The Kapo System Of Aviation Regulation and CASA
Thread Starter
Lookleft, Oh very, very good!
The USOAP audit is an audit of CASA capabilities as in organisational design and resourcing, the audit results have nothing to do with it's performance!
The critical elements (CE's) relate to specific tools and capabilities e.g.:
The rest is all framed as "The State shall establish.......", "The state shall provide...", "The state shall implement...".
So of course CASA comes out well. They have a very nice toolshed in other words, but the audit does not address what they do with the tools provided.
To put it another way, Its like auditing a hospital and giving it excellent marks for its architecture, equipment and facilities.. while overlooking the fact that its staffed by homicidal doctors and sadistic nurses.
Unless you want to accuse the international body that oversights civil aviation of corruption then I think you will find that they don't have a problem with CASA. As evidence of this (rather than hearsay) here are the latest ICAO USOAP results. https://www.icao.int/safety/Pages/USOAP-Results.aspx
2.1.1Critical elements (CEs) are essentially the defence tools of a State’s safety oversight system required for the effectiveimplementation of safety-related standards, policy and associated procedures. Each Member State should address all CEs in itseffort to establish and implement an effective safety oversight system that reflects the shared responsibility of the State and theaviation community. CEs of a safety oversight system cover the whole spectrum of civil aviation activities, including personnellicensing, aircraft operations, airworthiness of aircraft, aircraft accident and incident investigation, air navigation services andaerodromes, as applicable. The level of effective implementation of the CEs is an indication of a State’s capability for safetyoversight.
CE-1 Primaryaviationlegislation1.1The State shall promulgate a comprehensive andeffective aviation law, consistent with the size and complexityof the State’s aviation activity and with the requirementscontained in the Convention on International Civil Aviation,that enables the State to regulate civil aviation and enforceregulations through the relevant authorities or agenciesestablished for that purpose.1.2The aviation law shall provide personnel performingsafety oversight functions access to the aircraft, operations,facilities, personnel and associated records, as applicable, ofservice providers.
So of course CASA comes out well. They have a very nice toolshed in other words, but the audit does not address what they do with the tools provided.
To put it another way, Its like auditing a hospital and giving it excellent marks for its architecture, equipment and facilities.. while overlooking the fact that its staffed by homicidal doctors and sadistic nurses.
Yes Sunfish but it is organisations like ICAO that the Government (s) can point to to show the general public that there is no problem and that there are no aviation safety problems in this country. So your great political theory of bringing aviation to the forefront of the aviation illiterate electorate gets no traction.
Thread Starter
Its actually worse than that Lookleft, given the high marks the ICAO gives Australia for regulatory capability, why are the results so appalling.... ..As evidenced by the Forsyth review?,
BTW, I don't believe in trying to explain aviation to the electorate. What I believe in is giving the electorate reasons to vote against sitting members, that is quite different from an education program.
BTW, I don't believe in trying to explain aviation to the electorate. What I believe in is giving the electorate reasons to vote against sitting members, that is quite different from an education program.
Join Date: Apr 1998
Location: Mesopotamos
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cattlewtruck,
Big and Complex??
Big and Complex??
BTW, I really do appreciate the way you put the other meaning of "Big and Complex" into perspective.
Join Date: Apr 1998
Location: Mesopotamos
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can I add this: Catering for the welfare of sooks to the point of nothing getting done.
For crying out aloud, as some of you may know I've recently got a gig with the feds (not CASA). Today I was told there were some people in my team that felt like not turning up to work because of my attitude, and as a consequence I was disciplined.
In the last 3 years since I started this gig in the federal public service (in a number of other teams) I've been putting my own reputation at risk taking brave steps in modernising systems that you the general public patronise highly on a daily basis. I simply don't give a toss about the boat anchors in my place and get on with the much needed and overdue improvements to our organisation's systems.
Today after hearing the news from my manager I felt like throwing in the towel, but then I realised these sooks would never resign from their own job-for-life even if they don't feel like turning up to work because of me. Honestly, they can go f@ck themselves and I plan on continuing doing what I do the way I do it which seems to get the results.
Indeed, some of these sooks don't belong anywhere near systems that are important to the lives of many Australians, these sooks have regularly proven that they are not worthy of the responsibility the role demands, they belong in a zoo or at best on a David Attenborough documentary special.
