Spin Recovery

[OpenCirrus619]

I saw this elsewhere on the site:
When recovering from a spin at the incipient stage, you use the Standard Stall recovery, which would mean you use full power..
which made me wonder if I have missed something along the line.

Comments please.

OC619

[BEagle]

Tis bolleaux!

[pipergirl]

That was me who posted that in response to someone who questioned someone else who stated they used full power in spin recovery.

In my haste, I put that comment up without fully explaining my thoughts.
The person who stated they had used full power in the spin recovery, was refering to doing stall training and experienced a wing drop in the process.
In response, another poster questioned using full power for spin recovery.
Then that's when I made the comment.

When a wing drop is experienced in stall recovery, (which is the beginning of a spin)

-move the control column forward
-use rudder to prevent further yaw
-apply full power
-as airspeed increases, level the wings with co-ordinated use of aileron and rudder
-ease out of descent

However, use of power if the nose is below the horizon will only increase the height loss.


Now, I am left wondering -
Am I missing something myself?!?!?

[Cap'n Arrr]

The way I was taught was to:

- Centre the controls (some A/C flight manuals say to push forward or use aileron, check for your particular type)

- Power to idle

- Apply opposite rudder until the autorotation stops

Once the rotation has stopped, you have recovered from the spin, but are now most likely in a nose high/nose low unusual attitude, so for a nose low attitude it would mean to leave the power idle, unload the G, roll wings level, then pitch up. Passing a safe speed e.g. Vx, you would then apply full power to continue the climb and gain back altitude.
If you were to recover in a "nose high" attitude, you would then need full power, unload G, wings level, pitch down.

[Life's a Beech]

Not at the incipient stage, Arrrr. You can simply centre the controls, and if learning aeros that is what you will be taught. Let the a/c sort itself out from there!

[Dan Winterland]

And it depends on the aircraft type. On the two prop types I instructed on in the RAF, one you closed the throttle, the other you didn't. The one on which you did had 1150HP - not closing the throttle could give you additional poblems.

[Cap'n Arrr]

Apologies, i was referring to a generic fully developed spin in a C152 or similar. On a side note, the Cirrus SR22 flight manual does basically say to let go and pull the airframe parachute, that is the only approved spin recovery for that aircraft. Like blackbandit says, the flight manual knows all, and is the final reference for a question like this.

[blackbandit]

in a fully developed spin in a c150/152 just letting go of the controls WILL NOT result in recovery. in a fully developed spin in the baby cessnas, if you just release the controls they will remain in the position where u released them. ie: stick still full back and rudder fully in. THEY WILL NOT CENTRALISE THEMSELVES. most instructors have only experienced the developing spin. this is the condition where, yes, if you release the controls they will centre and the aircraft will pretty much recover by itself, albeit in a very nose low attitude. it is not a fully developed spin.

i have seen many instructors sh.it themselves when the little baby wont recover by itself. the beauty of the fully developed spin in a baby cessna is that its fairly hard to get the aircraft to do it. and you need about 8000to do it safely. the ugly side is that it does not recover instantly, and can take up to 4 complete revolutions for the recovery to even start to work. all the primary controls are very very sluggish. unless full stick forward is held, and i mean held, the aircraft will not recover.


its very exciting, and a lot of fun. but you really have to be very careful and have heaps of insurance.(altitude).

[hugh flung_dung]

There are some slightly surprising comments in this thread, so to avoid confusion the techniques for the usual GA type aircraft are:

Standard stall recovery: stick sufficiently far forward to unstall the wing (ailerons neutral), full power (prevent yaw), level the wings with aileron and smoothly pitch to a shallow climb
Incipient spin recovery (up to about 1 turn): centralise the controls, when rotation stops recover from the resulting unusual attitude.
Full spin recovery: power off, full rudder opposite the TI, pause then stick centrally forwards until rotation stops, immediately centralise controls and ease out of dive, re-apply power as nose comes through the horizon.

Specialist aircraft may have alternative techniques in the Flight Manual (and if you're very experienced and playing with spins there are interesting things you can do with the ailerons and power) but otherwise stick to the above.

It's worrying that some FIs appear to be nervous about deliberate spinning because this attitude gets passed-on to the stude. If you're not fully confident about your ability it would be good to book a couple of trips with an experienced aeros FI in a suitable aircraft (e.g. Bulldog or T67) and exorcise the demon. This should also teach you how to demo a realistic entry (such as an over-ruddered turn), rather than the usual nonsense of yanking the stick back and applying full rudder at Vs+10

HFD

[HonAlgyLacey]

There are three situations to consider:

Wing Drop past 45 degrees - unstall the wing by easing cc forward with ailerons neutral, prevent further yaw with rudder, when the wing has unstalled (when the sw goes off) level the wings with ailerons and ease out of the dive, recover to the climb (only then )with power. As mentioned before - the application of power is a judgement call in the stall recovery as you don't want to drive yourself faster into the ground by applying full power when the nose of the AC is pointing at the ground!

Incipient Spin - this is the phase when the spin has not developed into Autorotation - can be anywhere from 2 - 6 turns dependant on the design characteristics of the AC, consult the AM. Personally I would use 2. The standard recovery is to CLOSE THROTTLE, CENTRALISE CONTROLS, EASE A/C OUT OF DIVE. Then resume with wings level to the climb.
This is the standard technique now being recommended - the throttle must be closed.

Full Spin - Once autorotation has developed then use the standard spin recovery technique or the one recommended by the AC manual.
The aircraft should recover from the fully developed spin using the standard recovery technique I believe for certification purposes if it is to be used for that purpose.

Hope this helps

[HonAlgyLacey]

To clarify my previous post - Recovery at incipient stage - I meant that the spin does not fully develop until anywhere from 2 to 6 turns.

Anywhere from a situation where the AC has gone from half a turn to about 2 turns therefore - use the incipient recovery technique.

Thereafter its the standard spin recovery technique.

As previously mentioned , even a Cessna 152 will not recover instantly when the autorotation has set in and the spin is fully developed.

Don't even think of doing this unless you have loads of height, I previously span a 152 which took 4000' to recover , we found out later the ailerons were slightly mis-rigged!

[jamestkirk]

Where do you get your information on spinning the C150/C152's.

The cessna will recover quite easily from the spin. It has never taken me four full rotations to recover.

Releasing the controls will generally just kick you out of the spin into a spiral dive. Actually, after about 4-5 spins, the Cessna will start to enetr one anyway. In fact, to maintain the spin you have to keep the CC fully back. THE CONTROL COLUMN WILL DEFINATELY NOT STAY IN THE FULLY BACK POSITION IF YOU LET GO.

You say you have seen many instructors sh.t themselves when the Cessna won't recover. How many FI's have you been with to have so many unfortunate instances. And been there at that time to see it.

And I have never had to hold the control column fully forward for recovery. And the only time I have ever heard of a cessna not recovering noramlly is when the aircraft was found out to be bent in some way.

You have strange ideas on spinning cessna's. Please tell us where you get these from. I have a few hours teaching spinning and never experienced the characteristics/problems or control inputs you suggest

[BEagle]

"However, use of power if the nose is below the horizon will only increase the height loss."

Horse****! It will increase the rate of acceleration to a speed at which you can safely pitch to the climbing attitude and will reduce height loss!

[DFC]

For the incipient spin recovery, I teach;

Control column and Rudder neutral, leave power alone.

When rotation stops;

1. Nose above or near horizon - full power (prevent pitch roll and yaw) and level wings;

2. Nose well below horizon - close throttle (prevent pitch, roll and yaw) level wings, stop descent, full power as nose pitches past the horizon.

