mnewbery

Man, that would be some serious curry!

Going back to post #1 of this thread, yes the form 61-1488 has items 80-81 which refer to stalls and incipient spins. CAAP 155 suggests that stalls from straight and level are not aerobatic as per section 5.1 of that document. From this I am implying that a pilot can perform straight and level stalls where one might not do aerobatics - this includes below 3000 feet AGL and over populated areas. I'm not suggesting that this is a good idea, just that its not illegal if the interpretation is correct. An instructor who has since moved on tried to convince me of the obverse - that I shall not be performing straight and level stalls in the training area below 3000 feet AGL - even though I was happily recovering with a 100 foot altitude loss. I just shrugged and took it up with his manager. I never got a straight answer.

... a lot of instructors and students died because they didn't recover from their UA before hitting the ground

https://www.casa.gov.au/publications-and-resources/publication/casa-briefing-july-2019

This is very interesting. There are a number of well documented historical reasons why full stall and recovery from a fully developed spin are no longer taught or examined. One of them is "training areas often barely have 3000 feet between the top bit and the ground ... usually because the top is either 5000 feet MSL or under a CTA step" Do I need upset recovery, fully developed stall and recovery or spin training and be able to demonstrate these to pass a PPL exam? No. Do I need to be able to recognize stall indications (pre-staff buffet, stall horn/light, a lack of airframe wind noise) in my particular type, recognize pro-spin inputs such as appears in a skidding turn, fly coordinated turns such as base to final ... and be able to explain these things plus what to do next to the examiner on the day? That's a different question, innit. Also of note, instructors are notoriously tightfisted when it comes to spending their own money so good luck finding one that has recently gone out solo in an aerobat or a training aircraft certified for spins and put themselves through a few recoveries. Pretty much everything I have flown I have done more than one straight and level stall from as high as I needed to be comfortable and legal. I worked up to it from slow flight then incipient stall and so-on. Each example is a different beast depending on whether its me or me and an instructor. The Piper warriors I flew rarely excited their stall horn during an incipient stall or on landing. I received spin training a while ago. Its tough on the tummy and expensive to get comfortable up to the point where I would be happy going through it solo. I don't need to do that but its my choice. I have that choice again because someone parked an aerobat at my home field and happily, its for rent!

Sputnik: "Am I a joke to you?"

Read the manual that came with your whizz wheel

Good to see the GPz got retired. Things in motorcycle land have moved on a bit since then. For one, you can't get those tyre sizes any more

...other than to keep an eye on others warships others submarines, people smugglers, drug runners, pirates, belligerents messing with undersea cables, polluters, whales and those hunting the whales, illegal fishers, enviro-terrorists and the odd oil rig. No I agree its a waste of time and money. Not to mention keeping the other submarines away from our ships and ports

... which is only one part of the equation. The other two parts are to be able to fight the platform and sustain it. This is one reason the Russians don't have combat deployed aircraft carriers. At least one got sold/given to the Chinese. Aircraft carriers are quite hard to fight well and the Russians just gave up on it ...which aren't combat deployed because they can already be confused, disarmed and decoyed, aren't that reliable in combat and are only super accurate in comparison to the missiles they replaced. Both sides already know that. Once those issues are dealt with, these missiles and/or drones will need to be tested and those tests can't be hidden. Putins nuclear powered hypersonic missile made it 22 miles before a crash in 2018 and nothing has happened since. NOTHING! Stability control issues during hypersonic flight haven't been solved (nor will they ever IMO, the suckers generate a glowing plasma cloud at the pointy end FFS plus they have a nasty habit of melting in flight). Something else to consider, the Middle East Theatre isn't the Pacific and doesn't pose those threats. We've had nukes for 70 years now. EMP hardened combat systems have existed for a while. So lets say we have a nuclear powered hypersonic space deployed laser toting Artificial Intelligence Stealth Drone waiting ... just waiting for the command to ... do what? While governments figure out what to do with the new trinket on their noisy sabre, the platforms that are combat ready today are what will be used. The UK Navy was scared witless of the Exocet missile. It was the one thing they could not counter during the Falklands war. They deployed anyway and ran what they had. Some things don't change. One thing that doesn't change is estimating and accepting combat losses during conflict