For crying out aloud, as some of you may know I've recently got a gig with the feds (not CASA). Today I was told there were some people in my team that felt like not turning up to work because of my attitude, and as a consequence I was disciplined.
In the last 3 years since I started this gig in the federal public service (in a number of other teams) I've been putting my own reputation at risk taking brave steps in modernising systems that you the general public patronise highly on a daily basis. I simply don't give a toss about the boat anchors in my place and get on with the much needed and overdue improvements to our organisation's systems.
Today after hearing the news from my manager I felt like throwing in the towel, but then I realised these sooks would never resign from their own job-for-life even if they don't feel like turning up to work because of me. Honestly, they can go f@ck themselves and I plan on continuing doing what I do the way I do it which seems to get the results.
Indeed, some of these sooks don't belong anywhere near systems that are important to the lives of many Australians, these sooks have regularly proven that they are not worthy of the responsibility the role demands, they belong in a zoo or at best on a David Attenborough documentary special.
Last edited by cattletruck; 8th Jun 2018 at 11:17.
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Toowoomba
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sunfish, your aviation dystopia is already here in RAAus and GFA. I know people who have been threatened with expulsion from both organisations which would result in their being unable to continue the activity and being unable to have beneficial use of their property. Not over anything to do with their flying but internal politicals and/or publicly raising issues the powers that be would rather not be raised.
A few months ago I met one who left a gliding club over a safety issue after the club threatened him over a social media post highlighting the issue. GFA and clubs would rather sweep issues such as these under the carpet to maintain the entirely false illusion that gliding is well organised and safe. That person has now been the victim of a nasty little behind the scenes campaign to prevent him joining a gliding club in his home state (it is a CASA requirement to join the GFA and a GFA requirement to join a State gliding association and a gliding club in order to fly gliders) by people I know who should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves but won't be because they are suffering from "noble cause corruption".
A few months ago I met one who left a gliding club over a safety issue after the club threatened him over a social media post highlighting the issue. GFA and clubs would rather sweep issues such as these under the carpet to maintain the entirely false illusion that gliding is well organised and safe. That person has now been the victim of a nasty little behind the scenes campaign to prevent him joining a gliding club in his home state (it is a CASA requirement to join the GFA and a GFA requirement to join a State gliding association and a gliding club in order to fly gliders) by people I know who should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves but won't be because they are suffering from "noble cause corruption".
Thread Starter
Eyrie, you hit the nail on the head. Giving an association or "club" the delegated authority of CASA without robust internal checks and balances within the club is a recipe for disaster because there is no legal avenue of redress like the AAT for what its worth.
Furthermore there are ample examples of dysfunctional associations as anyone familiar with the Victorian sporting shooters association would know.
Furthermore there are ample examples of dysfunctional associations as anyone familiar with the Victorian sporting shooters association would know.
If we want to give the 'German' and jackboot analogies for CAsA a rest, I'll modernize for you.
Since the independent agency that is CAsA has become its own Soviet, Stalinst ways apply.
To get rid of someone you dislike,all you had to do was make some allegations about them and the KGB would do the rest for you,... interrogate and eliminate.
Having had false testimony made up against me ( by 3 idiot "AWIs" ) with a view to a criminal conviction..and with possible , jail time , I see the similarities in their methods.
How to change the 'Beast'... very difficult as we know.
Yes, yes..there are some good honest folk in CAsA. Ive met a few*...but there some really nasty, power crazy physcopaths in there as well..unfortunately...and CAsA covers up serious criminality for them to protect CAsA's 'good name' ( Ha ha Ha !...what a sick joke).
Hands up all those that think CAsA is the fount of aviation expertise, a benefit for the GA Industry and has "just culture". (Just ar$e, actually)
Anyone? ...No-one ...ah well.
* i can count the 'good guys' on one hand, but I have to advise that I used to work in a saw mill ...and dont have many fingers on that hand.
May those polllies that want a Federal ICAC get up. Sadly its needed, and I'll be at the front door when they open for business.
Since the independent agency that is CAsA has become its own Soviet, Stalinst ways apply.
To get rid of someone you dislike,all you had to do was make some allegations about them and the KGB would do the rest for you,... interrogate and eliminate.
