American Aviation!!
Jim Bergstrom
After reading the previously posted articles of "Spins and Parachutes"
I'm beginning to wonder what is happening south of the border.
This can't be true: no spin training?? Good God! Spin training
ought to be one of the priorities of basic tringing! Lordy! There isn't
a soul north of the border who hasn't spun an aircraft in Transport Canada's
mandatory training program.
I'm starting to worry.. You see, Canada usually follows the U.S. in
Air Regulations, ie (beleive it or not..), ice on wings, etc. If this
country decides that spin training is no longer required, I'm going to
head off to the back woods of Fiji or perhaps Columbia.. :-)
Well, enough said for my second posting on this net...
J.B. WGC 374472
the C in the above ought to be in my wallet by feb. 1st/90.
Jim Bergstrom
Saskatchewan Accelerator Laboratory
University of Saskatchewan Bitnet j...@skatter.usask.ca
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada S7N0W0
Ronald J Wanttaja
>
> After reading the previously posted articles of "Spins and Parachutes"
> I'm beginning to wonder what is happening south of the border.
>
> This can't be true: no spin training?? Good God! Spin training
> ought to be one of the priorities of basic tringing! Lordy! There isn't
> a soul north of the border who hasn't spun an aircraft in Transport Canada's
> mandatory training program.
If my poor wee brain remembers right, the reason spin training was
eliminated in the US was because more people were being killed doing
intentional spins than they figured would be lost due to accidental spins.
It does make some sense. I don't remember ever hearing of a single crash
due to an accidental, *recoverable* spin. Pilots get killed in graveyard
spirals... but they aren't spins, and the root cause is not the airplane.
People are killed in stall/spin accidents, yes... but invariably the
accident occurs at a low altitude precluding recovery. The usual accident
report says "... rotation had just started..." "Approximately one turn
before impacct", etc.
Now, the way to prevent low-altitude stall/spin accidents is to prevent the
stall in the first place. And that is _exactly_ what the US training
philosphy is. I don't care if you can break the spin within a half turn
and recover losing only 500 feet. If you start the spin at 400 feet, you
are going to die. So it's better to be able to recognize the stall entry
and prevent it, eh?
My personal views were posted in an article about two months ago... pilots
should be shown how their airplanes can *bite*, not just how to recover
from gentle turning stalls. I think the FAA cancelled any benefit of the
"avoid stalls=prevent spins" philosphy when they decided that altitude was
controlled by pitch (uh, pardon me: "When power is available and
continuous, power controls speed and pitch controlls altitude"). If a
pilot believes that pitch controls airspeed, the automatic reaction to a
low-speed situation is to shove the stick forward, which'll save more bacon
than shoving the throttle to the firewall. We all learn how stall speed
increases with G loading, but we don't necessarily accept the corollary:
When the stick is shoved forward, stall speed decreases.
Ahhhhh, heck, I went all through this two months ago... sorry about that :-).
Ron Wanttaja
(ssc-vax!wanttaja)
Christopher Pettus
> This can't be true: no spin training?? Good God! Spin training
>ought to be one of the priorities of basic tringing! Lordy! There isn't
>a soul north of the border who hasn't spun an aircraft in Transport Canada's
>mandatory training program.
>
> I'm starting to worry.. You see, Canada usually follows the U.S. in
>Air Regulations, ie (beleive it or not..), ice on wings, etc. If this
>country decides that spin training is no longer required, I'm going to
>head off to the back woods of Fiji or perhaps Columbia.. :-)
It really isn't THAT bad. While I personally think it is foolish not to
require spin training, I think it is much more of a personal liability than
a public danger not requiring spins (I think it is VERY foolish not to
require spins for Commercial pilots). After all, if you didn't receive
spin training during private instruction, just go get some spin training;
while requiring for the private would be ideal, it's an easy problem to
fix.
Personally, I would mind seeing more unusual attitude and emergency IFR
instruction in the private, also; I just bugged my instructor until I got
it.
--
Christopher Pettus | "I used to think the mind was
Network Connectivity Development | the most important part of a
Apple Computer, Inc. MS 35-K | person. Then I realized what
c...@apple.com {nsc, sun}!apple!cep | part of me is telling me that."
AppleLink: PETTUS.C |
Christopher Pettus
>Personally, I would mind seeing more unusual attitude and emergency IFR
Tony Verhulst
>> This can't be true: no spin training?? Good God! Spin training
>>ought to be one of the priorities of basic tringing! Lordy!
First of all, I am a believer in spin training. Before I took
my PP ASEL check ride, I insisted on, and got spin training. And, since my
primary instructor owned a Decathelon and also taught scarobatics, this
was not a problem.
Any way... I believe the FAA stopped requiring spin training because they
concluded that more accidents occurred during spin training than they would have
avoided. I don't know where they got their figures but we know that the
FAA is always right :-).
Tony V.
Andy Johnson-Laird
>
>Any way... I believe the FAA stopped requiring spin training because they
>concluded that more accidents occurred during spin training than they would have
>avoided. I don't know where they got their figures but we know that the
>FAA is always right :-).
>
As a newcomer to the net, I've been watching this dialogue with interest.Just to give you a new angle (and not of attack!) on the topic,
in England, considerable emphasis is placed on spin training, both
for light aircraft and gliders.
One has to demonstrate during flight tests and check rides (aka BFR)
one's ability to recover from both power-on and -off incipient and
full spins.
