Loss of Control - Now and Then.

[Garfly]

5 Sep39 - First RAAF men killed in WW II

 

 

At 10.30 am on this day, five Wirraways approached Ross Smith aerodrome (the civil airfield at Darwin, NT) at the conclusion of a ferry flight from Daly Waters. Aircraft A20-5 was seen to stall while making a gliding turn in preparation for landing and spun into the ground from a height of 100 feet. The two crewmen on board the Wirraway –– both members of the Permanent Air Force –– were killed in the crash. The pilot, 23-year-old Flying Officer Arnold Dolphin, was from the Recruit Training Depot at Laverton, Victoria, and his observer, Corporal Harold Johnson, aged 28, was a member of No 12 Squadron. They were the first fatalities suffered by any of Australia’s armed services since the Government ordered the forces onto a war footing on 2 September, prior to declaring war against Germany the next day.

 

This material is compiled from sources including the Office of Air Force History, the RAAF Museum and the Australian War Memorial.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Loss of Control Tops NTSB 'Most Wanted' Safety List

 

By Stephen Pope

 

Flying Magazine: Jan 13, 2015

 

 

Read more at http://www.flyingmag.com/technique/proficiency/loss-control-tops-ntsb-most-wanted-safety-list#b1pihFLZJjYCPYkx.99

 

 

 

 

 

[kaz3g]

"While airline accidents have become relatively rare in the U.S., pilots and passengers involved in general aviation operations still die at alarming rates every year due to loss of aircraft control by the pilot," the NTSB said in a statement issued this morning.

Between 2001 and 2011, more than 40 percent of fixed-wing GA fatal accidents occurred because of loss of control, the Safety Board said. The NTSB blamed the trend on pilot proficiency standards that are less rigorous than those of airline pilots. The Board pointed to long intervals between flying for many GA pilots, a poor understanding of aerodynamic stalls/spins and the requirement for GA pilots to complete a flight review once every 24 months compared with more frequent training for professional pilots.

 

Read more at http://www.flyingmag.com/technique/proficiency/loss-control-tops-ntsb-most-wanted-safety-list#JJMw43W9Uv4hYxTu.99

Pretty alarming, isn't it? Fatal loss of control is the big killer and the identified factors include inadequate training and poor currency.

 

In my view, the removal of the requirement to demonstrate proficiency in recovering from fully developed spins from pilot training syllabi was an unfortunate decision.

 

Thoughts?

 

Kaz

 

 

[Happyflyer]

Pretty alarming, isn't it? Fatal loss of control is the big killer and the identified factors include inadequate training and poor currency.In my view, the removal of the requirement to demonstrate proficiency in recovering from fully developed spins from pilot training syllabi was an unfortunate decision.

 

Thoughts?Kaz

I'm not so sure. No RAAus aircraft and many training aircraft today are not certified for spinning. I definitely think all instructors should demonstrate spin recovery. Students should be able to recover from a proper wing drop, the precursor to the spin. It appears to me many instructors are scared of losing control when stalling out of balance and unwilling to demonstrate a wing drop let alone teach it. I base this on students of other instructors who make it to me with blank looks on their faces when I discuss this. The consequence of not flying in balance is not stressed or demonstrated. There should be much more emphasis on flying in balance. Many pilots seem to use their feet only for steering on the ground, even worse, some use their feet for steering when in the air and then use aileron to hold off excessive bank.

Unfortunately RAAus aircraft are not allowed to bank over 60 degrees nor have a nose down of over 45 degrees. This limits demonstrating a proper wing drop in these aircraft legally. I think both these values should be increased to 80 degrees but only when with an instructor. If you haven't done it I suggest every on take a trip in an aerobatic aircraft with a qualified instructor and at least explore the wing drop and recovery fully at a safe height. If you can afford it and want to, do an aerobatic endorsement. However remember this will not make you bullet proof. That is proved by the regular deaths of aerobatic pilots.

 

 

[Ada Elle]

Pretty alarming, isn't it? Fatal loss of control is the big killer and the identified factors include inadequate training and poor currency.In my view, the removal of the requirement to demonstrate proficiency in recovering from fully developed spins from pilot training syllabi was an unfortunate decision.

I agree, however:

 

- where would ra-aus schools get the training?

 

- hell, where would some GA schools get the training?

 

I've deliberately asked for spin training in two contexts now (GFA club, aerobatics-teaching school) and I'm really glad I got the experience, but to reintroduce spin training might be dangerous:

 

http://flighttraining.aopa.org/fsb/news/120420to-spin-or-not-to-spin.html

 

 

[kaz3g]

I agree, however:- where would ra-aus schools get the training?

 

- hell, where would some GA schools get the training?

