Spin practice

[facthunter]

My thoughts entirely. Style before function. Same with the Gippsland Aviation "whatever". You can tell they will have a problem before the thing is flown. nev

 

 

[Ballpoint 246niner]

Well that does amaze me! I mean I don't know about GA but I know in gliding just the incipient spin is not only encouraged but mandatory practice! it shocks me to think that it is not allowed in RA. a developed spin certainly not! but letting the nose drop off, opposite rudder and central stick. hardly rocket science and could very well save your life one day. How many people are killed world wide by aircraft spinning in! I'm remembering back but I could have sworn I did it as part of my training.

Aus, the RA syllabus does allow for recovery from incipient spin ie wing drops (sect6.2 in the flight training syllabus) and should be taught to all students as part of their basic training. The fact so many are unsure of this really bothers me in respect of what is being taught.

Having said all this stall recovery and stall symptoms are ( hopefully) being and have been taught to all pilots for many years but alas ,pilots still stall aircraft and kill themselves. All the training in the world is only valuable if you apply it without hesitation when you need it and more importantly, fly in such a way to never get to the edges where these things can occur.

 

Go jump in with a glider or aerobatic instructor if you really want to explore full spins more thoroughly, very worthwhile for all pilots.

 

 

[David Isaac]

Aus, the RA syllabus does allow for recovery from incipient spin ie wing drops (sect6.2 in the flight training syllabus) and should be taught to all students as part of their basic training. The fact so many are unsure of this really bothers me in respect of what is being taught.

Neil, the problem I have with the definition of an incipient spin in the RAA flight training manual as being described as a stall with a wing drop is NOT an incipient spin. It is what it says ... a stall with a wing drop which is a nasty characteristic of any aircraft in an aggravated normal stall.

An incipient spin is by definition a rotating stall but only the incipient stage, normally about one to one and a half turns or less and terminated well before it turns into a fully developed spin which in most aircraft takes several rotations to develop. If all we are teaching is a stall with a wing drop, then no wonder people are confused on the matter. There is nothing quite like a true incipient spin to wake up the student. I believe RAA does a particularly poor job in this aspect of training and IMHO you don't need an aerobatic aircraft to teach a recovery from an incipient spin.

 

 

[djpacro]

Normal category airplanes are only spin tested to one turn, typically, so don't assume that your trainer is safe beyond just a wing drop at the stall.

 

I can show you how to get into a fully developed spin in only half a turn or so (it really surprisesthe instructor trainees).

 

 

[David Isaac]

Normal category airplanes are only spin tested to one turn, typically, so don't assume that your trainer is safe beyond just a wing drop at the stall.I can show you how to get into a fully developed spin in only half a turn or so (it really surprisesthe instructor trainees).

Thanks for that David, it would surprise me too, I guess you will show me one day.

Are the typical RAA trainers and LSA all spin tested to at least one turn? I know the Jabiru and Drifter were.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

Interesting discussion, Dafydd. My little Jodel has a small rudder, set behind the tailplane. Hopefully, in a spin it should meet plenty of clear air. What do you think?

 

 

 

 

[facthunter]

I'll stick my neck out and say it is a lot better than most. The part below the elevators is large enough to be effective and the small fin before the rudder energises the flow around the rudder above. Don't use my statement to encourage you to try it, but I'm fairly confident of most French designs of that period. Nev

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

?.. Don't use my statement to encourage you to try it...Nev

That's encouraging, Nev. Have no fear that I'll push the boundaries. I can never forget the spin practice I did in Blanics, with the damned instructor counting the rotations of the world below us until he'd let me take remedial action.

 

 

[facthunter]

Like stalling, spins that you are ready for and deliberately set up, are not what will get you. It's the inadvertent ones, like off a steep turn and you won't really know what has happened. It could be a spin or it could be a spiral and you need to quickly assess what it is and correct as quickly as possible. Height lost is one problem for both, but in a spiral you are gaining speed and ROD and some planes (Gazelle) rapidly stress the airframe in a spiral. Nev

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

Moral: maintain safe airspeed. I try to maintain 1.5 Vs until late final.

