Why don't american private pilots learn spins?
Sébastien Allard
the american flight training program only teaches spins on an advaced
manoeuver course of some sort, but not on you private pilot lessons. Why is
that? Are commercial pilots required to lean spin entry and recovery?
I've done my glider and private pilot liscences in Canada, and I've learned
spin entry/recovery for both these courses. I am not affraid of entering
one accidently because I know how the airplain reacts to them and I know how
to recognise their symptoms and characteristics.
Don't you think that american pilots should learn this skill as well?
Cheers,
Sébastien Allard
L Smith
I expect you will receive enough replies to you question to keep you in
reading
for hours.
At one time (as I understand it), spins were a required part of the private
pilot syllabus. The accident record (apparently) suggested that students weren't
learning the lessons - or that they were over-confident and therefore were
getting themselves in trouble. It was decided that students should be
taught how to recognize and avoid getting into a spin, and that if they
learned this they wouldn't get into a spin in the first place - so they wouldn't
need to learn how to recover from one.
My personal feeling is that if something bad can happen, chances are it
will sooner or later. Thus, while I don't intend to get into a spin situation
I want to have at least experienced the recovery procedure. Thus, if and
when I "get back in the saddle" I intend before my training is through to
get some spin awareness training.
Rich Lemert
'Vejita' S. Cousin
Sébastien Allard <s22...@rmc.ca> wrote:
>I've been reading a few posts from these newsgroups and it seems to me that
>the american flight training program only teaches spins on an advaced
>manoeuver course of some sort, but not on you private pilot lessons. Why is
>that? Are commercial pilots required to lean spin entry and recovery?
The short verison goes that spin training was once required, but that
more accidents happened during spin training than actually happened 'in
the real world.' Since you have to first stall before entering a spin
(and not all planes are approved for spins) that we should focus on 'stall
avoidance & recovery' instead of actually doing spins.
Spin training is required for the CFI certificate.
I'm a newbie (~200hrs) and have meant several other newbies (and many
'old timers) that have never been in a spin. I decided to go up in a C150
aerobat and do some stuff (with CFI): spins, loops, rolls, snap rolls,
etc. Basic stuff. Spins really are no big deal, and recovery (at least
in the aerobat) wasn't even really necessary. Made me want to find a
'real' aerobatic plane to do more. But there's nothing close by...
ArtP
wrote:
> My personal feeling is that if something bad can happen, chances are it
>will sooner or later. Thus, while I don't intend to get into a spin situation
>I want to have at least experienced the recovery procedure. Thus, if and
>when I "get back in the saddle" I intend before my training is through to
>get some spin awareness training.
The trouble with spins, is that most unintentional ones occur too
close to the ground to recover. When you have enough altitude to
recover from a spin, you are probably cruising and a spin under those
conditions would be very unusual. In the pattern where spins are more
likely to occur you should be trained to avoid stalls (a perquisite
for a spin). If you want additional training get it is stall
recognition and avoidance not in spin recovery.
LRAV8R / PilotShop.com
I vividly remember going out to the practice area solo to practice maneuvers
and stalls. I probably had 20-25 hours. From a deep stall, the aircraft
snapped over and began to spin. A total surprise that injected probably a
pint of adrenalin into my blood.
I have always wondered why spin training was eliminated when it is a
predicament that an aircraft can enter from a required maneuver, a stall.
Many CFI's will still do at least a demonstration of spin recovery for their
students. It isn't so much that students should go out and practice
spinning the aircraft. More importantly, they should be exposed to spin
recognition and learn quick response to recover and to not aggravate the
spin.
If you do decide to practice spin recovery, I'd recommend starting in a
Cessna 152 or 172. They're very forgiving and it will still get the point
across. Also, have a bunch of altitude -- 5 - 6 K. You will lose it
quickly with this training.
Dave
--
Dave Koch
PilotShop.com, Inc
Columbus, Ohio 43081
www.pilotshop.com
"Sébastien Allard" <s22...@rmc.ca> wrote in message
news:3dadf1c5$1...@rmcnt03a.rmc.ca...
Bob Gardner
the private then or since.
Bob Gardner
"LRAV8R / PilotShop.com" <NOSPA...@NOSPAMpilotshop.com> wrote in message
news:%Qnr9.66206$kF.10...@twister.columbus.rr.com...
'Vejita' S. Cousin
>The trouble with spins, is that most unintentional ones occur too
>close to the ground to recover. When you have enough altitude to
>recover from a spin, you are probably cruising and a spin under those
>conditions would be very unusual. In the pattern where spins are more
>likely to occur you should be trained to avoid stalls (a perquisite
>for a spin). If you want additional training get it is stall
>recognition and avoidance not in spin recovery.
This is true, but I think I learned a lot (or a bit at any rate) but
slowlying down (at altitude) and trying to fly the pattern UNTIL I entered
a spin. Which took a lot more 'effort' than I would have thought. Not
that I have any desire to 'push the limits' of my plane (rental C152 and
C172) but it's good to actually do these things rather than keep them all
'in theory' or 'on paper.'
LRAV8R / PilotShop.com
required by the FAR's in 1980 now that you pose the question. I trained at
a 141 school and it was a part of the curriculum. If they weren't required
by the FAR's, then it was a school policy.
