Spin Training

[Oscar]

OscarWhat is the lever (left side of cockpit) that the pilot keeps working?.

thanks spacesailor

Flaps: his aircraft ( as most high-performance gliders) has negative flap position, used to minimise drag when running fast and flat; then in a thermal, you pull a degree of flap to maximise lift at the lower airspeed.

 

 

[Soleair]

That was a trick I pinched off glider wings when I built my MiniMax. The original design uses full span ailerons, but only as ailerons.

 

I reckoned that was not the optimum, so when I designed my pushrod control system, I made the ailerons double as flaps. I have 2 positive flap settings, & I also use a negative for cruise. This sets the flaperons up 6º at the trailing edge. Wins a bit of extra speed.

 

Bruce

 

 

[MikePousson]

I'm a little late to this conversation, but this is my take on the subject. I received my training 50 years ago in the US. Spin training was an intensive part of the training. Within the first 10 hours of dual, a stall and spin was required every session before solo. All this was in a C152. After a couple sessions of solo, a required solo spin was required over the airpark in plain sight of the binoculared instructor. I've had to use that training twice since. I hate to think of the outcome if I was not prepared. It's scary even if you know how to recover from one.

 

With so many planes today, stall characteristics vary from type to type and there are some that are so mild, it's almost un-noticible until it happens. To late then to figure it all out. I've never done an acrobatic maneuver in a plane. It's never been my mission.

 

My nephew is a commercial Ag pilot with a whole lot of hours and has never received spin training. He said he never flies above 700 feet, so he wasn't taught because it wasn't at a recoverable height. Most of his flying is below 300 AGL.

 

Experimental homebuilts are not spin tested, typically. Going into a spin in one that might break up after spinning for a couple thousand feet, probably would be recoverable the first few hundred feet, if you had the knowledge.

 

Get spin training wherever possible. It sure takes a lot of tension out of things when you are right at the envelope.

 

That's my 2¢.

 

 

[Callahan]

Well said Robinsim....Most of these modern day ultralights can take a tremendous amount of abuse. You only have to look at my video on YouTube.... Drifter Flying by William Catalina.

 

If the original poster prefers not to perform spin training then that is his prerogative but I think it could very well save his life one day...and maybe others he has with him. Then again, many have been killed practicing spins. That's why I leave it up to the individual.....not that it's any of my business anyway.

 

I still call all these things ultralights because I began back in the late 70s & fell in love with low & slow flight. I do some wild flying even at 68 but have managed to survive.

 

I think the main value in spin training, and any training in recovery from unusual attitudes would be the confidence for the trainee in their abilities, and the knowledge that, if they ever got into strife in the air, they had the knowledge, and confidence to right the situation if at all possible. Hopefully that would never happen, but confidence in the aircraft and your abilities is a major advantage when flying in other than perfect conditions.

[M61A1]

Well said Robinsim....Most of these modern day ultralights can take a tremendous amount of abuse. You only have to look at my video on YouTube.... Drifter Flying by William Catalina.If the original poster prefers not to perform spin training then that is his prerogative but I think it could very well save his life one day...and maybe others he has with him. Then again, many have been killed practicing spins. That's why I leave it up to the individual.....not that it's any of my business anyway.

 

I still call all these things ultralights because I began back in the late 70s & fell in love with low & slow flight. I do some wild flying even at 68 but have managed to survive.

Most of our "ultralights" over here are lightly built LSAs designed for maximum payload at maximum speed. Durable structure seems be a secondary consideration.

Also our restrictive rules do not allow "aerobatics", which has a very tight definition, unless the pilot has an aerobatic endorsement and the aircraft is certified for it.

 

 

[MikeWebb]

I have started a new thread on this as I think to further the discussion on the thread that it is currently being discussed on is inappropriate. But this is obviously a topic that does require further discussion.I read in several forums here about the need for spin training.

 

Now within RAA are aircraft are neither approved to spin nor probably in most cases tested for it.

 

In the normal day to day flying that we as RAA Certificate holders do why is there a need for spin training.

 

It is unlikely that I would have completed my training if there was a requirement to spin.

 

I do no go on amusement rides that can turn me upside down and as such would not go on a joyflight that could do the same. In fact I have never been in an aircraft that can do aerobatics and am not likely to do so.

