DIY aeros - was I nuts?

[Liar's Poker]

OK, Sunday afternoon, found myself on my own flying something aerobatic (+6/-4G i think) at 4000 feet. After a few steep turns and wingovers, i thought about doing a roll - never had an aeros training :ooh: but i've read a bit, so dive for a bit of speed, nose up to about 30 degrees .. at 100kts centralize controls, full right stick ... wheeee, world rotates around outside ... back level, find myself about 20 degrees nose down, pull up to straight and level, that was fun :) :ok: do a couple more. Look at G meter, reading +2.5, probably pulling out of the first one. Go back home with :D on face

Talking to pilot friend later, told him about this. Conversation was something like

Him: "Oh, I didn't know you'd done some aeros training"
Me: "I haven't"
Him: "Then you're a :mad:ing fool then"

Am I? I wasn't doing anything like loops or stall turns, I figured that nothing much could go wrong with a roll - i've done spin training so happy that i could get out of that, and had lots of height. :{

[Rupert S]

It probably was quite dangerous but then someone had to try out aerobatics for the first time and they wouldn't have had any training. I know the consequences are much graver while flying if a mistake is made but where's the harm in trying things out for yourself if you're confident in your own skills.

[Lowtimer]

LP,

You haven't told us the type, but lots of things might go wrong even with an apparently simple manoeuvre. Even experienced aerobatics pilots have things go differently from how they expect from time to time. Their experience and training are then what they draw on to get out of those situations.

What might have gone wrong? Much depends on the type. But, for example, you might have found something heavy drifting up from the floor or the luggage compartment and whacking you in the head, or you might have gone slightly negative with a carb-fed engine and had it stop on you, or you might have got disorientated upside down and slackened off the aileron (quite common I believe among people trying their first roll) and gone into a high speed inverted dive, or you might not have got the nose up high enough to start with, with the same result. Fortunately none of those things happened.

I don't have any real insight into how you went about it, but from what you wrote it comes across as very much a spur-of-the-moment decision, no real preparation beforehand. Spontaneity is not a terrific idea when you're starting aerobatics, a very methodical and disciplined approach makes it much easier to cope and learn in safety. While a few people have successfully taught themselves aerobatics (though I don't recommend it) I'd suggest those who have survived are those who have gone about it with great caution and foresight in other respects.

flying something aerobatic (+6/-4G i think)

It would be safer to know the G limits than to think you know them. Had you read what the POH has to say about aerobatics in that type? And is that G rating valid at the part of the loading envelope that you were actually operating at? What fuel did you have in what tanks? You used full aileron, and at 100kts that's probably OK depending on type, but do you know the max speed for full aileron application? Do you know the way that aileron deflection generally reduces the load-bearing capacity of the wing, so the more roll, the less G you should pull? Did you know for a fact there was nothing in the luggage compartment? Had you done a loose articles check? Were you in suitable airspace, and what kind of lookout did you do? Did you do the HASELL (or similar) checks that you would do before stalling, spinning etc?

I think you'd find a course of dual instruction, and the accompanying groundschool, both fun and illuminating, and it should certainly include the importance of those questions.

[Circuit Basher]

Nuts - Yes
Insured - probably not
Safe - You'll have to answer for yourself

Overall verdict - risky, but you seem to have got away with it!!

Would I have done the same - probably (but over a period of 30 yrs, I've been talked through a number of basic aero manoeuvres by RAF pilots sitting in front / alongside me whilst I make various attempts) ;) ;)

IMHO, going off and doing some aeros without any sort of experience / training was not the most sensible thing to have done. Confessing to it publicly on PPRuNe was probably even less sensible as you're probably going to get flamed like you've never been flamed before!! :D :D

On a personal level - good on yer' - shows a healthy disrespect for the rules, which is not always bad!! ;) ;)

[Boing_737]

Not wanting to discourage your adventurous flying, there are some things to consider:

(1). You only think you knew the G limits of the plane you were flying. I would ensure that I knew them beforehand - think about the consequences if you exceeded them (costs inspections, damage to the airframe etc). :mad:

