djpacro

Not really, moment of inertia is simply a property of mass and geometry of the aeroplane. My statement was: "I can get the usually docile Decathlon to snap into a spin with little warning and be in an established, flattening spin extremely quickly ..." yes, with power and aileron - typical scenario for an unintentional spin. I wasn't referring to the normal practice spins with power off and neutral aileron. There is more that I'd like to discuss so I will commence another thread for this.

There are differences between the variants of the 172. Does any variant state "difficult to control"? At the start of the autorotation. Autorotation results in a nose up pitching moment - the greater the moments of inertia (as you stated) the greater the nose up pitcnhing moment. Yes, pilots are familiar with the need to hold pro-spin controls for their practice spins. Easy to recover like that in the early part of an incipient spin. Doesn't always happen like the usual practice spin. I can get the usually docile Decathlon to snap into a spin with little warning and be in an established, flattening spin extremely quickly - no chance of recovery by closing the throttle and centralising the controls. I would be very surprised to see the USA organisation take much of an interest.

Nothing to do with the accident, just a general comment after reading some posts here. From CASA’s Part 61 MOS for an RPL, required knowledge is: ”Differentiate between a spin and a spiral dive in a light aeroplane and describe the standard recovery technique from each.” A flight examiner told me recently that he failed two new flight instructor candidates because their preprepared briefing to him incorrectly described the spin recovery method. They obviously hadn’t bothered to look at the relevant section of the POH for the aeroplane they were flying. Nor had they taken any notice of the cockpit placard on spin recovery. They had accepted what they picked up from someone else. In my opinion one of the the best (and free) references as a source of that Part 61 MOS knowledge requirement is https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/airplane_handbook/06_afh_ch5.pdf

Seems to me that some would benefit by reading CASA’s AC on EFBs especially the explanation on airworthiness regulations for mounting them

I used a universal camera tube mount for my SkyEcho, worked well doing aerobatics. Now have a Garmin GTX335 transponder with ADSB out combined with a uAvionix Ping USB. Works very well.

Endurance of 5.5 hrs is 17.3 litres/hour. Quite sporting for a 150 hp Lycoming. That is much more than Pazmany claims - maximum of 4.1 hrs but only with the 108 hp Lycoming 0-235 engine fitted.

The Aviat Husky has a modified Clark Y, it works well. One of my favourites is the NACA 4412. However, at least as important as the aerofoil is the wing planform and washout etc. NASA CR-1646 A DESIGN SUMMARY OF STALL CHARACTERISTICS OF STRAIGHT WING AIRCRAFT https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19710021678/downloads/19710021678.pdf

When Wamira was cancelled and the govt bought the PC-9 ... Well ... the Wamira story partly answers your question ... it started off as a good idea but then the RAAF kept gold-plating the specifications for their basic trainer such that the weight and cost just blew out. Of course, the PC-9 came nowhere near meeting their specs ... and it wasn't even a basic trainer - the technical selection was made by RAAF officers with nil experience at flight training. Industry knew the cost was going to blow out but just continued to play the game, earn money, as it didn't matter to them whether the project was successful or not. By the end the project had a single, nearly complete prototype at the cost where the govt expected 72 production aircraft would've been delivered. Nil risk to industry in just spending money and not having to test a prototype and produce a finished product. As part of the PC-9 deal, Australian industry was offered participation in the PC-12 program. I saw lots of analysis and PowerPoint slides showing that the PC-12 would never be viable.

The story in the video seems to have come from https://tamamshud.blogspot.com/2016/05/somerton-man-explosive-details-from_15.html This story of the Avon Sabre is also relevant https://www.key.aero/article/creating-australian-sabre Chief Engineer Ian Ring and some of the other engineers were still working at CAC into the '70s. https://www.australianflying.com.au/news/warbirds-the-turbo-interceptor-boomerang I went to a presentation by Ian Ring on all the CAC designs.

1. When doing that stuff is when full control deflection is used .... so pilots must know the associated limitations. Some obviously don't eg https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/39811 2. As you know, G limits are generally much less in the nose down direction (negative G) so full down elevator, at an airspeed where full up elevator would not cause the positive G limit to be exceeded, will cause those negative G limits to be exceeded. Some notes on this at https://www.aviationsafetymagazine.com/airmanship/the-yellow-arc/ There is NOT a separate Va for negative Gs and the FAA didn't see it necessary to come up with a different Vo for negative Gs. eg https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/news-items/2020/flight-control-confusion

Mick is eminently sensible and an excellent businessman.