If rotation does not stop - full spin recovery.

I believe that it is important to leave the power alone initially because one does not want the added complications of the effects of changing power (roll, pitch and yaw) possibly delaying the recovery.

Note we are talking incipient stage here.

One of the most important things for ab-initio students is to do a gradual work-up with the entries i.e. as confidence grows with recoveries make more and more agressive entries.

Regards,

DFC

[hugh flung_dung]

BEagle, absolutely right if trained to coordinate pull with power - but I suggest that for the average bod (who may well be shaking and wanting his/her Mum at this point) it's better to teach power on when the nose is above the horizon and leave the fancier options for those that do additional training.

HFD

[BEagle]

NO!! Teach them properly - or not at all!

If they can't cope, keep at it until they can. Or tell the little blighters to take up another hobby!

[HonAlgyLacey]

One very important factor to consider when teaching the incipient spin recovery is that up until now the student has only been taught the standard stall recovery. A technique which is ingrained in them.

The decision of when to apply full power must be taught to the student as some students attempt to recover from the incipient spin - after the first turn - using full power! - this is even after being shown.

The effect of power in the spin is to pitch the nose of the AC up and is detrimental to the recovery characteristics of most aircraft. The Aircraft Manual should be consulted for all types before spinning is attempted.

[Speedbird48]

Beagle,

Well said as always. We are a few years apart and a large lake, but you and I share a lot of views as we were taught to fly properly.

The more I read this, almost continuous, discussion regarding spinning and spin recovery it tells me that we need to be teaching the subject once again. And, if the modern tin/plastic can won't spin properly find one that will. They will all spin in some way or another, if you try hard enough, so why not teach it.

I was taught to fly in the '50's in the UK in a Miles Magister. When it stalled it was very inclined to spin so we were educated accordingly and it was no big issue. Upright spins, flat spins, inverted spins.

I have just been involved in putting together a spin upset program, and had a difficulty getting the academics to put a discussion of the various forms of spins into it. They only wanted to talk about normal upright spins??

We keep getting this crap that we hurt more people training than we did with real spins, perhaps we should go back to square one, and properly educate the teachers!!

If it frightens the little darlings let then take up cross stitch. It might just save their precious little behinds.

I used to fly with an *** inspector that would not do "stalls" unless I was with him?? Where do the standards start??? What sort of check rides was this guy giving?? And no I am not an aerobatic dinosaur either. I do them very rarely.

Rant over, I will get my coat and the tin hat!!

Speedbird 48.

[OpenCirrus619]

NO!! Teach them properly - or not at all!:D:D:D

OC619

[hugh flung_dung]

Fully agree about teaching them properly but this need not include adding power immediately after rotation stops and whilst the nose is still below the horizon. If you get it right the power will slightly reduce the height loss but when the average bod recovers from his/her first accidental solo spin they are unlikely to coordinate power and pull correctly - the result will either be excessive height loss because of a late pull or another departure from a premature pull.

KISS is a good maxim, the possible benefits of power after the recovery (or even during!) are not necessary for the average bod and are more likely to lead to problems.

HFD

[Life's a Beech]

Blackbandit

How did you manage to get everything wrong?

1. I specified incipient. I wasn't talking about the recovery from fully-developed spin.

2. Relaxing the pro-spin controls on a Cessna 150/152 whilst inadvisable as a spin-recovery technique in a fully-developed will actually work. Ironic that you mentioned the one type that would recover.

3. In your PM to me you should have written "Hi, you're a ****wit." not "hi, your a ****wit".

4. You have managed to get yourself banned over a academic disagreement of an issue about which you clearly have no expertise.

I have spun enough aircraft, including teaching spinning on Cessna 150s and 152s, to know what I am talking about at this level.

[Gipsy Queen]

Ah Speedbird - our paths cross again.

You are absolutely spot on here. As stalls and spins are characteristics of flight, so those learning to fly should be taught how to deal with them. In our day we were but we did fly aircraft which would perform these actions properly.

The aeroplanes in which most people are condemned to have their ab initio experience these days are from an ethos which held that aircraft should behave just like a 1957 Chevrolet and with identical handling so that the driver/pilot won't get confused about which vehicular device he might be in at any given time. The cars handled like a sponge pudding and the flying machines aren't much better in my jaundiced view. (Just my irrelevant opinion - not an invitation to riot!)

I have logged as much as 20 minutes in a Cessna 172 and, frankly, seriously doubt the need for stall/spin recovery in a generic type that will do neither. I do wonder about the relevance of this training in respect of aircraft which have had these "vices" designed out of them. Which is not to say that trainee pilots should not be made aware of the existence of such things for they certainly will make their presence felt in the more advanced types to which they might progress.

Like so many of my generation, I started on the DH82A which was not a bad trainer. I did fly the Magister which, if I remember correctly, did have an inclination to drop a wing as the stall developed. I flew the M14A which had, as was the fashion of the time, those ugly anti-spin strakes. They were fitted to all sorts of kites in those days but I never felt that they had much affect.

Upright spins - fine. Flat spins? Well, having had a few frights in DHC1s, I was always wary of the flat variety. Inverted? Fine too if you can guarantee that the engine will keep going. The Arrow Active was good for these.

But back to a serious note for a moment; I have much empathy with any modern lad wishing to "fly" as opposed to "conduct". It's all very well to say if the modern tin poo won't spin properly, "find one that will" - a great deal easier said than done, I submit. Nevertheless, the shortcomings lie with the aircraft designs which do not permit of these types of regime and the civil authorities who permitted such manouvres to be dropped from the licence requirements rather than the pilots themselves. It must be really difficult to find suitable training aircraft having sympathetic owners (and insurers) and available at an affordable hourly rate. I have no idea what such a machine might cost but I'm sure it will be a lot more than the two pounds, fifteen shillings and sixpence for a Thruxton Jackaroo in those balmy days when you and I were a lot younger!

GQ.

[G-KEST]

Black bandit touched on a Cessna spin mode very rarely seen by the vast majority of instructors. When they do experience it then they realise that the type is not the pussy cat they think it to be in terms of spin behaviour and recovery.

In setting the technique down I must advise against anyone trying to replicate this spin mode unless they are prepared for a very interesting ride.

1. Entry height minimum 6,000 feet agl. Standard spin entry, clean and with around 1500rpm set. Apply full rudder at stall warner followed by full up elevator. Aircraft enters the incipient spin stage. Hold full control deflections.

2. Apply full power and apply full in-spin aileron deflection. Rotation rate increases to a rate similar to a Pitts. Steep nose down attitude. Lowish airspeed.

3. Close throttle and centralise aileron. Aircraft attitude pitches up to just below horizon. Rotation rate slows.

4. Apply full opposite rudder to spin direction. Nothing happens.

5. Move the control wheel forward progressively until the spin stops. There is some aerodynamic resistance to the push as in the Chipmunk. The spin may continue for a number of turns before stopping. Just be patient....!!!

6. Centralise controls and recover from the dive in the normal fashion.

7. Note the height loss and reflect on what you have experienced.

Comments appreciated as usual.

Cheers,

Trapper 69
:mad:

PS - BCAR's specify that full use of ALL controls, including the throttle, is permissible in spin evaluation for certification purposes. The accident to a Robin HR200-120 at Sywell around two decades ago made this very point.

[Speedbird48]

Hi Gipsy Queen,

I am guessing that we were in the same era, if not the same area at some time??

