aro

The PIC was ex airforce with experience in transport and fighters so it's hard to make that case. It is startling how similar this is to the AF447 case though. In both cases the autopilot unexpectedly disconnected, leaving the pilots with an unstable aircraft in alternate law. In both cases the loss of control was very similar. One interesting tidbit is that the dual control warning was overridden by the stall warning. You wonder whether the autopilot needs some sort of fail-safe so that instead of disconnecting completely it would maintain wings level with pitch attitude/AOA and thrust based on last good data, to give the crew time to deal with the failure. The current system seems to require an immediate unusual attitude recovery in alternate law.

I was trying to give the benefit of the doubt to those more experienced than me, but yes that's probably true.

Everyone finds there is too much to take in at times, thinking about it in between flights and coming up with questions definitely helps understanding. I am guessing that you are at the stage of doing circuits (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong). Sometimes I think at that stage things can get a bit too focused on the one thing, and it can be good to take a lesson away from the circuit and revise some other stuff*. Do some more stalls now you have had more time to think about them. Practice the stuff you need to do in the circuit, without the pressure of having to make an actual landing e.g. descending turns in the landing configuration. It gives you a chance to concentrate on one thing at a time. * Just my opinions based on memories of my own training - I am not an instructor myself.

If you stall while uncoordinated, one wing is likely to stall more than the other causing the aircraft to roll. If you have rudder against the turn most aircraft will roll towards level. If you have rudder into the turn, the aircraft is likely to roll further and drop the nose into an incipient spin with much greater height loss. The classic trap is that people fear too much bank on the turn to final, and instead of banking they attempt to hurry the turn with rudder and elevator. This sets up a potential stall-spin. It is better to add more bank, stay coordinated, and allow the nose to drop to maintain speed if you need to tighten the turn. You do need to use rudder more when slow, but it should be to maintain coordination with the ailerons, not as a primary control. I would recommend asking your instructor to show you some stalls in a turn at a safe height, coordinated and with inside and outside rudder to see the difference.

Rudder to get into a turn is a very bad thing when slow. Rudder to straighten slightly is not so bad (it effectively results in a sideslip) but aileron is the correct control for getting into and out of turns. Get used to the feel at the correct approach speed for the Jabiru, even if it's sloppy. I think (hope!) the discussion about steering with rudder is referring to small heading corrections when you are on final and travelling in an essentially straight line, not for turns e.g. base to final.

I have no issue with crop dusters, pipeline patrol pilots, gunship pilots etc. doing this type of turn. I understand the reasons they do it, and I assume they train for it. But we aren't (generally) crop dusters or gunship pilots. My problem is the suggestion that recreational pilots should try it after reading about it on the internet. I believe that if we are to do them we need to be trained to do them properly by someone with experience. However, the situations where we should be doing high performance turns close to the ground are very limited anyway. Maybe it's a terminology problem. When you talk about a no load factor turn I think load factor 1 = 1 G, no load factor = 0 G, so you are talking about a turn where you reach 0 G (or at least significantly reduced G). Something similar to a wingover, stall turn, hammerhead etc. Certainly, you won't stall an aircraft at 0 G, but the danger with any energy management maneuver is that you run out of kinetic energy with the aircraft pointing in the wrong direction - particularly in slow aircraft which don't have an excess of kinetic energy to start with. However, I downloaded your ebook to try to understand better what you are suggesting and watched the video you link to. The energy management turns shown in the video look fairly gentle and I don't have an issue with them (although I don't think they would reduce the load factor significantly). But then in the text you talk of using rudder to roll level etc. because ailerons may not respond normally, which does seem like an extreme maneuver to be performing close to the ground. I'm not particularly a fan of beer in cans either :-)

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that. For example, they exceeded the valid range of the stall warning, which meant that the stall warning sounded when they pushed forward, and stopped when they pulled back. They were not sure whether the noise and buffeting was because they were over or under speed - at one point they tried reducing thrust to idle and speed brakes to recover. The full report makes interesting reading, and has a lot of information that wasn't in the media reports. When they lost the airspeed the aircraft switched to alternate law, which not only removed the stall protection, but also removed speed stability. In alternate law the pitch control was based on load factor, which meant that with no input the aircraft would maintain 1 G. If the thrust was too low for the flight path it would pitch up as it slowed until it stalled, without any pilot input required. This is the opposite to normal aircraft, which pitch down to regain trimmed speed as they slow. Yes, the pilot made additional pitch up inputs, but speed instability would not have helped. The alternate laws in pitch and roll were very different which resulted in very different inputs being required. So the situation the pilots were dealing with: IMC, at night Loss of airspeed indication A switch to alternate law which meant that the flight controls had different feel to what they were used to, and the aircraft was not speed stable A change from an aircraft that could not be stalled to an aircraft that would stall without pilot input Power and attitude: 10 degrees nose up with full thrust A high rate of descent Multiple alarms, including a stall warning that sounded when they pushed forward, and stopped when they pulled back. It doesn't surprise me that they couldn't figure that out in the limited time available. For example, what if the loss of airspeed and rate of descent indicated a problem with the static system - how would the indications and recovery actions differ? It's easy to say it was obviously a stall after the fact, but one thing I have found: everything is obvious after you know the answer. Certainly the pilots didn't handle the situation well, but aircraft features e.g. the alternate law lack of stability and stall warning limitations made the situation worse.

