CASA set to crack down on spin training

[fly_tornado]

[pmccarthy]

Damned if you do and damned if you don’t. No RAA plane is approved for spins and sounds like CASA interpret this as incipient spins too. Seems reasonable., an incipient spin might develop further unintentionally

 

 

[facthunter]

Going flying may result in you spinning. Be warned. It's Intentional ones that are prohibited. That's what it says on the placard in the plane. OK Got it. It's mainly the unintentional ones that kill you though. Er That seems to be true … SO where are we in all this?

 

Its all a bit of a crock.... The problem started when the big 3 didn't produce planes that permitted you to conduct fully developed spins (in the 60's) like the previously used and up till then available ex service trainers DID.. Quite a few of them were still around but were removed from the list of "approved" Primary Trainers at the time. You could own a perfectly good DH 82 but not be allowed to be trained in it.. This is how it worked. I was there at the time and involved so I know. Also the now almost universal tricycle Undercarriage set up became the norm. and People started to ground loop tricycle gear planes. WTF? How could THIS happen? Wheelbarrowing of course … But I digress. Back to spins and how to NOT do them.

 

Quandary... How do we cover the situation where (perish the thought) people got planes into spins? That would probably happen because they didn't know enough not to and if they did had no guarantee of getting out of it as they have never done, (or been shown) a recovery at any time nor been required to.. You are supposed to do stalls to wing drop recovery and now never go over 30 degrees Bank (emphasized in LAW). so we get people turning partly on rudder unbalanced rather than doing a steeper (Now illegal) turn with Ball in centre BALANCED, if they wish to turn more quickly. . A far more dangerous trend or approach to the job of flying safely We now have pilots who have never done a steep turn or who would be totally confused perhaps even fearful if they ever get in a rotor near a mountain ridge or wake turbulence and end up near vertical bank without doing anything to cause it. An unusual attitude so called. Unusual attitudes in very small planes are not able to be avoided sometimes. Be nice if you can cope with that situation If/when it does. Nev

 

 

[Downunder]

If people are being killed during and because of the training, you have to ask what's the point OF the training?

 

6000 fpm ...... wow....

 

 

[Marty_d]

Maybe there should be a segment of the training syllabus where the student is required to have a couple of lessons in a GA plane and GA instructor where spins and their recovery are the main focus.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

Time in sailplanes should be useful. I was subjected to quite a few spins in Blaniks, some of half a dozen turns.

 

 

[facthunter]

Yes that's about what a Chipmunk comes down at. (ROD in a spin.) It's a bit over 60 knots vertical descent rate . You need spin and unusual attitude recovery in suitable planes for everybody. The way we do it now is stupid. That's the point of my extensive post above. In a past life I did a fair bit (Perhaps a lot) of spin training of others and of necessity myself to do that properly and have never had an inadvertent spin or stall in my life. Without being properly trained I would have died at least a few times. You can't go flying just depending on having enough luck to not need to do the full course. When you are an Instructor and let pupils do enough things to learn properly , that necessarily needs you to be able to "pull a few rabbits out of a hat" now and again.. Barring structural failure or fire as long as you have a bit of height (enough for the situation and type) you should be able to control anything an aeroplane does (3 axis).. Energy management has to be part of the formula.. Nev

 

 

[derekliston]

Back when I learned to fly in the UK, around 45yrs ago, spin training was part of the syllabus (I believe that is no longer the case?) and part of the flight test was the ability to enter and recover from a developed spin, from memory I think 2 turns were required. It wasn’t easy in the first place to get the C152 aerobat into a spin and I am pretty sure it would have come out by itself. I personally think it should still be a requirement. I also did an aerobatic endorsement in a Decathlon as unusual attitude recovery practice, nice aeroplane to spin, also checked out on 150hp Airtourer for aeros, not so nice to spin, steep and fast. What did I learn? a) aerobatics are better viewed from the ground! b) I REALLY don’t want to stall/ spin on the base to final turn, I don’t believe I would be quick enough to recover!