(2). What if you had entered a spin? Have you spun before? Do you know the correct recovery actions for that particular aircraft? (I have read that the correct actions for one type could lead to entering an un-recoverable spin in another) :{

I haven't trained in aeros myself, but I intend to before I do any aerobatic activity. I believe in a certain degree of paranoia when it comes to my life!! I am hooked on aeros however - I went flying in the Microlease Extra 300s a few weeks ago. Lots of nasty manouvers were performed by the pilot - outside loop particularly uncomfortable :yuk:

Just some thoughts - not a lecture I hope

[Say again s l o w l y]

Lowtimer has got it pretty much said. Aero's can go wrong, but it's more that you need to know your machine very well before you start to push it. Which to be honest it doesn't sound like.
I would recommend to anyone wanting to do aero's to go and do a proper course with an instructor, who would then not just show you how to do the manoeveurs, but what happens if it all goes wrong. This is what I teach mostly, rather than just how to pull a faultless sequence. (that's nice tho'!!)

What you did wasn't illegal as such, but not sensible, but hey if we were all sensible, none of us would fly very much!!;)

You got away with it, but to really enjoy it, get some training. Once you're confident and you lose that "should I be doing this feeling" it really is the best fun you can have with OR without clothing!:cool: Mind you I would say that as an instructor!

5 hours of aero's will increase your handling skill by 500% more than 5 hours of just burning holes in the sky.

[paulo]

Bonkers, but you're ok, aeroplane's ok... time to book some training. You'll get taught unusual attitude recovery etc...and hey, they'll even teach you how to do a roll properly. I mean, 20 degrees nose down on exit? Tsk tsk :)

[Liar's Poker]

Lecture needed I think :(

I'd rather keep quiet about the type :O but it's fuel-injected, i did do a proper HASELL (including nothing heavy) and the "I think" about the g limit is because it might have a .5 on the end, it is at least +6/-4G. But Lowtimer is right and 'no' is the answer to most of his or her questions. It was a spur-of-the-moment decision, the airplane has a great roll rate and having whacked on 90 degrees of bank for a few wingovers I just thought why not...?

Don't mind confessing of Prune if I learn from it and as for flaming, probably deserve it.

[foxmoth]

Learning Aero's is not just about learning the manouvers, like most things in aviation the basics are not hard but you need to know what to do if it goes wrong. This is the main thing i want a student to know before I will let them off to practice Aero's by themself. Another problem is you may not realise you are overreving the engine - this is a very common problem with people new to Aero's (Hands up Aero instructors who never have to touch the throttle on the first few Aero's sessions) and can prove very expensive at the least.
Circuit Basher - A HEALTHY disrespect for the rules involves Knowing what you are doing, THEN doing something you can get away with but perhaps shouldn't!:eek:

[Justiciar]

So where would you go to learn aeros? I have thought about doing the AOPA course somewhere but others are a bit critical of the AOPA sylabus - don't know why.

I spoke to a helpful man at the Tiger Club at Headcorn who was firmly of the view that their traditional approach is the right one, i.e. start off on their Stamp and progress to the Tiger Moth. This is a cheep option as all you pay for is aircraft hire at about £140 per hour. At the other end of the scale you can do it at vast expence on Pitts or Extras.

Any views, anyone?

[stiknruda]

Justiciar, hi!

In my humble opinion, if you learn aeros properly in a Stampe or a Tiger or even an Aerobat/Citabria then when you do progress to something with more power and higher wing loading, the Pitts or Extra, you will have acquired the necessary input skills to fly the higher powered aircraft very nicely!

Stik

[Evo]

Justiciar - I asked about the AOPA course a while ago here (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=81898&perpage=15&pagenumber=1), got some useful views. Having talked to foxmoth about it I'm not so worried about the actual syllabus any more, I think he's got the right idea about teaching recovery techniques so that you can practice safely.

Which reminds me, foxmoth - check your PMs

[orionsbelt]

- It was a spur-of-the-moment decision-

How may DEAD pilots said that !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Get some training ol mate - then you will discover why its required.

