djpacro

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.

Good because that is a correct term. Types of sport aircraft and activities | Civil Aviation Safety Authority That requires adequate training in stall/spin avoidance, as well as stall recovery. I see quite a few flight schools which teach to pass the test rather than teach to the required standard. I encounter many flight instructors who do not know how to recover from a stall in a turn or a climbing stall. We should discuss further after the ATSB report. My guess is that, if a stall, that the pilot had never had any training in that scenario, just the common practice stalls.

They don’t, ATSB does https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2024/report/ao-2024-052

May I ask why? Is he acting on behalf of RAA? I understand that he is not a LAME nor GA Flight Instructor yet regarded as an expert witness in coroners court.

CASA's note on 7/8/20 referred only to the change in crew moment arm. Nothing else changed as shown in my diagram here. The blue line was an example from the Bristell manual. The red line is the same example with the correct crew moment arm. The change to the datum (and therefore the limits wrt that datum), it seemed to me, only obfuscated any comparison.

I had overlooked/forgotten that. Amended weight and balance limits were only a consequence of the different datum, there were no actual changes in the limits. The important change was the corrected crew moment arm and consequent need for ballast on the nose.

It seemed to me that they had done the required stall and spin tests and it was satisfactory. CASA didn't like the reports and wanted more. An issue with a self-certification system. CASA eventually decided they had no issue with stall/spin characteristics. My opinion is that CASA and RAA are way out of their depth on this subject. Meeting LSA certification standards and having behaviour suitable for a training aircraft are two different considerations. As for the CG, seemed to me it was an error, put it down to incompetence maybe. I wonder how other manufacturers determine crew moment arms in a reclined seat like that. I wonder whether the CG issue was a factor in the incidents/accidents. Strange that neither CASA nor ATSB has made a statement connecting the two issues. At least now, they should all be flying around with a much more forward CG than previously. The crew moment arm change had a significant effect.

Even I can tell the difference between .... an unmade bed and a made bed which is what it was.

“recreation” is a broad topic?

Which schools at Moorabbin? Lilydale? What are your objectives once you complete your training?

I bought some leather/nomex touchscreen gloves at Oshkosh a few years ago. Good to see they are available in Australia now. https://www.sisleyclothing.com.au/product/sisley-nomex-flying-gloves-with-touchscreen-technology/

A bit more info here https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/39520 Big cameras in those days. A thought: the change in moments of inertia would also be significant and more important than the cg change. Aerodynamic effects of the camera installation is another consideration.

Follow through from 61.007 to get the definition of registered aircraft that applies to Part 61. http://www6.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consol_reg/casr1998333/s61.007.html I agree, 61.400(3) nails it with respect to RAA aircraft. As for a USA registered aircraft - see FAR 61.3 (a) : "..... a pilot need not hold an FAA pilot's license to fly an N registered aircraft outside the United States . A pilot may operate an aircraft within a foreign country using a pilot's license issued by that country. " But just my opinion, CASA will happily explain.

Follow the path of the definitions in the regulations - CASA's definition of registered in Part 61 means registered per Part 47. So anything required to be done must be done in a CASA registered aeroplane, unless it speciifically says otherwise (such as experience requirements for a CPL). But don't take my opinion - ask CASA, they happily answer questions like this via a form on their website.

True, CASA's priorities for safety promotion are listed here Safety promotion sponsorship program | Civil Aviation Safety Authority (casa.gov.au) They seem to think that LOC-I is not an issue worth addressing. Back when I started instructing (part-time) many years ago other instructors palmed off their advanced stall lessons in the Cessna 150 to me. These days I do a lot of spin endorsements for flight instructor trainees for several flight schools. Too many cannot tell me the correct technique to recover from a stall in a turn. (I also teach some to be spin and aerobatic flight instructors plus UPRT.)

Same money elsewhere will get a Piper Arrow dual. Seems like he doesn’t like to do much work.

Someone will have to ring Oasis again and ask.

It does seem to be the right rate for a Piper PA-28.

You spoke to them, not me. I guess that he simply answered the question that you asked.