djpacro

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.

I'd been expecting something like that when the report came out! Over the years I have had robust arguments, taking your side, against those who promoted Beggs/Mueller for all types. You still see it in a popular book by a well known instructor. CASA even had that statement in the draft of CAAP 155-1.

Yes, good advice. Before that we had to make multiple folds in a WAC while flying an open cockpit Pitts. Then try to grab hold of the big ERSA book.

I might suggest to AvPlan that they update their stuff. The text of the CAAP was clear that there was no regulatory requirement for private operators at all. However "This CAAP looks to provide guidance for the use of EFB by Air Operator’s Certificate (AOC) holders as they are bound to meet the obligations detailed in the AOC conditions set out in Appendix 9 of CAO 82.0. .... The CAAP will also provide general guidance for private operators." That CAO has now gone.

Not true about screen size unless specified in an Ops Manual for a commercial operator. From CASA's AC 91-17 "The screen size and resolution will need to demonstrate the ability to display information in a manner comparable to the paper documents that are being replaced. For flight crew use, this would be evaluated against the aeronautical charts and other data. The recommended minimum size of the screen is 200 mm, measured diagonally across the active viewing area. ..." My iPhone easily displays stuff comparable or better than paper documents that I used when flying a Pitts. My iPad Mini is better but if I'm familiar with the route and it is good weather then the iPhone is fine (I may not even look at it). 200 mm is only a recommendation. In the good old days before EFBs I wouldn't bother calculating the effect of forecast wind once I realised how far off the forecasts used to be on average. Not calculating the wind was just the same situation as encountering actual wind different than forecasts - we were taught to update the flight plan progressively as we flew it and determined the actual wind. Back when I did my CPL training I was given a flight to plan then as we walked to the aircraft I was told that the task had changed so discard that plan and work out a new plan as we go. As well as looking at weather and NOTAMs I do make a point of getting AvPlan to download it for me so I have evidence of it for CASA rules. I rarely submit a plan or SARTIME as I'd rather use a flight note with a trusted friend who gets frequent updates of my progress.

A bit of surgery needed in a jig. This one needed more extensive work but easier, not being damaged near the wing spar attach fittings.

This form should work (there is no other) however I suggest that you phone them to confirm.

I suggest that you drop into the AvPlan HQ at Moorabbin Airport to get the best advice https://www.avplan-efb.com/contact/ I have an iPad Mini. You'll need the cellular version to get the GPS - I just connect it to the internet via my iPhone when I'm flying and wifi at home to get any data it needs at any time.

Still some of those around. Replaced by Cirri - quite a few of those to hire at Moorabbin.

I guess that CASA has assumed that everyone has already converted from the old CAR 5 licence to the flash new Part 61 licence so nil guidance on the new system. A lot of rules and procedures have changed in the last 30 years so suggest that you brush up on those as much as you can before you start paying a flight instructor. This is a good place to start: https://www.casa.gov.au/search-centre/visual-flight-rules-guide Piper Warriors haven't changed much in 30 years. Quite a few online at flight schools around Melbourne. You'll find updated avionics and a GPS installed. I'm assuming that you want to resume in the Warrior and go to $100 hamburger events? The flight instructor giving you a refresher and doing your flight review may not mention Electronic Flight Bags as few flight schools here incorporate them in their training. However definitely worthwhile considering this rather than buying a full set of documents and paper charts as you'll just end up tossing them in the bin. So, read up about EFBs here https://www.casa.gov.au/operations-safety-and-travel/safety-advice/electronic-flight-bag/efb-procedures-and-training and https://www.avplan-efb.com/ - they have an office at Moorabbin and welcome people dropping in to chat. I suggest that you talk to a few instructors at different flight schools, mention that you want to use an EFB rather than buy paper stuff, consider what you will be doing once you are back into it. I've come across people in your situation before, one earlier this year. He got current in a Warrior then did a tailwheel endorsement followed by an aerobatic endorsement.

My observation is that almost every fatality that follows an engine failure is a consequence of an accelerated stall. RV in country NSW and C172 at Moorabbin a few years back spring to mind. Powerline inspection by C172 last year. Whether it is fear or a self-imposed limit from their training that is the classic scenario describing the skidded turn stall.

Pilot develop bad habits from their flight training e.g. from CASA's Flight Instructor Manual: Instructors repeat Bank Balance Back Pressure for entering a turn. The CASA FIM goes on to state "Emphasize that the selected airspeed is held constant by use of the elevator ..." but instructors are not emphasising that in the circuit so many pilots have the bad habit of applying back pressure, instead of forward pressure, on the base to final turn with the resultant increase in angle of attack. Not good for one's long term health.

You will reach many more people at https://www.facebook.com/groups/796324257055294 There's space in my friend's hangar beside the Pitts and Husky.

Any new info within the last 15 years? https://civa-results.com/2019/WAC_2019/multi_R006s01s02s03s04.htm

See my earlier post for the definition of a spin hence the start of a spin. Cessna's spin document is consistent https://mikeklochcfi.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/cessna-spin-manual.pdf

Doesn't seem like a Cessna 150. Chipmunks and Tiger Moths may have anti-spin strakes - another discussion on their effectiveness. I have also readabout a type which was sensitive to throttle and, from memory, the manual stated to switch the motor off if recovery was delayed - Zlin 526.