Aeros are great and good fun in trained hands

[Kingy]

Are you nuts - no!

Would I recommend it - no!

Have I done stuff like that myself - er.. :O :O !

It’s very easy to get all holyer than thou about these things. My view is that you were P1, you were solo and your arse was in the seat. You broke no rules and you learned from the experience - I admire your spirit of adventure.

May I remind everyone that Neil Williams taught himself aeros and his accounts of his first aerobatic flights are inspiring reading indeed.

Sure, now get some training and learn properly. But its not everyday you do something that you can tell the grandkids about - good on you. :ok:

Kingy

[Flyin'Dutch']

Denny Dobson is a self taught aeros man so it can be done.

However there are also a lot of peeps who did a 'let's have a look or see how well I can do this and ended up in a heap.

Recently started flying a new type.

One of the things on the checklist states:

'Too many ded pilots fly in heaven'

One to bear in mind, IMHO.

FD

[Say again s l o w l y]

Liar's poker,
Don't worry about getting a ribbing. It's good that you've had the b*lls to ask. Few people do that unfortunately. As I'm sure you've heard on these hallowed pages before. "there's no such thing as stupid question, only stupid answers." Sums up instructing really!!:ok:

[Tinstaafl]

Most pilots alive have done something stupid & thoughtless once.

Many dead pilots did it twice. Which one do you plan to be?

[FlyingForFun]

Haven't got time to read all the replies right now, although I expect what I'm about to say will agree with the vast majority.

Yes, you were stupid. I'm glad it went ok for you, and you apparently enjoyed it - but don't do it again.

One of the scariest things I've ever done in an aeroplane was a simple loop. I'd just completed a 10-hour aeros course, so I knew at least roughly what I was doing, but this was a new aircraft. I pulled too hard, stalled, got confused about whether I was upright or inverted, and tried to recover from an inverted stall instead of an upright stall, which only made the problem worse.

Fortunately, there was an experienced instructor sat in front of me.

FFF
----------------

[Liar's Poker]

What a good forum this is :ok:

I get the message, I did something fairly bloody stupid, but nobody flamed. Got some fairly stern words which to be honest i deserve, advice from those who know abnout why it's stupd. ILAFTT, thanks guys

[Miserlou]

Yeah, you've got the message but I do hope that your appetite has been whetted and that you will perhaps get into aerobatics as a hobby. It is the best sport in the world.

Kingy.
I'd also like to point out that Neil Williams was flying a much more forgiving aircraft than is the norm today. And he's dead, too!

[Kingy]

Miserlou,

Is a Tiger more forgiving than aircraft today? - Mmm.. I dunno.. I also don't know what type LP was flying...

Neil Williams is dead - FYI he flew into a side of a mountain in IMC. He was not killed by doing aeros.

Kingy

[Fujiflyer]

Liar's Poker

I think the other postings pretty much sum up what is basically good advice.

Remember that in aviation situations can very quickly turn from something you feel you have complete control over to something very nasty in the space of no time at all. Bear this in mind next time you decide to do aero's as you described.

Rich :O

[MarkJ]

I taught myself but it took 20 years to get 3rd place in the World Advanced aerobatics last year. Training would have cut that down but its all about 3D awarness. Mark j

[touch&go]

Say Again slowly.........pot and kettle springs to mind :ok:

[paulo]

Cheers MarkJ - Nice to have an old hand here :ok:

[Say again s l o w l y]

O.K T&G you got me. We did do some daft things, in fact probably far worse than what Liar's poker is mentioning. Scared myself stupid(er) a couple of times to. Mind you, do you remember some of the stories Brucie H used to tell. No wonder his hair was so white.:eek:

[Miserlou]

Kingy.
We don't want to open the discussion about modern trainers and their insufficiencies so in the context of the period in question when the Tiger was the standard....

The Tiger Moth is not a difficult aircraft to fly and, in common with most light aircraft of the era, has low power, low wing loading, high drag and no washout. The low speed, combined with construction, mean that the Tiger absorbs energy much better than many other aircraft in the event of an accident. The speed is also less likely to get out of control than with a cleaner design.

