djpacro

PPL training must be done per the school's Ops Manual; CASA requires commercial ops to include use of EFBs in their Ops Manual - if not included then not approved at your school (I am not aware of any schools at Moorabbin which have EFBs approved for PPL students) and you would need paper stuff - I suggest that you ask your instructor.I also suggest a read of the CAAP on EFBs. Note also that approval of EFBs is for provision of maps etc only, not their GPS function so maintain that distinction always in your mind. PS: I recommend AvPlan.

Kaz, I don't see an Edge in the photos - Citabria, Extra, DR-107 etc. Not competing this year.

I used this cover for a couple of years when I didn't have access to a hangar - no effect on the fabric or dope.

NSW Aerobatic Championships at Narromine recently. I left late Saturday so I wouldn't get stuck there yesterday as everyone else was. A bit of rubbish at Tocumwal but got back to Moorabbin on Sunday morning with strong winds and turbulence (along the Kilmore - Sugarloaf lane). I don't know why people organise aviation events at this time of the year down here. I'm now a fan of Avplan's weather radar overlay and traffic info! (Photos were too large to post previously)

Just got back home from Narromine.

My Pitts doesn't have a slip ball ...

Same with me. My friend was quite familiar with spins in other types. Unfortunately he is not the only person who has failed to recover from a fully developed spin.I agree, an inadvertent spin entry at low altitude is a different issue.

but risks another discussion about "the myth of the safe shallow turns".

I saw from your other post that you've just flown at Lilydale so I'd recommend that you talk to Craig and the guys there about this.

It doesn't go far enough positive or negative. Even more so for owners renting their airplanes, as I do.

I've never seen a kit built Pitts as good as a factory Pitts and never seen a rebuilt Citabria/Decathlon as good as one from the factory. I've seen some diabolical homebuit Pitts.

Just look at the pictures, you will like Figure A7.

Someone has already done the hard work (for small conventional airplanes):14 CFR Appendix A to Part 23, Simplified Design Load Criteria

Having an RPC does away with the need for a flight training area if one does not want a nav endorsement. The solution is to get an RPL where that note on consecutive flights does not exist. I know quite a few people without nav endorsements but enjoying aerobatics on an RPL, as I did for many years on the old restricted PPL.

Perhaps Latrobe Valley or Drouin.

The answer to that question would seem to be found in the meaning of the word "consecutive" - shouldn't be too hard to get the official meaning of that word (with a reference).As for the rules from CASA on the RPL and their advice, as distinct from what is in an Ops Manual anywhere: As for getting the nav endorsement on an RPL, CASA says nothing about now being entitled to land at another airfield and without the nav endorsement there is nothing about requiring a return to the departure airfield, nothing about limitations on consecutive flights. If one had an RPL and owned his/her own aeroplane then note that first bit of advice above and read what CASA says are the limitations of the licence - it is not that hard to read words and understand them. As for the risk of getting into trouble on a 25 nm flight 25 nm have a look at what this flying school promotes as the privileges of an RPL: Top 10 Things to See with your RPL – Sydney

Obesity | Civil Aviation Safety Authority

I wonder if he had just read the new regulation

showing a degree, not 60 however, of importenter

One day, in the fullness of time .... someone at CASA will be given the job of rewriting the advisory publication on flight reviews ... it will probably be a sensible person .... but he won't have much choice, he will read the new Part 61 regulation on flight reviews and will probably come to the same view as myself as to what it means .... and he probably won't like what he is writing but ... I know, I could be wrong so I always suggest that people read the regs themselves.

.... repeated for the benefit of anyone who may think that I made a different comment about banking at 60 deg ...Much better to discuss this stuff over a bottle of red in the hangar at the end of the flying day ... Narromine in October ...

page 5-37 of Chapter 5 expands a little bit on that here Pilot’s Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge

Perhaps it was a Q

When I do AFRs I try to help pilots wrt that requirement, not a show stopper if they don't have one - and some don't. I take more of an interest doing instructor quaifications as they must set an example for their students, again not a show stopper when I come to tick the pass or fail box, up to them whether they comply with the security requirement to exercise the privileges of their licence. For my own proficiency check recently we only joked about displaying our ASICs as we were at Moorabbin, it wasn't on his list of things to check.

I am saying take a look at the controls used for turning from the point of view that some of us have been stating ... to focus on elevator as that controls angle of attack to promote greater awareness of the situation in a turn. I quoted one of the highly respected FAA Manuals simply because it is the USA industry-developed standard for pilot theory. Just for once, addressing the points that you make. Happy for you to visit and learn. I don't think anyone has started arguing (yet). Others have explained why they chose to answer about bank angle the way they did. I'm quite sure there was a particular reason for picking on the 30 degree bank stall speed increase. Miserable weather here in Melbourne so on my PC with some spare time so here I am but I don't have that much time. "a stupid, incompetent, or foolish person" - I really don't think he is and I think that is a misquote about not increasing stall speed (I'm not going back to check it anyway) but he did have a good reason for the comment. I think there was also a clear enough answer on how to turn with a precise bank angle with no AH. There was an excellent reason why he made that comment in that particular context - the adverse outcome when people limit bank angle but then find themselves in a situation where increased bank angle is a good decision but take alternative action with an unfortunate outcome. I will say that it is good to avoid bank angles of more than 60 deg at that point in the circuit at towered airports because CASA would regard it as aerobatics. Just googled the meaning of that and decided that it does not warrant a response from me.