I agree the modern mushy sloppy aircraft do nor "NORMALLY" spin properly like those of old. But, try a Cessna 172 etc. in a real steep, or steepening turn with full power, while watching the girls on the beach, and it will shudder and flick in the opposite direction very rapidly, and spin it will!! Not for the timid.

Some, if not all, of the Cherokee brigade are not allowed to spin, with good reason, but should recover with enough height, and the correct technique if applied correctly.

So I still say we should train for proper spins not a gentle nudge into a wing drop.

From my earlier post and others that I have seen here abouts there are people that won't do a proper stall, and that includes the *** examiner that I quoted!! Where does it stop?? We will be training for only straight and level with gentle 10 deg. turns if we continue on this track.

We issue licences/certificates (depending which hemisphere) and then you can go out and fly any of the singles/twins that you can find. Try a spin in an Emeraude with the bubble canopy like the CAP 10?? Extremely interesting!! And , this in in the homebuilt category to those in the UK, and the US, and relativly cheap to buy/build. A lot of the homebuilts are quite a handfull and are relatively cheap with low time pilots in them. Try a J-3, on a low and slow base turn as another example, and there are plenty about in the hands of experienced and not so experienced people.

I agree that most modern aircraft are very benign. but, with enough mishandling they can get very dangerous. We still kill people in stall/soin accidents so we are not training to prevent these cases are we??

This topic has been run time and time again, and will be long after I, and others, are gone, so with hat and coat, plus tin hat I am off.

If you want to try another bit of silliness try the Multi Engine rating in the Diamond DA42, and then put the same student in a Baron/Aztec?? He/she has a multi engine rating, but can they/should they, be let loose in a Baron/Aztec or similar?? It is all legal and they do have the rating. Please don't tell me that they must get more training, as Daddys little darling with the mouth and money is too good for extra training.

Oh dear, I have started something, again!!!

Where is that tin hat!!!!!!!!

Speedbird 48.

[BigEndBob]

So how many have accidentally entered a spin and then recovered.
Most accident reports i have seen involve spinning in from low level, ie EFATO. or show off steep turns after departure.
Most instances these aircraft enter very steep spiral descent.
Perhaps true spins are of academic interest.

[Gipsy Queen]

G-KEST

Go and stand in the corner for ten minutes. To mention Cessna and Chipmunk in the same essay is nothing short of blasphemy!

For as long as you had some resistance in stick push you were OK. It was when the Chippie elevator began to feel disconnected that it became time to exercise a little care for one's self preservation and give the rudder some attention. The "just be patient" doesn't apply here!

Speedbird 48

As you detected, my earlier comments were deliberately facile but we are in fundamental agreement on the subject. If you poke any aircraft for long enough with a sufficiently large stick it is going to lose patience and snap back. I suspect the more the design is blessed with "initial forgiveness", the harder it's going to bite.

I had forgotten the Emeraude. And what about Norman Jones's Rollason - would that do?

Well, I suppose in theory you could go out and fly anything covered by your licence but wouldn't you would need a type rating, certificate of experience and a check ride before anyone would let you loose in his Cessna 404? But as you correctly observe, despite all the efforts to the contrary, people still do silly things The PA30 could be a handful for the inexperienced (usually doctors) and acquired an unenviable and largely undeserved reputation because of this. The Bonanza was another one in the twitchy category which reduced the ranks of the medical profession. There is a story about a heavy captain being asked to increase his rate of descent but many would find this in poor taste so I shall refrain from repeating it. I expect you know the one I mean. :=

GQ

[G-KEST]

Gipsy Queen,

Like a naughty, 69 year old, school boy I duly stood in the corner for 10 minutes and pondered why you had sent me there.

I fully agree the Chipmunk is a delightful aeroplane but so, for me, is the Cessna 150/152 series since, for the majority of my career as a FI, CFI and FIE, that was the aircraft I was PAID to fly. It was those payments that kept my family going for a total of about 12 years plus my mortgage.

All aircraft respond to correct and sympathetic handling by giving of the best their designer put into them. Having flown some 380 plus types and variants of mainly light aeroplanes over the last 53 years I can honestly say that only very few were unpleasant and relatively few exceptional.

My favourite aircraft....??? The one I have my backside strapped into....!!!

Cheers,

Trapper 69
:cool:

[TheOddOne]

Trapper 69 writes:

I fully agree the Chipmunk is a delightful aeroplane but so, for me, is the Cessna 150/152 series

Hi Trapper,

I passed my FI test last week in a C152, having spent 30 hours becoming re-acquainted with this aircraft, but from the right seat. I must say that my respect for the designers of this a/c has increased considerably. It is really an excellent classroom from which to show people the principles of flight and behaves as per the textbook.

During the test I naturally had to demonstrate recovery from a spin. The current 'approved' technique for this a/c (after all, if you want to pass a test, you do it the way the examiner expects to see it...) is as you say, 1500 RPM, gradually pitch up maintaining altitude until stall warner full on, full left rudder and full back stick, close throttle as rotation commences, await 2 turns, full opposite rudder. Centralise controls, recover from subsequent dive, smoothly apply full power as nose rises above horizon and speed slows below 100kt, continue climb or recover to S&L as instructed.

During the de-brief, we spent considerable time discussing the tragic accident at Southend. I think that in the future, we are going to be spending even more time pre-solo ensuring that this accident isn't repeated, with more slow flight and incipient stage recognition and avoidance.

I do believe that the accident figures over the past 25 years since spin training was taken out of the UK PPL syllabus have shown a decrease in the total number of people killed in spin accidents. Of course, that includes the NIL figure of people killed during PPL training! (of which there used to be a few each year, along with their instructors, previously)

A recent GASCo debate I believe has revealed that the C152 is considerably safer statistically in stall/spin accidents over the C150, due to the redesigned wing; a subtle change. It is actually very difficult to get a wing drop, clean, from a balanced stall. 20 deg flap with a little rudder in, a different story, but well behaved with classic recovery using rudder to prevent further roll.

Cheers,
TheOddOne

[Crash one]

For the att of Speedbird 48 & Gypsy Queen. :D
Thank you gentlemen for putting the fear of sh*te into me!
I am a newly minted NPPL ex 152 & my current thought is to purchase an Emeraude / Jodel.
According to your wise & believeable writings I am about to kill myself.
My flying school also did not teach spins, just stalls & when it was mentioned would mutter that it is "not part of the sylabus", except one instructor who was quite happy when the sky went green, I didn't fly with him often enough!
Although many moons ago I was taught on gliders, I think it may be a good idea to do it again properly, with the power differences.
The fact that it is not compulsory is, I agree, a bad thing, how many like me are going to voluntarily ask for spin training in their own "new" a/c after they have just "qualified"?
How many would be offered it?
How many would be told that the a/c type was such that it would be adviseable?
I don't believe this sort of information is readily available to the newbie.
Not only is spin training not offered, no mention is made of the characteristics of the various a/c the newbie may likely want to fly after the 152 / club hack.
Fortunately I am too old to be dumb enough to just kick the tyres & go for it, but there must be many out here who don't know any better.
Thank you gentlemen. Please continue to make as much noise on the subject as possible.:D

[G-KEST]

TheOddOne,

My congratulations on passing your FI(R) initial test. I hope you get as much pleasure from instructing as I did since my successful intial AFI rating test with the late and unforgettable Hector Taylor some 47 years ago.

I would not argue with the points you make other than with the last few words of the final paragraph -

"A recent GASCo debate I believe has revealed that the C152 is considerably safer statistically in stall/spin accidents over the C150, due to the redesigned wing; a subtle change. It is actually very difficult to get a wing drop, clean, from a balanced stall. 20 deg flap with a little rudder in, a different story, but well behaved with classic recovery using rudder to prevent further roll."

