Spinning practice in a Cessna 172

[Judd]

There is a flying school in Victoria that teaches spinning as part of an instructors course and uses a Cessna 172 for that purpose. While competency at spinning instruction should (IMHO) be part of a flying instructor course I doubt if it is a requirement of the CASA approved instructor course syllabus. Aircraft such as the Cessna 150 aerobat, and Decathlon are commonly used for spinning instruction. But is the Cessna 172 series certified for spinning other than an incipient spin only? The danger of spinning an aircraft not certified for spinning should be obvious to any instructor - with a worst case scenario of the next pilot to fly the aircraft faced with unexpected structural failure. Or is that being too dramatic?

[Runaway Gun]

Which school is this? Must remember not to hire from them.

[LexAir]

I think you will find that the C-172 is certified for spinning if operated in the "Utility" category and the C of A states the aircraft is approved for operations in the Utility category.

[Aussie Bob]

But is the Cessna 172 series certified for spinning other than an incipient spin only?

Some certainly are, read the flight manual. An "N" model I once operated was certified for spins in the utility category but with two heavies on board and a bit of fuel you were outside of this. Not a very convincing spin trainer either, took effort to induce a proper spin and simply letting go of the controls, it would recover to a dive instantly that took height and some g force to correct.

Not something I would recommend in an old 172 ...

[aussie1234]

It was a requirement to do spins when I did my instructor rating, not to teach just to be able to recover. Was more fun in the Pitts than I guess a 172 would be.

[Anthill]

Hi Judd,

I learned to fly in gliders and before first solo a student had to be able to enter and recover from a fully developed spin. Then again GFA always had a higher standard than CAA/CASA.

A risk exists in mishandling the recovery in Utility category aircraft, especially old ones. IMHO, a risk of over stress exists and I would be pretty uncomfortable flying in such an aircraft.

Personally, I don't think that CPL should be issued without spin certification. If you are scared of a spin, you shouldn't be flying. There are plenty of aircraft around which are built for the g-loads that can be encountered during a botched recovery. A C172 isn't one of them.

[roundsounds]

Under the Part 61 regs a spinning activity endorsement is a prerequisite for a grade 3 training endorsement (aeroplanes). See table 61.1235.
As mentioned earlier, it depends on the individual aircraft's c of a and flight manual as to whether you can spin the aircraft. The C172 isn't a good aircraft for spin training, C150/152 , Robin, Citabria/Decathlon are all ok. If you want a text book spin recovery aeroplane you can't go past the DeHavilland Chipmunk. The Chippy will not recover unless you do all of the proper things.

[Tarq57]

I've flown the A,D, M and N models of 172. All were certified for spinning when the aircraft was operated in the utility category. (As a reminder, that's +4.4G, -1.7)
I've spun one of them a few times, as part of a BFR. (Dual.)

Not what I'd call a great spin trainer, simply because it needs coaxing into the spin (at the stall insert full rudder, and the gentle old girl goes "oh, really?...well, ok... if I must,) and it needs full aft to hold it into the spin, unless a bit of power is maintained.

I can imagine botched recoveries in some aircraft. The 172 isn't one of them. You'd have to be rather ham-fisted. I mean, to the degree that's it's an insult to all ham.

Pretty much the moment the aft pressure is started to be relaxed, the aircraft is very obviously flying again normally. A gentle pull out from the dive can generally be achieved without exceeding about 2G. Probably less.

[27/09]

In New Zealand it's a requirement to have 1 hour (not all in one lesson) of spin recovery training signed off in your logbook for the issue of a C category (Grade 3 to you guys in the West Island :E) instructor rating. I don't know about the requirements in Oz.

The C172's I flew were all approved for spinning in the utility category.

For one instructor I trained we started out in a C172 but it was so useless at spinning we had to change to another type. From memory it needed pro spin aileron to stay in the spin as soon as the aileron was centralised the spin stopped.

Many C172's will enter the incipient spin with flap deployed, spinning is forbidden with flap deployed, though I suspect some do spin them with flap. In fact if I recall correctly Utility Category requires clean configuration, i.e. No flap.

While the C172 is approved for spinning, in my opinion it isn't a suitable aircraft to teach spin recovery training.

The C150/2 was a different kettle of fish. Used to enjoy spinning out of a steep turn in them, both over the top and underneath. A lot of fun and it was a very good way to teach the recovery process as the most likely time other than a botched stall recovery for a spin was in an out of balance steep turn.

[Aussie Bob]

Tarq 57, your comments are fine for an experienced pilot but try it with a student often enough and you will see a botched recovery. Not a good spin trainer for sure, but plenty strong enough. Who ever heard of a 172 breaking up in flight? It would be a rare occurrence indeed.

27/09 if you can't get a 172 to spin easily you are using the wrong technique. Try with a bit of power next time. No aileron needed.

