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.
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
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:126.96.36.199.0.20020307205600.00b8a008 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