djpacro

Good, important to fix that and develop good habits.

Get some of these

For FAR 23 airplanes not approved for intentional spins - basically a controllability requirement from a delayed stall recovery - recover after one turn (or 3 seconds) of a spin within one additional turn; plus consider the effect of abnormal control actions during that first turn in which a further two turns is acceptable to recover. Abnormal control actions "The parameters that need to be investigated depend on the design of the airplane as well as on the results of the normal spin tests. These checks include, as a minimum, the following: the effect of ailerons with and against the spin, the effect of elevator applied before the rudder at recovery, the effect of slow elevator release, the effect of entry attitude. Ailerons with and against the spin should be applied at entry and during spins. Elevator and rudder against the spin should be applied during the spin. Spinning should continue for up to three seconds, or for one full turn, while the effects of abnormal aerodynamic control inputs are observed. Apply normal recovery controls as outlined in paragraph c(2)." I have experienced most of those abnormal control actions just doing straight, power off stalls in flight reviews and refresher training with PPLs. It is quite an extensive test program with different cg positions etc - a pilot can be reasonably confident in using such an airplane as a flight trainer doing all of the stall exercises in Part 61. Para c(2): "recover by reducing power to idle, if not already at idle, apply full .... rudder followed by forward elevator". LSA requirements are similar or identical (I haven't looked recently and I'm not familiar with all of their requirements). Difference is that LSAs are self-certified and FAR 23 airplanes are certified by the USA FAA who are extremely knowledgeable and skilled.

Let me know how the Aerobatics Education Session goes - “what it takes, and how to go about it.”

The recent crash of the GIPPSAERO GA-10 during spin testing is also relevant ANC18LA042 The difference is that they were letting it go to the point required by FAR 23 before commencing recovery actions - i.e. after one turn.One would expect any certified single engine aeroplane to recover from a spin if the correct recovery actions were initiated prior to one turn.

There's more to the story in comments/discussion here - it would be good to see the video prior to the bit shown here, or get more detailed info from the pilot. Regardless, it does seem particularly relevant as the pilot stated that "I deployed the Chute because the aircraft would not recover from a Flat Spin!!!" His friend commented: "I actually know this guy and he's no lightweight in both fixed and rotary wing. Also did his time in the Airlines on jets. This was certification flying and things went wrong. I spoke with him about this and what you are seeing here is the latter stages of what became an unrecoverable spin." Yes, definitely relevant.

Thanks, but I've already got a skyrocket. I enjoy visiting Bill here ... ... check out the airspeed in the flat spin.

These days I generally only fly FAR 23 certified airplanes approved for intentional spins - anything different and I take a keen interest in the tech specs/testing/history of the type and I’ve declined to fly quite a few times. Even the shape and layout of a tail will put me off per previous discussion here.PS: want to buy my 4WD Jeep as I’d like a red open top sports car now?

One of the issues with the Tomahawk was that different examples of the type behaved differently and none conformed to the type design data per the prototype used for stall/spin testing.

I didn't go to this event a year ago and I have no idea what came out of the discussion:

Aaah the good old days when CASA's predecessor had the knowledge and interest in our safety wrt spins.

Yep, Cessna designers "lost it" for the Skycatcher at first. I have run numbers on quite a few aeroplanes using that method and, as it says here, it is quite good to use in preliminary design. The report detail is at http://naca.central.cranfield.ac.uk/reports/arc/cp/0195.pdf The NACA Tail Damping Power Factor is more simple but not as good as a predictor https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19930082166.pdf

It is not the only aeroplane around with those instructions - the early Robin 2160 is another however the Robin has a very big rudder but when they went for American certification the FAA insisted on PARE to stop the spin per FAR 23.I'm certainly interested in seeing the spin test report for the Bristell. Even for types which are not approved for intentional spins the scope of testing is quite comprehensive. Similar type to the Bristell:

I agree.For example, from one of the forums I attended at Oshkosh this year: Aft cg limit is commonly determined from compliance with spin recovery requirements. Another point is that there are some aeroplanes around where, at aft cg, the stick position to hold a steady airspeed does not vary much so the term "stall stick position" is of little use as a cue. As a comparison, the Decathlon spin doesn't vary much in behaviour between the forward and aft limits although at fwd cg it may tend to enter a spiral dive. Misuse of of aileron and/or power will flatten it regardless of cg; forward stick prior to rudder on recovery will steepen the nose down attitude (an accelerated spin) which can significantly delay the recovery.

Your hints weren't consistent with the DR-109 either but I thought that I would try to flush it out - certainly looks like it started life as a DR-109.

DR-109. I had dinner with Dan at Oshkosh.

Flying around the block near Lake Somerset

You had a first class instructor in Alf! One of my students is listed on that old page too. It would've been at GFS then - training records were in the Scouts filing cabinet so perhaps the filing cabinet is still with someone or at MFS (or even at Oxford)- worth asking around? I'll make some enquiries. Do you remember who did your GFPT test?

The GFPT should’ve been notified to CASA back then so, I agree, the logbook would be very useful especially as it should have the GFPT sticker in it. No reason for a school to keep training records for that long, perhaps your logbook was left at SAS so an extremely small chance that it is buried somewhere. Recall names of any instructors? Looks like you’ll have to start from scratch and notch up the minimum hours at least.

Your GFPT will get you an RPL with a little bit of paperwork so saves doing a test at the end of your refresher training, just a flight review. Absence of a logbook after all that time doesn’t matter at all. One of my friends was in a similar situation except that he had his logbook but no-one was interested in the contents.

AOPA and SAAA are not "shooting down the GFA and RAAus privileges", to the contrary, the letters I see applaud those privileges however they are angry at RAA trying to stop some of those same privileges being given to those who fly under CASA rules - safety is the consideration not protection of someone's empire.

ATSB

Cessna TTx Model T240

One of my friends worked for the company back in the '90s. I was lucky to beat kasper again.