djpacro

I don't think the Tomahawk has an all-moving tail. Worth reading https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piper_PA-38_Tomahawk esp the safety record.

Yep, now a prerequisite for the FIR is to have a spin endorsement (doesn't entitle an instructor to teach spins however).

Its in the flying training syllabus and an element of the test. So has to be done. Those limits are common globally wrt aircraft certification and definition of aerobatics. Any greater bank is starting to risk the limits of demonstrated spin recovery for types not approved for intentional spins. So, them limits are not going to change.

So perhaps overflyers should be higher than 1500 to avoid conflict.

1500 ft AGL is one of the standard circuit heights.

LAA UK has their mandatory requirements which are worth considering at http://www.lightaircraftassociation.co.uk/engineering/TADs/324%20SUPERMARINE%20SPITFIRE%20MK26.pdf Incidentally, there is a variation in stall behaviour arising from accuracy (or inaccuracy) of construction.

Certification of composite aircraft structures requires some redundancy (fail-safe is old hat) so types such as the Extra have that built-in.

I must hang out with a different crowd at competitions.Some do push the limits and those flying a Pitts S-1 usually get away with it (apart from little bits over time) as its structure does not deform until way beyond the limit load factor. Disappointingly, some S-1 owners don't actually know the limit load factors and manoeuvre speed limitations. More relevant, I hear some pilots of new-fangled monoplanes saying that their airplane has no such limits, effectively.

1. About 18 years ago a CAP 222, French built version of the Giles 202, lost its tail in a similar fashion. As far as I know it was not the same problem. 2. All the local (and I daresay all in the world) drivers of Giles wear chutes. As do many Pitts and Extra etc pilots. 3. Need enough time/height to exit with a chute high enough above the ground for it to be useful. As mentioned, it takes time. Gyrations following a structural failure can make it extremely difficult to exit. (I can only hope that focussing on the chute takes one's mind off other things). 4. Discussion today with a Giles driver about how to inspect the structure in that area. Hhhm. (Incidentally, the previous day we'd been talking about 787 ground damage and inspections.) 5. The Giles is an orphan - not certified so never going to be any ADs and the manufacturer no longer exists so only individual owners with a keen interest. The MX was developed from the Giles and also not certified with the manufacturer also out of business. 6. I've heard that we'll get an investigation of the MX structural failure at the recent World AerobaticChampionships. 7. Many of us like the Pitts structure. I also like certified airplanes.

In the aerobatic box over Narromine for the NSW Aerobatic Championships.

Black and white in the regs for training for endorsements previously mentioned plus some other things. The new Part 61 specifically lists the training endorsements for a PPL with a flight instructor rating.

No law that says a PPL can't earn money, they are just limited to private ops (there was another thread where commercial ops was discussed - pilot did not earn any money but the situation required a CPL). Exactly my point, not "just like it".

Yes indeed, but just a few specific training endorsements. Nope, not just like a CASA instructor rating.

I know it well.

91.030: "This Part does not apply in relation to the operation of an aircraft if any provision of Part 101, 103 or 131 applies to the operation." So, if Part 103 is silent on a specific issue then whatever is in Part 91 for that specific issue does apply.

91.030: "This Part does not apply in relation to the operation of an aircraft if any provision of Part 101, 103 or 131 applies to the operation." So, if Part 103 is silent on a specific issue then whatever is in Part 91 for that specific issue does apply.

Until we see the final parts 101 and 103 can't say that anything in 91 doesn't apply.

Until we see the final parts 101 and 103 can't say that anything in 91 doesn't apply.

It is true - very extensive over the last 12 years - it is just that they don't take much notice of the feedback.

It is true - very extensive over the last 12 years - it is just that they don't take much notice of the feedback.

Yep.Simple pilot theory is far from true in real life. Neither speed for best angle of climb nor best rate of climb occur at a "fixed angle of attack"! Refer: http://cospilot.com/documents/Why%20Vx%20and%20Vy%20Change%20with%20Altitude.pdf

How about experience as a flight instructor plus experience having worked as an aerodynamicist?I don't have high regard for a physicist regarding aerodynamics of aircraft. And, it really doesn't need a high level of knowledge of aerodynamics to be a good flight instructor.

That was removed after the ValueJet accident many years ago, I don't know why people still claim it is so. I suggest that people take a look at the FAA website before making a fool of themselves with their local member. Hope I wasn't too late.