Spinning Dilema

[Max Rampwaite]

I have a feeling that, despite this line, some mutant will still say that "The only choice is not to go!!" (and, on the whole, I agree) - however......

I recently had to renew my JAA Instructor Rating. Elected to do a flight test with an examiner. Had a PA28 booked from the school.

Turn up on the day and meet Mr. Examiner - who then says "We have been given a Cessna 150 because we have to do spinning".

I protest, saying that a C150, with the two of us, would be both overweight and out of balance - neither of which are conducive to spin recovery.

Mr. Examiner says "The PA28 is not approved for spinning, we HAVE to do it, if you want the rating...you will go in the Cessna."

I think that anybody who says they would not have gone at all - and would do without the rating - is probably lying...but what would you have done??

[The Greaser]

Max, should you not have known that spinning was a requirement and that the PA28 was not approved for it. If I was not prepared to fly a C150 ie. I hadn't flown one for a while then I definitely would not have flown it, especially out of CG. If the examiner expects you to do spinning in this scenario I would call the CAA and ask serious questions about his suitability for the job.

[drizzle]

Greaser
UNFORTUNATLY.....in the real world I would guess that many, if not most flights with an SPL in a C150 or similar are done overweight. Spinning overweight however is simply asking for trouble.
UNFORTUNATLY.... i have no solutions.

.

[The Greaser]

Spinning could be done in a 172, Katana or any number of aircraft that are not that difficult to get hold of. I have done spins in a 152 with half tanks and been in limits.

[Kermit 180]

With two average sized people weighing approximately 170 lbs each, and half tanks, the C150/152 is within CofG and MAUW limits. You could prove to the examiner that the aicraft is or is not within limits by completing a weight and balance calculation sheet. The problem may occur if the aircraft has been left with full tanks from the previous flight.

Kermie

[IRRenewal]

I think you will find that most PA28s are cleared for spinning (maybe not the newer ones), provided that W&B is within utility category limits.

Problem is loading them within those limits. In a 140 it is often not possible to get the CofG far enough forward to get within utility limits. A 180 with a bigger lump of metal at the front is better for this.

Having said this, they don't actually spin very well and you normally end up in a spiral dive (gives you the opportunity to show to the examiner that you know the difference and the different recovery technique required!).

Regards

Gerard
[email protected]

[GoneWest]

I wouldn't say MOST PA28's are cleared for spinning - but many are.

I would have taken the PA28 and be within W&B for the exercise.

[IRRenewal]

Point taken GoneWest.

They spin beautifully with flaps down and some power on :eek:.

Regards

[cessnababe]

If weight and balance is a problem for you in spinning why not take a smaller Examiner?? All three available at Redhill/ Shoreham weigh less than 130 lbs and will not compromise your MAUW in C152s unless you are over 210 lbs and if you are, should you really be instructing in them in the first place?

[SkyGuy]

Why not try spinning in the PA 38 Tomahawk.... Now that is a real mans aeroplane.:D

[spaceboy]

Spinning a Cherokee is OK, a Warrior is a no no ! :confused:

[hombre_007]

I agree with everyone else, I have spun a PA28 before, with no drama's, there arne't to many aircraft that won't recover from a spin.(touch wood)

[Dan Winterland]

IMHO, spinning in any aircraft without a parachute is dodgy. I've had several close calls with spinning during 6 years of professional instruction - all with the Irvin letdown option! Now I do a bit of recreational instruction, the once every three years is frequent enough.

[Clarance Over]

You had a choice.

Option 1 - Grab examiner's ears, pull down sharply so that his face connects with your up moving knee. Once he is slumped on the ground, remove his license from his pocket, add his CAA refence number to the relevent page of your licence and then take his still quivering hand to offer some kind of signature. Job done, money saved.

Option 2 - Refuse to fly, report him to the CAA and feel the satisfaction of some-how improving the overall standard of flight safety by removing a 'rogue' examiner from the system.

Option 3 - Fly, pray to god the aircraft recovers, hopefully complete the test and at least have the satisfaction that you have something you can bribe him with at a later date.

Have been in a similar situation myself, only with an examiner who wanted to spin above 8/8 cloud.

Decision? I took option 3, only I haven't bribed the examiner. Because, (a) he is a good bloke who was going to pass me (b) I thought the risk was acceptable (good horizon, RIS etc.)

So what did you do, dick-wad?

[FlyingFowl]

Or alternatively there is Option 4:-

Engage soft spongy substance between ears and present yourself to an examiner with an aircraft capable of completing all of the known requirements for the renewal.

The problem is your lack of understanding of the renewal requirements - not the examiner's response!