Agree. Therefore, if the nose is stationary on the horizon you must be uncoordinated.

I had to google to find the context of that extract. I hesitate to nitpick Rich Stowell, BUT he is describing an exercise rolling between 30 degrees bank each way while keeping the nose on a point on the horizon as coordinated flight. I do not consider banking without turning - even temporarily - as truly coordinated. Rolling from 30 degrees one way to 30 degrees the other the nose SHOULD be moving across the horizon. As you roll through 15 degrees, the nose should be moving at the correct rate for a 15 degree banked turn etc. If you doubt it I am sure a glider or pusher aircraft with a yaw string would show it. I suspect the yaw string would show the ball to be surprisingly accurate. The rate of turn for a particular bank angle increases with slower airspeeds, so the slower the aircraft, the more uncoordinated it will be if you hold the nose on a point as you roll into the turn. For a fast aircraft, it might be effectively undetectable.

The load factor will increase without pilot input because the aircraft maintains the trimmed AOA as the airspeed increases. The pilot can make it worse, but it happens even without pilot input. However it is true that the aircraft will not stall without pilot input because the AOA does not increase. If you are nose up and slowing and allowing the nose to drop, you will naturally be at less than 1g. You can bank and pull to maintain 1g, but as the aircraft slows you have to add AOA to maintain the G. It becomes very much a timing thing whether you get the aircraft turned and airspeed increasing again before AOA exceeds the critical angle. The problem is that height gained is the square of the airspeed, so what works in a fast aircraft might not work so well in a slower aircraft. If you start at 120 knots and let speed wash off to 60 knots you get more than double the height than from 80 knots to 40 knots. Double the height gives much more time for the nose to go down and the aircraft to turn. If you add a draggier airframe you lose more energy on the way up and back down. It's easy to see how in slower draggy aircraft people could run out of energy before completing the turn.

I don't think that fixed wing is as similar to rotary wing as you believe. In a helicopter the rotor disk is symmetrical in all directions, so it flies the same whichever direction the fuselage is pointing. That is not the same as fixed wing. Also helicopters are naturally less sensitive to loss of airspeed - as evidenced by the fact they can hover.

Despite your experience, a lot of your terminology seems confused. If you allow the nose to go down in a turn, the result is a spiral dive and the load factor does increase dramatically. The AOA stays approximately the same if the pilot doesn't pull back, but the load factor changes. Perhaps, but after the pullup while you are trading airspeed for altitude you will be at less than 1G (a reduced load factor). The danger, which has killed many people, is that you end up at an airspeed too low for 1G flight and the aircraft stalls as you try to complete the turn.

Except that a "no load factor" turn is physically impossible. You must have a load factor to change direction - basic physics. Having read your description, you are just changing the direction of the added load factor from horizontal to vertical. It's more of a minimum radius turn than no load factor. Having read a few of your posts I'm guessing you may have learned to fly helicopters before fixed wing? A lot of what you post sounds like it might work in helicopters, but is not optimum in fixed wing e.g. rudder turns at low level.

That would be built up areas, not CTA. No access to CTA means you fly over the primary school at 2500' instead of 4500'.

I'm not a lawyer, but I would argue that the cost of the flight is the difference in cost between making the flight and not making the flight. For a rental it's easy, it's the cost to rent the aircraft. For a private aircraft it would include e.g. fuel, but not standing costs like insurance, hangarage, interest, depreciation etc. that must be paid whether or not you make the flight. Engine replacement? Maybe, IF you could show that you did enough hours that replacement will be required based on the number of hours (probably unlikely for private aircraft). Actually CAR 206 is more relevant. If you are carrying passengers for hire or reward an AOC is required - advertising or no advertising. As far as I can see it doesn't matter if you can shoe-horn it into CAR 2(7A), carrying passengers for hire or reward requires an AOC. CAR 2(7A) is defining what you can do with a private pilot license, not exemptions from AOC requirements.

Unless there is an exemption in the laws, it's also possible that their accountants point out that they would be breaking Australian law by not charging GST, and they decide that turnover doesn't justify the paperwork so they stop shipping to Australia. Then you will get intermediary companies spring up to handle the GST requirements (actually they already exist) who will charge an additional 5-7% on top of the existing price + GST. See the European Union situation with downloadable software, books, music etc. for a real life example.