From the FAA's AC on light aircraft certification. AC23-19. "The design maneuvering speed is a value chosen by the applicant. It may not be less than Vs√ n and need not be greater than Vc, but it could be greater if the applicant chose the higher value. The loads resulting from full control surface deflections at VA are used to design the empennage and ailerons in part 23, §§ 23.423, 23.441, and 23.455." That is an important point - the engineering purpose of VA is to design the tail and the ailerons - NOT the wing! "VA should not be interpreted as a speed that would permit the pilot unrestricted flight-control movement without exceeding airplane structural limits, nor should it be interpreted as a gust penetration speed." Pilots - please note this. "Only if VA = Vs √n will the airplane stall in a nose-up pitching maneuver at, or near, limit load factor. For airplanes where VA>VS√n, the pilot would have to check the maneuver; otherwise the airplane would exceed the limit load factor.” Yep, what a surprise to pilots, VA can be more than VS√n ! Do the arithmetic on the airplane that you fly to check what you have. Don't forget to use CAS. "Amendment 23-45 added the operating maneuvering speed, VO, in § 23.1507. VO is established not greater than VS√n, and it is a speed where the airplane will stall in a nose-up pitching maneuver before exceeding the airplane structural limits." Yep, but you will only see that in new airplanes designed recently.

https://www.faa.gov/documentlibrary/media/advisory_circular/ac_43.13-1b_w-chg1.pdf

It attracted a little bit of interest when the first one appeared but …. only 3 as of 2015 indicates its relevance. My last recollection of anything about it was a fatal accident involving a well-known pilot some years ago.

Some pics from my visit to the CallAir Museum in 2013. Glen Call was my guide.

It isn’t as bad as it looks! http://aussieadsb.com/airspaces Just take the time to identify what is relevant and the lower altitude of each section of restricted area. Easier on weekends. This is old but the general explanation may help http://redcliffeaeroclub.com.au/files/AMB12nov15.pdf More info here https://www.casa.gov.au/search-centre/stay-ontrack-flying-gold-coast-region/general-military-information#RAconditionalstatuslegend Give RAAF a call at your planning stage, they will appreciate it https://www.airservicesaustralia.com/wp-content/uploads/VCA-Hotspot-Amberley-flyer.pdf I recently flew Melbourne to Watts Bridge and return. That leg was Gunnedah to Watts Bridge, however on quite a few previous trips I have stopped at Moree. Fairly straightforward from Watts Bridge part of the world to Caboolture however a busy area.

I don't believe any have come from the factory like that. After the great crew moment arm debacle https://www.bristell.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/BRM-Safety-Alert-001_2020_R2.pdf Prior to that the POH had a loading example with two people of my weight shown to be within the aft limit. The revised POH omits that example as we'd be way behind the aft limit. I wonder if they checked the strength of the engine mounting.

https://www.casa.gov.au/search-centre/manuals-and-handbooks/designated-aviation-medical-examiners-handbook/44-special-reports-and-periodic-tests-required-medical-certification#Designatedaviationmedicalexaminer'sreferencecharts states that “private pilots, if clinically indicated” so there must be a particular need for them to have required the tests - perhaps just the fact that you do one every two years or perhaps those test results indicated a clinical need. 116% heart rate? CASA requires 100% or 145 bpm for your age. It is counterproductive to try to impress them with any more - coast along at 100% so the results are better? I went to a Vic Aviation Medicine seminar some years ago where a CASA speaker said that they’d rather have someone die on a treadmill than in an airplane. Lots of info around on this subject, my advice is do all you can to improve the test results and ask your DAME to verify the need.

A hard landing does not result from landing with a tailwind. Same as engine stoppage (say, from carb icing, per another ATSB report) does not result in a fatal accident. That ATSB report also noted the stall/spin and the pilot's prior history of flying very close to the stall in the circuit on landing approach. Proper training is warranted. Incidentally, that modification is very complex for a retrofit.

“EC device transmission must be deactivated when used in an aircraft with an Extended Squitter (ES) ADS-B Out Enabled Transponder in use. The SkyEcho web based configuration page (198.168.4.1) allows you to turn off the transmit function while still being able to receive traffic for display on the compatible app.” https://uavionix.com/products/skyecho/#faqs

Unfortunately not! I hire my Super Decathlon and insist on reviewing the pilot's completed Endorsement Questionnaire (the CASA template) before they fly it. Almost invariably, pilots who got their tailwheel endorsement from a different instructor or at another local flight school, had not previously done that questionnaire. Nor have they ever done a W&B calculation for the type previously despite undergoing their tailwheel training on it - a CASA requirement for the endorsement ignored by the instructor. A very large percentage of people then get it wrong despite the detailed instructions and sample in the manual. It doesn't help that CASA theory exams still require pilots to learn the old CAA loading systems and "P" charts which are very different from the way they are presented in typical GA POHs.

A few C152's around have the STC for increased MTOW however max landing weight is unchanged.

He did the same for an airplane that I used to own when it was imported in 1989. I bought it in 2001. Standard format for the old Australian (CAA, before CASA) flight manuals. AN35 is his # as a Weight Control Authority.

Firstly, it depends on what type you are transitioning from and to? Secondly, it depends on your competence in completing the flight review. CASA spells out exactly what the requirements are. Complete the form and they will convert your RPC to an RPL with nil actions required. https://www.casa.gov.au/licences-and-certificates/pilots/pilot-licences/getting-recreational-pilot-licence-rpl# Stuff required to use the privileges of that RPL. The main cost is in doing the flight review. I wouldn't put a figure on the number of hours unless I had flown with him/her first to make an assessment.

The airplane in your top photo, VH-EGT, came to a sticky end (unsurprisingly). https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2014/aair/ao-2014-163