--
Dave Koch
PilotShop.com, Inc
Columbus, Ohio 43081
www.pilotshop.com
"Bob Gardner" <bob...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:cAor9.70107$NW3.16233@sccrnsc03...
Hilton
> Spin training is required for the CFI certificate.
Unfortunately that's not *really* correct. A spin endorsement is required
for the CFI certificate. :) :( <--pick one
I did a full weekend of spinning etc with Rich Stowell - highly recommended.
I particularly liked the unusual attitude he gave me - a snap roll while
inverted into a spin - yeah! I know of people getting the endorsement
because they were in plane that the CFI spun (incipient) once.
Hilton
Dave Stadt
"LRAV8R / PilotShop.com" <NOSPA...@NOSPAMpilotshop.com> wrote in message
news:Qwqr9.66383$kF.10...@twister.columbus.rr.com...
Andrew Sarangan
caused more accidents than what it prevented. I cannot verify the
validity of this.
I trained in Canada, so was taught spin entry and recovery and had to
do it on my checkride. Although it was a lot of fun, I cannot say that
it was all that useful as a training exercise. Perhaps a spin
demonstration would have been sufficient. Spin recognition and
prevention is more useful than spin recoveries.
Although spins are not required in the U.S. I make it a point to
demonstrate spins to all my students. The idea is to show them that an
uncoordinated stall leads to bad things.
"S bastien Allard" <s22...@rmc.ca> wrote in message news:<3dadf1c5$1...@rmcnt03a.rmc.ca>...
David Mack
that I got my private at it required a lesson with a CFI on spin entry
and recovery. I was glad that they did...I feel more comfortable
with stalls knowing I can get myself out of a spin if a stall or
near-stalling maneuver goes bad.
David
"S bastien Allard" <s22...@rmc.ca> wrote in message news:<3dadf1c5$1...@rmcnt03a.rmc.ca>...
Ron Natalie
"LRAV8R / PilotShop.com" <NOSPA...@NOSPAMpilotshop.com> wrote in message news:Qwqr9.66383$kF.10...@twister.columbus.rr.com...
> Yes, it was in the US -- Cleveland. I can't honestly remember if they were
> required by the FAR's in 1980 now that you pose the question. I trained at
> a 141 school and it was a part of the curriculum. If they weren't required
> by the FAR's, then it was a school policy.
>
by either the 141 school or the FAA. My whacko flight instructor decided they'd
be fun after I mastered recovering from stalls.
The FAA removed the requirement for spin training for private pilots in 1949!
Ron Natalie
"Hilton" <hiltong...@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:aoln1e$72m$1...@slb2.atl.mindspring.net...
> 'Vejita' S. Cousin wrote:
> > Spin training is required for the CFI certificate.
>
> Unfortunately that's not *really* correct. A spin endorsement is required
> for the CFI certificate. :) :( <--pick one
>
the training AND endorsed that he is proficient.
Slav Inger
>
> Don't you think that american pilots should learn this skill as well?
>
Spin recovery training isn't required for the PPC, but shortly after
getting my certificate I went through it voluntarily. My school was
advertising it saying that it's valuable experience, I figured it won't
hurt to learn something new and signed up.
- Slav Inger, PP ASEL & instrument student (Archer II)
* Video rentals: http://www.justplanevideos.com
* WX: http://adds.aviationweather.noaa.gov
* Hands-on: http://www.whittsflying.com
Michael
>
> Unfortunately that's not *really* correct. A spin endorsement is required
> for the CFI certificate. :) :( <--pick one
Yeah, some bright boy decided that it was important to have a CFI take
his checkride in a retractable gear airplane. Spinnable retracts are
pretty rare, so in the interest of being able to get the ride done in
one airplane, the inspector can now accept an endorsement rather than
having the candidate actually spin.
> I did a full weekend of spinning etc with Rich Stowell - highly recommended.
> I particularly liked the unusual attitude he gave me - a snap roll while
> inverted into a spin - yeah!
I did spins to headings in a glider. Energy management at its best.
Highly recommended.
> I know of people getting the endorsement
> because they were in plane that the CFI spun (incipient) once.
When I took my initial CFI ride, the inspector and I had that
discussion. He said he could always tell which ones they were,
because cross-controlled full stalls made them nervous, and they
tended to either recover prematurely or sloppily. When he saw that,
he would flunk them on stall and spin awareness. Then they had to
spin on the checkride, whether they did it with him or not. Wise man.
You can talk all you want about how spins happen too low to recover,
but I know a pilot who spun on final in a glider - and recovered. The
glider was a total loss, because he used up all his altitude and
landed in a junkyard - but he landed instead of crashing, and lived to
fly another day.
I also know a pilot who spun out of slow flight as a student. He was
able to recover, though he lost about 1500 ft doing it. We won't
discuss the state of his shorts after the fact, but I'll take totaled
shorts over a smoking hole any day.
I don't care what the FAA says - I won't solo a student who hasn't
spun.
Michael
Hilton
> Hilton wrote:
> > 'Vejita' S. Cousin wrote:
> > > Spin training is required for the CFI certificate.
> >
> > Unfortunately that's not *really* correct. A spin endorsement is
required
> > for the CFI certificate. :) :( <--pick one
> >
> Actually it is "really" correct. The requirement is that the CFI student
receive
> the training AND endorsed that he is proficient.
Ron, if you read the rest of my post, you (hopefully) would have seen my
point.
