aro

The report does prompt a few thoughts - Generally, a Pitts would be considered a more advanced aircraft than a C150. But maybe when it comes to aerobatics that isn't the case. I can see it might take more skill to fly the C150, with the less purpose built design requiring larger control movements, and slower responses requiring you to be further ahead of the aircraft. I don't see any problem teaching in it, but perhaps someone stepping out of a Pitts might underestimate the difficulty. Following from that, what qualifications are required to teach aerobatics? An instructor teaching a student in an aircraft that they themselves had little experience on seems sub-optimal. I wonder about the usefulness of unusual attitude recovery training in aircraft like the Pitts i.e. dedicated aerobatic aircraft. Certainly, it is useful to get experience so you can maintain your composure in unusual attitudes, but advanced aerobatic aircraft are probably much easier to recover than standard aircraft. If an aerobatics instructor couldn't recover a C150 Aerobat from an intentional spin, how useful is the training? There's probably a catch 22 here - you could train in aircraft that reflect the real world, but you would then have more training accidents. Mueller/Beggs recovery - should it be taught as a primary technique? The ATSB report says the method "has proven to be a very effective method of spin recovery in most aircraft types." Is that "most types" that are approved for spinning, within aerobatic CG etc. or is it "most types" in the spin testing conditions required for certification? Perhaps Mueller/Beggs should be an advanced technique, introduced e.g. when you start thinking about inverted spins, and make the initial focus on knowing and implementing POH procedures?

The problem is you run up against Brandolini's law AKA the bullshit asymmetry syndrome. It takes a lot more effort to explain why something is wrong than it did to post the wrong information in the first place.

If the registration is 25- it is a 25 reg, but being a 25- reg or being certified doesn't make it LSA as far as I can see.

I would assume that RAA use the LSA definition in CAO 95.55. I don't think it can be a LSA without having a special certificate of airworthiness specifically issued for a light sport aircraft. Otherwise I think it comes under the definition of ultralight aeroplane means an aeroplane (other than a light sport aircraft or lightweight aeroplane) that: ... (e) is one of the following: ... (iv) an aeroplane to which Air Navigation Order section 95.25 as in force on 25 March 1985 applies (known as an old section 95.25 aeroplane);

Who told you on condition is not allowed? I had a scan of the technical manual and to me it looks like it should be allowed for private work. I didn't see a section specific to 25 reg - I think for the purposes of the regulations it comes under 95.55.

No it does not - because you are flying in and moving with the air. Without reference to the ground, you can't even tell which way the wind is blowing. The aircraft performance does not change whichever direction you fly.

No-one is objecting to the questions. It's the answers people have issues with. You are casting yourself as a teacher, but frequently the answers you come up with are very wrong. People on the forum point it out and provide corrected answers, but you get offended because you don't get the respect you think you deserve as a teacher. There are enough experts on this forum that we can pretty quickly work out who posts reliable answers and make our own decisions. But it is an internet forum - if you post stuff, people will critique and argue with it if they disagree.

Of course you can. It's part of BAK. Rate of descent = power required / mass. Power required = drag * TAS. Drag = parasite drag + induced drag. Parasite drag is proportional to airspeed squared. Induced drag is more complicated, but it is inversely proportional to the square of the airspeed. Airspeed, airspeed, airspeed. It's always airspeed. Headwind or tailwind, the airspeed doesn't change, so the power required doesn't change and the rate of descent doesn't change.

Anecdotally, bending firewalls in GA aircraft seems to be common so it might be more a measure of what bends first rather than relative competence. That question can be applied to both GA and RAA instructors. My own experience has been that instructors with RAA qualifications are on average better than GA only instructors. Almost all the RAA instructors I have flown with have also had GA instructing qualifications, most had extensive commercial (or military) experience outside the training environment, and most had experience in many different aircraft types. The worst instructors were the GA instructors who didn't seem to have much experience outside of the training environment. They tended to look down on RAA even though they had no experience with it. I think that the biggest problem is that people are taught to fly the approach too fast. Most schools seem to add 5-10 knots to the book speeds for "safety". That means the approach is flown with a lower nose attitude, and you have to wait longer and use more back pressure in the flare to land on the main gear. Watch a few landings and see how many people land on all 3 wheels at once, or with the nose wheel barely in the air. If the nose wheel touches first the nose is pitched up and you will bounce - the effect is much stronger than in a tailwheel aircraft because the nosewheel is much further forward. A C172 specifies 60-70 knots for the landing approach. One school I knew specified 70 knots as the approach speed to be flown - which would be OK, except that they then applied the CASA margins of +5, -0 to the speed. So flying the approach at 75 knots was OK, but straying into the book speed range was outside tolerances. Then you send the student out solo, the aircraft is lighter so flies with a lower nose attitude, the student has been drilled not to get too slow, and it's a recipe for landing on the nosewheel.

Yes, Avplan will display most ADSB traffic without a any ADSB in receiver. Here is a screenshot from a few minutes ago. I don't think all these aircraft are actively using Avplan: Traffic received from the servers is in blue, traffic from an ADSB-in device is green. The ADSB-in device usually gives a slightly more recent picture - I would guess between 10-30 seconds. Avplan actually shows more traffic than e.g. FlightRadar24, because FlightRadar24 filters out police etc. traffic.

