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 soluti on

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

From: "Paul B. Stambaugh" <pstambau at yahoo.com>

Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 13:41:55 UTC


Message:

  If someone can afford to own a P-51 or T-6 then they
can afford to go buy a Pitts or something to compete
in. In would be counter productive to de-value a
war-bird for the sake of competing.


--- "Flynn, Michael" <MFlynn at verisign.com> wrote:
> I don't care to enter the primary category debate, I
> just wondered why (if)
> P51's and T-6's are prohibited from intentional
> spins?  Wouldn't WW2 pilots
> have intentionally spun these aircraft during
> training and later?  Would
> there be a way to register one as experimental and
> then do whatever one
> wanted with it?
>  
> Michael
>  
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric Minnis [mailto:acroeric at mebtel.net]
> Sent: Friday, March 08, 2002 7:14 PM
> To: 'Jim Nahom'; 'Ron Spencer'
> Cc: 'Dr. Guenther Eichhorn'; acro at gf24.de
> Subject: [Acro] Re: IAC rules amok?? -- just another
> real world solution
> 
> 
> 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:  <mailto:califprint at earthlink.net> Jim Nahom 
> To:  <mailto:gei at head-cfa.harvard.edu> Dr. Guenther
> Eichhorn 
> 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   <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
>
<mailto: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--
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
>  
> 


=====
Paul Stambaugh IAC Chapter 88
Pitts S1-S  N34RM "Psycho Therapy"
SkyTours Aerobatics - The Ultimate Aerobatic Experience
www.skytoursaerobatics.8m.com
Ann Arbor, MI & Toledo, OH
Phone: Days, Office (810)-986-0389, Evenings (419) 269-0626
Cell:  248-705-8495

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Try FREE Yahoo! Mail - the world's greatest free email!
http://mail.yahoo.com/


                


© Dr. Günther Eichhorn
Retired
Email Guenther Eichhorn