BTW I don't recommend spin training in them at all because a botched recovery will see VNE arrive quite quickly, especially if the power is left on. As others have said, there are far better aircraft for the job.

[buzzz.lightyear]

Spinning in a C172?..... absolutely stupid thing to do...

[27/09]

Spinning in a C172?..... absolutely stupid thing to do...

Would you mind explaining why? It's approved in the Flight Manual for many C172 aircraft. While I suggest there's better aircraft to do spinning in, I can't agree with the "absolutely stupid" comment

[Tarq57]

Tarq 57, your comments are fine for an experienced pilot but try it with a student often enough and you will see a botched recovery. Not a good spin trainer for sure, but plenty strong enough. Who ever heard of a 172 breaking up in flight? It would be a rare occurrence indeed.....
Sure, but we're talking about a person going on an instructors course. Hopefully they've got a bit of experience. I've only accumulated about 500 hours. In that time I've spun 152's, PA38's (shudder, but a real good spin trainer) a B121, and attempted to spin a PA28 and an Airtourer. (Those two just tend to fall into a spiral dive. I've heard of someone who managed to get a Cherokee into a properly developed spin. A bit of weight in the back was the catalyst for performing that miracle, I believe.)

Never heard of a 172 breaking up in flight. I think they're probably a lot stronger than most people imagine.

[27/09]

27/09 if you can't get a 172 to spin easily you are using the wrong technique. Try with a bit of power next time. No aileron needed.

Tried all that. Though I'd suspect some are better than others depending on how they are rigged.

[buzzz.lightyear]

As others have said... there are better aircraft for the purpose... and with sids and ageing aircraft in general.... a stupid thing to do... it's all about risk management... if you don't need to do it.. then don't... simple...

[Aussie Bob]

Tried all that. Though I'd suspect some are better than others depending on how they are rigged

I suspect you are correct :hmm:

[Checkboard]

Not a very convincing spin trainer either ... and simply letting go of the controls, it would recover to a dive instantly... and I hope you understand that is a GOOD thing. :ugh:

EAA - In the Loop - The Hands-off Beggs/Mueller Emergency Spin Recovery Procedure (http://spirit.eaa.org/intheloop/articles/1006_spin_recovery.asp)

[roundsounds]

I agree with the comments regarding the 172 being reluctant to spin, but remember this is 2 up and in the utility category. The CofG is well forward, people do spin them into the ground, usually with the CofG further aft (pax, bags etc) high power and crossed controls. If you're serious about teaching instructors / trainee pilots about spin awareness I'd recommend an aircraft certified in the aerobatic category and a spin entry with a fair amount of power, skidding and aileron to hold of bank. The Citabria does this extremely well. The classic power off, boot in rudder at the point of stall entry can be recovered at any point with minimal height loss. Use the climbing turn, rudder into the direction of turn and holding off bank with aileron you will lose at least 500' from the time it "lets go" until recovered. This entry also requires the correct recovery inputs - power off, centralise ailerons, identify the direction of the spin, apply opposite rudder, then progressively ease the stick forward until the rotation stops, then centralise the rudder and recover from the dive.

[djpil]

Exactly roundsounds!

(well almost exactly - spin recovery actions slightly different in types that I fly)

[allthecoolnamesarego]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aussie Bob
Not a very convincing spin trainer either ... and simply letting go of the controls, it would recover to a dive instantly
... and I hope you understand that is a GOOD thing.

EAA - In the Loop - The Hands-off Beggs/Mueller Emergency Spin Recovery Procedure


Checkboard,

Letting go for recovery is a good thing, but really doesn't need much 'training'.

If you want to practice spin recovery as a 'life saver' you need to practice fully developed spinning, in an aircraft that requires 'conventional' recovery techniques.

It seems pointless to practice something that requires no skill -' let go and you'll be right son!'

What we need people to practice, is what to do if "letting go" doesn't work. Then they will need to conduct the spin recovery procedure.

It is also import (IMO) to show pilots what spinning looks/feels like, and show them that there is nothing to be frightened of. Identify the spin, recover!

:)

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

Might help if people would refer to their flight manuals to understand the limitations.

(Chapter 2 in most standard manuals)
Cessna 172M-N

This aircraft is not designed for purely aerobatic flight. However, in the aquisition of various certificates such as commercial pilot, instructor pilot and flight instructor, certain maneuvres (sic) are required by the FAA. all of these maneuvres are permitted in this airplane when operated in the utility category.
In the utility category, the baggage compartment and rear seat must not be occupied. No aerobatic are approved except those listed below;
If you want to know what they are, look them up. Max weight while operating in the utility category is 2000lbs (907kg). C172P and R models get 2100lbs (952kg) and S models 2200lbs (998kg).