Rudder is needed to prevent any further yaw. Any rolling tendency will effectively cease once the angle of attack is reduced to below the stalling angle by using a forward movement of the control wheel. Once unstalled the wings may then be levelled with aileron in the normal sense.

Cheers,

Trapper 69
:ok:

[Crash one]

The way I was taught "use rudder to pick up a wing as it nears the stall" could that be mis-interpreted as "to prevent roll" to a student?

[G-KEST]

Crash One,

I fear either your instructor was guilty of "terminological inexactitude" or, alternatively you have remembered it incorrectly.

Using rudder to pick up a wing as it approaches the stall is asking for trouble in terms of provoking a spin entry in the opposite direction.

Beware............. and heed the wisdom spouted by an ancient and tattered ex-instructor and FIE.

Cheers,

Trapper 69
:ugh::ugh::ugh:

[Crash one]

Trapper 69
I can assure you I am not usually guilty of remembering things incorrectly.
However I was always wary of such action since being taught spins in gliders so I tended to ignore a small wing drop as long as possible for that reason. If I dared to apply any aileron I would be screeched at. So to keep the instructor happy I tried to get the thing to stall as quickly as possible. I also did not do any prolonged slow flight practice, the first time was when I was asked to do so during my GST, which I did successfully.
I am not about to knock my flying school too much as I think they are doing a good job, although I may have had one or two advantages having flown gliders some years ago that helped me.

[kiwi chick]

Beware............. and heed the wisdom spouted by an ancient and tattered ex-instructor and FIE.

Wisdom taken. :ok:

That and the fear of being beaten with the dipstick if i ever dared to try and "pick up" a wing have hopefully ensured that i never fall victim to being introduced to the ground propeller-first. :(

[greeners]

So many well intentioned replies, on a subject plucked from the PPL syllabus a little while ago. This can be added to the Flyer forum where people have talked about determining spin direction from the slip ball :ugh::rolleyes:

Rightly? wrongly? Strong advocates for each. I don't really care. We now have two generations of FIs petrified of the frankly not-a-big-deal autorotative manoeuvre. Readers need to figure out where they want to be, on the full regime of spinning scenarios. Yes, most likely to happen after messed up aeros - but there are so many other places that the full range (erect, flat, accelerated, inverted) might happen - environmrntal factors, flying through the wake of a C17, disorientation - that we would all in a perfect world be able to identify what is happening and apply the recovery actions that results in minimum height loss. Therefore non-academic spin entries (I can't have stalled or spun, i HAVEN'T COMPLETEd MY hasell CX YET!) FROM MANOUEVRE will ensure that you need to work to figure out what was happening. At Basic jet training on the outbrief for solo trips, the question was always asked "How will you tell the difference between an erect and an inverted spin? Technically correct answer was supposedly that the direction of yaw will be opposite to direction of spin. Completely correct, and totally useluss if you happen to find yourself there accidentally for the first time having never seen one before.


Some will argue that stall/spin incidents and accidents are a comparatively small total of the whole. All that I am humbly suggesting to people who haven't practised spinning recently is to run along and have a refresher - or maybe a spin/upset intro - to any organisation that has both the quality of instructors (ideally ex-military) and well-maintened aerobatic aircraft aeroplane by an experienced structure.

[G-KEST]

I fully agree with Greeners post.

With the seemingly benign low speed characteristics of the vast majority of current aircraft used for ab-initio training the present JAR-FCL syllabus content is arguably the most cost effective method of turning out reasonably competant but inexperienced pilots. This is true of all classes of licence holder, private or professional.

However once the licence has been gained the door is open for any pilot, so motivated and financially endowed, to acquire an aircraft that has far less friendly behavioural tendencies compared with those he or she flew in training. It is then essential to seek out one of those organisations that specialise in the type of further training advocated. Some ordinary flying clubs are included in this number however few have the specialist aircraft or instructors needed to fully explore the post stall/spin regime.

For those who wish to minimise their post licence involvement with additional instruction then it is quite simple. If at low speed the aeroplane shows any sign of the onset of a stall or even as incipient spin then simply unload by, under positive G, easing the stick or control wheel forward and adding power until the symptoms cease. Then resume normal flight. No hassle...... no sweat.....!!!

Cheers,

Trapper 69
:D

[Gipsy Queen]

Crash One:

Speedbird 48 can speak for himself but I'm sure he would confirm that there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to be scared about. I'm sure this wasn't a serious comment on your part. As Greeners has pointed out, spinning is not a big deal and never was regarded as such. It has only become synonymous with root canal treatment in the years during which it has not be a licence requirement and has acquired a mystique born of the ignorance which has grown in that time.

The subject is merely an understanding of the aerodynamic behaviour of any given type of aircraft and the actions required to control that behaviour. In this sense, stall/spin recovery is only an extension of S&L or any other flight regime and if properly taught/understood, there is no need for apprehension - and, most assuredly, there is nothing in our posts which suggests that you are likely to engineer your own demise, although your moniker suggests you might be possessed of a predisposition in this regard!

Greeners' advice is good - take it!

The Odd One;

Despite all that has been written in these posts, your (as far as I know, still "standard" entry/recovery technique) is the only one I recognise! That probably says more about me than the current way of doing things - the only difference from my day is that we started with carb heat and no throttle but I have no experience of the Cessna which, despite my opinions, is an extraordinarily successful aircraft and has met its design objectives for very many years.

A recollection from my 20 minutes in a 172 is the poor visibility in the circuit and I wonder if this is a factor in spinning. When serving my sentence as a FI, I noticed one of the difficulties students experienced was disorientation on spin entry. However, once they learned to look up and connect with the ground (not literally!) as the roll started, situational awareness ceased to be a problem and everything was straightforward thereafter. But this required either an open/glass cockpit (as most of them were) or a window in the roof if it was a high wing. I don't know how it is with 172, 180 et al.

GQ.

[Crash one]

Gypsy Queen
Thank you, you are right it wasn't a serious comment, I am still very keen on the Emeraude & I agree with the comment that all a/c are different. I shall of course find the appropriate PFA coach / instructor before I leap into the blue, or even buy one, if one can be found, etc.
Crash one, by the way is a call sign one would not like to hear with ref to one's own flying performance. I was proud to use it many years ago whilst employed by Her Majesty's Grey Funnel Shipping co.

[Troy McClure]

In a 152, I always took incipient spin to be the final turn stall scenario (2 stages flap, power 1700 rpm, gentle right turn) but ignoring the stall warner and continue to pull back.

When higher (ie left) wing stalls and drops, recovery is opposite (right) rudder, ailerons neutral, throttle closed, flaps up.

A student once asked me why you close the throttle so I tried opening it instead. Nearly sh@t myself as it rapidly tried to enter a full spin to the left. Don't know what a spin in a 152 is like with full power and 2 stages flap, and don't want to. Didn't leave the throttle open for long, I can tell you.....
In the more 'classic' 152 spin entry - 1500-1800 rpm, clean, full left rudder at 55 knots, control column full back, ailerons neutral, it will recover from what it still officially an incipient spin (ie within a turn or two) without much input if you centralise the controls, and much quicker with opposite (right) rudder. Not closing the throttle will mean that when it 'falls out' of the spin in a very nose down attitude, you'll rapidly exceed Vne and overspeed the engine, so you want to get that throttle closed asap.

Incidentally, in pipergirl's post right at the beginning of the thread, it seems she's confusing a wing drop with simply approaching the stall with wings not level. Two very different things. If you approach a stall with wings not level, recovery is as she described; ailerons neutral until the aeroplane is safely flying again. That's not an incipient spin though....