Here it is more simply put: Yes, the FARs require all the stuff you mention,
but the DE expects to see an endorsement. Some schools will take a student
up, do one incipient spin, and sign the logbook. That was my point - i.e.
that one quick flight like I mention isn't quite "training" (IMHO), but the
student does get the spin endorsement to keep the DE happy.
Hilton
Ron McKinnon
news:3dadf1c5$1...@rmcnt03a.rmc.ca...
The following link is to a 1999 Transport Canada document
"An Evaluation of Stall Spin Accidents in Canada"
http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/general/Flttrain/Mis/Spin/Spin.htm
From which I quote the "Executive Summary":
------
...
Pilots must be taught to recognize and recover from the onset
of a stall/spin situation. Prevention must be the aim and the
key to prevention is recognition. Skill in recovery from stalls is
needed, especially stalls in those situations that lead to a wing
drop and autorotation requiring immediate, precise, and
confident handling. Once the spin develops, as this study
shows, the situation is too often an accident in progress.
Canada's insistence that we continue to include spins on the
private pilot flight test, including assessing the ability to ENTER
a spin, has not given us a safety benefit over other countries
that have moved away from this requirement. Results of instructor
flight tests, and flights with instructors conducted on refresher
courses in the past, tell us that some instructors may not be
skilled at teaching the advanced stalls that will prepare pilots
to recognize the onset of a stall/spin situation. We have to bring
the skill level of ALL instructors to the point where they can
confidently show their students, at altitude, how mishandling
during events such as a forced landing, a turn to final approach,
an overshoot, or attempting to return to the runway after a power
loss after take-off, can lead to an overwhelming emergency at
low levels. They need to be able to teach their students how
to recognize these situations. They need to be able to teach
their students how to recover from these stalls as soon as the
wing drops and before autorotation develops.
Removing the spin from private pilot training is not the solution
that Canada should be embracing, but a move toward the
stall/spin awareness emphasis seen elsewhere is recommended
provided that the following steps are taken:
1. Replace the spin on the private pilot flight test with
a second stall, an advanced stall.
2. Place more emphasis on the proficiency of private pilot
students in recognizing and recovering from advanced stalls.
3. Give examiners better guidance on how to test the advanced stall.
4. Require that spins and the correct recovery technique
continue to be demonstrated during private pilot training
5. Sample the advanced stall more heavily on instructor
rating flight tests.
6. Emphasize the teaching of advanced stalls on instructor
refresher courses.
7. Continue to require spin training and testing for commercial
pilots but use the development of the integrated commercial
program to give more specific recommendations for improvement.
8. Enhance training in the teaching of spins and advanced stalls
during instructor rating training.
9. Continue to sample the teaching of spins and advanced
stalls on instructor rating flight tests.
...
------------
FWIW, the current (Sept 2001) PPL flight-test standards
require that:
'The candidate shall provide an aeroplane for the flight test
that is certified for spins. The candidate may provide two
aeroplanes, one certified for spins for that exercise. Any
or all of the other exercises may be conducted on either
aeroplane.'
This is odd, since I cannot find any 'that exercise', that
involves spins, except that the task to "...determine
the candidate's ability to recognize a spiral dive and to
effect a smooth, safe recovery to straight and level flight...."
will "...be initiated by the examiner from an overbanked
steep turn or an incorrect spin entry."
There is, however, no longer any Flight Test exercise for
demonstrating spin-entries nor recoveries. I did my PPL
flight test in January 2001, and though we trained for spin
entry and recovery (and I *swear* I got into an incipient
spin practicing stall recoveries solo), this was not tested on
the Flight Test.
It appears that for the PPL at least, the recomendations
of the study have been carried out.
Though I have no fault with the recommendations of the
study, which seem to cover all the bases pretty well, I'm
wondering about some aspects of the data.
The study concerns an evaluation of stall/spin related
*accidents*, i.e. situations in which recoveries were
not (and arguably could not) be made - but there are
no doubt many additional, inadvertent, spin-entries
(as my own) that were recovered without incident
*because* of such training, and perhaps not represented
in the study data.
On the other hand a comparison with the stall/spin
accident statistics from other countries in which
spin recoveries are not (officially) taught, are not
significantly different than those in Canada - which
suggests either that spin-recovery training does not
produce a statistically-significant safety improvement,
as concluded, or else there is a significant level of unofficial
spin-training conducted in those other countries.
For my money, spin training, required or not, is
well worthwhile.
John Roncallo
made it a point to get spin training before I would take my family up and I
finnaly did it during my commercial training. We were doing a bunch of
chandels one day and I needed to get down to do some 8's on pylons. At that
point my instructor asked me if I wanted to take the elevator down. I said
to myself "Self if not now when" so I decided to do my first spin. They
aren't that bad infact its actually difficult to keep the 172RG in the spin
for 3 revolutions. It just wants to come out. Now that I havent done them
for almost 2 years now, I keep saying to myself. "Self its time for another
elevator ride".
J. Roncallo
"Sébastien Allard" <s22...@rmc.ca> wrote in message
news:3dadf1c5$1...@rmcnt03a.rmc.ca...
Martin Levity
want 2 know how to handle an aircraft in this situation-incidently-our
instructor is Canadian!!
Sam
I'm getting ready to start lessons pretty soon... I've gone up a few
times in 152s and 172s, and one of my friends just had his checkride.
