djpacro

I'd be interested in your feedback on that point regarding my own posts please? I'm pretty sure that Roundsounds, for one, does not need a refresher and I will be so bold as to state that I do not (I'm a flight examiner for instructors who want to teach spins).

I'm always very careful with my choice of words when describing spin recovery. I encounter too many pilots who think that the stick is moved forward, after the rotation is stopped, to unstall the wings. CASA's Flight Instructor Manual states:“To recover, first ensure that the throttle is closed, ailerons neutral and the direction of turn identified. This is followed by application of full opposite rudder. After a brief pause ease the control column forward progressively until the spinning stops. Centralize the rudder and ease gently out of the resulting steep dive, levelling the wings.” The FAA's Airplane Flying Handbook expands on that and is significantly different regarding the use of elevator. eg "In the absence of the manufacturer’s recommended spin recovery procedures and techniques, the following spin recovery procedures are recommended. ..... The controls should be held firmly in this position. When the stall is “broken,” the spinning will stop." One would expect that, but not always the case as shown by the Chipmunk spin accident a few years ago. CASA's requirement for a spin endorsement is limited to the specific type that you do the training in. So, for example, if you do the spin training in a Cessna 152 then don't assume that you know enough to recover from a spin in a Decathlon, Chipmunk, Pitts or Zlin .....

An interesting table from the Sunshine Coast Aero Club showing elements of a pilot certificate course to consider including optional spin training at https://www.sunshinecoastaeroclub.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Flight-Training-RPC-Course-Comparison.pdf (I hope they don't run afoul of CASA's new definition of aerobatics. The list is missing a few elements of Part 61 stalls but included an important one which is not in Part 61.)

I see many calls for RAA instructors to require spin training, the same as GA instructors, which seems very sensible to me. Agreed. When I learnt to fly I disliked stalls and my instructor offered to demonstrate spins and I declined. CASA's new Part 61 a few years ago expanded on the stall exercises so if any student pilot is not getting the full set then they have such a hole. These exercises can quite easily result in an inadvertent spin so the instructor requires those skills above.A short upset recovery course would improve a pilot's awareness, skills and confidence - no need for spin training however it should include stalls in skidded turns which, if correct and prompt action is not taken, will result in an aggressive spin entry. Too many engine failures result in a stall, spin, crash, die .... it shouldn't be that way.

just to clarify: no suggestion that it was intentional, if indeed there was a spin at all. true of aeroplane which is not approved for intentional spins.Just heard that the instructor is out of intensive care.

I've put in in dropbox for you Dropbox - Aeronautical Stuff

Suggest that you spend some time with glider pilots. My only experience is with the old Airtourer which has springs for pitch trim therefore springs give it additional stick force gradient and stick force per G. Husky also has springs for its trim system with its joystick. Some good general info on stick forces in NASA CR-1975 Riding and Handling Qualities of Light Aircraft - A Review and Analysis.

"spinning" was prominent in one report but not even mentioned in the other. If I assume both are correct then perhaps spinning up higher and recovered from the spin, anyway, we will know more before long, just that I take a keen interest in spinning having known a few who were killed near that spot.

Channel 9 video.

sad to say, nope.

They're supposed to be 500 ft AGL, my guess is that they have no idea of the elevation at that road junction.

right in the middle of the aerobatic area, over the years a number of aircraft have spun in nearby you need to read the fine print .... photo caption

You mean the fake ABC news which is where I see those words following your link.Text at No Cookies | Herald Sun is consistent with discussion with colleagues.

And if subject to CASA's annual limit on flying hours it is not a lucrative salary either way.

You're paying $100/hr for the time the engine is running so time on the job is maybe twice that much plus, at a school, the instructor only gets a fraction of that.

Try Chapter B2 of Bruhn's book Analysis and design of flight vehicle structures by E.f Bruhn

The Poly-Fiber Manual gives detailed estimates for a variety of aircraft, the J-3 for example: 10 gals of poly-brush, 11 gals of poly-spray, 6 gals reducer etc. Total weight of the fabric and coating system using 1.7 oz poly-fiber was 33 lb = 15 kg. They go on to mention a reduced-coat (refer the cautions re UV etc) ultralight (their example is about 2/3 the size of a J-3) system which would total about 12 lb or 5.5 kg. By comparison the original J-3 in cotton and dope was 75 lb. In 2.6 oz Poly-Fiber it is 43 lb.

That is what it states on that magazine's website for the particular set of numbers they are quoting. You'll probably find that a typical empty weight is higher than quoted by the magazine however.

Beautifully flown.

Talk to Bleve97 and feel free to give me a call about who does what to whom at Moorabbin. I don't do stuff like this any more.

When I visit Redciffe and do some aerobatics take a guess at my inbound and outbound tracks and altitudes plus consider which frequency I would be on.

Might be worth looking at how the Christen Eagle kits are put together https://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/pdf/FrankC.pdf Been around for many years but a lot of effort was put into development of the kits. eg first step in the manual was to unpack the blade to enable you to open the first kit. Still available but not cheap! Info on kits at https://aviataircraft.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Aviat_Eagle_Kit_Price_List_2015.pdf Builders get comprehensive construction manuals instead of plans.

Seems to me that only a fraction of airproxes are reported.

Mu guess is that Ian wouldn't have a Jab engine