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: "Eric Minnis" <acroeric at mebtel.net>

Date: Sat, 09 Mar 2002 03:11:43 UTC


Message:

What is their progression path after primary? Will the P51's, L-39's and
T-6's be flying the advanced sequence without the spin?  I could see a
clear path from basic but not the path we are on now. I am a new guy in
IAC, I am just learning acro, I have gone and received extensive spin/
acro  training and I do not like primary- it stinks. Heck - I have not
even flown my first contest but was planning to real soon:-)
Eric
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Nahom [mailto:califprint at earthlink.net] 
Sent: Friday, March 08, 2002 8:46 PM
To: Ron Spencer
Cc: Dr. Guenther Eichhorn; acro at gf24.de
Subject: [Acro] Re: IAC rules amok?? -- just another real world solution
 
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 <mailto:califprint at earthlink.net>  Nahom 
To: Dr. <mailto:gei at head-cfa.harvard.edu>  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  <mailto:3C884AA7.3080103 at earthlink.net>
<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 yo
ur 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