I got my glider training at Lasham under Derek Piggott and part of
graduation was to be towed to 3,000 agl in a solo sailplane and then,
with Derek watching through binoculars, perform three spins to the
left and three to the right, each a full spin.
Needless to say: a) this process makes men out of boys :-), and
adds a few gray hairs. It's all done wearing a chute, though.
I'm curious as to why the FAA would be so different in the views from
the CAA (so-called "Civil Aviation Authority") in England. We're
flying the same hardware, subject to the same frailties and laws
of physics. I don't believe we lose lotsa pilots in spin accidents
during training.
IMHO I would recommend spin training heartily. Perhaps the most
revealing spin entry in a glider was to simulate (at altitude) the
classic base to finals turn. Fly about 15 to 20 knots above the
stall, bank pretty hard and then put on too much rudder -- just like
one might due if one is too low and cranking around to line up on
finals. Then pull back on the stick to tighten the turn. Boom, a wing
drops and you're in an incipient spin. If I recall, the spin is caused
partly by the weird control surface configuration and partly by the
relative wind exceeding the angle of attack. I learned something
about low tight turns that day.
Andy Johnson-Laird | ===+=== DG-400 N400YE
Johnson-Laird Inc. | \|/
| --o--
850 NW Summit Ave. | / \
Portland OR 97210 | -------=================( o )=================------
Tel: (503) 274-0784 | \ /
Fax: (503) 274-0512 | O
Voicemail 274-0510 | Self-launching sailplane pilots do it by themselves.
Net: {....!tektronix!sequent!jli!andy}
Bruce Lowerre
...
> in England, considerable emphasis is placed on spin training, both
> for light aircraft and gliders.
> One has to demonstrate during flight tests and check rides (aka BFR)
> one's ability to recover from both power-on and -off incipient and
> full spins.
> I got my glider training at Lasham under Derek Piggott and part of
How does one do a power-on spin in a glider? :-) :-) :-)
Randal Schwartz
| How does one do a power-on spin in a glider? :-) :-) :-)
It requires the use of a tow-plane. And the tow-pilot had better be
*pretty* good.
:-)
--
/== Randal L. Schwartz, Stonehenge Consulting Services (503)777-0095 ====\
| on contract to Intel's iWarp project, Beaverton, Oregon, USA, Sol III |
| mer...@iwarp.intel.com ...!uunet!iwarp.intel.com!merlyn |
\== Cute Quote: "Welcome to Oregon... Home of the California Raisins!" ==/
Steven Philipson
> It does make some sense. I don't remember ever hearing of a single crash
> due to an accidental, *recoverable* spin. Pilots get killed in graveyard
> spirals... but they aren't spins, and the root cause is not the airplane.
> People are killed in stall/spin accidents, yes... but invariably the
> accident occurs at a low altitude precluding recovery. The usual accident
> report says "... rotation had just started..." "Approximately one turn
> before impacct", etc.
I've read of many accidents from multi-turn spins that began at
altitude. There are a lot of the low-altitude turn type though, too.
In the latter case, the problem was in stall/spin avoidance. In the former,
lack of spin recovery training was the problem.
I've seen pilots freeze on the controls during a spin when they had no
idea what was happening or how to get the airplane flying again. ALL of
those pilots had no spin training. This leads me to believe that all
pilots should at least be shown a spin and recovery in a suitable
aircraft. The Air Force seems to agree. Fantasy Haven used to get
USAF F-16 pilots there all the time for that training, in GLIDERS.
Ron, I agree that stall/spin avoidance training is necessary, and
that aircraft "bite" should be demo'd too -- nothing is as convincing
as seeing those incorrect control inputs for a simulated approach
result in what would be a fatal spin if it were at low altitude. True
spin training and recovery is valuable too though.
> If a pilot believes that pitch controls airspeed, the automatic reaction
> to a low-speed situation is to shove the stick forward, which'll save
> more bacon than shoving the throttle to the firewall.
Agreed. It's also fun to demo the effects of letting the airplane
get very slow, nose up, then suddenly adding full power WITHOUT adding
rudder to correct for P-factor and torque. This will often produce a
snap-roll. Aerobatics are even more fun on short final! (that's
sarcasm, folks.) Yes, indeed, airspeed control is where it's AT!
Steve
(the certified flying fanatic)
ste...@decwrl.dec.com
Timothy Swenson
>
>
>
> I've seen pilots freeze on the controls during a spin when they had no
>idea what was happening or how to get the airplane flying again. ALL of
>those pilots had no spin training. This leads me to believe that all
>pilots should at least be shown a spin and recovery in a suitable
>aircraft. The Air Force seems to agree. Fantasy Haven used to get
>USAF F-16 pilots there all the time for that training, in GLIDERS.
Spin training is standard practice at USAF UPT. Spins
are done in a T-37 that is designed to stay in a spin. Emphasis
is put on fast spin recovery. The min eject altitude for a
an inverted spin in a T-37 is about 10,000 ft. Not alot of
room for thinking if you are low.
Spin recovery is one of the 8 (?) bold face emergency
procedures drilled in to all student pilots. I know, because
they gigged me on it more times that I'd care to remember.
I can't recall the full bold face (my IP would kill me
if he knew) but the general idea is this:
Idle, neutral (neutralize the controls), aft.
(put the control full aft).
Spinning *right*, needle *right*, Full *left* rudder,
one full turn, nose full down, recover from dive.
Tim Swenson
tswe...@dgis.dtic.dla.mil