djpacro

Seen the new advanced stalling and incipient spin elements in Part 61 MOS? Yes indeed, even more so with the new Part 61. My opinion is that the advanced stalling/incipient spin exercises require an instructor with a spin training endorsement (consider also CASA's new definition of aerobatics).

i guess that question had a very specific context? The rules are clearly explained in a series of ACs.

useful to read Reg 212 first ...

yours approved by CASA iaw that reg?

my recollection is that one of the rules states that you only have to be available for SSAA ...

Treat every landing as a xwind landing.

Yep. My flight training business from which I earn taxable income is a private operation.

I dunno Kaz, I thought that there was another law where Yenn, as an employee of the company, could be paid by the company to ferry other employees around as a private op.

Interesting .... CASA has this on their new website despite it being statements from a decade ago: Testing of safety-sensitive personnel for alcohol and other drugs - Answers to common questions | Civil Aviation Safety Authority .... the answer to the first question is relevant, as is the one about a private pilot in the bush ...

Pilots of America has a medical section where you will get help and advice from medical examiners.

Its great that they see that as a role but they don't have to - it was removed from their charter after the Valuejet accident.

See https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/g/files/net351/f/_assets/main/lib100096/foi_f13_5348.pdf

8500 is an important altitude to consider per Request Rejected then the next is when oxygen is required etc

The FAA does not "have to promote aviation". I agree that their safety briefings compare favourably with the Safety Digest - a pity that CASA ceased the Safety Digest ages ago as their current magazine is of a much lower standard.

dangerous indeed

please stop spreading the untruth that the US FAA is obliged to promote aviation ...

They put a drop zone dead centre of the recommended VFR coastal route south of Melbourne.

Minimum means minimum - the form is very clear on what is reqd per the regs.

Rounding errors

Doesn't need a right to work, just an operational need. I'd ring Aviation ID Australia | Professional ASIC Distribution Centre rather than CASA. I don't know how you can start the process outside Australia and the police checks will take longer - this has killed a few local businesses.

This is probably going to be all I can find amongst free stuff: http://www.mas.bg.ac.rs/_media/istrazivanje/fme/vol42/2/01_ikostic.pdf - see Figures 32 & 33 with associated text on that page.

A good primer on airfield distance performance factors in Flight Safety Magazine of May-June 2001 https://www.casa.gov.au/file/108561/download?token=MtT8dFkc

that's also my recollection - Henry wanted basically the same wing as the Airtourer but some more wing area and space for fuel in the Aircruiser.Regardless, I'd been looking for some sensible info on these cuffs wrt aerodynamic design of the wing/fuselage junction and effect on stall characteristics. Ideally, the local lift coefficient would be maximum at the outboard end of the cuff so stalls there first. But interference from the fuselage is significant and simple theory not really applicable.

You should see that it is a copy of the Provost wing. Different aerofoil sections root to tip combined with washout designed to give good stall behaviour - didn't quite work as inboard leading edge stall strips were required. The Model T-6 doesn't have those stall strips and, in my opinion, is stretching FAR 23 requirements for uncommanded roll at the stall.See page 13 of http://airtourer.asn.au/airtourer/images/Newsletter/Newsletter%20153.pdf (from memory, not quite right - it is a 23012 not a 2312)

definitely was, sorry Yes, my old memory mixed two data sets. The Aircruiser WT test report I have is the same wing configuration as the prototype - both wind tunnel model and flight test of the prototype displayed the same sudden stall of one wing. Fixed by the wing fence on the prototype.That triangular LE extension I call the wing root cuff. The one on the Aircruiser is bigger than the one on the T-34C - somewhere there is data on a wing like the T-34C with and without cuff - perhaps I will find it before long. My recollection is that this data shows the benefits in stall behaviour of the wing root leading edge cuff as used on the Nash Petrel here http://aviadejavu.ru/Images6/JS/Janes75/1/296-1.jpg this was based on the Kittiwake which had a straight wing https://doc8643.com/static/img/aircrafts/3D/KITI.jpg Prototypes of both flew so must be data on them somewhere too ..... https://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1981/1981%20-%203419.PDF ...... https://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1967/1967%20-%201297.PDF The root LE cuff is fairly common http://www.zlinaircraft.eu/galerie/slider/slider-26.jpg wish I could find the data The following link for wing design, generic and specific to T-34C is relevant but doesn't fully address your interest so I will keep looking. https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiK9JWs8_rPAhXGp5QKHY12AnYQFggwMAY&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.public.navy.mil%2Fnavsafecen%2FDocuments%2Faviation%2FSAS%2Faero%2FCH4-Stal.doc%3FMobile%3D1%26Source%3D%252Fnavsafecen%252F_layouts%252Fmobile%252Fview.aspx%253FList%253D8006e81c-b3d9-4e6f-a528-d2944db57cae%2526View%253D24fea1bc-5ae2-4542-a47b-901dc8d264d2%2526RootFolder%253D%25252Fnavsafecen%25252FDocuments%25252Faviation%25252FSAS%25252Faero%2526CurrentPage%253D1&usg=AFQjCNGir6y6kRJW7_CdV23m9Gkqq_69yg&sig2=5l_XF3_XD2SwoVGDRha41A All of the above was a generation before this stuff that you see on some modern wings Leading-edge extension - Wikipedia