Houston
Well-Known Member
.....and when the NTSB scrapes your bone fragments out of the control linkage and says "gee, look at that", the details don't really much matter to the pilot.
Spin Training
- Thread starter felixk
- Start date
rframe
pǝʇɹǝʌuı
I think the original AD is stupid because in the two crashes cited the investigators found that the aircraft did not have correctly installed rudder horns/stops. There was no evidence of problems with the original design.
Tom Carr of CPA, an experienced A&P mechanic with decades of experience concerning Cessna aircraft maintenance, commented that since the two aircraft involved in fatal spin-related accidents cited in the proposed AD issued in 2007 were not in compliance with the aircraft’s type design the issues surrounding the proposed AD were better served by the issuance of a Special Airworthiness Inspection Bulletin, rather than an AD.
NTSB from Crash 1:
Examination of the wreckage revealed that the rudder was jammed approximately 35°, which is beyond its left travel limit. Further examination revealed that the two rudder bumpers had been installed inverted and that the right rudder bumper had traveled beyond the rudder stop and had locked behind it
Crash 2:
Examination of the wreckage revealed that the rudder was jammed beyond its left travel limit. Further examination revealed that the two rudder bumpers had been installed inverted
If they really needed to issue an advisory on this it should've simply been a mandatory inspection to ensure the rudder horns/stops were installed according to original type specs.
The 150 has a very solid spin safety record, there was no need for this AD, it was a shotgun reaction that I can only imagine had some other political motivation behind it.
If 150's are going to jam rudders during full deflection, why is it that during ground steering, where full deflection is used all the time for tight turns, we dont see rudders jamming up all the time? They made a non-issue into a problem, they should retract the whole thing.
TwoTwoLeft
o- - - - - - -l
Been there on both ends. I made it out through a combination of good training and luck. Had a few friends that weren't so lucky. I just happened to have time & altitude on my side, they didn't. All were a result of control malfunctions/failures (This was during during aerobatic flight NOT spin training. None were in a flight school plane). Mine was the only one that could not have been discovered through regular preflight/MX, the wing had to be torn apart. The causes were found and corrections or operating practices were changed as a result, preventing the problems in the future. I'd say there's a purpose. It's just extremely unfortunate how certain problems only seem to get noticed after a fatality. And that just stresses how important a thorough preflight and proper MX really is on airplanes that will be operated as spin trainers. You need mechanics looking for things that wouldn't normally be a problem. Parts should be replaced as they wear NOT when they break....
As pilots we try the best we can to mitigate risk. But there comes a point were you have to accept no matter how hard you try, you just can't plan for the unknown. If you think your 100% in control of the outcome of every flight, you're just fooling yourself. Better off staying on the ground if that bothers you. The pilots in the Tomahawk did the best they could with a really bad situation. If I remember right, after the spin stopped they kicked the yoke to break it lose. Ill have to look it up...
Training for control failures often get overlooked and there nothing for it in the PTS. Honestly, if I had to choose, I'd rather have an engine failure. At least you can still fly the airplane.
TwoTwoLeft
o- - - - - - -l
During a spin the empennage tends to flex a bit. For a 150, I really don't know how much. I've never seen a video of the tail section during a spin. This would be though to duplicate on the ground. I believe that was the reasoning behind giving the new stops so much more surface area.
CoffeeIcePapers
Well-Hung Member
Right, but why would a flight school want to risk that for some random guy? I think that is what he was getting at. Lots of risk with little reward for your normal, generic flight school.
TwoTwoLeft
o- - - - - - -l
MX wise, if your fleet of 172s (or any approved trainer) is maintained properly there's very little risk compared to normal flight training. They probably don't want to spin their IFR trainer or have a syllabus addressing spin training. If its not something you're used to doing on a regular basis you really need to take a step back and make sure all your ducks are in a row. I think the schools are doing good by directing him elsewhere. He will no doubt get a better & more thorough experience.
SteveCostello
My member is well-known.
Man... that had to be a hell of a way to go. Terrifying.
machvista
Well-Known Member
Ocean Aire in Toms River, NJ has CFI's that offer spin training in their 152.
Blackhawk
Well-Known Member
What he said. Find an aerobatic school that will actually teach you about spins, have YOU teach spins (read the FAA requirement), and uses parachutes.
TwoTwoLeft
o- - - - - - -l
I put a link to the IAC page back on page one....