Having had false testimony made up against me ( by 3 idiot "AWIs" ) with a view to a criminal conviction..and with possible , jail time , I see the similarities in their methods.
How to change the 'Beast'... very difficult as we know.
Yes, yes..there are some good honest folk in CAsA. Ive met a few*...but there some really nasty, power crazy physcopaths in there as well..unfortunately...and CAsA covers up serious criminality for them to protect CAsA's 'good name' ( Ha ha Ha !...what a sick joke).
Hands up all those that think CAsA is the fount of aviation expertise, a benefit for the GA Industry and has "just culture". (Just ar$e, actually)
Anyone? ...No-one ...ah well.
* i can count the 'good guys' on one hand, but I have to advise that I used to work in a saw mill ...and dont have many fingers on that hand.
May those polllies that want a Federal ICAC get up. Sadly its needed, and I'll be at the front door when they open for business.
Sunfish, your aviation dystopia is already here in RAAus and GFA. I know people who have been threatened with expulsion from both organisations which would result in their being unable to continue the activity and being unable to have beneficial use of their property. Not over anything to do with their flying but internal politicals and/or publicly raising issues the powers that be would rather not be raised.
.
.
Sadly, by no means limited to the above, who, in my opinion and experience, are two of the better, but the principle and the problem is across the board, I have seen some shockers over the years.
A while back, the idea of "parallel paths" was policy, (from 1996) that you would always have the option of CASA, to forestall the issues in previous posts, but long and sustained lobbying resulted in the "parallel path" policy being dropped by CASA ---- on grounds of administrative cost and complexity, allegedly.
After all, procedural fairness and natural justice have never been high on CASA's order of priorities.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Toowoomba
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Leadsled, if RAAus and GFA are two of the better we really are in trouble.
In any case why should an Australian be forced to join a private organisation with an effective monopoly so that a government body can get out of its obligations given to it by Parliament?
Then the government body refuses to make sure the procedures and rules of that body are in accordance with Australian law and the norms of Australian society.
You have obviously never had the misfortune to be a GFA member since about 1983 or so. It used to be better but has gone very bad. The parallel paths options was on the table until 2009 when McCormick canned it without notice or further consultation after the job of writing the proposed rules was given to a CASA incompetent (who was an enthusiastic GFA member) who dithered for 8 years or so and wrote 82 pages of amateurish drivel, the only pages of which made sense were " intentionally left blank".
GFA has taken over tow pilot ratings from CASA which means your rating on a PPL is now in the hands of a private monopoly, makes the creation of an alternative gliding organisation impossible and makes unnecessarily difficult the gaining and keeping of such a rating, particularly when compared to the UK who don't even have a glider towing rating because they think any adequately briefed private pilot can do it and the US where 3 launches under observation by a CFI with tow rating or a CFI with glider rating is adequate. From personal experience that works very well. Best tows I ever had were from a bunch of Texas cowboys who hadn't seen a glider before that day. They got briefed and I'm sure the 3 observed tows were contest launches.
I'm looking forward to the next GFA spin in fatality which will likely be a check flight with instructor now that the GFA ops director (38 years working for bank is great for aeronautical qualification) is insisting on full spins for the ANNUAL checks( not every two years like every other branch of private aviation). That's a lot of risk exposure for zero proven benefit.
In any case why should an Australian be forced to join a private organisation with an effective monopoly so that a government body can get out of its obligations given to it by Parliament?
Then the government body refuses to make sure the procedures and rules of that body are in accordance with Australian law and the norms of Australian society.
You have obviously never had the misfortune to be a GFA member since about 1983 or so. It used to be better but has gone very bad. The parallel paths options was on the table until 2009 when McCormick canned it without notice or further consultation after the job of writing the proposed rules was given to a CASA incompetent (who was an enthusiastic GFA member) who dithered for 8 years or so and wrote 82 pages of amateurish drivel, the only pages of which made sense were " intentionally left blank".
GFA has taken over tow pilot ratings from CASA which means your rating on a PPL is now in the hands of a private monopoly, makes the creation of an alternative gliding organisation impossible and makes unnecessarily difficult the gaining and keeping of such a rating, particularly when compared to the UK who don't even have a glider towing rating because they think any adequately briefed private pilot can do it and the US where 3 launches under observation by a CFI with tow rating or a CFI with glider rating is adequate. From personal experience that works very well. Best tows I ever had were from a bunch of Texas cowboys who hadn't seen a glider before that day. They got briefed and I'm sure the 3 observed tows were contest launches.
