Aerobatics

2

The raw material

"If God had meant man to fly, he would have given us wings". So preached Bishop Wright, father of Orville and Wilbur, before his sons achieved the success that was to change the face of the world.

Yet, in a sense, Bishop Wright was correct, because the air is not man's natural element; he must always be an intruder. Pilots are made, not born. The "natural" pilot is really a myth, boosted by boy's adventure stories, and later, by the T.V. and film industry. What is really meant is that those individuals who have good physical and mental co-ordination will learn more quickly; and the RAF's accent on sport in the selection and training of pilots is indicative of this.

But there is no question of "supermen" here. Almost anyone can learn how to fly an aeroplane; indeed, at the time of writing, about 100,000 licences have been issued in this country. Why is it, then, that only a handful of pilots regularly fly advanced aerobatics.?

The primary fault lies in the bar or crewroom of the average flying club. It only requires a discussion to be started about stalling and spinning for the various "pundits" to go into nauseating detail about that horrific occasion when they were introduced to these exercises; and the detail will have lost nothing by repetition over the years. Student pilots will be alarmed by such stories, and a barrier will be raised in their minds which can effectively prohibit them from thinking and acting coherently when they eventually encounter that terror of the air, the spin.

I have trained pilots such as these, and others who have never been told that aerobatics are difficult, or dangerous, or make one feel unwell, and the second group learn much more quickly, and make better aerobatic pilots. I suppose it is impossible to suppress tales of fright and airsickness, because there seems to be some kind of morbid pleasure in the telling. It would appear to be "manly" to force oneself to overcome real fear, and to continue to try to keep up appearances, when in fact the last thing a student wants to do is to step into an aeroplane.

In the first place there is nothing wrong with being afraid of flying; lots of people who are extremely courageous in other spheres are not able to master their concern here. I am afraid of potholing - so I don't do it. In the same way, if there is a genuine fear of flying, the best thing to do is to find some other occupation. It is all very well proving how brave you are by continuing, but this can only be to the detriment of your instructor and other pilots. A frightened pilot will never fly as accurately or safely as he would want to. In any case, flying is supposed to be fun, so why pay a lot of money to be frightened?

In some cases, a student may have been frightened by being exposed to aerobatics poorly performed, at an unsafe altitude; and this can leave an indelible mark on his future piloting career. This is a different kind of fear, and this can be overcome by patient explanation, and a gentle introduction into well flown aerobatics at a safe height.

Mention aerobatics and the first reaction will be the possibility of airsickness. I am often asked after an aerobatic display if my stomach is still in good working order - and this question has even been asked by Air Force personnel; so how can one expect the average student or private pilot to react differently? It is certain that with regard to airsickness the biggest problem lies in the mind. One can experience nausea without actually moving one's body; the result of movement is the disorientation caused by the semi-circular canals in the ear. The physical result of these is the same and is directly traced to the brain, which also receives stimulus from the amount of pressure being exerted on the body, and the distribution of this pressure. For example, if one rides on a roller coaster at the seaside, when the car plunges down an incline, one's "stomach is left behind." But we know that the stomach does not move; so what causes the sensation? It is the result of change of pressure distribution from the seat to the floor, which transmits a message to the brain which says "I am falling". If one is now strapped securely to that same seat, and if one's feet are held clear of the floor, the sensation is no longer present. There is a jolt against the belt, and that is all. Now we have a parallel with a common problem in flying; either encountering turbulence or entering a dive suddenly. Merely tighten your seat belt and don't jam your feet hard on the floor, and the sinking sensation will disappear.

This same sensation is often present in a poorly demonstrated stalling exercise and is one of the reasons for the dislike of the exercise. It can of course be greatly reduced by the use of the above technique, but it can be eliminated altogether by a little thought on the part of the instructor.

For some reason, when the stall is approached, the nose is raised to an incredible angle, and before the stall proper is reached, the instructor heaves back on the stick and the aircraft rears up, everything goes quiet, and then gravity really takes over as the misused aircraft carries out the inevitable "hammerhead" stall. Down goes the nose with a bang, and another frightened and disillusioned student joins the ranks of the straight and level brigade.

There is absolutely no reason why this technique should be adopted; it doesn't teach the student what the accidental stall is really like, and if the aircraft won't stall properly then he should be shown on an aircraft that will, instead of having the wits scared out of him. I have had the task on many occasions of coaxing students into being shown a real stall after just such an experience. Invariably their reaction was "is that all it is?" And then they try it themselves; no more fears, no more "queasiness"; and more important, now they are more in command of the aeroplane.

Now, with the hurdle of stalling behind, the spinning exercise can be considered in a different light. Again with the stomach in mind, many students deliberately refrain from eating before spinning; the worst thing one can do. With an empty stomach grumbling away the student is not allowed to forget it, so that he is already psychologically prepared for disaster in that area. Also his blood sugar level will be lowered, and he will not have his normal workload and concentration capacity. During the recovery from the spin, the student will encounter positive acceleration in the order of 3g as the aircraft levels out. With an empty stomach this may cause him to "grey-out", especially if he is not used to g. Again this may cause him sufficient unpleasantness to deter him from wishing to repeat the experience, During hard training for aerobatics, if I find my g threshold reducing, I stop for a good meal, and allow an hour for the results to be effective. My g tolerance will then have gone up by at least 2. Perhaps the biggest fear in flying is that of falling; after all, the effects of gravity are dramatically imprinted on us all from a very early age. These fears are perhaps most noticeable in an open cockpit, where one feels much more in contact with the elements, and where one instinctively leans "against" the turn when the aeroplane banks. The best way to overcome this is in the knowledge that this is a perfectly natural reaction - this is, after all, not our natural element. If we consider that the forces involved can be likened to taking a corner on a motorcycle, it becomes apparent that we will not feel any strange effects if we lean with the machine. We will find, as we progress, that we can carry out simple aerobatic manoeuvres without feeling the need for restraining straps; indeed I have barrel-rolled aircraft without the crew knowing it!

Leaning with the machine

One needs to understand something of the construction of the aeroplane before one can feel any confidence in it; after all, it looks so frail compared, for example, to the family car. Just consider, though, what would happen to the family car if it were subjected to six times its normal weight!

Aerobatic aeroplanes, on the other hand, are regularly subjected to these forces, and do not exhibit any particular signs of stress. However, aerobatic aeroplanes tend to fly upside down, and if stalling and spinning caused problems, imagine the consternation produced by the thought of flying inverted, especially in an open cockpit aeroplane! What, one asks innocently, is the problem? Inevitably, it is the possible danger of falling out, and any assurances to the contrary will be met with the same scepticism that I would demonstrate, were I to be subjected to persuasion that potholing is safe! However, let us look at the facts. The difference between an open and closed cockpit, apart from the draught, is academic in that 1/16" perspex would be highly unlikely to retard one's progress. The only real difference is psychological. Current cockpit design provides for two separate harnesses, the primary one attached to the seat, and the secondary to the airframe itself. The primary harness consists of five straps, including the all-important negative g strap, and these are secured by a simple clip, rather than a quick release box. At least one can see what is holding oneself in, and that it is properly done up. As insurance against the extremely unlikely event of the seat becoming detached, the secondary harness goes around both pilot and...