Acro Image

Aerobatics Server

ACRO E-mail Archive Thread: [Acro] Re: IAC rules amok?? -- just another r ...

[International Aerobatic Club] [Communications] [Aerobatics Images]

Disclaimer: These aerobatics pages are developed by individual IAC members and do not represent official IAC policy or opinion.

[Usage Statistics]

ACRO E-mail Archive Thread: [Acro] Re: IAC rules amok?? -- just another r ...


Thread: [Acro] Re: IAC rules amok?? -- just another r ...

Message: [Acro] Re: IAC rules amok?? -- just another real world solution

Follow-Up To: ACRO Email list (for List Members only)

From: jeffery at

Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2002 18:37:46 UTC



Your point on Basic vs Primary pilot spin training is valid, but I would also 
consider that for the average entry level competitor in the old Basic category, 
spins were performed over and over as part of practicing the sequence.  While 
this is in NO way a substitute for spin training, at least those pilots were 
reasonably proficient at normal spin entry and recovery techniques for their 
specific airplanes.  Now we have the potential for inadvertant spin entry and 
no expectation that the pilot can recover.  IMHO it would be foolish for anyone 
to place themselves in a flight attitude where a spin could occur without 
having been trained in how to deal with the potential result.  But that is what 
has been implemented.  The root problem, as has been stated several times, is 
that we do not want to address the issue of established entry criteria for 
competition.  And I mostly agree with the faction that wants minimum 
requirements to maximize participation.  At least the old Basic category 
provided some level of peer expectation that a contest participant was 
practiced in normal spin recovery.

I intend to request that our current IAC BOD be charged with the task of 
tracking Primary category participants over the next year or two to see just 
how many new competitors have entered IAC sanctioned competitions, and 
specifically, how many of those were flying aircraft that are not certificated 
for intentional spins.  If we find a significant increase has occurred in the 
influx of new blood into our sport compared to previous years, then maybe there 
is some (at least economic) justification for allowing the new category to 
remain.  If we find that only a handful of Stearman/T-6/etc. folks have joined 
in the fun, then I don't think the potential for spin related incidents 
justifies keeping the category.  (The tracking should probably also look at 
NTSB reports to include any spin related incidents that occur with non-spin 
certificated aircraft that may have resulted during a practice session.  I 
realize this info could be very speculative, but is a potential indicator.)  So 
much for my $0.02 worth.

Jeffery Poehlmann
President IAC Ch. 107

> Folks -
> This has been a great thread, and I'm impressed by the unanimity of opinion
> in such a diverse group.  I also agree whole-heartedly that if you haven't
> gotten spin training you don't belong in competition aerobatics.
> That said... what in the heck does any of this have to do with Primary or
> Basic?
> Yeah, Basic had a spin and Primary doesn't.  Who's to say that Basic
> competitors had any more spin training than Primary competitors?  Just
> because a figure appears in the Known doesn't mean that the pilot is any good
> at it (heck, I'm living proof of that!).
> So let's address the REAL question here.  What constitutes an acceptable
> level of emergency aerobatic spin training?  And given the strong
> pro-training bias of the respondents, why are we so shy about imposing
> training requirements?
> Best regards,
> DJ Molny
> IAC Chapter 12
> Rocky Mountain Aerobatic Club
> "Have you had your Vitamin G today?"
> ..
> ..
> ..
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Try FREE Yahoo! Mail - the world's greatest free email!


© Dr. Günther Eichhorn
Email Guenther Eichhorn