 

 

[pmccarthy]

I did quite a few spins in Airtourers, not at all scary once familiar. Well worth the experience.

 

 

[Marty_d]

It was certainly part of the training 25 years ago in C-172's.

 

 

[kaz3g]

I first learned to spin and recover in Blaniks and other gliders such as the Bocian and IS28. I did a lot of other things in Blaniks too and shudder now when I consider their structural problems identied much later in time. I got my TW endorsement in an old Decathlon BIK and learned to spin, roll and loop it, too.

 

But it’s a long time since then and I would definitely want some instruction before trying again.

 

 

[Thruster88]

It was certainly part of the training 25 years ago in C-172's.

Got my PPL in a 172 in '92 and definitely no spins not even a wing drop.

 

 

[robinsm]

so if you get into a spin accidentally then your st..fed. I always though recovery from unusual positions should be essential for ALL aircraft training. (both GA and RAA.) It would give a lot more confidence when flying in non normal conditions, more confidence in the aircraft, not teaching this is a m,ajor failing as far as I can see. All aircraft can get into unusual positions for a number of reasons and exposure in controlled circumstances is essential in my opinion.

 

 

[planesmaker]

Diamond aircraft, don't ever get in an unintentional spin,the result would be the same. Something wrong with the certification process if aircraft produced today can't recover from a spin. If I was offered a ride in a diamond I think I would pass thanks.

 

 

[Roundsounds]

These fantastic plastic things ain’t that fantastic?

 

Can’t go past the Citabria as an abinitio trainer. Teach pilots how to fly properly and spinable. They’re also still in production.

 

 

[Marty_d]

Got my PPL in a 172 in '92 and definitely no spins not even a wing drop.

They must have been more cowboy-ish at the Aero Club of Southern Tas. We did stalls, incipient spin, full spin (at least 4 revolutions).

 

 

[KRviator]

Diamond aircraft, don't ever get in an unintentional spin,the result would be the same. Something wrong with the certification process if aircraft produced today can't recover from a spin. If I was offered a ride in a diamond I think I would pass thanks.

I believe the certification requirement is recovery from a 1-turn spin, not a fully developed one.

[onetrack]

So CASA's recommended power procedure for incipient spin recovery was incorrect? - and now (after a double fatal), they plan to correct it?? The mind boggles. This must surely lay the groundwork for lawyers to have a field day.

 

"Incorrect guidance

 

While the ATSB assessed that the instructor’s incipient spin recovery knowledge was consistent with established guidelines and did not contribute to the accident, the investigation identified incorrect incipient spin recovery guidance provided by CASA.

 

The CASA publication Flight Instructor Manual, provides the following guidance for incipient spin recovery:

 

RECOVERY FROM THE INCIPIENT STAGE

 

As soon as the aeroplane has stalled and commenced to yaw take the appropriate recovery action. Increase power, apply sufficient rudder to prevent further yaw and ease the control column forward sufficiently to un-stall the aeroplane.

 

Point out that if power is to materially assist recovery action it must be applied before the nose of the aeroplane has pitched too far below the horizon otherwise its use will only increase the loss of height.

 

Increasing engine power prior to an application of sufficient rudder to prevent further yaw and applying sufficient nose-down elevator un-stall the wings as described is inconsistent with established guidelines and manufacturer guidance.

 

The United States Federal Aviation Administration publication Airplane Flying Handbook, Chapter 4: Maintaining Aircraft Control: Upset Prevention and Recovery Training provides the following guidance, consistent with established guidelines, regarding spin recovery:

 

To accomplish spin recovery, always follow the manufacturer’s recommended procedures. In the absence of the manufacturer’s recommended spin recovery procedures and techniques, use the spin recovery procedures in the spin recovery template. If the flaps and/or retractable landing gear are extended prior to the spin, they should be retracted as soon as practicable after spin entry.