We were flying the other day and were talking about this very thing.
He told me he was doing some solo work in the 172 and was practicing
some stalls. It went into a spin, and he recovered after losing about
1500 ft (about 2k ft left). The instructor hadn't told him how to
recover, but fortunately for him he was examining the warning placards
in a newer 172 the week before. One of them indicated the procedure
for spin recovery. Apparently scared the sh*t out of him, and he made
sure he knew how to prevent spins after that.
I admit I know just enough about flying to be dangerous, but I will
insist I be taught how to recover from a spin during my training.
I've heard they really dislike students doing spins (apparently the
FAA examiner was pissed upon hearing my friend had been in spin). But
I don't know... I'd sure like to know how to get out of such a
serious problem.
Sam
Jim Weir
I would treat this as urban legend. Getting a nose-heavy bastard like a 172 to
spin solo without a couple of sacks of cement in the baggage compartment is damn
near impossible.
Jim
wrxp...@yahoo.com (Sam)
shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:
->He told me he was doing some solo work in the 172 and was practicing
->some stalls. It went into a spin, and he recovered after losing about
->1500 ft (about 2k ft left).
Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com j...@rst-engr.com
Robert Perkins
>But
>I don't know... I'd sure like to know how to get out of such a
>serious problem.
Find a school with a Cub and have them teach it to you.
IIRC, you:
0 -- throttle to idle & neutral ailerons
1 -- "step on" the outside wing, the rudder opposite the rotation
(given enough altitude, you have time for this)
2 -- Forward elevator pressure to neutralize the elevator
3 -- when the rotation stops, neutralize the rudder
4 -- gradually return to level flight, too much sudden pressure and
you'll stall again.
That's from the Jeppesen book, page 3-43, opposite a colorful
illustration of a Cessna doing a spin. I've only ever been at the very
very beginning of an incipient spin. My instructor recovered us with
nose down, opposite rudder, and then the unusual attitude recovery
procedure. After I panicked, of course.
If you're far enough along in your training, you will have had unusual
attitude recovery training, and stall recognition training. No stall,
no spin! Keep those pattern turns coordinated and shallow! :-)
Rob
Sébastien Allard
quite nicely, solo or dual. If you can't get it to spin, you're not doing
it right.
If you do have proper spin training, try accelerated spins for a joy ride:
-Full power, climbing left turn
-Pull back to lose airspeed
-At 6-7kts before stall, full back pressure, ailerons neutral, full right
rudder
If you do it right, you will actually be momentarly inverted in the first
revolution before your nose drops and enters a verry steep nose down spin.
At this point, don't forget to CLOSE the throttle, or you will overspeed
your engine. Recover as normal.
I DON'T SUGGEST YOU TRY THIS TYPE OF SPIN UNLESS YOU HAVE EXPERIENCE WITH
SPINS AND UNUSUAL ATTITUDES. I was with an instructor the first time I
tried it, and I must admit it takes some getting used to...
Sébastien Allard
The airplan
"Jim Weir" <j...@rst-engr.com> wrote in message
news:1gg8rusooh6g0liov...@4ax.com...
Ron Natalie
"Sébastien Allard" <s22...@rmc.ca> wrote in message news:3db47658$1...@rmcnt03a.rmc.ca...
> I can't be 100% sure about C172, but I can guarentee that a C150 can spin
> quite nicely, solo or dual. If you can't get it to spin, you're not doing
> it right.
A 150/152 spins nicely. A 172 requires a lot of help.
Jim is right. A lot of students seem to think just because one wing drops and they've
got the nose pointed at the ground they are spinning. I think this is from instructors that
scare them so into thinking they're going to die during stall practice that they never even
let the stall fully develop in the 172.
Sam
Jim,
I'm not personally comfortable saying one way or another, as I lack
the pilotage and the particular aerodynamic engineering knowledge of a
172. But I do know the pilot in question very well, and he's not one
to tell tall tales. I've also seen many archived posts in google
regarding 172 spins.
I suppose it's possible that there was a misunderstanding of what he
experienced, but when he describes the a/c as spinning and sinking, it
sounds like a spin.
I think it's fairly obvious that the 172 isn't a deadly spinning
widowmaker, but is it not possible to inadvertently induce a spin
under the right conditions (besides improperly loaded a/c) during a
stall?
Sorry if these are ignorant questions/remarks, but I think they're
important for me to understand. Thanks for your time...
Sam
Michael Perrone
Just because teaching spin recovery isn't mandatory doesn't mean that
isn't taught. I would not be opposed to spin recovery being mandated...
When I first started doing stalls, they really made me nervous. I
could do them, but I was always on the "edge of my seat." I went for a
pre-solo checkout with a senior instructor- an FBO requirement- and he
noticed my fear of stalls. He suggested to my regular CFI to do spins
with me. So, we went and did spins. That got me over my stall fear, I'll
tell you. I did a spin & recovery on my own after a couple of
demonstrations by my CFI. I recovered in a 152 with a loss of 700', just
200' more than my CFI used. I highly recommend spin training for anyone
like me. It generates confidence in one's self and in one's airplane.
I was out practicing with a different CFI a week or so later, just
keeping my momentum going at a time when my regular CFI was unavailable.
