djpacro

Forward of neutral - really? Sure, there are some types which will recover from a fully developed spin with controls neutral however many will not. Not true regarding certification requirements eg FAA AC 23-8C.

Indeed. A flight manual will have the recovery procedure from a spin. Even types not approved for intentional spins. The certification test pilots define a spin as "a sustained autorotation at angles-of-attack above stall" per FAA AC 23-8C. That's all. Types not approved for intentional spinning are only tested "to assure that the airplane will not become uncontrollable within one turn (or three seconds, whichever takes longer) if a spin should be encountered inadvertently". No need to discuss whether it is an incipient spin or not. If it is autorotating then it is spinning so use the spin recovery method. Only done one turn - may be an incipient spin - doesn't matter, that's all that has been tested and the test pilot tells you in the flight manual how to recover. The people who write the spin recovery method in the flight manual use the above definition of a spin, nowhere in AC 23-8A does it even mention an incipient spin. An incipient spin is a spin so use the spin recovery method in the flight manual. Cessna's Spin Document notes: Note the use of the word "may"! So you recommend simply centralising the controls if in an incipient spin? Before 2-3 turns? AC 23-8A states "Most airplanes will not attain a fully developed spin in one turn." When I demonstrate an aggressive unintentional spin entry with power and aileron it will be fully developed well before 2-3 turns. By all means, if in an aerobatic aircraft and unintentionally enter a spin while conducting aerobatics and take immediate action (so very early in the incipient spin phase), centralise the controls to prevent the spin from developing - it is appropriate then. In other circumstances, this acccident is a good example of what goes wrong when transitioning from a stall recovery method to a different stall recovery method with a wing drop to a different recovery method from an incipient spin then to a different fully developed spin recovery method https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2014/aair/ao-2014-083/ Depends on the aircraft. A type I flew recently stated that these 4 actions "must be carried out immediately and simultaneously. Power lever - idle. Ailerons neutral. Rudder - full deflection against direction of spin. Elevator - fully forward." That type is not approved for intentional spins so that is the required action when it is autorotating ... in the incipient spin phase. I wonder if the flight instructor in the fatal accident of that type knew of that when he was doing stall practice with a student as it is quite different from the method he was taught when he got his spin endorsement?

1. There has indeed been a large number of such posts over the years. 2. Ask the airport management for their reason and compare with what I stated. 3. “consistently fairly” is not what airport managements have experienced over the years trying to invoice RAA registered aircraft cf VH aircraft.

Moorabbin simply had enough of RAA pilots avoiding payments and I can understand that having read a large number of online posts from pilots who avoid paying any landing fee whatsoever.

and how it was done, I should've added. I see that PA-28 and Cessna 172, even the 152 have a MTOW and max ramp weight defined in the POH. The Decathlon AFM simply has maximum weight. Pitts POH has both maximum gross weight and maximum takeoff weight - the same number. The ASTM for LSA has slightly different terminology again "maximum takeoff or maximum design weight". My copy of a Jabiru POH specifies maximum takeoff weight in one section, gross weight in another section (same number 600 kg)

Depends on the certification. These days I only fly small FAR 23 certified airplanes where Sec. 23.25 — Weight limits. (a) Maximum weight. The maximum weight is the highest weight at which compliance with each applicable requirement of this part (other than those complied with at the design landing weight) is shown. The POH for a FAR 23 airplane simply states the maximum weight i.e. cannot have more than that when one starts the engine. More complex types may specify a MTOW and an associated max ramp weight. Australian pilot theory seems to me is a hangover from when Australia had its own certification requirements and unique flight manuals which generally used the term MTOW. (There were also MTOW limits depending on the density altitude for even simple types like a Cessna 150.) Pilots naturally assumed they could make a very generous allowance for additional taxi fuel in the absence of a specified max ramp weight. The term “maximum weight” is simply that.

This may explain https://airfactsjournal.com/2020/12/understanding-vb-turbulence-penetration-speed/ That is for transport category aircraft and does not apply to small aircraft.