 

Spin recovery template:

 

1. Reduce the Power (Throttle) to Idle

 

2. Position the Ailerons to Neutral

 

3. Apply Full Opposite Rudder against the Rotation

 

4. Apply Positive, Brisk, and Straight Forward Elevator (Forward of Neutral)

 

5. Neutralize the Rudder After Spin Rotation Stops

 

6. Apply Back Elevator Pressure to Return to Level Flight.

 

The handbook also provides further guidance regarding power use during spin recovery:

 

Reduce the Power (Throttle) to Idle. Power aggravates spin characteristics. It can result in a flatter spin attitude and usually increases the rate of rotation.

 

CASA advised the ATSB that this matter will be referred to Safety Education for review and correction as required."

 

[/url]https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2017/aair/ao-2017-096/

 

 

[turboplanner]

Its all a bit of a crock.... The problem started when the big 3 didn't produce planes that permitted you to conduct fully developed spins (in the 60's) like the previously used and up till then available ex service trainers DID..

Prior to the big three "flies like a car" push to get families up into the air, spins were a primary cause of death (See Ernest K. Gann's "Fate is the Hunter", so it really was necessary to train pilots in recovery from spins. As a student I dropped a Chipunk out of the sky, and would have had no hope of working out which way was up let alone what to do next is the Instructor hadn't been there smirking.

 

WW2 produced some military aircraft that would drop out of the sky if you blinked. The Beaufighter was apparently one of these, but by the end of the war the engineering of aerodynamics had moved forward a generation, and the Big 3 aim was to have as much of the population doing business and going away on their holidays by air, so the development continued.

 

You are supposed to do stalls to wing drop recovery and now never go over 30 degrees Bank (emphasized in LAW)

I haven't looked to see if there was a 30 degree law, but in GA we were trained on the basis of keeping well away from the edge of the now much bigger envelope by:

 

Using 30 degree (Rate 1) turns in the circuit, with, above 3000 feet a clearing turn, then a power increase then a 45 degree bank. In the Big 3 these required virtually no rudder skills other than leaving it alone.

 

This was based on the principle that rather than touching a 240 volt wire to know what it was like to get a shock; you were told that touching it would give you a shock, so you stayed out of that part of the envelope. It has worked in GA for decades.

 

In RA, the rule is a maximum of 60 degrees, but there's not the same emphasis on why and the aircraft are built to a much lower degree of aerodynamic safety (to save the extra millions of dollars which would make the aircraft non viable financially), so most of the aircraft have issues like adverse aileron yaw which requires training in use of the rudder, and the GA 30/45 degree lessons seem to be missing.

 

we get people turning partly on rudder unbalanced rather than doing a steeper (Now illegal) turn with Ball in centre BALANCED, if they wish to turn more quickly. . A far more dangerous trend or approach to the job of flying safely We now have pilots who have never done a steep turn or who would be totally confused perhaps even fearful if they ever get in a rotor near a mountain ridge or wake turbulence and end up near vertical bank without doing anything to cause it. An unusual attitude so called. Unusual attitudes in very small planes are not able to be avoided sometimes. Be nice if you can cope with that situation If/when it does. Nev

Most recreational pilots will see out their flying life without ever having to do anything other than a 30 degree turn. Airfield circuits are based on that. I'll admit that once licensed I adopted the smart alec habit of using 45 degrees for all turns where people might be watching, but after seeing video which looked like I was doing a lazy 20 degrees, and reading The Killing Field, I've never done one since. But let's say you had an odd airfield in the mountains which was a legal ALA, or you just wanted to feel safe; all pilots including students have access to organisations which teach aerobatics or recovery from unusual situations. The instructors are qualified to teach that level of flying in aircraft which are suitable for that type of flying, and all I've ever heard from people who have taken a few lessons is superlatives.

