Standard Spin Recovery

[Button]

Does "Standard" Spin Recovery include "Pause"?

[DFC]

Yes

Standard Spin recovery;

Throttle Closed

Ailerons Neutral

Check that it is a spin and not a spiral and check direction of rotation

Stick - Back

Rudder Full opposite to direction of rotation

Pause

Move the stick progressively forward until rotation stops

Ease out of dive

The reason for the stick back and the pause are to ensure that the wake from the elevator blanks out as little rudder as possible and that the rudder has time to bite before the area of the rudder blanked is increaded by forward movement of the elevator.

Regards,

DFC

[mad_jock]

There is no such thing as a standard spin recovery.

Read the POH. Some aircraft have very very similar spin recovery techniques.

But each one is only valid for that aircraft.

And the entry into the spin in a controlled manner is defined as well.

If you try doing this "procedure" in several types it will end in tears.

In the PA38 for example it is normal to spin faster before slowing down and at the point the plane starts flying again any amount of forward stick will give you one hell of a neg G bunt and put it inverted.

[DB6]

The mad one is correct, there is no 'standard' spin recovery (unlike a standard stall recovery). What may work for one type may not work for another, indeed it may worsen the situation. There are generic methods such as described but they may not work for all types, you have to check the POH. Then there is the Muller recovery.......(haven't tried it so don't know), and I seem to recall reading about a method advocated by Alan Cassidy (very very good aeros pilot) which involves letting go all the controls and pushing on the nearest rudder pedal until the spin slows down then flying it out......

[hugh flung_dung]

There IS a standard spin recovery and aircraft (if approved for spinning) are required to recover with it during certification. The manufacturer may, however, determine that there is a variation which gives an improved recovery and, if so, this will be in the POH. The standard spin recovery includes a pause.

DB6: the Beggs-Mueller technique involves letting go of the stick and fully pressing the hardest rudder pedal - I'm told that it works in many aircraft but am personally aware that it gives degraded (if any) recovery in at least two types. It may be useful if you don't whether the spin is erect or inverted.

A word to the wise: this is not an area to play around with if you are unsure or untrained - take someone who IS sure and trained if experimenting, and wear a parachute if possible.

HFD

[homeguard]

Of course there is a 'standard spin recovery'. Of course when a specific recovery technique is stated in the POH it is presumed to be best method for the particular aeroplane. NOT always so, however. The Piper Tomahawk (PA38) and the Slingsby Firefly (T67) both were in error in the recommended POH techniques and later modified.

The terms 'pause' and 'nuetral' I believe are too vague.

The 'Standard Spin Recovery' technique known to me is;

1. Close throttle
ascertain direction of rotation
2. Apply maximum opposite rudder
maintain stick fully aft until rotation slows, then
3. Move stick progressively forward
when rotation stops
5. centralise rudder
gain sufficient speed
5. Level wings and recover from the dive.

At first the increase in rotational speed with the PA38 wasn't understood as resulting from the desired pitch down. It was wrongly thought to be a deepening of the spin. Further, the increasing rotational speed required a multiplying number of rotations to recover with an associated height loss. The manual therefore required a re-write.

At times the T67 required the stick to be progressed fully forward for the recovery to be successful. A number of RAF crews evacuated only to watch their aeroplane recover on its own, as they floated to earth. The manual required a re-write.

I doubt whether the Standard Spin Recovery will ever let anyone down, if properly executed, although sometimes it is not the precise proven technique found in the POH. Just the same it is perfectly reasonable to be widely taught, so to be in the non-aerobatic pilots 'rule of thumb' armoury.

Many will argue with vigor that only the POH technique should be used, I understand why they are saying that but such a demand is not very realistic for use by the average weekend PPL holder following a non-intended entry.

[DB6]

Hmmm, yes. Whither ailerons and flaps, Homeguard? Standard spin recovery is news to me, although I stand to be corrected. What is your understanding for certification, Hugh? The nearest I know of is the NASA-inspired 'PARE' i.e. Power off, Ailerons neutral (flaps up), Rudder opposite to spin direction, Elevators through neutral (no mention of pauses although actions should be sequential). There are enough subtle variations even in the recovery methods mentioned on this thread to cast doubt on the validity of a 'standard' spin recovery, although I will happily defer (with genuine interest) to those with more knowledge than myself. Interesting thread on spinning on the Flight Testing forum by the way.

[DFC]

If I am asked to test fly an aircraft which will require a spin programme then the spin recovery technique I will use is the standard recovery technique I specified above.

If it is found during testing that because of good design, ample rudder effectiveness and minimal rudder blanking during the spin with the elevator held in the most adverse position.

Then I may consider that there would not be a requirement to specify either a pause or a requirement to hold the stick back during the rcovery.

So we start with the standard recovery and work from there. I have found that many aircraft recover very well by simply letting go buty I am not going to put my name to that technique in the flight manual.

Therefore it is correct to say that the POH procedure must be followed but if that technique is not what I said in my first post then it is not standard.

Regards

DFC

[mad_jock]

To be honest these days the majority of instructors coming out of the sausage factory have as much clue about spinning thier machines as the students do.

The first time they will have done a spin is on thier FIC which if they have done it in a cessna won't be a proper spin. It will be a turn or 2 with the help of the rudder which when released stops spinning anyway.

I have only ever once been in a fully developed spin in a C150 and it was with the FII in control when he manged to flip it over the top by stalling it in a steep turn and putting full roll control inputs in. Never managed to repeat it and never seen a C150 spin like it since. He did the "procedure" it didn't work and he had to put power on to get some rudder back.

The regulation that all planes must NOW be able to recover using this standard recovery maybe explain why there is not many if at all new designs on the market which are spin certified.

Just to add any PA38 pilots out there don't use the above technique to recover a tommy, Do as the book says.

Does anyone have a link to the requirments of flight test for new aircraft?

PS DFC not fair removing that post which told everyone that you are now a certified test pilot for light aircraft. I was quite looking forward to some of the responces to that little gem.

[djpil]

I was going to reply to DFC's post but ...

