Spins in cessnas 150s and 152s

[energie]

I guess my concern for safety when doing spins is justified
well, at least in the 152s that i've been in. I knew those things are too ghetto to be safe!

http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?contentBlockId=527668a4-0271-4a20-86f5-7233c1bb43f8

What od you guys think?

[BlueRobin]

Two incidents and you're worried? Aircraft of all types have accidents all the time. So will that stop you from flying commercial air transport? Goodbye career ;)

[energie]

i was talking specifcally about doing spins in 150s/152s

and my point was that the 150s and 152s are a lot more fragile than Oh i dont know, the 737s and 747s :)

[BlueRobin]

What's the ratios of spins performed to spin accidents attributable to maintenance failure? Quite high I would imagine.

[27/09]

Spinning is a low energy manouvre. The main issue with spinning most GA aircraft is their recovery characteristics not the intergrity of the airframe.

In both of these incidents the problem was caused by incorrect repairs/assembly and or maintenance.

I don't think it reflects in any way at all on the suitability of the C150/2 for spinning. Any other aircraft could be afflicted with a similar problem. The C150/2 airframe is very robust, I am not aware of any structural failures caused through operation in the design envelope.

I think your comparision of the C150 to a 737 is a bit flawed, just becase the C 150 is smaller it does not necessarily translate that it is less robust.

It does highlight the need for a very thorough pre flight inspection (including the full and free movements of control surfaces) before going out and doing such manouvres.

[energie]

It does highlight the need for a very thorough pre flight inspection (including the full and free movements of control surfaces) before going out and doing such manouvres.


very good point. thanks. i'll be sure to add extra attention to do that next time around

[gasax]

Actually a poor comparison the C150/2 is very much stronger than the 737 or any other heavy commerical aircraft. The design codes for light aircraft specify very much G levels.

And remember the airbus where quick rudder reversal removed the fin?

Back to the plot as far as spinning - the C150/2 is one of the safest of the trainers to spin, it will almost recover by itself and using a variety of methods - something which a number of trainers simply will not permit. So check the aircraft is in decent condition and go and enjoy it.

[DUB-GREG]

For some very strange reason, when ever I was flying the 152 I never felt safe in the aircraft. Probably just metal thing, but all the same, just didnt feel safe. In the 172 I was ok, more so just the 152 scared the be-jasus out of me.

BlueRobinTwo incidents and you're worried?

Well BlueRobin, it only takes one!?

[Wessex Boy]

I did many spins in 150s when I did my PPL in '86, the first lot I was as sick as a dog after a very late night clubbing, so on my first solo away from the airfield I went and practiced them myself (strictly against the rules) We used to see who could hold it in for the most turns, my record was 4.

Later I flew in an AEF Chipmunk and asked to do Spins, the lightning Jock flying was a bit hesitant but agreed, we went up to 5000' and he said that if we went through 3000' without recovery, I was too get out, don't wait for his command!
That was a Different kind of spinning to a 150!

[foxmoth]

I am just in the process of converting a group that has gone from C152 Aerobat to Bulldog, the comment when we do spinning seems to be "Oh, so that's a spin!!"

[englishal]

i was talking specifcally about doing spins in 150s/152s
I wouldn't do spins in a 30 year old training aeroplane, which has no doubt suffered abuse, and had a hard life. I may do them in an Aerobat with a parachute on and ejectable doors ;) Spins are low energy until you mess up the recovery and start blacking out under the G force......

I'd do them in a proper aerobatic aeroplane with G meter, parachute and stick as opposed to yoke (call me a chicken, but hey....:O ).

[Jerico]

englishal, I guess a 70 year old Tiger Moth is even more scary! Don't see why if the maintenance is done right.

[Pilot DAR]

Hey Energie,

Relax... 27/09 has it right. If you're flying an aircraft with a maintenance defect then all bets are off. If you fly an aircraft in accordance with this approved desgin, condition and operating techniques, you will not be at increased risk of an unfortunate event.

