djpacro

Seems to have fallen off the NTRS. Here you are https://www.dropbox.com/s/orfmqo5847nfnh0/NASACR1975.pdf?dl=0

Another email from CASA today: apologising for omitting two endorsements and noting thst two others are subject to technical assessment - it is not really that complex. Thinking that buying an N registered aurplane and flying it on my USA licence is the way to go.

Feel free to use it - my observations indicate around 10-20%.

Link to my hard drive? Try the NASA Technical Report server or Cranfield University library - both free.

More good advice at http://www.taildraggers.com/Documentation.aspx?page=StickBack (see other pages there too) and http://www.dylanaviation.com/

Easy to get rid of me.

From NASA Report CR-1975, Riding and Handling Qualities of Light Aircraft: "The change in rolling moment due to variation in yawing velocity ... wing provides the major contribution ... left wing moves faster than the right wing, producing more lift ... consequently ... rolling moment ..." whereas "the change in rolling moment .. caused by variation in sideslip angle ... is the result of wing dihedral effect and the moment resulting from the vertical tail center of pressure located above the equilibrium x-axis ..." Apply rudder and you get both a yawing velocity and a sideslip (or skid). The report quantifies each effect for a Cessna 182 as an example.

I enjoyed flying a Husky around that part of the world, can't think of a more useful airplane unless you want to do aerobatics.

sorry, comes from sitting too much in the front seat playing student with an instructor trainee in the back directing - by the time we have that brief discussion the trainee has discovered one of the principles of flight: flying with an instructor one's IQ drops whereas the IQ of the instructor increases by the same amount.

the nose always goes forward at the start of the takeoff roll, at an increasing rateI'll let Dazza deal with the last sentence.

or a Decathlon?

I'm not sure either, John Baker was an early one.

It seems to me that the Beggs-Mueller hands-off technique is sometimes promoted without due regard for its limitations. Beggs has provided a fairly short list of types on which he states that it works and a shorter list of types where he states that it does not work in some spin modes. Beggs conducted substantial spin tests on a variety of types with different spin modes and published the information. If anyone promotes the technique for other types I always ask to see the evidence. The AFM for my Decathlon clearly states that the hands off technique is inadequate, Beggs also explains that yet one instructor maintains that it works despite not having flown the type nor otherwise obtaining evidence. One instructor used to teach Begg-Mueller in a Decathlon until one student encountered one of the spin modes where it does not work. The technique originated with Mueller who stated that it "worked with all aircraft whose tail configurations were of a certain type: the low mounted tailplane set forward of the rudder ...". There were many types that Mueller did not test and Beggs filled in some (only some) of the blanks. Interesting that the Chipmunk and Zlin 242 do not fit into Mueller's category for which it works. In particular any type where a push is required to move the stick forward is perhaps an indicator that the hands off technique may not work - so the Chipmunk and Zlin 242 etc as examples - both have full forward as a requirement if necessary. It is fairly easy to get a Decathlon and Cessna Aerobat in a situation where a push is required to move the stick/yoke forward. Extract from one of Beggs'articles: Decathlon and Pitts S-1/S-2 will happily transition to inverted with brisk simultaneous rudder and full forward stick. (note that I am only referring to fully developed spins here)

The ATSB report on a Chipmunk aerobatic/spin accident has just been released. The pilot and passenger were very lucky to have survived. I can't think of words critical enough of the flying school and the relevant instructors without being libellous. "At the top of the loop, the aircraft stalled while inverted, most likely as the result of excessive elevator input. The aircraft rolled and entered an upright spin, which became flatter as it developed. Later, the pilot reported that attempts to recover were unsuccessful. The spin continued until the aircraft impacted terrain. The pilot and passenger sustained serious injuries and the aircraft was seriously damaged. There was no fire. The pilot reported undertaking training to conduct loops, but there was no record of an endorsement and the instructor did not recall approving the pilot to conduct loops. As a result, at the time of the accident, the pilot likely did not possess the necessary skills and judgement to conduct the manoeuvre safely and consistently. The pilot probably did not apply and maintain the spin recovery control inputs appropriate for a fully-developed spin in a Chipmunk aircraft. Furthermore, the pilot was taught a spin recovery method that was not effective for recovering from such spins in the aircraft. In addition, the accident aircraft’s flight manual had not been approved by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and did not include advice on spin recovery. The mandatory, Civil Aviation Safety Authority-approved flight manual contained spin recovery advice. The flying school that provided the pilot’s aerobatic training reported that a briefing process was undertaken with all current aerobatic instructors to ensure that consistent terminology is used to describe and teach aerobatic manoeuvres. It also reported that a programme of standardisation flights for all current aerobatic instructors will include the training of spin and unusual attitude recovery for aerobatic students. Safety message, Pilots and instructors, particularly those intending to conduct or teach aerobatic manoeuvres, should be familiar with any special handling requirements for a particular aircraft type as well as recovery from both incipient and developed spins. Furthermore, they should ensure that they hold the appropriate aerobatic endorsement before attempting a manoeuvre." Nope, that should be "must" not "should". CASA only requires spin instructors to know the spin recovery method for the type they are trained in, plus know Beggs-Mueller - and teach the spin recovery method applicable to the type they train in - per the AFM. The instructors did not know the required spin recovery method for the Chipmunk per the AFM. "Contributing factors • The pilot attempted to conduct a loop without the required qualification. • The aircraft entered an upright spin after a stall or flick-roll at the top of an attempted loop. • The pilot probably did not apply and maintain the spin recovery control inputs appropriate for a fully-developed spin in a Chipmunk, and the spin continued until impact with terrain. Other factors that increased risk • The flight instructor who taught the pilot spin recovery did not teach the method to recover from a developed spin that was appropriate for the aircraft type. • The spin recovery methods taught by the flying school were inconsistent across instructors and training material, and were not always appropriate for the Chipmunk aircraft type used by the school. [safety Issue] • The approval for the accident aircraft’s flight manual had been revoked, and the flight manual in use lacked the spin recovery instructions that would have been present in a flight manual issued by the aircraft type design organisation. • The flying school’s Chipmunk aircraft was used for aerobatic instruction and endorsement without having a current, approved flight manual that contained spin recovery instructions." See the full report at: http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2014/aair/ao-2014-114.aspx

