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: Jim Nahom <califprint at earthlink.net>

Date: Sat, 09 Mar 2002 01:48:37 UTC


Message:

Ron, you are the very first person I have ever had contact with that 
supports this category. Just curious though, how high do you think a 
P-51 or L-39 should start at to complete the Primary sequence and finish 
above 1500' AGL ?


Jim Nahom



Ron Spencer wrote:

> 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 <mailto:califprint at earthlink.net>
>
>     To: Dr. Guenther Eichhorn <mailto:gei at head-cfa.harvard.edu>
>
>     Cc:acro at gf24.de <mailto: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:
>>
>>>--------------020309030408070802000803
>>>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
>>>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>>>
>>>Good 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 Nahom
>>>Vice President Chapter 49
>>>
>>>Kurt 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!
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>--------------020309030408070802000803
>>>Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
>>>Content-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.s
>>>ticare.com"><font color="#ff0000"><br>
>>>NOTE: although we will be flying the new IAC Primary category and are strong
>>>and enthusiastic supporters of grassroots aerobatics, we feel that <u>your
>>>safety</u> 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 <u>not</u> required) must <u>either</u>: 1) provide evidence of
>>>prior aerobatic (not CFI) spin training, 2) have flown before in an IAC compet
>>>ition
>>>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 </font><font color="#0000ff"><u>CD</u></font><font color="#ff0000"
>>>
>>>with your details and questions as soon as possible. Thank you for your under
>>>standing!<br>
>>> </font></blockquote>
>>> <br>
>>> </body>
>>> </html>
>>>
>>>--------------020309030408070802000803--
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>

Attachement 1: part2.html


                


© Dr. Günther Eichhorn
Retired
Email Guenther Eichhorn