 

So is the "perceived" requirement to learn to spin/recover based on the possibility that I may one day inadvertently enter into a spin in an aircraft not suited to it nor tested to it. If that is the case is there some huge hole in my training that could allow me to do something I am not ready for, or is it only likely to happen if I start pushing the envelope.

 

This may seem obvious to some, but to me it seems totally contradictory.

I have started a new thread on this as I think to further the discussion on the thread that it is currently being discussed on is inappropriate. But this is obviously a topic that does require further discussion.I read in several forums here about the need for spin training.

 

Now within RAA are aircraft are neither approved to spin nor probably in most cases tested for it.

 

In the normal day to day flying that we as RAA Certificate holders do why is there a need for spin training.

 

It is unlikely that I would have completed my training if there was a requirement to spin.

 

I do no go on amusement rides that can turn me upside down and as such would not go on a joyflight that could do the same. In fact I have never been in an aircraft that can do aerobatics and am not likely to do so.

 

So is the "perceived" requirement to learn to spin/recover based on the possibility that I may one day inadvertently enter into a spin in an aircraft not suited to it nor tested to it. If that is the case is there some huge hole in my training that could allow me to do something I am not ready for, or is it only likely to happen if I start pushing the envelope.

 

This may seem obvious to some, but to me it seems totally contradictory.

Geoff, I was require to complete spin training many years ago as part of the UK syllabus for a Private license; and again here in Australia for an Aerobatic endorsement. The argument for and against has raged for as long as I have been a pilot and probably even longer. The real, IMO. advantage for the training is to recognize the onset of a spin. Cross controls turning final when low and slow is the classic condition and you would be lucky to survive if it is allowed to develop.

 

 

[ian00798]

Geoff, I was require to complete spin training many years ago as part of the UK syllabus for a Private license; and again here in Australia for an Aerobatic endorsement. The argument for and against has raged for as long as I have been a pilot and probably even longer. The real, IMO. advantage for the training is to recognize the onset of a spin. Cross controls turning final when low and slow is the classic condition and you would be lucky to survive if it is allowed to develop.

You just won't survive it on the base/final turn. It will give way very rapidly and with a surprisingly low nose attitude and you will probably hit the ground before you know what even happened.

 

 

[turboplanner]

You just won't survive it on the base/final turn. It will give way very rapidly and with a surprisingly low nose attitude and you will probably hit the ground before you know what even happened.

Which is a very good reason for the flying training syllabus to include, and instructors to brief students on the causes of spins in common situations where a student might encounter them.

If a student is trained to stay well inside the envelope, in a well designed aircraft, there is less chance of the turn on to final being an issue.

 

That this is not happening, has showed up on this thread, and in my case I've had two instructors who insisted I retrain for crossed controls on final, for crosswind conditions.

 

There's an opportunity here for RAA to improve the safety margin with very little cost.

 

 

[facthunter]

There's little real understanding here, Turbs, so why would the "Management" see it any differently, IF there's no pressure from the members or encouragement from the CASA (who know practically nothing of this matter ) it's going nowhere. You can hammer crossed controls but after a while like all bad habit's it's likely to creep back in, because you can get away with it most times.

 

I've been "ON" about stall/spin and unusual attitudes ever since this forum started, and the response to some very basic aspects is very mixed or non existent.. That's either the fault of my presentation (haven't explained it properly) or lack of interest by the readers in changing any thing..

 

Let me clear up a few things in passing. A spin does not impose excess structural loads on a plane, no matter how long it stays in the spin. You're OK till the ground comes up, and you smack into it at a high ROD. During a well executed recovery you will pull about 2.5 G, in the pullout from the dive you end up in. Most structures will handle that OK, if you are not ham fisted,.

 

If you are in a fully developed spin you need a fair amount of height to recover, though that varies a lot with different aircraft. Might suggest a "ball park" figure of 1500 feet MINIMUM, if asked for the best plane and pitot performance, but don't COUNT ON THAT. It's variable, especially if you don't apply the right technique for that type.

 

WE have correctly identified the turn on final as being the most common place for the problem to happen. That doesn't say it won't happen some other place.

 

RAAus planes are not permitted to perform "intentional" spins. So that covers the legality. They are also not spin certified so their performance/ behaviour is not known. Some responsible companies (like Jabiru) have done extensive analysis of their aircraft's behaviour in spins. I also have no knowledge of any of their planes getting involved with a stall spin event. ( I'm not saying they won't) Cessna 172's are benign but they have killed people too.

