B76 Duchess spin testing

[Aerohooligan]

I was told today by a META instructor that the Duchess is one of the only light twins ever to have undergone asymmetric stall/spin testing. The Duchess POH I did the engineering exam on, however, said something similar to what a lot of other twins' POHs say: 'This aircraft is not approved for spins and no spin testing was conducted during certification. What follows is based on Beech's best judgement.'

Can someone enlighten me? I know the quoted passage relates to symmetrical thrust spins but it sort of stands to reason that if normal spins weren't investigated then asymmetric ones definitely wouldn't be, right? Maybe it was only investigated after a certain serial number? Anyway, any info would be very much appreciated.

[chimbu warrior]

I think the general intent of this statement is to dissuade you from becoming an inadvertent test pilot......

[Jabawocky]

It worries me when a post about spinnig a Duchie is posted by someone named aerohooligan..... :uhoh: and aged 21.....:rolleyes:

I guess the ATSB should start packing now..........

J

[tail wheel]

'This aircraft is not approved for spins and no spin testing was conducted during certification. What follows is based on Beech's best judgment.'

Aerohooligan.

I think we need some clarification - exactly which part of the above sentence do you not understand?

:confused:

[The Green Goblin]

I would be very careful about what you thought you heard or what you may have misinterpreted.

There are not to many Duchys around and even fewer schools doing MET in them. Brisvegas 'aint a hard place to narrow it down to which instructor you could be pointing the bone at. :eek:

EDIT:

After a bit of digging around i found this:

the Beech has a big elevator and rudder, giving it better
control. Beech actually did a full spin test series in the
Duchess but decided for marketing reason, not to certify it
for intentional spinning. It will recover from a spin on
one engine, not many twins can say that.

Can't say i would be too keen to find out regardless!

[Karl Bamforth]

WOW,

When I read aeroholigans post all I saw was. An instructor has told me this and the POH says that. Does anyone know if the duchess was spin tested?

I didn't see him saying the instructor said you could.
I didn't see him saying he would.
I didn't see him recommending anyone else to.
He didn't say he didn't understand the POH.

All he said was the POH says it wasn't spun, an instructor says it was, anyone know if it was ?

Come on guys just answer the question asked............................

Well done with the answer Green Goblin, I don't think the guy was pointing anything at anyone and it looks like his instructor was correct after all.

[Fred Gassit]

The certification standard of the day didn't require it, so most didn't. I believe the Baron has been spin tested retrospectively and found to have generally good manners.

[The Green Goblin]

interesting reading


777 F.2d 1072 (http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/777/777.F2d.1072.84-1086.html)

[Cap'n Arrr]

Is it possible it was spun, but not to the standard required for certification and hence publication in the flight manual. i.e. didnt conform to the requirements for a spin test

Fred, I recall hearing "if you spin a baron you'll die in it". Hmmm...:confused:

[300Series]

"I recall hearing "if you spin a baron you'll die in it""

I believe the early model 55 Barons ( A, B models) were unrecoverable in a spin. I have heard this and i have heard that the later models (C,D,E) were recoverable because they had a bigger tail/rudder.

300

[Fred Gassit]

A further update, Raytheon performed 229 spins in the Baron in the late 1990s'. This validated the recovery technique in the POH and confirmed "no undue tendency to spin from a wings level unaccelerated stall" (the required standard of the day) The communique is condensed but essentially where spins were initiated with one powerplant at flight idle and the other wide open, and they were left that way for at least 270 degrees of rotation, an unrecoverable spin could develop.

I cant find much more detail but it looks like 2 out of the first 95 spins performed needed the spin chute to recover so you guys were right, not good handling at all (albeit while being grossly mishandled).

Bottom line is it's never a good idea to step outside the POH.

PS I think the guy who did this testing could stake a valid claim in that Dream Job thread elsewhere!

[Sunfish]

Karl:

Does anyone know if the duchess was spin tested?

I didn't see him saying the instructor said you could.
I didn't see him saying he would.
I didn't see him recommending anyone else to.
He didn't say he didn't understand the POH.



The reason people are reacting negatively to this idle question about the spin capabilities of a Duchess is that it indicates an unhealthy attitude to the manufacturers instructions.

Two personal experiences started out in a similar manner:

"Did you know you can stub out a lighted cigarette in a can of petrol and nothing will happen?"


