Holy Spin training batman...

Mike H said:
I don't have the latest NALL report handy, but I don't think that's correct. I'm pretty sure I remember takeoff/landing accidents topping the list.

I'm willing to be corected, though, if you can cite some numbers.
Click to expand...

That typically gets classified as loss of control. CFIT was easily #2 from the last numbers I looked at.

Structural failure, fire, icing, etc are all way way way down the list.

I am sure different groups classify things differently.
 
That's what I was thinking. You pull the big handle right? I've actually never been instructed as to how to use the thing.
 
Scared to Fly said:
Anyone have some insight on the spin characteristics of a 182M? I'm flying jumpers and would like to mix up my descents. I'm thinking a spin would be less stress on the airframe than pushing VNE.
Click to expand...
I'm thinking I would never spin any airframe where a door is missing.
 
I think that spin training is a great thing, when given by those of us that teach it all the time, and in aircraft that are designed to do it. To teach all the spins, with the pitfalls to improper recovery, and have the students get comfortable with them. But the overall basic goal when we teach this, is for the pilot to hopefully recognize a dangerous scenario far in advance of the scenario occurring. In the base to final cross control spin entry, an aircraft loses about 700 ft in the first rotation. So yeah, successful recovery at 300 to 400 agl is unlikely. But, if you have some experience and you recognize that you are doing something wrong before you do all the wrong things that conspire to create the fatal mistake, then the training has been worth it.

On a side note, a few months back I was in a Pitts with a student doing some training and we departed at the top of an avalanche (loop with a snap roll). It got ugly. I couldn't figure out why it I couldn't get it to recover. Never had a problem before in anything I teach in like this. All was very confusing and violent. Then a voice in the back of my had said Emergency Recovery Stupid...... Just hands off and opposite rudder... two more rotations and we were out. This was after losing about 2900 ft.

This rocked me. I have been teaching aerobatics for about 3ish years and have never felt the complete lack of control like this incident had me feel. But, at some point I stopped trying to do the text book recovery for a normal spin, and realized that things had gone way the hell beyond being normal. So my training kicked in, and things worked out.

I guess my point is that, if this or any training can be the one difference in a good or bad outcome, then it is all worth it.

As a side note, our school now gives an aerobatic incentive ride, with a few spins to all whom finish their Private.

Though not everyone's cup of tea, seek at least the experience. Good luck to all.
 
Scared to Fly said:
Anyone have some insight on the spin characteristics of a 182M? I'm flying jumpers and would like to mix up my descents. I'm thinking a spin would be less stress on the airframe than pushing VNE.
Click to expand...

The C182 is NOT approved for spins...


At least of you tried it, the door would already be off and you'd have a 'chute on....
 
TwoTwoLeft said:
The C182 is NOT approved for spins...
Click to expand...

That's right. I was thinking they were only approved in the utility category. After a closer look in the POH, it's pretty straight forward. "No acrobatic maneuvers, including spins, approved".

Anyone know the reason why the C182 was never approved?
 
Scared to Fly said:
Anyone know the reason why the C182 was never approved?
Click to expand...
Most likely, the money. It takes much money for the spin testing to be certified, and the 182 is not a trainer, so, who's going to want to spin it?
That seems to be the current mindset with the new-age composites that don't bother with the spin testing routine.
Nobody spins anymore. Why bother?
 
Scared to Fly said:
Anyone know the reason why the C182 was never approved?
Click to expand...

They don't recover???

The C182 has been spin tested. It's recovery characteristics in a developed spin were found to be unacceptable for the aerobatic category requirements. To certify it "spins approved" things would need to be changed and the airplane would probably lose some of it's utility.
 
TwoTwoLeft said:
They don't recover???
Click to expand...
Is that the case? An aircraft not being certified for intentional spins means that it's not recoverable from any spin?

Not being a certification guru (far from it) I don't know, but that answer feels wrong. I think it's true for certain aircraft, like cirrus, which, as I recall, doesn't even describe spin recovery procedures (other than pulling the chute) but not for the 182 and many others that prohibit intentional spins.

Or, if correct, that should be the end of the "should spin training be required" debate. How much value to the future of a pilot is there to training that will only work in a trainer or aerobatic airplane and will mean certain death in anything else? Sounds sort of like, "everyone must first ride a bike with training wheels even if you don't need them now and will never need them in the future."
 
MidlifeFlyer said:
Is that the case? An aircraft not being certified for intentional spins means that it's not recoverable from any spin?

Not being a certification guru (far from it) I don't know, but that answer feels wrong. I think it's true for certain aircraft, like cirrus, which, as I recall, doesn't even describe spin recovery procedures (other than pulling the chute) but not for the 182 and many others that prohibit intentional spins.

Or, if correct, that should be the end of the "should spin training be required" debate. How much value to the future of a pilot is there to training that will only work in a trainer or aerobatic airplane and will mean certain death in anything else? Sounds sort of like, "everyone must first ride a bike with training wheels even if you don't need them now and will never need them in the future."
Click to expand...

The Cirrus had to go through full spin certification in Europe. From people I have talked with who have spun it, it's tough to get it into a spin and very easy to get it out.

Your basic premise is correct. Just because an airplane isn't certified to spin doesn't mean it won't recover. As far as singles go, they had to recover from (IIRC) one turn whether they are certified or not.

Beech did spin testing on the Duchess and found that it could recover from a wide variety of spins in a wide variety of loading conditions. NASA did testing on the 172 and found that you can load it such that it can't be recovered from a spin. Granted, it's WAY outside the utility category, but it can be done.
 
msmspilot said:
The Cirrus had to go through full spin certification in Europe. From people I have talked with who have spun it, it's tough to get it into a spin and very easy to get it out.

Your basic premise is correct. Just because an airplane isn't certified to spin doesn't mean it won't recover. As far as singles go, they had to recover from (IIRC) one turn whether they are certified or not.

Beech did spin testing on the Duchess and found that it could recover from a wide variety of spins in a wide variety of loading conditions. NASA did testing on the 172 and found that you can load it such that it can't be recovered from a spin. Granted, it's WAY outside the utility category, but it can be done.
Click to expand...

One turn or three seconds whichever is longer comes to mind for single engine normal category airplanes, but don't quote me on that.

I've had Beechcraft test and demonstration pilots of the Twin Bonanza era tell me that the A, B, and C50 models will indeed recover from a spin, but I'm strongly disinterested in finding out for myself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top