djpacro

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.

delete

delete

I know of some instructors who chicken out of required flight exercises for an RPL per Part 61 (see attached image). I see that the RPC syllabus is far less comprehensive. I see some aeroplanes used in training that are prohibited from accelerated stalls so unable to do all of the required Part 61 stall exercises. Seems like an argument for UPRT. See https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/airplane_handbook/06_afh_ch5.pdf There is no space between stall and spin. Suggest that you read the reference above - the pages on stalling are followed by pages on spinning. There is a stall recovery template and a spin recovery template, nothing in between.

https://www.flightsafetyaustralia.com/2022/04/andante-andante/ “The aircraft was the aerobatic version of a popular trainer and that might be significant in what happened – different centre of gravity.” Steve Curtis stated that “sharing the aeroplane type would allow following pilots to review the recommended spin recovery for the type.” He suspected that it was a Cessna 150? I am going to assume it was a Cessna 150 for the sake of my discussion. Was the CG within limits for spinning? Was the different CG relevant – was it similar to that resulting from different crew weight? “….. but the elevators, when I moved them, felt the same as if we were parked on the apron. “Well, I’d read about this sort of thing, so I shoved the throttle to the panel and followed it with the stick. And again and again – allegro!” I have read about that sort of thing in a few articles too. I’d read about that recovery technique in CASA’s Flight Instructor Manual too. “… brief on these emergency recovery procedures. ….. In all cases full opposite rudder must be maintained whilst carrying out the following supplementary action …” Interesting that those emergency recovery procedures didn’t make it into CASA’s CAAP 155-1? I had first heard about that particular emergency recovery action from John Day many years ago. My recollection is that John wrote for the Aviation Safety Digest (I must check his full bio). John indicated to me the origin of that and the type of aircraft where it had been applied successfully. A bit like the Beggs-Mueller emergency spin recovery technique which is popularly promoted in some quarters without regard to the limitations on applicable types clearly stated by Beggs in his publications – he has reported on all of his testing. The Cessna 150 is one of many types where the Beggs-Mueller technique failed. “This meant I was holding the stick to the panel and the throttle ‘bricks to the wall’ long enough to have an effect.” Yep, as CASA’s FIM advises, on the same page as that emergency recovery technique: “It is important to emphasize that sufficient time must be allowed for the recovery action to take effect and this is particularly important where the spin has become flat.” “Lessons learnt: It was a neural pathway or perhaps a neural superhighway burnt into my mind. I had been going at it too fast. Years have passed and many a first officer has heard me say, ‘andante, andante’. (Piano teacher’s jargon for, ‘Hey, slow down!’)” Yes, slowing down and taking the correct action generally results in a better outcome than taking an immediate, incorrect action. Unfortunately, there is a lot of disinformation about spinning. The classic example is the ATSB report on the Chipmunk VH-UPD spin accident and the pilot’s training – it makes me angry every time I think about it. I discuss this with my spin training endorsement trainees. There is some disinformation about certification standards – fine to quote FAR 23 (and if you do, quote the applicable amendment as there are differences) but I often see the latest version only quoted. Furthermore, a lot of aeroplanes around not certified to FAR 23. There were earlier standards which are different. There are also different, earlier standards from other countries. LSA spin recovery standards are different. It is worth mentioning the ATSB report on Diamond DA40 VH-MPM. The ATSB stated: “, the investigation identified incorrect incipient spin recovery guidance provided by CASA. The CASA publication Flight Instructor Manual …” The report stated: “CASA has advised the ATSB that they have taken the following safety action: Guidance material review CASA is reviewing the Spins and Spirals section of the Flight Instructor Manual for correction as required.” Really? The ATSB report was issued in 2017! CASA published AC 61-16 in April 2020 which provides much information contrary to CASA’s FIM! Fortunately, I don’t know of any flight instructor courses which use the FIM as a reference. Back in August 1975 the FAA in cooperation with Cessna published Flight Instructor Bulletin No. 18 on the spin characteristics of Cessnas. Rich Stowell’s excellent book, Stall/Spin Awareness, explains the background to that: “In the early 1970s, the Cessna 150 – arguably one of the most spin tested light airplanes in history – came under fire when a couple of flight instructors reported difficulty in recovering from spins. …. The FAA representative then went into the field to address questions about the 150’s spin characteristics. The representative was met with considerable misunderstanding about spins in general and the Cessna 150 in particular.” The FAA sponsored a stall/spin clinic which you can read about in the archives of Flight International magazine of 28 October 1978. Cessna published a detailed pamphlet, Spin Characteristics of Cessna Models 150, A150, 152, A152, 172, R172 & 177. I wonder how many flight instructors who teach spinning in Cessnas are aware of that information? It is included in William K Kershner’s book, The Basic Aerobatic Manual. Andante, andante by Douglas Robertson was an event long ago but still relevant today, thanks. It seems to me that the situation that the FAA found back in the ‘70s with “considerable misunderstanding about spins in general” exists to a large extent today – from my observations and discussions with many pilots. Perhaps time for a series of stall/spin clinics by CASA – after they revise the Flight Instructor Manual?

