Those stalls with a wing drop that I did many years ago in a C172 as required in training must be one of those false memories I guess.

Am I looking at the same video as everyone else?



I look at the second manouvre see the aircraft heading inland, it pitches up and rolls wings level inverted, the nose still tracking inland, then the nose pitches to bring it back to upright and level, now tracking the opposite direction.

To me, that does not seem to be a typical wingover nor a stall with yaw or 0g pushover. More like a half roll or half cuban. Or am I seeing it wrong?

If also 4 pob and in a 172 (assuming that is what is happening) I think is knowingly getting cheeky with the regulations. I would not be happy if someone I was responsible for (or in an aircraft I owned) was deliberately doing that. 2 pob in a decathlon, sure, fine. 4 pob in a 172? work for someone else.

That said - it is not a video of the forced landing and so really doesn't indicate how well that was carried out or the circumstances of it - indeed it may not even be a video of the same aircraft, pilot or operator as far as I would know. My eye raising is solely about the video and the manouvre and circumstances of that.

Well, I'm seeing the same video as you, Jonkster, and I wholeheartedly agree that that second manoeuvre ain't no "stall with a wing drop" - have another look, harryw.
FFS, I certainly can see that the manner in which CASA has pursued this company leaves a lot to be desired, particularly with regard to due process.
And it is made all the more unfortunate that the owner/operator is now terminally ill (my sincere condolences) - but, with videos like these, does anyone seriously wonder why they've been pursued in the wake of an aircraft crash and given that these videos then became prominent????

Bob Hoover he is not ..........