"Did you know that a hand grenade is great for fishing?"

Save questions like that for "Mythbusters", Hooligan.

[haughtney1]

The reason people are reacting negatively to this idle question about the spin capabilities of a Duchess is that it indicates an unhealthy attitude to the manufacturers instructions

Sunfish, thats just crap, he asked a simple question..how can YOU or ANYONE else tell from a few words typed onto a bulletin board what attitude..impression..inflection..or accent that question was asked in? quite bluntly..you cant.
Aerohooligan made a polite enquiry for information nothing more...:ugh:
Some of you on these boards need to wind your heads in a bit in my opinion:=

Edit: I'm not having a dig specifically at you Sunfish, but comments like yours and tailwheel really get under my skin at times as they have come at a the question from a really cynical viewpoint.

[NZFlyingKiwi]

During my multi endorsement (done on the Duchess) I don't recall ever being told by anyone that it had actually been spin tested - maybe it has, but with all due respect to your instructor I'd be more willing to trust what it says in the POH than what an instructor tells you.

[equal]

help me out here my fellow level headed aviators. when did the original poster say he/she was gonna take a BE76 out for spin testing?

[Sunfish]

Haughtney:

Sunfish, thats just crap, he asked a simple question..how can YOU or ANYONE else tell from a few words typed onto a bulletin board what attitude..impression..inflection..or accent that question was asked in? quite bluntly..you cant.

Aerohooligan made a polite enquiry for information nothing more...
Some of you on these boards need to wind your heads in a bit in my opinion

I'd understand your point of view, but unfortunately as a parent I developed a certain level of cynicism about research of this kind by children, because it almost always led to:

"Dad, did you know you can (insert verb) to a (insert noun) and (insert outcome)?"

Unless one very firmly nipped in the bud any thought of (insert verb) to a (insert noun) the outcome was frequently tears.

Furthermore, such stories of the untold capacities of everyday objects, let alone aircraft, have a habit of getting both embellished and garbled as they get passed through generations, as this one has appeared to, until one day someone tests the advice, believing it''s veracity, with predictable results.

For the record, a quick check of the internet shows evidence that:

Beechcraft participated in an NASA test program on the spinning of light twins, using a Duchess. This is NOT THE SAME as certification testing.


The Light Airplane Pilots' Guide to ... - Google Book Search (http://books.google.com/books?id=tM6NxLIp4AMC&pg=PA446&lpg=PA446&dq=beechcraft+duchess+spin+recovery+testing&source=bl&ots=axf0LVNa9s&sig=sMlWwPriu4GcY41)

To put it another way: "Don't even think about it!!!!!"

[dash 27]

Just to narrow this malpractice down, my initial twin rating was in a duchess, and Captain X, whilst doing assymetrics thought it essential to show me a assymetric VMCA departure example. Talk about negative training. I had no idea about twins other than the theory of VMCa. I had since become a trainer myself, and i would never, ever in a million years attempt such an advanced maneouver with an abinitio student To take the negativity to the next level, the same individual, who is known for his overanalness, and his enjoyment in breaking pilots souls bringing them to tears, (who know's now who it is??) once we recovered from the spin, surprise, surprise the engine wouldn't start. Not windmilling, or crank start. So in we come, still with the lambs wool seat cover still far sucked in my ass, for a real assymetric landing. THEN, the f#cker yells at me because I needed to turn right with the left buggered, and the right brake was a sponge and we had to stop to avoid the ditch. THEN, a series of 270 degree turns in front of the aeroclub demonstrated by the gods gift, only to nearly roll the tyres off the rim, THEN to have hanger 51 tow us to the parking area, where he DEBRIEF's me in the usual screeming match that he had become famous for. It was an absolute joke.

Why was i there in the first place. Well i heard of his antics (not the assymetric departure demo stupidity), its analness to master DME homing, and ARC's, and thought my career needed a reallign as i wanted to get an airline job some day.

