure after takeoff and during a turn back to the runway and why returning to the airport after losing an engine is not a recommended procedure. This can be performed using either a medium or steep bank in the turn, but emphasis should be given to stall avoidance. …….<br />
d. <b><i>Cross Controlled Stalls in Gliding Turns</i></b>. Perform stalls in gliding turns to simulate turns from base to final. Perform the stalls from a properly coordinated turn, a slipping turn, and a skidding turn. Explain the difference between slipping and skidding turns. Explain the ball indicator position in each turn and the aircraft behavior in each of the stalls.<br />
e. Power-Off (Approach-To-Landing) Stalls. ……<br />
f. Stalls During Go-Arounds. …..<br />
g. Elevator Trim Stall. (1) Have the student place the airplane in a landing approach configuration, in a trimmed descent. (2) After the descent is established, initiate a go-around by adding full power, holding only light elevator and right rudder pressure. (3) Allow the nose to pitch up and torque to swerve the airplane left. At the first indication of a stall, recover to a normal climbing pitch attitude. ………”<br />
<br />
This is much more thorough than a typical training syllabus conforming to CASA’s Part 61 MOS.<br />
<br />
<b><u>Question</u></b><br />
<br />
I don't see the ATSB and CASA putting adequate attention to LOC-I. Particularly disappointed to read about one such accident where the pilot had a history of handling the aeroplane such that a stall/spin was most likely YET the report guessed that the cause of the engine failure was carburettor icing and both CASA and ATSB promptly promoted the avoidance of carburettor icing and totally ignored what caused the fatalities - stall/spin. An engine failure should not result in death.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.safepilots.org/library/contributed/White%20Paper_LearnToTurn_StowellWinburn_2016.pdf">https://www.safepilots.org/library/contributed/White%20Paper_LearnToTurn_StowellWinburn_2016.pdf</a><br />
<br />
<b><i>Refer the 1944 book Stick and Rudder to ATSB/CASA reports in 2007 to the Flight Safety Magazine article of 2016 to now. The biggest single cause of fatal GA accidents is stall/spin from a turn. Why don't ATSB and CASA tackle LOC-I with the same fervour as in the USA?</i></b><br />
<br />
I put that question to Greg Hood, CEO ATSB, at the RAeS Hargrave Lecture and Dinner on 13/6/18 and he agreed that the history of accidents in the last twelve months supported the need to take more action.<br />
<br />
<b><u>DJP’s OPINION</u></b><br />
<br />
I posted these notes on 7th June, prior to the Moorabbin accident:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://aerobaticsaustralia.net/?p=165">http://aerobaticsaustralia.net/?p=165</a><br />
<br />
A change in the emphasis and guidance by CASA could have a marked effect on the skills and awareness of all GA pilots:<br />
<br />
1. In RPL and PPL tests plus CPL tests in single engine aircraft only, examiners should require the incipient spin entry and recovery (mandatory for the test) to be from a turn. After all, CASR 61.195 already requires all pilots to have been trained and assessed as competent in these exercises prior to the test.<br />
<br />
2. The above action will result in more emphasis being placed on LOC-I skills and awareness training by flight training schools.<br />
<br />
3. The same emphasis on LOC-I should be placed on Aeroplane Flight Reviews – again, the requirement is already in the regulations so only requires guidance when the existing CAAP 5.81-1 is rewritten as an Advisory Circular.<br />
<br />
4. These actions would require improved stall/spin awareness training and ongoing refresher training for many instructors.<br />
<br />
<b><i>CASA's flagship aviation safety magazine stated in 2016 that “we need to know a lot more about stalls and spins, and how to avoid them.”</i></b></div>
David J Pilkingtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06225630402377448000noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5188187658045408625.post-32773291199112592832015-11-26T13:09:00.000-08:002015-11-26T13:09:11.516-08:00Contest Categories<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br /></div>
</HEAD>
<BODY LANG="en-AU" DIR="LTR">
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm">The trouble with being on holiday is
that there is too much spare time which occasionally leads to
cogitation. Today it is the aerobatic contest categories.</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm"><BR>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm">For a long while, contest entry level
was Sportsman then Intermediate, Advanced and Unlimited. This
mirrored the IAC as, in Australia, we initially followed the IAC
rules. I can remember typing up (i.e. on a small manual typewriter so
it was many years ago) the first set of rules for the AAC tailored
for us. Only Unlimited was in the realm of CIVA back then. We used to
use the IAC Known sequences for many years.</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm"><BR>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm">CIVA has progressively expanded its
scope to now include Intermediate / Yak 52 and Advanced – all
with a distinctively European flavour as each country gets one vote.
As CIVA swings in favour of the aeroplane types prevalent there the
IAC sensibly continues to do it the way that suits their many members
in the USA and the airplane types used there.</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm"><BR>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm">For a while CIVA tried to limit the
performance of aircraft types in their lower categories but has long
discarded that philosophy. Meanwhile the IAC sensibly maintains its
policies of access to various categories with appropriate airplane
types readily available.</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm"><BR>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm">As the capability of newer aircraft
improved we saw the resulting category creep particularly in Advanced
and Unlimited.</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm"><BR>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm">Sportsman was considered too hard to
start with so Graduate was born. That was too hard for a few so we
have Entry category. How many people have seen a pilot compete in
Entry? Personally, I have only ever seen one such flight in a T-28.</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm"><BR>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm">Every now and then I hear talk of
another special category for RV pilots.</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm"><BR>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm">We now have CIVA Intermediate and AAC
Intermediate. Talk of an Intermediate category without snap rolls for
Decathlons.</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm"><BR>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm">We have many Yak 52s in Australia and
we occasionally see one at a contest. I have seen one fly
Intermediate prior to that category flying the Yak 52 sequence. I
have seen one accomplished Yak 52 pilot attempt to practice the Yak
52 / Intermediate Known but was unable to do it competitively so
withdrew to Sportsman. Hardly seems sensible to have a Yak 52
sequence with no Yak 52 competitors.</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm"><BR>
</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm">How many competitors at a typical
aerobatic contest? My estimation is that everyone will come home with
a trophy.</P>
<P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm"><BR>
</P>
</BODY>
David J Pilkingtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06225630402377448000noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5188187658045408625.post-61125142087736590712011-12-27T16:31:00.000-08:002015-11-26T12:14:48.915-08:00CASR Part 61 - Flight crew licensingCASA has a new Consultation Draft - CASR Part 61 - Flight crew licensing with 3 Feb 2012 the closing date for comments.
<br>
When the first draft of Part 61 came out about ten years ago we also had a draft Advisory Circular 91-075 to read in conjunction with it to explain how it would work - as far as aerobatics is concerned. It is also important to read it in conjunction with the draft Part 91. This time we don't have a draft AC and I really fail to see how CASA would make their draft regs wrt aerobatics function practically.
<br>
Discussion points follow.
<br>
The first point about the new regs is that it is a two tier system replacing the existing three tier system i.e. there will be no CAO equivalent. The regs should define the essential requirements leaving the AC to describe a method of compliance - in the case of aerobatics I would expect that would also represent internal CASA policy therefore mandated as the way that delegates would operate. Perhaps there will be a Manual of Standards instead of ACs for some elements.
<br>
One of the big changes with Part 61 is the Recreational Pilot Licence with limited medical certification permitting aerobatics.
<br>
Other relevant (to aerobatics) changes relate to the administration of flight activity endorsements and a different structure for instructor ratings including provision for PPL instructors. A PPL is still unable to be pilot in command if he/she receives remuneration or if the operation requires an AOC so a PPL instructor rating is of very limited use or benefit.
<br>
61.1030 defines the flight activity endorsements:
<br>
■ spinning – upright, above 3,000 ft AGL
<br>
■ aerobatics, above 3,000 ft AGL
<br>
■ low level aerobatics – down to 1500 ft AGL
<br>
■ unlimited aerobatics – at any altitude
<br>
■ formation aerobatics – a new endorsement
<br>
Subpart 61.T is all about instructor ratings. Somewhat similar to what we have now but some significant changes in how they are structured. We'll have endorsements for spin training, aerobatics training, formation training and formation aerobatics training.
<br>
Let's start with the new formation aerobatics endorsement. Australia is already much more severely regulated wrt aerobatics and formation flying than the UK and the USA. The UK is about to get EASA rules for aerobatics (let's not mention EASA's contribution to the European economy) so is slowly catching up to our bureacracy.
<br>
Hopefully there's an appropriate consideration of the transition to this new rule so that instructors who currently hold aerobatic and formation training authorities and who also have formation aerobatic experience will be granted this formation aerobatic training endorsement. If not, how does an instructor get one? Remember that CASA does not recognise military aerobatic and formation aerobatic endorsements (hopefully they will fix that now too).
<br>
That might leave us with a handfull of instructors around the country who could provide this training, not a very big market for it so no-one is going to spend much money to obtain the training authority. I've already declined to be in an aeroplane to instruct some-one in formation aerobatics - been a while since I have done it and I don't like the idea of being either PIC or passenger in an aeroplane while some-one is getting up to speed. Much better that they get some ground training and coaching from me then progress from there - a big subject and a lot of effort but they'll find it hard to get an instructor in the aeroplane with them, in my opinion. I would work with some-one from the other aircraft in developing their skills - if I trust them, we have suitable aeroplanes, wear parachutes and work up to it etc.
<br>
Question is - what is the rationale for introducing this new requirement?
<br>
Now for the spinning endorsement. i.e. upright spins above 3,000 ft AGL.
<br>
CAAP 155-1 has the flight standard and underpinning knowledge requirements (see also the CASA Day VFR Syllabus) so all pretty clear there. The CAAP also has some good, although brief, guidance on different types and recovery techniques.
<br>
The instructor rating endorsement for spin training is different in the draft new regs as there is no mention of the current requirement for it to be specific to "those aeroplanes for which he or she has been certified as competent to give such instruction". This was in recognition of some quite important differences in spin characteristics and in recovery techniques between different types. Good to recognise that but to regulate to that detail is really unworkable.
<br>
The AC could easily expand on the CAAP by providing details on the groups of aircraft (those certified for intentional spinning) with some typical characteristics and the different recovery actions.
<br>
Need consideration of Limited Category aircraft as they are approved for aerobatic training operations however not certified so what is known about their spin behaviour? Experimental (homebuilt) aeroplanes can also have characteristics which are potentially dangerous if not known to the instructor but can they be used for spin training? With a newish certified aeroplane the information must be in the Flight Manual. Old ones such as the Tiger Moth get by with tribal knowledge.
<br>
No mention of the inverted spin endorsement at all!
Let's move on to the basic aerobatic endorsement - above 3,000 ft. The existing endorsement is specified in the CAO and therefore in CAAP 155-1 however there was much discussion on this a decade ago when the previous draft Part 61 was floated.
<br>
Barrel roll, loop, slow roll, stall turn and roll off the top.
<br>
My recollection is that some years ago there used to be a note to the effect that unless some-one had an endorsement comprising all five manoeuvres then that person was restricted to just performing the manoeuvres listed in the endorsement. The current note states that "If a pilot is approved to carry out more than 1 of these manoeuvres, he or she may carry out combinations of those manoeuvres." A roll off the top is a combination manoeuvre which can therefore be performed if some-one doesn't have it listed but has the other four?
<br>
I find the roll off the top useful as a definite additional skill is required. No reason to mandate it though. Some instructors teach half Cubans instead of the Immelmann (roll off the top).
<br>
Quite a few instructors give an aileron roll endorsement rather than slow roll which is quite fair in my opinion especially if learning in a Cessna Aerobat. I find that those pilots work their way around to doing passable slow rolls with a bit of practice (if they wish to develop the technique so) with no danger to themselves.
<br>
There are some who believe that snap (or flick) roll should be included as a basic manoeuvre. If mandated that would rule out some commonly used aerobatic trainers.
<br>
Regardless of whether an instructor conforms exactly to CASA's aerobatic endoesement or not, most instructors will include recoveries from extreme unusual attitudes or failed aerobatic manoeuvres. In my opinion that is the most important element of an aerobatic course yet is not specified in the CAO and gets limited acknowledgement in the CAAP.
<br>
I am sure that there will be much discussion on this. One may very well ask what happens in other comparable countries.
<br>
Low level aerobatics down to 1500 ft AGL.
<br>
The current regulations state that aerobatics may not be performed below 3,000 ft AGL without CASA permission. Hence the basic aerobatic endorsement restricts people to aerobatics above 3,000 ft. Same with spinning. (What about a stall in a normal category aircraft?) To perform aerobatics below 3,000 ft and above 1500 ft currently one must go to a CASA delegate, do the test described in the CAAP and, if successful, come away with that permission from CASA. Worth mentioning that the test officer will probably ask the reason for wanting to do aerobatics below 3,000 ft.
<br>
Nowhere in the new rules does it mandate a minimum altitude of 3,000 ft nor any other altitude. It is now intended to be controlled by individual pilot authorisations. The basic aerobatic endorsement and the spin endorsement will come with a limitation of above 3,000 ft AGL. (I say again, what about a stall in a normal category aircraft - what will be the minimum height for that?)
<br>
No mention of a spin endorsement below 3,000 ft AGL.
<br>
The draft Part 61 has no mention of who can authorise aerobatics down to 1500 ft AGL.
<br>
Currently a low level aerobatic approval may be limited to a period of two years or, perhaps after being renewed, may be permanent.
<br>
Aerobatics below 1,500 ft AGL is even more vague in the draft Part 61. We don't need much detail in the reg as the activity is fairly limited and tailored to individuals. The draft uses the term "unlimited" which will conflict with the same term used as a specific aerobatic competition category.
<br>
Currently it follows the same process as for aerobatics down to 1500 ft AGL with fewer delegates authorised at lower altitudes and keener CASA interest at lower altitudes. Additionally, there is another rule somewhere that flight below 500 ft requires specific CASA approval so aerobatics below that height is also subject to that additional approval with respect to location and date.
<br>
Competition pilots typically work progressively through the categories and lower altitudes with reviews and checks along the way to getting the next lower altitude approval by CASA or a delegate.
<br>
The regulatory reform program has been a long time coming and there are some good things in Part 61 so it would be good to implement it in my lifetime. It really needs to be implemented in conjunction with Part 91 which needs much more work after the draft earlier this year. I would expect a reasonable transition period with suitable arrangements for new authorisations granted on the basis of existing authorisations. CAAP 155-1 Aerobatics needs to be rewritten as an Advisory Circular which will require much thought and effort from where we are now. We should not make the Part 61 regulation any more prescriptive or detailed than it need be but rather manage aerobatic activities by the AC. Much easier to change the AC in future than the regulation. I know that people will say that an AC is advisory and it is true that the words will say that it is only one means of compliance with the regulations and therefore possible to do things contrary to the AC. To ensure that the AC is followed the individual authorisations and delegations must specify the AC as a mandatory condition - unless some-one has arranged a variation with CASA.
<br>
The draft Part 61 therefore needs some minor changes to ensure no misunderstanding of the essential requirement. Let's consider those first and then consider the content of the AC.
<br>
The USA has a minimum height of 1500 ft for aerobatics below which an FAA waiver is required. UK has no minimum height specified. Seems strange to me that CASA intends leaving it to industry and sport associations to manage entirely without retaining the hook as they do now by requiring CASA approval below a specified height (currently 3,000 ft). Consider some-one who receives an authorisation from their mate to conduct aerobatics down to "ground up" on a permanent basis. With the proposed reg that would remain in effect for life even if the person doesn't exercise it for, say, 50 years then one day decides to have a go at a ripe old age. Perhaps CASA doesn't want to retain the administrative burden of keeping records of all the low level permissions.