From Neil's accounts, which you presented as making it OK to teach yourself aerobatics, the message is clear- DON'T. Get proper training!

I am well aware of the circumstances of his death. The point is that he wasn't, as some believed, perfect.

Please don't misunderstand me, I hold his works and piloting skills in high regard.

[paulo]

Slightly off topic, but here's

Neil Williams' amazing save (http://www.eaa309.org/News%20Letter/Mar02/page8/page6.html) :eek: :ok:

[Kingy]

Miserlou,

If we were having this 'discussion' over a pint I'd probably bring up Johnathon Livingston Seagull about now...:D

Kingy

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

Hell, just becuase some two bit instructor has "checked you out" doesn't give you some magic safety halo.

A thoughtful private pilot having researched the subject could easily perfrom some basic aeros in an appropriate type without undue hazard.

Far more dangerous are the common 1hr 'checkout' in different types that scantly cover important differences. Nobody told me when I converted from C152 to PA28 that there were two fuel tanks with a selector. That nearly killed me.

Trying a roll in an aircraft with +6 -4 with some forethought is safe as houses by comparison.

Cheers

WWW

[down&out]

www - I have to agree with you about cross training between types - I've flown a few and many a time having passed a "a check out" with an instructor, I found myself continuing to ask 10min more of questions on things he hadn't covered. So know I always factor in time now to read the POH & often find it contradicts what the instructor says anyway – and I know which to trust! ;)


back to thread:

Having learnt & flown aerobatics some years ago, I would say it's not tooooo dangerous to "have an informed go" ONLY if you
1) Know your aircraft limits not just G, but the rest like - how many seconds inverted - it may be injected, but what about oil; how much height do you need to recover from a spin, etc.
2) Have been up with an instructor to LEARN how to recover from spins in your aircraft. Erect/ flat/ inverted. If you only can do one type (I was only able to practice erect spins) then at least be aware on how to recover from the others and limit the manovers you perform appropriately.

However, getting someone who knows to show you is best, quickest and SAFEST way, so why not carry on with the guy/ girl who takes you spinning! :D

[paulo]

Building on down&out, some more thoughts:

Things to keep you alive & things to learn, seperate from learning specific figures...

1. Not Hitting things.
- Safe altitudes.
- Spin Recoveries*
- Clearing turns.

2. Not Breaking the aeroplane (from G)
- G Limits for the Type
- Weight & Balance (for aeros on the Type)

3. Not Breaking the aeroplane (from Speed)
- Unusual Attitude Recovery, rolling level not pulling through.

4. And if the above didn't work, getting out.
- Use of chute, if available.

* Both ways up if poss.

There's a bunch of other things that might not kill you right there and then, but may be bad news in the long run. Even worse, they may be bad news for someone else, which is not nice...

e.g. Overspeeding the engine, or overclocking on G and resetting the meter.

[Dan Winterland]

Where you nuts? Not really, but hopefully you will heed caution after the advice on this thread. I personally know of one person who died trying out aeros on his own (well, that's what the inquiry summised). And I bet he wasn't the only one.

My advice is get some instruction. The original skills were learn't the hard way and there are enough instructors to pass on those skills without further risks being necessary.

[Lowtimer]

* Both ways up if poss, otherwise training in a generic technique such as Beggs Muller.

And, you do need to know if you're flying one of the several types where the Beggs / Muller recovery will kill you, e.g. Chipmunk. Definitely an area where you need information from the POH and instructor experienced on type. As Muller emphasises in his book, it's great for the Pitts and anything else with what he describes as "a conventional tail configuration". I haven't read the book for a while but I believe he mentions a few types there for which it doesn't work, and no doubt since that book was written more new types have come along in which it doesn't work.

[Justiciar]

What exactly is the Beggs Muller technique and how does recovery in a Chiippy and certain other aircraft differ?

[Evo]

As I remember it, Buggs-Muller is;

Power off, centre stick, press rudder pedal that gives most resistance, wait for spin to stop, recover

But stik will probably correct me :) Sure it's been discussed, but couldn't find it in a search.

