CoffeeIcePapers
Well-Hung Member
It isn't necessary to fill the tanks
The R model is the red headed step child of the S/SP, as it weighs the same, but has 20 less horsies pulling it.. That POS should have never been made.
who has spun a 172?
- Thread starter Blip16
- Start date
It isn't necessary to fill the tanks
The R model is the red headed step child of the S/SP, as it weighs the same, but has 20 less horsies pulling it.. That POS should have never been made.
Champcar
Well-Known Member
Oh come on, the R model is awesome. The only difference is the prop. I like flying underpowered aircraft. Adds a challenge.It isn't necessary to fill the tanks
flyguy
Well-Known Member
Right, but its a pain in the ass not to. I mean if you calculate you can only put in 20 gallons on each side, how easy is it to fill the tank to 20 gallons and know when to stop pumping? Its so much easier to top it off.It isn't necessary to fill the tanks
MidlifeFlyer
Well-Known Member
Use a fuel stick to measure how many gallons you have in the tank. Subtract from 20. Stop pumping when that number appears on the fuel pump gauge.
Of course filling is easier, but this isn't higher math.
nosehair
Well-Known Member
That's all relative.
MidlifeFlyer
Well-Known Member
Between CFI and student, there should be enough fingers and toes to do the necessary counting.
flyguy
Well-Known Member
I never said it was impossible, just said it was a pain. It also creates a lot of complications when you've got a lineman that tops off all the planes between flights. At the FBO we use, you'd have to give the fueler a heads up, and 90% of the time he forgets and just tops it off anyway. There's not really any way we can drain fuel, so the intended back seater gets sent home.
MidlifeFlyer
Well-Known Member
True, it is a pain with rentals. For exactly the reasons you mention. Your FBO experience is common.
nosehair
Well-Known Member
They wear out sooner, and you do introduce a higher risk of gyro failure.
We don't spin our 'nice' 172's that we usually use for actual IMC training, but we spin our 152's all the time, and I see no real increase in gyro replacement. But I'm sure there is more wear and tear. I don't keep a record, but on my casual obsevation and use of a dozen or so 152's.
CoffeeIcePapers
Well-Hung Member
When I got my CFI, we had the mechanics disconnect the vacuum hose from the gyros and then put it back when we were done.
MidlifeFlyer
Well-Known Member
Too bad. Send them to a CFI who doesn't want to scare them unnecessarily.It makes me mad when I get a CFI student who has never done spins!
I MAKE all my private students learn how to recover from them. I also dont care if thier scared. I will give them time to get over thier fear, but I wont sign them off till they do.
SIUav8er
Narcosis
if youre scared of spins, you have no business in an airplane. sure its not something i would right off the bat to scare someone, but i think its smart to gradually build up to a fully developed spin with a primary student. i think that proper training will aleviat most of the fear involved.
MidlifeFlyer
Well-Known Member
It used to be there. FAA took it out because apparently they felt too many people were being killed by the training. They opted for awareness. When the FAA first removed it, even CFIs weren't required to be spin-trained.
It's been a huge debate ever since with no end in sight.
Although... I wouldn't be too worried about being scared to the surface. Unintentional spins usually happen too close to the surface to make much difference anyway. Apparently there's some kind of difference between the reaction to intentionally inducing a spin at 3000 AGL and having one happen because you were distracted at 300-500 AGL. Go figure.
Old Pete
Cockpit Authoritarian
You may be right but I don't remember that being a reason for removing the requirement. What I remember is that the light plane manufacturers pushed the FAA to remove the requirement because they felt that it was unnecessary and that it was scaring away some customers. The FAA did a study that showed that pilots receiving spin training were not any less likely to be involved in a spin accident than a pilot who did not receive spin training. So the FAA removed the requirement.
I find it a fascinating debate and as long as stall/spin accidents remain high on a list of causes of light plane accidents it will continue.
Unintentional spins probably happen more often at lower altitudes, but there is probably some reporting bias here. I'm sure we hear about every unintentional spin at 300-500 agl. (because they end in fatalities) but even untrained(in spins) pilots can recover from an unintentional spin in a aircraft such as a 172 from 3000-5000 agl.
seagull
Well-Known Member
I wonder about the legality of that. I have been told it's hard on the gyros, but doesn't kill them! It better NOT cause them to fail, when you think about it!
seagull
Well-Known Member
I agree, my students were a little apprehensive but that was it. When we did it (pre solo), we would start with a full understanding of the aerodynamics. We would do a weight and balance. We'd discuss how it was not to be done solo, the issues with doing it in a designated area, etc., etc. So, it was shown to be a serious thing, but not necessarily a dangerous thing when done properly (just as flying itself is).
The other thing I would do is require students to recover on a point (I would start over a road so they could use that). Although they rarely were able to, it was my experience that they were concentrating so much on getting the recovery on the right point that they forgot to be scared!
As for the requirement, my experience was that if someone had never done spins, they were not able to feel that initial "tug" as the spin grabs the airplane, and/or differentiate it from turbulence or something else. The key is to feel that initial pull, and react to it immediately. A person who is properly trained will have stopped the spin entry before the non-trained person even knew they were headed into it. To that end, no more than the incipient phase need be entered and recovered from.
nosehair
Well-Known Member
Here's the thing. When you routinely do spins, you can recover from a one-turn spin in 300 ft. in a 152. When you are really proficient in stalls, you can usually recover with no loss of altitude, and you can stop a spin in less than 300 feet.
If this were the standard on checkrides, that would be the training objective, and the result would be far less stall/spin accidents.
At first, under our present system of training, there probably would be an increase in stall/spin accidents because of the lack of training/proficiency in that area, but as pilots and instructors became proficient, the stall/spin related accedents would all but disappear.
Also, many other areas that are not considered stall/spin related would be affected. When a human is subconciously worried or afraid or 'concerned' about a possible death-threat, you know it affects his conscious thinking/decision-making process.
....and Old Pete has the same memory that I do about the elimination of spins. Cessna and/or Piper 'pressured' the FAA to remove spins from initial pilot training because, it is true that the 150 and 172 was 'spin resistant' and there was not the actual need to be proficient in recovery from actual spins, but the darn things still roll over upside down into a steep spiral when you push too much inside rudder in a steep tight turn base-to-final, so...
Instant knee-jerk throttle-off-opposite-rudder training is necessary to react to an unintentional upset.
It is the actual entry into and recovery from a spin/spiral that teaches the ability to recognize the oncoming situation before it happens.