<br>
Seems to me that CASA should stay involved for aerobatics below 1500 ft to the extent of keeping records of such approvals and having the ability to cancel any if justified. There aren't that many that it is much of a burden. Above 1500 ft is of lesser concern to safety. i.e. I believe the existing rule of a specified minimum height for aerobatics, without CASA approval, should be retained and that height should be 1500 ft. That would be in Part 91.
<br>
It certainly doesn't mean that anyone with an aerobatic endorsement and spin endorsement can operate down to 1500 ft. The approvals mentioned above for those endorsements would be limited to operations above 3,000 ft AGL.
<br>
The requirement for an inverted spin endorsement has been with us for less than ten years and is not in the draft Part 61.
<br>
Before we go any further let's consider some case studies and discuss what the objectives of mandating any particular endorsement (and therefore training) in the regulation may be. These are real situations, not made up, The current rules mandate identical training and endorsements for all three.
<br>
First is M, who bought his lovely 7ECA Citabria before he got his GFPT. He just wanted to do casual Sunday afternoon aerobatics on a nice day every now and then. The Citabria pretty much behaves per "the book" as an aeroplane. The standard spin training is appropriate. Do the right thing and the aeroplane responds. Do the wrong thing and you can get into trouble. No inverted system and it tosses oil onto the airframe with any negative g so we'd rather do ballistic aileron rolls to keep a little positive g ratehr than competition style slow rolls. Similar thought with the roll off the top. I don't like doing snap rolls in a Citabria so M won't do them. The aerobatic endorsement per the current regs however is not too far off what I would recommend for M to be safe.
<br>
Next is S who also bought an aeroplane before he gained his GFPT. He got an Airtourer. Spin recovery is pretty much intuitive (for some-one who meets the stated GFPT standard for stalls). Quite a robust aeroplane with very high margins for airspeed above normal operating speeds. S is a pretty switched on guy and wouldn't do aerobatics without having received appropriate training. But to achieve the same level of safety as M I can imagine some-one saying to him: buy Stan Tilley's book on doing aerobatics in the Airtourer, go up high and have a go. That is perfectly legal in the USA and people do it.
<br>
The final case study is J who also has yet to complete his GFPT and has just purchased a Pitts Special. My recommendation on the minimum scope of training is totally different to the above. Same objectives as S and M - just wants to do the occasional loop and roll, certainly doesn't want to exploit the full potential of that aeroplane. He will never intentionally perform an inverted spin so doesn't need the endorsement. He will need extensive training in advanced spinning - upright, inverted, steep, flat, accelerated. Cross-over spins. Slow rolls are easy. Stall turns - so easily goes wrong with a violent entry to an inverted flat spin. Similar issue with the roll off the top. Snapping off the top of a loop is just too easy. I wouldn't give anyone a "check-out" in an aeroplane like that without extensive training in advanced spinning and aerobatics.
<br>
Back to the questions:
<br>
•what should be mandated in the regulation as an aerobatic endorsement?
<br>
•is an inverted spin endorsement required?
<br>
The Canadian Air Regulations apparently state that to conduct Aerobatics with a passenger, one of the following must be met, Pilot must be a holder of an aerobatic instructor rating OR have completed a 10 hour course and have their pilot logbook signed off, OR have completed 20 hours of solo aerobatic practice and have completed 1 hour of either solo or dual practice in the last 6 months.
<br>
It is worthwhile considering what is about to happen in the UK. Currently virtually no regulatory involvement in aerobatics at all but they are about to be included in the new EASA regs. Not totally inclusive as they will only apply to "EASA aeroplanes".
<br>
"FCL.800 Aerobatic rating
<br>
(a) Holders of a pilot licence for aeroplanes, TMG or sailplanes shall only undertake aerobatic flights when they hold the appropriate rating.
<br>
(b) Applicants for an aerobatic rating shall have completed:
<br>
(1) at least 40 hours of flight time or, in the case of sailplanes, 120 launches as PIC in the appropriate aircraft category, completed after the issue of the licence;
<br>
(2) a training course at an ATO, including:
<br>
(i) theoretical knowledge instruction appropriate for the rating;
<br>
(ii) at least 5 hours or 20 flights of aerobatic instruction in the appropriate aircraft category.
<br>
(c) The privileges of the aerobatic rating shall be limited to the aircraft category in which the flight instruction was completed. The privileges will be extended to another category of aircraft if the pilot holds a licence for that aircraft category and has successfully completed at least 3 dual training flights covering the full aerobatic training syllabus in that category of aircraft."
<br>
This new EASA aerobatic rating is likely to feature in CASA considerations as they seem enamoured of EASA regs as best practice worldwide - not that I've seen evidence of that in practice for GA operations.
<br>
I'm not sure what will be required in such a five hour course however the 2008 draft EASA training was:
<br>
Aerobatic Rating – Theoretical knowledge and flying training
<br>
1. The aim of the aerobatic training is to qualify licence holders to perform aerobatic manoeuvres.
<br>
2. The approved training organisation should issue a certificate of satisfactory completion of the instruction for the purpose of licence endorsement.
<br>
THEORETICAL KNOWLEDGE
<br>
3. The theoretical knowledge syllabus should cover the revision and/or explanation of:
<br>
3.1. Human factors and body limitation
– spatial disorientation
– airsickness
– body stress and g forces, positive and negative
– effects of grey and black out
<br>
3.2. Technical subjects
– legislation affecting aerobatic flying to include environmental and noise subjects
– principles of aerodynamics to include slow flight, stalls and spins, flat and inverted
– general airframe and engine limitations
<br>
3.3. Limitations applicable to the specific aircraft category (and type)
– airspeed limitations (aeroplane, helicopter, touring motor glider, sailplane – as applicable)
– symmetric load factors (type related as applicable)
– rolling g’s (type related – as applicable)
<br>
3.4. Aerobatic manoeuvres and recovery
– entry parameters
– planning systems and sequencing of manoeuvres
– rolling manoeuvres
– over the top manoeuvres
– combination manoeuvres
– entry and recovery from developed spins, flat, accelerated and inverted
<br>
3.5. Emergency procedures
– recovery from unusual attitudes
– drills to include use of parachutes and aircraft abandonment
<br>
FLYING TRAINING
<br>
4. The exercises of the aerobatic flying training syllabus should be repeated as necessary until the applicant achieves a safe and competent standard. The training should be tailored to the category of aircraft and limited to the permitted manoeuvres of that type of aircraft. The exercises should comprise at least the following practical training items (if permitted):
<br>
4.1. Aerobatic manoeuvres
– Chandelle
– Lazy Eight
– Aileron Roll
– Barrel Roll
– Rudder Roll
– Loop and inverted loop
– Immelmann
– Split S
<br>
4.2. Confidence manoeuvres and recoveries
– slow flights and stalls
– steep turns
– side slips
– engine restart in flight (if applicable)
– spins and recovery
– recovery from spiral dives
– recovery from unusual attitudes
<br>
I should mention New Zealand sometime. They started their regulatory reform program at about the same time as Australia and largely completed it a very long time ago. They have an aerobatic rating so it is more bureaucratic than our flight activity endorsement however it all seems quite sensible.
<br>
“a current aerobatic flight rating authorises the holder to conduct aerobatic manoeuvres within the following limitations:
(1) at a height not less than 3000 feet above the surface while carrying a passenger:
(2) at a height not less than 1500 feet above the surface while not carrying a passenger:
(3) at a height less than 1500 feet above the surface while not carrying a passenger when authorised by the holder of an aviation recreation organisation certificate issued in accordance with Part 149, if the certificate authorises the holder to organise aviation events.”
<br>
They require a competency check every two years.
<br>
“The flight training course should provide an introduction to the basic aerobatic manoeuvres with an emphasis on their safe and accurate execution.
<br>
The flight training course should consist of dual instruction, solo practice and consolidation.
<br>
The flight training course should cover in practice all the elements of the ground course. Particular attention should be given to engine management, the aerodynamic and loading affects of aerobatic flight on the aircraft, disorientation effects on the pilot, and the elemental need for safety,particularly recovery from unusual attitudes, the management of energy, height above the ground and situational awareness.
<br>
The course ought to be flexible enough to cater for aircraft of different performance and
capabilities.
<br>
Advanced turns (more than 60-degrees of bank angle)
<br>
Spinning
<br>
Loops
<br>
Rolls
<br>
Stall turns
<br>
Combinations - eg Half cubans, half reverse cubans, and rolls off the top.
<br>
Emergencies and recovery from unusual attitudes.
<br>
It may include:
<br>
Snap rolls or other manoeuvres at the discretion of the instructor, and dependent on pilot
aptitude and aircraft integrity.”
<br>
We could do a lot worse than becoming a state of NZ and adopting their aviation regulations.
<br>
Anyway, let's try for the minimum change to the draft Part 61 as we don't want to hold it up too much and let's try to make it somewhat consistent with the way we do things now however let's make it a bit more flexible.
<br>
1. CASA should retain (in Part 91) a requirement that aerobatics below 1500 ft AGL is not permitted without permission by CASA. The current requirement is 3000 ft AGL. The 1500 ft AGL requirement is identical to the USA and retains increased control over very low level aerobatics. Permissions below 1500 ft AGL may be limited as they are now – refer the CAAP. Per the draft Part 61, aerobatics below 3000 ft AGL down to 1500 ft AGL is a flight activity statement so provided by a log book entry.
<br>
2. The requirement for a formation aerobatic endorsement must be deleted as it is not workable and I see no reason to introduce it.
<br>
3. I expect the spin (upright) endorsement to be supported by training and knowledge requirements as it is now by the Day VFR Syllabus.
<br>
4. I support the deletion of the inverted spin endorsement as I could so no reason for its introduction in the '90s.
<br>
5. The basic aerobatic endorsement should be defined to include loop, aileron roll, stall turn and unusual attitude recoveries (failed attempts at these three manoeuvres).
<br>
6. Unlimited aerobatics flight activity is deleted as it becomes a permission from CASA or a delegate as currently.
<br>
A new Advisory Circular will be required and this should be based on the current CAAP 155-1 with the following changes consistent with the draft Part 61 if it is changed per my recommendations above.
<br>
1. CASA delegates will be required to issue permissions for aerobatics below 1500 ft AGL. Instructors who hold low level aerobatic permissions to 1500 ft AGL and authorised persons should be able to issue permissions to perform aerobatics (including spins) down to 1500 ft AGL.
<br>
2. The AC should include guidance on the content of aerobatic training which will depend on the capability and performance of the type in which the training is done.David J Pilkingtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06225630402377448000noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5188187658045408625.post-66045130577766389422011-11-05T03:59:00.000-07:002011-12-27T16:32:45.611-08:00Aerobatic Contest Rules Discussion NotesJust some discussion notes about the Australian Aerobatic Club's Regulations (current version March 2010). The Contest Director is responsible for "conducting the contest in accordance with AAC ... Regulations" (I won't include CIVA rules in this discussion). They'll never be perfect but they should be continually reviewed and amended as appropriate to reflect how we want to run contests. i.e. we expect the Contest Director to follow the rules at the time.
4.3 REASONS FOR DISQUALIFICATION
"b) Technical Devices - the use of technical devices for the purpose of coaching during a competition flight is prohibited."
Seems to me that some people use video cameras on board the aircraft during a competition flight so are they cheating or not?
4.4 ETHICS
"Abuse of any contest official or other contestant is grounds for disqualification from the contest."
From the introduction, the AAC "acts through the Australian Sport Aviation Confederation" which has an anti-doping policy covering all sport aviation members from 1 January 2009. "This Anti-Doping Policy shall apply to each Participant in the activities of ASAC or any of its Member organisations by virtue of the Participant's membership, accreditation, or participation in ASAC, its Members, or their activities or Events." So, it seems to me that this policy applies to AAC events.
In addition, "All members of ASAC member organisations have a duty to uphold the good name of ASAC and the air sports community. They must not tolerate harassment, discrimination or abuse, physical or mental, on other members of that community or of society as a whole." It seems to me that the ASAC code of ethics applies to the AAC and its members. If the Contest Director is responsible for conducting the contest in accordance with AAC Regulations so a participant is right to expect that to be done - the Contest Director may have a valid reason to do otherwise however I would not expect a Contest Director to simply bully contestants into actions contrary to the rules.
4.6 PILOT BRIEFING
"k) It is recommended that, when possible. a "warm up" flight for the judges and contestants be flown in Known and Unknown programmes by a pilot who is a non-competing pilot. Such pilot shall fly the low altitude line(s)."
I have rarely seen a warm up flight, certainly not in recent memory so if this is not going to be done the rule should be removed.
Note also rule 3.17 a) whereby "All competitors will be allowed one training flight for familiarisation with the local conditions over the performance zone." There has been much discussion on this point over the years, often in the context of familiarity with the contest venue providing undue advantage. The related rule 3.17 d) forbidding other practice flights is also relevant as such flights were argued to also provide additional undue advantage (notwithstanding that some competitors arrive at the contest site far ahead of the contest to practice with no restrictions).
This warm-up pilot flies the low altitude limits, not the first competitor. Having the first competitor fly the low altitude lines is njot provided for under any rule and would seem to be contrary to the spirit of the rules forbidding extra practice thereby gaining additional familiarisation.
4.14 TIME LIMITATIONS
"a) A time limit of 15 minutes will apply for ..... Graduate, Sportsman and Intermediate Programmes. This will deem to start when the competitor is called into the Performance Zone ...". Aerobatic aircraft have vastly different climb performance. Some will get from take-off to altitude in less than a minute. Others may take 10 minutes. The same discrepancy is displayed with the time between the safety check manoeuvres and commencement of the sequence. The same discrepancy will show up for any break.
To be fair, each competitor should have available the same amount of time in the performance zone. Total time should be allocated to aircraft of varying performance to allow equal participation in the contest. i.e. either reduce the time limit for high performance aircraft or increase it for lower performance aircraft. Three categories of performance would seem to be workable.