[stiknruda]

Evo, Justiciar,

The book is never far from my side:

POWER OFF
LET GO STICK
PRESS ANTI YAW PEDAL
RECOVER FROM THE DIVE

It doesn't work in the Chippie and Beggs had problems with it in an Aerobat.

IT does work in the Pitts.

Stik

[Evo]

Is the anti-yaw pedal not always the same as the pedal which gives the most resistance? The latter seems like a good way of getting things right if you're unsure of what is going on, but obviously i don't want to be pressing the wrong one...

[Ludwig]

I think that the comments on this thread, which at times have been contradictory on some recovery actions, just goes to highlight how important it is to get proper traing on type before blasting off and having a go rather than relying on bar room talk. I have done a few aeros now, and every now and again it does not go to plan and trained instinct take over to recover the mess. No training, no instinct and the next thing you know is someone with a JCB is backfilling the hole you made.

Pleeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaase get some quality training from a proper aeros instructor ( not some youth who has rushed through the removal of the aerobatic retsiction in a 150 aerobat last week, but a competition hardened, or long staning instructor, if not for your benefit then for the benefit of your family and the rest of us who do not want to see dead airman or worse, bent aircraft.

Sorry, bee in bonnet, as I am sure the original poster has already booked some lessons.:O

[Miserlou]

Kingy,
It'll be a long night then. You'll have to buy me a few! Jonathon, yes, beautiful book but 'Illusions' is much more practical advice.

Best Aerobatic Regards,

Miserlou.

On the subject of the quick checkout-mongers, I find it astonishing that you'd go and fly a strange aircraft without adequate preparation.

You'll find you're in breach of the ANO if you fail to make yourself aware of the peculiarities of any given type. It's your responsibility!

One hour of flight is plenty for most GA types even 'complex' types if you've read the book first.

Then when you go to fly you have a list of relevant questions first and then concentrate on flying the aircraft when you get in the air!

[paulo]

We should prod AerBabe - she's doing Chippie+Aeros training at the mo - wonder what her instructor's view is for that type?

[AerBabe]

Actually, I'm not. I'm just doing chippie training. Main purpose is to get a tailwheel signoff, and then to learn to fly it properly, including aeros. The two loops we did were confidence-builders. Sorry... But I will ask my instructor why the Buggs-Melter recovery thingy doesn't work with a chippie.

[ShyTorque]

As quite a lot of these ex military aircraft have now been sold to the civvy market and are aerobatic: For those with Bulldog aircraft - my advice is DON'T try anything other than the recommended spin recovery.

Even as RAF QFIs on type we were required to make a recovery from a high rotational spin every month. We flew this sortie 2 QFIs up and briefed the other how we were going to enter and how we were going to recover and what we were going to do if it didn't recover.

Even for those of us who were very used to spinning and teaching same, the Hi-rot made your eyes water. My preferred entry was to enter a normal spin and then move the stick one inch forward off the back stop. That's all it takes for the aircraft to rapidly achieve about 720 degrees/ second in roll/yaw.

The point here is that if doing ad-hoc aeros in an unfamiliar aircraft and it departs from controlled flight, you may end up in another situation that you have no experience of.

One of my scariest few moments was during my RAF jet training when I inadvertantly spun a JP3A during aeros as a solo student, (having previously passed my spin / aeros check). By the time I had it flying again, I realised I had lost almost 11,000 feet and was below the minimum height for ejection. Lucky for me it came out.

I also once saw an accidental inverted spin in a C150, with the prop stopped. On my pre-ride before my GFT.

[Flyin'Dutch']

Hear, hear WWW,

Although I have to say that as commander you did obviously acquint yourself with the POH before you assumed control of this PA28?

FD

[Mike Cross]

I'd echo the advice not to rely on a generic technique.
POWER OFF
LET GO STICK
PRESS ANTI YAW PEDAL
RECOVER FROM THE DIVE does not work from a fully developed spin in a Pup 150 and I suspect would have problems in a fully developed spin in other types.

