Spin Training

[Roundsounds]

One of the things that gets up my nose is the requirement to conduct flight reviews under a Part 141/142 certificate holder. I know there's provision to do it independently, however if there is to be any training input you must do it under a certificate. No doubt there are work-arounds, but they never hold up in court.

 

One of the sales pitches for Part 61 was the ability to conduct a range of flight training activities independently, including flight reviews.

 

ICAO only require a training under certificate if you're doing multi-crew or integrated training, but CASA thought they knew better!!

 

I cannot see a problem with abinitio training by appropriately rated instructors without the requirement to hold a Part 141 certificate. Independent Flight tests would sort out whether an appropriate standard was being achieved. As is the case in the USA.

 

 

[djpacro]

A couple of examples of what can go wrong when there is plenty of height but the initial actions just made things worse instead - one of the hazards of being an instructor.

 

The Cirrus Investigation: AO-2014-083 - Loss of control involving a Cirrus SR22, N802DK, near Katoomba, NSW on 10 May 2014

 

The PIC then took control of the aircraft and stated ‘watch this’. He selected 50% flap, rolled the aircraft into a left turn at about 25° angle of bank, reduced the power to idle, and raised the nose of the aircraft. The passenger in the front seat queried the use of flap and the PIC confirmed it was intended. As the aircraft approached the stall, the PIC pointed to the vertical speed indicator. As he did this, the right wing dropped rapidly and the aircraft entered a spin to the right. The PIC reported that at this time he performed his normal recovery procedure from this manoeuvre: maintained a neutral aileron control position, applied forward pressure on the control stick to pitch the aircraft nose down, rudders neutral and applied power. He reported that he moved the throttle lever forwards to increase power however there was a distinct hesitation in the engine response.The passenger in the front seat reported that on about the third rotation of the spin, the PIC said ‘I’m sorry’, and he realised that the PIC had lost control of the aircraft. The passenger in the front seat reported that he applied full left rudder in an attempt to counter the rotation.

 

As the rate of rotation to the right slowed, the passenger in the front seat felt the PIC apply right rudder, and the aircraft again accelerated rotating to the right. When about 2,000 ft above ground level, the PIC was unsure whether he then had enough height remaining to recover control of the aircraft, and elected to deploy the parachute. He reported that at this stage, he said ‘I’m sorry’.

And the Sportscruiser NTSB Prelim: LSA Checkout/Stall Series Turns Into Spin | Aero-News Network

 

While flying about 2,500 feet mean seal level (msl); the pilot initiated a power-off stall. At the onset of the stall, he added power, the airplane “yawed left,” he applied right rudder and the airplane “snapped into a tight spin to the left.”The instructor announced that she had the flight controls, and the pilot released the controls. The instructor verbalized her spin recovery control inputs as she performed them, but the airplane continued to spin and lose altitude. The airplane eventually stopped spinning, and during the post-spin dive recovery, the airplane struck trees and terrain, and came to rest inverted.

 

The flight instructor was interviewed by telephone and also provided a written statement. Her statement was consistent with the pilot’s. Both she and the pilot stated that it was a “surprise” how quickly the airplane rolled into the spin after the stall. Each of them also described the handling characteristics of the airplane as “touchy” and “sensitive” to control inputs, but during slow flight the controls were “mushy.”

[Love to fly]

A couple of examples of what can go wrong when there is plenty of height but the initial actions just made things worse instead - one of the hazards of being an instructor. | Aero-News Network

The PIC reported that at this time he performed his normal recovery procedure from this manoeuvre: maintained a neutral aileron control position, applied forward pressure on the control stick to pitch the aircraft nose down, rudders neutral and applied power.

 

I'm challenged again. The instructor was PIC. And the initial actions taken be him were as above. Methinks this might have been one of the hazards of being a passenger. Or am I reading this wrong.

 

 

[Oscar]

Is this a typo? 'Rudders neutral?'

 

Perhaps I have missed something, but from my reading of this accident, it was stated that 'ailerons neutral, right rudder applied'. That is my understanding of a 'normal' spin recovery (stick forward, opposite rudder to the direction of spin, ailerons neutral).

 

It was what I was trained to do on gliders and always worked; I could not think of how many times I have used the 'kick it opposite, stick forward, centre the ailerons' when I could feel the glider dropping into an incipient spin when in a rough thermal. It becomes a 'muscle memory' response when you are clawing for height, you don't even think about it ( other than to curse the loss of maybe 100 feet and needing to re-centre the thermal..) When in a close gaggle of other gliders in the same thermal, you can't look at your instruments, you watch the others around you and rely on the feeling you get through the stick, your feet, and the seat of your pants. AND - you rely on those above you also being fully-competent to NOT lose control - and those below you rely on you..