Instructing, I don't use the word "pause" instead saying "and then" so there's little doubt about when to move the elevator after applying full rudder opposite the yaw.

There's been much discussion on this before eg http://www.pprune.org/forums/archive/index.php/t-97176.html

NACA or NASA use the term "standard" so it does exist although agree with everyone that it does not exist in normal flying ops i.e. follow the POH (except when the POH is wrong?)

For current certification requirements see page 88 of FAA AC 23-8 (part 1) at
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/469CD77D24955F4E86256DA60060C156?OpenDocument
I see that they state "full opposite rudder, followed by forward elevator control as required". So that is the "standard". Aerobatic category aircraft may have 'additional recovery procedures" and I know of one which specifies full forward stick and full inspin aileron.

As for unintentional spins, what works for the initial gyrations (which is what the average PPL should know) may not work for the fully developed spin.

[mad_jock]

Just for the none JAR folk.

Spinning has now been removed from the JAR PPL, it is an option but from purely personal experence there are fewer and fewer PPL instructors willing to even demonsrate it never mind patter it.

I used to get folk coming to do thier hour with an instructor purely because the school was one of the few who would spin the PA38.

[DFC]

Mad jock,

Don't know what you are on about.

However, in regard to the PA38 are you talking about;

"FLAPS UP SPINS ARE APPROVED FOR UTILITY CATEGORY OPERATION. FOR SPIN RECOVERY, USE FULL RUDDER AGAINST THE SPIN FOLLOWED IMMEDIATELY BY FORWARD WHEEL. "

If so then I must point out two things;

1. While all pilots must follow the POH in this regard, the PA38 will recover from a spin using the "standard stall recovery".

2. The PA38 will pitch down and rotation rate will increase when recovery is initiated. Many pilots may have in the past assumed wrongly that this was an indication that the aircraft was not going to recover and tried other control positions rather than holding full opposite rudder and continuing to move the control column forward.

Please read my explanation outlining the reason for a "pause" - wake from the elevator / blanking of the rudder and ensuring sufficient rudder effectiveness.

With that in mind then note the erect spin attitudes, trajectory and relative airflow in the tail area.............while remembering that the PA38 is a T tail

------------

CS-23 or CS-VLA are the relevant European docs. CS.23.221 deals with spinning. There is no requirement for an aircraft to recover using the "standard" procedure. However, an aircraft that requires a very unusual recovery procedure from a basic power off one turn upright spin probably has further deficiencies that will require more "development".

Regards,

DFC

[Button]

I ask the question because I am also a gliding instructor and am reliably informed that there is no need to "pause" in any glider - "that's just for power aircraft"

[hugh flung_dung]

The pause is to enable the rudder to slow down the rate of yaw before the down-deflected elevator partially blanks the rudder, it also removes the possibility of the stick accidentally being moved forward before anti-spin rudder has been applied. The need for the first of these depends on the tail geometry and probably is not needed with a T tail (but there are lots of gliders around without T tails, including the Puchacz that once nearly caught me out near the ground). The importance of the latter depends on a lot of things that are too complex for me to understand, but thinking of ice skaters and moments of inertia will give you a clue.
You're presumably giving generic training; there's no downside to using a pause and there will be an upside with some types. The answer seems pretty obvious to me.

Try re-reading DP's book, I'm sure it'll be in there

HFD
(BTW, I spent nearly 10 years as a gliding instructor at LGS - happy days)

[Button]

Thanks to everyone - good debate as ever

[BEagle]

There is no such thing as a standard spin recovery.


Correct!




.

[mad_jock]

An interesting article from aopa

http://www.aopa.org/asf/ntsb/stall_spin.html

Bit of a statistic though 13% of accidents that are fatal involve spin/stall

Also that over 80% of the accidents occur below 1000ft agl with cock all chance what ever method used of recovering.

Also an article on the PA38

http://www.aopa.org/asf/asfarticles/t-hawk.html

[djpil]

and an interesting review of the AOPA article by Rich Stowell.com (http://www.richstowell.com/aopa.htm)

[mad_jock]

Another good article.

Must admit I am leaning more and more towards FI's who haven't got the aero's restriction removed being stopped from even demonstrating spin's.

I can see the point of being tested on the recovery on the FI flight test but in no way does this qualify you to be demonstrating them.

Looking back it feels wrong now that I was demonstrating spinning the PA38 with maybe an hours instruction on spinning if that total.

[homeguard]

Whether or not anyone agrees with it or otherwise hates the fact, the 'Standard Spin Recovery' does exist. Ron Campbell within his 'Flying Training for the PPL, Instructor Manual', refers to it and explains it fully in the section on spinning. However as one would expect he emphasises the importance of the pilot being primarily guided by the actual Aircraft Manual.

He also notes that 'certain foreign manufactured aircraft whose spin recovery characteristics are different to those built and certificated in accordance with the British Civil Airworthiness Requirements, have been introduced into the UK'. He then continues, ' The flight Manuals or equivalent documents of these aircraft therefore outline spin recovery procedures which are different from that which has historically become known as the 'Standard Spin Recovery'.

For me, because the pilot can put themselves into a spin, particularly if poorly loaded and aided by in-appropiate handling, the Spinning exercise should still be taught. Any flying instructor should be able to teach the entry which will, as closely as is possible, replicate an accidental spin. Then, during the demonstration identify, with the student, the symptoms and the characteristics discovered during the spin and the correct subsequent recovery.

Whether the spin recovery taught is the 'Standard' or more specifically from the actual aircraft manual, this argument will never be resolved. But, bearing in mind the reluctance to spin by a very significant number of FIs these days there is a strong argument that supports teaching the standard spin recovery technique, on the basis that few will ever be taken through the more correct specific recoveries outlined in a particular aircraft type's manual, that is, of course, unless aerobatic instruction takes place.

[bjornhall]

Must admit I am leaning more and more towards FI's who haven't got the aero's restriction removed being stopped from even demonstrating spin's.

No need for that IMV... Leave it to the individual instructors; they're professionals enough to handle that decision.

