spinning K13s non-aerobatic

[Mark Fisher]

What is the view (especially of instructors and inspectors)
on spinning K13s within the non-aerobatic range of
the placard?

seems to be a matter of some disagreement. It depends
I suppose on whether spinning is considered aerobatic.
any views?

thanks
M

[Robin Birch]

In our club the answer in no. Spinning, loops and chandelles are in the
semi-aerobatic category. If an aircraft is placarded non-aerobatic then
it cannot deliberately undertake these.

Robin

In message >, Mark Fisher
> writes
>What is the view (especially of instructors and inspectors)
>on spinning K13s within the non-aerobatic range of
>the placard?
>
>seems to be a matter of some disagreement. It depends
>I suppose on whether spinning is considered aerobatic.
> any views?
>
>thanks
>M
>
>
>

--
Robin Birch

[Stefan]

Mark Fisher wrote:

> What is the view (especially of instructors and inspectors)
> on spinning K13s within the non-aerobatic range of
> the placard?

Gliders are usually certified in the utility category, to which JAR22 says:

JAR 22.3 Sailplane categories
(a) The Utility Category is limited to
sailplanes intended for normal soaring flight.
The following aerobatic manoeuvres may be
permitted if demonstrated during type
certification –
(1) spins;
(2) lazy eights, chandelles, stall turns
and steep turns;
(3) positive loops.

Now as the K13 has been certified well before JAR, this doesn't answer
your question. <:-P

Stefan

[Don Johnstone]

My glider was originally certified in the semi aerobatic
category. In order to allow an increased all up weight
it has been made non-aerobatic and this is the most
common reason for a change in category. While a semi
aerobatic K13, all new K13s were in this category,
can be spun intentionally. If it has been re classified
non-aerobatic to increase the cockpit loads it cannot
be deliberately spun.


At 17:48 02 November 2005, Robin Birch wrote:
>In our club the answer in no. Spinning, loops and
>chandelles are in the
>semi-aerobatic category. If an aircraft is placarded
>non-aerobatic then
>it cannot deliberately undertake these.
>
>Robin
>
>In message , Mark Fisher
> writes
>>What is the view (especially of instructors and inspectors)
>>on spinning K13s within the non-aerobatic range of
>>the placard?
>>
>>seems to be a matter of some disagreement. It depends
>>I suppose on whether spinning is considered aerobatic.
>> any views?
>>
>>thanks
>>M
>>
>>
>>
>
>--
>Robin Birch
>

[Ray Hart]

Double placarding is the way to go here. At next C
of A get the glider
weighed and placarded for both semi-aerobatic and non-aerobatic
cockpit
loads. Wether it is aerobatic or not then depends
on the weight of the
pilots.

Spinning is at 1G, so not necessarily aerobatic, but
the recovery may
well be - depending on how well it is executed; e.g.
pulling G to prevent
overspeed.

Ray

At 10:06 03 November 2005, Don Johnstone wrote:
>My glider was originally certified in the semi aerobatic
>category. In order to allow an increased all up weight
>it has been made non-aerobatic and this is the most
>common reason for a change in category. While a semi
>aerobatic K13, all new K13s were in this category,
>can be spun intentionally. If it has been re classified
>non-aerobatic to increase the cockpit loads it cannot
>be deliberately spun.
>
>
>At 17:48 02 November 2005, Robin Birch wrote:
>>In our club the answer in no. Spinning, loops and
>>chandelles are in the
>>semi-aerobatic category. If an aircraft is placarded
>>non-aerobatic then
>>it cannot deliberately undertake these.
>>
>>Robin
>>
>>In message , Mark Fisher
>> writes
>>>What is the view (especially of instructors and inspectors)
>>>on spinning K13s within the non-aerobatic range of
>>>the placard?
>>>
>>>seems to be a matter of some disagreement. It depends
>>>I suppose on whether spinning is considered aerobatic.
>>> any views?
>>>
>>>thanks
>>>M
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>--
>>Robin Birch
>>
>
>
>
>

[Bert Willing]

The definition of aerobatics is not necessarily connected to g-loads.
Intentional spins ARE aerobatic maneuvers.

--
Bert Willing

ASW20 "TW"