I did some steep turns, nailing that circle so that I was running back
into my own wake turbulence. I decided to level out and go right into a
power on stall, the steep turn being a "self-clearing" maneuver. I got a
litte bit uncoordinated in the stall, and what do you know, an
incipient spin was developing. I instinctively applied rudder and
aileron along with standard elevator forward for stall recovery and
prevented the spin. Without the actual spin training I might not have
recognized what was happening.
Fast forward to yesterday- I just finished my second x-c solo,
completing all my solo requirements. I have to do the night x-c dual and
some check ride prep, then it's check ride time. I still look back a few
months ago at the spin training as a turning point for me. A very FUN
and valuable bit of training (Yes, doing spins is a total blast, but
students shouldn't do them solo).
-- Michael
Jim Weir
I'm VERY comfortable saying one way or another. I've got somewhere around a
thousand hours of 172 teachin' time, and I'm pretty sure in my opinion that a
single-pilot 172 is going to have to use extraordinary means to get the sucker
to spin.
How'sa'boutit other CFIs. Comments on single-pilot spins in a 172 appreciated,
either with me or a'gin' me.
Jim
wrxp...@yahoo.com (Sam)
shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:
->Jim Weir <j...@rst-engr.com> wrote in message
news:<1gg8rusooh6g0liov...@4ax.com>...
->> I would treat this as urban legend. Getting a nose-heavy bastard like a 172
to
->> spin solo without a couple of sacks of cement in the baggage compartment is
damn
->> near impossible.
->Jim,
->
->I'm not personally comfortable saying one way or another, as I lack
->the pilotage and the particular aerodynamic engineering knowledge of a
->172.
Roy Smith
> I would treat this as urban legend. Getting a nose-heavy bastard like a
> 172 to spin solo without a couple of sacks of cement in the baggage
> compartment is damn near impossible.
There is one school of thought that says the best spin recovery
technique in a 172 is to cover your eyes with your hands and scream.
The airplane doesn't mind that you're screaming at it, and covering your
eyes forces you to take your hands of the yoke, allowing the plane to
recover on its own.
Craig Prouse
> Getting a nose-heavy bastard like a 172 to spin solo
> without a couple of sacks of cement in the baggage compartment
> is damn near impossible.
Perhaps, but getting it to spin with a couple sacks of cement in the baggage
compartment is damn near illegal. ;-)
Dave Stadt
>
> I'm VERY comfortable saying one way or another. I've got somewhere around
a
> thousand hours of 172 teachin' time, and I'm pretty sure in my opinion
that a
> single-pilot 172 is going to have to use extraordinary means to get the
sucker
> to spin.
>
> How'sa'boutit other CFIs. Comments on single-pilot spins in a 172
appreciated,
> either with me or a'gin' me.
>
> Jim
I found it hard to get a 172 to do much of anything except fly straight and
level. You could try to yank and bank with full tanks and by the time it
decided to react it was near out of gas.
David B. Cole
well. I attended a seminar last night featuring Rich Stowell and the
first half of the discussion was on stall/spin recognition and
recovery. One area of discussion was a study sponsored by the FAA
that basically showed that students who had at least 30 minutes of
spin training almost never got into an accidental spin. So the
question was why hasn't the FAA reinstated spin training. One issue
was that most fields don't have access to planes that are spin
certified. The second, and probably scariest reason is that most
instructors aren't qualified to teach them. By the time most
instructors get their CFI they've probably done about one spin to the
left and one to the right. So you essentially have someone who is a
novice themselves trying to teach spins.
He also showed some interesting figures NASA compiled on experiments
done with a 172. For a 172 loaded near the forward CG limit, in the
utility category, the test pilots were able to get the plane to spin
about 40% of the time. With the CG just inside the normal category,
approximately 51% of the time, and with a CG loading near the aft edge
or slightly outside the envelope, the plane would spin 94% of the
time. Also, spins that were performed in planes where the CG was as
little as half an inch outside of the envelope were highly
unrecoverable.
Before finishing the first half he also gave a very good overview on
the differences between a stall and a deep spiral with video of both
manuevers from both outside and inside. The point was that the spin
is usually a 1G manuever and because of the high AOA and drag the high
AOA produced, the airspeed is usually pegged pretty low. This is just
the opposite of the spiral which occurs witht he plane in an unstalled
condition with low AOA and hence lower drag. In the case of a spiral
the G loading could be a lot higher with the airspeed approaching Vne.
The danger with some planes that were spun in the utility category was
that after 2-3 turns they reverted into spirals with no input from the
pilot. Now you have a situation where you've done from a 1G low
airspeed manuever to one that could overload the airframe
considerably.
Another little caveat. In the spin recovery procedure he stressed the
importance of applying rudder before using forward elevator. On the
video he showed a case where the student applied forward elevator
before rudder and it caused the spin to become inverted.
Dave
Jim Weir
shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:
->
->Perhaps, but getting it to spin with a couple sacks of cement in the baggage
->compartment is damn near illegal. ;-)
Uh, no. My handyman store has readymix cement in sacks from 10# on up to 90#.
I can get a couple of sacks to come right up to the baggage limit -- if I choose
my size properly.
Jim
Craig Prouse
> ->Perhaps, but getting it to spin with a couple sacks of cement in the baggage
> ->compartment is damn near illegal. ;-)
> Uh, no. My handyman store has readymix cement in sacks from 10# on up to 90#.