In order for the rudder of a 150/152 to lock over as described, there had to be a pre-existing maintenance or condition failing. It is my ver well informed opinion that the Cessna mod kit, which is on my 150 is a quick fix, for no real problem in the first place, to reduce liability exposure. I can't really blame Cessna for that.

Why would you think that it would be a spin which was dangerous? How much rudder do you have applied in a full sideslip, very close to the ground on short final? I think that you'd have even less time to made that work out right after rudder system problems, than the extra few thousand feet going down in a spin!

Spins are very safe, if undertaken in airworthy aircraft approved for spins, using proper technique. Age of the aircraft is not relevent! If you think it's unsafe to spin because it's old, I guess that you really think that it's not in airworthy condition, and should not be flown at all! Time for proper maintenance again!

In the past year I have spun repeatedly the following (all in accordance with Transport Canada approved flight test plans): A Cessna T207A, A Cessna 172, A Cessna 185 on wheels and floats at gross weight, both C of G limits (500+ pounds of bagged gravel carefully tied down in the back), A Lake amphibian, My Cessna 150 dozens of times, and last week a Cessna U206H. All but my plane had major external modification which could affect handling. They didn't.

I have done this to assure that when you get in one of those planes, and something does not go the way you plan, it will still recover the way you're really hoping that it will (it takes more altitude to recover though!).

Relax, and put your faith in our industry, to collectively do it's part to keep your flying environment safe.

Pilot DAR

[old,not bold]

"Later I flew in an AEF Chipmunk and asked to do Spins, the lightning Jock flying was a bit hesitant"

I'm not a bit surprised, if the lightning Jock had any knowledge of the spinning history and characteristics of the Chipmunk. I'd have gone up to 10,000 and started to dismount at 6,000 if the recovery failed.

[a4fly]

Englishal.

I'm a chicken when it comes to aeros, but I refused to do the spin awareness / demonstration for my C.P.L. in the T67 because of its record, even though it was a great 'plane to fly. I took the Zlin and paid a bit more. I always felt safe in a 152 even though it had a yoke and no G metre.

[vetflyer]

Hi a4fly
care to expand on T67 record ?
Thought it was non event .......recovers as expected.........

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

"Later I flew in an AEF Chipmunk and asked to do Spins, the lightning Jock flying was a bit hesitant"

I'm not a bit surprised, if the lightning Jock had any knowledge of the spinning history and characteristics of the Chipmunk. I'd have gone up to 10,000 and started to dismount at 6,000 if the recovery failed.

Well I am - very surprised; at the Lightning jock's attitude and even more at your post. I've been spinning ours regularly since 1979, and it displays classic recovery characteristics. After a few turns it might require FULL forward stick, but other than that it's absolutely straightforward (and Chippys are placarded that full forward stick might be required under those circumstances).

Civilan Chippys have been spun on a regular basis for about.... errrr.... more than 30 years now. Often without parachutes. I can't recall one AAIB report where one spun in.

[777fly]

There is no reason to feel that a light GA aircraft such as a C152 is inherently weaker than a B737 or B747. You might be surprised to learn that most commercial heavy jets are certificated at only +2.5G/-1G in flaps up condition. A typical GA aircraft is certificated at around twice that level. I have spun the C150 many times. It is not a high G manoeuvre, even if it feels like it, and drastic control inputs are not required for recovery. I went to the Hamble flying college in the 60's when basic training was on Chipmunks. Spinning practise was confined to ex-RAF Chippies which had the anti-spin strakes fitted. These exercises were done dual and solo, without parachutes, with an entry height of 6000ft and minimum recovery by 3000ft. Full and forceful forward stick was required for recovery and it always worked. There was one fatal spin accident in 1966, but that was in an non-straked aircraft.

[S-Works]

Mind you the Aussies managed to spin the chippy for 30years without incident before the compulsory fitting of spin strakes!!

[jamestkirk]

Your not a chicken. Aero's just take a bit of getting used to.

I am sure if you went up with an experienced chap/chap'ess or a while, you might enjoy it.