Also, the variable start of timing is clearly not fair. Some pilots are called into the box from the holding area, some from take-off and some upon completion of flying the lower limits for the judges. In a very high performance aircraft the different applications may not matter however in a low performance aircraft the different applications are very significant. The commencement of timing should be clarified so that low performance aircraft are not unduly penalised.David J Pilkingtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06225630402377448000noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5188187658045408625.post-56937774747998211892010-12-05T17:53:00.000-08:002018-12-12T14:37:00.490-08:00Your Street<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
From the Sunday Herald-Sun newspaper on The Basin, just down the road from us:<br />
" Local councils are filled with petty bureaucrats obsessed with over-regulating the lives of suburban residents."<br />
<a href="http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/sunday-heraldsun/sick-of-council-bureaucracy/story-e6frf92f-1225965654863"></a><br />
Reminds me of the tree saga. We called the council tree expert as we were worried about one tree. He said that was OK but identified two others that should be removed - that was 10 years ago and all are still doing well. At the same time we mentioned a dead tree next to the road just at the front of our place. They weren't interested in removing it. Electricity company sent me a letter demanding removal as it was near the power lines and unsafe - I told them to talk to council. It was indeed unsafe - it came down on the road one night, fortunately no-one was injured.<br />
The there was the spa pool fence. I rang the council and was told that I needed a permit for the fence around my portable spa pool. I filled in the form and sent the money. Got a phone call from them a few days later asking why I did that! This other guy said that I didn't need a permit and refunded my money. However, he did say that the fence would need to be inspected to make sure it was safe. "If I don't need a permit how do you know the fence is going to be there to inspect" .. "Well, we know now so we want to inspect it."<br />
The Herald-Sun moved on to the subject of "Preachers stop in their tracks":<br />
"There's a sign at Anita Elkington's front door that tells bible-bashers in two short words what they can do with their gospel message. ... As the wife of a retired policeman she is riled by injustice. ... and can't understand why young ratbags gain pleasure from mindless vandalism .. glass bus shelters are often smashed .. Why do the dickheads keep putting glass back in the bus shelters anyway when they know they're going to get smashed again."</div>
David J Pilkingtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06225630402377448000noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5188187658045408625.post-58907700513388326552010-09-10T03:00:00.000-07:002010-09-10T03:00:28.009-07:00Too Dumb To FlyEditorial in the Sept-Oct issue of <a href="http://www.aopa.com.au/">AOPA's magazine</a>, Australian Pilot.<br />
"A group of us was standing around the other day discussing the death of a fellow pilot in a crash. The newspaper story on the accident which took the pilot's life (and that of his passenger), told the usual story about what a great bloke he had been and how he had died "doing what he loved."<br />
We all made the appropriate noises about how terrible the whole thing was for the man's family, especially for the family of the passenger who died.<br />
Then one member of our group muttered that the crash had not come as a surprise to him and that he would never have flown with the pilot. "He was an accident waiting to happen, that bloke," he said.<br />
Others mumbled their agreement, obviously reluctant to speak of the dead.<br />
I hadn't knowm the pilot and so pressed them for more information. Gradually, the members of the group who had known the dead pilot, admitted more and more information about him.<br />
They told me he had been warned several times by other pilots about his dangerous flying behaviour, that he'd been warned not to try to do aerobatic flying in an aircraft not suitable for it, and warned not to do seat-of-your-pants flying with a passenger on board if he was not qualified to do so.<br />
Despite the warning, he had continued to fly that way, obviously supremely confident of his own ability. He got away with it every time too, until that last time.<br />
The dead pilot had received the same rigourous training as we all have, so common sense suggests merely insisting on more training would not have been a solution to preventing this accident.<br />
The problem turned out to be in his mind, not in his hands.<br />
...<br />
Maybe the only way to bring down the road toll and to weed out dangerous pilots is to prevent people with bad attitudes from getting behind the wheel in the first place."<br />
<br />
Tony Kern's excellent book, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Darker-Shades-Blue-Rogue-Pilot/dp/0070349274#reader_0070349274">Darker Shades of Blue: The Rogue Pilot,</a> deals with the same subject in much more detail. Hey, isn't that a Decathlon on the cover? Could he be writing about us?<br />
<br />
I've been promoting peer reviews per CASA's Aerobatics CAAP 155-1 for some time. I've had some vocal opposition on the basis that "we already do that" - nope, read the above editorial again - that is what you are doing and it rarely works. Peer reviews have one important difference which makes all the difference - the pilots asks people that he respects for opinions on his safety. If he doesn't ask, then that's fine with me, it is not compulsory but it doesn't take much time or effort and it doesn't cost anything. If he does ask then he should be given a truthful response not just a "feel good" stamp of approval.<br />
<br />
A few years ago, one of my friends rang me to say he saw a flying instructor barrel roll a Warrior and asked for my advice - "tell the owner of the flying school" - but he didn't. The flying school eventually sacked him for other reasons. He didn't last long at the next flying school either. Some of the aeroplanes he has damaged over the years are known about. I wonder how many pilots were impressed by his feats of derring-do and will repeat them in future.<br />
We must not tolerate people like that - they need to find a different career.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.avweb.com/news/pilotlounge/182666-1.html">An Instructor's Obligation</a> by Rick Durden:<br />
"I've been to visit that little room where I put the memories of friends and acquaintances now dead. (It's a blunt, hard, cold word. We won't use euphemisms; they are dead.) There is a special corner in that room for those, fortunately few, who have died in airplanes. In that corner, there is a dark nook for two special pilots. They are special because I was certain they were going to kill themselves in airplanes and, even though I was a flight instructor, I either didn't or couldn't do anything about it. Despite the fact it has been over a year since the second one died, it is still a painful journey to go into that nook, because I cannot help but have the nagging feeling that I could have done more to prevent their deaths. I know the journey is one that more than a few experienced flight instructors take from time to time, usually only very late at night, and when they are alone. They agonize over what more they could have done to prevent a death.<br />
They are the instructors who have a little deeper lines in their faces and who become very quiet from time to time.<br />
.......<br />
Over the years I have come to believe firmly that flight instructors have a duty to aviation. On those rare times that the experienced instructor gets to know or flies with someone who is close to that instructor's personal line on the pilot spectrum, I believe the instructor has an obligation to raise the issue with the pilot. We instructors may lose a friend or two. We may upset a pilot or four, but to not step up and try to reach the person is to shirk the responsibility we instructors so clearly have.Sometimes instruction is not fun. At those times the measly $40 per hour I charge isn't even close to being enough.<br />
I'm not going home yet.<br />
I just hope I will not be putting a third friend in that little nook in that room in the back of my mind."David J Pilkingtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06225630402377448000noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5188187658045408625.post-79724075945493895742010-05-05T21:26:00.000-07:002010-05-05T21:44:00.332-07:00Low Level Aerobatic Peer ReviewsJust been reading some articles at Avweb.<br />
The first, "Lucky or Good"<br />
<a href="http://www.avweb.com/news/probablecause/probable_cause_62_lucky_or_good_198053-1.html">http://www.avweb.com/news/probablecause/probable_cause_62_lucky_or_good_198053-1.html</a><br />
"There's something about the typical experienced-pilot's personality that is antithetical to safety. I'm not an expert in analyzing personalities -- though I know what I like -- but it seems the very traits that make someone a "good stick" also make that same skilled pilot a safety risk."<br />
and the other, "We Worry About the Wrong Things and It's Killing Us"<br />
<a href="http://www.avweb.com/news/pilotlounge/pilots_lounge_122_we_worry_about_the_wrong_things_196933-1.html">http://www.avweb.com/news/pilotlounge/pilots_lounge_122_we_worry_about_the_wrong_things_196933-1.html</a><br />
"My friend just can't figure out why we Americans so blithely accept the true risks we face while continuing to smoke, over-eat, not wear seatbelts and not raise heck about hospital procedures, yet we get ourselves all in a twitter over the low risk items and take all sorts of expensive and often-redundant precautions that would be better spent on the high-risk stuff. <br />
I didn't have an answer for my friend, but it caused me to look at the same question as applied to flying. While the fatality numbers for general aviation, just under 500 in 2006 -- far less than the number who die each year falling in bathtubs -- are very low, they have to be compared with the very small number of people who get into general aviation airplanes in the first place. With that in mind, our accident rate is far worse than the airlines and somewhat worse than automobiles, about the same as for motorcycles. Therefore, it's worth evaluating: Do we pilots worry about how to deal with the actual risks we face? As an aside, do we flight instructors teach students (and pilots in for recurrent training) how to identify and avoid doing stupid, high-risk things in airplanes?"<br />
I was reminded of a discussion paper that I wrote for one of the aerobatic clubs about a year ago. There was some discussion. Some said that peer reviews are not needed as "we already tell people". Nope, you might tell some-one if they experience a sudden loss of judgement and does something silly but then they already know it themselves.<br />
Some wanted peer reviews as a condition of permanent low level permissions. Nope, then we'll just have people chasing to get the peer review stamps in their book just before contest registration - if that, why would a contest registrar be looking for it? No-one else will be chasing it up so they won't happen.<br />
If people don't do peer reviews for the right reasons then they won't be effective.<br />
That discussion paper has gone nowhere so I thought that I'd share it with you here. I have seen that a few aerobatic pilots are practicing it. At one contest recently, peer reviews were apparently mentioned at the briefing and offered the assistance of a stamp. Unfortunately not many pilots know what a peer review actually was.<br />
<br />
When CASA issued CAAP 155-1, Aerobatics, in January 2007 they introduced the concept of peer reviews which has largely been ignored by the aerobatic community since then. We know that CASA has been reconsidering their policy on low level aerobatics so should the club take the initiative to improve safety for aerobatic pilots before CASA imposes any restrictions?<br />
If you consider the details of any accidents, not just those involving aerobatics, do you think that an effective regime of peer reviews would have eliminated any of them? Or even just one – would that make it worthwhile for all to undertake peer reviews?<br />
How safe is a novice safety pilot in a competition? What do they know of their responsibilities and required capability?<br />
Many organisations offer Pilot Proficiency Programs for their members – should the aerobatic club undertake a similar program for the benefit of its members?<br />
This discussion paper is prepared for use by the aerobatic club in consideration of the recent history of a large number of tragic accidents involving low level aerobatics and the potential for CASA to revise their policy with a possible adverse effect on the operations of club members.<br />
<b>BACKGROUND</b><br />
Some years ago, CASA developed two new draft regulations, Parts 61 and 91, which included some new rules relating to aerobatics.<br />
PART 61 FLIGHT CREW LICENSING Subpart P - Flight Activity & Maintenance Authorisations<br />
"1.1.2 The following flight activity authorisations are specified in this Subpart -<br />
d) Aerobatics<br />
e) Aerobatics below 3000 ft AGL<br />
f) Aerobatics below 1500 ft AGL"<br />
i.e. rules relating to aerobatics were to be split into three different categories as above. Basic aerobatic endorsements would be above 3000 ft as now. Aerobatics down to 1500 ft would be administered by industry i.e. appropriate instructors and others (via the aerobatic club) would have the authority to make logbook entries permitting pilots to do aerobatics down to 1500 ft. Aerobatics below 1500 ft would continue to be administered by CASA.<br />
There was a draft Advisory Circular which had been developed by CASA in broad consultation with industry.<br />
PART 91 GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES<br />
91.075 Aerobatic Flight<br />
"(3) The pilot in command of an aircraft must not perform aerobatic manoeuvres in the following circum stances without CASA's approval:<br />
(a) below 1500 feet AGL;<br />
(b) in the vicinity of a public gathering or at an air display;<br />
(c) at night."<br />
To enable the provisions of Part 61, this rule in Part 91 above had to be altered for it to read 1500 ft instead of 3000 ft.<br />
The aerobatic club objected to this change – they wanted to retain 3000 ft as the minimum height for aerobatics thus requiring a specific delegation for CASA for any aerobatics below 3000 ft. So, as CASA staff had changed, being unware of the broad industry consultation they took the aerobatic club's view and put 3000 ft into the draft regulation. I learnt a lesson there – even though many of us had contributed to the draft AC and rule development none of us respodned to the NPRM – we need to have responded and said it was good. CASA only got negative comments.<br />
The draft AC 91.075(0) has been available for review in its current form since September, 2001. Appendix 1, Para 3.3 is quite clear on the subject of initial approvals for aerobatics:<br />
"Pilots may be certified as safe to conduct all the primary aerobatic manoeuvres above a minimum height of 1500 feet, but must not be cleared for aerobatic manoeuvres below their individual spin recovery certification. A minimum height of 3000 feet is recommended for most initial approvals."<br />
Para 2.3 also refers to limitations for inexperienced pilots. The AC also outlines requirements for aerobatic flight instructors, training and the provision of an Operations Manual which would detail the conduct of aerobatic training. This is the mechanism by which CASA would control the process for training and issue of approvals for aerobatics down to 3000 ft; and down to 1500 ft.<br />
I went to the CASA FLOT2003 conference in Sydney specifically to have that draft changed back to the original 1500 ft and succeeded in that. But, who would've thought that the aerobatic club would oppose the new rules which were aimed at facilitating our sport. The aerobatic club purported to represent its members yet did not tell its members what it intended to do – these days it is so easy to communicate with members with email or online forums!<br />
Six years later the regulatory reform programme (not just aerobatics) has gone nowhere so I wouldn't rely on any changes to the rules in my lifetime. i.e. we must work within the existing CAR 155 and, probably, the existing CAO 40.0.<br />
<b>OTHER COUNTRIES</b><br />
UK<br />
Aerobatics in the UK is not regulated in that there is no minimum height specified for aerobatics and aerobatic training is not required – there is no aerobatic endorsement (it is likely to be required soon with the new EASA rules).<br />
<a href="http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/cap393.pdf page 291">http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/cap393.pdf page 291</a><br />
The AOPA has an aerobatic training syllabus and a certificate which is generally accepted as the standard.<br />
<a href="http://www.aopa.co.uk/scripts/course_a.php">http://www.aopa.co.uk/scripts/course_a.php</a><br />
The British Aerobatic Association and the Tiger club have standards to be demonstrated prior to their members performing at low level at their events.<br />
Display pilots require a CAA authorisation <a href="http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/cap403.pdf">http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/cap403.pdf</a><br />
USA<br />
The USA does not require aerobatic training and has no aerobatic endorsement.<br />
<a href="http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/74a345ccf8eb48a6862569d900744be1/$FILE/ATTNUI98/ac91-48.pdf">http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/74a345ccf8eb48a6862569d900744be1/$FILE/ATTNUI98/ac91-48.pdf</a><br />
Minimum height for aerobatics is 1500 ft however the IAC has gained a waiver for its members whereby they may practice and compete to competition levels without any further approval subject to that flying being within an area approved by the FAA for low level aerobatics. <br />
<a href="http://www.iac.org/">http://www.iac.org/</a><br />
Display flying is largely administered by ICAS with annual renewals of low level waivers which are issed by the FAA. ICAS has a detailed manual.<br />
<a href="http://www.airshows.aero/">http://www.airshows.aero/</a><br />
Canada<br />
From some brief research, Canada has a tighter regulatory regime than Australia.<br />
<b>CASA POLICY - THE CAAP</b><br />
Back in the '70s low level concessions were renewed annually – testing was by CASA (more correctly CASA's predecessor) or aerobatic club members approved by CASA. CASA also approved aerobatic club members to conduct low level aerobatic coaching.<br />