The version I was taught was
Centre the stick
Full opposite rudder
Stick progressively forward until the spin stops
Take off the rudder and recover from the dive.

In a spin that is not fully developed there is still some airflow over the rudder and you may well get out with full opposite rudder. However a fully developed spin leaves little airflow over the rudder, which then becomes ineffective. Progressive forward movement of the stick allows the airflow to build up to the point where the rudder becomes effective again and you come out of the spin. The progressive part allows you to recover before going into a bunt, overspeeding, and possibly overstressing during the subsequent pull out.

During training an instructor and I managed to get the Pup into a very flat spin, from which it would not recover, even with the stick fully forward. Fortunately a short burst of power put enough propwash over the tail to make the elevator effective and we recovered OK.

Higher rotational speeds lead to flatter spins, and from my limited experience you can vary the severity of the spin by the entry technique (as well as aircraft loading).

I suspect that this might have led to the some of the fatalities during spin training. A firmer entry can lead to a much more severe spin than the pilot is used to. He then finds himself in a situation where not only is the sensation very different to what he is used to, but his normal recovery tehnique does not produce the expected result.

He is used to applying control inputs and the aircraft responding. When it doesn't respond he thinks he did it wrong, centralises the controls and tries again. He carries on trying again and again until he hits the ground.

It's not the actual movement of the controls that gets you out of the spin, it's their effect when they are moved to and held in the correct position. In a very well developed spin this effect takes much longer to manifest itself. Centralising the controls and trying again just uses up a lot more of your precious height.

If you've got full opposite rudder, the stick fully forward and you are still getting nowhere you are likely to have done something the test pilot did not do when the aircraft was certified. Probably a much more violent entry.

All the manufacturers have to do is demonstrate recovery from a spin. They are not required to get the aircraft in the worst possible situation that they can and see if they can get out of it. Ther danger is that when practising spins we use an entry tehnique that takes the aircraft outside its certification envelope.

My two penn'orth, for what it's worth

Mike

[Miserlou]

This spin recovery debate is quite dull.

The standard and Muller spin recovery techniques work for the majority of types. If you fly a type which doesn't, then you should know about it or you shouldn't be flying it.

If you find yourself in a situation where the recommended technique fails then it's time to try something else. Otherwise your epitaph will read, "The book said it would recover!"
Then the the only rule is do whatever it takes!

As Alan Cassidy has opened the debate, this may include a burst of power.

Of more pressing importance is why so many people die from spinning in when they are not engaged in aerobatics.

Any takers?

[BEagle]

Well-I'll say it as no-one else has......

You were exceptionally irresponsible to attempt to teach yourself aerobatics. You were lucky not to damage yourself, the aeroplane and/or an innocent third party with your actions. NEVER NEVER be tempted to do something as downright stupid ever again....

..and have a nice day. We're all huggy-fluffy in the 21st Century but sometimes someone has to tell the brutal truth!

[ShyTorque]

Miserlou,

Sorry to hear you find the spin recovery debate quite dull.

I lost a mate who didn't recover from an inadvertant one during an aerobatic flight which also seriously burned his girlfriend and traumatised her for life. I was the immediately previous occupant of the seat he burned and died in on the aircraft's next flight.

I also came very close to having hit the headlines myself in the same type that killed another mate (JP3A, he was a very experienced ex-RAF Harrier display pilot).

I actually think it is quite non-dull and actually rather important. Perhaps the types you have flown are the rather non-exciting ones.

The usual reason people get into trouble in the spin is because they are insufficiently trained to recognise the incipient spin. Hence the RAF's policy of a spin / aeros check as mutually complementary.

[t'aint natural]

Geoffrey de Havilland always looked down on pilots who had not taught themselves to fly; a refreshing thought at a time when nannies are so sedulously attempting to stop us hurting ourselves.

[Miserlou]

Shy Torque.

I think you may have misunderstood. I meant the Muller recovery debate. I know it works but not as well as doing it myself.

The anecdotes don't have sufficient detail for our analysis for this debate unless you'd like to link to the AAIB reports and describe more fully the incident you experienced.