 

I've deliberately asked for spin training in two contexts now (GFA club, aerobatics-teaching school) and I'm really glad I got the experience, but to reintroduce spin training might be dangerous:

 

http://flighttraining.aopa.org/fsb/news/120420to-spin-or-not-to-spin.html

Like you, perhaps, my experience in gliding gave me a different perception to that which appears to be the theme of the U.S. AOPA article.

 

RAAus and most of GA has a limitation that possibly rules out even incipient spins (no rapid changes in attitude and no bank angles greater than 60 degrees) as mentioned in a previous post). But getting some time in a capable GA aircraft is a little easier for RAAus now that a student licence is no longer needed and even just a couple of hours in something like a Decathlon can imprint the basics.

 

If you do a 1500' circuit and can recover from an inadvertent loss of control in a 1000', you should still be flying rather than mining.

 

If the demand was there, the market would soon move to satisfy it.

 

Kaz

 

 

[Ada Elle]

RAAus and most of GA has a limitation that possibly rules out even incipient spins (no rapid changes in attitude and no bank angles greater than 60 degrees) as mentioned in a previous post). But getting some time in a capable GA aircraft is a little easier for RAAus now that a student licence is no longer needed and even just a couple of hours in something like a Decathlon can imprint the basics.If you do a 1500' circuit and can recover from an inadvertent loss of control in a 1000', you should still be flying rather than mining.

1500' circuit??? I don't think that's really... legal's not the word, but advisable, given the potential conflict with overflyers.

 

I don't think you ever needed a student license to take dual lessons, only to go solo. but for rural schools especially, you might not be able to get a couple of hours in a decathlon easily. I don't know what the legalities of an instructor bringing a plane out to a satellite field (with permission of the CFI, of course) to take a club through unusual attitude recovery training would be, but it'd be a great idea.

 

 

[kaz3g]

Sorry, I shouldn't have thrown in the 1500', but even doing a standard 1000' there is still a real chance of surviving that first turn or two.

 

Kaz

 

 

[Ada Elle]

The problem's the turn final, no? so 500-700ft, depending on the shape of your circuit. Mine's gone trapezoidal in an attempt to give myself more time.

 

 

[djpacro]

1500 ft AGL is one of the standard circuit heights.

 

 

[Ada Elle]

1500 ft AGL is one of the standard circuit heights.

... for traffic a lot faster than what I've ever flown.

 

 

[djpacro]

So perhaps overflyers should be higher than 1500 to avoid conflict.

 

 

[kaz3g]

1500 ft AGL is one of the standard circuit heights.

But not for an Auster in most situations...150 knots is stretching the rubber band just a tad too far.

 

 

Kaz

 

I'm in NZ for a bit and I'd never realised how bloody far it is from the north to the south until now. Was going to drive to Masterton tomorrow to have a look at aeroplanes but think I'll just go back down to Ardmore instead. Wanaka will have to be a dedicated visit.

 

My legs have also discovered that everywhere can be uphill in Auckland!

 

 

[djpacro]

Students should be able to recover from a proper wing drop, the precursor to the spin.

Its in the flying training syllabus and an element of the test. So has to be done.

 

Unfortunately RAAus aircraft are not allowed to bank over 60 degrees nor have a nose down of over 45 degrees. This limits demonstrating a proper wing drop in these aircraft legally. I think both these values should be increased to 80 degrees but only when with an instructor.

Those limits are common globally wrt aircraft certification and definition of aerobatics. Any greater bank is starting to risk the limits of demonstrated spin recovery for types not approved for intentional spins. So, them limits are not going to change.

[Happyflyer]

Its in the flying training syllabus and an element of the test. So has to be done.

Agree but is it being done? When I take some people up they act as if they have never seen a stall let alone a wing drop.

 

Those limits are common globally wrt aircraft certification and definition of aerobatics. Any greater bank is starting to risk the limits of demonstrated spin recovery for types not approved for intentional spins. So, them limits are not going to change.

Yes I know, just wishful thinking.

 

 

[Roundsounds]

In my opinion an instructor has no place teaching people to fly if they cannot effectively teach stall recovery involving a wing drop. If the aircraft being used aren't capable of performing such manoeuvres, then they are not suitable as a trainer.