[Genghis the Engineer]

For most light aeroplanes, one of the several variations on a document generically called "Part 23" is or was used for certification. They've never really changed much over the years, so quoting the latest European version which is called EASA CS.23,

CS 23.221 Spinning

(a) Normal Category aeroplanes. A single
engined, normal category aeroplane must be able
to recover from a one-turn spin or a three-second
spin, whichever takes longer, in not more than one
additional turn, after initiation of the first control
action for recovery. In addition –

(1) For both the flaps-retracted and
flaps-extended conditions, the applicable
airspeed limit and positive limit manoeuvring
load factor must not be exceeded;

(2) No control forces or characteristic
encountered during the spin or recovery may
adversely affect prompt recovery;

(3) It must be impossible to obtain
unrecoverable spins with any use of the flight or
engine power controls either at the entry into or
during the spin; and

(4) For the flaps extended condition, the
flaps may be retracted during the recovery but
not before rotation has ceased.



(b) Utility category aeroplanes. A utility
category aeroplane must meet the requirements of
sub-paragraph (a) . In addition, the requirements
of sub-paragraph (c) and CS 23.807 (b) (7) must
be met if approval for spinning is requested.



(c) Aerobatic category aeroplanes. An
aerobatic category aeroplane must meet the
requirements of sub-paragraph (a) and CS
23.807 (b) (6). In addition, the following
requirements must be met in each configuration for
which approval for spinning is requested –

(1) The aeroplane must recover from
any point in a spin up to and including six turns,
or any greater number of turns for which
certification is requested, in not more than one
and one-half additional turns after initiation of
the first control action for recovery. However,
beyond three turns, the spin may be
discontinued if spiral characteristics appear;

(2) The applicable airspeed limits and
limit manoeuvring load factors must not be
exceeded. For flaps-extended configurations
for which approval is requested, the flaps must
not be retracted during the recovery;

(3) It must be impossible to obtain
unrecoverable spins with any use of the flight or
engine power controls either at the entry into or
during the spin; and

(4) There must be no characteristics
during the spin (such as excessive rates of
rotation or extreme oscillatory motion) which
might prevent a successful recovery due to
disorientation or incapacitation of the pilot.

(Paragraph 807 is about emergency exits and ability to abandon the aircraft by the way).

Later on in the document is a section on the POH requirements; this only requires that the recovery actions for compliance with this are listed in the manual.

Checking CS.22, which is the equivalent glider requirements they're pretty similar - the main difference being a requirement to meet them with water ballast, if that is carried.


With regard to flight test requirements, most of the world uses as a flight test guide for light civil aeroplane a US document called AC23.8B. Looking that up, it says (amongst several pages of other stuff related to spin testing) that:

(8) Recovery. Recoveries should consist of throttle reduced to idle, ailerons neutralized, full opposite rudder, followed by forward elevator control as required to get the wing out of stall and recover to level flight. For acrobatic category spins, the manufacturer may establish additional recovery procedures, provided they show compliance for those procedures with this section.

This defines the "standard spin recovery"; however note this;

(1) It does not define the speed or rate of application of controls
(2) It uses the word "should" not "must" -which in flight-test-speak means that this is what you're looking for but if it doesn't work, the flight test team are at liberty to find something which does work and use that.

Mishandled ailerons and power, delayed recovery actions less than complete recovery actions, etc are all normal in a spin flight test programme. All are for the same reason - they're there to allow for a survivable event if the spin recovery was not flown properly.

G

[BigEndBob]

It would seem reasonable for non aerobatic aircraft to comply with some sort of standard spin recovery and aerobatic types may need some modification which a pilot learns on checkout.

[Aerohooligan]

It may not be entirely appropriate for me to comment on this forum as I don't hold an FIR (I will be commencing my training for the rating shortly though), so I apologise if I offend anyone.

On the subject of syllabus requirements: I have noted with some interest that in both the US and Europe there seems to be no requirement to spin an aeroplane 'for real' in training. I fly in Australia, and incipient spins and recoveries are mandatory during initial training. Students are not taught how to enter a spin, but they are both shown and practise the recovery techniques for their aircraft. There is further spin training undertaken during CPL training, which at my flying school takes to form of a 1.5hr lesson devoted entirely to clean stalls, advanced stalls and recovery from both incipient and fully developed spins in the C152 Aerobat. Aerobatics is also on offer during this lesson (and several others besides) for those who request it...which is most people!

I can't understand why in other countries it is not considered necessary for PPLs to receive spin training. I am not an authority, nor do I pretend to be, but to me it seems dangerous. I have never had a problem identifying spin direction, but I did find fully developed spins a little disorienting, particularly when buffet set in. I practised spin recovery around 20 times during my Commercial training, and I still have to take a split-second to recall the recovery technique - it's not quite an unconscious motor program yet.

For a PPL who has never practised spin recovery in the aeroplane and may have only received some ground school on the technique, I can only imagine the stark terror that would no doubt ensue upon unintentionally spinning an aeroplane - and it does happen. I know an FI who did it when they were in training.

Anyway, I just don't think it's the safest idea ever. I think the focus in other countries should be like it is here: on taking the fear and mystery out of the spin and making it just another manouevre, rather than focusing on spin-avoidance and turning the spin into a scary green-eyed monster.

[Dan Winterland]

There is a thread currently running about this topic in the Flight Testing forum.

My 2 cents worth: Although people often refer to a "standard spin recovery" and there is a recovery technique which works for the majority of types around, you should know and apply the recovery technique for your aircraft type as described in the POH. I have regularly spun six types of aircraft in my instructional career and all had different techniques. The recovery technique for one of those would put another type into a high rotational spin. A lot of aircraft are reluctant to spin and will only do so if full pro spin control is held. Some of these recover if the controls are just centralised. However, a few don't and this is where the danger lies.

A lot of people refer to the Muller technique. This is essentially centralising. It works for most types, particularly the aerobatic types for which this technique was developed. But I can think of one type I have flown where it wouldn't work.