 

 

[facthunter]

I would not overemphasis the airspeed margin. It is nice to have but don't overdo it. You should always be able to do a decent precautionary, if you have to. Bear I mind it is angle of attack not airspeed. You would be more at risk on a downwind base leg than on final. Nev

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

Those turns onto base, then final are the ones that need the margin. Always wary of wind shear on final. Probably been spoiled by long strips and draggy airframes that don't demand close attention to approach speed.

 

 

[Ballpoint 246niner]

Neil, the problem I have with the definition of an incipient spin in the RAA flight training manual as being described as a stall with a wing drop is NOT an incipient spin. It is what it says ... a stall with a wing drop which is a nasty characteristic of any aircraft in an aggravated normal stall.An incipient spin is by definition a rotating stall but only the incipient stage, normally about one to one and a half turns or less and terminated well before it turns into a fully developed spin which in most aircraft takes several rotations to develop. If all we are teaching is a stall with a wing drop, then no wonder people are confused on the matter. There is nothing quite like a true incipient spin to wake up the student. I believe RAA does a particularly poor job in this aspect of training and IMHO you don't need an aerobatic aircraft to teach a recovery from an incipient spin.

David, if we need to allow pilots to get to a fully developed spin( in training) in order to convince them of the dangers of going there in the first place then we have already failed in our teaching duties. How many ( experienced)pilots do you know who could effectively recover a 1 turn developed spin at the sort of heights where the x-control, skiding turn/low airspeed scenario will present the most danger, ie in circuit?- I have done 100's of spins over 40 years, many with students in other forms of aviation( gliding) and in earlier days when in the Day VFR syllabus and to recover a full turn spin in under 6-800 ft( depending on type) is almost impossible. We don't need to get AIDS to be aware of the dangers of unprotected sex, and while spin manouvres are good to practice, I believe, as I said before, pilots still don't even recognise the pre-stall condition well enough let alone going for broke in a developed spin. That is where good instructional energy should be spent- but by all means- sent them to an aero school, or demo in an approriately certified aircraft with pilot likewise- but to " wake them up" suggests we have not put the "fear of god" into them enough in the first place.

 

 

[David Isaac]

Neil I strongly believe that spin training for RAA pilots is an invaluable opportunity and I dont see any valid argument against the notion, it should have been maintained in the GA syllabus, but that was not the point I was attempting to make in my post.

 

In my comments above I was simply pointing out that for RAA to call a wing drop in a stall an incipient spin in the flight training section is BS. So why don't we just teach recovery from stall with wing drop and leave the words 'incipient spin' out of it, it gives a whole wrong perspective.

 

I too have done 100s of spins and did them in my initial GA training as an offered option and continue to do them, I actually enjoy doing them as a final aerobatic routine.

 

I agree 100% with your comment that some pilots don't even recognise stall onset in both GA and RAA and brings a lot of training into question, which is why I advocate that spin recovery training is an asset.

 

 

[Ballpoint 246niner]

Neil I strongly believe that spin training for RAA pilots is an invaluable opportunity and I dont see any valid argument against the notion, it should have been maintained in the GA syllabus, but that was not the point I was attempting to make in my post.In my comments above I was simply pointing out that for RAA to call a wing drop in a stall an incipient spin in the flight training section is BS. So why don't we just teach recovery from stall with wing drop and leave the words 'incipient spin' out of it, it gives a whole wrong perspective.

 

I too have done 100s of spins and did them in my initial GA training as an offered option and continue to do them, I actually enjoy doing them as a final aerobatic routine.

 

I agree 100% with your comment that some pilots don't even recognise stall onset in both GA and RAA and brings a lot of training into question, which is why I advocate that spin recovery training is an asset.

Totally agree with all you say mate- so why when we have comprehensive stall training in all syllabus'( RA/GA) is this failing to stop " loss of control" type accident findings and failing to stop stall accidents? HF issues?

