F10

Definitely, these coats get sent to the panel beaters, not the dry cleaners....

Never listen to a marriage councilor, when buying an aircraft....!

Fun meeting up with mates in the air….north of Lake Wellington, VIC

The AP3456A Royal Air Force Manual of Flying defines the spin as having two phases, incipient and fully developed. The difference is in the fully developed spin (after 3-4 turns) the moments of inertia in pitch roll and yaw, have built up so that as Newton One states, the aircraft wants to keep doing what it’s doing. That’s what makes correct recovery action important. In the incipient phase, recovery is almost instant by power off, centralising the controls, (do not use aileron). Yes the outside wing is in a lesser state of stall granted still flying even, so more lift, than the inner wing. If you imagine the rotating mass of the fuselage, a rotating mass has the properties of a gyroscope, and this gyroscopic precession. Replace (the pitching fuselage with a spinning bicycle wheel to prove this). The delta wing has far more yaw than roll in an autorotation. By banking the mirage into the spin, using aileron (match the yellow stripes on the stick with the yellow stripes on the cockpit sills), and in doing so, the roll force applied to the fuselage “gyro”, and this roll is processed through 80 degrees in the direction or rotation (pure gyroscopic law of precession), and becomes a yaw force, yawing the aircraft out the spin. This is the B/A ratio, a heavier fuselage being anti spin rather than a heavier wing. Easy hey!!

Good news! I still think there would be a market for something like the Skyfox Gazelle, to be built here in Aus again. Especially if you could get a very basic instrument fit to lower purchase price. Looking at “Kitplanes for Africa”, they seem to do very well in South Africa?

As a former helicopter pilot…we all knew what fighter pilots used as a contraceptive… their personality!!

Yes, absolutely, always read your aircrafts spin recovery technique. I was referring to the fact a safe aircraft should recover with controls held neutral. Of course opposite rudder is important but I still say un-stalling the wings is top priority. I was not suggesting ignoring your aircrafts flight manual recovery procedure. Of course fuel loads and CofG position issues can make an aircraft behave very differently in a spin and may make the spin unrecoverable. Yes blanking of the rudder can occur with down elevator, that is why a number of aircraft have “ staggered” empenages, where the fin/rudder is mounted further ahead of the horizontal tailplane, to avoid rudder blanking. Chipmunk, Piston Provost and the Machi jet, are examples. Again most aircraft should recover with the stick getting to slightly forward of neutral. Full forward stick may well be necessary, but I would say not normally required. A consideration of the stick far forward on recovery, can lead to a very low nose on recovery, leading to greater height loss.

The rudder hastens recovery, but it is I think, not the main factor here. Un-stalling the wings, aileron neutral, is vital. Un-stall the wings and the aircraft has no option but to fly again, recovery resulting in a steep dive angle. Damping in roll will stop the rolling, directional stability will stop the yaw in the resulting dive. As I've said, most aircraft should recover when holding controls neutral. The inertia in the yawing plane is large, so opposite rudder hastens the recovery, but I don't think as important as unstalling the wings. One important phenomenon occurs here. The outer wing will un-stall first in a spin recovery. This results in a rapid short term increase in roll into the spin. To some it may appear the spin is getting worse, but it is in fact a sign of recovery.

I don't think this is speculating as such. More like pilots discussing a terrible accident to try make some sense of it. Of course if people comment on the pilots actions or make statements about the accident in a "This is what must have happened", then that would be speculating. Anyhow, some interesting conversations.

Well if it was on take off, they could still have stalled autorotated? occurring power on would aggravate the situation. Power on also masks stall symptoms (no more light buffet). My mistake, ATSB. Disagree with nose up pitch in Autorotation. Pitch up caused by full back stick being held. Relax back pressure in an autorotation or spin. nose will tend to pitch down. Yes, in a fully developed spin, moments of inertia in roll pitch and yaw, may have built up to an extent, so that the aircraft will not recover if "letting go" and can be difficult if not unable to recover, even with correct recovery action. An aircraft that won't recover should not be certified in my opinion. I should have mentioned there are moment of inertia differences in an incipient and fully developed spin. Autorotation always proceeds a fully developed spin. Most aircraft considered in a fully developed (stable rates of yaw, roll and pitch) spin after 3-4 turns. Don't know the Decathlon, but I find it interesting the spin flattens. Should only occur with power on. I have spun plenty in Harvards and the PC9M. Even a Harvard will recover almost instantly from an autorotation, if power off and centralize controls. Making sure if anything, stick is at or slightly fwd of neutral. Any back stick will hold it in the stall/inhibit recovery. No, didn't mean to suggest flight manual says "difficult to control", was referring to what a pilot said after experiencing this.