Pitch sensitivity is a symptom of an aft CG, so it suggests a weight and balance issue with the heavier engine. Aft CG has killed plenty of people, I would suggest not flying it until you confirm the weight and balance. Pitch trim doesn't fix aft CG.

Good point, I had forgotten about those. However they are generally pretty specific to a school etc. which means that just because you are allowed when using a school aircraft doesn't mean you are allowed when using your own aircraft. Just another trap when trying to learn the rules. Interesting, looking at the list of exemptions it appears to replace CAO 95.55 completely, so maybe you don't have to comply with anything in CAO 95.55? The "glide clear" condition is still there, but the 1000 feet over built up/closely settled areas condition is not included. Although the exemption specifically applies to solo flight only, so maybe dual training flights still have to maintain 1000 feet over closely settled areas... what a mess. Did they intend to exempt the operator and pilot from the entire CASR 1998 I wonder? The operator and pilot are exempt from complying with CASR 1998 and the following provisions of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988...

A careful reading of CAO 95.55 suggests those who say the 1000ft/glide clear of closely settled area restriction applies during takeoff and landing are correct. The takeoff and landing exception says: An aeroplane ... may be flown at a height of less than 500 feet above ground level if: the aeroplane is flying in the course of actually taking off or landing It doesn't say An aeroplane may be flown at a height of less than 1000 feet above ground level over a closely‑settled area if: the aeroplane is flying in the course of actually taking off or landing or An aeroplane may be flown at a height from which it cannot glide clear of a closely-settled area if: the aeroplane is flying in the course of actually taking off or landing Below 500 feet and over closely settled areas are completely different things. Also, 7.1.(b) specifically calls out 8.1 as an exception, whereas 7.1(h) does not. So the 500 feet exemption seems to only apply if you are over an area where you can already fly at 500 feet, i.e. not a closely-settled area. The intent of CAO 95.55 clearly seems to have been that RAA aircraft will not be flown over closely settled areas below 1000 feet or where they cannot glide clear, full stop. The CTA section muddies the water a bit by also referring to closely settled areas, but I don't see that it overrides 7.1(h). I suspect it was added later without clearly understanding the implications of the other sections. So how do people fly RAA aircraft in and out of airports which require flight over closely settled areas below 1000 feet? I guess it is like the rest of the aviation regulations - some parts are just ignored on the basis that everyone does it, and people then come to believe that it is permitted. It would be better to either clarify and enforce the regulations, or update them to reflect what people actually do - but CASA don't want to relax regulations, even if it only reflects current practice.

I wonder why people confuse "near" and "nearly". "Near" describes the miss i.e. it was a miss that was near, not "nearly missed". Likewise a near neighbor is not someone who is nearly a neighbor.

That is my understanding too. So my assumption was that it would effectively be a training flight (area familiarization etc.) with a passenger, obviously with no emergency procedures practiced. I think their logic was that if the instructor was paid they were charging for the carriage of a passenger i.e. charter. I would have said that I was paying for hire of the aircraft and the services of the instructor, but there was no charge for carraige of the passenger.

The whole thing didn't add up. I think the student pilot license thing came from students being allowed as observer/passengers on certain training flights so it must be OK somehow, even if they're not sure why.

That's the list from CAR 2(7). But that list overlaps the list of operations in CAR 206 that require an AOC, so what is the result for the items in both?

Agree about the confusion. I was on holiday and wanted to hire a C172 for a scenic flight. I had all required licenses and endorsements, however due to the busy area and proximity to CTA I decided that it would be good to have an instructor along for local knowledge. I was told that an instructor was not permitted on a flight with a passenger. If there was a passenger and someone being paid it became Charter which I couldn't fly without a commercial license. So I could hire the aircraft and take a passenger, or fly with the instructor without a passenger, but it was supposedly illegal for me to fly with both passenger and instructor onboard! Unless, that is, the passenger had a student pilot license which would somehow make it OK again. Talk about confusion. This seems like bits of 3 or 4 different regulations badly combined and misunderstood. And yes, the instructors present did actually vote about whether they reckoned it was charter or not. In the end we just booked it as a scenic flight with the instructor flying (same price). Then after we took off the instructor says "Would you like to fly?" I did for a while but flying from the right seat wasn't really working for me so I ended up handing it back to him and enjoying the scenery.

That's what it says (or to be more specific, requires an AOC which is what CAR 206 is about). Although as I also said, that's not how it is usually interpreted. The problem with the regulation we supposedly follow is that they are so complex and badly written that no-one actually follows them at all. They follow a version that has been passed down and interpreted by generations of flying instructors who have learnt what is required to pass the test. Walk into a flying school and ask if something is allowed under the regulations and it is rare that anyone will actually get them out and read them - you're more likely to get an informal vote amongst the flying instructors about what they reckon. "3 out of 5 flying instructors reckon..." isn't much of a way to regulate aviation, but it's how it works...