One thing I have found in the PPL world is that where spin instruction is done, the emphasis is on the entry and recovery to the full spin. It is very unlikely that a full spin is going to be entered inadvertantly by any pilot. So I'm not sure of the validity of this training. Military pilots are taught to enter and recover academic full spins, but their flying career is going to require them to handle aircraft at the extremes of the envelope - somewhere the PPL or commercial pilot trainee is not going to go unless he/she is going to fly competition aerobatics. Military training emphasises spin recognition and recovery at the incipient phase if possible. The full spin is defined (in the RAF) as when the aerodynamic and gyroscopic forces have balanced. In a typical straight wing type such as the Chipmunk, this is usually in the first turn. prior to this, it is the incipient phase and the recovery technique is to centralise the controls and close the throttle (essentially, the Muller technique). Of course, the pilot may not be entering an acedemic spin from straight and level. So the emphasis is on recognising that if you have buffet and undemanded roll, you are in an incipient spin.

The JAR PPL syllabus has dispensed with spinning, and for good reaon. More people have been killed paracticing it than have been saved. A freind of mine died in this situation a few years ago. Recovery emphais is on recovering from any situation with buffet. If there is a wing drop at the stall, this could be a incipient spin. The recovery is essentially the same.

I was also once a gliding instructor and a form of standard spin recovery was used in that world as most gliders enter and recover very quickly. And as gliders spend most of their flying at VIMD which in some cases is only a few knots above the stall, spin training is relevant and necessary. Most are safe. However, there are some gliders which have horrible (and in some cases dangerous) spin characteristics. Anyone here who has spun a Bocian will know what I mean!

[DFC]

A lot of aircraft are reluctant to spin and will only do so if full pro spin control is held. Some of these recover if the controls are just centralised.


Yes. Even the PA38 (which gets lots of bad press regarding spins) will recover from a spin stick free i.e. in the recovery apply opposite rudder and just let go of the stick.

-----------

Aerohooligan,

In the JAA sylabus students must demonstrate proficiency in stall recognition and recovery both that the incipient stage and the developed stage in various configurations, power on and off as well as accelerated stalls.

They have also to demonstrate proficiency in spin recoveries at the incipient stage.

They are required to demonstrate knowledge of the recovery actions from a developed spin.

If you don't want to spin - then don't ever stall is a very good way of looking at the issue.

I do agree that in the unexpected fully developed spin at 1000ft, the "pilot" is going to be unlikely to recover if they have never been in a spin before.

However, is the student scared to death up at 6000ft arriving home green and not wishing to ever do that again actually in any better a position?

Stopping it from spinning in the first place (stall avoidance / recovery / incipient spin recovery) works best especially at 500ft AGL - base to final turn / climbout after late go-arround.

Regards,

DFC

[Dan Winterland]

Quote: Yes. Even the PA38 (which gets lots of bad press regarding spins) will recover from a spin stick free.

Those of you who spin the PA38, next time you do - bend your head back and have a look at the tail. You won't be so keen to do it again! :eek:

[BristolScout]

Dan.

I spent years spinning Tomahawks at Oxford, including looking back at the tail as it boomed, and the exercise never gave me a moment of concern. There had been a fatality at the school on a spinning detail and the then CAA chief test pilot did an exhaustive survey of the spinning characteristics and gave it a clean bill of health. There's a lot of folklore about spinning the 38 but the reality is less entertaining. You have to be my vintage to have instructed when spinning formed part of the PPL syllabus. I suspect that a lot of the misgivings in younger instructors stem from the fact that they're not doing it on a daily basis. For what it's worth, I always took the view that spinning was primarily valuable in exposing the student to the outside edge of the envelope and showing that he could recover to S&L.

[DFC]

There had been a fatality at the school on a spinning detail and the then CAA chief test pilot did an exhaustive survey of the spinning characteristics and gave it a clean bill of health.


If memory serves me correctly, this issue with this accident (or a similar PA38 accident) was that there was evidence from the accident of the control column being held back during the recovery and observation flights with instructors following the accident revealed the fact that many instructors only moved the control column forward a small amount during the recovery procedure.

Spinning and trying to recover with the stick fully back (an abused recovery) introduces a secondary spin mode in the PA38. The secondary mode varies from airframe to airframe in the PA38 series but overall- the aircraft will pitch down against elevator and the rotation rate will increase against the opposing rudder.

Even with this secondary mode, recovery will happen when the control column is moved forward to the max and held there.

If one forgets what the POH says and uses the "standard spin recovery procedure" in a PA38 then the aircraft will not enter the secondary spin mode mentioned - even if the stick is released and opposite rudder apllied it will recover.

--------

There are aircraft flying where flexing of the tail during spin and recovery had to be investigated and a camera mounted looking back was used. The PA38 had no such problems despite what people might think.

--------

I agree that most of today's instructors lack experience and confidence in spinning and thus the demo if provided simply results in two people sitting there in a competition as to who is going to be scared the most!!

Regards,

DFC

[Genghis the Engineer]

There had been a fatality at the school on a spinning detail and the then CAA chief test pilot did an exhaustive survey of the spinning characteristics and gave it a clean bill of health.

I'd love to see that report, is it available anywhere?

G

[Dan Winterland]

Don't get me wrong, I wasn't knocking the PA38. It's quite a reasonable trainer and it's spin characteristics are sound. It just needs a slightly different recovery technique to other popular training types - which re-enforces my point that there is no standard spin recovery for all types. It does actually spin properly, unlike the C150/2.

My comment was referring to the slightly alarming movement of the tail during the spin. The only thing I have against it is that there's no room to wear a parachute. One of my main requisites for spinning!

[homeguard]

But Dan

With all respect, your point does not re-enforce your arguements at all. With all that I have read and know with regard to the 'Standard Spin Recovery' generally being taught by many, including myself on many occasions and including on the PA38, is that it has never been claimed to replace the specific POH recovery action. Some older aircraft manuals in fact are very vague. The PA38 manual, eventually, had to be re-written.

A pilot within a professional public transport or military environment will usually be flying only one type at a time and will be given extensive and expensive recurrent training. It is therefore much more straightforward to train the professional for the specific. The average PPL flying 12 to 25 hours a year will commonly have access to several very different types and retain currency by a simple short club checkout lasting maybe a few minutes. To demand more would be too costly and impracticable.