Flying Operations Instruction No 13-2 Issue 2 about '93 brought some significant changes:<br />
A low level approval will remain current while the pilot holds a valid licence.<br />
AAC members may be approved to conduct aerobatics down to 330ft.<br />
The AAC may nominate members for approval for the testing of AAC members for the issue of low level approvals. So far so good, but to gain approval from the CAA as a low level tester the pilot must undergo a flight test with an examiner of airmen. This flight test must be repeated annually except that it may be conducted biannually in the case of a pilot who has competed at Unlimited level at our Nationals or who has competed in a World aerobatic contest during the preceding year.<br />
<br />
Appendix 1 contained the knowledge requirements for low level aerobatics which largely remain today.<br />
The came another policy with durations of two years for low level aerobatic approvals and limitations on aircraft power.<br />
CAAP 155-1 was developed with broad industry involvement and introduced the provision for CASA delegates to issue low level aerobatic permissions. It was issued in January 2007.<br />
<a href="http://www.casa.gov.au/download/CAAPs/ops/155_1.pdf">http://www.casa.gov.au/download/CAAPs/ops/155_1.pdf</a><br />
It contained some excellent information, some of which was based on USA AC's but most was developed locally.<br />
It introduced new guidance for threat and error management.<br />
It introduced the recommendation for annual peer reviews.<br />
It introduced new guidelines for low level aerobatic permissions:<br />
It included a low level aerobatic test form with additional guidance on the conduct of the test.<br />
It contained guidance on conditions of low level aerobatic permissions:<br />
“6.15 Conditions On Permissions<br />
6.15.1 A delegate cannot cancel a permission once it is issued. Therefore a delegate needs to carefully consider whether there is a need to issue the permission with conditions. Delegates may issue a low-level aerobatics permission with any conditions they believe necessary in the interests of safety. For the guidance of delegates, it is considered that the following conditions are applicable to all low level permissions to provide an acceptable level of safety:<br />
(1) Other than one-off permissions, the permission can be issued for an indefinite period, but a delegate may include an expiry date if he or she considers this necessary in the interests of safety.<br />
(2) A limitation to single-engine aeroplanes up to 800 hp or to a particular aircraft type or types.<br />
(3) A height limitation specifying a minimum level for the conduct of aerobatics. Delegates may specify any height limitation they believe necessary in the interests of safety, but the following height limitations would probably cover most circumstances:<br />
• Not below 1500' AGL;<br />
• Not below 1000' AGL;<br />
• Not below 500' AGL; or<br />
• Unlimited.<br />
<br />
Note: There is no requirement for pilots to hold a permission at each higher level before being issued one at a lower level, although some form of progression would be the normal expectation. The delegate may issue a<br />
permission with any height limitation that is based on safety considerations.”<br />
<br />
The sample permission letter includes the following conditions:<br />
“1 The minimum heights and distances to maintain separation from any group of persons must be<br />
those specified for spectators in Civil Aviation Order (CAO) 29.4.<br />
2. Subject to clause 3, the approved person must not conduct flight manoeuvres below the<br />
minimum heights specified under regulation 157 of CAR 1988.<br />
3. If the approved person is permitted under this instrument to conduct flight manoeuvres below<br />
500 feet, the flight may only be conducted over a location approved by the appropriate CASA<br />
office as suitable for the conduct of those manoeuvres.<br />
4. Passengers must not be carried during manoeuvres below 1500 ft, nor during any acrobatic<br />
demonstration, display or competition.<br />
5. The approved person is not allowed to conduct an acrobatic flight over public gatherings.<br />
6. The approved person must not conduct acrobatic manoeuvres within or over:<br />
(a) any location where acrobatic manoeuvres are likely to be a hazard to the navigation of<br />
other aircraft;<br />
(b) any location known or likely to be noise sensitive;<br />
(c) an area where an aircraft malfunction would endanger the lives of persons.”<br />
<br />
Most importantly, a delegate cannot withdraw or cancel a low level aerobatic permission.<br />
Issues for the Aerobatic Club<br />
As the club purports to represent its members and to have an interest in the safety of its members it should take a proactive approach in considering the recent history of accidents and what it should do to improve the future safety of aerobatic pilots.<br />
<br />
Pilots are encouraged to consider accidents (not just aerobatic accidents) where a change in the way the pilot conducted his/her operations would've have avoided the accident. CAAP 155-1 offers a process for individuals to go to their peers to seek feedback on their own operations and potentially improve the way they do things from a safety point of view. Increased safety can only result from this very simple, but disciplined activity.<br />
Peer Review Process<br />
“The peer review process is intended to provide an independent assessment by a similarly qualified person or persons on the way the pilot conducts the activity and to identify any incorrect techniques or practices that the pilot may have developed over time. It is not intended to be a flight test for the renewal of the permission, but an opportunity for constructive discussion with other practitioners with a view to enhancing the safety of a pilot’s performance.”<br />
As noted above, the provision for indefinite permissions carries some risks in that there is no further assessment and it is extremely difficult to take away a permission.<br />
The peer review process should be promoted by all pilots within the club.<br />
“7.28.3 The following is the recommended procedure for the peer review process:<br />
• The pilot should have had sufficient recent practice and/or training to be able to conduct a sequence of low-level aerobatics safely;<br />
• The pilot should brief the observer(s) on the sequence to be flown;<br />
• The pilot should fly the sequence under observation, either from the ground or the aircraft down to the level of the permission, or the level to which the pilot intends to exercise the permission, if higher;<br />
• After the flight, the pilot and the observer(s) should de-brief the sequence to identify ways in which performance and safety could be improved; and<br />
• The review is entered in the pilot's logbook and signed by the pilot and by the observers as a record to indicate that the observation and discussion has taken place. It could include a disclaimer that the observer is not certifying the pilot's competence.<br />
7.28.4 The observers would need to have proficiency in low-level aerobatics and preferably also in assessing low-level aerobatic performance. Suitable observers would be any one of the following:<br />
• CAR 155 delegate; or<br />
• At least two other low-level permission holders with similar permissions; or<br />
• CASA Flying Operations Inspector (FOI).<br />
7.28.5 During the debriefing process it is important to be objective in identifying items that were done well and those that could have been done better. Emphasis should be on providing input and advice on ways to improve safety and performance rather than on questioning an individual’s ability.<br />
7.28.6 Signing-off as an observer for peer review should not be construed as certifying the competency of the pilot, but that the review has taken place and that any issues of concern have been brought to the pilot’s attention.<br />
7.28.7 The object is not to assess the pilot as suitable or otherwise to continue to hold the permission, but in cases where continued operation by the pilot would constitute a serious risk to air safety there would be some moral responsibility for the participants to counsel the pilot and, if necessary, bring this to the attention of CASA.”<br />
<br />
A sample form of the peer review logbook entry:<br />
PEER REVIEW iaw CAAP 155-1 AEROBATICS Section 7.28.<br />
I have observed a low level aerobatic sequence performed by ......................<br />
and debriefed the pilot on opportunities to improve safety & performance.<br />
Note: this is not a certification of competency.<br />
Signed ................................ ARN ............... Date ..............<br />
<br />
The aerobatic club would be neglecting the safety of its members if it did not promote peer reviews as recommended by the CAAP. There may be other actions the aerobatic club could take to improve safety however this is one measure which has clearly been introduced by CASA and which has been ignored.<br />
<br />
It is important not to let peer reviews become rubber stamping for mates. Should the aerobatic club accredit reviewers? Should the aerobatic club provide training and guidance material for reviewers? (This could include a checklist which the reviewer may chose to retain.) <br />
<br />
The actual review is verbal at a debriefing session after a performance has been observed. Although the logbook entry records that the review was undertaken there is no statement of competency recorded. However, reviewers may like to keep records of debriefs for their own purposes (perhaps if they were asked by a coroner). Althought the CAAP refers to a debrief of a single performance the reviewer should be encouraged to bring up relevant matters of a broader nature.<br />
<br />
i.e. the basic objective is to identify any hazardous attitudes and help the pilot to understand that so as to take appropriate action.<br />
<br />
<b>a. Antiauthority (don’t tell me!).</b><br />
e.g. <br />
I can join the circuit neater than that and save a couple of minutes, some-one will tell me if there is conflicting traffic.<br />
That's not a zoom climb after take-off – my aeroplane can sustain a 60 deg climb angle, some-one will tell me if there is conflicting traffic.<br />
45 minutes fuel reserves - its only going to be a 10 minute flight.<br />
The spectators can't see me unless I'm really close to the fence during my display.<br />
<br />
<b>b. Impulsivity (do something quickly!)</b><br />
e.g. I'm flying three Unknowns in this contest.<br />
Miserable weather and no contest flying so I'll just do a display.<br />
<br />
<b>c. Invulnerability (it won’t happen to me).</b><br />
e.g. All those things happen to other people because ….... but <br />
engine failure at low level<br />
spin just took a little longer to recover than usual<br />
something went wrong with that lomcevak<br />
there was nothing wrong with the aeroplane before the first flight of the day<br />
<br />
<b>d. Macho (I can do it).</b><br />
e.g. Watch me on Utube – I can fly just as well as …......<br />
Difficult unknown but I need to be down where the judges can see me.<br />
<br />
<b>e. Resignation (what’s the use?).</b><br />
e.g. I need to do three monthly checks and a biannual flight review and low level aerobatic renewals so why do I need to do these peer reviews?<br />
<br />
Some-one is likely to tell you if you nearly have an accident but then you might've scared yourself anyway. The thing is that the one that will get you will be something different, something that has been brewing for some time as a result of your display of one or more of those hazardous attitudes. No-one has enough lives to learn from their own mistakes – learn from the mistakes of others.<br />
Safety Pilot<br />
The following condition on low level approvals limits the qualifications of a safety pilot in competitions:<br />
“Passengers must not be carried during manoeuvres below 1500 ft, nor during any acrobatic<br />
demonstration, display or competition.” <br />
The delegate may vary this however I note that there is absolutely nought in the test crtieria to assess a pilot's ability to sit in the passenger seat of an aeroplane and act as pilot in command while another pilot (who does not have a low level aerobatic permission) perform low level aerobatics, especially under the stress of a competition. How safe is a new safety pilot?<br />
<b>PILOT PROFICIENCY PROGRAM</b><br />
Many other local organisations offer Pilot Proficiency Programmes for their members.<br />
eg <a href="http://aviationsafety.org.au/files/ASR_GPPP_Course_Introduction_Whats_it_all_about.pdf">http://aviationsafety.org.au/files/ASR_GPPP_Course_Introduction_Whats_it_all_about.pdf</a><br />
<a href="http://www.piper.org.au/prof.html">http://www.piper.org.au/prof.html</a><br />
<a href="http://www.cessnapilotsassociationofaustralia.org.au/pilotproficiency.html">http://www.cessnapilotsassociationofaustralia.org.au/pilotproficiency.html</a><br />
<a href="http://www.mooney.org.au/index.php/mooney-safety-ppp.html">http://www.mooney.org.au/index.php/mooney-safety-ppp.html</a><br />
<a href="http://www.comancheflyer.com.au/new/join.php">http://www.comancheflyer.com.au/new/join.php</a><br />
<a href="http://www.abs.org.au/uploads/Promo_Brochure.pdf">http://www.abs.org.au/uploads/Promo_Brochure.pdf</a><br />
Perhaps it is easier to list the flying organisations which do not offer Pilot Proficiency Programs to its members?<br />
Did you notice the insurance companies feature as sponsors or offer discounts on insurance for those who attend?<br />
Should an Aerobatic PPP be developed as an improvement and alternative to the peer review process?<br />
FAA AC 60-22, Aeronautical Decision Making is a good reference. Another good reference is the book "A Pilot's Guide to Safe Flying" by local author Sander Vandeth.<br />
<br />
<b>CONCLUSIONS</b><br />
We know that CASA has been reconsidering their policy on low level aerobatics so should the club take the initiative to improve safety for aerobatic pilots before CASA imposes any restrictions?<br />
If you consider the details of any accidents, not just those involving aerobatics, do you think that an effective regime of peer reviews would have eliminated any of them? Or even just one – would that make it worthwhile for all to undertake peer reviews?<br />
How safe is a novice safety pilot in a competition? What do they know of their responsibilities and required capability?<br />
Many organisations offer Pilot Proficiency Programs for their members – should the aerobatic club undertake a similar program for the benefit of its members?David J Pilkingtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06225630402377448000noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5188187658045408625.post-61074519679217245532010-04-16T03:38:00.000-07:002010-04-16T03:38:43.706-07:00Judging AgainI was at an aerobatic club meeting recently and observed some of the discussion about judging. There was criticism of the standard of judging<br />
and it seemed to me that criticism was directed at the Unlimited judges<br />
of which I was one. We didn't use the Fairplay System where the judges<br />
would expect an analysis of the scoring and a ranking of the judges - a<br />
pity as us judges have no knowledge of the basis of that criticism. The<br />
first that some may know about it may be when the proposed judging<br />
committee comprising "senior pilots" decides that they are no longer<br />
wanted at the contest. The Fairplay System would tell all where we stood<br />
although I wonder how it deals with a majority of the judges not detecting errors worthy of a hard zero. (I admit to missing the odd thing while judging at the nationals - no-one says that judging Unlimited is easy)<br />
<br />
Those of us who didn't compete and just participated as judges will probably respond in the following manner if this idea gets off the ground:- "I need to know a long way in advance of the contest whether you want me to judge or not. If not, then I won't bother with the judges refresher course and I will make other plans for that weekend. Please don't wait until the last minute as I would've already organised something else to do.<br />
<br />
Good luck in finding judges for your contest."<br />
<br />
I didn't participate in that discussion as I apparently got into enough<br />
trouble some years ago with the comments in the posts below. That was when the aerobatic club instructed their webmaster to delete the link to my website - reminds me that I asked on several occasions what the reason for that was and still no answer despite the webmaster agreeing to provide the response.<br />
<br />
--- In ozaeros@yahoogroups.com, ozaeros@yahoogroups.com wrote:<br />
JUDGING - Are judges overworked or under-work?<br />
http://www.aerobaticsoz.asn.au/0600news5.htm<br />
"But it's hard to ignore the facts. At the last 2 nationals the largest variance in scoring has been in the Advanced Grade. Here the judges are arguably some of the most experienced judges in Australia - our Unlimited Pilots."<br />
"I discussed all this with John Gaillard and he gave me some food for<br />
thought with the following ideas:<br />
Advanced and Unlimited pilots work only as assistant judges<br />
The chief judge is chief for all grades and has no other administrative duties<br />
Judges are on the line for a minimum of half a day<br />
The only way your judging improves is with experience ie. volume If you're like me, you're thinking "but in the real world."<br />
Well it's just something to think about - I'd be very pleased to hear from anyone with ideas on the subject. What do you think?"<br />
__________________________________________________________<br />
What this editor thinks is:<br />
Whats the actual variance? Is there a difference in ranking?<br />
I wouldn't want an advanced/unlimited pilot as assistant - my requirements for assistant are quite simple - enough knowledge to correctly fill in the score sheet and include my comments in the correct place; strength to hold the umbrella in a strong wind, remembers to bring sunscreen and water; doesn't talk when I'm judging.<br />
And, more of what I've thunk on this subject is copied below. I was severely criticised for my comments two years ago so .....<br />
<br />
Pilkington wrote back in 1999:<br />
Just got my December AAC Magazine (well ahead of the IAC - only just<br />
got October's Sport Aerobatics). I agree with Mr Magic's views on pilots<br />
criticising individual judges. I was bashed up recently for my criticism<br />
of some judges in general (I promise to only do that out of season). I<br />
wonder if anyone south of the Murray has done a judge's refresher course<br />
yet. I must admit that I got stuck halfway through it. I strongly<br />
disagree with Mr Magic's remark "The absolute scores are irrelevant. It<br />
doesn't matter if a judge scores you lower than every other judge. They<br />
have probably scored every other pilot low as well. It doesn't matter as<br />