"Ray Hart" > a écrit dans le
message de news: ...
> Double placarding is the way to go here. At next C
> of A get the glider
> weighed and placarded for both semi-aerobatic and non-aerobatic
> cockpit
> loads. Wether it is aerobatic or not then depends
> on the weight of the
> pilots.
>
> Spinning is at 1G, so not necessarily aerobatic, but
> the recovery may
> well be - depending on how well it is executed; e.g.
> pulling G to prevent
> overspeed.
>
> Ray
>
> At 10:06 03 November 2005, Don Johnstone wrote:
>>My glider was originally certified in the semi aerobatic
>>category. In order to allow an increased all up weight
>>it has been made non-aerobatic and this is the most
>>common reason for a change in category. While a semi
>>aerobatic K13, all new K13s were in this category,
>>can be spun intentionally. If it has been re classified
>>non-aerobatic to increase the cockpit loads it cannot
>>be deliberately spun.
>>
>>
>>At 17:48 02 November 2005, Robin Birch wrote:
>>>In our club the answer in no. Spinning, loops and
>>>chandelles are in the
>>>semi-aerobatic category. If an aircraft is placarded
>>>non-aerobatic then
>>>it cannot deliberately undertake these.
>>>
>>>Robin
>>>
>>>In message , Mark Fisher
>>> writes
>>>>What is the view (especially of instructors and inspectors)
>>>>on spinning K13s within the non-aerobatic range of
>>>>the placard?
>>>>
>>>>seems to be a matter of some disagreement. It depends
>>>>I suppose on whether spinning is considered aerobatic.
>>>> any views?
>>>>
>>>>thanks
>>>>M
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>--
>>>Robin Birch
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

[Ray Hart]

Bert

With respect, your posting is pedantic and misses the
point.

Ray

At 12:30 03 November 2005, Bert Willing wrote:
>The definition of aerobatics is not necessarily connected
>to g-loads.
>Intentional spins ARE aerobatic maneuvers.
>
>--
>Bert Willing
>
>ASW20 'TW'
>
>
>'Ray Hart' a écrit dans le
>message de news: ...
>> Double placarding is the way to go here. At next
>>C
>> of A get the glider
>> weighed and placarded for both semi-aerobatic and
>>non-aerobatic
>> cockpit
>> loads. Wether it is aerobatic or not then depends
>> on the weight of the
>> pilots.
>>
>> Spinning is at 1G, so not necessarily aerobatic, but
>> the recovery may
>> well be - depending on how well it is executed; e.g.
>> pulling G to prevent
>> overspeed.
>>
>> Ray
>>
>> At 10:06 03 November 2005, Don Johnstone wrote:
>>>My glider was originally certified in the semi aerobatic
>>>category. In order to allow an increased all up weight
>>>it has been made non-aerobatic and this is the most
>>>common reason for a change in category. While a semi
>>>aerobatic K13, all new K13s were in this category,
>>>can be spun intentionally. If it has been re classified
>>>non-aerobatic to increase the cockpit loads it cannot
>>>be deliberately spun.
>>>
>>>
>>>At 17:48 02 November 2005, Robin Birch wrote:
>>>>In our club the answer in no. Spinning, loops and
>>>>chandelles are in the
>>>>semi-aerobatic category. If an aircraft is placarded
>>>>non-aerobatic then
>>>>it cannot deliberately undertake these.
>>>>
>>>>Robin
>>>>
>>>>In message , Mark Fisher
>>>> writes
>>>>>What is the view (especially of instructors and inspectors)
>>>>>on spinning K13s within the non-aerobatic range of
>>>>>the placard?
>>>>>
>>>>>seems to be a matter of some disagreement. It depends
>>>>>I suppose on whether spinning is considered aerobatic.
>>>>> any views?
>>>>>
>>>>>thanks
>>>>>M
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>--
>>>>Robin Birch
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

[Bert Willing]

If you refer to the initial question, it was about deliberately spinning the
glider under a non-aerobatic placard. And that's not possible per definition
as a deliberate spin is an aerobatic maneuver. Why I was reacting to your
post was your idea that because a spin happens at 1g, it might be
non-aerobatic - which is strange, to put it mildly.

That I may spin the glider under an aerobatic maneuver seems to be trivial
to me, and in regard of the initial question, your posting was fairly
pointless...

--
Bert Willing

ASW20 "TW"


"Ray Hart" > a écrit dans le
message de news: ...
> Bert
>
> With respect, your posting is pedantic and misses the
> point.
>
> Ray
>
> At 12:30 03 November 2005, Bert Willing wrote:
>>The definition of aerobatics is not necessarily connected
>>to g-loads.
>>Intentional spins ARE aerobatic maneuvers.
>>
>>--
>>Bert Willing
>>
>>ASW20 'TW'
>>
>>
>>'Ray Hart' a écrit dans le
>>message de news: ...
>>> Double placarding is the way to go here. At next
>>>C
>>> of A get the glider
>>> weighed and placarded for both semi-aerobatic and
>>>non-aerobatic
>>> cockpit
>>> loads. Wether it is aerobatic or not then depends
>>> on the weight of the
>>> pilots.
>>>
>>> Spinning is at 1G, so not necessarily aerobatic, but
>>> the recovery may
>>> well be - depending on how well it is executed; e.g.
>>> pulling G to prevent
>>> overspeed.
>>>
>>> Ray
>>>
>>> At 10:06 03 November 2005, Don Johnstone wrote:
>>>>My glider was originally certified in the semi aerobatic
>>>>category. In order to allow an increased all up weight
>>>>it has been made non-aerobatic and this is the most
>>>>common reason for a change in category. While a semi
>>>>aerobatic K13, all new K13s were in this category,
>>>>can be spun intentionally. If it has been re classified
>>>>non-aerobatic to increase the cockpit loads it cannot
>>>>be deliberately spun.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>At 17:48 02 November 2005, Robin Birch wrote:
>>>>>In our club the answer in no. Spinning, loops and
>>>>>chandelles are in the
>>>>>semi-aerobatic category. If an aircraft is placarded
>>>>>non-aerobatic then
>>>>>it cannot deliberately undertake these.
>>>>>
>>>>>Robin
>>>>>
>>>>>In message , Mark Fisher
>>>>> writes
>>>>>>What is the view (especially of instructors and inspectors)
>>>>>>on spinning K13s within the non-aerobatic range of
>>>>>>the placard?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>seems to be a matter of some disagreement. It depends
>>>>>>I suppose on whether spinning is considered aerobatic.
>>>>>> any views?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>thanks
>>>>>>M
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>--
>>>>>Robin Birch
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