The law requires in JAA land that a PPL holder is only required to be trained for 1 hour every 2nd year and only then when no test has been undertaken for any other pilot licensing purpose such as; a multi-engine renewal or an LPC for his airline.

The 'standard recovery' will work across most the types normally flown by PPL holders, perhaps only sufficient, to save life which otherwise might be lost. For a pilot to be expected to retain several different specific techniques in their head for each type they fly, in case they may find themselves un-intentionally in a spin, is naive and probably dangerous.

[Pugilistic Animus]

-we've all heard of PARE:zzz:

now, what about Beggs Mueller Emergency recovery---The book Basic Aerobatics by Mike Goulian and Geza Sverozy, details it very wonderfully

but the basics.....

Power off

Let go of stick--completely--- allow the controls to neutralize -let the ship return to its natural stability

Full rudder against the YAW--so you can do it inverted too

Full Elevator, down for upright, up for inverted---when ASI is ok--and the ship is not mushing recover from dive---it usually works:}

PA:ouch:

[Flyingcircusace]

"Standard Spin Recovery" no such thing.

Firstly is it a "standard" recovery checklist, or a checklist used recover from a "Standard" spin (whatever that is!)

Flat, inverted and Knife edge spins all require different actions, and so by definition their can be no "Standard checklist"

Mueller and Cassidy have well described emergency vital actions, that are the only procedures that come to a complete cover all.

Each type also has its own specific attributes, power on during recovery will make the recovery quicker, Aileron input can stop the spin alone, etc etc.

Knowing "Standard spin recovery" is not a green light to spin any type. Each type will have a specific set of actions.

Fcirc

[Capot]

An old (in both senses) mate did a lot of work on the Chipmunk spin problem, in Oz I think, while still in the RAF. 1960's? Probably.

He told me that they eventually concluded that the reason so many did not recover was that pilots thought the stick was fully forward when it wasn't; it seemed to reach a stop but that was aerodynamic.

They recommended that the boot not being used for full rudder deflection should be used to push the stick forward another inch or two at the top, unless the pilot had long enough arms to do it with.

That was, I think, after the aft end was redesigned a bit to try and fix the problem.

[Dan Winterland]

Homeguard. Yes, I can see your point that a 'standard' technique may save lives. But I have to emphasise the 'may'.

When the PA38 was designed, it was the result of Piper asking 10,000 instructors what they wanted in a training aircraft. Piper designed it to spin - because that's what instructors wanted. However, spin fatalities racked up on this type because it's spin characteristics were different to the common training type in use at the time, the C150/2. It took longer to recover (becuase the Tomahawk's spin is a true spin, whereas the C150/2's is more of a descending spiral with one wing slightly stalled) and this led to confusion during the recovery which in turn led to delayed recoveries and consequent crashes. Another aircraft which had different recovery characteristics on introduction is the T67, which is different to the Chipmunk, which is different to the Bulldog etc.

You are talking about recovery actions in the case of an inadvertant spin. The recovery for any spin in the incipient stage is the same. Centralise and close the throttle. This should be enough for the PPL flying various types -and this is what is in the PPL syllabus. Correct recognition and appropriate recovery actions are all that is deemed necessary. If your PPL then goes off and deliberately full spins an aircraft without adequate instruction or referring to the POH thus not knowing the recovery technique for that type, the he/she will significantly increase their chance of becoming a statistic.


Capot - The Chippie is the aircraft I have spun the most, I have never had any exciting moments in about a thousand spins. But that's thanks to the research which people like your mate carried out. The modifications including the wider chord rudder and the spin strakes did the trick. But these were tied in with a change in recovery technique. The aerodynamic lock was caused by a lack of airflow over the elevator. The spin strakes energised the airflow and the new technique was to pause before moving the control column forward to allow the 'straightened flow' to take effect. As a result, the stick never had to go so far forward and recoveries were positive and fairly prompt after that.

But these were all from the standard executed entry which involved applying full pro spin controls at 50 knots - a few knots above the stall therefore slightly 'flicking' the aircraft into the spin. This led to a balanced and stable spin which showed the classic one turn incipient stage before entering the the fully developed stage. If you had an aircraft which dropped a wing at the stall (and a lot in the fleet did as they were now getting close to 50 years old!) and you attempted to pick up the wing with aileron - it would enter a flat slowly rotaing spin with lots of buffet, a much shallower nose down attitude which was in the fully develped stage at about a third of a turn, and which took longer to recover.

The Chipmunk, the Bulldog and the PA38 all had spinning testing re-visited after their introduction with a subsequent change in the recovery techniques. Sadly, these were all after fatal accidents.



There is no standard spin recovery.

[djpil]

Those Chipmunk tests were reported in the June 1960 edition of the Aviation Safety Digest. Just skimmed through it tonight. Didn't see any mention of the boot on the stick (may have missed it) but saw mention of one Chipmunk instructor having to take over from his student "and only recovered by moving the throttle and stick forward and back together."
CASA has retained that in their Flight Instructor Manual as note (ii) of their emergency recovery technique.

Please don't shoot the messenger.

[mad_jock]

Funny enough thats what my FII did to get the C150 to recover.

[DFC]

There is no standard spin recovery.

Lets see if we can come up with a new name for the technique which;

a) Is used when no other technique has been established

b) Used if you can not remember the POH and don't have the altitude to consult the relevant paragraph; and

c) Is specified in the flight training texts which are non-type specific.

Regards,

DFC

[hugh flung_dung]

"Lets see if we can come up with a new name for the technique which ..."

Default?

HFD

[mad_jock]

"Darwin award" technique

[kluge]

So the concise collective learning of all of this is:

1. There are no standard recovery techniques. Therefore;
2. RTFFM (aka POH) per the aircraft you are responsible for, understand what it ALL means and be self disciplined (esp CG pos and/or turning final - this is when "Brown Bread Club" membership is at its greatest).
3. Beggs Mueller as a backup for intentional and unintentional upright, inverted and flat (upright or inverted) spins. Presumes you have sufficient recovery height.
4. When all else fails jump (parachute and sufficient height required) or BRS or MB options if fitted.

