djpacro

CASA's Part 61 MOS requires this as essential knowledge for all pilots:

"Differentiate between a spin and a spiral dive in a light aeroplane and describe the standard recovery technique for each manoeuvre."

Yet I regularly encounter pilots and students who do not know the "standard" recovery technique for a spin.

Worse, I regularly encounter flight instructors and trainee flight instructors who also do not know the correct recovery technique - either that "standard" one or, more importantly, the one described in the flight manual of the type they fly. They are required to have a spin flight activity endorsement so a greater underpinning knowledge and competency. Recently, a flight examiner failed two flight instructor candidates on the ground component of their test because they described dangerously incorrect spin recovery technique in their theory briefing.

CASA helped recently with their AC 61-16 Spin avoidance and stall recovery training

The FAA's Airplane Flying Handbook, Chapter 5: Maintaining Aircraft Control: Upset Prevention and Recovery Training has excellent information.

To go a bit deeper into the subject for much of the underpinning knowledge required by CASA for a spin endorsement I suggest starting with NASA TN D-6575 SUMMARY OF SPIN TECHNOLOGY AS RELATED TO LIGHT I GENERAL-AVIATION AIRPLANES by James Bowman (I worked with Jim for a while). It is engineering stuff however fairly light reading.

20 hours ago, F10 said:

Yes, in a fully developed spin, moments of inertia in roll pitch and yaw, may have built up to an extent ..... I should have mentioned there are moment of inertia differences in an incipient and fully developed spin.

Not really, moment of inertia is simply a property of mass and geometry of the aeroplane.

Quote

Don't know the Decathlon, but I find it interesting the spin flattens. Should only occur with power on.

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.

Quote

.... The flight manual warns this can cause a sudden excessive nose down pitch, difficult to control. ....

There are differences between the variants of the 172. Does any variant state "difficult to control"?

Quote

 .... 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. ..... But most GA aircraft will recover if you just let go.

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.

Quote

... Most stable aircraft have to be forced to spin, by holding full pro spin control deflections. .....

..... should have recovered very quickly by just unloading and a shot of opposite rudder? ......

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.

Quote

... It is a pity the NTSB will not investigate! .....

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.

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 

14 hours ago, marshallarts said:

Whenever I see a discussion like this, I am prompted to wonder (again) what the missing ingredient is.  Example:  Pilatus is a Swiss company, producing some of the world's finest aircraft of their type, like the PC-12 turboprop .....

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.

On 04/11/2023 at 11:05 AM, facthunter said:

What sort of pilot would use full control deflection other than flick manoeuvres or when 3 pointing  or sideslipping? ........ Can you explain why nose up comes into it? (serious question)?.  ..... .  Nev 

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

On 23/8/2023 at 9:03 AM, onetrack said:

Oooh! It looks like he might be keen to develop the Jabiru fighter aircraft, with his track record! 

Mick is eminently sensible and an excellent businessman.

On 21/8/2023 at 4:58 PM, RFguy said:

I might add on the Va thing, while its accepted Va can calculated by taking the clean stall speed multiplied by the squareroot of the load factor, ….. HOWEVER If the aircraft did not break say until 8g, then the designer might use that value in the calculation of Va (but the FAA might not like it) . ….

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 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.

2 hours ago, skippydiesel said:

Wow! I would not expect any factory built/supplied aircraft with standard fitments (engine etc) to require ballast - doesn't sound good to me.

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.

Quote

encountered a tailwind during landing ... resulting in a hard landing

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

On 22/05/2023 at 9:56 PM, Carbon Canary said:

....... Anyhow, to answer the question, I sincerely hope W&B is both taught AND routinely practiced in both GA and RA. ..

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.

On 24/05/2023 at 7:55 PM, aro said:

What is the smallest aircraft where maximum landing weight is less than maximum takeoff weight?

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

On 23/05/2023 at 8:48 PM, old man emu said:

It must have been produced in Australia as the VH- part of the aircraft identity was already printed on the page before the individual letters were typed on.  Maybe some older person here might know the bloke who did the weighing - B.D. Linard

 

 

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.

You will have to get onto  the CASA medical registration system online to do it per their instructions https://www.casa.gov.au/basic-class-2-medical-certificate-fact-sheet-pilots

Quite a few aircraft with aileron-rudder interconnects e.g. Piper PA-22, some Cessnas on floats, Cirrus …

8 hours ago, naremman said:

I do recall that this incident was covered in the Air Safety Digest.

Should be easy to find it at https://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/aviation-safety-digest