djpacro

My instructor taught me to taxi on the right of a runway in the event that it is suddenly used by an aircraft in an emergency. I now teach the same to other instructors. I once observed a Mooney taxiing along the centreline of a very wide runway. An aircraft was approaching it from behind after an engine failure. Just in the wrong place. Not enough space to land either side of the Mooney so he tried to stretch the glide. Stalled and came down very hard just ahead of the Mooney, fortunately walked away from it. Aircraft severely damaged. If only the Mooney had been taxiing on the right the other aircraft would've safely landed beside it. At the same airfield I have encountered (several times) other aircraft taxiing towards me on a runway and deciding to keep to their left. Arguing with me on the radio telling me I should keep to the left rather than to the right. I wonder what they were told about the rules of taxiing. Incidentally, Part 61 has a number of dangerous elements in the standards. As for airmanship - many instructors don't bother to read the often-excellent advice by CASA in advisory circulars. I try to teach them this extra stuff too.

Not the first time so it will be repeated. People must be accountable for their actions, especially where they have endangered others. "The Civil Aviation Safety Authority has since filed a lawsuit against Mr Pullen in the Federal Court, arising from the incident at Bathurst on October 13, 2024, as well as previous incidents involving the pilot. It’s understood the court action is seeking more time for CASA to investigate “serious, wilful or repeated disregard of the aviation rules”." It seems that CASA has impounded his aircraft too, so we'll see if his friends' claims that there was no damage to the aircraft, only bits of paint were seen flying off in the videos, are true.

I'm sorry I mentioned it.

I have a Super Decathlon at Moorabbin. As does Learn To Fly Melbourne | Aviation School | Flight Training More expensive than Tocumwal and other places. Peninsula Aero Club is a bit cheaper with a Standard Decathlon.

Eddie at Tocumwal http://www.sportaviation.com.au/power_flight/index.php

As CASA recommends, flight schools should choose appropriate types for stall training & spin prevention training. Seems to me that many do not and skip many of the required stall exercises. Some types are prohibited from doing accelerated stalls (for a reason). I disagree. The buzzword these days is UPRT, Upset Prevention and Recovery Training with the emphasis on Prevention. Some schools have just rebadged their UA courses as UPRT so little or no Prevention training. Like the experienced Pitts instructor killed with a student in Cessna 150 spin training who, according to the ATSB report, did not know the correct technique for the 150. Perhaps a separate discussion. Aerobatic training is not UPRT, it doesn't help much with avoiding LOC-I accidents. So, he would've known how to recover from a spin in a Pitts. I do spin endorsements for instructor trainees then emphasise that the technique I taught them only applies to the type that we did the training in, and they should read the POH for the type they will be instructing in. Then one needs enough height to recover hence the focus on prevention in UPRT.

I am not referring to you. It is an engineering term https://www.businessballs.com/glossaries-and-terminology/acronyms-finder/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_wild-ass_guess

Yes, but it must not be the usual practice stalls from straight and level with power off. CASA's Part 61 MOS has a broader suite of stall exercises. The FAA has some important additional ones. I fly with many instructors and instructor trainees - too many cannot tell me the correct method to recover from those, as if they didn't do them in their flight training at all. They were trained to pass the test, not trained for competency required in the elements specified in the MOS. CASA AC 61-16 https://www.casa.gov.au/spin-avoidance-and-stall-recovery-training has good advice such as: "Spin avoidance training where a wing may drop at the stall is best achieved through the following scenario based flight situations: − Approach configuration descending turns (base to final turn) − Go-around from approach configuration (significant change in trim state) − Climbing turns in departure configuration (trim changes, flap retraction and turns) − Engine failure after take-off (potential out of trim condition) − Slow flying o Turns o Distractions" I rarely encounter anyone who has practiced a stall in a climbing turn or a go-around and it shows by their dangerous WAG at the recovery actions. Most instructors get a surprise when I demo an inadvertent stall/spin with little or none of the usual stall warning symptoms that they are teaching. I always advise my trainees to maintain the usual speed on base all throughout the turn so as not to be in the habit of pulling back and increasing the AoA in that turn.

You need to redo your calculations using CAS. In the absence of info published for that aircraft I suggest you use my estimated stall speed flaps up of 58 kts CAS. If you are flying it then do the conversion back to IAS, the number you see on the ASI, for your approach speed. If you are comparing it with GS data then continue to use CAS/TAS.

It hasn't been called BFR for many years. CASA's Plain English Guide describes flight reviews on the same page as proficiency checks. "The purpose of a flight review and a proficiency check is to assess your flying skills and operational knowledge." When I do a PC to renew my instructor rating it is definitely a test. "Like a flight review, a proficiency check assesses your competency to the standards specified by CASA." Perhaps you should look for a grumpy old flight instructor who simply follows the CASA CAAP with no regard for the current regs. (To note that the Part 61 regs do not apply to RAA.)

I do flight reviews for some people, however not in the Sydney area. The new regulation is very onerous if you bother to read it, 61.400. Fortunately, sensible people within CASA have stuck to the original CAAP 5.81-01 which references the obsolete regulations. Many flight schools use the forms provided there as a record of flight reviews given which are subject to CASA audit. Refer B1 on page 31 and you will see that Navigation is recommended. There is some text as guidance BUT ... CASA also has their Plain English Guide for Part 61 which reflects the regs so contrary to the CAAP. "You must demonstrate competency according to each unit of competency mentioned in the MOS (Schedule 2)." Read those words and navigation is not recommended, it is mandatory unless one just holds an RPL without a nav endorsement. "The purpose of a flight review and a proficiency check is to assess your flying skills and operational knowledge." (Sounds like a test to me.) Gone is that sensible bit in the CAAP: "To properly inform the task of designing the flight review, the pilot under review should accurately detail what flying they have completed over the last two years, and what flying they anticipate they will undertake in the future." Do I follow the old, but still current, CAAP or the CASA guide explaining the existing regulations?

“He was forced to land in water ..”

Unfortunately, many published stall speeds are in IAS replete with position errors. Not that hard to calculate a real, expected stall speed in CAS for a normal wing. 58 kts flaps up.

Yet here I am with my iPad connected to my SkyEcho on wifi and using my iPhone hotspot for internet via bluetooth simultaneously.

If only using the ADSB-IN function then this is much cheaper by the same manufacturer of the SkyEcho. PingUSB - uAvionix It works very well.