If all that fails then:

5. "Always look on the bright side of life" and enjoy the ride.


Point 2 seems to be the hardest to learn.

[tigerbatics]

Of course there is a 'standard spin recovery'.

That is not to say that it is a 'universal' spin recovery. It was taught to me back in the 70s and was clearly derived from Service experience with Chipmunks. It provided the standard from which type specific changes could be made. Without a standard it is too easy to view each type as wholly different rather than as variations on the same theme. This, I think, makes more difficult a proper appreciation of the nature of the spin.

It is also worth pointing out that the POH does not always give the best or most efficient spin techniques, either entry or exit, at least where aerobatic aeroplanes are concerned.

When Eric Muller came up with his emergency recovery technique it created some controversy over here and seems to have been appropriated by Beggs in the States and taught as a new technique by several instructors over there. I have a copy of Beggs booklet and the outline of the 'spin course'. From this and from other books written in the States the position seems clear that it was being presented as appropriate for use in the recovery of all types of spin in most types of aeroplane. I believe some instructors teach it as, shall we say a standard spin recovery, for aerobatic machines.

This is not what Eric Muller intended at all. I knew him quite well and we had long discussions on this and most other aerobatic subjects over a period of some years. The so-called 'emergency recovery' derived from his own recovery technique in aerobatic machines, which was;
1) close throttle
2) opposite rudder
3) full back stick
4) full in-spin aileron
With all items done AT THE SAME TIME. That is, no pause between any control applications.

It was when he noted that if he let go of the stick in the spin (erect) it went to the full back in-spin position anyway and without his specific control movement that he started to think about a different emergency technique.

Now this is the point. It should not be seen as a specific spin recovery method in it's own right but rather as one application of the method for recovering control during aerobatic practice when the machine falls out of control. By 'out of control' I mean when the aeroplane is doing something other than that which the pilot thought, or hoped, he was telling it to do. At that point the pilot should stop telling it anything at all, because clearly the wrong message is being given. Hence the advice to cut the power and let go of everything; let the machine sort itself out then resume control after identifying what the aeroplane is doing. Chasing the machine around with a series of inappropriate control inputs has caused a large number of accidents over the years.

The 'emergency recovery' touted by some instructors in the States is very plainly NOT a universal solution and does not provide the most efficient or attractive spin recovery when the aeroplane is still firmly in control and the spin intentional. Pitts pilots, for example, will find recovery from a flat spin much more controllable and quicker if a totally different techique is used in which the power is left FULL ON. So will those in Extras.

[Dan Winterland]

Errrrr......if it's not a universal spin recovery, then how can it be standard?

The "standard" stall recovery from the PPL syllabus is universal. Using the phrase "standard" when talking about a spin recovery is misleading. Your example of the recovery technique developed for the Chipmunk isn't a good one as the Chipmunk ended up with a different technique to many other aircraft after several accidents where it didn't recover when following use of a 'more typical' recovery technique.

[tigerbatics]

The words 'standard' and 'universal' do not mean the same thing. There is no need for a standard to be universally applicable in order to amount to a proper standard.

A standard technique may form the norm,or baseline,or point of reference, or default situation, call it what you will. In order to constitute a standard it needs to be of sufficient relevance to make useful a comparison of other techniques with that standard.

This is, it seems to me, what the normal spin recovery taught as non type specific spin recovery under the name of 'standard spin recovery' was all about.

My reference to the Chipmunk holds I think. There is little variation in the spin recovery from the 'standard' in the Chipmunk. A very great deal of PPL training in the 70s, and maybe today,derives from service practice. Trying to pick up a wing drop in the stall with aileron inevitably results in the application of outspin aileron should the aeroplane enter a spin. This has the prdictable result of causing the aeroplane to enter a flatter spin with all that this entails. The Chipmunk is not and never was unusual in that respect.

[cessnarepairman]

It is an urban myth about the Chippy spin recovery, you should read De Havilland TNS 142 from 1960.

I would doubt if a light aircraft has ever been put through an extensive spin trials, all because one in Australia failed to recover.

[lady in red]

Well I doubt that I am the only person to have experienced trying to demonstrate spinning and having the aircraft NOT recover despite using the "standard spin recovery" method. Aircraft in question was a C150 aerobat and it did not respond at all to the usual method. In the end I had to use in-spin aileron to recover having lost well in excess of 3000 feet. Bottomed out at just 1100 feet.
Once safely back on the ground, the aircraft was stripped down by the engineers who found nothing wrong, however, the CAA test pilots flew it and grounded it and when it was examined properly it turned out to have a bent wing which was several degrees out of true.
The lesson I learnt was never to trust the paperwork of engineers and a flight school you do not know (I was a guest FIC instructor there).

[Dan Winterland]

If you compare the Chipmunk spin recovery with one of the more usual trainiers, the C152 you will notice a difference. The C152 POH states " Apply and hold full rudder opposite to the direction of rotation. Just after the rudder reaches the stop move the control wheel briskly forward far enough to break the stall". Compare this with the RAF Chipmunk AP101B (Pilot's notes) "Apply and maintain full rudder opposite to the direction of yaw. After a brief pause, move the control column frimly and progressively forward until the spin stops".

They are almost the same, but there are subtle differences. The C152 wheel movement is almost instantaneous (as backed up by the placard which doesn't mention "just after"). Whereas the Chipmunk control column movement needs a pause. The RAF used to stipulate 2 seconds to allow the rudder to take effectiveness. Those two seconds seem like a long time when you are spinning earthwards and I have seen plenty of students either forget the pause or counts 2 "elephants" very rapidly. The recovery does take longer in this case. Also, the C152 'brisk movement' is different to the Chipmunk 'progressive movement'.

The C152 is probably 'more standard' than most. The Chipmunk is different. It's recovery was developed after a failure to recover using a 'more standard' technique. And when the Bulldog entered RAF service, it's spin characteristics were different to the Beagle Pup it was developed from. After two aircraft were lost spinning , research showed that the larger canopy was blanking the rudder. So a different technique was developed where the contol column was moved rapidly forward resulting in an almost negative g bunt.