[MSP Aviation]

If you'd rather spin a 7x7 than a 152, be my guest. I'll stick with the Cessna...

[old,not bold]

SSS

Civilan Chippys have been spun on a regular basis for about.... errrr.... more than 30 years now. Often without parachutes. I can't recall one AAIB report where one spun in.

I carried just such a report for years in my bag. The instructor survived but the student died. The report was the instructors' account of everything he had tried on the way down to recover as the spin flattened, and I kept it as a text book on methods of spin recovery.. It was AIB or AAIB, as I remember.

I worked in the 70's with a pilot who, in the RAF, had carried out research (in Oz, I think) into Chipmunk spinning, after a number of accidents. He told me that eventually they identified the problem as that last bit of forward stick movement; people believed they had reached the end of the travel when they had actually met an aerodynamic "block", with about 5cm to go, which was also at the point of longest arm reach of an average pilot properly strapped in. And that 5cm was the difference between success and failure.

C of G also affected things, as I recall, and I suppose it would be amazing if it didn't.

The solution, he told me, was to get the inactive boot on the stick and shove hard on the knee.

I think the strakes came from that research in Oz, plus perhaps the placard about forward stick. Other improvements have also probably been made to make using the boot unnecessary. So old-fashioned.

I am well aware that Chipmunks are spun perfectly safely, and have done so. But I also think that understanding your enemy is useful, and that lots and lots and lots of air between you and the ground is nice if things don't work out as they should.

[MikeJ]

Vetflyer asked about the T67 record (bit of thread drift here).
Side 1. I've spoken with a CFI who has spun it hundreds of times, and never had an unexpected response to spin recovery. But he normally starts from 7000ft.
Side 2. Statistically, the record in the last 25 years makes it the worst certified aircraft for stall/spin fatalities (unless someone knows better!). With 80 on the G reg., there have been 8 fatals in the UK, 4 of which were with instructors. There was one in each of 2005 and 2006, the 2005 one was with instructor teaching stalls to a PPL student.
Take your choice, but the US military have scrapped 100 of them due to fatality record, but they were operating in a hot high density altitude at Colorado Springs.
My own guess is that they are fine aircraft, but require exactly correct recovery actions, as did the original Chippie.

[rogcal]

and some say the Traumahawk has a bad rep for spinning.
Go do some in one, watch the tail in a fully developed spin and then you'll spin any other type without a care in the world.;)
p.s. good idea to check the airframe logbook before doing any spinning in a T'Hawk, just to make sure the tailfin mods are up to date.:)

[corsair]

I've spun many 150's and 152's over the years, including inverted and from 12000 feet down to 4000 feet. (Not to be recommended by the way, young and foolish, I was). Never had a problem. Properly done, it's really a non issue. There was a recent accident where a 150 went in after a deliberate spin. While the report is not out yet, it seems likely the simply started the spin too low or delayed the recovery too long. Tragic and unneccessary. But the most likely way to get hurt while spinning a 150.

[a4fly]

Vetflyer, sorry for the delay. I wasn't ignoring your question, I've been pre occupied !

Thanks MikeJ for pretty much highlighting the problem. I was referring, in particular, to the U.S.F. experience with the type, although there has been a disproportionate number of accidents in the U.K., including a friend of mine who was killed in one whilst doing advanced training as part of an instructors course, near Oxford.

The Americans had a similar experience to us with the type which had been selected as a trainer for the U.S.A.F. The type was then fully re-evaluated by them resulting in the reinstatement of the aircraft, as they were unable to replicate the problem. When they started losing more pilots, they got fed up and pulled the T67 completely. Read more at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slingsby_T-67_Firefly

[vetflyer]

a4fly no problem and thanks MikeJ for reply.
I have spun the T67 before and was planning to do it in future . So was interested to be aware of any problems .. thought USAF problems were pilot related?
Does anyone have any links to the AAIB or CAA reports?
As been stated DEFTS spin them alot.
Also if the engine did stop ..... would that prevent recovery from a spin ?
many thanks