Design cruise speed Vc, from which Vno is derived, does increase with weight because whoever wrote the regulations decided that. The ASTM for LSA is quite similar to FAR 23 in this respect. This Advisory Circular explains considerations of design airspeeds (see page 26 etc) https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_23-19A.pdf I know of one airplane where the engine mount is definitely not stronger than the wing. At lighter weights the load factor due to a gust increases (aeroplane flying at the same airspeed, Vno does not vary with weight) so there is more load on the engine mount than at the higher weight where the wing stresses are higher.

Not a regulation applicable to small aeroplanes. Nope. Nope - gust loads are a function of V not V^2. Nope.

A very good question. The link to a chapter of the FAA's Airplane Flying Handbook that I provided earlier provides the typical explanations that pilots are taught. But it only touches on the answer to the question. Page 5-20 describes the "Cross-Control Stall" - a good scenario to have demonstrated however there are many other scenarios with cross controls with different outcomes. Page 5-22 discusses spin awareness with some generic comments and useful advice. It then goes on to explain the normal practice spins. The FAA's document does not directly answer that question and I wouldn't try to answer that question directly myself either.

The Decathlon is very docile but it sometimes bites. Simply applying full throttle can result in "pro-spin inputs" if the pilot doesn't "Advance the throttle promptly, but smoothly, as needed while using rudder and elevator controls to stop any yawing motion and prevent any undesirable pitching motion." per https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/airplane_handbook/media/06_afh_ch5.pdf WagstaffSchoolStallSpinAerosMusic_Trim.mp4

I should’ve added: if you use the Vixen method in the Super Decathlon and it will not recover but instead transition to an inverted spin.

Compare the guidance from the FAA when certifying new aircraft per FAR 23, the Super Decathlon in which I teach spins and the Vixen. An inadvertent spin in a Vixen requires correct actions per its manual promptly rather than attempting a different method as one may have learnt in a Super Decathlon. If the manual states full forward yoke then don't expect halfway to be effective.

All certified types must have the spin recovery method in the AFM and/or placarded. For those types not approved for intentional spinning then that correct recovery method must be initiated within one turn to ensure recovery. Interesting that most I encounter have a different spin recovery technique than types commonly used for spin training.

Pilots were narrower back when the 150 was designed. Standard pilot weight for design was 77 kg for many years. They conceded a little with the bowed doors in 1967 to give extra elbow room.

The 150/152 is a great trainer, including spinning and aerobatics (the last in the Aerobat of course).

A sideslip is inherently spin resistant so I guess that you did something other than keep the sideslip straight just prior to the stall? The Decathlon is very docile, there is a sweet spot of airspeed, power, rate of turn and pitch etc where it will aggressively enter a spin with little warning. The Cessna 150 does it much better, trainee instructors would typically go around a couple of turns in a spin if they weren't expecting it.

I hadn't landed a Pitts in over a year so my brain was a bit rusty.

That is the consequence of some people using airports without paying. If you can talk to the General Manager Aviation my guess is that he'd be OK and nil fees.

Per 1000 kg pro-rata

Cutaway Eagle.

Yep, good roll rate. 164 deg/sec actually achieved by one pilot here. A little while back a number of aerobatic pilots submitted videos of multiple rolls from which the time from inverted to inverted was measured and the maximum steady roll rate determined. All did it with full aileron at Maneuver Speed. By comparison the Super Decathlon is 90 deg/sec.

Nice airplane to fly. I visited Frank in the ‘80s and he kindly spent much time showing me around the factory with a peek at his new project. I ended up working for Aviat.

I witnessed an accident where an unlicensed pilot was trying to take off in an unregistered aeroplane. He destroyed one aircraft and damaged another. Got his aeroplane trucked away within a few hours. I spoke to the guy who's aeroplane was destroyed. CASA took no interest because he did not break any of their rules, if it had lifted off the ground then it would've been a different matter. Neither did the police. Just one vehicle crashing into another on private property.

The next level up at a non-controlled aerodrome is a certified air/ground radio service (CA/GRS) per https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-08/advisory-circular-139-d-02-guidelines-certified-air-ground-radio-services.pdf