djpacro

I'm certainly not knowledgeable on WW2 fighters however I know that -5G would be beyond their limit load factor. I also know how an aircraft responds to control inputs and I've been to -5G many times. Response depends on the rate of control application with airspeed also a big factor. Flying along upright and suddenly hit full forward stick, full left rudder with full left aileron lagging a tad results in an outside snap roll. Easy to calculate the G based on entry speed and the stall speed at -1G. Slower control movements - obviously forward stick into a dive results in a speed increase. WW2 fighters have similar flight load limitations as current GA airplanes. Rolling G limitations and Va, maneuvering speed. Something will break doing that.

Yep, Part 91.267 with MOS 13.02 specifically addresses this.

Two hours after sunset. https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/302136 USA PPL includes night VFR training and the permission for night VFR flights. I wonder if the training included taking off over the water with no lights ahead. When I did my night VFR rating we did circuits at Philip Island out over the water on a dark night. https://www.aviationsafetymagazine.com/features/dark-and-deadly-nights/

61.435 and my earlier link refer.

lannguage proficency Sometimes I fail. For pilot licences ... regs 61.120 & 61.435 refer to authorisations to use radio.

Seems like you might be transitioning to the new-fangled Part 61 licence from an old CAR 5 licence? You'll need a GELP, general english lannguage proficency, assessment as a prerequisite for using a radio. https://www.casa.gov.au/licences-and-certificates/pilots/pilot-licences/getting-recreational-pilot-licence-rpl#

Quite a contrast to https://www.faasafety.gov/SPANS/event_details.aspx?eid=117601&fbclid=IwAR1g8RGw7wUDd8X3RJw9FnNBqFAS3-BDh-dAkgNphv3V8kKzw60g1w-CBB0 "Teaching Control In The Pattern - Topic: Discussion With In-Flight Videos Covering: Pilot-Induced Oscillations, Wake Turbulence Upsets, And Stalls At Low Altitudes." I saw it live today - video will be in the archives. (I even got credit for my flight review).

Yep, just fill in the form. Ask CASA to be sure to be sure, they are quite helpful at https://www.casa.gov.au/about-us/contact-us/flight-crew-licensing-enquiries

I agree, not as common as control locks left in, but FOD moving during flight and jamming controls in aerobatic airplanes is a well known hazard. It has happened to myself and several others that I know over the years.

Good discussion. Great work APenNameAndThatA It is a fairly common cause, however. They are. Refer CASA's Flight Instructor Manual.

I think you'll find the rule is operational not aircraft certification.

Hi Nev, is that a new philosophy, as your Citabria was a 5G airplane? And - there are quite a few RAA planes certified for intentional spinning.

Yes, that is the placard (although not actually required for all flat spins, testing revealed specific control actions to get it there). Interesting that the general spin placard there is not quite correct per the AFM.

The factory test pilot found some modes which were not recoverable with that method. Amendment to the AFM and cockpit placard refers.

I get a steady stream of curious flight instructors asking about it when they can't get numbers to tie up when they do the arithmetic. Of course, they must use CAS - are those stall speeds in CAS or IAS? When the manufacturer does the calculations do they use the stall speed at the same CG published in the POH or not - some manufacturers publish stall speeds for both fore and aft CG positions. There are several reasons why a manufacturer may state a higher Va than Vs.sqrt(n). One is that they are allowing for future growth of that model so just do the certification once at the anticipated higher weight - as you saw, Va is only used to get control surface and tail loads, nothing to do with stresses in the wing. When an engineer first specifies Va it is before the prototype has flown so the stall speed is only estimated and perhaps the engineer builds in a buffer. Perhaps the actual stall speed is less than originally estimated. The structural engineering certification paperwork is largely done, they're not going to revise Va and delay the FAA's review if they don't have to.

I’d say it would be exactly as required by the design airworthiness regulations as explained succinctly by FAA AC 23-19. Vs below is at maximum weight.

Yep, I did state "almost any instructor". Aerobatic customers often consider different schools and sometimes specific instructors before deciding but often don't bother asking about the instructor's experience. I think an instructor like that would've been fine for the general aerobatic training - I would expect some solo aerobatic practice (normal with others I know who transition to other types) rather than pick it up with a student on board paying for it as the report indicates.

My opinion is that the Cessna Aerobat is a great little aerobatic trainer. I've done quite a bit of instruction in them. Yep, so easy to do a roll in a Pitts or Extra. Students in a Cessna, with its much lower roll rate, must learn more skills in rolling it as well as energy management overall. The Decathlon is an excellent aerobatic trainer. Very few in Australia learn basic aerobatics in a Pitts or Extra - they could learn those correct basic skills to do a roll at low roll rates but won't iniitially. Techniques for hammerheads are quite a bit different in high performance aircraft. I don't see a problem with teaching aerobatics on different types in general as almost any instructor would've started on a low performance type. Courses for an instructor doing an aerobatic training endorsement should include some little classroom techniques in different types per the MOS. Manuals give good guidance on how to do stuff and most of the skills are transferable. I do enjoy seeing a Pitts pilot try to do a hammerhead (stall turn) in an Airtourer though! The real issue is spinning. The MOS only requires knowledge of the type which is being used for training.