> I can get a couple of sacks to come right up to the baggage limit -- if I
> choose my size properly.
What is the baggage limit for a C172 when operating in the utility category?
Havey Louzon
"Craig Prouse" <cra...@apple.com> wrote in message
news:B9DACE59.689F6%cra...@apple.com...
> What is the baggage limit for a C172 when operating in the utility
category?
>
According to the POH "In the utility category the baggage compartment and
rear seat must not be occupied."
h
Michael
> thousand hours of 172 teachin' time, and I'm pretty sure in my opinion that a
> single-pilot 172 is going to have to use extraordinary means to get the sucker
> to spin.
>
> How'sa'boutit other CFIs. Comments on single-pilot spins in a 172 appreciated,
> either with me or a'gin' me.
My experience is that a C-172 has to be forced into a spin. It barely
even stalls. I succeeded on forcing one into a spin once - after
several attempts. On the other hand, much the same is true of a
PA-22, and I know someone who spun one inadvertently, so I'm willing
to believe it can happen with a C-172 as well. Not because I can
imagine how, but because students have a tendency to be more
imaginative than their instructors.
Michael
gross_arrow
> I'm VERY comfortable saying one way or another. I've got somewhere around a
> thousand hours of 172 teachin' time, and I'm pretty sure in my opinion that a
> single-pilot 172 is going to have to use extraordinary means to get the sucker
> to spin.
>
> How'sa'boutit other CFIs. Comments on single-pilot spins in a 172 appreciated,
> either with me or a'gin' me.
>
> Jim
>
back in the late 80's i had 2 students that each had their
own 172's (different models -- don't remember exactly which
ones.)
one of them just would not spin, period. the other one
could be coaxed into a spin to the left with a blast of
throttle right at the stall break, but i don't think i
ever did get it to spin to the right.
so, i'm mostly with jim.
g_a
Roger Halstead
"David B. Cole" <mrco...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:403fdf8.02102...@posting.google.com...
> I just posted this to another forum, but I think it fits in here as
> well. I attended a seminar last night featuring Rich Stowell and the
> first half of the discussion was on stall/spin recognition and
> recovery. One area of discussion was a study sponsored by the FAA
> that basically showed that students who had at least 30 minutes of
> spin training almost never got into an accidental spin. So the
> question was why hasn't the FAA reinstated spin training. One issue
> was that most fields don't have access to planes that are spin
> certified.
And the ones they do are spin resistant.
> The second, and probably scariest reason is that most
> instructors aren't qualified to teach them.
I really don't find this surprising, or scary. It is simply a result of our
present way of teaching as set forth by the FAA. Most of our trainers are
spin resistant and we don't teach spins. That means, *anyone* including
instructors have to hunt for spin training.
> By the time most
> instructors get their CFI they've probably done about one spin to the
> left and one to the right. So you essentially have someone who is a
> novice themselves trying to teach spins.
Again, this should not be surprinsing.
>
> He also showed some interesting figures NASA compiled on experiments
> done with a 172. For a 172 loaded near the forward CG limit, in the
> utility category, the test pilots were able to get the plane to spin
> about 40% of the time. With the CG just inside the normal category,
> approximately 51% of the time, and with a CG loading near the aft edge
> or slightly outside the envelope, the plane would spin 94% of the
> time. Also, spins that were performed in planes where the CG was as
> little as half an inch outside of the envelope were highly
> unrecoverable.
OK...I have a problem with this particular stats. Not that they aren't
correct, but that the 172 is somewhat spin resistant as are the 150s. It
doesn't mean you can't spin one, but their very design makes it difficult.
I'm surprised that they could get the CG as much as a half inch out and have
recoverable spins.
When doing spins anything outside the utility category, not general
category, for CG should be suspect.
>
> Before finishing the first half he also gave a very good overview on
> the differences between a stall and a deep spiral with video of both
> manuevers from both outside and inside. The point was that the spin
> is usually a 1G manuever and because of the high AOA and drag the high
> AOA produced, the airspeed is usually pegged pretty low. This is just
> the opposite of the spiral which occurs witht he plane in an unstalled
> condition with low AOA and hence lower drag. In the case of a spiral
> the G loading could be a lot higher with the airspeed approaching Vne.
> The danger with some planes that were spun in the utility category was
> that after 2-3 turns they reverted into spirals with no input from the
This is a result of building spin resistant aircraft. Planes, where if all
else fails you let go and it recovers on its own.
Now, any one having gotten this far *should* be able to recognize a spin and
a spiral. I say should because not all do.
When the spin changes to a spiral you just come back on the power, level the
wings and stop the descent. There is (in a 172) plenty of time (relatively
speaking) to recover without reaching dangerous speeds.
> pilot. Now you have a situation where you've done from a 1G low
> airspeed manuever to one that could overload the airframe
> considerably.
>
Yes, but it doesn't happen instantly and should easily be recoverable with
out straining anything, IF the pilot recognizes the change in mode.
> Another little caveat. In the spin recovery procedure he stressed the
> importance of applying rudder before using forward elevator. On the
> video he showed a case where the student applied forward elevator
> before rudder and it caused the spin to become inverted.
One thing to remember here is that not all planes (even trainers) recover
the same.
And...what might serve you well in a one trainer might cause a great deal of
grief in some other planes. This is one of my pet peeves with the FAA and
the way training is set up.