One of the techniques which can help when things go wrong with a manouevre is to close the throttle, hold the stick back and give full rudder. The result is, instead of not knowing what the aircraft is doing, you know exactly what the aircraft is doing and how to recover from that.

The reason for the dullness of the debate is illustrated by your friend's case. From the scant detail it would seem that he may not have recognized the stall/spin, may not have taken recovery action soon enough or was just plain too low to recover.

Which recovery technique is used is totally irrelevant when the ground gets in the way!

We do agree though, that the cure lies in sufficient training. Lots of spins, lots of recoveries (including adding power) and lots of variations in entries. It is also important to train inverted spins as they are easy to get into, for example from a push over from vertical up to down or from a simple stall turn.

For your information the types which I have aerobatted-Tiger Moth, Stampe, Slingsby T-67a and -200M Firefly, Pitts S-2b, Extra 300, Yak 52 and Bellanca Super Decathlon.

Happy spinning,

Miserlou.

[Boing_737]

I reckon discussing things like spin recovery in a thread about someone who performed aeros with no training is slightly irresponsible, as it may give those with less savvy the confidence to go and try it for themselves without considering the consequences of what technique to use for their particular aircraft.

I'm all for natural selection, but...........:}

[ShyTorque]

Miserlou,

Thanks for your reply, it does appear then that we are mainly singing off the same hymn sheet.

The incident that I experienced is already described but I lost control of the aircraft during a stall turn and in retrospect I believe it initially flicked into an inverted spin. Due to my own inexperience (almost 30 years ago) as an RAF BFT student I was slow to recognise this; it was beyond what I had been trained to expect although I had seen and recovered from an inverted spin in a C150 a couple of years earlier. After experiencing some very interesting gyrations, I finally recovered the aircraft to controlled flight from an erect spin, but only after losing an awful lot of height. There was no incident report for this, I had a heart to heart with my QFI and did some more dual stall turns to ensure I didn't ever cock it up again.

It wasn't until I was trained to teach aerobatics and spinning that I fully understood the finer points of the spin. The RAF syllabus by then put much more emphasis on recognising the incipient stage than I recall at the time of my basic jet training.

I cannot link to my friend's AAIB report, it doesn't appear to be available on the website as it happened in the late 1980s. However, it appears that he was doing something beyond his capabilities at too low an altitude and paid the price. The aircraft, a Steen Skybolt, hit the ground in an erect spin, bounced, cartwheeled, then burned although it was otherwise relatively intact. The pilot was rendered unconscious, his girlfriend tried unsuccessfully to pull him from the wreckage, getting badly burned herself in the process.

There is a common link between the two above. Don't fly any aircraft in a manner that is outside your training or it may turn round and bite you and if the bite is a spin, you need to be trained to have a realistic chance of recovery.

The other accident was a Strikemaster Mk83, G-BXFX and occurred on 9 Dec 2000. This one is on the AAIB website. You can draw your own conclusion from this one as the cause was not fully determined.

All the above were intended to illustrate my point that spin recognition and recovery technique is not dull and should be an integral part of training for anyone who wishes to fly aerobatics. This is even more important now that full spinning isn't an integral part of pre-PPL training.

The technique of releasing the controls is NOT recommended for all types and shouldn't be relied on, in any event, it may result in a lot of lost height, rather than a positive recovery technique which is aimed at an expeditious recovery.

[paulo]

Anyone know much about spinning in the Robin 2160 series? I've done a fair few, always quite benign - never fully developed and recovered by releasing in spin rudder. I've never really pulled that hard*

The other day I saw one done with full aft stick - it went fully developed, did about 5 or 6 turns and 1000ft. Came out eventually.

*back is the 'correct' recovery in this type.