Haha so many recent jokes, memes...rather sad really, Boeing, such an iconic name. I still think the Boeing 727 was the greatest airliner. More sweepback than any other Boeing, could be pushed to Mach 0.9....And didn't need airport support equipment with those clever tail airstairs! Three close engines meant the only thing you noticed with an engine failure, is the VSI sagged by about 300Ft/Min. The only noise in the cockpit was the hiss of airflow. Could maneuver like a fighter. I never flew one, but travelled on them often as a schoolboy and have spoken to airline grey hairs! Sadly it was doomed, because despite a great aerodynamic design...engine configuration also meant you could not put a fuel sipping hi bypass fan engine on it.......😔

Mine was in a good old Aunty C172. Looked at the empty set next to me on downwind....gave it a slap and let out a quick whoop! The C172, always have a soft spot for her! Flew two types in the military....for which there were no dual trainers, but they said, like riding a bicycle...😬...😬

All fatal accidents are tragic, but this one I find particularly disturbing in that what could possibly have caught out two experienced pilots? Is there any reported structural/control failure? It does look like a stall/autorotation-spin scenario, judging by the wreck pattern. All the parts are there it seems, so nothing failed or broke off the airframe in flight. I flew a P92 on my last flight review. Nice aircraft, easy to fly and the wing likes to fly! Speed control on a flapless approach tricky and if you come in a bit hot, she will float forever. Some of my thoughts: Was it a sideslip? Cessnas flight manuals warn about side slip with full flap. The flap increases downwash on the tailplane. You counter this by pushing forward and the aircraft tends to pitch nose down with full flap. If you sideslip by booting in a lot of rudder, the yaw can cause the downwash to be displaced, to now miss the tailplane. The flight manual warns this can cause a sudden excessive nose down pitch, difficult to control. Not good if on short final. When you stall the tailplane is not stalled. As the aircraft falls away, in a stall, the tailplane will pitch the nose down, aiding recovery. This will also happen in an autorotation. In an autorotation, if you just let go, the aircraft will recover. Two important provisors here: 1: Keep ailerons neutral and 2: you MUST get the power off. Power on pitch up is not what you want here. But most GA aircraft will recover if you just let go. Most stable aircraft have to be forced to spin, by holding full pro spin control deflections. If you have a rearward CofG, uneven fuel loads in tip tanks, this can radically change aircraft recovery characteristics. Hence the two recent USA light twin asymmetric VMC stall spin incidents, both aircraft having a third person in the back (rearward CofG) and pushing the VMC speed exercise into the stall speed region. Juan Brown gives good advice here. Instructors should restrict student rudder input, to ensure VMC is reached above the stall speed! So if this was a stall spin, this aircraft to me, should have recovered very quickly by just unloading and a shot of opposite rudder? The PC9M would get out of most knots, by just unloading and thereby un-stalling the wings. It has no option but to fly again. So it is baffling to figure out what may have caught these two experienced guys out? Trim runaway, yes, but at low speed, on approach, most trim systems should be designed to be overpowered by the pilot? With trim runaways, priority is to slow down, to reduce the trim force. Nose up runaway, go into a steep turn, to help sort it. Nose down, more challenging, slowing down is key. But yes, trim runaways are a hazard. It is a pity the NTSB will not investigate! Very sad, two people lost and a nice aircraft. Frustrating-tragic.....

This is hardly “bolting anything on”. This is a certified propeller and most would agree is better in many ways, then original wooden props. Yes, I could just go and bolt the old prop back on, but that to me is why I hate mindless bureaucratic process. Again, I don’t mind paying for a MARAP but I think I have a case, that it should have been done when the prop was first fitted, It was also missed in a further two condition reports. I also do think that’s still a lot of money for a certified proven propeller. Anyhow, we will see what they decide.

Just life…well again as I said, I didn’t actually put the Bolley on, it was done years ago….and not picked up by RAA I guess, despite condition reports. So why must I pay the full amount? RAA according broadly to it’s charter, has a mission to promote sport aviation aviation safety and to support it’s members. Charging a member $600 to fit a certified and technically superior propeller to an aircraft, should not cost that much.