 

As far as spin training for pilots not interested in aerobatics they must be taught, at the very least, to recognise the symptoms of an impending stall / spin. The most common phase of flight I observe as leading to an unintentional spin entry being the turn from upwind to crosswind and from base to final. If an aircraft enters a spin at that point it's all over, so the ability to recover from a spin is of no use. The incorrect use of rudder in climbing / descending turns I see is staggering. The classic is the turn into final during a glide approach - the fear of over banking leads to turning using rudder and holding off bank with aileron - and I see so many people either totally unaware they're doing it or don't see a problem with it. Getting into the right aircraft with a suitably experienced and qualified instructor at a safe height will soon cure pilots of this habit - it only takes one demonstration to get the message home. I also firmly believe spin entry should be taught in a climbing turn - some power, out of balance with aileron input to hold off bank. Too many pilots will recite spin recovery as "opposite rudder and stick forward". The first two vital actions in the event of an unintentional spin entry to effect recovery (in fact all spin recoveries) are throttle closed, ailerons neutral, then you can think about identifying the direction of rotation, applying appropriate rudder input, then unstalling the wings (might involve back stick if inverted spinning).

 

Rant over....

 

 

[Ada Elle]

What's the best way to turn in turbulent conditions, where the wings have been rocking? Do you limit your angle of bank to ward against flipping if the turbulence drops a wing?

 

 

[farri]

Thoughts?..Loss of control is exactly that! Loss of control... More emphases and training needs be placed on not loosing control, in the first place.

 

Knowing how to recover from a fully developed spin, will only be of benefit if there is sufficient altitude for the particular aircraft being flown, to recover. No amount of recovery training will make any difference at an altitude, where the aircraft can`t possibly be recovered!!!

 

Frank,

 

Ps, By the way, I`ve done fully developed spin recovery training in a Decathlon.

 

 

[ben87r]

Isn't recovery from a developed spin part of the GA FIR? All the instructors that I know did spin training as part of it, I just assumed it was required.

 

 

[ben87r]

I have to agree with Farri, spin recovery at 400' isn't going to do much. Ac dependent.

 

 

[djpacro]

Isn't recovery from a developed spin part of the GA FIR?

Yep, now a prerequisite for the FIR is to have a spin endorsement (doesn't entitle an instructor to teach spins however).

[facthunter]

This argument started in the early 60's and It went to control wing drop and don't use aileron to pick up dropped wing. There were FEW aircraft around that could be aerobatted. People didn't DO spins.

 

If you inadvertently get into a full spin, you are unlikely to recover in 1,000 feet especially if you are the kind of pilot who gets into an inadvertent spin. To survive an accidental (distracted?) upset you would have to act quickly and as far as I know no one is trained to do a minimum height loss recovery from an incipient spin or stall EXCEPT in heavy jets where the technique does that. It involves power, pitch attitude and flap selection.

 

One of the first things one should train is recognition of the spin or spiral, because in the very early days the "graveyard SPIRAL" killed more people than spinning particularly in IMC. Nev

 

 

[Oscar]

I don't know whether the requirements have changed, but when I was flying gliders many years ago, recovery from a fully-developed spin was a requirement before going solo, and repeated competence was a feature of check flights. The X-country endorsement required an observed (by an Instructor) solo recovery from a spin with a minimum of three turns in the fully-developed condition. My log-book shows incipient spin recovery training on my third flight - normal stuff for my club.

 

When thermalling, you are always on the edge of spin entry and in rough conditions. You very, very quickly learn to feel the message coming from pressure on the stick that the in-turn wing has stalled at the aileron and to ease the stick forward and kick a bit of opposite rudder. (It's much the same as the feeling from a car's steering wheel that the front end has lost grip and to apply gentle opposite lock to get the tyres back under the maximum slip angle for the grip conditions.) If you are ham-fisted, you lose valuable height and also location of centreing the thermal.

 

When thermalling in a gaggle, every pilot trusts that those above him in the stack won't suddenly plummet down through the stack and if you are climbing through someone higher you can get damn close; there are almost no incidents in a thermal gaggle of which I know, so I believe our trust is not misplaced.

 

Gliders are relatively benign beasts by comparison with some power aircraft. I doubt there has ever been any glider with the homicidal characteristics of, say, a Lancair 320/40/60. So, perhaps, flying a glider where one may - seriously - fall into an incipient spin dozens of times in a single flight, is not equitable to the rare occurrence of that in power flying. Even so, I cannot fathom why training for familiarity with and correct response to the onset of a spin could be considered 'dangerous'.

 

Or, to use current vernacular: "Spins can happen. Learn to deal with it".

 

 

[facthunter]

The outcome was caused by not having spinnible aircraft like the Chipmunks Tigers and Avros. The BIG 3 stopped making them and produced "benign" aircraft that were able to use ailerons just past the stall. I NEVER used that facility. The Victa was strong enough for aeros, but the requirement for spin training wasn't there. Around the world there are MANY airline pilots who have never done a spin. Nev

 

 

[Ada Elle]

Why did the PA38 "traumahawk" fall out of fashion?

 

 

[facthunter]

I've never been involved with them. I don't particularly like full flying tails. Nev