[Don Johnstone]

Not sure you can do that Ray, the classification is
also on the CoA and I suspect 2 x CoA is not permitted.


At 12:12 03 November 2005, Ray Hart wrote:
>Double placarding is the way to go here. At next C
>of A get the glider
>weighed and placarded for both semi-aerobatic and non-aerobatic
>cockpit
>loads. Wether it is aerobatic or not then depends
>on the weight of the
>pilots.
>
>Spinning is at 1G, so not necessarily aerobatic, but
>the recovery may
>well be - depending on how well it is executed; e.g.
>pulling G to prevent
>overspeed.
>
>Ray
>
>At 10:06 03 November 2005, Don Johnstone wrote:
>>My glider was originally certified in the semi aerobatic
>>category. In order to allow an increased all up weight
>>it has been made non-aerobatic and this is the most
>>common reason for a change in category. While a semi
>>aerobatic K13, all new K13s were in this category,
>>can be spun intentionally. If it has been re classified
>>non-aerobatic to increase the cockpit loads it cannot
>>be deliberately spun.
>>
>>
>>At 17:48 02 November 2005, Robin Birch wrote:
>>>In our club the answer in no. Spinning, loops and
>>>chandelles are in the
>>>semi-aerobatic category. If an aircraft is placarded
>>>non-aerobatic then
>>>it cannot deliberately undertake these.
>>>
>>>Robin
>>>
>>>In message , Mark Fisher
>>> writes
>>>>What is the view (especially of instructors and inspectors)
>>>>on spinning K13s within the non-aerobatic range of
>>>>the placard?
>>>>
>>>>seems to be a matter of some disagreement. It depends
>>>>I suppose on whether spinning is considered aerobatic.
>>>> any views?
>>>>
>>>>thanks
>>>>M
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>--
>>>Robin Birch
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>

[Robin Birch]

In message >, Don Johnstone
> writes
>Not sure you can do that Ray, the classification is
>also on the CoA and I suspect 2 x CoA is not permitted.
>
>
Hi Don,
I'll have to check our CofA sheets but all of our K13s have dual
placarding. I suspect that the semi-aerobatic limits are governed by all
up weight and the max/min G loadings whilst the non-aerobatic ones are
governed by the CofG limits.

Thinking about this I can imagine a CofA that caters for both. As I
said earlier, I'll have to check the paperwork. A job for the weekend.

Robin
>At 12:12 03 November 2005, Ray Hart wrote:
>>Double placarding is the way to go here. At next C
>>of A get the glider
>>weighed and placarded for both semi-aerobatic and non-aerobatic
>>cockpit
>>loads. Wether it is aerobatic or not then depends
>>on the weight of the
>>pilots.
>>
>>Spinning is at 1G, so not necessarily aerobatic, but
>>the recovery may
>>well be - depending on how well it is executed; e.g.
>>pulling G to prevent
>>overspeed.
>>
>>Ray
>>
>>At 10:06 03 November 2005, Don Johnstone wrote:
>>>My glider was originally certified in the semi aerobatic
>>>category. In order to allow an increased all up weight
>>>it has been made non-aerobatic and this is the most
>>>common reason for a change in category. While a semi
>>>aerobatic K13, all new K13s were in this category,
>>>can be spun intentionally. If it has been re classified
>>>non-aerobatic to increase the cockpit loads it cannot
>>>be deliberately spun.
>>>
>>>
>>>At 17:48 02 November 2005, Robin Birch wrote:
>>>>In our club the answer in no. Spinning, loops and
>>>>chandelles are in the
>>>>semi-aerobatic category. If an aircraft is placarded
>>>>non-aerobatic then
>>>>it cannot deliberately undertake these.
>>>>
>>>>Robin
>>>>
>>>>In message , Mark Fisher
>>>> writes
>>>>>What is the view (especially of instructors and inspectors)
>>>>>on spinning K13s within the non-aerobatic range of
>>>>>the placard?
>>>>>
>>>>>seems to be a matter of some disagreement. It depends
>>>>>I suppose on whether spinning is considered aerobatic.
>>>>> any views?
>>>>>
>>>>>thanks
>>>>>M
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>--
>>>>Robin Birch
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

--
Robin Birch