 

Is going one step further going to stop the above?

 

My only point being if you can't effectively recovery in the first 1/2 turn of a developing spin then the rest is probably history if you are on base or similiar ( cite- Murwullimbah 2012, Caboolture 2011/2006), Gympie 2011- just to mention a few I know locally. Perhaps better RECOGNITION before the event is better than a post incident REPAIR. Food for thought....

 

 

[facthunter]

Situationally, you have to make a very quick recovery at low altitude or it is all over. Most people when the nose goes down just pull the stick back. It's a reflex action which has to be trained out of the pilot. Picking up a dropped wing with aileron is a natural reflex too. You can't let a spin develop so a more appropriate training sequence is needed. Classic stall and classic spin entry and recovery, is too abstract and not related to real situations that are likely to occur. Nev

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

I'll stick my neck out and say it is a lot better than most. The part below the elevators is large enough to be effective and the small fin before the rudder energises the flow around the rudder above. Don't use my statement to encourage you to try it, but I'm fairly confident of most French designs of that period. Nev

I'd agree; the un-blanketted rudder area below the tailplane is most important. The Jodel is well-endowed in this regard. I suggest you download NASA TN-D-6575; however quite a few French aeroplanes of that era needed anti-spin strakes as well, so I suggest you study the matter carefully before trying it. When one is test flying an aircraft for spin recovery, no sane test pilot will fly without a spin recovery parachute installation; see the Flight Test Society of Australia Symposium papers for 12 March 2009 (I do not know whether this is available from the internet).

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Thanks for that David, it would surprise me too, I guess you will show me one day.Are the typical RAA trainers and LSA all spin tested to at least one turn? I know the Jabiru and Drifter were.

No - the Drifter was NOT tested. See my earlier posts on this thread. The Jabiru and the Skyfox were. However, it's dangerous to use these aircraft for any form of aggravated stall training because they pick up speed very rapidly, and the danger is that you will exceed to flight envelope (and lose a wing from flutter or divergance - a real possibility in a Skyfox). How many times do I need to say it? DON'T DO THAT SORT OF THING IN AN ULTRALIGHT AIRCRAFT.

 

 

[MarcK]

For those that are interested I dropped into talk to an instructor in Toowoomba about doing some upset attitude and spin training. He dose it in a ct 4 and the cost is around 400 an hour in this aircraft and recommends 3 to 4 hours should give you the idea of what's fun what scares you and what will kill you.

 

can anyone recomend any where else in the SEQ area that can offer this sort of training ?

 

Marc

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

For those that are interested I dropped into talk to an instructor in Toowoomba about doing some upset attitude and spin training. He dose it in a ct 4 and the cost is around 400 an hour in this aircraft and recommends 3 to 4 hours should give you the idea of what's fun what scares you and what will kill you. can anyone recomend any where else in the SEQ area that can offer this sort of training ?

 

Marc

Try the gliding club at Jondaryan, or at Kingaroy, or at Massie field at Warwick, or at Caboolture, or at Boonah. They charge a lot less than $400 per hour.

 

 

[Bandit12]

For those that are interested I dropped into talk to an instructor in Toowoomba about doing some upset attitude and spin training. He dose it in a ct 4 and the cost is around 400 an hour in this aircraft and recommends 3 to 4 hours should give you the idea of what's fun what scares you and what will kill you. can anyone recomend any where else in the SEQ area that can offer this sort of training ?

 

Marc

That would be Matt Handley at Aerotec? If so, he was one of my instructors 15 years ago and I did it in his S2B at the time. Pricey compared to gliding clubs but he is a great teacher and very experienced.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

I'd agree; the un-blanketted rudder area below the tailplane is most important. The Jodel is well-endowed in this regard. I suggest you download NASA TN-D-6575; however quite a few French aeroplanes of that era needed anti-spin strakes as well, so I suggest you study the matter carefully before trying it. When one is test flying an aircraft for spin recovery, no sane test pilot will fly without a spin recovery parachute installation; see the Flight Test Society of Australia Symposium papers for 12 March 2009 (I do not know whether this is available from the internet).