So, there is no standard recovery where these three types are involved.



Cessena repair man. I had a look at TNS 142. It refers to the rear bulkhead corrosion problem, so I'm not sure what your point is. And I don't know what the myths regarding the Chipmunk are. When I flew them in the RAF, we used facts - and the manuals!



LIR: I too have nearly lost an aircraft due to a wing being out of incidence limits. In this case, it entered an inverted spin from an erect spin. It looked like an erect spin, but had an attitude close to the vertical and a rotation rate much higher than the normal. The turn and slip was telling us it was an inverted spin, but we took a while to believe it and effect a recovery. In this case, we had the Martin Baker alternative and were close to using it. I'm not fond of spinning without a parachute. :uhoh:

[cessnarepairman]

Ive rechecked that, I'm always one to admit I'm wrong, but not in this case. TNS CT (C1)142 published 17-10-60 "The Chipmunk Spin- The Facts" there is a copy in the latest TNS manual from DH support.

[tigerbatics]

DW, what you describe as the 'Chipmunk' recovery is exactly what I was taught in the early 70s as a non type specific 'standard' in a Beagle Pup.

From your description it is also perfectly ok for a C150. However I have never flown a Cessna so have no personal experience. Variation in the desired rate of control application does not seem a sufficient reason to deny the existence of a 'standard spin recovery' any more than the fact that some types may require a slightly varying technique.

I stress the point previously made that a 'standard' is just that and the very idea of a standard involves the possibility of departures from that 'standard'. That is what the word means. This is why it is not to be confused with 'universal' and the method was not called a 'universal spin recovery'.

[Dan Winterland]

CRM - the list I found was the New Zealand CAA's list of Chipmunk TNSs. 142 refers to the rear bulkhead. I see that your list (Is that the UK CAA list?) refers to spinning, but I couldn't find a link to the text. Do you have one?




Tigerbatics - I can't agree with you. I accept there is a sequence of events which are carried out to recover a spin, but their application is different enough to render the notion of a standard recovery for all types misleading. I have instructed spinning in C152 and the Chipmunk. Their recoveries are different. I have also instructed spinning in several other types and spun many more - and again, there were differences.

The danger of entereing a full spin unintentionally is minimal. Those entereing a full spin intentionally need to be familiar with that type's recovery technique. Use of the wrong technique can lead to a delayed recovery - or some other problem. Use of the Chipmunk technique in the Bulldog will not lead to an effieicent recovery.

If you want to teach a recovery technique which will work in an emergency for most types such as Australia's CASA mentions in it's free to download instructor manual http://www.casa.gov.au/aoc/training/guides/fim.htm then do so but referring to it as standard may lead to a pilot thinking it's OK to use if he goes spinning intentionally.

[Dan Winterland]

And while I'm thinking about it, here are some more less than 'standard' spin recoveries.

Robin R2160. Apply oppsite rudder. Move control colum fully rearwards.

Cirrus SR2: Immediately deploy balistic recovery system.

Hunter: Stick back, apply in spin aileron.

Jaguar: Release all controls. If not recovered by 10,000', eject.

[kluge]

Hhmm - I was taught Mueller/Beggs for the R2160.
In hindsight this was probably to maintain procedural consistency for Pitts flying.
Whilst Mueller/Beggs worked for both a/c I agree with you that there is not a standard recovery technique in the true sense of the word.

I dimly recall reading about the large ventral fin on the R2160 as having something to do with spin recovery. Do you know ?

Your Jaguar comments are interesting. Tell more please.

[tigerbatics]

Kluge, see my comments above about the Muller/Beggs method. This is not a proper 'stand alone' spin recovery technique and was never intended to be. You will see, if you look above, that the Robin technique DW mentions is very close to that which Eric Muller used himself.

The Muller/Beggs emergency recovery should not, in my view, have been taught to you as a method of normal spin recovery in the Robin. The same is true of the Pitts so no question of consistency arises.

[kluge]

Well, it works consistently and reliably for both incipient and fully developed spins in R2160 and Pitts S2A, S2S and S2B aircraft.

"In some aircraft that spin readily upright and inverted—such as Pitts- and Christen Eagle-type high-performance aerobatic aircraft—an alternative spin-recovery technique may effect recovery as well, namely: Power off, Hands off the stick/yoke, Rudder full opposite to the spin (or more simply "push the rudder pedal that is hardest to push") and held (aka the Mueller/Beggs technique). An advantage of the Mueller/Beggs technique is that no knowledge of whether the spin is erect or inverted is required during what can be a very stressful and disorientating time. Even though this method does work in a specific subset of spin-approved airplanes, the NASA Standard/PARE procedure will also be effective, but care must be taken to ensure the spin does not simply cross from positive to negative or vice versa. The converse, however, may not be true at all—many cases exist where Beggs/Mueller fails to recover the airplane from the spin, but NASA Standard/PARE will terminate the spin. Before spinning any aircraft the flight manual should be consulted to establish if the particular type has any specific spin recovery techniques that differ from standard practice."

Above taken from wikipedia....ok ok.... but i think it fleshes out the point which is that there is no standard recovery technique. The last sentence relates to point 2 in my original post on this thread.

[kluge]

I'll edit my original list with:

So the concise collective learning of all of this is:

1. There are no standard recovery techniques. Therefore;
2. RTFFM (aka POH) per the aircraft you are responsible for, understand what it ALL means and be self disciplined (esp CG pos and/or turning final - this is when "Brown Bread Club" membership is at its greatest).
3. Beggs Mueller as a backup for intentional and unintentional upright, inverted and flat (upright or inverted) spins. Presumes you have sufficient recovery height.
4. Try PARE to terminate the spin.
5. When all else fails jump (parachute and sufficient height required) or BRS or MB options if fitted.

If all that fails then:

6. "Always look on the bright side of life" and enjoy the ride.