Unusual attitudes - a good point for more discussion at that other thread on UPRT, perhaps. When I do a spin endorsement for someone there is classroom work which includes: all the aggravated spin modes and how to avoid them some characteristics of other types so the recovery method is likely to be different than the type we are using the limitations of Beggs-Mueller what to do if you apply the correct (or you think it was correct) recovery method and it doesn't work - what do you do? especially for flight instructors, what aircraft will they be instructing in, as if not approved for spins they must know the control actions specified in the POH - probably totally different than what I've taught them - and apply them as soon as it starts to spin - certainly before one turn. eg this Diamond Indeed. I expect (hope) there will be changes to the spin training MOS and instructor training.

Here is the list from Gene Beggs, October 1985 magazine article, which he claims to have thoroughly tested. Of these, he states that it doesn't work (at least for some spin modes) for the Beech T-34C, North American AT-6 and that Cessna 150. Bill Kershner confirmed that every Cessna Aerobat behaves the same when trying to recover using Beggs-Mueller - even the 152 will not recover. They weren't certification standard tests, for example, he did not rig the control surfaces to the extremes of the tolerances most adverse for spin recovery. What CG range did he test for each aircraft? How can he guarantee it? His book, Spins in the Pitts Special, was published later and it had another statement: "Another aircraft that will not always recover is the 180 Decathlon. This occurs in the inverted left rudder spin. I have not flown the 180 Decathlon extensively. I do not know if the 150 Decathlon also exhibits the same behaviour." Hang on, in that earlier magazine article he stated that he had thoroughly tested it? He goes on "If we could spin-test every aircraft, I am sure we would find others that will lock-in and continue spinning on their own." An instructor and student were conducting inverted spins in a Decathlon and the Beggs-Mueller technique was being demonstrated. The student was told to bail out and survived. The instructor was killed as he didn't have enough time to get out. Eric Mueller is quite vague - I have only seen him state that it works for all those aircraft which have a conventional (according to Eric) tail design like that of the Pitts Special. Tell that to Paul Bennet - it doesn't work for his Wolf Pitts.

The ATSB assessed that "Overall, none of the available evidence indicated that the student was susceptible to freezing at the controls or making other inappropriate flight control inputs." They didn't rule it out however they did speak to other instructors and trainees at that flight school in making that assessment. As the ATSB said "it may be difficult for the instructor to regain control of the aircraft." I've done a whole lot of spin training over the years and never had much difficulty in dealing with trainees who freeze or made the situation worse by incorrect actions. Same with other instructors I know. That same trainee had flown aerobatics twice on the previous day. "It was reported that, during the practical flight phase on that day, the instructor demonstrated each of the manoeuvres before handing control to the student." Good practice. The pre-flight briefing on the day of the accident is most telling: "One of the students indicated that, during the pre-flight briefing, they were not instructed on what recovery method was recommended in the Aerobat Pilot’s Operating Handbook (POH), or that it closely aligned with the PARE method. Further, they were instructed on the advantages of the Mueller/Beggs method, but not on its limitations; namely, if the Mueller/Beggs method was utilised on an Aerobat, the aircraft would not recover from a spin to the left (see Aerodynamic spins). Both students were instructed to write down the 2 spin recovery methods on a piece of paper for reference in flight when the practical component of the spin recovery was to be undertaken. One of the students indicated that they believed they were going to utilise both methods of spin recovery during their flight instruction. The first method written down on both students’ spin recovery notes was the Mueller/Beggs method." Another instructor who worked with that instructor at another flight school has publicly stated that they did not teach the spin recovery method in the (non-aerobatic) Cessna 152 POH. "... just relaxation of the back pressure was taught ..". Catherine Cavagnaro makes the point that the elevator is the primary spin recovery control in the Cessna "However, the ATSB could not identify if the instructor had sought additional information about the Aerobat’s spin characteristics." Two books by William K.Kershner are readily available and provide exhaustive information on the type in general and spinning in particular. Both should be in the reference library of any flight school teaching spins in a C150/152. The investigators did a very comprehensive job. "The ATSB considered it likely that the instructor was not aware or did not recall that the Aerobat would not recover utilising the Mueller/Beggs method in a spin to the left. Further, the evidence indicates that the instructor intended to utilise both methods of recovery in 2 separate spin sequences on the accident flight. If the Mueller/Beggs method was being used for the first exercise, it would provide a viable explanation of the accident sequence." Time to accept the ATSB report and go forward with the recommendations.

"The student had conducted an introductory aerobatic flight in an American Champion Aircraft Corp 8KCAB with an instructor in December 2014. That flight did not include spins."

I was at a UPRT Providers Conference sponsored by CASA and aircraft insurance companies last month. My presentation included some comments on the "cesspit of misinformation, half-baked truths and misshapen facts" mentioned in this article https://www.flightsafetyaustralia.com/2017/12/the-unreachables-are-they-unteachable/ For a start: Vne is the red-line speed or the never-exceed speed - the key word is "never". At that conference, I specifically discussed the misinformation around regarding the design manoeuvering speed, Va, which is specified by the airworthiness design regulations FAR 23 and explained succintly in FAA Advisory Circular 23-19: Newly designed and certified aeroplanes should have a Vo, the operating manoeuvering speed which is what many pilots believe Va is. I also mentioned some general issues with spin training in this country and made some recommendations regarding training of spin instructors. The report on the Cessna 150 spin accident published by the ATSB recently served to emphasise my recommendations.

I see evidence that it is slowly coming. On the other hand I see some UPRT courses advertised with very little on the P. i also see pilots habitually letting the speed decay on the base to final turn because they pull back (as they recall being taught to turn that way). i commented elsewhere today that I don’t recall a CASA AvSafety Seminar ever addressing the risk of loss of control.and the relevance of that P.