Hacker15e
Who am I? Where are my pants?
Hope you didn't try that in the T-38!!
Holy Steep Approach Batman
- Thread starter spoolinup22
- Start date
Hope you didn't try that in the T-38!!
Qutch
Question everything
It works great in a T-38. Except by then, word had spread and no IP would fly with me. So the AF just handed me a HowTo book and told me I'd have to teach myself from then on. It sort of hurt my feelings when I taxied out and saw 2 IPs fleeing the RSU. Cars streaming away from the Base in all directions. RAPCON went silent. The Base Closure Commission then closed the Base and they left me there.
The T-38 flies great sideways. Hey, if you want, I could come show you how to do it in an F-15. "The McDonnell Douglas F-15 Bush model" ! . .
.
.
(O.K. . Seriously: No. I didn't)
.
Autothrust Blue
”…trusting ze process…”
TwoTwoLeft
o- - - - - - -l
That, and the C172, when in the utility category with front seats occupied will not stay in a spin. You will get maybe a turn and a half then it will develop into a spiral. When the spiral develops, the wings are no longer stalled but the turn radius remains about that as it was when it was rotating in the spin. Small turning radius + rapidly increasing airspeed = bent airplanes. An airplane you cannot take past 2 rotations in a spin is NOT an acceptable spin trainer. You need an airplane that will be comparable to most light aircraft we fly, stay in a spin, let you aggravate the crap out of it, fix it, and recover.
Side note:
Just fly the F'n wing(s).... Obviously they're not all the same, but that's still no excuse. Just how to fly YOUR wing...
N519AT
Ahh! This is how I change this!
I agree but applying the catch-all phrase that you can fly a transport category aircraft just like you would a 172 is just as deadly.
TwoTwoLeft
o- - - - - - -l
Flying a 172 like a transport category aircraft can make for a bad day too....
Autothrust Blue
”…trusting ze process…”
Or any fixed-gear Cessna single, but that's another discussion...
Truth, but both aircraft (and their occupants) will suffer in the event of a Failure To Aviate.
Qutch
Question everything
I'd be interested in opinions regarding the history of spin/upset training's decreased popularity.
Occasionally, at various places around the country, I'm asked to provide a flight instructor/orientation ride recommendation to someone starting out. When I call around, one of my qualification questions regards their attitude towards spin demos & training. The answer I frequently get is "why would you want to do that?" or "Oh....well.....we don't really recommend that too much anymore." When I don't just terminate the conversation, and instead take the time to wrestle an explanation out of them, I get various answers. 1) We don't have a plane that's spinable 2) We don't like to risk scaring away a potential $tudent
I'm puzzled now at the apprehension I sense when I talk face to face with some new "Spin Awareness Certified" CFIs about the subject of spins. Really, I don't blame them if they were taught to avoid them. I have no criticism of them personally for doing/thinking what they are taught. But beyond the flight characteristics of the C172, and the Practical Test Standards mentioned by Autothrust Blue, I'm puzzled as to how the civilian industry shifted to make even CFI's apprehensive about flying on the edge of the envelope to develop their skills and confidence.
The guys in the OP video may not have been perfect, but it's pretty clear they were practicing that approach. (From the look of the sparsely populated surrounding area, it wasn't at JFK or O'Hare) I guess I wonder if the pendulum has swung so far towards making training safer, that we may now be unintentionally discouraging and impeding civilian pilot skill development, to the point of making some pilots dangerous to fly with. Was it fear of litigation? Why are we scaring civilian pilots away, in the name of "safety", from training on the edge of the envelope where many accidents begin? Isn't that where we're supposed to train?
Qutch
Question everything
No instructing. But I'm interested in the opinions of those who do civilian instruction here, like TwoTwoLeft.
A150K
Well-Known Member
Apparently the same is true for an A330...Who woulda known...
I get you - just wondering because with your interest in it, it would seem like you'd be a good fit in the instructing role.
rframe
pǝʇɹǝʌuı
I believe the primary reason is because the accident rate has dropped substantially since replacing spin "training" with spin "awareness".
The numbers and culture say you're safer to avoid spins and stalls altogether. Further, there's a lot of spooky stories and misinformation circulated about different airplanes spin characteristics and such. For the most part, civilian pilots are not expected to gain maximum performance from their aircraft so they really dont "need" to spend much time at the edges of the envelope...
In most civilian piloting roles we are just expected to get off the ground, from point a to point b with reasonable safety, and hopefully a smooth landing at the end. I mean the typical standard for landing performance is hitting the first 1/3 of the runway on a 7,000' strip... there's not much need for precision and knowing how to handle the airplane on the edge of it's envelope to be seen as proficient.
Qutch
Question everything
Thanks rframe. That's along the lines of what I was asking. Some hard data. Documentation.
Can I ask who assembled those stats and produced the chart? Is that chart attached to a website?
edit: another JC member just emailed this link to me privately. Is this it?
http://www.pilotfriend.com/training/flight_training/fxd_wing/spin_recov.htm
.
Can I ask who assembled those stats and produced the chart? Is that chart attached to a website?
edit: another JC member just emailed this link to me privately. Is this it?
http://www.pilotfriend.com/training/flight_training/fxd_wing/spin_recov.htm
.
jtrain609
Antisocial Monster
When I was instructing, I wouldn't solo a student until they had done spin training. I also wouldn't sign anybody off for their private ride until they had spent some time in actual instrument conditions. I was not the only instructor at my flight school with this policy.
rframe
pǝʇɹǝʌuı
That's from the AOPA: http://www.aopa.org/asf/ntsb/stall_spin.html
Another few interesting bits: The least likely pilot to have a stall/spin accident is a student. The most likely to have a stall/spin accident is the 250-1,000 hour Commercial/CFI pilot. A little fear goes a long way. A little overconfidence is a great way to kill yourself.
drunkenbeagle
Gang Member
A student is not likely to have more than 20 hours PIC. A sub-1000hr Comm/CFI is likely to have 250-1000 PIC, in other words, 10 to 40 times the opportunity to break something.
Qutch
Question everything
Was this something that your school management discouraged or encouraged? Or was this an individual standard of professionalism that you and those other instructors set for yourselves? Your comment suggests that it was your policy, not necessarily a school policy? I guess I'm wondering if this was a point of controversy there.
.
rframe
pǝʇɹǝʌuı
That's true, but alongside student pilots, ATP's are second least likely to have a stall/spin accident (10% of accidents and 22% of the pilot population) and they would have even more flight exposure to do so.
Also I'm not sure where I got the 250-1,000 hour Com/CFI thing as it's not in that article but was apparently stuck in my head from something else...the article actually shows Private Pilots have the highest stall/spin accident rate (46% of accidents while making up 40% of the pilot population), followed by Commercial pilots which seem to have a much higher average contributing 37% of stall/spin accidents while only making up 20% of the pilot population.