[homeguard]

Following this considered and articulate debate, it is no wonder that such a thing as a 'standard stall/spin recovery' was devised. From this debate it is not possible to summarise a consensus, each maintains their original stance. Outside of this forum there are more variations, on the theme, from many respected aerobatic and test pilots that I have read or consulted.

A dilemna for any insructor, teaching the PPL, is how far does one take it teaching specifically with regard to the particular machine flown and conversely to what extent should the training provide for a broader platform. With regard to aerobatics it is simple; the correct method is that promulgated for the particular aircraft. However, not even that provides for a consensus for many internationally proven aerobatics pilots have devised their own methods that they swear by and they are willing to give much time to persuading others of the reasons and benefits.

The specific methods can be achieved easily within controlled environments, such as the military but not only, when normally a single type will be flown at any one time. The dilemna remains elsewhere. Within the normal club environment and following qualification the pilot will often be low houred and flying perhaps 12 to 25 hours per year. The actual number of fights may be less. This same pilot will perhaps fly a number of different types during a year. Many of these types cannot be deliberately spun to provide any further training anyway. It is this pilot that needs some special consideration.

The 'standard', stall and spin recovery techniques, devised for these people, was never said to be an all embracing fix nor a replacement for the specific recovery for a type. It did and has at least provided a method that would be unlikely to do harm, even if it didn't execute a recovery with the least height loss.

It could be said to be at the very least better than chaos. GASCo are at this moment in the process of a study of stall/spin acidents. It will interesting reading when it is completed.

[DB6]

Talking about standard stall/spin recovery is misleading;
Stall recovery: Reduce angle of attack (stick centrally forward, apply full power). If I am not wrong - I don't have first hand knowledge of fast jets etc - this works for ALL fixed wing aircraft and is therefore STANDARD.
Spin recovery: Read this thread. There is no STANDARD spin recovery.

[ProfChrisReed]

My understanding is that for gliders certified to BCAR and then JAR there is a standard spin recovery: full opposite rudder, pause (probably not needed on most gliders); move stick progressively forward until spin stops; centralise controls; pull out of dive.

This is standard in the sense that all such certified gliders need to have demonstrated recovery using this method, from erect spins at least (inverted are outside my knowledge). There may be an alternative method, producing a smaller height loss, but this should work for all. Certainly, this method is taught in the BGA syllabus as the standard method.

Those gliders placarded against intentional spinning are, I believe, so placarded because a recovery is likely to exceed Vne and overstress the airframe; they should still recover, but bits might then fall off. However, I may have got this wrong and don't intend to investigate in flight.

I had thought that JAR required a similar demonstration for powered aircraft (with additional steps for engine management), so that this recovery method could be used successfully on those aircraft even though it might not be the most efficient form of recovery. Is that wrong?

[Dan Winterland]

DB6. Couldn't agree more. It's what I have been saying all along.

Prof. There is a standard spin recovery for gliders - in the BGA syllabus at least. This is because a glider pilot will often fly many types and will need a reaction which will get him out of trouble. Most GA aircraft won't enter a spin unintentionally - this isn't the case for gliders which fly close to the stall and have long wings which experience rapid changes in their angle of attack. Also, they have low B/A ratios which means they are pro recovery. They enter a full spin within a quarter of a turn, but recover (in most cases) pretty quickly. And have very similar characteristics which is why a 'standard recovery' works. In about 600 hrs of gliding, I have entered full spins in gliders several times without intending to, the recovery is rapid and loses nothing like as much height as the GA aircraft would.

With a powered airframe, there are may more factors which will determine the characteristics of the spin. B/A ratios vary massively and will change with factors such as fuel use and C of G.



Quote: "Your Jaguar comments are interesting. Tell more please." The Jag doesn't spin well. Those who have spun it say it's a wild ride. Part of the recovery (eject decision!) is to check the IAS. ut those who have done it say it's hard to actually see the IAS as your head is being banged off the canopy. The 10,000' is for the single seater. The two seater has a 14,000' limit - but I gather only 2 twin seaters have ever been spun. And neither recovered!

I used this as an extreme case. But the Hunter isn't - as applying in spin aileron is a typical recovery for a swept wing aircraft as the moments of inertia can effectively be treated as gyroscopes. And precessing the gyros is the key to effecting the recovery.

[kluge]

Thx Dan
You're last paragraph will have me studying over the weekend.

[tigerbatics]

Homeguard, you are quite right about the whole point and purpose of the 'standard spin recovery'. When spinning was part of the required UK training this is how it was taught and what it was called. I rather think, this being the case, that this discussion is really about whether it should have been so-called.

Where there is no system there is chaos. It makes good sense to refer to specific techniques by reference to a norm or standard. It helps understanding and proper comprehension. There are many instances where a 'standard' does not apply in every respect but this does not detract from the value of the standard itself.

Take the flat spin for example. Here is a good example of what Homeguard was saying about personal techniques. It also shows the value of a standard approach and variations on the theme in explaining recovery methods.
Those teaching the Beggs method would have a recovery along the lines of throttle closed, release the stick, and press (in say an erect Pitts flat spin), right rudder. This will work.
The POH for the Pitts suggests throttle closed, back stick and left aileron which is the method Eric Muller would personally have used. The difference being that Eric would not have moved the stick forward until the rotation had actually stopped and the manual suggests rather sooner.This will also work.
However the method which gives the quickest and most controllable recovery and which allows recovery from a fully developed flat spin on a precise line is quite different and requires the throttle to remain fully open.
(I used this method in my S1 some 25 years ago and it is only in the last few years that I have become aware that it is a technique which is not type specific as I had assumed, but is now quite usual among international competitors flying Extra, Cap, Yak and Sukhoi machines).
Given this variation in possible method confusion is awaiting someone who is learning and tries to understand what is going on. It is quite possible to avoid this by restricting information to one method only. However then the object of both instruction and learning is in part defeated.
In my opinion explication is assisted and undersanding greatly enhanced if the student has in the back of his mind the 'standard spin recovery' because the various alterations departures and changes from that can be seen as a pattern directed to achieving the same ends.

[sooty615]

Tigerbatics, I agree entirely. This topic has been done to death in one forum or another - so much so that my head is spinning!