long as they are consistent. It has been my experience in all the years<br />
I have been flying that the best pilot in the competition has placed<br />
first - without exception ...."<br />
<br />
Firstly, how is "the best pilot" defined if not by the scores from judges who are correctly applying the defined judging criteria? If there's inconsistency between the judges' absolute scores there's a good chance that some of them are not applying the correct criteria but simply plucking a number from the air. Consistency is essential as well - the judging criteria are not that watertight that there won't be variations between judges - whether they apply the criteria for round loops harsher than others or whether the sunlight flashed off the canopy at the wrong time or, like me, just get it wrong (hopefully not too often). These judging criteria are not easy to remember, occupying 24 pages in my copy of the AAC Regulations. Its takes a lot of effort for a judge to remain up to speed. As I said in my earlier postings (eg #557) - some of our contests have very close scores. I mentioned a contest where the top four pilots had scores within 5%. The winning score was by 5 points in 4000. Who knows if the best pilot really won? We must accept that the system has limited accuracy and accept that the best pilot won. I don't want to know how the individual judges ranked the pilots for that very reason. On the other hand we must ensure that the judges are reasonable.<br />
_____________________________<br />
Editor: David PilkingtonDavid J Pilkingtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06225630402377448000noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5188187658045408625.post-87046096646414517132010-02-09T05:20:00.000-08:002010-02-09T05:20:04.783-08:00Big Tour 1996All of this is just from memory of events about 15 years ago so if anything is incorrect please just treat it as fiction.<br />
<br />
We had two Pitts S-2Bs travelling about 1000 nm or so to Oshkosh and we were taking it in turns to lead the other in formation for one leg at a time. I had Cindy with me in the front seat. She hadn't been in a little aeroplane before at all. A little bit of baggage. Full fuel. Cruise at 145 kts TAS gave a safe range in still air of about 220 nm plus ½ hr reserve. We'd normally plan legs of no more than 200 nm.<br />
<br />
Mark led for the first leg. After departing Afton airfield we immediately turned right through the blind canyon. Sounds dramatic but we were rapidly climbing so always plenty of options in case of an engine failure. We were soon at 12,000 ft to get us over the 10,000 ft ridge. A while later a climb to 14,000 ft to skip over a higher ridge.<br />
<br />
At the first refuelling stop I took the lead. The tower ignored several calls from me in N727PS (that was the 50th Anniversary Pitts Special - some way to being an S-2C and later the S-2C prototype). Mark took the lead and the tower responded to his first call. That night he suggested that my accent may have confused them – thinking that I was an international 727 on the wrong frequency. That was disappointing as I thought I'd learnt the cowboy drawl pretty well by then. I knew that at breakfast “car fuel” would get me a bottomless cup for $1 plus the $1 tip. At dinner, if I wanted a very nice steak, I'd say “flaming yawn”.<br />
<br />
At one overnight stop several months earlier I was given the keys to the FBO's truck and told that the best food was at Cactus Jane's a few miles out of town. Ordered coke to drink. “Sorry, we don't have any of that.”<br />
“What do you have then?”<br />
“Pepsi, Mountain Dew, Dr Pepper and Coke.”<br />
“OK, I'll have coke then.”<br />
“I told you – we don't have any of that.”<br />
“Pepsi then.”<br />
She dashed out the back and returned momentarily “Sorry, we're out of Pepsi, will coke do?”<br />
<br />
This was our longest leg – about 220 nm. I had a good fuel flow indicator plus fuel totalizer and capacitive fuel contents indicator. Mark just had the standard fuel pressure gauge labelled with fuel flow plus the convoluted sight gauge so far away from the tank that its readings were vague. I had one of the new GPS/COM units which I'd never seen before. I asked Cindy to fly the airplane for a while so that I could learn how it worked and set the display up so that I could easily understand it. I'd slipped some distance behind Mark and he was a small but clear dot in the distance. I told Cindy just to keep him in the center of the windscreen and I'd pop my head up every now and then to check on things. Mark obviously got bored after a while as he was following the cloud streets and Cindy was handling things quite well. I'd had the avionics pretty well sorted out when I heard a scream and it all went black. The cloud street had got tighter. Back above the clouds all was easier.<br />
<br />
The cloud cover increased as we progressed and we made the decision to descend underneath. We soon discovered the significant headwind lower down and judged that we didn't have many options at that time – proceed to the destination but we'd eat into our reserves. We planned a straight-in approach and considered that we'd eat even more into our reserves if we had to open the throttle on the Lycoming IO-540 and go-round. Only a few miles out my instruments told me pretty clearly how little fuel I had and Mark would've had the same but less sure of the situation.<br />
<br />
My second time flying into EAA's Airventure at Oshkosh. At the end of the show we had volunteered to give rides to EAA vlounteers and VIPs. One of my passengers was ex-USAF with 20,000 hrs total time and 2,000 hrs aerobatics so I handed over to him as we climbed out. He did a loop and fell out. I gave him some advice for the next one as it was many eyars since he'd last flown. Fell out again. I said I'd talk him through the next one and recall that the last thing I said to him was “this is a flat inverted spin”. He forgot to tell me that he'd never done aerobatics in a propeller-driven airplane before.<br />
<br />
The next task was to go to the aerobatic contest at Fond-du-Lac to help out and give some more rides. After that both aeroplanes were going to Oklahoma City but I'd have a different sidekick. We flew the first leg in company with a Sukhoi and an Extra. For our lunch stop we chose what appeared to be a large airport on the Sectional Chart on the basis that it would probably have a nice cafe. Small biplanes dont have much space to carry stuff and the US airport guide was a big book and we were unable to easily get info on the place at the last minute (these were the days before the internet). As we approached we saw the enormous runway but then some-one on Unicom pointed out that the big runway was not yet finished. Narrow, short runway instead. Lunch was a Mars bar and a coke.<br />
<br />
We arrived at Page Airport just outside Oke City in time for the BBQ reception for the World Aerobatic Championships. I can remember standiung talking to Mike G when a little old lady came up to me and asked if I was married. I immediately recalled the effort that I went to in obtaining American pilot and drivers licences. “I only have an Australian licence and I haven't converted it yet so … “ She just looked strangely at me and turned to Mike with the same question. “Nope maam.” She pulled a sixgun out of her handbag and pushed him away … it all happened very quickly after that – lots of shouting and gunshots but we all survived. Great show. I left the aeroplane there for a couple of weeks then returned to pick it up. But it wasn't the same.<br />
<br />
Propeller swapped with one to be returned for warranty work but the propeller wasn't bolted on. I got plenty of free advice (either too busy themselves or liability issues it seems) and people were happy to loan tools for the job. Some-one had ran into a runway marker so I also had to repair the wheel fairing.<br />
<br />
I had organised a business meeting in Denver on the way home so I postponed that for a day. Next morning there was a big thunderstorm sitting over the top of the airfield so I waited until late afternoon before I got going. Visibility was 3 nm. No matter what height I flew at. 2000 ft AGL seemed a good compromise between seeing enough of the ground, not scaring myself with the high towers and staying away from the jets. I soon learnt that a darker shade of grey indicated a thunderstorm not far away. Only one leg this day so still a long way to go. Postponed the meeting again.<br />
<br />
Next morning low cloud so waited all morning (meeting postponed again) before the destination reported a base of 1500 ft AGL and the same where I was. A few miles down the track that changed to and I was down to 500 ft AGL. The weather seemed stable and visibility was good so I continued. View out the front of the biplane was inadequate especially regarding towers so I'd fly one large field at a time, looking across it for obstacles before I flew to the other side. Good to discover that the chart was quite accurate as far as existence of towers was concerned. The weather improved significantly for the last leg into one of the smaller airports in Denver. Been away from the mountains for too long and wasn't attuned to the density height so it was a firm landing. Meeting went well.<br />
As I departed, the tower's standard phrase of “clear for take-off, watch density altitude”. Thinking to myself I've got a small biplane with plenty of power, I don't need to worry about density height. Changed frequencies and advised that I'd be staying OCTA to the west alongside the Rocky Mountains. They warned me of plentiful microbursts. They looked pretty to me – clear blue skies, unlimited visibility just a mess of thunderstorms easily avoided. I reported my destination of Rawlins and was warned of the violent weather and extreme winds currently being experienced there. No worries - if it didn't improve as I got close I'd go somewhere else. I normally followed the highway towards Cheyenne then through the pass around Elk Mountain but today was just beautiful so I decided to cut the corner. Up to 14,000 ft and direct to Rawlins – from here I could see that the weather had moved on and it was fine now. The final leg home to Afton went well – cruising at 10,500 ft over the high (about 7000 ft) desert plain then up to 12,000 ft to cross the last mountain range.<br />
<br />
Blair welcomed me as I taxiied in “I can tell its had a firm landing …. and I don't like the repair that you did!”David J Pilkingtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06225630402377448000noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5188187658045408625.post-34161898910883972862009-12-30T14:20:00.000-08:002009-12-30T14:20:16.846-08:00New Rules for Licensing and OperationsWell, if the White Paper is correct the new rules for licensing and operations will appear by the end of 2010. Here's a discussion of some of the proposed changes.<br />
<br />
<b>CASR Part 61 – Flight crew licensing</b><br />
<blockquote>Recreational Pilot Licence to be introduced to replace passenger-carrying privileges for student pilots</blockquote>This was also in the draft rules of 2002 (refer to Discussion Paper 0202FS). Back then the features of the RPL were:<br />
day VFR only, max of 180 hp, 4 seats max<br />
authorisation for cross-country flight in Class G airspace available as well as specific controlled airfields<br />
Class 2 medical required although solo flying permitted not over populous areas for those without a Class 2 medical<br />
<br />
It will be interesting to see how this turns out when the details are fleshed out. One guess is that the new RPL will be very similar to the current RAA Certificate.<br />
<br />
In 2002 there were some changes to the list of design feature authorisations:<br />
<blockquote>(i) tailwheel;<br />
(ii) retractable undercarriage;<br />
(iii) constant speed propeller;<br />
(iv) piston engine;<br />
(v) turbocharged or supercharged piston engine;<br />
(vi) gas turbine engine;<br />
(vii) pressurisation system;<br />
(viii) FMS (Flight Management Systems);<br />
(ix) Powered sailplanes (also for glider category);<br />
(x) 3 axis control ultralight aeroplane;<br />
(xi) weight shift control ultralight aeroplane.<br />
Note: piston engine has been included for those pilots who may have done all their flying on turbine-powered aircraft.<br />
</blockquote>Back in 2002 there were also some changes to operational authorisations including aerobatics. I've already commented on how the Australian Aerobatic Club blocked some of those beneficial changes at the time but the more recent CAAP on aerobatics partly recovered the situation. My guess is that we have lost any opportunity to tidy up aerobatics any further.<br />
<blockquote>All flying training conducted for issue of a flight crew licence, rating or other authorisation to be conducted by persons holding an instructor rating who are authorised to instruct in that particular activity<br />
Current grades of flight instructor rating to be replaced by a single instructor rating with endorsements to provide flight training in specific activities</blockquote>Back in 2002 the proposal was as above but we had a lot more detail:<br />
<blockquote>a) Flying training for the issue or periodic review of a pilot licence, rating or other authorisation, may only be conducted by the holder of a Flight Instructor rating.<br />
b) Check pilots and other approved persons who currently conduct training under approvals from CASA will be required to hold instructor ratings.<br />
c) An instructor will not have to be trained to give ab-initio instruction and the current 50 hour course will no longer be required.<br />
d) The current grades of instructor rating will be replaced by authorisations attached to the rating to give instruction in specific activities.<br />
h) Private pilots will be able to hold instructor ratings but may only instruct to the level of their own qualifications.<br />
l) A ground instructor rating will be introduced for persons who wish to give ground instruction and do not a hold flight instructor rating.<br />
o) For continued use of the rating, a biennial flight review or other method of maintaining competence will be required instead of a rating renewal test.</blockquote>The 2002 proposal was a major shake-up of the instructor rating.<br />
Compare a private pilot as an instructor with the existing RAA flight instructor rating - so perhaps that will be in the new rules too. (Take a look at the new Part 91 to see whether they can charge for it though) The whole package would enable an experienced pilot to come back as an instructor to impart his/her knowledge – whether it be in ab initio training or a specialised role such as tail-wheel, warbirds or aerobatics.<br />
Now consider this in conjunction with the new rules for flying schools.<br />
<br />
<b>CASR Part 141 – Flight training operators</b><br />
<blockquote>Key proposals include<br />
Replaces the AOC requirement issued under the Civil Aviation Act 1988 for flight training schools with a flight training operating certificate (OC); <br />
OC to be required for training for all pilot licences and ratings, including aircraft ratings; training for other authorisations can be provided without an OC</blockquote><br />
To an instructor who focusses on the design feature authorisations listed above and operational endorsements such as spinning and aerobatics will no longer need to operate through a flying school. Of course a sole trader has other issues to deal with such as legal liability, availability of aircraft and chasing up money from customers. Let's hope that vested interests don't kill this proposal too. This has the potential to reduce the cost of learning aerobatics on tailwheel aeroplanes.<br />
<br />
<b>CASR Part 91 – General operating and flight rules </b><br />
<blockquote>The remainder of CASR Part 91, when implemented, will replace the various 1988 Civil Aviation Regulations (CARs) and Civil Aviation Orders (CAOs) that relate to general operating and flight rules and will be supported by a number of Advisory Circulars (ACs). It will form a complete set of operating rules for current ‘private’ operations, and will supplement the operating rules applicable to corporate/business, air experience, aerial work, and air transport operations. <br />
The Part will primarily consolidate and retain most of the existing rules with little change. However, a small number of new rules have been included to further ICAO compliance and enhance aviation safety. <br />
Key proposals include:<br />
Strict control of Portable Electronic Devices (PEDs); <br />
Requirement for the pilot to plan to arrive with a specified minimum amount of fuel; <br />
Altered requirement for the carriage of Emergency Locator Transmitters (ELTs); <br />
Changes to minimum operating heights to allow flight below 500ft.</blockquote>The changes currently proposed fall far short of those proposed ten years ago which is good as I recall some silly onerous things back then. Let's hope they don't creep back in again. It seems that the new Part 91 will simply reflect the current situation but be much clearer.<br />
<br />
In the past, vested interests apparently argued against many beneficial changes and stalled the process. Let's hope that the new draft rules provide benefit to the majority of individual pilots and therefore aviation as a whole. 2010 should be an interesting year but I wonder if CASA can really finish them within this timsescale.<br />
<br />
<b>Happy New Year.<i></i></b>David J Pilkingtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06225630402377448000noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5188187658045408625.post-30220628482670745402009-12-17T12:46:00.000-08:002009-12-17T12:46:18.711-08:00Aviation White PaperFrom the Aviation White Paper:<br />
“To maintain and improve the safety of Australia’s aviation industry the Government will: …........;<br />
>> finalise the suites of CASA’s regulations on licensing and flight operations by the end of 2010“<br />
It has been a long while since I've looked at the draft Parts 61 and 91 so just as a start have a look at where I was 6 years ago:<br />
<br />
GENERAL<br />
This page is an update on the status of the new Australian aviation regulations with particular reference to aerobatics.<br />
The big event recently was the CASA FLOT2003 Conference held in Sydney in March, 2003. <br />
First of all, some advice for those providing comments to CASA -<br />
Read all the related documents before making your comment. Make your comments concise and to the point. The new regulations are structured differently - don't comment on just one aspect without taking the time to understand the framework and all related sections. If you like something - say so - otherwise just a handful of adverse comments can end up in it being changed to something that you don't like.<br />
<br />
AEROBATICS<br />