I'm glad you weren't my instructor. The reason the examiner was put in an invidious position was down to you!:rolleyes:

[Max Rampwaite]

Flying Fowl...

A reasonable argument, under normal circumstances - although you may have said it rather vociferously.

Actually, I did have access to a C172 that was (indeed, still is) cleared for spinning.

During all my conversations with the flight school (which specialises in JAA FIC instruction) I stated my intention to bring "my own aircraft" (not actually MINE - but a recognised turn of phrase).

The school eventually went to great lengths to point out that the transit times for my journey were not worthwhile and that I should use their own PA28 - which they always used for training and testing. As I'd done spinning before in a PA28 - and this was a recognised school - I didn't think to ask if they actually knew what they were talking about.

A previous attempt to renew the rating - one month earlier, with a different examiner, at a different school, did involve a conversation in which the examiner made it clear that the flight would be in a C172...for both W & B purposes and spinning purposes.

The earlier flight test was eventually cancelled due to both the examiner and I being 4,000 miles apart at the relevant weekend.

I would ask you, FF, to note that my post was not geared to attack the examiner (from whom I learned a great deal, as I always do on these flights), but was meant as a "poll" of which was the more suitable option - the overweight, out of balance aircraft that was cleared for spinning - or the non spin approved aircraft that was within its performance and control envelope.

....and I would still appreciate the book references for further study!!

[Cruise Alt]

Didn't have to spin in my initial FI Exam (which was in Warrior). Where does it say you do have to spin - it is not in FCL.

[B2N2]

Confucius say: "..arrogant Master make arrogant student..."
Right Fowl?

[outbound]

Current policy is that a Fully developed spin and recovery is required for the initial FI(R) test. Incipient spinning is acceptable for the Revalidation. In any event you could opt to do the teaching work in one type and spin in another. Messy but at least you can be 'at home'.
Read the Manual/ POH and then find out how and when and IF you can spin your chosen aeroplane. If in doubt - don't do it until you have found out.

[Nishko]

My so called instructor on an FI course asked me to show him a spin in a C152 right off the bat, meaning that neither one of us could be sure of the CG position, or the overall W&B situation. He had no idea of what I weigh (it's far more than I look) and he was not a small chap. In addition, we were to enter the spin from 2800' AGL. Now, is that not cutting our margins a little close?
If we were to fully recover by 2000 above GL, then allowing 800' for entry, spin, and recovery is not very much...is it?

...Fun as it may be, past experience has shown me that spinning is not something to muck about with unless extreme care is taken (obviously).

N

[I Fly]

Nishko, In the C152 you will be at or close to the forward C of G limit IF you are within weight limit. So, the aircraft is actually reluctant to spin. I had some short Instructor trainees where the C152 would not spin until I got to adjust their seat right back (mine is already right back). Unfortunately they then don't reach the pedals and can't recover. However they can watch me recover to al least have some idea.
If you flew the C152 overweight, then you should not have been there AT ALL.
Spinning from 2800' ?? How deep can you go underground? Answer 6'.
Without knowing the particular situation, it's hard to tell what the examiner / instructor had in mind. Perhaps s/he just wanted you to say "we can not do that" and explain why, if necessary with calculations. Some month ago there was a thread here about flying the C152 overweight. Do a search and see what the wisdom was there.
Remember - if you don't get your rating today because you did not spin - you can come back tomorrow. If you do a spin that you should not have done - you might not be able to come tomorrow. Unless your name is Lazarus.

[IMMELMAN]