Well, yes and no. Per FAA AC23-8C: For example, the Pitts S-2A has this cockpit placard:

Forward of neutral - really? Sure, there are some types which will recover from a fully developed spin with controls neutral however many will not. Not true regarding certification requirements eg FAA AC 23-8C.

Indeed. A flight manual will have the recovery procedure from a spin. Even types not approved for intentional spins. The certification test pilots define a spin as "a sustained autorotation at angles-of-attack above stall" per FAA AC 23-8C. That's all. Types not approved for intentional spinning are only tested "to assure that the airplane will not become uncontrollable within one turn (or three seconds, whichever takes longer) if a spin should be encountered inadvertently". No need to discuss whether it is an incipient spin or not. If it is autorotating then it is spinning so use the spin recovery method. Only done one turn - may be an incipient spin - doesn't matter, that's all that has been tested and the test pilot tells you in the flight manual how to recover. The people who write the spin recovery method in the flight manual use the above definition of a spin, nowhere in AC 23-8A does it even mention an incipient spin. An incipient spin is a spin so use the spin recovery method in the flight manual. Cessna's Spin Document notes: Note the use of the word "may"! So you recommend simply centralising the controls if in an incipient spin? Before 2-3 turns? AC 23-8A states "Most airplanes will not attain a fully developed spin in one turn." When I demonstrate an aggressive unintentional spin entry with power and aileron it will be fully developed well before 2-3 turns. By all means, if in an aerobatic aircraft and unintentionally enter a spin while conducting aerobatics and take immediate action (so very early in the incipient spin phase), centralise the controls to prevent the spin from developing - it is appropriate then. In other circumstances, this acccident is a good example of what goes wrong when transitioning from a stall recovery method to a different stall recovery method with a wing drop to a different recovery method from an incipient spin then to a different fully developed spin recovery method https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2014/aair/ao-2014-083/ Depends on the aircraft. A type I flew recently stated that these 4 actions "must be carried out immediately and simultaneously. Power lever - idle. Ailerons neutral. Rudder - full deflection against direction of spin. Elevator - fully forward." That type is not approved for intentional spins so that is the required action when it is autorotating ... in the incipient spin phase. I wonder if the flight instructor in the fatal accident of that type knew of that when he was doing stall practice with a student as it is quite different from the method he was taught when he got his spin endorsement?

1. There has indeed been a large number of such posts over the years. 2. Ask the airport management for their reason and compare with what I stated. 3. “consistently fairly” is not what airport managements have experienced over the years trying to invoice RAA registered aircraft cf VH aircraft.

Moorabbin simply had enough of RAA pilots avoiding payments and I can understand that having read a large number of online posts from pilots who avoid paying any landing fee whatsoever.

and how it was done, I should've added. I see that PA-28 and Cessna 172, even the 152 have a MTOW and max ramp weight defined in the POH. The Decathlon AFM simply has maximum weight. Pitts POH has both maximum gross weight and maximum takeoff weight - the same number. The ASTM for LSA has slightly different terminology again "maximum takeoff or maximum design weight". My copy of a Jabiru POH specifies maximum takeoff weight in one section, gross weight in another section (same number 600 kg)