Aerobatics that may impose high loads should not be attempted. The important thing to bear in mind in flight maneuvres is that the airplane is clean in aerodynamic design and will build up speed quickly with the nose down. Proper speed control is an essential requirement for execution of any maneuver, and care should always be exercised to avoid excessive speed which in turn can impose excessive loads. In the execution of all maneuvres, avoid abrupt use of controls. Intentional spins with flaps extended are prohibited.

R and S models do not have the spinning prohibition with flaps extended.

The CofG envelopes in the utility category are VERY different to the normal category. Spinning outside of the rear limit may send the spin flat, making recovery "difficult".

As always, spinning should not be attempted unless properly qualified or being instructed by a qualified person.:=

As with stalling, you don't need to be scared of them, but you must respect them.:ok:

[27/09]

buzz.lightyearand with sids and ageing aircraft in general.... a stupid thing to do... it's all about risk management.

Have you actually done any spinning? If you have you'll know it's a low "G" manoeuvre. The highest "G" is in the recovery from the dive after recovery, and that isn't usually all that high.

Remember the original post was about doing spins in a C172 for instructor training, so spins being done by an experienced instructor with someone with more than just ab initio experience. A fairly controlled environment I would expect.

There's likely to be mores stresses and strains from flying in turbulence. Shall we stop all older Cessna's that need SIDs from flying in turbulence?

In the scenario mentioned in the first post, spinning a C172 could be considered pointless but certainly not stupid.

[buzzz.lightyear]

Have I done any spinning? Yes I have... As a Grade 1 and former CFI.. 40+ years and 25K+hours
If a lesson is not that positive e.g. spins in a C172 with all the restrictions etc.. then there is no point and it is indeed a stupid thing to do... Can you imagine the patter that goes with a demo for this...
Certainly a 'Low G' thing except for the recovery if heading to be lumpy custard..then the statement for ageing aircraft comes in... I have a number of friends with older aircraft who found a 100 hourly turned out $$$ due to cancer etc requiring new wings... not something you would want when the ASI hits the red zone and you pull up quick in a panic..

[Centaurus]

Although the OP is about spinning, I have often wondered why every flying school that I know states in their Ops manual that practice stalling should be conducted so that recovery is by a minimum of 3000 ft agl. Stall practice is not aerobatics and never has been. Normal height loss during stall recovery in a C172 and similar types is around 100 feet. Not only that, but student pilots are not certified as competent to conduct solo practice stalling unless they have demonstrated a safe standard to their instructor. Presumably a "safe standard" entails a minimum height loss during recovery - again around 100-150 feet. I have even seen the Ops Manual of a RAA operator that states practice stalling must be conducted such that recovery is effected by a minimum of 3000 ft.

The LSA I have flown simply do not stall in the classic sense. They just nod and recovery effected with max height loss of 50 feet. Yet this magic figure of 3000 ft which is a just a myth has been around for decades.

It is certainly a good money spinner given the time it takes to claw a 150 or a Warrior to 3500 ft or higher. Same with an LSA although they have a better rate of climb than a 172. One can argue that 3000 ft is rorting of a students money; which is no doubt why almost every flying school operator makes sure it is in the Ops manual (CASA approved, naturally)

[27/09]

Centaurus

A money spinner it might be but I think the 3000' thing is probably historical, going back to days where training aircraft weren't so docile and the chance of a spin with a poorly executed stall entry or recovery was quite high. No one has bothered to make any changes with the more docile aircraft we now have.

[LexAir]

Centaurus, I totally agree with your sentiments.

In my view, the brighter side of the introduction of Parts 61, 141 & 142 is that we now have an excellent opportunity to re-write training syllabi which can reflect the modern age of teaching, learning theory and practice and reflect modern aircraft technology and handling characteristics.

Flying schools should now be taking up the challenge to modernise their syllabi.

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

Stall practice is not aerobatics and never has been.

That maybe true but when a Traumahawk rolls on its back from a stall with power and flap it sure feels like aerobatics!

Dr :8

[spinex]

Not sure I completely agree with Centaurus this time. Most times a stall should be and is a non-event, agreed, but St Murphy, the patron saint of students will ensure that somewhere, some day, when approaching the edges of the flight envelope, either a student will do something stupid or an aircraft will spring a surprise on you - at which point it is very comforting to have a bit of space beneath.

Full disclosure, I'm not an instructor, but once managed to cause a little damage to our respective underwear by being overenthusiastic in correcting a wing drop with rudder in an unfamiliar aircraft - the resulting roll reversal was pretty impressive and we'd lost the thick end of 1,000' by the time I got it tidied up. Did I mishandle it, yes certainly, but doubt that I'm alone in doing that.

Point being that if we'd started at 1,500' on the basis that we shouldn't lose more than 150' in the recovery, the trees would have been looming during the recovery, the perfect scenario for more hamfisted behaviour like an accelerated stall.