WOT got me home after the throttle cable failed - internal to the sleeve so wasn't noticed at inspection - should've been replaced at engine overhaul but wasn't (overhaul done prior to TBO due prop strike). From FAR 23:

Agreed, so I'll stick with FAR 23 stuff.

At last, a sensible process for approval of camera installations - in the UK only. "In light of the increased popularity of airborne photography and video recording, made possible by advances in digital camera design, the CAA previously provided guidance to assist owners and operators in how to safely install such equipment on CAA regulated aircraft as minor changes. Based on the feedback we’ve received from the General Aviation (GA) sector, one of the key challenges faced is that each camera installation needs to be judged on a case by case examination to consider the airworthiness risks that could be posed (including installed aircraft and 3rd party risks), hence it can be difficult to cover all eventualities in guidance without seeming to be overly prescriptive or overly regulating what could, for one particular installation and location on a specific aircraft, be a fairly simple and low-risk design. In view of the above and in order to be more proportionate our original guidance has been revised to provide this policy for an alternative route for the approval of light, simple and small camera installations, using a methodology whereby Licensed Aircraft Engineers, (LAEs) with a part 66 licence or BCAR licence will be able to examine such installations and to certify whether an acceptable airworthiness standard has been achieved. Note that the traditional minor mod approval route via the CAA or approved organisations remains available." http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP%201369.pdf

The 600 kg LSA is an international standard with lesser certifications standards and costs than heavier types per FAR 23 - I can't see that changing apart from the move towards a FAR 23-lite in the USA. Too many LSA manufacturers for all to be viable and too many trying to squeeze too much performance/payload out of the LSA limitations - if the limitations are increased the same people will try to squeeze even more from them rather than improve robustness. CASA once had a policy of dual pathways - be good if they made that happen with identical requirements/privileges for both - I am not optimistic that they will pick up any of the sensible USA regs. "What do you predict will change in recreational flying in the next few years?" I predict that I will get sick of dealing with CASA and sell my airplane - the proceeds will easily fund my flying fix with visits to the USA.

Similar issue over at http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/index.php "After much debate and consideration, the Management Council has made the decision to terminate the Spin Zone. We are taking this action because the level of discourteous and uncivil behavior has increased, and unfortunately continues to spill over into the aviation related forums. This does not fit the goals of the forum, stated in the Rules of Conduct. Show respect at all times. Help build the Community. Encourage discussion, interest and education in all things aviation. The Spin Zone was originally instituted to give people a place to discuss controversial topics that other forum members would rather not see on the main board. As previously stated, we have noticed that many of the attitudes and animosities people express in the Spin Zone are carried over onto the main board. That's not to say that there aren't good discussions and posters in the Spin Zone, but baiting, trolling, and personal attacks are entirely too frequent. The Management Council understands that the nature of some aviation topics is political, and we will allow discussion of these subjects. However, if the thread dissolves into partisan bickering it will be closed. Participants who continually attempt to turn the discussion in that direction will be warned. If the behavior continues they will be suspended. Any threads that we previously would have sent to the Spin Zone will be closed instead. We will be flipping the switch off on Spin Zone at midnight, January 1, 2016. We are giving Spin Zoners time to decide if they are going to migrate en masse to another site or set up an alternative forum in another place. Please keep these discussions in the Spin Zone. Our decision is unanimous and final."

I recall looking out from the cafe on the coast at the time and thinking that the cloud base was close to the water. Clouds and water were a very similar shade of gray. I was a little bit along the coast but looking at the same stuff. Adventure flights at Barwon Heads had stayed on the ground due low cloud and rain - to at least 2 pm that day.

.. some know exactly what the weather was like at that time and location.

Thanks Robbo, that's consistent with my opinion on the reg but: - did you get it in writing with a reference to the reg (I always follow up telecons with an email)? - did you mention their ramp check guide?

This is the relevant reg and in an earlier post I gave my opinion on what it means. CASA FCL are very helpful - you could email them and ask what this reg means and they will tell you what their lawyers think it means OR you could simply refer to CASA's published guide (extract copied in my earlier email) on ramp checks which clearly states that a copy is acceptable. The draft Part 91 is also quite clear but its just a draft.