I'm looking forward to the next GFA spin in fatality which will likely be a check flight with instructor now that the GFA ops director (38 years working for bank is great for aeronautical qualification) is insisting on full spins for the ANNUAL checks( not every two years like every other branch of private aviation). That's a lot of risk exposure for zero proven benefit.
I'm looking forward to the next GFA spin in fatality which will likely be a check flight with instructor now that the GFA ops director (38 years working for bank is great for aeronautical qualification) is insisting on full spins for the ANNUAL checks( not every two years like every other branch of private aviation). That's a lot of risk exposure for zero proven benefit.
He has cost a lot of gliders a great deal as a consequence of his ignorance-based decisions and arbitrary rulings. An embarrassment.
(But please don't say you "look forward" to the next fatal. )
Eyrie,
I largely agree with what you say, but there are worse, in my opinion.
One point, I have never seen any evidence that properly conducted spin and recovery training or checking represents a serious additional risk.
I have had this argument for about fifty years with one of my contemporaries, who has always opposed spin training in GA, but he has never produced a case based on hard evidence.
In US, all CFIs have to be current and recovery, this has been the case for a long time, I can find nothing in the records to suggest a crash record as a result.
Tootle pip!!
PS: With CASR Part 149 (which is nothing like the original concept, or the NZ Part 149), I fear it is going to get worse, with all the disadvantages of CASA micromanagement ladled on top of CASA demanded micro-management by the self-administering bodies.
The "Prince's of Process" reign supreme. It is all based on the basic principles of military command:
(1) Take the credit.
(2) Assign blame.
(3) Shoot the wounded.
I largely agree with what you say, but there are worse, in my opinion.
One point, I have never seen any evidence that properly conducted spin and recovery training or checking represents a serious additional risk.
I have had this argument for about fifty years with one of my contemporaries, who has always opposed spin training in GA, but he has never produced a case based on hard evidence.
In US, all CFIs have to be current and recovery, this has been the case for a long time, I can find nothing in the records to suggest a crash record as a result.
Tootle pip!!
PS: With CASR Part 149 (which is nothing like the original concept, or the NZ Part 149), I fear it is going to get worse, with all the disadvantages of CASA micromanagement ladled on top of CASA demanded micro-management by the self-administering bodies.
The "Prince's of Process" reign supreme. It is all based on the basic principles of military command:
(1) Take the credit.
(2) Assign blame.
(3) Shoot the wounded.
Last edited by LeadSled; 14th Jun 2018 at 06:38.
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Toowoomba
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LeadSled,
Take a look at what happened in Canada. The USA deleted the spin training requirement for private licence in about 1947 IIRC. Canada kept it until the early 2000's IIRC. The reason they gave up on it was that their spin in rate was no better than in the USA in countries with very similar aviation cultures. They were also losing students and instructors in spin in accidents while teaching and practicing spins and recoveries and the wording was something like "in all conscience we couldn't keep the requirement".
There are additional problems in gliders: many of the gliders will be the Polish Puchacz two seater which has an appalling spin in record. Including a couple of blokes in California who were both ex military pilots and one of whom was a graduate of the USAF Test Pilot School. A couple of blokes I know (both the highest level of GFA Instructor) were messing about in one one day and got themselves into a spin they couldn't recover from. They were tightening their straps waiting for the ground to smite them when it recovered and went through 350 feet AGL in the pullout. Others have reported similar hesitations in recovery which appear to happen for no apparent reason. Search for the accident record of this type.
Then there is the issue of wearing parachutes and doing this from a decent height where a bailout is possible. This will not happen much, particularly at sites where the winch is the only launch means.
Now I believe that pilots need to be taught spins before solo but it should be done by very experienced instructors, done properly and ideally in a Pitts or Citabria where you can climb to 10,000 feet set a hard deck and do it quite a few times in an hour. I did this once and learned a lot more about spins and spin modes than ever in gliders. It does not need to be done every year.