[G-KEST]

Troy McLure,

You said - "In a 152, I always took incipient spin to be the final turn stall scenario (2 stages flap, power 1700 rpm, gentle right turn) but ignoring the stall warner and continue to pull back. When higher (ie left) wing stalls and drops, recovery is opposite (right) rudder, ailerons neutral, throttle closed, flaps up."

No wonder you frightened yourself along probably with the student.

Why did the aircraft drop the wing? Because it was stalled. How do you unstall a wing? By moving the control wheel forward to reduce the angle of attack to below the stalling angle while stopping any yaw with rudder. Instantly the unwanted roll will cease leaving you to roll the wings level and restore balance using aileron and rudder. No hassle.......... no sweat.....!!!

Cheers,

Trapper 69
:ugh::ugh::ugh:

[BeechNut]

Some, if not all, of the Cherokee brigade are not allowed to spin, with good reason, but should recover with enough height, and the correct technique if applied correctly.


My previous bird was a PA28-140; it was certified for spins in the utility category, no back seat passengers. The ones that weren't cleared had ventilation or A/C blowers in the tail. Mine was not equipped with forced ventilation. (I can't imagine that a 140 with the AC on, at gross weight, on a hot day, would register a measurable climb rate :eek:)

I believe the taper wing birds are not certified for spins though.

Beech

[BEagle]

G-KEST, I don't know about you, but having read some of the replies on this thread, it surprises me that there aren't more stall/spin accidents.

I do hope that FI schools have stopped teaching people to use rudder at the point of stall for anything other than maintaining balanced flight.

That C152 scenario described by Troy McLure is truly alarming - as you say, it's not surprising that he frightened himself. The aircraft has stalled with flap extended, so retracting the flap would certainly delay recovery - large rudder angles and a sudden change in airflow due to the change in power setting would virtually guarantee a departure.

Most modern GA aircraft (not the 'exotics') are bred with benign handling characteristics. In that C152 scenario, which sounds more like a mishandled fully developed stall in the final turn than an incipient spin, I would personally have carried out standard stall recovery.

However, to set up such a situation deliberately is inviting disaster - emphasis should surely be on recovering long before the departure is enountered.

[shortstripper]

I'm not an instructor, but having read many of the replies on here all I can think is that it's about time experienced PPL's were once again allowed to get their FI rating and teach! You can certainly tell the instructors who've been around a long time from those trained in the last ten years or so.

I'd also recommend that a bit of gliding is worthwhile to any pilot as spinning is still a requirement before solo there. Whilst there is obviously no throttle, and recovery is nicely predictable in comparison to light aircraft, the aerodynamic principals are the same ... ie use rudder to prevent yaw, not to pick up wings, stop incipent spins or paddle for good measure :ugh:

SS

PS ... I forgot this bit On a side note, the Cirrus SR22 flight manual does basically say to let go and pull the airframe parachute, that is the only approved spin recovery for that aircraft. Is that right? I thought all normal aircraft had to prove capable of spin recovery in order to gain approval? I'm not sure I'd feel comfortable flying something that was approved with the knowledge that it couldn't recover and relied on a parachute :eek:

[G-KEST]

BEagle,

I too have been amazed at some of the lack of basic knowledge shown in many of the posts on this thread. It really is a sad comment on the current state of the art in flying training.

Perhaps this thread should be "stickied" since it merits study in future by all inexperienced pilots, private or indeed professional. The knowledge gained just might save their necks when "le merde frappez l'helice............!!!!!!!!!!!!".

Cheers,

Trapper 69
:ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

[212man]

Out of curiousity: do the advocates of spin training also advocate wearing parachutes (and commencing the spin from such a height that a successful bale out can be achieved,) or not? That's not a leading question, I'm just curious what the concensus is (though being an ex-Bulldog pilot, I'm sure Beagle can see where I'm coming from!)

[shortstripper]

I'm not suggesting we bring spinning formally back (too many unsuitable training aircraft in use for a start). However, I do kind of feel that instructors should know what they are talking about when a student asks about spinning (and even more so if teaching spin recovery) :E

SS

[G-KEST]

212man,

In the absence of any legal requirement in the UK for parachutes to be worn it is purely a matter of personal preference. A situation unlike that in the USA where there is no legal option but to wear one if it is a dual trip involving spinning or aerobatics.

In some aircraft it is difficult to imagine just how one might manage to abandon the machine in an expeditious manner. In some the physical space available means that parachutes could not be worn and MTOM considerations might well come into it.

When the day comes and it is a requirement to fit a total emergency parachute recovery system to our beloved Skybolt I sincerely trust my personal involvement in general aviation, display flying and aerobatics will be over. I doubt if angels wear parachutes in the event of wing failure and if, as may be likely, I wind up in the other place then such a device is not likely to assist a stoker.......!!!!!

Cheers,

Trapper 69
:cool:

PS - I bought a new Strong Systems seat pack parachute in the States a couple of years ago while at Oshkosh and have yet to wear it. This despite doing lots of flying since it was acquired. I really must be mad.

[hugh flung_dung]

212man: absolutely! (assuming 'chutes can be worn in the aircraft) And brief the abandonment procedure and heights on the ground and at TOC.

SS: agreed.

HFD

['Chuffer' Dandridge]

BEagle wrote:

NO!! Teach them properly - or not at all!

If they can't cope, keep at it until they can. Or tell the little blighters to take up another hobby!

At last, a voice of reason..........:ok:

Far too many 'pilots' are being given licenses when they should really be taking up another hobby, like fishing or golf. And how many are being taught by the very 'instructors' who don't fully understand what they are teaching.... Like a fair few posters here it seems.:{

[kiwi chick]

I do kind of feel that instructors should know what they are talking about when a student asks about spinning (and even more so if teaching spin recovery)

Or the instructor should have the balls and humility to admit they don't know and find someone who can better answer the question - rather than feed the student a pile of s**t that could have disastrous consequences. :=

[fireflybob]

Dare I say it but lack of knowledge with reference to spin recovery et al may be a symptom that the "wrinklies" have sadly died off. I am referring to those very experienced FIC instructors (mostly ex service CFS or even EFTS) who were brought up on a/c like Magisters, Tiger Moths and Chipmunks. They knew all too well the consequences of not getting this exercise right.

I am biased but my late father Hector used to wax lyrical about spinning the Magister and how important it was to apply the correct recovery and so long as you did so there was no problem.

We now have a generation of pilots who have never really ever flown aircraft with classic spin properties.

I am totally with Beagle on this - either teach them properly or not at all!

[homeguard]

I've attended a number of two day Instructor renewal seminars over recent years. I'm always amazed how often the rudder is ommited from the briefs given by those leading the seminars; attaining S & L flight on instruments and even worse recovering from the spin, for example.
Only recently an aspiring FI asked me for advice on what he should prepare, briefing wise, for his test. I suggested that he should prepare a long brief on the forces in the turn and also similar for the climb and be able to explain a spin but be prepared across the board. He telephoned his examiner to discover if he could pre-prepare a particular brief and was told to pick any subject he wished - he chose 'the onset and passage of a cold front' which was accepted.
What hope is there if such cop outs are common - I don't know if this is usual now?

[homeguard]

I assume was your father fireflybob. A wonderful man who dedicated himself to the study of flight and how to explain it - greatly missed!

[G-KEST]

fireflybob,

How I miss your dad. Hector was the FIE that let me through the golden gates into instructing in powered aeroplanes back in 1960. A most courteous man and a superb instructor. His ability to put a nervous candidate at their ease was quite phenominal " Do have a cup of tea my boy....!!!" was his usual opening gambit and it just flowed from then on.