[Centaurus]

I'm not an instructor, but once managed to cause a little damage to our respective underwear by being overenthusiastic in correcting a wing drop with rudder in an unfamiliar aircraft - the resulting roll reversal was pretty impressive

Correcting a wing drop with rudder? The instructor who taught you that technique needs re-training. It can be potentially dangerous at low level as it can result in an incipient spin in the other direction. Picking up the wing with rudder is No 10 in hoary old general aviation myths taught by flying schools down throughout the ages. No wonder you had a roll as you described. Suggest you should only apply enough rudder to prevent the wing from going down further. That means usually about one quarter of rudder pedal travel. At the same time use ailerons to level the wings. Include stick forward to unstall the wings and apply full power as necessary. If all done simultaneously it should take less than five seconds if done correctly. Practice until perfect.

Most general aviation trainers today are designed to have a benign stall characteristics including ailerons effective below the stall. On the other hand if flying a war bird type, a wing drop is likely if mishandled at point of stall. But let's face it very few ab-initio or private pilots fly a warbird like a Mustang or Trojan?

Because most light trainers are designed to have benign stalling characteristics and wing drop stall training is mentioned in some CASA syllabus, it is common to see instructors deliberately placing the aircraft into the most frightening attitudes that would never happen in real life and crossing the controls so much that it forces a wing drop and they can proudly announce to the student "see Bloggs, look at the wing drop and the way to stop that is to shove on the rudder and pick up the dropped wing".

What the instructor doesn't say is that you have to boot the poor Cessna in the arse all over the sky to force a wing to go down. Not exactly good instructional technique especially if the student copies his instructor during solo practice and over-stresses the airframe in attempting to force a wing drop.:ugh:

Airliners like the 737 for example have very tame stall characteristics. They simply squash down at a high rate of descent and don't drop a wing. During stall recovery training in a 737 simulator it would be unheard of to have the instructor deliberately throw the 737 all over the sky booting in rudder to try and induce a wing drop like some instructors do at flying schools. That being so, it makes one wonder why flying school instructors including 250 hour grade 3 types and RAA instructors too, often stick their Cessna or LSA into quite astounding unrealistic attitudes to force a wing drop just to tick the syllabus box?

[spinex]

it should take less than five seconds if done correctly.
- and therein lies the rub, cock ups happen and some free air beneath can be a real nice to have.

As far as the hoary old myth no.10, you're preaching to the converted, especially after that experience, but as with many other pilots I tend to go along with most of whatever the be-striped one in the RHS insists is gospel at the given time. Indeed I've been roundly castigated on this same forum for daring to suggest that an instructor may have been out of line in the cockpit.;)

[roundsounds]

Centaurus: "Suggest you should only apply enough rudder to prevent the wing from going down further. That means usually about one quarter of rudder pedal travel. At the same time use ailerons to level the wings. Include stick forward to unstall the wings and apply full power as necessary. If all done simultaneously it should take less than five seconds if done correctly. Practice until perfect."
I fear this technique could end in tears in some types. The Pitts range of aircraft for example might very well reward you with an outside flick / snap roll following these control inputs.
The purpose of rudder application in response to a wing drop is to prevent further yaw, which should stop the wing dropping further. I totally agree there is no intention to lift a wing with rudder unless you're performing a falling leaf. Aileron input should not be made until the wings are unstalled. Application of power during these control inputs can lead to some undesired results in higher powered types. Think in terms if Boeings FCTM guidance on rudder use during engine inoperative ops- " In flight, correct rudder input approximately centers the control wheel. To center the control wheel, rudder is required in the direction that the control wheel is displaced. This approximates a minimum drag configuration." ie no yaw = no roll.

[djpil]

roundsounds, I just have to agree yet again (except about the Boeing bit because I know nought about that).

[Jack Ranga]

Where were all you blokes when I was doing my training?

[captjns]

Buzz.lightyear asserts Spinning in a C172?..... absolutely stupid thing to do...

captjns asserts... Possibly the most asinine statement posted. Fine suitable aircraft, along with its little sister, the C-150 for spin training, both power on and power off entries.

[Aussie Bob]

It is certainly a good money spinner given the time it takes to claw a 150 or a Warrior to 3500 ft or higher

Your dreaming Centaurus. Seriously, you think this time is wasted? The average student has around four hours before the first stalling lesson. On the way up you review the previous lessons. Glad you wern't my instructor, otherwise we would have popped out of the circuit area and straight into a stall.

Where were all you blokes when I was doing my training?

No doubt telling everyone how good they were back when they instructed.

[Avgas172]

That maybe true but when a Traumahawk rolls on its back from a stall with power and flap it sure feels like aerobatics!

Been there done that 30 years ago as a 19 hour student, 1500 ft altitude loss.
over ...