Originally Posted by
Aussie Bob
It's .. all bad for you.
Nothing in the flying training syllabus or aviation legislation has improved the training of pilots since the "Flight Instructors Handbook".was the training manual to go by. This was issued by the then CAA, way back when the rools could be contained on the single shelf of a small bookcase. The quality of a pilot is down to both the instruction received and the aptitude of the student and his/her willingness to go out and learn solo, not by definition or legislation.
Maybe so. However, my view is that if this AC is reworked into a usable document then it will have a positive effect. So I encourage people to submit their comments to CASA.
I still have my little old blue Flight Instructors Handbook .... incidentally, the Flight Instructor Manual has to change as well.
Originally Posted by
Styx75
My favourite part:
My aircraft doesn't have a stall warning device so guess I won't be able to recognise a stall anymore...
The word "may" means to "express possibility".
Originally Posted by
jonkster
They have defined incipient spin (something that has been not stated in CASA docs before
AFAIK)
Incipient spin is adequately defined in the CASA Flight Instructor Manual. The problem started with Part 61 (in my opinion) differing from the Day VFR Syllabus and leaving the standard up in the air.
Originally Posted by
Sunfish
What happens to all the aircraft that don’t have a well defined stall as well as ailerons effective in the pseudo stall?
........
“Just pretend that you stalled and then pretend that a wing dropped”.
I'm sure that will happen. Instructors do the lesson in the aeroplane the school has, they finish the lesson and will tick all the boxes.
Flight Examiners determine whether the student has achieved the required standard - how do they treat it - are they ticking the incipient spin box even if it is not done or do they write "N"? Back to what Aussie Bob stated. Pay your money and take your choice.