 

The CAW Sports Cruiser had one of the worst accident records in the USA survey reproduced at: http://www.jabiru.net.au/images/The%20Aviation%20Consumer%20-%20LSA%20Accidents.pdf

 

Worst for fatals, and Bristela designs (CAW and Evektor) were in the top three in every accident category. So far out on the right-hand side of the Bell curve for 'dangerous' that it is not even vaguely representative of the general level of safety for LSA-class aircraft. Should it be a wonder that Piper got out of being the distributor for a Bristela design after selling 54 aircraft?

 

However, what relevance is this to the thread topic?

 

I would suggest, that the relevance is: if the aircraft you fly (or are intending to fly) has markedly different characteristics to anything on which you have learned spin recovery ( or incipient spin recovery), then you should NOT assume that your training will suffice. I suggest that someone like djp has the expertise to properly comment on this, ( since I do NOT), but I suspect that having been trained tor spin recovery on, say, a Victa would not be sufficient to guarantee that if stepping into a Chipmunk - let alone a Pitts S12 - you could be assured that your training would help you.

 

As a side-note: the ASTM standard requires that a 'conventional' spin recovery will be sufficient: if that is NOT so for an ASTM certified aircraft, then I believe the manufacturer/designer has some very, very seriously important legal questions to answer.

 

 

[Love to fly]

Is this a typo? 'Rudders neutral?'Perhaps I have missed something, but from my reading of this accident, it was stated that 'ailerons neutral, right rudder applied'. That is my understanding of a 'normal' spin recovery (stick forward, opposite rudder to the direction of spin, ailerons neutral).

Not a typo if you read the ATSB report linked above by djpacro. The sentence I posted in italics is a cut and paste from the report. Hence the comment I made. And yes my understanding of a normal spin recovery aligns with yours.

 

 

[Oscar]

My apologies - you were referring to the ATSB report on the Cirrus, I was thinking the NTSB report on the Sport Cruiser.

 

It's not productive to enter the debate about whether Cirrus aircraft are even remotely aerodynamically safe, since the first and only option in a spin situation is pulling the BRS, their accident record speaks for itself.

 

However, LSA aircraft are SUPPOSED to be spin-recoverable by 'normal' recovery techniques.

 

 

[rgmwa]

However, LSA aircraft are SUPPOSED to be spin-recoverable by 'normal' recovery techniques.

RV-12 spin testing:

 

rgmwa

 

 

[MikeWebb]

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.

I think that is what I said?

 

 

[Oscar]

RV-12 spin testing:

 

To me, that is exactly what a well-designed aircraft should do. The spin entry is unmistakable and the aircraft's reaction to corrective action is impeccable.

 

 

[djpacro]

..... I suggest that someone like djp has the expertise to properly comment on this, ( since I do NOT), but I suspect that having been trained tor spin recovery on, say, a Victa would not be sufficient to guarantee that if stepping into a Chipmunk - let alone a Pitts S12 - you could be assured that your training would help you....

Exactly.

 

As a side-note: the ASTM standard requires that a 'conventional' spin recovery will be sufficient: if that is NOT so for an ASTM certified aircraft, then I believe the manufacturer/designer has some very, very seriously important legal questions to answer.

A manufacturer should do a very comprehensive series of tests to demonstrate compliance so it is not cheap.http://www.flighttestsafety.org/images/stories/workshop/2010/07-Sky_Catcher_Flight_Test_Spin_Testing.ppt

Some don't get it right, like the Piper Tomahawk Darren Smith's CFI Homepage Flight Instruction Website Tampa

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

I'm curious why doing some spin training in a glider is not recommended, even by the knowledgeable guys here who have done lots of gliding.

 

Surely its a relatively cheap way to at least experience a spin, not to mention the engine-out experience.

 

Not that I like the idea of introducing more regulations and restrictions by making this compulsory, but I personally recommend it to power pilots around my club.

 

 

[kaz3g]

I was checked out in a Tomhawk about 10 years ago and quickly learned that glide approaches are not a good idea. Elevator authority was lost at a little above 60 knots and it stalled while still about 6' from the ground ... It needed the additional airflow of the prop to flare properly.

 

I didn't feel comfortable and haven't flown one since.

 

Kaz

 

 

[Yenn]

Kaz. I have only flown the Tomohawk once and did my usual glide approach, actually it was a simulated engine failure. No problems, but I can't remember the speed, only that it flared nicely and landed just about where I wanted it to.

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

Kaz. I have only flown the Tomohawk once and did my usual glide approach, actually it was a simulated engine failure. No problems, but I can't remember the speed, only that it flared nicely and landed just about where I wanted it to.

It depends a lot on how the plane is loaded at the time. With a CG near the aft limit it's fine, but with a forward CG you can run out of elevator authority at quite a high airspeed if you don't have the elevator in propwash. In that case it's not so much that it stalls at a higher speed, in fact it doesn't reach the stall at all, but the nose will drop even with full up elevator.

 

Different flap settings will affect it too ...

 

 

[Oscar]

Exactly.A manufacturer should do a very comprehensive series of tests to demonstrate compliance so it is not cheap.

 

http://www.flighttestsafety.org/images/stories/workshop/2010/07-Sky_Catcher_Flight_Test_Spin_Testing.ppt

 

Some don't get it right, like the Piper Tomahawk Darren Smith's CFI Homepage Flight Instruction Website Tampa

Two very, very useful sources of information.

 

The Sky Catcher one, is most interesting: if you look at the progression of the design changes, you can see the quite large addition of vertical tail-surface area required to get the thing to an acceptable situation. And that is for testing at (if I remember correctly), 32% of MAC.

 

Those of an enquiring mind seeking to understand why Milan Bristela designs feature so badly in accident statistics, might like to overlay a profile view of the CAW Sports Cruiser, the Piper Sports and the Bristell, onto the Skycatcher profile. And they might like to wonder whether an aft c/g position of 38% of MAC for the Bristell is entirely a wise decision. An expert aerodynamacist will tell you that there are additional questionable factors, such as the absence of decent wing-root fillets in the Bristell.

 

That Cessna could get a new design so far wrong, is a mystery. However, the referenced .ppt demonstrates that they did the testing, found the problems, eventually fixed them.

 

Down here, in our own little corner of world aviation, Jabiru produced thousands of aircraft in the same class. None were lost in testing; none have inexplicable crashes from dubious aerodynamic performance.

 

That isn't just from luck.

 

 

[ian00798]

Kaz. I have only flown the Tomohawk once and did my usual glide approach, actually it was a simulated engine failure. No problems, but I can't remember the speed, only that it flared nicely and landed just about where I wanted it to.

If you fly it at 70 knots until the flare it does just fine. It's a T tail so the prop wash has significantly less effect on it than most aircraft.

 

 

[kaz3g]

Yes...it probably does but that's a lot faster than 1.3 x Vs (47) = 61 knots and no doubt makes for a much longer landing roll.

 

Kaz

 

 

[ian00798]

Yes...it probably does but that's a lot faster than 1.3 x Vs (47) = 61 knots and no doubt makes for a much longer landing roll.Kaz

Your in a glide approach, should be flying best glide which is your best lift to drag ratio and that is 70 knots as per the POH. Flying a glide approach at 60 knots in a tomahawk will damn near kill you if you get unlucky. The rest of the speed will wash off in the flare after the glide. Remember, better going off the end of the field at 20 knots than going in upside down short of the field

 

 

[kaz3g]

And when the speed washed off to a little more than 60 knots, I lost elevator authority and it stopped flying with a fairly inelegant bump.

 

Subsequent powered approaches at the book 65 knots with flaps all the way to the flare were fine.

 

Kaz

 

 

[ian00798]

And when the speed washed off to a little more than 60 knots, I lost elevator authority and it stopped flying with a fairly inelegant bump.Subsequent powered approaches at the book 65 knots with flaps all the way to the flare were fine.

 

Kaz

So you had what some would call a bad landing, it must be the aircrafts fault? The elevator authority has been fine on every tomahawk I have ever flown, not that I haven't landed with inelegant bumps, but that was all down to me.

 

 

[kaz3g]

So you had what some would call a bad landing, it must be the aircrafts fault? The elevator authority has been fine on every tomahawk I have ever flown, not that I haven't landed with inelegant bumps, but that was all down to me.

Just telling you what the CFI told me...I guess I was silly to believe him.

 

Kaz

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

Kaz and ian, your differing experiences could well be due to flying at different weights. Two big people could well have the experience kaz had.

 

 

[SDQDI]

:popcorn:Ooooh boy this is going to be fun to watch, it was interesting enough when Ian had a dig at Kaz's piloting skill but now Bruce is having a dig at her weight? A braver man than me is Bruce:peep wall:

 

 

[facthunter]

With the rudder out of the propwash it's not a lot different to having the engine back at idle. The T tail should avoid a lot of the disturbed air you get at the tailfeathers at high angles of attack. Reduced elevator effectiveness may catch you out but it doesn't mean you have run out of elevator until you have actually used all that's available. ie stick fully back. This usually only happens with a taildragger when you are trying to get and keep the tailwheel on the ground to get the maximum benefit of the steerable tailwheels contribution to directional control. Having the stick fully back at any other time should have your full attention. Nev

 

 

[djpacro]

Fig 9-5 here suggests a factor: http://www.fzt.haw-hamburg.de/pers/Scholz/HOOU/AircraftDesign_9_EmpennageGeneralDesign.pdf - effect of wing wake (and also changes in wing downwash).

 

See also fig 9-3 to get back on topic. Worth thinking about if you are selecting an aeroplane to be used as an ab initio trainer doing CASA's new advanced stalling exercises.