 

 

[facthunter]

Thinking you can generally do your flying life without exceeding 30 degrees bank is like thinking you can drive a car all your life without getting into a skid. Planes don't fly on rails and the air is "alive" with currents that you generally can't see that can change your aircraft's attitude (and speed and altitude). fast. There are a few "natural" instincts for Pilots that they must be trained to resist.. Fear of being "not straight and level" is out there. There are many times when getting back to S&L comes second to getting a few essentials under control involving speed and AoA. first.

 

Aeroplanes and motorbikes must bank to go around corners. (turn) and the faster you go on the same radius the larger the bank required. A motor cycle runs out of grip on the road at some stage,. the aeroplane needs more lift from the wings so must speed up and/or increase the Angle of attack and /or a component of the thrust. if it's a powered aircraft. If it's not powered it must lose height to obtain the energy to safely turn. there's no other way (without an updraft). A plane can be in complete control at any attitude (unlike anything else you generally associate with). To not be comfortable with this and capable of using your extra training is denying yourself a capacity to deal with something that may happen without you doing anything but just being there. It's criminal (in my view) to NOT train for these situations. Planes rarely PLUNGE out of the sky and you can always do something unless the airframe or controls are damaged or you have run out of height... Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

Thinking you can generally do your flying life without exceeding 30 degrees bank is like thinking you can drive a car all your life without getting into a skid. Planes don't fly on rails and the air is "alive" with currents that you generally can't see that can change your aircraft's attitude (and speed and altitude). fast. There are a few "natural" instincts for Pilots that they must be trained to resist.. Fear of being "not straight and level" is out there. There are many times when getting back to S&L comes second to getting a few essentials under control involving speed and AoA. first.

 

Most students are not mechanically minded, they come from all walks of life including Doctors, lawyers, business owners etc. so they don't usually have a fixation with 30 degrees of bank or wanting to fly straight and level. They are just taught to fly well inside the envelope and during the teaching fatality rates are the lowest.

 

Sure, what you're saying is correct if you want to fly a twitchy aircraft like the ones you described, or for some reason you wanted to turn sharp corners, but why are you promoting activities that the industry isn't training for? Where's that going to send the fatality rate?

[M61A1]

if you want to fly a twitchy aircraft like the ones you described, or for some reason you wanted to turn sharp corners,

Is there another reason for wanting to fly?

 

 

[facthunter]

I'm not promoting activities the Industry isn't training for and I cant see how you could take that position from what I've said. I'm suggesting the training is not adequate in some, perhaps MOST cases. when accidents result. Smaller aircraft are more lively the way they respond to turbulence etc of course, but ALL aircraft are affected by things like rotors and dust devils with or without the dust and wake turbulence..etc. even large aircraft can have an upset . Their stall margins are not great and autopilot use can be big factor ie a risk, if it's not done safely. That's another story though.

 

I've watched trends and throughout my aviation life have been involved with accident analysis and pilot responses, performance standards operating procedures and safety. Safety has been my priority throughout. My comments here now and at all times in the past reflect that..

 

When the 30 degrees discussion came about I KNOW people were just ruddering to speed up the rate of turn rather than increase the bank angle in a balanced turn. There are times when a max rate turn is needed and it's got to be done safely. Our stall training is not adequate. I challenge anyone to prove it is. It just permits the "subject" to be ticked off as covered and most consider their planes stall speed to be say 63 knots and don't vary that when conditions are different. like weight variation for example and C of G position Forward C of G raises stall speed too because tailplane down load is an extra lift need. When the plane is very light if you don't reduce your over the fence (threshold) speed you will float excessively or risk wheelbarrowing if you try to force the plane onto the ground.

 

People crash when they don't need to for various reasons. Inadequate training or confusion about basics is not a factor that we should tolerate. Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

I'm not promoting activities the Industry isn't training for and I cant see how you could take that position from what I've said. I'm suggesting the training is not adequate in some, perhaps MOST cases. when accidents result.

I'm not making any other case than what you have just written.

 

 

[Love to fly]

 

Just curious why this thread is in this Forum. 'Trips, events, seats' doesn't seem the best place for this?