Is it just me or are the flight limitations written in a quite amateurish way, as opposed to what might be expected from a certifying agency?
Flight maneuvers are to executed “smoothly” (means nothing rigorous in relation to limitations) Stalls are allowed but only with “an instructor on board”… What does a second pilot with an instructor rating have to do with airframe integrity? Vno is reduced, with what significance?
In relation to removal of aerobatic certification I didn’t think the DR400 was aerobatic, but would happily be educated otherwise if that’s true for some variant.
Giving the author the benefit of the doubt in terms of competence, it reads to me like somebody was asked to produce a list of “limitations” that wouldn’t constrain anybody.
What indeed.
johnh wrote:
Before the next flight,
Bad translation. The French says “as of the next flght” or “from the next flight onwards”. A French way of saying “effective immediately”, the French text insists on that by saying a French expression which literally translates as “as soon as the next flight” (meaning not any later).
Silvaire wrote:
In relation to removal of aerobatic certification I didn’t think the DR400 was aerobatic
The listed manoeuvres are aerobatic manoeuvres that are authorised on normal category airplanes as far as I understand. Here, they are not (anymore).
Silvaire wrote:
Stalls are allowed but only with “an instructor on board”… What does a second pilot with an instructor rating have to do with airframe integrity?
The instructor is “trusted” to ensure that the other limitations are not exceed during the stall recovery.
Silvaire wrote:
Flight maneuvers are to executed “smoothly” (means nothing rigorous in relation to limitations)
Indeed; I think that’s intended to be a fuzzy way to try to say the same thing as the EASA AD wich had specific g limits.
Thanks for that, the translation error is understandable.
I think this is the first time I’ve seen a light aircraft airworthiness issue addressed by either limiting the pilot certification, or requiring a supervising second pilot with a higher defined level of pilot certification. In relation to stall recoveries it implies that the certifying agency does not believe currently certified private pilots are competent at stall recovery. If that were the case, and if this unusual approach were to be taken the logical next level of pilot qualification would be Commercial Pilot, not instructor. The two are closely linked but I think a higher level of discipline would be appropriate in limiting the aircraft.
In relation to limiting maneuvers, normally steep turns over 60 degrees, chandelles, lazy eights and so on are certified in the Utility category, in which case the appropriate action might have been to remove Utility category certification. Regardless, there is no need to mention “any other aerobatic maneuvers” unless the aircraft was certified for those maneuvers in the first place.
Obviously the admonition to operate the controls smoothly is not definitive.
currently certified private pilots are competent at stall recovery
In a country where airline pilots aren’t, why would you expect PPLs to be? Or for that matter CFIs, oh well.
