djpacro

Not quite, since Part 61 12 years ago, a PPL can get a FIR with training endorsements to teach any design feature and any fliight actiivity endorsement. CASA's old CAAP is still in effect https://www.casa.gov.au/flight-crew-licensing-flight-reviews fairly sensible. My opinion is that they don't want to rewrite it consistent with the Part 61 reg. "... successful completion of a flight review for a rating on a pilot licence requires demonstration, to a person mentioned in subregulation (2), that the holder of the rating is competent in each unit of competency mentioned in the Part 61 Manual of Standards for the rating." That is far beyond a review per the CAAP. Of course, some rating renewals and design feature endorsements are taken in lieu of a flight review.

Not true.

I wasn't aware of that. My guess is that it was one of the rules relating to equipment fit or configuration which can be rectified? I recall one aero club offering ab initio in Tigers back around 2000.

When it happened to me … full throttle …. PAN call to Moorabbin Tower and they gave me the whole airport. Orbited overhead, descending. Low and fast on base then final … very fast. Got my student in the front seat to pull the mixture to idle cutoff. Nose up then sideslipped to reduce energy. On the ground at normal landing speed before halfway down the runway and easily stopped well before the end.

https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/2007/ar-2007-043(2) for the page where you can download the pdf or go direct to the pdf https://www.atsb.gov.au/sites/default/files/media/4097175/ar-2007-043_2__final.pdf The one that caught my eye was: "Loss of aircraft control led to 25 per cent of all amateur-built accidents, slightly more than for factory-built aircraft accidents, however, the loss of control accident rate was over four times higher. Serious injury was three times more likely after loss of control in amateur-built aircraft accidents than for factory-built. Loss of control accidents were more likely to be from aircraft handling issues where pilots had relatively less experience on the aircraft type, and to a lesser extent, engine problems. Aircraft loss of control was more likely to occur in the initial climb phase of flight in amateur-built accidents."

Excellent stuff from Phil. He has quite a few videos in this series.

Some traffic showing on Webtraks. I’m away at the moment but my guess is the wind per BOM observations stopped many. The temperature is not pleasant so some may have cancelled for that reason. Most of the airplanes there were certified to CAR 3 or FAR 23. No specific temperature limit in the POH/AFM even though performance charts may stop at 40 deg C.

The principle is that there is no safe height to be demonstrating spins, including incipient spins, in a type not approved for intentional spins. From FAA AC 61-67.

That’s the problem with Australian rules for LSA, you need the manufacturer’s approval for any modifications. Whereas, PMA parts and TSO’d items are available for FAR 23 types.

Indeed. Some flight schools do that. How about more focus on prevention? Look at the altitude in most of the reported accidents. Many such raaus types are certified and suitable for spinning and aerobatics. LSA and ELA etc in other countries.

"These Planes" I've never flown a 210 but I have done spins in many types. Some are reluctant to spin for normal practice spins but I usually manage to shock instructor trainees with an entry from a skidded turn with some power on. NASA did extensive spin tests on a 172 - with the CG further aft than its utitility category limit and readily enters a spin, move the CG further back (but within the normal category limits) and it will become unrecoverable. Certainbly agree with Nev on the parlous state of spin training in this country but probably not relevant here - more important is spin prevention. I see some flight schools train for the test and largely ignore the stall situations which won't be tested. From the book, Stall/Spin Awareness, by Rich Stowell: "“In the early 1970s …. a couple of flight instructors reported difficulty in recovering from spins. A representative from the FAA subsequently flew many different 150s with Cessna test pilots. No problems were found with the airplanes. The FAA representative then went into the field to address questions about the 150’s spin characteristics. The representative was met with considerable misunderstanding about spins in general and the Cessna 150 in particular. ….. The instructors responsible for launching this investigation apparently did not know the effect of aileron inputs during spins. Nor did they understand the importance of proper recovery control sequencing. Recognizing this problem, the FAA published an eight-page Flight Instructor Bulletin devoted to spinning. The FAA also sponsored a prototype stall/spin clinic and Cessna published a supplementary pamphlet … “ We are in a similar situation again now.

They work well. Under the aileron and on the rudder in these photos. Extract of a magazine article by Darrol Stinton.

Spruce here specifies brass. https://www.aircraftspruce.com.au/catalog/appages/safaircav110.php?clickkey=4324

I've had the same problem with new drain valves. Take them out and clean them - dirt or a burr is enough to open them enough to leak. Have a friend with you to stick their finger in the hole or have a plug (perhaps an old valve) ready to screw in.

Some of the American kids were in our class at school. I knew a lot at Laverton over the years, including some RAAF display pilots back then eg the guy who did the roll after takeoff in the Canberra at a Laverton airshow. A day or two later an American pilot tried it in a B-57 but tragically failed.

I wouldn't use it enough to warrant Garmin Pilot. My Aera is very easy to read up there. Mine came with maps and I've never bothered to get updates,

I've had an Aera 500 in my airplane (it was there when I bought it). I use only use the HSI display because it is easily visible high on the panel. Otherwise I don't need it as I have a TSO'd GPS and I use an iPad with AvPlan if I go anywhere. Mine is panel mounted.

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: