Spin practice

[motzartmerv]

Tottaly agree mate. I was concerned my Instructors hadnt done much spinning, so we inlisted the help of the pro's to come and give us all some training. Was an awesome day actually, the whole club got a good briefing and most got a flight. The guys at red baron will do it for any club in the area (sydney) and its invaluable training.

 

Its not just an RAA problem. A lot of GA instructors havnt done any real spinning, and it passes on to the student if the instructor is not confident in stalling etc. What ends up is the student doesnt get a realistic stalling lesson/ lessons, so on the whole, pilots are at a lower standard (generally). Bring back the requirement I say.

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

Just lost some of this post due to the site shutdown, but at least the new 'autosave' feature preserved most of it -

 

And I think in a group is the best way to do it too Motz - great!

 

Yes, GA is a worse culprit, considerably. Some of their younger 'hours-building' instructors are positively terrified of slowing the aircraft down, let alone stalling, so it makes you wonder what the quality of their instruction was like, and that includes the supposed courses and testing for their instructor rating.

 

Your 'spin-day' is a great way to go about it, when several people do it together I think they gain a lot more from the interraction and sharing the 'emotions' of each other. For most people the first time is quite a shake-up, starting from days beforehand with the trepidation and then the later discovery of what the experience really is - terrifying for some and exhilarating for others. Hopefully those that find it terrifying get to do enough of them to get over that and start to enjoy it, I think it is the reactions of those as they discover the fun side that is the most rewarding to observe.

 

I first did mine during learning to soar at Tocumwal. I was terrified of the prospect and hoped I could find a way out of it. Typically the day came and I was committed and I have to say it was every bit as bad as I had envisioned but I had a good instructor who had convinced me that it grows on you. Once I understood my fear (I was afraid of structural failure not the gyrations - I love amusement park rides!) I was able to get on with the learning. By about the fifth time I was able to shut my eyes for the entry and open them when instructed after a couple of turns and instantly recognise the direction of rotation and the correct recovery action - and enjoy it.

 

 

[facthunter]

IF you think about it, the RAAus aircraft require more actual handling skills than GA, as they are lighter and have smaller wingspan .length and lower wing loadings.( HIGH wing loadings give their own problems at the other end) There is also more variation possible from aircraft to aircraft due to assembly,(Rigging) and mods.

 

Obviously you start with the instructors in this matter. You raise the standard there first.

 

The aircraft themselves are all over the place with design relating to tendency to spin and their ability to get out of them predictably. You will never fund or supervise getting and keeping these aircraft certified. Stay away from spinning anything that isn't certified.

 

At the point where the aircraft is likely to enter a spin, there are (almost) universal recovery techniques available. This is the area to concentrate on, not going into a total unknown where there are so many variables you make coping with it impossible to do well. Note this has been sitting for over an hour so could be a couple of posts out of whack. Nev

 

 

[Bandit12]

Once I understood my fear (I was afraid of structural failure not the gyrations - I love amusement park rides!)

It's ironic but I am not a fan of amusement park rides at all, and yet more than happy to spin. Probably just a control freak!

 

 

[facthunter]

Most of it is not fun unless you are doing it. I don't particularly like passengering around in the back of jets. You have a fighting chance up front.. When some of the students are doing aeros and they are not perfect, (happens) You feel every wrong control application.(However slight) (I'm going back a while with that when things were more gentle). I have never done the gut wrenching negative "G" things they do today. I'd probably bust a blood vessel in one of my eyes if I tried.. Nev

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Good summary Dafydd.In response to your "what can be done about it?" I would suggest it might be an option to have RAAus use some its surplus for funding the spin testing of an existing aircraft to prove its suitability for incipient training purposes.

 

Although they're not tested, certified etc, therefore not legal for spin training at this time, we do have some good Australian aircraft that could be contenders, perhaps with a little modification if it proved necessary, as might become evident during a flight testing program.

 

An example might be the Lightwing. As has been alluded to above, a certain (excellent) Ops Manager was very pro spin training and when we did our CFI training/Approvals with him back then there was no way he was signing anyone off without testing their comfort-zone in spins. A Lightwing was employed for the purpose and it behaved perfectly in the two-three rotations executed.

 

Later I flew extensively with an aerobatic nut (in another Lightwing) and on several occasions lost count of the revolutions after about 15 or 16 and the aircraft recovered in a blink as soon as you relaxed the controls.

 

So the point is that although they might not be certified for it we all know that several existing Australian planes do spin and recover well - granted that all control positions and CG range might not have been explored. Ultralight/LSA planes I've either been spinning in (inadvertently of course) or watched spinning (I'm referring to multiple rotations and on many occasions, not just once or twice) are - Lightwing, Sapphire, Drifter, Thruster Gemini, Hiperlight.

 

How much would it really cost to have a beefed-up one built and tested and available for use by all FTFs on a regular basis i.e. it could be flown around Australia once a year giving everyone in the country a chance to brush up on their skills, and that way all the instructors could be drilled in spins annually [ATTACH=full]25058[/ATTACH] Perhaps the Ops manager/SMS bloke could use the plane as their transport while visiting all the FTFs regularly to check their compliance ...

 

For this purpose it might not be necessary to fully certify a plane for spinning i.e. if it is to be used for this specific purpose then is there really a need to flight spin test it at both ends of the CG range and at all flap settings? Couldn't it be restricted to spinning only when within the forward 30% of CG range and without flaps deployed, for instance? It could be permanently fitted with a spin chute as well as a BRS ...

 

We could even embark on a cost-recovery program by offering spin training for GA students.

It's certainly true that there are aircraft out there that are capable of spinning and recovery, even though they are not formally qualified for it. It's also true that a rather "draggy" airframe would be of considerable help in keeping the speed within limits during the recovery. However, it's also true that things like the Lightwing do not have any accountability for structural fatigue - it wasn't in their design standard, either.

 

It was, I suspect, for that reason, as well as the various issues raised by the increased flight envelope speeds involved, that none of the recreational aviation standards prior to the ASTM standard for LSA, catered for any aerobatic manoeuvres whatsoever. The ASTM standard F2245 -4 allows for essentially a normal-category aircraft to be qualified for intentional spinning; but it makes no provision for either increased speeds in the flight envelope or for consideration of structural fatigue aspects.

 

Therefore, although it may be legally permissible to spin one of these, it's anybody's guess how many times you can do it before the wings come off.

 

So it would be necessary to re-certificate the Lightwing (or whatever) to essentially FAR 23 utility category standards in regard to its flight envelope and its fatigue life. It would probably need some additional structure - so the MTOW would have to increase. By all means start with a configuration that is known to have satisfactory behaviour - but recognise that it would involve essentialy a new TC exercise. Whether or not that could be done under CASR 21 Subpart E (i.e. a supplemental type certificate) is a question only CASA could answer. The concept is sound - but not trivial to achieve.

 

 

[facthunter]

Very difficult to control what the plane would be subject in actual situations. Botched recoveries with excess "G" and Vne problems, plus "GUST" loadings that may add to the whole picture. It's a tin of worms. If you start with a plane built like a brick $#!t#ouse, you are someway there. The requirements are everything a U/L isn't, and can't be. Nev

 

 

[Oscar]

IF you think about it, the RAAus aircraft require more actual handling skills than GA, as they are lighter and have smaller wingspan .length and lower wing loadings.( HIGH wing loadings give their own problems at the other end) There is also more variation possible from aircraft to aircraft due to assembly,(Rigging) and mods.Obviously you start with the instructors in this matter. You raise the standard there first.

The aircraft themselves are all over the place with design relating to tendency to spin and their ability to get out of them predictably. You will never fund or supervise getting and keeping these aircraft certified. Stay away from spinning anything that isn't certified.

 

At the point where the aircraft is likely to enter a spin, there are (almost) universal recovery techniques available. This is the area to concentrate on, not going into a total unknown where there are so many variables you make coping with it impossible to do well. Note this has been sitting for over an hour so could be a couple of posts out of whack. Nev

It seems to me that from the above, the idea that at the very least, familiarisation with how a spin develops and the way to prevent this happening is very much accepted as a necessary part of good training. To me this is completely obvious from the high occurrence of stall/spin accidents with fatal results, and those who argue that 'our aircraft are not designed to handle spin training, so we simply won't do that' appear to be employing the ostrich position.

 

While I personally think spin-prevention familiarisation training in a glider is possibly the best way to go, there are impediments: access to a gliding club is one and the necessity to become a GFA member in addition to the flying costs is probably another.

 

So here's a thought out of left-field: if flight training facilities combined RAA Certificate training and RPL training, they could possibly afford a mix of aircraft that would provide the necessary capabilities. They could operate a mix of say Jab. 120s and 160s (or take your pick of reasonably low-maintenance cost RAA-class aircraft), plus say a C152 for spin prevention training. Pilots from both regimes could benefit from training in the lower-hourly-cost aircraft for a large chunk of their time; the FTF could benefit from being able to offer 'full-spectrum' training at a more attractive price. Could it possibly be suggested that instructors might get the opportunity to assess how well a student pilot can adapt to more than one aircraft, and thus how much of her or his flying is a matter of rote learning vs. actually flying the thing that is attached to the stick?

 

Of course, such a radical move would involve negotiations in good will between RAA and CASA to iron out the anomalies in requirements for aircraft acceptability and pilot 'group' membership between belonging to RAA or being a GA pilot. That would require a common-sense approach - geez, both sides might have to confront the issue of how much difference is there really between flying say a J160 and a C152?

 

Just a thought.

 

 

[facthunter]

Oscar. a suitable plane (planes) would appear to be the way to go. I was going to do it in a Citabria I had but I would rather something stronger, if the plane is pretty much dedicated to this. It's nothing like aerobatic stresses, but occasionally might be. As to a C 152 Getting a bit old surely? plus it just doesn't stick out as "right". I agree with your general line of thinking. Surely something can be got going in this area. Nev

 

 

[kaz3g]

Very difficult to control what the plane would be subject in actual situations. Botched recoveries with excess "G" and Vne problems, plus "GUST" loadings that may add to the whole picture. It's a tin of worms. ...Nev

Exactly, Nev. And what about the poor unsuspecting bastard that flies it after you and the fatigued wing attachments let go on him?

 

We can stall, and we can stall and pick up a dropped wing with rudder, but we can't spin a RAA aircraft, legally or morally.

 

Spin training ought be mandatory for all pilots. Under the new RPL there won't be a student licence and spin training with someone like DJP in a powered aeroplane designed for aerobatics will be available to all of us. Alternatively, those wanting to add to their skills package can go and do some time in a glider and practice forced landings at the same time.

 

Kaz

 

 

[facthunter]

We probably have some aircraft and organisations out there that could cover this. Some may wish to make it aerobatics orientated. I don't see this as necessary, and some people get quite nauseated with some of the aircraft motions, and wouldn't find it too pleasant. There's no real need to do things that may "frighten" people any more than necessary. I've had people scared of a good sideslip. ( NO funnies thanks) but this is really NEW for most of them and I wouldn't want to put anyone off.

 

It is essential that the pupils have complete confidence in the plane and the instructor, and any showing how good they are by doing some "little trick" doesn't go down well sometimes. My brother reckons I did some extreme things years ago that turned him off, in this area, and I can't recall doing anything much at all. Some things we see as docile, might be concerning to the inexperienced. I would like to see a lot of pilots who fly U/L's do this. I can't see that it would require a terrible lot of hours either. You do the extensive briefings on the ground, and reduce the air time. Nev

 

 

[Bandit12]

Some may wish to make it aerobatics orientated. I don't see this as necessary, and some people get quite nauseated with some of the aircraft motions, and wouldn't find it too pleasant. There's no real need to do things that may "frighten" people any more than necessary.

Couldn't agree more Nev. The first time I did it was in an unusual attitudes course. No loops/rolls/stall turns needed, but rather out of balance stalls in landing configuration with lots of wing drop etc, not a nice and slow nose high stall. Recovery based on unloading the wing was an exercise in just how quickly a stall could be recovered.

 

 

[David Isaac]

We probably have some aircraft and organisations out there that could cover this. Some may wish to make it aerobatics orientated. I don't see this as necessary, and some people get quite nauseated with some of the aircraft motions, and wouldn't find it too pleasant. There's no real need to do things that may "frighten" people any more than necessary. I've had people scared of a good sideslip. ( NO funnies thanks) but this is really NEW for most of them and I wouldn't want to put anyone off.It is essential that the pupils have complete confidence in the plane and the instructor ....................

I, like Bandit, couldn't agree more Nev. The critical recognition and responses revolve around this incipient stage, and even that can be frightening for the first time. The frightening aspect can be somewhat offset by a good pre-briefing session. I remember the first time an instructor spun a C150 with me ... it absolutely scared the sh!t out of me in my first response .... of course in my case I went on to do aerobatics ... but for many that initial sensation may be substantially off putting without proper briefing.

I don't particularly subscribe to using gliders for this training in this particular area ( I subscribe to glider training for other valid reasons). Gliders do NOT respond like the powered aircarft we fly in stalls and spins. If we want to have valid teaching the training must be done in similar types with a fan out front or back as it may be. For advanced stall training (as I like to call it), the problem with a Citabria is it is tail wheel and not many are tail wheel familiar. I don't see why a suitable tricycle type can't be found for that purpose and the most similar to type we fly is the C150/152 . Not sure why you have reservations for the C types.

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

I, like Bandit, couldn't agree more Nev. The critical recognition and responses revolve around this incipient stage, and even that can be frightening for the first time. The frightening aspect can be somewhat offset by a good pre-briefing session. I remember the first time an instructor spun a C150 with me ... it absolutely scared the sh!t out of me in my first response .... of course in my case I went on to do aerobatics ... but for many that initial sensation may be substantially off putting without proper briefing.I don't particularly subscribe to using gliders for this training in this particular area ( I subscribe to glider training for other valid reasons). Gliders do NOT respond like the powered aircarft we fly in stalls and spins. If we want to have valid teaching the training must be done in similar types with a fan out front or back as it may be. For advanced stall training (as I like to call it), the problem with a Citabria is it is tail wheel and not many are tail wheel familiar. I don't see why a suitable tricycle type can't be found for that purpose and the most similar to type we fly is the C150/152 . Not sure why you have reservations for the C types.

The main reason I suggested gliders (apart from the availability of spinnable trainers in that area) is that their more gentle entry makes it a bit less disorientating for the first time exposure to such gyrations. I recall my first exposure to an incipient in the Chippie - I had to call a halt to the lesson or I'd have thrown up. The surprise is a major factor the first time. The second time, I knew what to expect, so it was OK. Once one is accustomed to spinning in gliders, one will recognise & react automatically to the beginnings of a spin in anything, I'd have thought. I agree the more rapid response in a powered aircraft (and the differences due to propeller gyroscopic couples between left & right spins) are noticable - but they are not different in the general principle.

 

 

[Oscar]

I, like Bandit, couldn't agree more Nev. The critical recognition and responses revolve around this incipient stage, and even that can be frightening for the first time. The frightening aspect can be somewhat offset by a good pre-briefing session. I remember the first time an instructor spun a C150 with me ... it absolutely scared the sh!t out of me in my first response .... of course in my case I went on to do aerobatics ... but for many that initial sensation may be substantially off putting without proper briefing.I don't particularly subscribe to using gliders for this training in this particular area ( I subscribe to glider training for other valid reasons). Gliders do NOT respond like the powered aircarft we fly in stalls and spins. If we want to have valid teaching the training must be done in similar types with a fan out front or back as it may be. For advanced stall training (as I like to call it), the problem with a Citabria is it is tail wheel and not many are tail wheel familiar. I don't see why a suitable tricycle type can't be found for that purpose and the most similar to type we fly is the C150/152 . Not sure why you have reservations for the C types.

Extremely topical: http://www.avweb.com/blogs/insider/The-Lowly-152-The-Once-and-Future-King-of-Training-220909-1.html. We have people and facilities that could do the same sort of re-furb as suggested over here - if the market appears.

 

 

[facthunter]

David, small point regarding the tailwheel landing. If the student is not proficient, at least he can make the approach and as much of the landing as the instructor is happy with. Landings wouldn't be a necessary part of the basic aim of the exercise in any case. Most of the suitable aircraft will be tailwheel, I would imagine.