I won't go into all the background information here. I've made my views and actions known on the internet for many years - search the Ozaeros Yahoo Group for more information. The relevant regulations are Parts 61 & 91 - you must read both together as they are inter-related. All the CASA information is at http://www.casa.gov.au/avreg/newrules/casr/index.htm<br />
I, amongst others, put in a lot of effort towards the proposed new rules and Advisory Circular for aerobatics - the intent was to facilitate administration of aerobatics. It recognised that certain people in industry and certain members of the Australian Aerobatic Club (AAC) had the requisite skills and attitude such that administrative oversight by CASA could be streamlined.<br />
The text below outlines the situation going into the CASA FLOT2003.<br />
PART 61 FLIGHT CREW LICENSING Subpart P - Flight Activity & Maintenance Authorisations<br />
"1.1.2 The following flight activity authorisations are specified in this Subpart -<br />
d) Aerobatics<br />
e) Aerobatics below 3000 ft AGL<br />
f) Aerobatics below 1500 ft AGL<br />
g) Formation aerobatics<br />
h) Upright spin - specified type of aeroplane"<br />
PART 91 GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES<br />
91.075 Aerobatic Flight<br />
"(3) The pilot in command of an aircraft must not perform aerobatic manoeuvres in the following circum stances without CASA's approval:<br />
(a) below 3 000 feet AGL;<br />
(b) in the vicinity of a public gathering or at an air display;<br />
(c) at night."<br />
The prior draft had 1500 feet as the minimum altitude "without CASA's approval". i.e. per the draft Part 61 above the initial endorsement would be to 3,000 ft. Down to 1500 ft was a separate endorsement (or authorisation, the new term) i.e. does not require CASA approval - built it does require authorisation from .... but .... "many" of those who commented on the Part 91 NPRM either did not read the associated material (the Advisory Circular and the Part 61 proposal) or wanted to torpedo the whole proposal for aerobatics and put administration of aerobatics back thirty years. Let's have a look at those comments.<br />
Comment 22<br />
"I am no medical expert however I don't understand how unconsciousness is a risk with negative G......... A former member of the Club; Dr Hilton Selvey has written to you regarding his experience and research in relation to general fitness and anti G straining techniques. We have not attached DR Selvey's comment to our own however we do respect his professional opinion and his experience in this field. Although we are not in a position to give an opinion in relation to medical and physiological effects of G on a pilot our experience with current pilots flying in Australia and the world for that matter is in definite conflict ...<br />
Spin endorsement Paragraph 12 indicates that a spin endorsement is a legal prerequisite for aerobatic training. Further appendix 1 states that a pilot must not fly as pilot in command during spinning or aerobatic flight until he or she has been certified for spinning and aerobatic manoeuvres. This appears to be a new rule and has created much confusion within the club. I personally do not have a separate spin endorsement in my logbook and appendix 1 seems to imply that this is now mandatory..... This concludes the input from myself and the AAC at this point. Once again I would like to state our wholehearted support for this initiative...."<br />
CASA Response "Reply pertains to the AC."<br />
Comment 24 (at FLOT2003 a CASA officer stated that the AAC was one such response below!)<br />
"Many respondents indicated that the minimum height for aerobatics should be initially set at 3000 feet and not 1500 feet as proposed in the regulation.<br />
CASA Response "CASA agrees."<br />
Disposition "Revised drafting instructions submitted to raise the height back to 3000 feet, as is the current requirement."<br />
Comment 187 Guidelines for Aerobatics - Ref AC 91-077<br />
"Many of my comments on earlier drafts have been incorporated. Some outstanding issues:<br />
1. References the text in para 8 refers to data from NASA but there's no NASA reference listed. Kermode is quoted in para 12.2 but not listed.<br />
4.1 utility category may be certified for limited acrobatic manoeuvres the utility category refers to design load factors and design airspeed there being no requirement to certify any acrobatic manoeuvres.<br />
4.8 a pilot new to aerobatics should have a check up with an Aviation Medical Examiner prior to acrobatic training? Why? What do AMEs know on this subject?<br />
9.1.9 effects of +0 can be counteracted by pulling the head down between the shoulders? I have never tried this in an aeroplane. In the safety of my own home I have attempted this but was unable to achieve that condition.<br />
10.3 refers to G loadings between normal, utility and acrobatic categories. Consider a note that design airspeeds vary significantly too.<br />
10.8 refers to limits, including maximum flick manoeuvre IAS. FAR 23 only refers to recommended entry speeds and that's what is typically in the AFM or POH. It is rare to have a maximum flick manoeuvres LAS it is usually a range of recommended entry speeds or just a single recommended entry speed. I certainly agree it should be treated as a limit....<br />
Appendix 1. When this was drafted, two to three years ago, Appendix 1 was considered to be interim. Now that CASR 91 is being delayed while the other regulations are developed were at the point where Appendix 1 needs to be removed from this AC and issued as a separate AC as it relates to CASR 61 the draft itself identifies this intention on the very last page......e<br />
Transition - I note the intent for an appropriate transition phase. Consideration needs to be given to transition to the new endorsements in terms of minimum heights. Existing aerobatic endorsements should remain valid for aerobatics above 3000 ft. Many of the low level acrobatic approvals have no expiry date. Will these remain valid?"<br />
CASA Response<br />
"(1) Referencing is reasonable given that this is an AC and not an academic paper.<br />
(2) Definition of utility category points to the flight manual for definition of the aerobatic manoeuvres, which are permitted.<br />
(3) A Designated Aeronautical Medical Examiner is trained to make a medical assessment of a pilot according the type of flying they may be undertaking and may be aware of factors that a General Practitioner may miss.<br />
(4) Entry IAS is covered by the statement 'maximum flick manoeuvre IAS'.<br />
(5) Appendix to be deleted and incorporated into Part 61."<br />
Disposition "Change to AC carried out in line with the CASA response above."<br />
<br />
Pilkington's Views on Regulations Related to Aerobatics<br />
Well, the intent here is to limit my views to those new regulations which apply to aerobatics however they will stretch to some related issues. Let's start with that incredible Comment #24.<br />
Comment 24<br />
"Many respondents indicated that the minimum height for aerobatics should be initially set at 3000 feet and not 1500 feet as proposed in the regulation.<br />
CASA Response "CASA agrees."<br />
As the 2002 version of draft 91.075 did not propose that the minimum height for aerobatics be initially set at anything other than 3000 ft I'm surprised at this comment. The 2002 draft 91.075 simply stated that aerobatics below 1500 ft required CASA approval.<br />
The draft AC 91.075(0) has been available for review in its current form since September, 2001. Appendix 1, Para 3.3 is quite clear on the subject of initial approvals for aerobatics:<br />
"Pilots may be certified as safe to conduct all the primary aerobatic manoeuvres above a minimum height of 1500 feet, but must not be cleared for aerobatic manoeuvres below their individual spin recovery certification. A minimum height of 3000 feet is recommended for most initial approvals."<br />
Para 2.3 also refers to limitations for inexperienced pilots. The AC also outlines requirements for aerobatic flight instructors, training and the provision of an Operations Manual which would detail the conduct of aerobatic training. This is the mechanism by which CASA would control the process for training and issue of approvals for aerobatics down to 3000 ft; and down to 1500 ft.<br />
The significance of the height in 91.075 relates to CASA approval - it sets the level at which CASA itself must issue the approval to perform aerobatics as distinct from an authorization from a authorised flight instructor (or other person). The 2002 draft 91.075 proposed 1500 feet as the limit below which CASA would directly issue approvals to perform aerobatics. Approval to conduct aerobatics at all requires an authorization and I refer to the draft for Part 61. An authorization to conduct aerobatics below 3000 ft (down to 1500 ft) is a separate authorization from that for aerobatics (above 3000 ft). This information on the intent of authorisations related to aerobatics has been publicly available since March 2002.<br />
This proposal was widely discussed between CASA and industry some years ago. I am disappointed that CASA has lost that corporate knowledge of the development of the proposal. I am surprised that those who commented did not (apparently) adequately read the Advisory Circular nor the Part 61 Discussion Paper which clearly confirmed that the initial minimum height for aerobatic authorizations remains 3000 ft.<br />
<br />
On the subject of physiological effects which was the subject of Comment #22 and #187. I recommend consideration of this work from the USN: http://www.nomi.med.navy.mil/NAMI/GTIP.PPT It provides a useful update to the material of the draft AC (which was derived from FAA AC - 61-67) - consider the comments there which support the views of Dr Hilton Selvey over the older work reflected in the draft AC 91.075(0).<br />
From discussion with Dr David Newman late last year - he would be willing to act as a consultant to CASA on these issues. For those who don't know Dr Newman: MB, BS, DAvMed, PhD, MRAeS and Director- Aerospace Physiology Laboratory, RMIT. He is also on the Committee of the Aviation Medical Society of Australia and New Zealand. http://www.amsanz.org/Australia/home.html<br />
Also, despite CASA comments in the SOR, I find nothing regarding the effects of G in the DAME's Handbook at http://www.casa.gov.au/manuals/htm/dame/dame.htm<br />
<br />
PART 61 FLIGHT CREW LICENSING Subpart P - Flight Activity & Maintenance Authorisations<br />
"1.1.2 The following flight activity authorisations are specified in this Subpart -<br />
d) Aerobatics<br />
e) Aerobatics below 3000 ft AGL<br />
f) Aerobatics below 1500 ft AGL<br />
g) Formation aerobatics<br />
h) Upright spin - specified type of aeroplane"<br />
I generally support the above - the following notes are more specific on each line item.<br />
In particular, I agree with d), e) and f). This provides a consistent and reasonable process for authorisation of aerobatics throughout the three regimes - above 3000 ft, down to 1500 ft and below 1500 ft. I note that NZ has implemented similar regulations and these should be reviewed for consideration to assist in drafting Part 61 here. http://www.caa.govt.nz/ Their 91.701 relates to our 91.075 but goes further in spelling out the same three regimes - above 3000 ft, 3000 to 1500 ft and below 1500 ft. Their Part 61, Subpart L relates to aerobatics and has similar provisions to that of the draft AC 91.075(0) Appendix 1.<br />
I note that Appendix 1 of draft AC 91.075(0) is to be removed from that AC and be incorporated in Part 61. I support that Appendix 1 in general however it requires substantial improvement as follows. My comments assume that it is retained as an Advisory Circular.<br />
- refer to paras 3.1 and 3.3. For operations below 3000 ft, the authorisation should combine aerobatics and spinning. Part 61 draft does not provide for separate spin authorisations below 3000 ft. Apart from being the current situation, the rationale is that any spinning conducted below 3000 is either quite limited, being part of a competition sequence, or highly specialised, being part of a display, so the overall competence of conducting that operation with provision for identification and correction of departures from the planned sequence is the important issue.<br />
- para 3.4. Using 150 kts as the boundary of a performance range is inappropriate - in fact, using airspeed as the sole parameter is inappropriate. Classification of types into conventional GA types, warbirds and jets would be more appropriate.<br />
- sections 4 and 5 were drafted to reflect current practice and need to be edited to conform to the draft Part 61 terminology<br />
- para 4.5 consequently must be altered to delete the CASA action, except where an authorised person is not available<br />
- para 4.5 - I recommend that aerobatic approvals down to 1500 ft be permanent and that lower levels be renewable every two years. i.e. ongoing competence at the 1500 ft level is relatively easy to maintain or regain - note that the draft approval letter specifies the currency requirements.<br />
- Annex A, the form of the test. The application form requires editing to conform to the draft Part 61 terminology. That form specifies a log book endorsement of 10 manoeuvres contrary to para 2.7 of Appendix 1. The flight test should comprise the applicants normal sequence plus demonstration of recovery from a vertical climb, before a tail-slide, rather than the list of manoeuvres currently provided. Para 3.3 must be amended to reflect that change. Note that para 4.5 provides for any restrictions appropriate from consideration of the scope of the test. For approvals down to 1500 ft I recommend a guideline that the Australian Aerobatic Club's Sportsman Competition Sequence (current or recent) be the test sequence.<br />
On the subject of transition to the new regulations, I recommend that existing aerobatic approvals should be carried over to the new system with the same height limitations. I note however, that any permanent low level approvals should have a termination date consistent with the renewal period defined in that draft AC 91.075(0) Appendix 1. Pilots who have significant experience at formation aerobatics until now should be granted a formation aerobatic authorization based on providing evidence of that experience to CASA.<br />
For the author of Comment # 22 who does not have a spin endorsement - it needs to be done - the existing requirement for a spin endorsement separate from an aerobatic endorsement has been around for a very long time. The recent addition of a separate inverted spin endorsement has been around for about ten years.<br />
http://www.casa.gov.au/download/orders/cao40/4000.pdf gives details of the spin and aerobatic endorsements - note that a spin endorsement is a prerequisite to an aerobatic endorsement.<br />
On the subject of the upright spin authorization, paragraph h), there is some merit in limiting the authorization to specific types. This is currently the case for instructor training authorizations but is a new requirement for pilot authorizations. The current upright spin endorsement is not limited to any particular type. We must first consider the case for its introduction. I am unaware of any safety issue related to specific types. Certainly, there is a variety of different spin and recovery characteristics however different aircraft types have many other features which can equally be considered as safety issues. The issue of different spin characteristics should be addressed by the following actions:<br />
1. improved education on spinning by an Advisory Circular<br />
2. a limitation on any spin authorisation if the training is conducted on a type which cannot fully demonstrate a "standard" spin eg the Airtourer<br />
The relevant USA Advisory Circular is AC 61-67C Stall and Spin Awareness Training http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular/AC61-67C.pdf <br />
I envisage an Australian AC having different scope than the USA AC as the purpose is different - being more specific to spin training, excluding the stall awareness information and including information on various spin and recovery characteristics which may be encountered.<br />
Finally, CASA omitted the authorisation required for inverted spinning.<br />
<br />
Part 61 Subpart L proposes significant changes to instructor ratings, which I support. Again, to fully understand the proposal it is essential to read the draft Part 141 on Flight Training. To refer to the example that was quoted at a Workshop at the FLOT2003 conference: a 20,000 hour experienced pilot would add a lot of value to the training environment - he/she would need to add competencies in instruction plus appropriate standardisation requirements - but there's no reason why he/she should be regarded as an inexperienced instructor. The current system of instructor does not recognise, in fact discriminates against, the ideal learning situation of experienced operational pilots returning to become instructors.<br />
Specifically, the typical profile of instructors often excludes specialist skills such as advanced, or low level aerobatics, which is sometimes best serviced by sport pilots having the appropriate skills, attitude and competence in that specialist area combined with instructional and assessment skills.<br />
I note the proposal presented at the FLOT2003 Conference by Roger Weeks, CFI of the RACWA. He proposed the retention of the existing grades and the introduction of a fourth grade for specialist instructors. That does nothing to remove the discrimination against that nominal 20,000 operational pilot returning to the training environment. This proposal also offers requirements for flight training authorisations which are relevant so let's consider them here, along with the CASA proposal. I have a concern with a specification of number of hours, spinning for example - its not like night flying where its either night or its not. Is it actual hours of performing spins or simply hours of flying with the sole intent of performing spins? The performance of the aircraft has a big effect on the outcome with the latter definition. We need to consider that an hour on a flight with the sole intention of spinning in a low performance aeroplane achieves very much less than an hour in a higher performance aeroplane.<br />
Weeks proposes that tail-wheel training would require a minimum of 5 hours PIC on tail-wheels (after the basic tail-wheel authorisation) plus 2 hours of instructor flight training. CASA proposes 20 hours PIC with nil additional instructor training. I'd combine the two requirements - 20 hours PIC plus 2 hours of instructor training. Tail-wheel operations requires a new set of habits - my insurance company told me that one of the significant factors in tail-wheel accidents was inexperienced instructors.<br />
Weeks proposes that training for aerobatics above 3000 ft would require a minimum of 5 hours PIC in aerobatic flying (beyond the basic aerobatic authorisation) plus 2 hours of instructor flight training. CASA proposes 20 hours PIC in aerobatics plus 5 hours specific instructor training. Refer the draft Appendix 1 to AC 91.075(0) which does not have the 5 hours instructor training. I support Weeks proposal in this case.<br />