I haven't done a fully developed spin in years and am going to find a some
one with a Decathelon, or something more lively and go back out for a
refresher course.
Please, no one take this as a "how to". Get a knowledgeable instructor!
When I was taught, it was controls neutral, Then *enough* opposit rudder to
stop the spin and abrupt nose down when the stall broke. In the Glasair III
it is full up elevator, *enough*rudder to stop the spin and THEN abrupt nose
down.
I saw a video, actually a video of a film, I believe of a much younger Bob
Hoover spinning a P38, first one way and then the other. Then "as I recall"
he shut down one engine and repeated the exercise.
It was fascinating to watch the thing spin a number of turns one way and
then slowly stop, then break into a spin in the opposit direction, then
slowly stop again.
--
Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)
>
>
> Dave
Brian Burger
Zero pounds, according to my 172P POH.
That is, if you expect to operate the a/c in the utility category
(spin-capable, limited aerobatics, etc) you cannot have anything in either
the back seat or the cargo areas.
So the "couple of sacks of cement" idea is right out. You could do it to
get your CoG moved, but with those in the back I'm pretty sure you
wouldn't be "Utility Category" anymore!
Brian - yh...@victoria.tc.ca -
highflyer
Unfortunately, that technique doesn't work well in a Tomahawk! :-)
--
Highflyer
Highflight Aviation Services
highflyer
>
> I can't be 100% sure about C172, but I can guarentee that a C150 can spin
> quite nicely, solo or dual. If you can't get it to spin, you're not doing
> it right.
>
> If you do have proper spin training, try accelerated spins for a joy ride:
> -Full power, climbing left turn
> -Pull back to lose airspeed
> -At 6-7kts before stall, full back pressure, ailerons neutral, full right
> rudder
>
> If you do it right, you will actually be momentarly inverted in the first
> revolution before your nose drops and enters a verry steep nose down spin.
> At this point, don't forget to CLOSE the throttle, or you will overspeed
> your engine. Recover as normal.
>
> I DON'T SUGGEST YOU TRY THIS TYPE OF SPIN UNLESS YOU HAVE EXPERIENCE WITH
> SPINS AND UNUSUAL ATTITUDES. I was with an instructor the first time I
> tried it, and I must admit it takes some getting used to...
>
> Sébastien Allard
>
Shucks, that is my favorite spin entry! It can be very dramatic! :-)
Roger Halstead
I find the thought that some one would even think about putting weight in
aft to get a 172 to spin .... scary. Even if it was joking. Some one out
there might just might try it.
Roger Halstead
"Michael" <crwd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:449a3d6e.02102...@posting.google.com...
> Jim Weir <j...@rst-engr.com> wrote
> > I'm VERY comfortable saying one way or another. I've got somewhere
around a
> > thousand hours of 172 teachin' time, and I'm pretty sure in my opinion
that a
> > single-pilot 172 is going to have to use extraordinary means to get the
sucker
> > to spin.
> >
> > How'sa'boutit other CFIs. Comments on single-pilot spins in a 172
appreciated,
> > either with me or a'gin' me.
>
> My experience is that a C-172 has to be forced into a spin. It barely
> even stalls. I succeeded on forcing one into a spin once - after
> several attempts. On the other hand, much the same is true of a
> PA-22, and I know someone who spun one inadvertently, so I'm willing
Some PA28s are certified for spins. And they will spin if the CG is
forward. Although it doesn't say so, that means partial fuel and no one, or
things in back.
I saw a video of one of the new Archers spinning with 3 students and an
instructor. It was a flat spin and it was still going around when it hit
the Ocean. No survivors. They taped it from another plane and they followed
it all the way to the ocean.
> to believe it can happen with a C-172 as well. Not because I can
> imagine how, but because students have a tendency to be more
> imaginative than their instructors.
You don't suppose<:-)) My old DE tells me that every time I tell the story
of my PPL check ride it gets better every time....I'll only say she didn't
make me do any unusual attitude recoveries. It wasn't necessary. It was
more than a bit bumpy while I was under the hood.
--
Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)
>
> Michael
Model Flyer
Roger Halstead <rdha...@tm.net> wrote in message
news:AbUu9.1446$vZ6.1...@newshog.newsread.com...
>
> > What is the baggage limit for a C172 when operating in the utility
> category?
> >
>
> I find the thought that some one would even think about putting weight in
> aft to get a 172 to spin .... scary. Even if it was joking. Some one out
> there might just might try it.
>
I suppoe a sack of cement just thrown in loose would be really scary, in the
event of getting into a spin your cockpit would be full of cement dust.:-(
--
.
---
Cheers
Jonathan Lowe,
Model Flyer
printe...@eircom.net
> Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73)
> www.rogerhalstead.com
> N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)
>
>
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.394 / Virus Database: 224 - Release Date: 03/10/02
Roger Halstead
"Peter" <nos...@nospam9876.com> wrote in message
news:lot2su82bvla33b32...@4ax.com...
>
> "Roger Halstead" <rdha...@tm.net> wrote
>
> >I saw a video of one of the new Archers spinning with 3 students and an
> >instructor. It was a flat spin and it was still going around when it
hit
> >the Ocean. No survivors. They taped it from another plane and they
followed
> >it all the way to the ocean.
>
I'd have to guess, but in an Archer? Probably not much over 1000-1500 fpm.
Which is plenty fast enough to do in the occupants.
