djpacro

This indicates that it will but it will cost you https://www8.garmin.com/manuals/webhelp/GUID-49EC93CF-DA3F-4514-817F-4098FC4A71AE/EN-US/GUID-621EAB08-32EF-4F23-8987-704A7ABC3E03.html

I've had a Garmin D2 Aviator watch for 6 years and just upgraded to a D2™ Air X15 https://www.garmin.com/en-AU/p/1957609/ Marvellous! Real aviation flight plannikng &U navigation, METAR & TAF. I've added the Windy App to get my usual forecasts plus weather radar. Over 10 days of battery life.

A slip is inherently spin resistant. Unlike a skid.

They looked very swish. The new Junkers nearby looked interesting.

You can probably get it locally - if not in stock it won;t take long. https://www.aircraftspruce.com.au/catalog/eppages/bb700-1_oilfilteradapterkit.php

This video stated that the Extra's flight was unrelated to the competition however elsewhere someone stated that the pilot was a competitor. ADSB track of the Extra's track is consistent with it not being a competition flight. With the competition aerobatic box not being active then the aerobatic club's ground radio operator would also probably not be active. That video reported Metropolitan State University stated those involved were not students. It may have been an aborted competition flight and above comments may not be correct. We will see a full investigation and report from the NTSB. From the International Aerobatic Club: "We are grieved to report that IAC Competitor Kristen Morris passed away in the accident. IAC Competitor David Shangraw is hospitalized but expected to recover. Both occupants of the Cessna survived with minor injuries."

Two with minor injuries from the 172. The Extra was consumed by fire. That video might've had some different comments if he had referenced FAA AC 90-66 Non-Towered Airport Flight Operations more so than the Airplane Flying Handbook. It was an aerobatic contest so overflying at "well above circuit height (min +500ft)" would directly conflict with aerobatic aircraft. The aerobatic club should've had someone on the ground with a radio to alert anyone to a traffic conflict.

That's what I would expect. However prior to the correction of crew moment arm the factory manual showed 2 people on board at 90 kg each being OK - without that forward ballast I would expect a quite different behaviour. To illustrate:

That too. Yes, but the wrong crew moment arm was in the manual so the pilots did not know their CG was further back.

You probably missed the saga prior to your 5 years with it? Much happened after that. I was following it all but I'm sure I don't know the whole story. Some years ago, one of my friends sought a dual flight in a Bristell at a flight school. He was told they didn’t do stalls in them! A year or so later a CASA examiner told me that pilots were presenting themselves for flight tests in Bristells and refusing to stall them for the test. Why was that? I spoke to some Bristell flight instructors. In 2020, CASA issued a safety notice for flight schools operating Bristells which “prohibited from conducting an intentional stall of the aircraft, or from performing any flight training activities that could reasonably lead to an unintended stall …” CASA then “sought confirmation from the manufacturer as to compliance with the ASTM LSA standards and, in particular, spin compliance flight testing. At the present time, CASA has not received sufficient assurance as to the extent of such testing, including testing covering each design variant.” It seemed to me that BRM had shown compliance with the spin requirements (I reviewed the reports) but CASA was stuck on the thought that it must not comply because of the spin accidents but unable to identify any specific issues with the test reports. Then we got some independent flight tests of an in-service aeroplane with questions as to the conformity of the particular aeroplane and conduct of the tests. All a little murky as to who authorised these tests. Certainly not CASA. I did a W&B calculation from the data in the manual. Two people at 90 kg each right on the aft limit. Then there was another airworthiness alert! The crew moment arm in the manual was incorrect. W&B section of the manual was rewritten to make comparisons difficult. The same two 90 kg people now put the CG way way behind the aft limit! Aeroplanes were reweighed and ballast added firewall forward to move the empty CG forward. Moving the CG forward has a beneficial effect on handling characteristics, especially stalling and spinning. All the issues seemed to disappear overnight. No more said that I am aware of. The whole saga certainly showed the incompetence of some at the factory, RAA and CASA. Some at the regulatory authority especially were out of their depth.

Australia's rules for LSA are unique to Australia. Europe is different. USA even more. https://www.australianflying.com.au/recreational/raaus-to-go-the-full-mosaic good to be optimistic but .....

Nice aeroplane. I met John Isaacs and saw the prototype when I was in the UK back then.

My friend, John Biggs, built his in the '70s. I visited the Taylor family in the UK back then.

Easily resolved, just ask CASA https://www.casa.gov.au/about-us/contact-us

True, a pilot must be authorised by someone to be PIC. The thing about the definition of PIC is that it can onlty be a pilot in the aeroplane during that flight. So, for a solo student flight, it is obvious that the student is authorised to be the PIC, as there are no other options.