djpacro

I will never forget an instructor who did indeed show me that technique quite recently, after briefing me on the technique when I queried it. Just coming over the back side of a loop we were extremely slow and he stalled it then pulled the nose down and the aeroplane responded with a sudden spin entry. He was obviously well versed in this as he recovered in a neat 1/2 turn and pulled out of the dive. My turn next. Same stall exercise. Small forward movement of the stick to reduce the angle of attack and we are unstalled so continue to fly the loop. That instructor agreed that my technique of moving the stick forward was better than his of suddenly getting the nose down. Seems to me that he had confused his own instructor's teachings on unusual attitude / stall recoveries. I wonder what key words his instructor used to describe the correct actions that work in all situations? "Learn to recognise that it is a stall ..." not as easy as it sounds to many people, when I ask how they would recognise a stall they typically rattle off all those standard symptoms of an approaching stall but that doesn't answer the question.

depends on the attitude

Just a little annoying for engineers but if many people use that term for a useful flight exercise then so be it. I did some training once with an ex-USAF Colonel whose nickname was Dutch - he loved to call his wave the Dutch salute and ..... sorry, but he would be quite entitled to roll around the floor and call that a Dutch roll. The certification requirement is for a specific level of positive DR stability. The PC-9 is one type which does not meet that requirement (at high altitude). The Airtourer is one example of a type which exhibits an annoying DR in a little bit of turbulence - I've always wanted a bigger rudder and fin on an Airtourer.

i would never train to drop the nose instantly

strine

CASA's MOS has lots of specs on required flying tolerances but nought on balance that I can see apart from words like "balance and trim the aeroplane accurately". First of all the instrument has to be accurately mounted in the panel. Secondly, consideration of the behaviour of the ball in dynamic conditions - refer the text in the attached photo. Worth repeating that first sentence: "Many pilots are under the mistaken impression that coordinated flight and ball-centered flight are always synonymous" with the result that, unless absolutely steady conditions, they fly down final in a state of perpetual uncoordination. The Pitts standard instrument package does not include a slip ball yet it can easily be flown accurately in balance - except normal landings when many of us prefer to sideslip just so that we can see the runway. As for flying the approach in calm conditions or direct headwind vs a crosswind - the discussion is irrelevant as there is always a crosswind component, its just that sometimes it is NIL.

"frequent" at https://infrastructure.gov.au/transport/security/aviation/asi/asics.aspx from reg 6.01: " operational need means: (a) a requirement for frequent access to all or part of a secure area of an airport where persons are required to display an ASIC, for either of the following purposes: (i) the operation of the airport or an aircraft;"

Kaz, I am disappointed that you quoted the form rather than the regulation.

Kaz, I think you will find that the actual requirement has the word "frequent" in there."You need a valid ASIC if you require frequent access to a secure area of a security controlled airport ..." While Moorabbin only required an ASIC to cross the blue line around the RPT operations I just had an AVID. Prior to a rare flight into Essendon (land,taxi without stopping then depart) their Ops Manager told me that I couldn't do it without an ASIC and I pointed out the rule that I did not need an ASIC due to the infrequent access required .... there is no provision for infrequent access. I heard somewhere that the whole ASIC system was being reviewed with an intent being to make it work the way it used to be at Moorabbin. i.e. if one stayed away from the limited area of RPT ops then an ASIC would not be required.

A real book on paper - I wish that I had read this one when I was starting: http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/680115.Stick_and_Rudder

It is indeed. I flew it that day at Bendigo, good to see that it is being revived.

The free online series of FAA handbooks.

.... and would need to be renewed every month or so to catch the current crop.

So the ASIC should be extended to activities actually undertaken by your idiots .....

They use the Dept of Transport etc definition of an accident.

The ATSB categorises it as an "accident".

Probably because pilots ask on a forum instead of reading the rules.

Kaz, what's the anamoly? To exercise privileges of a licence then an AVID or ASIC is required. If one doesn't need an ASIC then its gotta be an AVID.

Contact, I wish you had been around a few years ago to participate in a discussion on the instructors forum here. I got beaten up severely for making comments consistent with yours. I no longer have access to that forum so I'm unable to repeat my own comments here.

i know

Tailplane dihedral gets it away from wake and efflux at high angles of attack. Of course it also provides its own dihedral effect wrt spiral and Dutch roll stability modes.

not under CASA's new Part 61 so my guess is that will flow down to RAA sometime. I won't even try to explain per CASA's new Part 61.

Nope, need to correct stall speed for PE before doing the arithmetic and then change back to indicated speed.

or http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/appages/hooker1.php

Nope. +4 is the limit load factor so permanent deformation will occur beyond that - just beyond it or some way beyond it depending on the type of structure and any additional margin (additional to that 1.5 ultimate factor).