djpacro

.... 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.

At least they understand the importance of rotor diameter in the relationship between weight, power and lift.

Really! And how do you turn at all at the slowest airspeed possible?Refer Aerodynamics of Naval Aviators pages 178-180: "The maneuver speed is the minimum speed necessary to develop aerodynamically the limit load factor and it produces the minimum turn radius within aerodynamic and structural limitations."

Perhaps start with the full description of how to turn from the FAA's Airplane Flying Handbook page 3-7: "The elevator .... pulls the nose of the airplane around in a turn" seems pretty close to "the elevator turns the airplane" to me.

Put elevator to neutral and see if it turns while banked.

Actually, bank does not increase G-forces! The elevator control is the only thing that can increase G-forces.My competition aerobatic students are judged on their angle of bank in a steep turn of 60 deg bank. 1 point off out of 10 for each 5 deg error (downgrades for other factors too) - they get top marks. Competition aerobatics is precision flying, try it sometime.

Fig 9-5 here suggests a factor: http://www.fzt.haw-hamburg.de/pers/Scholz/HOOU/AircraftDesign_9_EmpennageGeneralDesign.pdf - effect of wing wake (and also changes in wing downwash). See also fig 9-3 to get back on topic. Worth thinking about if you are selecting an aeroplane to be used as an ab initio trainer doing CASA's new advanced stalling exercises.

it is not a chat frequency!See Tutorial: Aircraft station licences or the official source referenced there for: "Communications between aircraft on 123.45 MHz are restricted to the exchange of information relating to aircraft operations and only the proper call-signs may be used."

A bit more info about Aub that you may be interested in. He was aged 92, I believe. I knew he was at Parkes etc and was involved with the introduction of the Airtourer into flight training when first produced. CFI at LaTrobe Valley Aeroclub, Victoria, I think from around 1960 – 1964 CFI at Grovedale Airport, Victoria Ran flying schools at Barwon Heads Airport and Lethbridge Airpark, Victoria Ex-RAAF No 1 Air Observer School RAAF Evans Head, NSW, as a Navigator. Learnt to fly in 1946, commercial/instructor rating 1951, still active instructor after 64 years (2015). He built a KR-2 VH-CTE. "As at January 2009: ARN 008142 with Class 2 Medical and R.A.Aus Certificate No. 01514 with aviation experience as follows: 1944-1945 RAAF navigator/air bomber (Avro Anson/B24 Liberator) June 1947 Student Pilot License issued March 1948 Private Pilot License issued September 1948 Aerobatic Endorsement (flown 21 different aerobatic types) July 1951 Commercial Pilot License issued October 1951 B2 Flight Instructor Rating issued July 1952 B1 Flight Instructor Rating issued April 1953 A2 Flight Instructor Rating issued November 1954 A1 Flight Instructor Rating issued Total aeronautical experience 20,000 hours in 111 different single engine types Total instructional experience 13,000 plus hours Tail wheel experience 5735 hours in 55 different types Have “first Flight/Test Flown” 13 different types of aircraft. I currently fly as honorary Senior Flight Instructor (R.A.Aus) with South Barwon Air Service based on Barwon Heads Airport."

Exactly. A manufacturer should do a very comprehensive series of tests to demonstrate compliance so it is not cheap.http://www.flighttestsafety.org/images/stories/workshop/2010/07-Sky_Catcher_Flight_Test_Spin_Testing.ppt Some don't get it right, like the Piper Tomahawk Darren Smith's CFI Homepage Flight Instruction Website Tampa

COOTE - AUBREY McINNES Passed away peacefully on 27th August 2017 at Geelong. Funeral details at Your Tributes | COOTE - AUBREY McINNES First class guy. One of my original instructors back in the '60s when he was CFI at Grovedale, Vic. He taught me aerobatics in the early '70s and formation later. Not that long ago he took my aeroplane up for some aerobatics. He gave me my RAA certificate when he was instructing at Barwon Heads a while back.

They may want to see it but you have no obligation to have it with you on the flight. That will change when the draconian Part 91 is signed by the GG. They used to quite a few years ago on the day when everyone flew north for the races, their focus seemed to be on big singles etc where aft cg was a potential hazard and they'd just weigh the whole aeroplane loaded.

A couple of examples of what can go wrong when there is plenty of height but the initial actions just made things worse instead - one of the hazards of being an instructor. The Cirrus Investigation: AO-2014-083 - Loss of control involving a Cirrus SR22, N802DK, near Katoomba, NSW on 10 May 2014 And the Sportscruiser NTSB Prelim: LSA Checkout/Stall Series Turns Into Spin | Aero-News Network

There's a large fine for using an approved source for weather used in planning a flight - I hope you know a good lawyer ...

They were giving away free barista coffee during the trade days so I got my money's worth. Even better, I didn't talk to any CASA staff .....

Prior to Part 61 the instructor rating course required pretty much the same spin training although a requirement for the endorsement was not written into the rules. When CASA took an interest in initial instructor rating competencies perhaps 5 years ago they took a keen interest in this. I'd do that training for instructor trainees who already had a spin endorsement and when CASA rocked up to do the test they'd demand to see an additional spin endorsement signed off by myself (back then it was just a logbook entry). A bit harsh, there are some other good things in Part 61

yep, I should've put my last post in the other thread. Hopefully there is a report as the pilot's story explaining the mayday calls and the data extracted from the electronic gizmos should be very enlightening.

Not necessarily. Unintentional spin entries that I demonstrate are well on their way to a flat spin from the go. Even that is gentlemanly compared to a botched stall turn in a Pitts.Perhaps the best example for this thread is the Grumman AA-1 which will go flat without aggravation by the pilot in a couple of turns - check out the NASA videos. The Pazmany PL-2 is similar. Both are unrecoverable. Good. An exercise I include is a stall in a sideslip with full rudder.