 

Your plane (Being an RAAUs type is not allowed to spin legally but that rule won't prevent it spinning

 

Pilot error is a term I consider misleading but a pilot who makes errors because he/she hasn't been taught enough to cover the situation is not to blame. The system is.

 

Benign stall planes generally have restricted up elevator effectiveness and a fairly conservative aft Cof G , but you can change all of that by loading it incorrectly. Nev

 

 

[M61A1]

If a student is trained to stay well inside the envelope, in a well designed aircraft, there is less chance of the turn on to final being an issue.

I suspect that is exactly what IS happening. Most are trained not go near the edge of the envelope and get bitten severely when the do it inadvertently.

 

 

[turboplanner]

I suspect that is exactly what IS happening. Most are trained not go near the edge of the envelope and get bitten severely when the do it inadvertently.

BS! what is happening is that students are going WAY outside a reasonable envelope often with instructors on board, from my personal observations at a number of fields. A good example is with the many 60 degree turns I've seen, circuit after circuit. At 60.01 degrees you're flying aerobatic; that's NOT "not being trained to go near the edge of the envelope."

 

 

[ian00798]

We have a standing instruction for students that any more than 30 and it's time to go around and try again. Having said that, it's not the bank angle that is the issue, it's the corresponding pulling back the stick and increasing the angle of attack while then crossing the controls with opposite rudder that is the issue.

 

Facthunter, I can tell you right now that a 172 has a bite in particular manoeuvres that very few people know about, so even the benign ones will bite hard.

 

While mandatory spin training would be fantastic, I suspect economics comes into it a bit. A lot of the RA aircraft aren't even guaranteed to be able to recover from a spin and aren't certified for it, although I suspect most probably would be recoverable. Frankly I think every pilot should be aeros endorsed, then you actually understand how an aircraft behaves on the limit, but once again economics wins there. But that is the reason the military teaches aerobatics to its pilots, not because they want them to have a lot of fun, but they need people who understand what the aircraft behaves like in all areas of the flight envelope.

 

 

[facthunter]

I think having said "they can kill people too" indicates I'm aware of the worst outcomes.. I've put the 172 to it's limits, on quite a few occasions. It has a lot of washout and the ailerons work beyond the stall. but those characteristics should not be relied on. With a load in the rear it's a different plane and ALL aircraft can bite. I think we are in furious agreement with that.

 

Regarding aerobatics as it's done these days, some would not enjoy them and have some discomfort and apprehension about it. With a good Unusual attitudes format, there's no need to expose anyone to high "G" or any significant or large negative G experiences to fully cover what's required to confidently fly out of any attitudes outside of what's generally regarded as normal .

 

To do this you need qualified instructors in an "aerobatic" certified plane as it's possible to get out of the normal envelope with a student who you must let get into trouble a little or nothing will be learned. That's a fine line in all instruction but there's no safety problem if you have the right plane, the right instructor and the right height. You can't be on the controls too, or there's no confidence achieved. Nev

 

 

[M61A1]

BS! what is happening is that students are going WAY outside a reasonable envelope often with instructors on board, from my personal observations at a number of fields. A good example is with the many 60 degree turns I've seen, circuit after circuit. At 60.01 degrees you're flying aerobatic; that's NOT "not being trained to go near the edge of the envelope.

Call it what you like. Over 60 deg may be your legal envelope, but your aeroplane doesn't know that. Ian nailed it I think with ..."

 

But that is the reason the military teaches aerobatics to its pilots, not because they want them to have a lot of fun, but they need people who understand what the aircraft behaves like in all areas of the flight envelope.

Young Johnny gets a rap on the knuckles every time he banks more than 30 deg in the circuit, so later on, out with his mate, he holds 30 deg and just adds rudder when he overshoots base slightly, still drifting....hold 30 deg, add more rudder and hold off with more aileron , add more back stick 'cause the nose is dropping. Then they're on the news.

So many people have described that exact sequence here, yet we still bang on about the same stuff and nothing changes.

 

 

[facthunter]

Having a limit on bank angle isn't helpful if you are serious about improving flying skills. Those sorts of concepts add more confusion to control issues. Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

Having a limit on bank angle isn't helpful if you are serious about improving flying skills. Those sorts of concepts add more confusion to control issues. Nev

OK then, it's so happened that since about the 1960's almost no one has been prepared to spend the extra money to do spin training in a rated aircraft with a qualified instructor.

I'm not saying spin training is a bad thing; I believe it will enhance your skills as you say; the problem is that what you are saying is irrelevant, because virtually no one has done it for the last 50 years, and, due to the cost no one is likely to do it now.

 

Sometimes you have to be realistic; so if you have a better way based on what I've just said, let's hear it.

 

Aside from this, in the accident which produced this thread, although a some people have drawn some likely conclusions (and I don't disagree with their thoughts), it's still possible that this wasn't a spin accident.

 

And the main period for spin accidents on the turn to final was pre- WW2; ave a look at the statistics.

 

 

[ian00798]

Yes but students don't have the ability to know everything at once so you have to give them some things to work with

 

 

[M61A1]

I'm not saying spin training is a bad thing; I believe it will enhance your skills as you say; the problem is that what you are saying is irrelevant, because virtually no one has done it for the last 50 years, and, due to the cost no one is likely to do it now.

Perhaps if there was less focus on flying the fastest shiniest thing out there, they might find other stuff more affordable....you can do an upset recovery course (GA Aerobatic instructors and aircraft) for way less than the cost of the XC cert, but what do they all do?

You won't come out it with an endorsement, but you will be wiser.

 

Sometimes you have to be realistic; so if you have a better way based on what I've just said, let's hear it.

I have heard a few instructors say "the key to a good landing is a good stable approach", then I read an article by a bush pilot with many thousands of hours, who claimed that the key was "to make a good landing from any approach". (obviously there are times you should just go around) The things have have improved my skills the most have involved practising just that at private airstrips and some LL training, which greatly improves your competence close to the ground, something that you will need on your first engine failure.

 

Aside from this, in the accident which produced this thread, although a some people have drawn some likely conclusions (and I don't disagree with their thoughts), it's still possible that this wasn't a spin accident.

Regardless, whether it was a spin or just energy mismanagement after an engine failure, we seem to see a few (after engine failure) of these that impacted with little forward momentum and considerable vertical energy, and I may be wrong, but that pilots are not being taught to be competent at handling the aircraft close to the ground, and things go bad when it is forced upon them for the first time.The usual comment in the AUF "crash comics" after engine failure used to be "uneventful forced landing carried out", figure out what has changed....

 

 

[Yenn]

One thing that seems to stand out in these discussions is that spins seem to happen from over banking or over use of rudder, while keeping a low bank angle.

 

This points to me that what is really needed is proper use of rudder. Something that seems not to be taught nowadays. I have watched pilots who seem to have no idea of what the rudder is for and absolutely zero idea of slipping a plane. The other thing that seems to be lacking is the ability to control the descent rate properly on final.

 

 

[Dave English]

I would like to throw a different slant on the issue. I know of 2 instructors in the past couple of years who have conducted spin training with students . 3 are dead and one is in a critical condition in hospital. It is not that these instructors were incompetent. Rather, the aircraft they were flying have not been rated for spins. Some of the LSA's are basically scaled down models of GA aircraft like the Pipers. The problem is that the scale is not linear. The reynolds numbers are not the same, so some LSA's have to small a rudder, etc. to get out of a spin easily.

 

I also would like to do some spin training, but I am going to have to wait until I get an RPL so I can do some acrobatics training in a Decathlon with a qualified instructor. I would like to know what the parameters are for my little Zodiac to stall if I inadvertently turn too steeply and slowly on final. It seems to me that it would not be that hard to push the pedal over to increase the turn and inadvertently find myself skidding in a steep turn at too low a speed and at too low an altitude. I dont know how my aircraft would behave in that scenario, and I don't want to find out unless I am safely conducting stalls at an appropriate height. Some aircraft will turn upside down in a skidding stall. I heard recently a Mustang pilot say that the Mustang takes 9000 ft to recover from a stall spin.

 

 

[facthunter]

Well I'm not going to stop trying to get RAAus instructors doing Unusual attitude recoveries to get their ticket. Any pilot who wants to should do it too regardless of whether you get a qualification or not in your logbook. It could save your life. People whose opinion I value the most don't disagree with this approach. U/L's need it more than most, not less as they are harder to fly well and react to windshear/gusts more A rollover can be more likely too.

 

In response to the last post let me make it clear that I've never recommended doing spins in a RAAus plane. You are very much a test pilot then.. Do your U/Attitude training in an aero certified plane only . The way things are it won't be a lot dearer /Hr than some RAAus planes for your normal training. Put an entry in your log book and get the instructor to sign it. The last time I looked you couldn't do spiral demonstrations in an RAAus plane either. Nev.

 

 

[spacesailor]

Not all from turns!.

 

When I crashed my HB, the tailcone bent up at the "C" bulkhead, lifting the canopy against the stop at the bottom of the "keyhole" in the latch piece attached to the canopy. There was no way I could have opened the canopy!

 

Fortunately, there was no fire, and I could wait until someone brought me tools.

 

The cause was "Pilot Error". That's my opinion, I don't remember what the FAA's called it. The engine mount ripped and the engine was only held on be the cowling, both wings were twisted, the back of the fuse ("C"-"E") was all bent,

 

one elevator was bent from backing into a runway light just as the airplane was coming to rest. The cockpit was virtually undamaged! While the airplane was collapsing I was thinking "I feel like I am dropping onto a bunch of pillows".

 

The airplane sacrificed itself to be gentle with me. No scrapes, no bruises, not even a stiff muscle the next day. I have every confidence that the airplane is as safe as any I've seem in a crash: it's slow and doesn't weigh much, so not

 

much energy is there and the airplane crumbles in a way that is quite comfortable for the pilot. Of course a power dive into the runway will ruin you whole day.

 

I had gotten off the ground trying to see what taxiing was like with the tail up, not ready for flight (my bad). The airplane had severe nose up trim and it stalled, I was looking down at the hanger rooftops. It dropped the right wing,

 

caught the tip and cartwheeled. It finally landed flat, but was spinning and that took off one main gear, dropping the wing onto the ground a twisting the wing. Tom Hale.

 

Just another way to bend a good plane.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[M61A1]

I would like to throw a different slant on the issue. I know of 2 instructors in the past couple of years who have conducted spin training with students . 3 are dead and one is in a critical condition in hospital. It is not that these instructors were incompetent. Rather, the aircraft they were flying have not been rated for spins. Some of the LSA's are basically scaled down models of GA aircraft like the Pipers. The problem is that the scale is not linear. The reynolds numbers are not the same, so some LSA's have to small a rudder, etc. to get out of a spin easily.I also would like to do some spin training, but I am going to have to wait until I get an RPL so I can do some acrobatics training in a Decathlon with a qualified instructor. I would like to know what the parameters are for my little Zodiac to stall if I inadvertently turn too steeply and slowly on final. It seems to me that it would not be that hard to push the pedal over to increase the turn and inadvertently find myself skidding in a steep turn at too low a speed and at too low an altitude. I dont know how my aircraft would behave in that scenario, and I don't want to find out unless I am safely conducting stalls at an appropriate height. Some aircraft will turn upside down in a skidding stall. I heard recently a Mustang pilot say that the Mustang takes 9000 ft to recover from a stall spin.

Why do you need to wait until you have your RPL? There is nothing stopping you doing training in GA aircraft with a GA instructor. You just wont have the endorsement.

 

 

[ian00798]

I would like to know what the parameters are for my little Zodiac to stall if I inadvertently turn too steeply and slowly on final. It seems to me that it would not be that hard to push the pedal over to increase the turn and inadvertently find myself skidding in a steep turn at too low a speed and at too low an altitude. I dont know how my aircraft would behave in that scenario, and I don't want to find out unless I am safely conducting stalls at an appropriate height. Some aircraft will turn upside down in a skidding stall. I heard recently a Mustang pilot say that the Mustang takes 9000 ft to recover from a stall spin.

There is a very simple way to avoid a spin, and that is don't increase the angle of attack beyond the critical angle. If you don't stall then you can't spin, and this is all too do with stick position. If you have a lot of bank with crossed controls and that stick coming back well aft you may be approaching the last seconds of your life.

 

 

[Roundsounds]

Smart pilots do RPL, basic aerobatics (which should include UA recoveries and spinning off various manoeuvres), then Nav training.