Avplan definitely displays most ADSB traffic, plus traffic from glider networks. I was giving OzRunways the benefit of the doubt, but if it doesn't I think that is a deficiency.

Avplan (and I assume OzRunways) takes data from various ADSB receivers. So if you have mobile reception and the other aircraft is in range of a receiver (which is likely close to a city) you can see ADSB traffic without any additional hardware. However, the information received via the internet does have a delay. I also have an ADSB receiver, and sometimes I see the same traffic in 2 places. It can sometimes be several miles difference for fast aircraft.

What do you think TCAS is? I'm sure the Zaon system still relied on other aircraft having a transponder giving altitude information. I'm not sure of the details of TCAS, but I think it actively interrogates transponders. I think most other systems rely on primary radar to trigger a response from Mode A/C transponders.

If you are relying on the "clear of cloud" provisions below 3000' (rather than the cloud clearances required above 3000') you are required to have a radio and be on the appropriate frequency.

The Airbus picked up the transponder, but didn't know the height. Without the mode C height information they don't know whether the traffic is at e.g. 3000', 9000' or 30000' (but they can probably guess its not 30000' by the speed.) They probably regularly see traffic which is not transmitting height, but usually they can assume it is 20000+ below them. If you're going to land, you have to come down. The Airbus was on the published instrument approach. There are similar approaches around many airports. Class E provides ATC separation between IFR and other IFR aircraft i.e. aircraft that can't see each other. Separation between VFR and VFR and VFR and IFR works the same in Class E as Class G so it wouldn't have made a difference. (Australia has some Class E bastardizations due to various people who prefer Class G and don't want Class E to work, but separating IFR from IFR is what is supposed to happen.) If you want separation for RPT in a high traffic environment, what you probably need is Class D and a tower. They don't want to do that due to cost, so come up with various justifications not to do it.

The Airbus had TCAS which was quite capable of detecting the existing transponder, if it was correctly turned to mode C. The main advantage of ADSB is knowing the callsign if you have an ADSB receiver. I don't know whether the Airbus would display the callsign from ADSB. VFR pilots are required to navigate by visual references, and are not required to have IFR training or charts. IFR pilots operating in an environment with VFR aircraft are *supposed* to use visual references in broadcasts intended for VFR aircraft. If they can't give a visual reference e.g. in relation to the airport it suggests their situational awareness is lacking.

Kind of rude to tell people not to respond to your post. Why do you think you deserve the last word? It's a forum - if you don't want people to reply, don't post.

"5km is an easier way to judge distance" isn't a sentence that makes sense to me. As I said, maybe I'm not understanding the question. But it is potentially more difficult to judge distance from cloud in poor visibility. I have heard of people flying in poor visibility who flew straight into a cloud they didn't see, because it blended into the background poor visibility. With 5km or 8km visibility you might not have a background to see clouds against.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the question. An easier way to judge what?

5km visibility is thorough the air, not clearance from cloud. At 5km visibility you can't see the ground, terrain features, mountains etc. 5km away.

In the beginning instrument flying was done using needle, ball and airspeed. The needle (similar to a turn coordinator) was used to keep straight or do standard rate turns, the ball showed wings level/coordinated and airspeed showed nose up or down. I have seen theories that you could do the same with a compass to keep straight, IF you were flying east or west to avoid the acceleration errors you get flying north or south. Personally I doubt it. A GPS would be much better than a compass to substitute for the needle and maintain a course. Particularly if it has a panel view that can show a standard rate turn. An aviation GPS mounted on the panel would be preferable to something like an ipad.

5km and 8km is visibility, not distance from cloud. At 3000' distance to the horizon is about 100km, so 5km visibility is very poor. Technically VMC, but it wouldn't feel like it.

So what would you do if someone bought an old speedway car and drove it around the streets? No use if they are not a member and have no intention of joining.

I think it was a Sapphire, and you may be combining a few different incidents, but I know the one you are talking about. But seriously, what can RAA do with those management structures and policies? They can't put you in jail, they can't fine you, if you're not a member they can't kick you out or suspend a pilot certificate - what are they supposed to do? CAO 95.55 which underlies the whole RAA existence has exemptions from certain regulations e.g. - the requirement to hold a pilot license - various registration and airworthiness standards for aircraft There are conditions attached, e.g. being a member of RAA, following the RAA operations manual, holding a RAA pilot certificate etc. If you don't comply with those conditions the exemptions don't apply and suddenly you are violating all the regulations that apply to normal aircraft: - flying without a license - flying unregistered aircraft - flying aircraft that haven't been certified or maintained under GA regulations etc. These all put you straight back into the regime of CASA and Australian law - not RAA management and policies.

Yes, SAAA is not a self administering organization as I understand it. But even if it were, what can they do? What can RAA do if someone is not a member of RAA but flies a RAA registered aircraft? Underneath it all are the rules enforced by CASA. That's not a function of the ATSB. I'm not sure it's really true though - most people believe that small aircraft are dangerous, so a crash isn't hard to understand. Pilots like ATSB reports, but usually so they can find some reason to rationalize why "It wouldn't happen to me."