--
Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)
>
>
> Peter.
> --
> Return address is invalid to help stop junk mail.
> E-mail replies to zX...@digiYserve.com but remove the X and the Y.
> Please do NOT copy usenet posts to email - it is NOT necessary.
10squared
> On 21 Oct 2002 10:51:58 -0700, wrxp...@yahoo.com (Sam) wrote:
>
>>But
>>I don't know... I'd sure like to know how to get out of such a
>>serious problem.
>
> Find a school with a Cub and have them teach it to you.
Or find a school with an Extra :-)
http://www.aerobaticexperience.com/
Roger Halstead
>
> "Roger Halstead" <rdha...@tm.net> wrote
>
> >> What would be the descent rate in something like that?
> >
> >I'd have to guess, but in an Archer? Probably not much over 1000-1500
fpm.
> >Which is plenty fast enough to do in the occupants.
500 fpm into the runway without a flare will break something unless flying
something built to take a carrier landing.
1000 fpm is going to hurt! 1500 fpm into a solid object is going to hurt a
lot.
>
> I remember reading that the chute on a Cirrus SR22 achieves a 1000fpm
> descent rate - about 10kt. The seats are designed to absorb that,
In an Archer and Cherokee the seats are only a couple inches off the floor.
They aren't going to absorb a lot. However I did state right at the
beginning that was an out and out, guess as to rate of descent.
About a year ago I took a GMC Jimmie broad side with my Transam and cruise,
minus what ever it slowed in about 12 feet. With seat belt, shoulder
harness, and air bags that was one whale of a ride. He was coming out of a
parking lot so fast he spun me across a 4 lane road with a center turn lane
and into a bank parking lot.
I was punchy for an hour. The paramedics took one look at my car and asked
me what day it was. My answer was that, how the hell should I know. I'm
retired. He asked what time it was. I stopped, looked up at the sun and
said, "Bout 2". He said, "You're OK". But, man was I punchy.
Thing is I had all that safety equipment. Had I not had the air bag, I
certainly would have been in the hospital, and most likely would not have
survived without the seat belt and shoulder harness and I didn't come to a
complete stop in about 3 inches.
15 to 20 MPH can do a lot of damage to the human body. If Dennis is reading
this he can do a much more accurate job of describing how much a body can
take.
> apparently.
>
> I would guess that 10-15kt vertically into *water* would be far from
> guaranteed to be fatal.
>
In the case I saw on tape it was fatal for all.
OTOH, I read about a guy working on a canard...don't remember which one, but
he had removed the fins that stick down from the ends of the wings. Then
ended up putting it into a deep stall. He even opened the canopy, got out,
and stood on the canard trying to get the CG far enough forward to break the
stall. He rode in all the way to the water and didn't get hurt. "as I
remember".
How'd you like to get out and stand on the canard at 5000 feet? <:-)).
Think I'll pass on that one. IF the stall broke, could you hang on and stay
with it to get back inside?
Marco van Lieshout
use for training are not "spinnards". Guess what? "OK, we'll rent
another aircraft to check you out on spins. Next week? We really think
it's one of the more important lessons and are always glad to
accomodate students!"
I'm looking forward to it!
Marco
Marc Lattoni
I did my training in a 172N and it took quite some doing to get it to spin.
The first time I was quite disoriented. The next time it was just
confusing. The third time I 'got it' and although I would rather not
experience it other than in training, I am not quite so spooked about spins
(or spirals).
After obtaining my license a few months ago, I now have a mountain rating
(what a great feeling to weave through the Rockies!) and now that it gets
dark after 6 pm here, am looking forward to night flying - that's not part
of the regular licensing procedure here.
So the US teaches night flying and we teach spins - go figure
-- "10squared" <ne...@firewallinabox.com> wrote in message
news:3dc34...@nopics.sjc...
Clarus
news:7lnx9.13315$1S4.9...@news1.telusplanet.net...
> We do spins as a matter of course in Canada.
>
> I did my training in a 172N and it took quite some doing to get it to
spin.
> The first time I was quite disoriented. The next time it was just
> confusing. The third time I 'got it' and although I would rather not
> experience it other than in training, I am not quite so spooked about
spins
> (or spirals).
>
> After obtaining my license a few months ago, I now have a mountain rating
> (what a great feeling to weave through the Rockies!) and now that it gets
> dark after 6 pm here, am looking forward to night flying - that's not
part
> of the regular licensing procedure here.
>
> So the US teaches night flying and we teach spins - go figure
>
Spin training is not required in Canada and is not part of the test for a
PPL. Most CFI's will give a demonstration of a spin but few actually teach
it without the student requesting it.
Duane MacInnis
"Clarus" <m...@dogcow.inc> wrote in message
news:c2-dnXt1fpX...@giganews.com...
That's right. We will do a demo of a spin for the PPL. If a student
requests it we may go further, but not usually.
For the CPL it is spin entry and recovery, scenario based, like a centerline
overshoot, drift disorientation, and balked approach (full-flap overshoot).
Some instructors do the "kick-pull-hold" spin, but this never happens in the
real world, so the most realistic environment for spins is scenario-based.
++++++++++++++
Duane MacInnis PE
Engineer, Flight Instructor
www.cdnflightcentre.com
Office 604-277-3040 dua...@maceng.com
Res 604-943-4693 duan...@telus.net