It was December and the early onset of darkness meant an enforced overnight stay after the flying element of my AFI initial test in the Tiger Moth from Little Snoring. We moved on to the ground technical syllabus in more congenial surroundings. I swear he had totally emptied my knowledge tank after an hour or so that evening while sitting in an armchair at your West Bridgeford home. He had collected me from my B&B and delivered me back some four hours later. The last couple of hours were filled with priceless gems of instructional technique from him along with tales of his wartime involvement with CFS. This included writing the CFS bible on elementary flying training, a textbook used right across the Empire Flying Training Schools world wide. He drove me out to Tollerton the following morning and even swung the prop on the Tiger. It was a very happy camper that flew back home to Norfolk on a cold and frosty morning.

He was the person that encouraged me to accept the invitation to join the Panel of Examiners back in 1972. I thoroughly enjoyed being the very first non-service trained instructor to be appointed as a civil trapper. Particularly so because the RAF medics in 1954 had firmly stated that having monaural hearing would prevent me from being either a service or a civilian pilot. Now some 53 years on and with over 13,000 hours in the logbooks I look back on that with some amusement.

Hector continued to be my personal FIE on many occasions and I always came away, not only with a renewed rating, but with some priceless bit of his instructional technique to improve my own ability to teach.

On a few occasions when we were doing the test in a Chipmunk he would act the ham fisted student and turn a grotty loop into a full flick at the top before completing the loop. When I criticised the figure on the basis of it being either an inadequate loop or, alternatively, a poorly executed avalanche he seemed quite hurt. I never quite knew if he was pulling my leg.

Perhaps when I eventually shuffle off the mortal coil we may meet again. We will not be short of discussion points. This thread may well provide a few.

In my experience if you get two instructors together you might have a discussion. Three and it will become an argument. Four and over means a riot will follow. I do hope Saint Peter, or perhaps the chief stoker, can sort that out amicably.

Hector, it was indeed a priviledge to have known you. Rest in Peace. You surely deserve to.

Cheers,

Trapper 69
:D

[First_Principal]

After such a wonderful eulogy I hesitate to comment on the original post but this spinning thing interests me...

I'm a PPL who's considering doing a CPL and who has never spun an aircraft, deliberately or otherwise (thank gawd!). In this country it's not taught at PPL or CPL level but there is a brief 1-hr requirement for an initial FI license.

However, being the type I am, I think it's important to at least know about such things in case it should ever happen. Unfortunately I'm also a little inclined to get a bit green, even in max-rate turns, so the thought of it alone is enough to give me the shivers. That said I'm going to force myself to take some instruction sometime soon but what I'd like to know is, roughly, how fast is a spin in something like a 150/152? I mean does it spin faster than your average merry-go-round (:ooh:!) or are they a fairly gentle thing? I guess I feel I could cope better with the latter!

So far the discussion has been of quite some value - amongst other things the amount of height one could lose even in a simple training exercise was an eye-opener :eek:

[hugh flung_dung]

First_Principal:
A C152 spin (providing you hold full aft stick, pro-spin rudder and power off) is reasonably sedate, but there are better aircraft in which to learn about spinning. The Bulldog, T67 & CAP10 can all be flown with 'chutes, require correct inputs to recover, and have sufficient ROC to get back up to start the next one at a safe height in a reasonable time.

If you're really concerned about being ill (many people go through this feeling, but there's invariably light at the end of the tunnel) you could go to a gliding club and ask them to teach you spin recoveries in something like a K13 or K21 (or, if you're lucky, a Puchacz), Gliders generally have a "gentler" spin than light aircraft and are designed to be flown with parachutes.

Height loss depends on the type (of aircraft and spin) but, once developed, assume 200-350ft/turn and about 0.5-2 turns/second for a rough guesstimate of the ROD.

Finally, I'd recommend using an FI who teaches aerobatics; sadly not all FIs are experienced at teaching spin recoveries.

I guarantee you'll enjoy and benefit from the training, so go for it!

HFD

[BristolScout]

When I started instructing, spinning was still part of the PPL syllabus and some students, naturally, had a certain degree of trepidation about the thing, often fuelled by war stories in the club bar. My approach was that it was merely Exercise 11 in a series of 18 and part of the process of becoming a pilot. Briefed and executed in a calm manner, most students actually ended up enjoying the experience, particularly the fact that they proved to themselves that they could recover the aeroplane from the edge of the envelope. That, together with the demonstration that even the most docile machine will bite if mishandled, made it an invaluable teaching aid and turned out, in my opinion, better pilots. They certainly appreciated why we then continuously exercised them in stall recovery at the incipient stage.

All the advanced stuff about flat/inverted spins was and is totally irrelevant to the PPL student, albeit essential if an aeros course is envisaged.

Incidentally, I was amazed at a recent Instructor Seminar where they were preaching a spin recovery technique where the first action was check flaps up. Fumble, fumble, high ROD, splat!

[Gipsy Queen]

"We now have a generation of pilots who have never really ever flown aircraft with classic spin properties.

I am totally with Beagle on this - either teach them properly or not at all!"

Absolutely spot-on FB!

One of the problems of being a "wrinkly" is that conversations with the smooth-visaged tend to elicit rather uncomprehending responses as the latter don't know what the hell you are talking about! Sadly, this includes the subject of spinning.

I may have suggested this before but I feel it a little facile to be critical of FIs whose knowledge/understanding/experience of this subject is not up to the same level of their instructing in other subjects. I suspect this arises not from lack of interest but lack of opportunity.

This thread has made me aware of how lucky us wrinklies have been. Not until recently did I see anything remarkable in having started aerobatics in a Stampe S4, finishing with a Zlin 526 and taking in things like the Jungmann and Arrow Active along the way. These and similar aircraft were readily available (well, not the Active) 40/50 years ago and were rather taken for granted. Now they are gone; into the ground or an air-conditioned hangar. So where is the FI to find the experience to "teach them properly"?

If the CAA, or whoever the governing body in the UK might be, were to reinstate spins to the syllabus, there might be an additional incentive to put things like the Victa Airtourer back into production and, once more, everyone could safely engage in this interesting and fun aspect of flight.

GQ.

I bags the Ercoupe . . . .

[First_Principal]

Hi Guys, thanks for the input - my reason for being interested particularly in the 150/152 response is that I own one, so obviously it would be natural for me to use that for the lesson. However if there's something better then I'm more than happy to fly that. We don't have the machines you mentioned but there is a (Super)Cub I fly a bit, and a 172, both of which are rated for spinning. If anyone has a comment on these versus the 150 I'd be pleased to hear it. Gliders are a more remote possibility (they used to fly from my usual field but no longer).

Also quite agree with your comments re the instructor; there's a couple of chaps who have a lot of experience in this sort of thing and I intend to ask one of them. Not only do I want the best teaching possible but I'm reasonably keen to be alive at the end of it and I need someone who's not going to 'show me what this thing will do' :=

Given my trepidation I think I'll definately keep it to 'basic' spins, I'm certainly not an aero kinda guy :-) Perhaps it's something to do with my first flight (in a glider) when I was around 14 or 15 yrs old and the pilot decided he would show me what the thing would do... I've had some interesting Pavlovian responses to things ever since:sad::oh::uhoh:

[Crazy Cesna]

Hi there,

I joined this forum because i found this discussion about spin recovery quite interesting. I would like to add my own experience with a C152 Aerobat. I have about 500 Hours on this particular Cesna with about 200 hours of aerobatics.