 

Since airspeed and direction of turn are essential recognition factors in unusual attitude recovery, I suggest some of this might be done under the hood. In fact it is the only way to be sure the correct analysis of the situation is being done. Nev

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Extremely topical: http://www.avweb.com/blogs/insider/The-Lowly-152-The-Once-and-Future-King-of-Training-220909-1.html. We have people and facilities that could do the same sort of re-furb as suggested over here - if the market appears.

Well, that's certainly more achievable than re-certificating Lightwings. So, it's a GA aeroplane? Bring on the RPL.

 

 

[metalman]

Interesting Dafydd, I've flown a Seeker and thought it was pretty ,,,erm,,odd , heavy on the controls ,didn't fly slow real well( not supercub slow anyway , which is a shame with the focus they have for it),,,didn't go fast either,,,,and having 'zero' yaw control in a stall didn't do much for me ,I'm a low timer so maybe I'm not getting it but having a rudder that's doing nothing in a stall doesn't seem like a plus to me , I'm keen to hear more on it though .

 

we met a while back while you were working on your Blanik at YHBA, did you take up the offer of flying the RV's with the local fella ?

 

Matty

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Interesting Dafydd, I've flown a Seeker and thought it was pretty ,,,erm,,odd , heavy on the controls ,didn't fly slow real well( not supercub slow anyway , which is a shame with the focus they have for it),,,didn't go fast either,,,,and having 'zero' yaw control in a stall didn't do much for me ,I'm a low timer so maybe I'm not getting it but having a rudder that's doing nothing in a stall doesn't seem like a plus to me , I'm keen to hear more on it though .we met a while back while you were working on your Blanik at YHBA, did you take up the offer of flying the RV's with the local fella ?

Matty

When did you fly the Seeker? If it was before the airflow kit was developed, I agree about the yaw control. But with the flow kit, you can pull the stick onto the back stop and still waggle the wings with the ailerons, and wag the tail with rudder. Try that in a Super Cub (I used to fly them a lot for glider towing) and it will flick. I agree it's not capable of Super Cub slow speeds - however its main use seems to be to carry things like FLIR or Wescam under its chin - like a helicopter - which you can't do in a Super-Cub style of aircraft. It's an "industrial weight" aircraft, with a long fatigue life in arduous work conditions - it's a tool, not a toy. And yes, the controls are heavier than I'd like, but I didn't design it. One military user did remark that the heavier controls were a good thing because pilots did not tend to bend things in the control system when they were being shot at - evidently a healthy adrenalin flow makes the controls feel much lighter. It's being used in Iraq for pipeline patrols, so it does get shot at occasionally.

 

No, I've not had time to take up the offer re the RV 10; I've no doubt it's a delight to fly. But horses for courses - the RV is much more suitable for a private runabout; it would not do the job the Seeker does as a surveillance platform. If I had my druthers, the aircraft I'd choose as a personal hack, would be a Maule M5 180. It all depends on what you want the aircraft to do, of course.

 

 

[metalman]

When did you fly the Seeker? If it was before the airflow kit was developed, I agree about the yaw control. But with the flow kit, you can pull the stick onto the back stop and still waggle the wings with the ailerons, and wag the tail with rudder. Try that in a Super Cub (I used to fly them a lot for glider towing) and it will flick. I agree it's not capable of Super Cub slow speeds - however its main use seems to be to carry things like FLIR or Wescam under its chin - like a helicopter - which you can't do in a Super-Cub style of aircraft. It's an "industrial weight" aircraft, with a long fatigue life in arduous work conditions - it's a tool, not a toy. And yes, the controls are heavier than I'd like, but I didn't design it. One military user did remark that the heavier controls were a good thing because pilots did not tend to bend things in the control system when they were being shot at - evidently a healthy adrenalin flow makes the controls feel much lighter. It's being used in Iraq for pipeline patrols, so it does get shot at occasionally.No, I've not had time to take up the offer re the RV 10; I've no doubt it's a delight to fly. But horses for courses - the RV is much more suitable for a private runabout; it would not do the job the Seeker does as a surveillance platform. If I had my druthers, the aircraft I'd choose as a personal hack, would be a Maule M5 180. It all depends on what you want the aircraft to do, of course.