There is also the issue that people aren't spinning in from great altitudes, clueless about how to recover. They spin in (including a GFA instructor with student in a Puch) from low altitudes where a recovery is problematic and you would probably hit the ground less hard if you simply kept full pro spin control in.
Anybody who spins accidently while thermalling simply isn't paying attention and is a menace to all the other people who may be below him in the thermal. A momentary stall in a thermal isn't unusual due to a momentary increase in angle of attack from entering a stronger part but easily handled with essentially no loss of altitude by simply moving the stick forward a little. (there is no formal aerodynamics theory training in GFA with written exams which is why many don't understand that)
One more thing: many sailplanes are prone to breaking out into a spiral dive. Without a prop and of very slippery design it is easy to gain airspeed very quickly (roughly 20 knots/second) and if you then apply full opposite rudder, gliders have had the tailboom twisted off.
Teaching avoidance, recognition and nearly recovery before even an incipient spin develops is likely to be a lot more valuable. Spinning is not a normal soaring manoeuver unless you wnat to do aerobatics in gliders. My advice is to do aerobatics in powered aircraft properly designed for them.
Fantome, I'm not looking forward actually. That was sarcasm. Back on April 1, 2012 I had had a nice day flying my powered aircraft to see a friend and we had a nice flight in a self launching high performance two seat sailplane followed by a pleasant flight home. I logged on to my email at home and read about the accident at Ararat where a young female student was killed instantly and the instructor died an hour later. Look it up. I felt sick. Instructor apparently tried to turn back at low altitude after cable break induced by badly being out of station and instructor unable to recover without breaking rope. There was a safe landing area ahead. Aircraft was, yep, Puchacz. Instructor was one of the GFA "mates" (Marketing and Development Officer). I'm not ware of purge of the GFA instructor ranks was carried out to remove other incompetents.
Yet CASA/GFA expects people to fly with these incompetents.
Take a look at what happened in Canada. The USA deleted the spin training requirement for private licence in about 1947 IIRC. Canada kept it until the early 2000's IIRC. The reason they gave up on it was that their spin in rate was no better than in the USA in countries with very similar aviation cultures. They were also losing students and instructors in spin in accidents while teaching and practicing spins and recoveries and the wording was something like "in all conscience we couldn't keep the requirement".
There are additional problems in gliders: many of the gliders will be the Polish Puchacz two seater which has an appalling spin in record. Including a couple of blokes in California who were both ex military pilots and one of whom was a graduate of the USAF Test Pilot School. A couple of blokes I know (both the highest level of GFA Instructor) were messing about in one one day and got themselves into a spin they couldn't recover from. They were tightening their straps waiting for the ground to smite them when it recovered and went through 350 feet AGL in the pullout. Others have reported similar hesitations in recovery which appear to happen for no apparent reason. Search for the accident record of this type.
Then there is the issue of wearing parachutes and doing this from a decent height where a bailout is possible. This will not happen much, particularly at sites where the winch is the only launch means.
Now I believe that pilots need to be taught spins before solo but it should be done by very experienced instructors, done properly and ideally in a Pitts or Citabria where you can climb to 10,000 feet set a hard deck and do it quite a few times in an hour. I did this once and learned a lot more about spins and spin modes than ever in gliders. It does not need to be done every year.
There is also the issue that people aren't spinning in from great altitudes, clueless about how to recover. They spin in (including a GFA instructor with student in a Puch) from low altitudes where a recovery is problematic and you would probably hit the ground less hard if you simply kept full pro spin control in.
Anybody who spins accidently while thermalling simply isn't paying attention and is a menace to all the other people who may be below him in the thermal. A momentary stall in a thermal isn't unusual due to a momentary increase in angle of attack from entering a stronger part but easily handled with essentially no loss of altitude by simply moving the stick forward a little. (there is no formal aerodynamics theory training in GFA with written exams which is why many don't understand that)
One more thing: many sailplanes are prone to breaking out into a spiral dive. Without a prop and of very slippery design it is easy to gain airspeed very quickly (roughly 20 knots/second) and if you then apply full opposite rudder, gliders have had the tailboom twisted off.
Teaching avoidance, recognition and nearly recovery before even an incipient spin develops is likely to be a lot more valuable. Spinning is not a normal soaring manoeuver unless you wnat to do aerobatics in gliders. My advice is to do aerobatics in powered aircraft properly designed for them.