And you know what, he did teach me a lot that day, OF WHAT NOT TO BECOME !!!!! Needing the tender hands of Chesty to bring me out of career intensive care courtesy of Captain X, i took the bob hoover demo throughout my career as a TALKING issue in training, and suggest that it might be more prudent in a SIM. The same guy still famour for his stupidity, and the authority still allowing him to have an ATO approval, tried to kill me again in a twin otter at the same airport by where the pair of them were attempting to teach each other the otter, but having an engine feathered, and attempting to go around with the good engine's prop still at cruise (simulating a heavy airplane). Heading for the trees, i stood up from row 1, (because with 4000 hours on Twin Otters on floats with training approval, I still needed to be shown how things were done in Oz) and stood up the prop lever, and surprise surprise it flew away. He then landed on 35 @ cooly assymetric (feathered), yet running, with 25 knots of cross wind from the dead engine side, and departed the runway with a wheel barrow, downwind wing inches off the ground almost landing departure. Back at the hanger I could get out of the aircraft fast enough. I was in my car out of the carpark before the props stopped turning in disgust.

I was confronted with a similar potential incident overseas when I did a check in an Twin Otter, with a low level go around, assymetric, and low speed below VMCa. I though to myself, how do i attract these people???, but I did with small amounts of good engine power drive it out, only to bring to the attention of the Checky what we had done to the oil temp on the good engine. Nothin like bringing in the buggered engine to cool by throttling back the good one. Having said that, i had good water below to land on, and height to make speed, but again, doable, but not recommended. Again rogue practices, extreme training or negative training to the wrong person, or even suicidal in its delivery. Yes you shouldn't be in the situation, but when you don't know better, and its all new uncharted waters, only hindsite can say, GEE you shouldn't have done that. So people, choose your checkys. Some are friggen CRAZY!!!!

Be safe out there.

-27 :}

[Karl Bamforth]

Quote "I'd understand your point of view, but unfortunately as a parent I developed a certain level of cynicism about research of this kind by children, " Quote.

Aero hooligan is 21, holds a pilots licence and displays understanding and knowledge. He has been presented with 2 different sets of information and is simply researching it as most intelligent humans would.

He is not a child with a box of matches and a can of petrol.

[Miles]

Karl, check your PMs mate :ok:

[Aerohooligan]

Thanks for the advice. I want to make sure it's clear to you and everyone that it's not my intention to point the finger. It's unfortunate in that respect that aviation is such a small community.

It turns out from reading all the replies that the instructor was probably right anyway. The context of the conversation was a brief on Vmca and I think they were trying to allay my nerves about the Vmca/Vsse demo. I have spread my initial multi between two flying schools (not ideal but unfortunately unavoidable) both with vastly different philosophies regarding multi-engine training.

I appreciate all the responses, negative and positive alike. :)

[SystemsAreGo]

Aerohooligan..

To clear up this thread, just tell us you are not planning to do spinning in a BE76 :ok:

Save it for an aircraft with 'A' in the engine code. That way you can do it inverted :}

[Aerohooligan]

Definitely not planning to spin the Duchie. I intimated as much to Sunfish in a PM. I did the Vmca flight today and as it turns out when done properly Vmca is a hoot and I needn't have been nervous at all.

I like to muck about in aeroplanes (only within the limits of my licence) a bit, but never, ever in an illegal or unsafe manner. That's just asking for trouble. :)

[ROH111]

Why the hell would you want to spin ANY twin...

What is the world coming to! :cool:

[john_tullamarine]

.. or even play with kindergarten quasi-Vmca things ?

[remoak]

Sunfish et al,

I developed a certain level of cynicism about research of this kind by children, because it almost always led to:

"Dad, did you know you can (insert verb) to a (insert noun) and (insert outcome)?"

Interacting with the world in this way is how kids learn. You have to ensure that you catch the really dangerous stuff, is all.

In the case of our guy here enquiring about the spin characteristics of a Duchess, I am sure that he isn't planning on actually doing it, he's just interested, as reasonable, intelligent adults tend to be. Stomping on his head is pointless.

Besides, the information is useful. Consider for a minute some unfortunate who does happen to mishandle his Duchess to the point where it bites back and he ends up in a spin. He may well assume that the situation he is now in is quite hopeless, and not attempt any meaningful recovery. But if he knew that a recovery HAD been demonstrated, he may try a little harder and live to tell the tale.

I tell you that story, because back in the day when I was instructing, we saw a guy in the training area stall an Apache in a rather clumsy way while practicing asymmetric manouevers, which ended up in a spin. Another instructor quickly yelled instructions over the common frequency and the guy managed to recover. He told us later in the bar that, as soon as the spin started, he just assumed he had no chance and was mentally preparing for his end.