Thanks for the feedback, fellas. I don't plan on doing any spins, but it's nice to know I seem to have a safe design.

 

 

[MarcK]

Do you think it matters what you do spin training in the sense of Powered Vs Gliders ?

 

Yep that's the Place Bandit.

 

 

[David Isaac]

Totally agree with all you say mate- so why when we have comprehensive stall training in all syllabus'( RA/GA) is this failing to stop " loss of control" type accident findings and failing to stop stall accidents? HF issues?Is going one step further going to stop the above?

My only point being if you can't effectively recovery in the first 1/2 turn of a developing spin then the rest is probably history if you are on base or similiar ( cite- Murwullimbah 2012, Caboolture 2011/2006), Gympie 2011- just to mention a few I know locally. Perhaps better RECOGNITION before the event is better than a post incident REPAIR. Food for thought....

Situationally, you have to make a very quick recovery at low altitude or it is all over. Most people when the nose goes down just pull the stick back. It's a reflex action which has to be trained out of the pilot. Picking up a dropped wing with aileron is a natural reflex too. You can't let a spin develop so a more appropriate training sequence is needed. Classic stall and classic spin entry and recovery, is too abstract and not related to real situations that are likely to occur. Nev

I totally agree with both of you. It is the entry stage recognition and CORRECT control response that needs to be taught. Being taught how to deliberately enter a clean spin and then recover is not really what I am driving at. By all means do that eventually as a practice skill in approved aircraft.

We don't fly gliders, so doing stalls and spins in those beautiful docile birds does not relate to the aircraft type we fly. The C150/152 are great examples of simple aircraft similar to what we fly and they are not easy to spin unless you are precise with the controls, they tend to spiral first. The C150/152 are approved for spins, so you don't need to do incipient and full spin development familiarisation in aerobatic aircraft which typically don't represent the types we fly in RAA. Its the dangerous and sloppy incipient stage (with rotation) that we need to teach a quick recognition and correct control response. To DJPacros and Dafydd's point we must do it in properly certified aircarft, so why not the C150/152, there are 100s of them available, do it with an instructor who knows what he is doing.

 

 

[David Isaac]

No - the Drifter was NOT tested. See my earlier posts on this thread. The Jabiru and the Skyfox were. However, it's dangerous to use these aircraft for any form of aggravated stall training because they pick up speed very rapidly, and the danger is that you will exceed to flight envelope (and lose a wing from flutter or divergance - a real possibility in a Skyfox). How many times do I need to say it? DON'T DO THAT SORT OF THING IN AN ULTRALIGHT AIRCRAFT.

You missed the point I was attempting to make. I am NOT advocating spins in Ultralight aircraft. I asked the question whether or not Normal category and LSA ultralight aircraft were tested to a one turn spin recovery at all (as normal category GA aircraft are) as part of their certification /approval process. The question was in relation to whether or not you could/should legally teach "INCIPIENT" stall /spin recognition and recovery, NOT FULLY DEVELOPED SPINS in RAA training aircraft (it would seem perhaps safe in Jabirus). If it is properly taught by an instructor, exceeding VNE should not even be a risk. Hell if you are a dick head you can exceed VNE in any aircraft, you don't have to be doing stall/spin training.

On another note Drifters have been spin tested, just probably not an approved testing regime, the first Austflight Drifters were stated as unspinnable, and I "was told ..." rigging was altered to improve performance and they "became" spinnable. Wayne Fisher developed an experimental VH registered aerobatic Drifter VH-VSI (hopefully with a beefed up structure). Also I believe there was an aerobatic version of the Winton Sapphire (hopefully you would know whether that is true or not). In any case my question was related to testing to at least one turn and recovery as normal category GA aircraft are.

 

Dafydd all I am trying to establish is whether or not we actually should or do teach true incipient stall/spin recognition and recovery as stated in the RAA syllabus, because I don't believe we do teach what the syllabus says.