Fantome, I'm not looking forward actually. That was sarcasm. Back on April 1, 2012 I had had a nice day flying my powered aircraft to see a friend and we had a nice flight in a self launching high performance two seat sailplane followed by a pleasant flight home. I logged on to my email at home and read about the accident at Ararat where a young female student was killed instantly and the instructor died an hour later. Look it up. I felt sick. Instructor apparently tried to turn back at low altitude after cable break induced by badly being out of station and instructor unable to recover without breaking rope. There was a safe landing area ahead. Aircraft was, yep, Puchacz. Instructor was one of the GFA "mates" (Marketing and Development Officer). I'm not ware of purge of the GFA instructor ranks was carried out to remove other incompetents.
Yet CASA/GFA expects people to fly with these incompetents.
Thread Starter
Same problems in yachting. There are usually a few incompetents around, but the danger is that they don't know they are incompetent and they have a bad habit of seeking positions of authority from where they proceed to stuff up everyone else's lives.
The one thing that a properly constituted and working Weberian bureaucracy does is have checks and balances that stops the development of little Hitlers. Amateur clubs and Associations, not so much.
The one thing that a properly constituted and working Weberian bureaucracy does is have checks and balances that stops the development of little Hitlers. Amateur clubs and Associations, not so much.
Eyrie,
I certainly agree that spin and recovery training, like stall and recovery, should be all about avoidance, with recovery in the event of the unexpected being an additional benefit.
I am more than a little surprised about your comments about the Canadian record, even at a flying training conference some years ago, (which I attended) in which loss of control was the topic, this never came up.
I can't put a date on it, but FAA made spinning and recovery a demonstration competency for Certified Flight Instructors quite a few years ago
You may or may not know, but loss of control is well to the top of the list of safety concerns, and this is not just GA, but aircraft operations in general, as the airline accident record shows, and Australia is no exception.
I can't speak for gliding, but the standard of competence in low speed flight amongst instructors here is of great concern. When I quizz young CPL pilots and find that they have never really carried out what most of us "old farts" would regard as a minimum of stall and recovery training ---- all in the interests of avoiding problems, not recovering from them.
It is most instructive to load a C-172 to gross weight, and to the aft C.of G limit (mum, dad and the kids off for a weekend) and have the candidate do a few stalls with a bit of flap ---- they find it is a very different aeroplane compared to training weight and C.of G., it is always a real wake up call.
Tootle pip!!
I certainly agree that spin and recovery training, like stall and recovery, should be all about avoidance, with recovery in the event of the unexpected being an additional benefit.
I am more than a little surprised about your comments about the Canadian record, even at a flying training conference some years ago, (which I attended) in which loss of control was the topic, this never came up.
I can't put a date on it, but FAA made spinning and recovery a demonstration competency for Certified Flight Instructors quite a few years ago
You may or may not know, but loss of control is well to the top of the list of safety concerns, and this is not just GA, but aircraft operations in general, as the airline accident record shows, and Australia is no exception.
I can't speak for gliding, but the standard of competence in low speed flight amongst instructors here is of great concern. When I quizz young CPL pilots and find that they have never really carried out what most of us "old farts" would regard as a minimum of stall and recovery training ---- all in the interests of avoiding problems, not recovering from them.
It is most instructive to load a C-172 to gross weight, and to the aft C.of G limit (mum, dad and the kids off for a weekend) and have the candidate do a few stalls with a bit of flap ---- they find it is a very different aeroplane compared to training weight and C.of G., it is always a real wake up call.
Tootle pip!!
Instructor was one of the GFA "mates" (Marketing and Development Officer). I'm not aware that a purge of the GFA instructor ranks was carried out to remove other incompetents. (My edit.)
Yet CASA/GFA expects people to fly with these incompetents.
Yet CASA/GFA expects people to fly with these incompetents.
Ararat April 2012 - see post by Eyrie at #36 -
https://www.theage.com.au/national/v...401-1w6cu.html
Eyrie, You remind me of a very pleasant flight I had with my gliding instructor in 1973. The aircraft was an ES-52 Kookaburra MK 4 and was the last flight for the day. A winch launch to 1100' followed by a dive then a stall turn. Then a single turn spin and recovery to land. All in 4 minutes.. 