Just because information isn't written in the POH/FM, doesn't mean it isn't useful or correct. Most POHs of the Duchess era were written under the cloud of product liability litigation and were deeply conservative.

[Lasiorhinus]

Most POHs of the Duchess era were written under the cloud of product liability litigation and were deeply conservative.

That's rather like saying, "Takeoff charts are factored by 15%, so if the chart says you need 1000 metres for takeoff, you can actually take off on a runway only 869 metres long".

It is not for the pilot to second-guess the manufacturer. If the flight manual says not to do something in this aircraft, then do not do that in that aircraft. Even if you think the reason behind a particular statement or limitation is based on the "cloud of litigation" rather than safety, you may or may not be correct, but that still does not make it OK to ignore the flight manual.

The phrase "My instructor told me..." is at the heart of so many misunderstandings, errors, mistakes and incorrect interpretations in aviation. If what your instructor says conflicts with something in the flight manual, AIP, CAO, CAR, or any authoritive source, your instructor is wrong. People make mistakes, sometimes through the rules changing over time, sometimes through different procedures in different parts of the world, and sometimes through being told the wrong thing. Just because someone is an instructor, or a chief pilot, or has more hours than you, does not make them infallible. I've had a chief pilot tell me some doozies, including that it was perfectly OK to fly an aircraft up to five hours past the expiry of the maintenance release, but that does not make him right.

[remoak]

Nobody is suggesting that anyone should deliberately fly outside the POH or FM.

However, the smart pilot will understand that these documents can be (and often are) influenced as much by politics as by actual safety considerations. That doesn't mean that you should consciously contravene the contents of those documents, but it does mean should understand what the limitations of your aircraft actually are.

There are many examples of this, from how you lean an engine to how much notice you take of a "demonstrated" crosswind figure (which is not, of itself, a limitation).

Perhaps in the perfect world that some of you seem to inhabit, exceeding a limit or disregarding the POH is never an issue. However, in my many years of airline flying, there have been a few times when there has been no option but to do so - for a variety of reasons. Funnily enough, we all survived to tell the tale. There was always a lot of paperwork, though - but in every case, the authorities and airline had no issues with the decision-making process that led to the limit/rule/procedure being disobeyed.

It helps when you understand that most limitations are based on probabilities. An engine does not automatically fail as soon as it reaches it's TBO, in fact many engines could go 50% past their TBO with no problems whatsoever (hence "on condition" maintenance procedures). Many airframes can easily survive beyond their published Vne, it's just that the manufacturer won't guarantee it, and so on. Safe flying is based on the reduction of risk, which is why these safety factors exist. Some limitations are so conservative as to be laughable.

BTW your Chief Pilot may well have been correct if he was talking about flying on a waiver. Going 5 hours past the expiry of your MR usually just requires an approval from whatever authority oversees you. Extensions like that are common in the airline world - well they are in Europe, anyway.

[VortexGen300]

Don't know about the Dcuhess but a friend of mine was in a B55 doing initial ME training and at about 6000 ft agl they were doing simulated Asymmetric handling and the student was struggling to identify the correct engine that was inoperative.

He was like trying this and that trying to sort it out. He used to use the old trick to put his toe underneat the rudder pedal to prevent the student from stepping on the wrong pedal?

And the next moment they had a real failure on the one engine and because he wa snot expecting it and the student stepped on the wrong rudder . . . .

The one engine at approx 65% and the aircraft was inverted and in a flat spin - the throttles were both retarded - slight bank and rudder inputs - without luck - then tried all the other tricks in the book - after loosing approx 2000 ft they were not inverted anymore. The spin was not that violent anymore but would not end - so he realized instantly would not get out - had to try and restart the dead engine - told the student to try changing tanks and then turn the starter - Through divine intervention the engine started and the instructor was able to nurse the aircraft out of the spin by using differential thrust at an altitude of approx 500 to 700 ft agl.

Subsequently they discovered dirt in the fuel line on the main tank of the engine that failed.

VG300

[john_tullamarine]

The spin was not that violent anymore but would not end

(a) best to spin trainers which are approved for spinning rather than play test pilot without having done the training ..

(b) this is why the FT world uses spin chutes ... a second string to the bow, as it were.

[CaptainAhab]

http://pdf.aiaa.org/preview/1981/PV1981_1667.pdf