[Evo]

It's being discussed on Genghis's Flight Test forum. Be interested to know myself... :)

[FlyingForFun]

Miserlou,One of the techniques which can help when things go wrong with a manouevre is to close the throttle, hold the stick back and give full rudderI suggest you try this recovery technique from an inverted spin some time... preferably at a nice high altitude ;)

As I understand, the advantage of the Beggs Muller technique is that there is no need to recognise whether the spin is upright or inverted, and there is no need to recognise which direction you're spinning (other than figuring out which rudder pedal offers most resistance). I don't know what your background is, I have no idea whether you would instantly recognise the difference between an upright and an inverted spin in a high-pressure situation such as finding yourself inadvertantly spinning. I know I wouldn't, and I suspect that all except for current, experienced aerobatic pilots wouldn't.

I think that, as long as it works in your type (and you really should know whether or not it works in any type you're going to be doing aeros in) Beggs Muller is a technique which every aeros pilot should be familiar with.

Since I'm neither current nor experienced at aeros, please ignore my advice on important matter like this and listen to those who know what they're talking about! But I don't think the subject is at all boring. If you find it boring, then ignore this thread and let the rest of us carry on the debate. I know I find many topics that are discussed on this forum boring, but I'd never suggest that this is a reason for others not to discuss these topics.

FFF
-----------

[ShyTorque]

Paulo,

Your post illustrates very nicely that each aircraft might have its own differences in the spin entry, characteristics and recovery.

I am not familiar with your type of aircraft, but in a Bulldog / Pup aircraft, allowing anything other than FULL aft stick will probably result in a high rotational spin. The normal way of teaching the entry (to a fully developed spin) was to use both hands on the stick (easier to pull fully back as the control feedback forces are quite high and it's also easier to ensure that the ailerons are correctly neutral).

The other way of obtaining a high rot. spin from a "normal" developed spin is to apply opposite (anti-spin) rudder without subsequent forward control column movement.

If you think about this, entering an inadvertant spin from a bodged aerobatic manoeuvre is quite likely to result in a high rotational spin, because the controls are almost certain to be in the incorrect position for a "normal" spin.

This is why it is very important to receive correct training on type before solo aeros.

[Evo]

Thinking back to the original question, I was flying with foxmoth yesterday and the main thing that surprised me about the aileron roll was how positive his control inputs were going in to the manoeuvre. It certainly didn't come naturally to me (and I bottled one of my attempts to emulate!) - not sure if a half-hearted attempt would be enough to get you in trouble or not though...

[paulo]

Yes, learn the official line, and yes, it's all variable blah blah*, but in the case of types where certain things aren't "permitted", there is no approved recovery, no training officially possible.

Inverted spins in the Robin, for example, aren't permitted. So, err, Beggs Muller then chaps? Or what? Phone Pierre in the 10 seconds or less? BM is a plan at least - when you hatch it is your call.

* No dis to ShyT - for the reason of my story, I'm with you 100%

[Miserlou]

FFF.
Please note that i wrote, "One of the techniques which can help when things go wrong with a manouevre..." That is to say I'm not advocating that one should always do this but when an aircraft departs controlled flight due to low speed it gives you the advantage of ending up in a situation which you know how to deal with. In fact just closing the throttle and centralizing the controls works for most bodged manouevres.

So if you were to try this from an inverted spin you would probably recover very quickly; conventional tails present more effective rudder area when inverted.

It's not the debate in itself which I felt was wrong, it's the context. The thread starts with some-one trying home-made rolls. The dangers of which, which have been totally ignored here, are high speeds and the recovery from bodged high speed situations and an appreciation of aileron stall due to washout(stalling the outer portions of the wing first) and so on.

Happy Aerobatting,

Miserlou.


The point which I, and I'm sure Shy Torque will back me up here, am trying to make is, stop talking about it and go and do it!(With an instructor until you are competant!)

[ShyTorque]

Miserlou,

AFFIRM! :ok:

[Snakecharmer]

Foxmoth's dead right. Only last week, I was teaching slow rolls when stude did the classic reduction in roll rate near the inverted - pause - incipient pull... cue demo of 'recovery from the semi-inverted. This in an aeroplane which doesn't 'arf pick up speed when going downhill! I always teach the associated emergency at the same time as the manoeuvre - if you haven't been taught the manoeuvre...