@derekliston @Marty_d Your recent posts have some valid points which I don't wish to diminish. Below is a counterpoint for some consideration Everyone who has contributed to this thread (a dreadful thread in my opinion, but here I am) is aware that the history of the F-111 was plagued with public complaints and epithets like "lemon" "Expensive capability we will never use" "vanity purchase" and many others that were worse. I don't care that the F-111 could fly from Darwin close to dark on Friday night at pretty much sea level, bomb Jakarta into a nuclear wasteland and be back in time for breakfast. Its on the public record that the Indonesians did care and they were scared. The same people who were saying bad things about the F-111 were the loudest when the decision to scrap the platform in favour of the F/A-18 was handed down. This can't be a coincidence. The people who wont he argument were using Energy-Maneuverability theory to support their argument. The F-111 was a capability for a war, theatre and battle that no longer existed. By 2001 conflict had moved from conventional kinetic attacks where force over match was a very real consideration to very asymmetric (think "guerilla") warfare where the battle tactics focussed on drawing the enemy to expend vast resources on engaging with you while not doing the same. Some of these examples include having small highly mobile SAM sites and more sophisticated autonomous platoons equipped with RBS-70 or similar and then finding a way to sustain these forces in the field whilst remaining geographically dispersed so they couldn't all be taken out by a small number of anti-radiation missiles The F-111 was never going to be a match for this sort of early network centric warfare, let alone what we have now ... 20 years later. Just a few advances worth mentioning in that period of time which will contribute to the conversation and explain why product X was chosen over product Y: 1. IFF Mode 5 is a pain to integrate but someone thought it was a good idea to have it on pretty much everything including the MANPADS, tanks and anything else that can get shot at or bombed, or do the shooting or bombing. That cost a lot but product X came with all that stuff wired in and it was the only one, a saving of about $10M per example when measured over the entire NATO Defence forces. This feature pretty much ends the possibility of friendly fire. The $10M is my opinion, not a public number. Even if its $1M per example, that is a lot of jet fuel for training 2. Link 16 and later variants of battle field communications. The F-22 doesn't have this feature still, as far as public information goes. A saving of about $6M per example in my opinion. I believe the F-22 can only communicate using encrypted data via a relay between it and an AWACS, then back to the "non F-22" next to it 3. Sensor fusion. Product X has it baked in (space, wiring, generators, antennae) because it was designed for network centric warfare. Product Y predates the concept 4. JHMCS. Works with sensor fusion so its a job lot. Other platforms have helmet sighting but can't display the sensor fusion available through network centric warfare 5. 360 x 360 degree Missile Launch detection system and auto chaff/flare dispensers 6. High fidelity networked flight simulation that was designed at the same time as the aircraft then updated as faster hardware and networks became available. This allows for NATO squadrons to play out likely scenarios and turn issues (terrain, force over match including millions of fly tomato's mythical carrier borne cheap Chinese drones in the South Pacific, GPS denial etc) to their advantage .... and finally I've said it before but it took 20 years for people to figure out how best to use the F-111. Australia got its F-111s in 1973 so do the math on that. The F-35 first flight was 2006 and Australia got its first look at their own F-35 at Avalon 2019. Australia was never not going to get a fifth generation fighter, it was just a matter of which one. Even if the F-35 turns out to be a total bucket of garbage .... even then ... not buying and learning to use then sustain a fifth generation fighter will put Australia behind the rest of the world by decades in terms of friends and adversaries and in terms of tools, technology and tactics. The new war is already here, choosing not to participate isn't an option

After reading this post by @onetrack I'm almost all the way through the mentioned book. After reading the book it is my opinion that humanity needs to stop having major conflicts even if we find humor in them decades later. By all means laugh. I'm sure Dr Phil McGraw would agree. In laughing the debt we owe is to do our best to stop (the need for) a repeat performance

If that is a bit esoteric, anything travelling at more than 8km/s at the surface of the earth and not actually aimed at the earth ... is falling up and will continue to do so unless it slows down or hits something. It's called the escape velocity

Fall up

Either way, here 'tis http://www.avdata.com.au/airport-charge-rates

The recording is automated by AvData, based on your radio calls. If you keep yelling "type call sign, going around" and land anyway ... Well the cat would truly be among the pigeons then

Taking yourself between sealed strips and taking your family between farm strips would be two different missions. From this there would be different planes that would make sense for each mission. A good fixed undercarriage hauler might be the Cherokee 235 or Cherokee Six but I'm guessing it would need to be imported as there aren't too many around. Plus they love a drink so much you can feel the suction around your wallet on climb out. Speed comes with money, altitude and/or a retractable undercarriage. Fixed undercarriage and low operating costs gives the opposite of speed. How much is your time worth?

... See division 91.D.5 of https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2018L01783

"Hot Air Balloon Flying" .... Nope that's all I'm adding

Pretty much anyone wanting to get a PPL or who has read any version of the VFRG will have seen these clauses and been put through all of the guff in AIP, ERSA, part 61 and 91. In my opinion, what is missing is context. In this case the context might be "you as pilot in command will make yourself informed and make decisions the contribute to the safe completion of the flight in accordance with CAR233 and don't say you didn't know". As far as I know, all sport aviation authorities have similar wording in their training. In terms of landing safely away from an aerodrome with some fuel vs arriving with less than a 30 minute reserve, both are examples of routinely reportable incidents. See AIP ENR (ERSA) 1.14 and 3.2.1 for other examples. These incident reports are sent to ATSB Repcon not CASA. Alternatively the sport aviation authorities have their own reporting mechanisms. Landing or taking off from a public road, flying tired or parking up in a field before a storm hits or the fuel runs out won't necessarily get the pilot into trouble. Failing to report it within 72 hours with an explanation as to how this situation arose definitely will, especially if someone else reports it first. I've not heard of anyone in private operations being prosecuted after issuing a notice of a routinely reportable matter (RRM). Perhaps this might be where the discussion can turn? Who has been prosecuted for a routinely reportable matter?

https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/airspeeder-racing-coming-in-2020/ should be be interesting to see how people react to the prototype

Report including statement from Jack Vevers regarding council (ahem) qualified support for Tyabb Airshow 2020 https://mailchi.mp/23fc352a7214/the-tyabb-flyer-week-ended-6-july-2019

MorPen press statement here. References a PAC announcement then refutes it https://www.mornpen.vic.gov.au/About-Us/News-Media-Publications/News-Media/Shire-supports-Tyabb-2020-Airshow

https://www.miragenews.com/shire-supports-tyabb-2020-airshow/ sounds like the the begging of a monumental back pedal... It reminds me of the phrase, "in order to save the village we had to destroy it"

Mackay!