Excuse me folks but isn't all this spinning debate a bit pointless ?- a PPL no longer has to opt for full spin practice/recovery - but he does have to demonstrate recovery at the incipient stage. Isn't the whole point that the CAA/JAR set-up is a mess - they do not require spin recovery as part of the skill test. They do, however, want slow flight demonstrated and stall recovery in various configurations, including recovery at the incipient stage, recovery from a spiral dive,etc -so why does an instructor have to do spin entry/recovery in the revalidation flight? The intentional spin entry is NOTHING like the inadvertant spin - please believe me - and the CAA know that. The whole thrust of training now is to ensure your aircraft never gets anywhere near the conditions for spinnning and, if you have ignored everything up to that point, it does start to happen - you stop it right away! If, however, you do enter a spin because of your aircraft's total situation - you are not going to recover, anyway!
The whole training scenario is a nightmare - much of it based on aircraft like the dear old 'Tiggy' - Birch and Bramson and many since, have all put in their 'ten pennorth', to the point where we now have a total 'hybrid' product. Remember BLAC? Remember RAeC? Remember all the other changes that have taken place? JAR was one thing which, incidentally, the CAA still have not come to terms with - now we have NPPL - a new administration for that at Shoreham?, apparently - microlights are now devolved, etc.,etc - as Roger Bacon used to say, 'WIHIH'?, or similar. I have been instructing and examining for over 30 years and all I can say is for God's sake stop messing around! The Bard may as well have written 'To spin, or not to spin?, that is the question' - because that has been debated so, so many times during my 30 years and, doubtless, long before that - and nobody knows or cares - CAA is to be privatised - no question - just like Railtrack and all the other examples of failure ( NATS included) - the people who set our rules and regs are transient - many are now non-aviation people - most are there to see privatisation through - those that really do know their aviation are lost among the 'high fliers' who know about selling things off. Each and every person who gets into the CAA in any position of authority goes off on their own personal ego trip. sets up a study group, pretends to consult the aviation community, then changes the rules - see current debate on changes to FI revalidations - then they retire and along comes another new broom - I could go on but I shan't!
We still have Doctors who can't speak English and never have to prove their qualification, let alone sit a renewal test - we have teachers who qualify once only, etc.,etc - but Aviation? Dreadful - won't be safe until we make it impossible for anybody to be current except on the day they do a test! Our Aviation attitude should have already cost us two World Wars, but we got lucky - have we learned? Have we hell! Who is going to pull all this together? Who will rationalise Instructor guides, examiner handbooks, LASORS, etc.,etc ?Nobody, is my guess! If anybody with an iota of influence at CAA reads this AND they will probably still be ther in two years - PLEASE, PLEASE - GET A GRIP!!!
I challenge you to produce a simple matrix, which people can understand, that sets out the current regulatory position on licensing - all the different kinds of launching into the air - and what is involved/required to be legal and properly trained and qualified - I know there will be no takers - because the ground is still moving - AND NOBODY HAS TAKEN, OR BEEN GIVEN, OVERALL RESPONSIBILITY. Anybody who sounds like they have are probably mainly empowered to sell off the CAA AND MAY WELL NOT HAVE EVER FLOWN IN THEIR LIFE!
Sorry, folks - but we just keep going round in circles due to the frustration of a headless, aimless, clueless administration! How dare they talk about Communication, CRM,etc.,etc? We are in danger of only being licensed to fly in our own National airspace - the EU and JAA is a mockery! We are not allowed to fly in French airspace, public transport, for example, over the age of 60 - great! The French monitor that - do we check to see if the French are doing the same? No! We have not even reciprocated! So, French registered aircraft fly in our airspace every day with pilots over 60 - prove me wrong! You can't, because we do not monitor that! NPPL - what a nonsense! Are we able to tell if the aircraft just going off to Calais is piloted by a NPPL holder? No! Do we have the legal right to prevent such a person going foreign? No! Now this gives rise to so many similar anomolies, all of which the CAA and JAA are either oblivious to, or don't give a sod, that I can no longer bear to rant on. Just consider how many foreign pilots are working here, then how many UK subjects have flying jobs in other EU States - try to find out - you may be surprised! JAA/CAA /EU - Humbug! - I am tired, so are so many of my colleagues - I cannot be bothered to bore you any more with all this! There is so much wrong with aviation regulation and administration at present - it will end in tears! What a great shame! We used to be the best! Just like our football, we are now just 'hype', bull**** and 'jobsworth' - happy flying, if regulation allows you to get airborne! Goodnight!

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Immelman:

Well said.

Aviation is so fu..ed up it is probably beyond saving.

Here in Canada we have our own share of truly corrupt and dangerous to aviation so called Transport Canada officials, so don't feel bad you are not alone.

The good people are leaving because it is hopeless trying to do the job they know should be done.

We are left with self important losers that can't make it anywhere but in Government where regardless of how they perform they are protected 100% because that is how it works.

I have decided to just do my own thing and try and pass on some of what almost fifty years in aviation has taught me in the hope that aviation can be saved.

Meanwhile I will teach all my customers " students " to hold any Transport Canada official in utter contempt, unless that official shows they are truly professional and dedicated people.

Thankfully we still have some good ones left.

By the way you will note that I do not post anonymously, I use my real name and am willing to back up my feelings and opinions in these matters.

Cat Driver:

....................
:D The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no.:D

[IMMELMAN]

Hi Chuck! I believe it was Canada Day when I posted - what a delightful coincidence!

[B2N2]

Spinning is no longer a PPl requirement,but recovery from a homicidal student is.
Plenty have tried to kill me with crosscontrolled stall recoveries....
If it hadn't been for my lightning speed reflexes I would still be afraid to die.
WHO'S NEXT?:D