Acro Image

Aerobatics Server

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

[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 re ...



                


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

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

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

From: "Ron Spencer" <splitimagewing at earthlink.net>

Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2002 22:25:18 UTC


Message:

I for one, support the new primary category.  I would like to see it expanded for the warbird types.  It would be a blast to see a P-51 competing, or even an L-39.  I think Rob's leadership is trying to give IAC new aspects to its participation.  

As far as the spin training is concerned...a number of points come to mind before we all start the hue and cry about "spin training"...again.  The term "spin training" is arbitrary at best, as it is highly dependent on not only the instructor's qualification but also on the aircraft itself.  

Recall that there are a basic minimum of 24 spin types... (actually any variation makes it almost an infinite number), for example there are 6 upright spin types to the left (power off, aileron neutral, aileron in-spin and aileron outspin, then the same three aileron positions with power on).  Each will deliver a different spin result.  Also recall that a true spin does not develop until at least 2 or 3 turns, depending on the aircraft type.

Using the same basic format above, there are six inverted to the left, six inverted to the right, and six upright to the right.  Add slight stick forward displacement during the spin and the spins change characteristics again.  Point being that unless a pilot is able to touch on these basic 24 spin types they will not know their aircraft.  To add further complexity let's not forget cross-over spins both upright to inverted and inverted to upright, and the multiple 12 turn spin vertigo recoveries.

Another critical area to remember is that aircraft flight characteristics will change with two people on board.  My 'B' does not fly the same solo as it does with a pilot upfront.  Highly competent solo pilots have  gotten themselves into trouble when spinning with two people on board.

Granted, there is no substitute for spin training, however, spin training is merely a stepping stone to expand a pilot's envelope.  Hopefully basic spin training techinques will keep the pilot alive as that pilot begins to explore the variety of spins I have mentioned.  Altitude is your friend, and your parachute your lifeline...literally.  Spin training does not guarantee that a pilot will know how to get of a spin, because there are an infinite number.  Add to this inadvertant spin entries and a pilot may not even know he IS in a spin.  Standardization and complete exposure to all potential aspects of flight operations is one of the most elusive and expensive prospects to any flight training.  Air Forces and Airlines spend millions trying to accomplish this, it strikes me as a bit much for the IAC to take on this spin training burden. 

In conclusion, mandating spin training sounds good, but will not truly work owing to the variety of competition aircraft, and variety of qualifications of "instructors" who will be teaching.  Unless the IAC is willing to standardize and accept responsibility for this training, it will always be arbitrary at best.  While commendable in their intent, IAC chapters should NOT require spin training in order to compete.  It is a can of worms that will not do justice or satisfy anything or anyone.  

.02$ -RS-
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Jim Nahom 
  To: Dr. Guenther Eichhorn 
  Cc: acro at gf24.de 
  Sent: Friday, March 08, 2002 1:15 PM
  Subject: [Acro] Re: IAC rules amok?? -- just another real world solution


  Just wondering but is there ANYBODY out there that thinks the new primary category is a good idea? 

  Jim Nahom
  Chapter 49

  Dr. Guenther Eichhorn wrote:

Hi all,I second that.  I don't think that the new primary category is the right way to go.  It leaves out the spin which is essential to aerobatics, and it includes a composite maneuver, the half cuban, which shouldn't be in a beginners sequence.Guenther------ Original Message ------In message <3C884AA7.3080103 at earthlink.net>, Jim Nahom writes:
--------------020309030408070802000803Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowedContent-Transfer-Encoding: 7bitGood for you Kurt, and the Chapter 69 BOD. I have not spoken with anybody  that is actually in favor of having the new primary category.Jim NahomVice President Chapter 49Kurt Otto Haukohl wrote:
NOTE: although we will be flying the new IAC Primary category and are strong and enthusiastic supporters of grassroots aerobatics, we feel that your safety is paramount. Many aerobatic maneuvers may result in unintended spins, even though a given aircraft may not be certificated for intentional spins. So, in the interest of safety, and at the request of the Chapter 69 Board of Directors, we have applied for the following supplemental contest rule: Any competitor who wishes to fly in the Primary category (in which a spin is not required) must either: 1) provide evidence of prior aerobatic (not CFI) spin training, 2) have flown before in an IAC competition flight requiring a spin (such as Basic), or 3) be willing to fly with a safety pilot at the 2002 CopperState contest. If you have any questions regarding this policy, or want to inquire about arranging for a safety pilot, please contact the CD with your d
etails and questions as soon as possible. Thank you for your understanding!
--------------020309030408070802000803Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-asciiContent-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit<html><head></head><body>Good for you Kurt, and the Chapter 69 BOD. I have not spoken with <u>anybody</u>that is actually in favor of having the new primary category.<br><br>Jim Nahom<br>Vice President Chapter 49<br><br>Kurt Otto Haukohl wrote:<br><blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:5.1.0.14.0.20020307205600.00b8a008 at pop.sac.sticare.com"><font color="#ff0000"><br>NOTE: although we will be flying the new IAC Primary category and are strongand enthusiastic supporters of grassroots aerobatics, we feel that <u>yoursafety</u> is paramount. Many aerobatic maneuvers may
 result in unintendedspins, even though a given aircraft may not be certificated for intentionalspins. So, in the interest of safety, and at the request of the Chapter 69Board of Directors, we have applied for the following supplemental contestrule: Any competitor who wishes to fly in the Primary category (in whicha spin is <u>not</u> required) must <u>either</u>: 1) provide evidence ofprior aerobatic (not CFI) spin training, 2) have flown before in an IAC competitionflight requiring a spin (such as Basic), or 3) be willing to fly with a safetypilot at the 2002 CopperState contest. If you have any questions regardingthis policy, or want to inquire about arranging for a safety pilot, please contact the </font><font color="#0000ff"><u>CD</u></font><font color="#ff0000"
with your details and questions as soon as possible. Thank you for your understanding!<br> </font></blockquote> <br> </body> </html>--------------020309030408070802000803--



Attachement 1: part2.html


                


© Dr. Günther Eichhorn
Retired
Email Guenther Eichhorn