djpacro

Part 61 has some dangerous, unsafe requirements in it so much worse than “no benefit”. Interesting that pilots trained under RAA miss out on requirements of RPL training of Part 61 yet an RPC holder is given an RPL by CASA. RPLs may be trained on the same airplane type in the same airspace so I wonder why the syllabus is different. I guess lots of lawyers will be around the broad subject of incipient spin training especially after the next relevant ATSB report and when CASA eventually explains their requirements. The last draft of the Part 91 MOS had some diabolical stuff in it. Some of us made submissions at the NPRM stage and we got some stuff changed in the regs but haven’t seen the final MOS yet. My guess is that many RAA pilots will find surprises in Part 91 as it applies to all.

Due sometime this year. The devil is in the detail. The last draft of the MOS was diabolical.

Are you referring to the Part 91 MOS? Do you have a link?

GA flight reviews require a form to CASA and written on the licence these days rather than a log book entry. It is not the training that counts as the flight review but the grant of specific endorsements etc - again a form to CASA and written on the licence. i.e. one needs a CASA licence - easy enough for anyone with an RPC to fill in the form to CASA and be given an RPL then go for it.

Their support of the app has been haphazard in recent years so you must go to the website to read all articles. Or just get updates on Facebook.

Aarron Deliu is representing Australia in that contest.

Knight Twister, just saw that Thruster88 got it yesterday, sorry for the delay, I've been off the grid. I'll try to keep up.

Two scenarios: 1. Stall with an uncommanded wing drop. This is what normal category airplanes may undertake safely. Certification flight testing for recovery from a one turn spin provides for a pilot to not get it quite right with perhaps a delay in the correct stall recovery actions. If it is progressing towards a spin then immediately use the spin recovery procedure in the flight manual. LSA spin test requirements are less stringent than FAR 23 normal category. NASA has done extensive spin testing on a few GA types and shown that one of these is unrecoverable after a couple more turns. Refer FAA ACs. 2. Intentionally doing an incipient spin is intentionally entering a spin. An airplane approved for intentional spins is required to safely undertake this. There will be more on this subject from the ATSB. CASA requires incipient spin training for an RPL per the new Part 61 and we are still waiting for the guidance material. It has taken a long awaited ATSB report for CASA to even start thinking about what they want instructors to teach and how to do it safely. Flight schools who require high-vis vests ..... my response is they are perhaps a good idea while walking across the road to the airplane (all pedestrians should wear them or carry a red flag around areas busy with cars) but then consider if a parachute is going to be more useful while flying. Reading Chapter 4 of the FAA’s Airplane Flying Handbook is well worthwhile - free online at Airplane Flying Handbook

What we are seeing now is CASA correctly stating not to do spins in types which are not appropriate. Per CASA's statement yesterday we will soon see more guidance on what is required per Part 61 training - you will see that it is much more than what was in the old Day VFR Syllabus.

Look at the Stern ST 87 then ...

JK-05 Junior

Zlin 526

I agree ... I've been thinking but .... there is also Sergio Dallan in Italy and his designs but not him either.

Of course.

Tail is quite a bit different so perhaps someone built one with a mod?

Nope, its not a common type

Same here, that's the figure in my Super Decathlon's AFM. Interestingly, my Lycoming manual simply states: "Engine is warm enough for take-off when the throttle can be opened without the engine faltering." I've flown other Decathlons where someone has changed the oil pressure gauges over the years. One has no marking so those pilots who call out "temps and pressures in the green" and then carry on without thinking have me thinking. Another has 160 deg F as the bottom of the green - one winter morning an instructor sat on the ground for almost all of his student's one hour lesson waiting for it to warm up!

The sectionals etc are scaleable here VFRMAP - Digital Aeronautical Charts

NDN Firecracker

That's per the pilot's award, used to be lucky to even get as much as the award. Supposed to cover time spent on things mentioned there. Seems to me that the often despised "sausage factories" operate that way but not all the smaller schools and aero clubs where instructors often only get paid for flying . Regardless, air time matters as that is the usual KPI for progression through any flight training syllabus. Part 61 introduced the mandatory requirement for instructors to be trained and tested in principles and methods of instruction ....

I sometimes think of charging my aeroplane out on flight switch rather than VDO (engine running time). I'd still want the same income as my costs remain the same and I want the same margin so for an hour flight (logged by the pilot) and 0.7 (average) on the flight switch (for aircraft maintenance) I would increase the rate by 43%. There will be no savings to hirers, just no pressure to hurry on the ground. Most flight schools charge out SE aeroplanes based on VDO as that is what pilots log and instructor award wages are based on. One of my friends had his aeroplane online at a flight school which he charged out on tacho time instead of VDO as the aeroplane didn't have a VDO. His rate was a bit higher than his competitor but cheaper effectively but all pilots saw on the rate sheet was a higher price so few chose to fly it. I did some dual in it and charged my time per my watch from engine start to engine stop - he complained as the tacho time was less! I don't accept getting my own pay on tacho time!

What did the AFM state?

You’re probably right. As Frank mentioned many fuel flow gauges are actually pressure gauges calibrated to show flow. There’s a requirement in FAR 23 (again from memory) to give info as to whether pumps are working or not.

At YMMB my standard is 0.2 before takeoff and 0.1 after landing. In winter it can take that 0.2 for the oil temp to get to the required figure. I've operated at a CTAF with about 2/3 that ground time (except in winter) on average. From YMMB it can take a little time to get to and from the training area so some more lost time perhaps, depending on the exercises.

me tooPlus, if at any time the engine stops I will then know the fuel pressure is zero and ...