One interesting thing I found that in contrast to the theory the ailerons work quite well in very slow flight. It is possible to fly this Cesna at 35 to 38 Knots IAS at 6000 Feet while maintaining course and altitude. Probably this is possible with any C152 but I have not tried on a different one. The controls feel very weak at this speed but I found that it is very easy to keep the wings level by using the ailerons. When I learned to fly, I was told to use only the rudder at very slow speed because use of ailerons might stall the wing where the aileron is deflecting downward. This would cause the wing to drop. So I tried full and abrupt aileron deflections at 38 Knots and found out that the ailerons work exactly as they should. To take it further I tried to keep the wings level with ruder deflections alone and found that it works but that you have to be careful. I full deflection of left or right rudder will throw my Cesna into a spin after 1 or 2 seconds, which is no surprise.

I then tried full ruder deflections and just as the aircraft started to drop into a spin full aileron in the opposite direction without any change on the elevator. According to the theory I was told this should be a very bad Idea. But it works. At least in the Cesna I fly it is possible to keep the wings level with the aileron even if full ruder is held. Remember I am flying at 38 Knots which is a little below the nominal 1G Stall speed. Sounds strange but I tried it many times and it works perfectly.

I also tried a lot of different Spin Variants. I found out that if you do no more than 2 ½ revolutions it is possible to stop the spin in many different ways:
1) Normal Spin recovery
2) Release all controls and take your feet of the rudder.
3) Only Rudder against the spin direction with elevator full aft.
4) Only release the elevator and keep the rudder full into spin direction.
5) Very strange: Keep elevator pulled and rudder in spin direction and add full aileron against spin direction. This should definitely not work. According to the theory the Cesna should start an oscillating up/down nose movement or enter a flat spin. My Cesna does not. After 2-3 additional revolutions the spin stops even with full pro spin controls held.

To make it clear: I am not suggesting the use the aileron for spin recovery. I am just describing my experience in one Cesna C152.

Another thing a found is that use of aileron in spin direction results in a very steep and fast spin. This spin is recoverable with the normal recovery technique but you have to be sure to neutralize the aileron first. Because of the high rate of rotation the recovery takes up to 3 revolutions in my cesna but there is pressure on the controls and the rotation starts to slow as soon as you start the recovery.

Until now all spins I described where with power at idle. An altogether different spin results when you do 3 or more revolutions with full power. The nose starts to come up after 1 ½ revolutions and is very high up after 3 revolutions. I don’t know if this is a flat spin or just a flatter mode of a normal spin. What I do know is that this spin is stable. The airplane does not recover by itself when you cut the power and release the controls. It also does not recover when you release the elevator/aileron and push full ruder against spin direction. There are to recovery techniques a found that work:
1) Rudder against the spin direction and elevator full forward and wait for at least 5 revolutions. Be sure to cut the power first. My Cesna is absolutely unrecoverable with full power.
2) Keep Ruder in Spin direction and Elevator pulled and add full aileron in spin direction. The nose drops after ½ to one revolutions and the plane enters a normal spin. Then neutralize the aileron and use a normal spin recovery. It is important that the aileron is neutralized as soon as the nose is down. Otherwise the airplane enters the accelerated steep spin I described above.

I am quite sure that different airplanes would react in a different way to the same control inputs. If you want to repeat my experiments I would suggest that you climb very high before you start. I also would suggest that you look into the cockpit to make sure that you put the controls where you want them. It is not easy to keep the ailerons neutral in a fast rotating aircraft. And I would suggest that you do not try any of this unless you are an experienced aerobatic pilot with enough experience on a Cesna.

I would agree to some posters who recommend adding power after the recovery to reduce the altitude loss for the pull out. But according to my experience it is very important to cut the power as soon as there is the possibility of a spin. The flatter spin of my Cesna would definitely be too much for a beginner.

Crazy Cesna

[G-KEST]

Crazy Cesna,

Congratulations, your findings exactly tally with my own. It is, I would imagine, true of all Cessna 150/152 aircraft.

The reason the ailerons do work at low speed and even into the stall lies in the FAR 23 design requirements which require the ailerons to function normally, if sloppily, in that condition. The Cessna designer incorporated a significant degree of washout at the tips which reduces the angle of incidence compared with the rest of the wing. Thus the outer wing is at a lower angle of attack and stalls later than the rest. This means the ailerons remain effective in the normal sense into the stall and spin modes.

Enjoy your flying and remember, height is insurance..............!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Cheers,

Trapper 69
:D:D:D:D:D:D

[hugh flung_dung]

Bristol Scout:Incidentally, I was amazed at a recent Instructor Seminar where they were preaching a spin recovery technique where the first action was check flaps up. Fumble, fumble, high ROD, splat!
TBH I think this is a little harsh as some types (C152?) are said to have a delayed recovery with flaps down, so it's not unreasonable to check flaps up. If I'm honest, it's not part of my brief - mmm, perhaps it should be.

HFD

[BristolScout]

HFD.

True enough, but my concern is that an unintentional departure towards a spin is usually going to happen relatively close to the ground in normal operations, since this is where the pilot will be at the slower end of the speed envelope. One less thing to do might just be the difference between recovery and a hole in the ground. In any event, we're all duty bound to state that the spin recovery in the aircraft flight manual is the one to use.

Confundemus

[ithinkso]

this is an interesting thread.

i was looking back at the c150/c152 recovery techniques.

in a fully developed spin a c150 will not recover by itself. a fully developed spin in a c150 is a difficult thing to achieve. this is due to the genius design of the engineers at cessna.

for a spin to be fully developed it must continue to spin without any control input by the pilot. if control inputs are required the aircraft is not in a fully developed spin, only a DEVELOPING spin.

the c150 will not enter a fully developed spin unless it is induced by the pilot. because of the genius of its design(idiot proofing), the c150 will recover from a developing spin if the pilot releases the flight controls. regardless of the nunmber of rotations the aircraft has completed, if the pilot is required to hold control inputs to keep the aircraft turning, the aircraft is not in a fully developed spin, only a developing spin.

to induce a fully developed spin a c150, full aileron in the direction of the spin must be used. trickle of power, slow speed reduction, just prior to the point of stall, full back stick, full rudder in the desired spin direction, AND full aileron in the desired spin direction. AND then you must hold it. after a number of rolls, the aircraft will settle into a developing spin with an increasing rate of rotation. the control inputs are still being held at full deflection. the aircraft will then pitch nose up and the rate of rotation will reduce markedly. at this point, all the flight controls will will remain in the position where they were positioned by the pilot to induce the manuovere. even when they are released. ie: full back stick, full rudder, and full aileron. it can be very disconcerting to a pilot who has not experienced that before.

centralising all the controls will not cause the aircraft to recover. the g loads and low rotation rate are all very comfortable. this is the dangerous part. the aircrafts rate of descent is well and truly beyond the limit of most GA vsi's.

the only way to recover is with controls fully centred, apply full and brisk nose forward elevator. and hold it. if this does not work within 2 or 3 rotations, you can try applying power in conjunction with the nose down elevator. the problem is this, you risk flattenning the spin further. also it is not uncommon for the engine to stop in this manouvere. application of full opposite rudder will actually increase the rate of rotation. bizarre but true.

this manouvere takes thousands of feet to conduct. it should not be attempted by persons who have not been trained for it. this includes instructors who have not been trained to do it properly. as i read previously, yes the little baby can bite, but like a placid dog, it has to be severely provoked.

this is not how we taught students to spin the aircraft. it was taught in the same benign way as it is still being taught. most students find the developing spin scary enough without being shown that beasty is quite capable of injuring them. the advanced and fully developed manouvere was taught to instructors who would be teaching spinning and aerobatics.

bear in mind, this was 25 years ago, when the aircraft were new. i dont know if i would want to be doing these sort of things in aircraft that are now 25-30 years old, the entry to the manouvere can be quite stressful.

anyway, just musings from an old fart.