Yeh, adrenaline would change things I'm sure, certainly turns me from cool n calm to a sweaty mess!

last time I went up in a seeker would've been last August, not sure if it had any more mods though.

 

I wasn't mentioning the RV for seeker type ops, but rather to see how they handle engine out approaches, I recall you'd had some issues with them ,but hadn't flown one at that point, my mate made the offer to let you see one in action , he had access to a 6,7 and a 10.

 

The Maules look very capable, the 'Big Rocks Long Props' guy does incredible things in his modded one

 

Matty

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Yeh, adrenaline would change things I'm sure, certainly turns me from cool n calm to a sweaty mess!last time I went up in a seeker would've been last August, not sure if it had any more mods though.

I wasn't mentioning the RV for seeker type ops, but rather to see how they handle engine out approaches, I recall you'd had some issues with them ,but hadn't flown one at that point, my mate made the offer to let you see one in action , he had access to a 6,7 and a 10.

 

The Maules look very capable, the 'Big Rocks Long Props' guy does incredible things in his modded one

 

Matty

No, the Seeker had no more mods since then. What happens is that when the central part of the wing stalls, out to the fences, it causes powerful vortices to be shed from the fences - and at angles of attack just above the initial stall angle, these exert a powerful directional stability effect on the vertical tail, so the sideslip reduces in spite of full rudder. This is part of what prevents it dropping a wing.

 

The concern we (my sons and I) had with the early RVs with the small-span tailplane, was that the flow separation in the wing root area at low speeds, could reduce the elevator authority to the extent that in a dead-stick condition the ability to get the nose up just before touch-down. This was our conclusion following examination of the wreckage of two early RVs following engine failure. The idling engine, in a normal power-off landing, evidently produces enough slipstream to prevent the separation and/of provides a bit more airflow over the tailplane. The later models have larger tailplanes. It's a contentious argument, and it needs a research program to settle the point, but its not a commercial job so far as I was concerned. If RV owners want to pursue it, fine - but I'm not a charitable institution, if you see what I mean.

 

I handled the first-of-type C of A work for the M5 series Maules - and whilst their build standard is as rough as guts, the M5-180C was a very nice balance of really useful practical features; not spectacular, just useful. I have a very short strip, so . . .

 

 

[djpacro]

This Jodel tail configuration suggests strong adverse interference of the elevator on rudder effectiveness if the stick is moved forward during a fully developed spin.

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

[ATTACH]25167[/ATTACH] This Jodel tail configuration suggests strong adverse interference of the elevator on rudder effectiveness if the stick is moved forward during a fully developed spin.

Sure does. This is, of course, why the standard spin recovery procedure is: Full opposite rudder, centralise aileron, PAUSE; EASE the stick forward. The pause is to let the rudder do what it can, before the downgoing elevators blanket it. The problem with that is, that as the elevators start to pitch the thing nose-down from a flattish spin, the rate of rotation tends to increase, (same principle as a twirling ice-skater pulling her arms in), and that increases the centrifugal flattening couple on the fuselage, so the whole business may end in stalemate. That's the main reason why there are aircraft that will not recover from a fully-developed spin.

 

The Chipmunk demonstrates the increase in the rate of rotation, which certainly slows the recovery, but the balance of the various effects is just sufficiently favourable that they will (eventually) recover if you keep the stick hard forward.

 

One of the "remedies" for a marginally-blanketted vertical tail, is "strakes" running forward from the tailplane roots (like dorsal fins, only on the tailplane instead of - or as well as - on the fin. When you see that sort of thing on an aeroplane, you know it had spin recovery problems - or at least, that the designer anticipated them. The Piel Emeraude is an example.

 

 

[facthunter]

Like plenty of others. ie Beech Staggerwing. Your shot shows the effect well and the recommended technique is not to use full forward stick (initially at least). Pilots should be aware of differing techniques for different Aircraft. Note this post got stuck and should have been before Dafydds. My computer has been dying... nev

 

 

[DrZoos]

I think this is worth a watch on Spin recovery

 

www.youtube.com/embed/PBes98c8RSA