Spinning training would require the basic spinning authorisation plus 2 hours of instructor flight training in spinning. CASA proposes 5 hours of spinning plus 3 hours of specific instructor training. I support the Weeks proposal - along with the training authorisation being type specific.<br />
For training in aerobatics below 3000 ft and down to 1500 ft, CASA proposes that the instructor simply hold the relevant authorisation. i.e. as per the current requirement. I support this.<br />
For training in aerobatics below 1500 ft, CASA proposes that the instructor simply hold the relevant authorisation. i.e. as per the current requirement. I recommend specific instructor training - ground training only to develop advanced knowledge of the relevant subjects and assessment of pilot attitude.<br />
<br />
OTHER REGULATIONS<br />
If I was involved full-time in the flying side of the industry I'd be taking a close look at all of the new regulations presented at the CASA FLOT2003 Conference. For example:<br />
91.150 Parking or stopping of aircraft<br />
"(2) The person responsible for parking an aircraft must ensure that it is secured so as to ensure ..."<br />
Looks OK doesn't it - but it was a lot different in the previous draft!<br />
91.335 Documents to be carried<br />
As an instructor I can take a student on an aerobatic training flight to the eastern boundary of the Moorabbin training area with the usual aircraft and pilot documentation on board only BUT if I do a similar flight myself as a private operation I must take a swag of maps (its within 20 nm of the edge of the VTC so I need the VNC as well) plus the complete ERSA.<br />
At the FLOT2003 conference our group recommended that much of this be deleted from the regulation and incorporated in an Advisory Circular.<br />
91.580 Aircraft equipment and instrument visibility and accessibility<br />
"(1) The operator of an aircraft must ensure that navigation instruments that are required for use by its pilots are arranged soa s to permit the pilot to see the indications readily from ..."<br />
Given the wide range of opinions between pilots does CASA provide a certificate of compliance against this regulation when the navigation instruments are fitted? If installation is approved per Reg 35 or TC or STC - does that provide evidence that this requirement is met?<br />
91.585 Aircraft lighting requirements<br />
"(1) The operator and the pilot in command of an aircraft on a flight in poor light conditions ... must ensure that the aircraft is fitted with, and display, lighting equipment as follows:<br />
(a) lighting to illuminate instruments and equipment essential to safe operation ...<br />
(b) cockpit lighting for general illumination of equipment, and for study of checklists and flight documents;<br />
(c) cabin lighting sufficient for all passengers to find harness connections ...<br />
(d) navigation lights;<br />
(e) an anti-collision light;<br />
(f) at least 1 landing light;<br />
(h) a fully-functional electric .. torch ..."<br />
91.590 Anti-collision and navigation lights<br />
"(1) The pilot in command of an aircraft fitted with red anti-collision lights must ensure that the lights are displayed before its engine is, or engines are, started ....<br />
(4) It is a defence ... that ... the safety of aircraft was not affected ....<br />
(6) An offence against subregulation (1), (2) or (3) is an offence of strict liability."<br />
The subject of "strict liability" was a controversial subject at the FLOT2003 conference and there's sure to be plenty of comment elsewhere. Enough to say here that its not a defence that the anti-collision lights are unserviceable (referring to 91.590) - if they are fitted then there's a penalty of 25 units if they are not turned on and working. Referring to 91.585 - if you don't have all that equipment then you must not fly in "poor light conditions" - quite a reasonable airmanship philosophy but as a regulation I'd like to see "poor light" defined (can't be a single definition as the requirement covers visibility both internal and external to the aeroplane) - does this mean that an aeroplane certified for day VFR cannot fly in some day VFR conditions? Perhaps all of this would be better in an Advisory Circular.David J Pilkingtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06225630402377448000noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5188187658045408625.post-31874446914377197082009-11-14T02:39:00.000-08:002009-11-14T02:39:46.772-08:00Draft Maintenance RegulationsCASA's new draft maintenance regulations are available for comment until 18th December.<br />
http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_93516<br />
<br />
A few years ago I was in Canberra for a presentation by CASA near the start of this project. The intent was to base it on EASA with local improvements for “world's best pratice” etc. The principle was to have outcome based regulations rather than prescriptive regulations.<br />
<br />
My little experience with EASA is that they are very bureacratic and only make general aviation more difficult. My quick look at CASA's draft regulations indicate that they have failed to make them outcome based – they are very prescriptive and will introduce more bureaucracy and expense to us.<br />
<br />
A few examples.<br />
<br />
I can currently do the second inspection of the control system on an aircraft (mine in particular) after maintenance. The new regulation would make it very difficult for me to do that.<br />
<br />
We currently have a maintenance release with a requirement for a daily inspection to be certified. The draft requirement is for a technical log with the pre-flight inspection to be signed by the pilot.<br />
<br />
Take a look here to see how NZ does it.<br />
http://www.caa.govt.nz/Advisory_Circulars/ac91-6.pdf Reasonably sensible in my opinion – it is a daily system, not a lot different than what we currently do and provides for a variety of means to comply.<br />
<br />
However, the CASA requirement is "pilot in command of an aircraft for a flight must ensure that the information about the flight is recorded in the flight technical log for the aircraft (unless CASA has approved another means of recording the information)." No longer a record at the end of the day's flying. Take a look at the NZ AC again to see what you can expect when CASA fills in the details with their AC. Remember, that will be required after each and every flight.<br />
<br />
Read that rule above in conjunction with a new requirement for the pre-flight inspection, if required by the aircraft's flight manual. The Decathlon and Laser manuals, for example, are quite specific on the pre-flight check – not an issue as it includes the usual things that a pilot would do anyway. Do you think that CASA will expect that it be certified in the new technical log or not? I didn't see a requirement for a daily inspection anywhere in these draft regulations.<br />
Consider how you operate your aircraft, say, at an aerobatic contest or practice weekend with several flights back to back.<br />
More unnecessary paperwork and more time wasted.<br />
<br />
The requirement for fitting a fabricated part – only if it has been made by the approved maintenance organisation doing work on the aeroplane. A simple part such as the special canopy bolt for the Pitts – the maintenance organisation had to contract the work to a specialised machining company but it seems that is no longer acceptable. The alternative is to buy the original factory part or a get that other company to get that bolt approved as a PMA'd part.<br />
<br />
Replace a few screws on your aeroplane. Make sure that they are accompanied by evidence that they conform to the specification and are eligible to be fitted to the aircraft. Much more prescriuptive than the current reegulations I believe.<br />
<br />
It seems that these draft regulations require more scrutiny by those people who will pay more as a result. i.e. everyone should take a look and respond to CASA. Why can't we do things the way they are done in the USA? I thought that was the original intent of regulatory reform twenty years ago. Last time I asked that of CASA in a meeting in Canberra I was told that the FAA would like to change their regulations in the same way. Guess what – the American aviation community wouldn't let them. The Australian way is to ignore drafts and simpy whinge when the new requirements are imposed on us - it is time that we changed our approach to CASA.David J Pilkingtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06225630402377448000noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5188187658045408625.post-88731166611793616482009-11-10T04:42:00.000-08:002009-11-10T04:42:51.975-08:00Spin PlacardNew spin placard, well not really new as it has been in FAR 23 for many years but only newly certified airplanes will have it. Worth noting as it emphasizes a limitation on the number of turns in a spin based on what was tested.<br />
[(d) For acrobatic category airplanes and utility category airplanes approved for spinning, there must be a placard in clear view of the pilot--<br />
(1) Listing the control action for recovery from spinning maneuvers; and<br />
(2) Stating that recovery must be initiated when spiral characteristics appear, or after not more than six turns or not more than any greater number of turns for which the airplane has been certificated.]<br />
Aerobatic category airplanes are normally tested to 6 turns and with a comprehensive spin matrix of configurations and modes so your favourite video on Youtube doesn't count for much. i.e. the recommended maximum number of turns in a spin is 6 (there are physiological effects on the pilot which also support that same limit).David J Pilkingtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06225630402377448000noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5188187658045408625.post-63840905079110989182009-11-06T16:00:00.000-08:002009-11-06T16:00:47.977-08:00Sport Aerobatics Magazine - safety articlesThere have been some interesting articles in Sport Aerobatics magazine this year.<br />
<br />
One in the October issue that I have just received: “Making Safer Takeoffs”<br />
<br />
“... The overabundance of horsepower and the ability to climb out at an obscene angle is a great way to demonstrate one of the highest-performance maneuvers of the entire flight. … As aerobatic airplanes have become more powerful over the years, excess horsepower has seduced many aerobatic pilots into flight profiles that will not tolerate an engine failure. … <br />
let's say you are at 300 feet above ground level (AGL) after takeoff and the engine quits cold … Your airspeed is 90 mph … and your climb angle is 30 degrees. Wait about two seconds, because that's your typical reaction time in spite of what you might think … As you shove the stick full forward, the airspeed will continue to drop back … Now you are sinking and stalling … Now look at your energy state. You have no airspeed to work with, and you are going down rapidly … You need a descent angle of about 30 degrees to start building airspeed … You're going through 150 feet now with the ground coming up fast … Either way you are out of options and you will hit the ground at more than 20 g's, plenty hard enough to …. <br />
<br />
Get some altitude someday and try it...even when pulling the engine back to idle power, you will be in for a surprising altitude loss, but nothing compared to a surprise engine failure. … Recognise a steep climbout for what it is: a deviation from established safe procedures. … Observers may then recognise you as one who really does know how to handle a high-performance airplane.”<br />
<br />
Another in May, the annual safety issue: “Why it's important to follow briefed contest operating procedures”<br />
<br />
“ … Pilots taking off were briefed to fly an upwind leg followed by a right turn into the holding area when clear of the runway. They were instructed not to perform “zooming” (an extended ground effect followed by a steep rapid climb) takeoffs. …. The incident pilot taking off performed a zooming takeoff during which he performed a sharp steep-banked 90 degree right turn at approximately mid-field. … The collision courses of the two aircraft were visible to most people at the contest …<br />
<br />
As aerobatic pilots, we are amongst the pinnacle of skilled aviators. As an organisation of aerobatic pilots, our goal should be to always conduct ourselves in a manner that is an example for and the envy of other vaiators. Where there is an aerobatic contest, there should be pilots marvelling at the decorum of our well oiled machine. That is not possible unless everyone practices the superior judgement that sets a superior pilot apart from a pilot with merely superior skills.<br />
<br />
The primary goal of contest organizers is to send everyone home in the same number of pieces that they showed up in, namely one. ...”<br />
<br />
I wonder how many aerobatic pilots even bother to read them or take any notice?David J Pilkingtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06225630402377448000noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5188187658045408625.post-55117363157851315132009-10-02T00:03:00.000-07:002009-10-02T00:09:04.872-07:00Regulatory Review ProgramI just have to agree with this editorial:<br /><br />"We can’t pinpoint the exact date, but readers keep reminding us that it’s 21 years this September since CASA launched its regulatory review program (RRP) to upgrade our dismally concocted, confused, contradictory and contaminated regulatory structure. The program set sail with the seemingly modest goal of introducing clear and concise regulations that were fewer, simpler, more enforceable, more appropriate, and in harmony with the rule structures of other nations.<br /><br />And there was lots of industry consultation. Since the program began in 1988, we’ve had four PMs, at least as many aviation-responsible ministers, four CASA directors, and by now something well over $200 million in ongoing costs. CASA’s legal department has grown, shrunk, and is now growing again, but the sheltered regulatory review workshop proudly sails on through dark, uncharted waters, seemingly still attached by a long mooring line to its point of departure.<br /><br />Every few years we’re told that the task is almost ended, but the end seems no closer. Depending on who you listen to the villains include lack of consultation, excessive consultation, lack of direction, political interference, political disinterest, management and organisation structure changes, bureaucratic intervention, and bureaucratic inertia. The program however continues to set new records.<br /><br />We’re told that the US FAR Part 43 is something like 20 pages, and the NZ equivalent where they use the same size A5 paper, runs to about 32 pages. Our sources say our FAR Part 42, the equivalent, is running to 162 A4 pages, which would probably be somewhere between 250 and 300 A5 pages. One observer notes that at least this week our harmonisation seems to be leaning towards the FAA, because recent press releases and CEO comments are now spelling harmonisation with a Z.<br /><br />High safety standards indeed!<br /><br />Congratulations"<br />From http://www.aviationadvertiser.com.au/2009/09/twenty-one-this-month/David J Pilkingtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06225630402377448000noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5188187658045408625.post-68525197659555481922009-09-22T23:31:00.000-07:002009-09-22T23:39:09.871-07:00Aerobatic Contest RulesLast year I developed some rule change proposals for discussion and I believe that some-one submitted them so time to compare those with the last round of rule changes.<br /><br />Rule #1.8 still has liability insurance at $1M. That doesn't cover much damage if you think about it. They'll go after the event organisers for the rest (the event insurance policy excludes aircraft accidents). Also, insurance policies have contests as a general exclusion so perhaps the aircraft's policy isn't even valid. Personally, I would not get involved with running a contest with that approach to risk management.<br /><br />Rule #2.2 still does not clarify the responsibilities and authority of a safety pilot. Furthermore it allows a member of the AAC with a low level permission to be a safety pilot. The current conditions on permissions per the CAAP would seem to be contrary to this. There is nothing in the assessment for an individual's low level permission which considers riding along as safety pilot – whatever that is as there is still no definition for it.<br /><br />Also, despite some categories being permitted to have a safety pilot, rule #2.3 i) still requires a contestant to hold an appropriate low level permisison. i.e. if a pilot doesn't have a low level permission then it prevents participation in the contest per rule #2.3. i.e. what is the purpose of a safety pilot?<br /><br />Rule #3.8 still does not allow for special cases of competitors arriving late. Even if the contest jury and the other competitors agree it still can't happen.<br /><br />Rule #4.15 Height Limitations<br />Well, Intermediate was changed but still an issue with Sportsman and Graduate.<br />Graduate and Sportsman pilots are expected to have a Low Level Permission to 1500 ft. The current rule 4.16 provides for disqualification if judged to fly below 1500 ft. The other categories have a buffer of 1-200 ft where a points penalty is awarded. The proposal will provide for that same buffer to Graduate and Sportsman. Such a buffer recognises that judgement of height is not absolute.<br />The effect will be increased safety which is the objective of the disqualification rule. With a specified higher limit, pilots will be obliged to fly higher per the rules rather than consider 1500 ft to be the lower limit. A higher margin of safety will result. Most pilots in these categories already use an effective lower height limit of about 1700 ft to ensure that they are not disqualified as a result of inaccuracy of judgement.<br /><br />Rule #4.16 relates to the above.<br />There is a clear statement in the rule “An infringement of the lower disqualification level must be agreed by at least a two-thirds majority of the Judges” which is ignored – people in Graduate and Sportsman are being disqualified on a simple majority rather than a two-thirds majority as required.<br /><br />Rule #4.17. The Aerobatic Performance Zone, was not changed.<br />The CASA rules relating to the deadline applies only to aerobatics flown below 1500 ft so is not applicable to Sportsman or Graduate. The location of the Zone itself per the general rules for conduct of aerobatics should be adequate for the categories flown above 1500 ft.