[G-KEST]

ithinkso,

Thanks for another confirmation of this spin mode.

Some 25 years ago I asked Cessna for comments on what I had found to be the case and which was not mentioned in any way in the flight manual or pilots operating handbook. The silence was absolutely deafening. No doubt for reasons of product liability. Perhaps the corporate policy was wise - but one day...................???????????????????

Cheers,

Trapper 69
:(

[ithinkso]

yep trap i think youre right.

also, the recommended spin entry technique in their manuals does not allow the use of ailerons during the entry to the manouvere. ie: they will not teach you the wrong thing, only the right. that is a particular entry to the manouvere is recovered from by blah blah. in other words if you want to do something outside their described, amplified procedures they are not liable.

from memory, it was great fun, and it was always fun seeing the raised eyebrows of the guys who said they knew all about spinning--" I've been doing this for years, I know what I'm doing". in a previous post i read, someone mentioned instructors sh...ing themselves when the beasty wouldnt recover straight away. this was also my exact experience when training instructors.

cheers.

ps: height is insurance, airspeed is insurance for insurance!

[Crazy Cesna]

Ithinkso,

Your post about c150/c152 spins was very interesting to me. I am not sure but I think there is another developed spin mode in C152s. As you can see in my post I tried to do 3 to 4 rotations with full power but ailerons centred. As expected the nose comes up and stays up. I have not checked if the controls remain in the same position when released but as far as I found the spin is stable in the sense that no pilot input is required to continue the spin.

This spin can be recovered by power idle, centre aileron, opposite rudder, full forward and wait. The problem is it takes 3 to 5 revolutions to stop. I found that my Cesna drops back to the steep mode when aileron in spin direction is used. This would be the standard recovery technique for a flat spin and it works.

It’s surprising that in your spin neither the aileron nor the rudder has any influence. I would think that your spin mode is quite flat and due to the relatively low rate of rotation there is absolutely no clean airflow over the ailerons. So forget the ailerons.
But there are two things I can’t explain:
1) Why does rudder against the spin increase the rate of rotation?
2) Why does the elevator still work?

Do you have any thoughts about that?

There must be some people (probably old ones) who did the original spin testing for the c152. It would be very interesting to hear their opinion on these issues. I know some test pilots form diamond aircraft and they can tell a lot about recovering “unrecoverable” spins in a DA40.

Crazy Cesna

[ithinkso]

thought about it alot, but cant work out why, its a mystery.

cheers

[AeroAdz]

YouTube - MegaSpin II - 14 Rotations (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UqyDuHqqsU)
Is a video of a mate and I performing this exact kind of spin in an Aerobat.

Spin is entered with idle power but full back-yoke and inspin aileron.
As the spin is established we feed in some power, and it goes flatter. It feels out of control - you're literaly pushed sideways. To recover we reduce power back to idle and hold proper spin recovery inputs, but it takes a few turns to break out of the spin. You'll notice in the video that during the attempted recovery the spin rate seems to increase.

I'm not entirely sure why, but I wonder what the angle of attack is during a flat(ter) spin compared to a steeper nose-down spin...

[Big Pistons Forever]

Aero Adz

The spin is the least predictable manoever in any flight test program. This is not the place to experiment with non standard control/power actions. I would suggest that unless you have had comprehensive aerobatic training which should include how to recover from any attitude, and spin type, you should not be exceeding 6 turns flown in accordance with the POH spin entry and recovery procedures and with lots of extra altitude. In any case any indications that the spin is starting to flatten should cause an immediate application of spin recovery control inputs.

Sorry to be rude but if I was the chief flying instructor at the school you worked at, we would have a one way conversation that would indicate any further attempts at playing test pilot would result in your immediate termination.

[djpil]

Extract from an article by Gene Beggs in Sport Aerobatics of October 1985:
"In my telephone conversation with Bill Kershner, he told me of a spin mode in his Cessna Aerobat from which he was unable to recover using my power-off, hands-off, opposite-rudder method of emergency spin recovery....…
If I placed the aircraft in a spin to the left with the power on as might happen with a student who did not correct for the “P” factor properly, and let it spin with the power on for two turns or more, and then cut the power off, released the yoke completely, and then applied full right rudder and held it, the aircraft would continue to spin and showed no sign of recovery evern after as many as 10 turns! I would then place the heel of my hand on the padded center portion of the yoke and briskly push it forward, and the aircraft would always recover promptly in one additional turn ....
I found that the Cessna 150 would spin very docile, as long as the ailerons were held neutral and the power completely off in either direction .. Trouble developed only in the spin to the left, either when the power was left on or when “in-spin” aileron was applied and the aircraft permitted to turn two turns or more ..."

Cessna produced a booklet in 1978 about spinning and much of that information is provided in this article in Flight Magazine (http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1978/1978%20-%202617.html?search=cessna spin). Most of this info is also provided in Kershner's book, The Basic Aerobatic Manual.

I see that FAR 23 now (well, for many years) has another spin placard mandated but only newly certified airplanes will have it. Worth noting as it emphasizes a limitation on the number of turns in a spin based on what was tested.

[(d) For acrobatic category airplanes and utility category airplanes approved for spinning, there must be a placard in clear view of the pilot--
(1) Listing the control action for recovery from spinning maneuvers; and
(2) Stating that recovery must be initiated when spiral characteristics appear, or after not more than six turns or not more than any greater number of turns for which the airplane has been certificated.]

Aerobatic category airplanes are normally tested to 6 turns and with a comprehensive spin matrix of configurations and modes so your favourite video on Youtube doesn't count for much. i.e. the recommended maximum number of turns in a spin is 6 (there are physiological effects on the pilot which also support that same limit).

I'm certainly wary of spinning, especially flat spins but I do like instructor trainees to get a taste for how aeroplanes can suddenly misbehave as distinct from the standard spin entry.

[Dudley Henriques]

I'm certainly wary of spinning, especially flat spins but I do like instructor trainees to get a taste for how aeroplanes can suddenly misbehave as distinct from the standard spin entry.

During the extensive spin tests done by Bill Kershner in the U.S., the aerobatic training community became aware of potential problems with the 150/152 Aerobat series when the aircraft was spun deliberately through PSG, incipient, and on into EXTENDED erect spin mode.
It was noted correctly that specific aircraft were prone to specific spin behavior due to rigging, and especially cg consideration even to pilot co-pilot weight factors and differing fuel load.
As with most aircraft, it is entirely possible to see differing spin axis development in the 150/152 series as the inertia and aerodynamic factors in play for a specific aircraft in a SPECIFIC spin entry come on line during the maneuver.
This is especially true if outspin aileron is applied to accelerate the spin and power then added (in a left erect spin in the case of a 150/152 due to needed gyroscopic forces) to flatten the accelerated spin mode.

I would strongly note in addition to what you have already correctly said that pilots doing long time line extended multiple turn spins in these aircraft be COMPLETELY aware that these multiple turn stabilized spins were NOT part of the certification process and that in every such spin attempted there is a fairly reasonable element of increased risk involved.
I note from one poster's film clip such a spin entered holding inspin aileron and no parachutes being worn. THIS is a situation I would highly discourage were I privy to this pilot's ear.
Dudley Henriques