djpacro

Plus: it is less unstable with more download on the tailwheel giving the tyre extra friction so it definitely helps to put the stick in the correct position. Of the two airplanes I usually fly: Super Decathlon with just the pilot in the front seat I can easily pick the tail up however with the Pitts S-2C I cannot budge it myself, let alone with the pilot in the rear seat. Still, the Pitts gets twitchy halfway through the landing roll.

Indeed, I rarely do a loop in the circuit and also rarely go up and over into an Immelmann turn. Rolls are very quick so go unnoticed.

Thanks, my Pitts comes down very steeply, 90 kts over the fence.

My Pitts will be very much closer to the runway than most types. At 150+ I might choose to be one downwind at 1500 ft and be closer than the average 172. I turn base abeam the piano keys.

Those hazardous attitudes are from the USA FAA who always seem clearer to me than what comes out of CASA. I always recommend that pilots read their Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/phak/media/04_phak_ch2.pdf One of my friends was criticised by a coroner for not reporting - he said that he had counselled the pilot previously, nope he simply should've reported him as it probably would've saved his young passenger. I've used this ATSB facility before - REPCON is a voluntary and confidential reporting scheme. REPCON allows any person who has an aviation safety concern to report it to the ATSB confidentially. Protection of the reporter's identity and any individual referred to in the report is a primary element of the scheme. https://www.atsb.gov.au/voluntary/repcon-aviation/

USA rules have been fairly stable for many years. UK (although EASA changing that but Brexit will fix it) also does not require training in aerobatics and has no aerobatic endorsement etc. Guess what their minimum height for aerobatics is? Indeed, accidents stats for those activities are similar to here.

I often see cries of "racist" to shut down discussion but this is the first time that I've seen one on stalls closed down. There is a button up there to report a post if you don't like it or take that discussion elsewhere .... anyway I'm off ......

That document was written nearly 30 years ago and refers to NTSB recommendations from over 40 years ago. The NTSB has recommended UPRT training for some time now - refer ICAO requirements. Good stuff to read here: https://www.safepilots.org/resource-center/public-documents/avoiding-loss-of-control/

CASA still hasn't defined what they want in the way of an incipient spin as required by Part 61 and that licence test form. https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/news-items/2019/incipient-spin-concerns/ I look forward to the ATSB report on Bristell spin accident. CAAP 155-1 is way out of date after Part 61 so largely irrelevant and incorrect these days. CAR 155 has been stripped of most content and will disappear entirely when Part 91 takes effect. CASA has a new definition of aerobatics which leaves little doubt as to whether stalls are aerobatic or not - depends what is done. Your instructor should've referred you to his school's Ops Manual as it almost certainly would have a minimum altitude specified for stall training.

Your instructor should answer that question specifically regarding your nav training so I'll just note some free material online. The USA FAA has excellent handbooks: https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/phak/ https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/airplane_handbook/ This may also interest you: http://www.dylanaviation.com/

Best time for for a short aerobatic flight is at the end of the day so taking off 20 minutes prior to last light is what I like. All flight schools that I am aware of have 30 minutes before last light in their Ops Manuals. It seems to me that this rule has changed in Part 91.

When building an aeroplane back in the ‘80s, I’d say “treat it like steel”. 35 years later it is still going strong in serious aerobatic competition.

Part 61 has some dangerous, unsafe requirements in it so much worse than “no benefit”. Interesting that pilots trained under RAA miss out on requirements of RPL training of Part 61 yet an RPC holder is given an RPL by CASA. RPLs may be trained on the same airplane type in the same airspace so I wonder why the syllabus is different. I guess lots of lawyers will be around the broad subject of incipient spin training especially after the next relevant ATSB report and when CASA eventually explains their requirements. The last draft of the Part 91 MOS had some diabolical stuff in it. Some of us made submissions at the NPRM stage and we got some stuff changed in the regs but haven’t seen the final MOS yet. My guess is that many RAA pilots will find surprises in Part 91 as it applies to all.

Due sometime this year. The devil is in the detail. The last draft of the MOS was diabolical.

Are you referring to the Part 91 MOS? Do you have a link?

GA flight reviews require a form to CASA and written on the licence these days rather than a log book entry. It is not the training that counts as the flight review but the grant of specific endorsements etc - again a form to CASA and written on the licence. i.e. one needs a CASA licence - easy enough for anyone with an RPC to fill in the form to CASA and be given an RPL then go for it.

Their support of the app has been haphazard in recent years so you must go to the website to read all articles. Or just get updates on Facebook.

Aarron Deliu is representing Australia in that contest.

Knight Twister, just saw that Thruster88 got it yesterday, sorry for the delay, I've been off the grid. I'll try to keep up.

Two scenarios: 1. Stall with an uncommanded wing drop. This is what normal category airplanes may undertake safely. Certification flight testing for recovery from a one turn spin provides for a pilot to not get it quite right with perhaps a delay in the correct stall recovery actions. If it is progressing towards a spin then immediately use the spin recovery procedure in the flight manual. LSA spin test requirements are less stringent than FAR 23 normal category. NASA has done extensive spin testing on a few GA types and shown that one of these is unrecoverable after a couple more turns. Refer FAA ACs. 2. Intentionally doing an incipient spin is intentionally entering a spin. An airplane approved for intentional spins is required to safely undertake this. There will be more on this subject from the ATSB. CASA requires incipient spin training for an RPL per the new Part 61 and we are still waiting for the guidance material. It has taken a long awaited ATSB report for CASA to even start thinking about what they want instructors to teach and how to do it safely. Flight schools who require high-vis vests ..... my response is they are perhaps a good idea while walking across the road to the airplane (all pedestrians should wear them or carry a red flag around areas busy with cars) but then consider if a parachute is going to be more useful while flying. Reading Chapter 4 of the FAA’s Airplane Flying Handbook is well worthwhile - free online at Airplane Flying Handbook

What we are seeing now is CASA correctly stating not to do spins in types which are not appropriate. Per CASA's statement yesterday we will soon see more guidance on what is required per Part 61 training - you will see that it is much more than what was in the old Day VFR Syllabus.

Look at the Stern ST 87 then ...

JK-05 Junior

Zlin 526

I agree ... I've been thinking but .... there is also Sergio Dallan in Italy and his designs but not him either.