<br /><br />An approximate tolerance is specified for measurement of distance for the location of the judges. Some judges have been observed to be located as close as approx 100 meters from the edge of the Zone and, as a result, penalised pilots for flying too close to the judges. Pilots fly in the defined Zone and expect the judges to be located per the rules. This rule change would make it clearer to the judges how far from the edge of the Zone they should be located.<br /><br />Rule #5.4<br />The rule for on the maximum number of figures for a Sportsman Free was changed from “same as current compulsory” to “12”.<br /><br />Rule 5.1 refers to Sportsman Programme 2 as primarily the Free Programme. Rule 5.4 also refers to it as the Free Programme and notes that a competitor has the option of reflying the Known instead of the Free. I.e. the norm has become flying the Known twice whereas the clear intent of the rule is to fly the Known and a Free.<br /><br />The original rule was the same as is proposed. i.e. no limit on the number of figures. The IAC has been running successfully with this rule for many years. When the rule was changed the rationale was that it was not fair to allow a Free with more figures than the Known however this simply entrenches the wrong approach of flying the Known twice. The approach should be to encourage competitors to fly a Free sequence as intended by the rules. The 2009 rule change did encourage a very few to fly a Free programme but it has not gone far enough.<br /><br />A limit on the number of figures for Sportsman category figues is unduly restrictive. It is very difficult to develop a Sportsman Free. The result is a strong discouragement to the development of Free sequences which is contrary to the overall rules. All competitors have the option of developing a Free sequence so this proposal retains fairness for all. (Perhaps the AAC could offer a default Free as well as a Known).<br /><br />Recent competitions are noted for high scoring Sportsman flights. This rule change will provide more of a challenge with no increase in difficulty so contribute to more successful contests. The challenge comes from the additional preparation needed to develop and practice a Free. In the IAC, all acknowledge that a Free should be flown by competitors at National level.David J Pilkingtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06225630402377448000noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5188187658045408625.post-53747156899121318372009-06-22T03:28:00.000-07:002009-06-22T03:33:31.499-07:00Error Management RoadshowI was fortunate to be able to attend this seminar by Tony Kern today.<br /><br />I believe that CASA has done something extremely significant by organising this. Unfortunately, only a small proportion of pilots and engineers are able to attend. Even more unfortunately, only pilots and engineers knew about it - everyone in this country should undergo the general version of this and it must become part of secondary education.<br /><br />"Internationally recognised error management expert, Tony Kern will be presenting practically–focused seminars nationwide. The full-day seminars will cover:<br />background to human error: physiology and psychology<br />violation and error-producing conditions & countermeasures for LAMEs & pilots<br />developing a personal safety management system (PSMS) to integrate seamlessly with organisational safety management systems<br />flight discipline & compliance: the cornerstone of professionalism practical error management – tips & strategies for individuals.<br /><br />Each seminar participant will also receive:<br />Blue Threat Fieldbook – tailored to Australian conditions, so that you can track your own errors & develop personal countermeasures<br />A year’s free subscription to online assessment tools"<br /><a href="http://www.convergentperformance.com/gwoe/default.asp" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.convergentperformance.com/gwoe/default.asp</a><br /><br />See also: <a href="http://www.hikoudo.com/index.html">http://www.hikoudo.com/index.html</a>David J Pilkingtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06225630402377448000noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5188187658045408625.post-80071399185386881952009-05-15T23:01:00.000-07:002009-05-15T23:06:07.430-07:00Downwind LoopThere was plenty of free time at the National Championships at Parkes so I filled in some time by knocking up some proposed Known Sequences for Sportsman and Intermediate. There wasn't a lot of time to submit them so grabbed some Knowns from the IAC and BAeA and set to work. I have just heard that I was severely criticised for putting a downwind loop in one of those sequences. I was also told that one of the persons who criticised me actually had a downwind loop in his proposal. Furthermore, neither of my sequences had a downwind loop.<br /><br />Loopy!David J Pilkingtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06225630402377448000noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5188187658045408625.post-11188381838356384682009-05-11T04:03:00.000-07:002009-05-11T04:09:45.890-07:00The Best Aerobatic DisplayI've watched very many memorable aerobatic displays over the years. As a kid I used to go to the RAAF Laverton displays; only much later did I meet the pilot of many of the displays I'd been watching and had an opportunity to work with Gil. Then there was Aub, who taught me aerobatics, and his displays in the Cessna Aerobat. A year in the UK in the '70s gave me the opportunity to see the Rothmans Team plus Barry and Neil. Then living in the USA (pilots' paradise) there was Greg, Patty, Sean and Bob. At local displays: Chris and Pip. Back in the eighties there was the Philips World Aerobatic Challenge with Geoff, Frank, Kermit and Eric. Can't forget Xavier or Yurgis. Who have I forgotten?<br /><br />I won't venture into any judgement on their relative abilities. All memorable displays.<br /><br />Not taking anything away from the skills that these people have demonstrated but last March, at Redcliffe in Queensland, I saw a display and just had to comment to the pilot afterwards that it was the best aerobatic display that I had ever seen. Let's consider it against the competition criteria for the Unlimited Four Minute Freestyle Programme.<br /><div align="center"><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><strong>Technical Merit (160K)</strong></span></div><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></strong><div align="left"><br /><strong>“Use of Many Different Areas of the Flight Envelope – 40K”</strong><br />Yep, full marks.</div><div align="left"><br /><strong>“Exploitation of Aerodynamic Controls and Gyroscopic Forces – 40K”</strong><br />Nil gyroscopic manoeuvres but then again people used to say that to do a nice lomcevak all you need is a Pitts and a heavy hand. I wouldn't take many points off for that consideration.</div><div align="left"><br /><strong>“The Clarity of the Execution of Individual Manoeuvre Elements – 40K”</strong><br />Yep, full marks.</div><div align="left"><br /><strong>“The Combination of Manoeuvre Elements in a Wide Variety of Figures Flown on Different Axis and Flightpaths – 40K”<br /></strong>Slight downgrade as one manoeuvre was a cloverleaf with the associated repetition – however that earned more points below.</div><div align="center"><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><strong>Artistic Impression (160K)</strong></span></div><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></strong><br /><strong>“The Pleasing and Continuous Flow of Figures – 40K”</strong><br />Full marks.<br /><br /><strong>Contrasting Periods of Dynamic and Graceful Manoeuvres – 40K</strong><br />Full marks.<br /><br /><strong>Presenting Individual Figures in Their Best Orientation – 40K</strong><br />Full marks.<br /><br /><strong>Placing Individual Figures in Their Optimum Position – 40K</strong><br />Full marks.<br /><div align="center"><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Positioning (80K)</span></strong></div><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></strong><br /><strong>Symmetry – 40K</strong><br />Perfect.<br /><br /><strong>The Performance Zone – 40K</strong><br />Just perfect.<br /><br />All of those I mentioned above would score very high against this criteria but this flight I saw recently stands out. Just plain first class.<br /><br /><div align="center"><strong><em>Bob Tait in a 7GCAA Citabria.</em></strong></div>David J Pilkingtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06225630402377448000noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5188187658045408625.post-32257503795678891982009-03-22T01:52:00.000-07:002009-03-22T02:25:29.225-07:00Pitts & Decathlon UpdateMy last blog at <a href="http://davidjpilkington.blogspot.com/">http://davidjpilkington.blogspot.com/</a> was about preparation for the National Aerobatic Championships at Easter. I've also sent some emails to a few people to start discussion about the logistics of getting there. Taking a Pitts or Decathlon with two people doesn't leave a lot of room to take luggage plus some useful stuff for the aeroplane. As usual, diddly squat response to my emails so I'll proceed with my own plans to suit myself – perhaps I'll even drive up with my wife (if the Airtourer option doesn't work out) and see what options I have for flying when I get to Parkes.<br />My Decathlon, JIR, probably won't be going but that's another option for my wife and myself. If it does go it will, of course, be available for others to fly at the standard rate at Moorabbin. However, it would be good to get our “new” Pitts S-2A, MCR, there instead.<br />Oxford's Pitts, SZE, will definitely be there with Rob and David taking it up. I expect that a standard Decathlon, probably ITG, will also be going up.<br />At this stage I'm not sure Gerry's Super Decathlon from Brisbane nor Jock's Super Decathlon from Lilydale. Hopefully both of them will make it.<br />So, there are plenty of aeroplanes for people to fly at Parkes. Closing date for entries was over a week ago and I see people still trying to organise entries and time off work etc. I wonder why entries had to close a month before the event.<br />I have just received the invitation to the Civic Reception at Parkes however 5 pm on the Thursday may not work for me. Practice takes priority over cocktail parties but the way things are going I'll be lucky to arrive by then. Incidentally, the invitation doesn't say cocktail party so maybe it is a just us standing there while people make lots of speeches. Arriving on Thursday should give me one practice flight in the box on Friday before the contest starts. I see that the rules state that each competitor shall be allowed one training flight in the box. My view is that each pilot is allowed only one flight in the box – one argument put for the Nationals to be held at Parkes is that the contest should not be at anyone's “home base” so that no-one has an advantage by being more familiar with the box. So, why allow people to practice there for a week or so before the contest?<br />Finally, a note about daily inspections and pre-flight checks of the aeroplane. It seems that some people are unaware of the responsibility associated with signing the maintenance release to certify that they have inspected the aeroplane per the required checklist and that it is serviceable. A couple of weeks ago I observed that all tyres on JIR looked a little low but I didn't have a pump with me and I wasn't going flying so I thought that it would be picked up by the next pilot. I returned a week later after it had done several flights and the tyres were obviously still low. The tailwheel in particular had an obvious deflection which meant that it was only 10 psi. I wonder how many pilots know what the pressure should be? If not, you are unable to conduct the daily inspection! If not, you are putting yourself at risk by not conducting an adequate pre-flight check. I've seen what happens if the tailwheel tyre runs off the rim.<br />I hope to see you all at Parkes next month.David J Pilkingtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06225630402377448000noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5188187658045408625.post-29489314113639433962009-02-24T01:54:00.000-08:002009-02-24T01:58:53.474-08:002009 NationalsWell, I just managed to get to the Victorian Aerobatic Championships with our “new” 1974 model Pitts S-2A. VH-MCR was formerly N20MC and was imported to Australia at the end of 2008. We did quite a bit of work on it including rebuilding much of firewall forward and tarting up the paintwork. It flew for the first time in Australia on 18/2/09 and took a few flights to get the rigging just right. I arrived at Tocumwal on Thursday, the day before the contest started so my first contest flight was also my first aerobatics in MCR as well as my first sequence in a Pitts for some time. Consequently I stayed high which, combined with the smoke from the bushfires, displeased the judges. Pitot-static problems aggravated the situation and resulted in some breaks, unnecessary in retrospect.<br /><br />After the contest a formation sortie with Rob in the other S-2A from Moorabbin, VH-SZE. You should see the photos from this in a future issue of the AOPA magazine. Then departed for Moorabbin with Rob and Bart in SZE. SZE is definitely a few knots faster which is not surprising given the old wing with frise ailerons plus the big beacon on MCR.<br /><br />Apart from the distraction of the Avalon Airshow in March there's plenty of time to prepare for the Nationals. My Free sequence needs a little bit more development. I've been using OLAN which is excellent for my requirements. Beats me if I'm going to pay for Microsoft Visio etc just to make up one sequence every 5 years or so. The California Freestyle guidelines are still valid even though they were developed over 20 years ago. Alan Cassidy's book, Better Aerobatics, also has some useful guidance on developing free sequences (buy his Aresti software if you're an up and coming pilot as you'll use it a lot as you progress to Advanced category).<br /><br />The most important part of the preparation will be practice, ideally with critiquing from the ground by some-one with a tape recorder. I don't need some-one telling me what to do over the radio – I want detailed refinements to be considered in depth when I get back on the ground. Perhaps a weekend training camp at either Kyneton or Tocumwal near the end of March.<br />Practice of the Known and my final Free sequence is obviously going to be a big part of it so too will be performances of a number of Unknown sequences. The IAC has a made some Unknowns from 2008 public so there is plenty of raw material there.<br /><br />Most serious competition pilots practice solidly just prior to the Nationals but it is important not to overdo it. The question is where? Rules state that “All competitors will be allowed one training flight for familiarisation with the local conditions over the performance zone“. I've always taken that to mean that no practice at the contest venue is permitted prior to official practice at which one flight is permitted. That is consistent with those people who want the Nationals at a site which is not used for practice throughout the year. On the other hand there are some who turn up at the venue two weeks prior to the contest and practice solidly – sort of makes a mockery of any policy not to allow pilots to become familiar with the Aerobatic Performance Zone at the contest site. Regardless, I see that the contest officials condone practice prior to official practice on Friday. My plan is to arrive on Wednesday to get two serious practice flights in. All practice flights mirror the competition scenario, beginning with the pre-flight walk through the sequence and ending with the three wing dips.<br /><br />Finally, base will be the Comfort Inn Parkes International.David J Pilkingtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06225630402377448000noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5188187658045408625.post-39506460738955445672009-01-21T13:36:00.000-08:002009-01-21T14:35:22.376-08:00Looking at 2009I've been on holidays here on the surfcoast at Torquay so plenty of time to relax and ponder.<br /><br />Earlier I had anounced my new year resolution:<br />To lay low! The intent is to become less involved in organisations in which I've been active in recent years; fewer emails on the few lists that I've posted on; fewer meetings and committees. i.e. to slow down.<br /><br />That should make some time available for other things and near the top of my list is more flying. 2008 was the first time that I competed in all but one aerobatic contest in Australia. The one I missed was the aerobatic event at the Australian Light Aircraft Championships - they don't allow professionals so I'm not eligible. Victorian Championships in February, Nationals in April, Queensland in June and New South Wales in October. Perhaps this year there will be a contest in Western Australia - plenty of help available from some of us if need be. The Avalon Airshow is in there somewhere but I'm not interested in seeing a succession of grey, noisy jets but its a convenient place to catch up with many friends on the trade days.<br /><br />Contests means practice and critiquing. The Australian Aerobatic Club Victorian Chapter organises occasional training camps (I'll miss the one next weekend as I'll still be at the beach) and maybe there's a need for some of us to put in some additional effort. I'll be available to help coach pilots in preparation for all the contests, including ALAC which is in W.A. in March.<br /><br />I'm now operating from Lilydale on Sundays as well as Moorabbin on Saturdays which means a lot more work in teaching tailwheel, aerobatics and spinning. And the world certainly needs more of that last one. I continue to be amazed at the lack of knowledge and incorrect information amongst pilots. An experienced PPL who put the Decathlon into a flat spin while attempting a straight power-off stall. Another with a spin and aerobatic endorsement but who hadn't done any for some time was recovering from our spins by simply centralising the rudder. The one who didn't really understand what a spin was. Finally, the myriad of online forums where people pontificate on how to recover from spins and too often the wrong information is being presented. I've been accused of pontificating online too (hey - you don't have to read it) and I never present anything other than some basic info plus appropriate references. Rich Stowell's new book on <a href="http://www.richstowell.com/">Stall/Spin Awareness</a>.<br /><br />There are some other flying activities which interest me so perhaps more of that later. Also a couple of engineering projects which I'm unable to say much about at this stage.<br /><br />Looking forward to an interesting 2009.<br /><br />DJPDavid J Pilkingtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06225630402377448000noreply@blogger.com0