Spinning!

[SuperFlyingAnimal]

Hi all.

I started EASA PPL (fixed wing) training at the end of June. I went solo recently and due to bad weather have not been able do any more solo circuit flying. Just when I thought I would be able to go up the other day, my aircraft went technical.

To cut a long story short, I got my instructor to demonstrate spin recovery so I could go flying. This was in a C152, which I flew and found it fun! I'm training in a PA28 so have not had the opportunity to do this before.

I would like to do more of this...spin recovery (for fun and just in case I need it)...but wonder if it's money well spent?

I'm at 25 hours...does flying the Cessna count towards the 45 hours minimum? I assume it does, in which case it gives me exposure to another a/c type and allows me to do 'aerobatics'.

Or maybe it's better to keep hour building in the Piper?

Advice would be appreciated....I suppose it's all fun...it's flying!

SFA

[mrmum]

Hi SFA,

Yes, the hours all count towards the requirements for PPL issue, doesn't matter whether you fly a PA28 or C152.

At your stage, having mastered the basics, flying a different type occasionally should be interesting, a little challenging and good for you. Being able to recognise an approaching spin and prevent or recover from one, is certainly a skill you should have. Not everyone likes fully developed spinning, nor are all training aircraft approved for intentional spins, so some flying schools won't be able to offer it, but if you can and want to, then go ahead and do it.

Having said that, it's not ideal to keep hopping back and forth between types half way through the syllabus, so mainly stick with the 28, certainly for ongoing solo, but take a dual spinning trip in the 152 when circumstances are appropriate. All flying experience is useful to some degree.

[SuperFlyingAnimal]

Hi guys and thanks for the advice.

My instructor and I have worked through stall training...i.e. recognising the tell tale signs and how to correct the issue if it occurs (she's made me stall and recover the PA28 a few times now). Plus the two scenarios where it's likely to occur: base to final turns and long final/final approach. I have to say that I spend a lot of time looking at the the airspeed dial when at these times of a flight (and looking at the runway)!

There's been one time when the stall warner has gone off on final approach and I did something about it!

My view is that the more training I can do when exposed to these situations (stalling/spin recovery) the better, as my brain and body will be used to the situation and I'll be less likely to be overwhelmed if it does happen when I don't want it to.

The scenarios mentioned sound like good things to try out, so I'll book another lesson for those.

I have to say, based on what I experienced the other day, if an aircraft goes in to a spin at say 1000 feet or less you would be lucky to walk away.

[foxmoth]

I'm at 25 hours...does flying the Cessna count towards the 45 hours minimum? I assume it does, in which case it gives me exposure to another a/c type and allows me to do 'aerobatics'.

Hardly aerobatics,though if it is an Aerobatic you can do a few (and yes, the hours count) but yes still fun though the C152 would not be my choice for spin training, in fact I need an aircraft to spin train my RV7 group members on (cleared for Aeros but not deliberate spinning) and will not use the 152 for this as it tends to recover with no pilot input.

[horizon flyer]

Agree with TangoAphad but try at 4500ft with an instructor in the 152.
1500 rpm 30 of flap and just try and fly level with the speed bleeding back slowly. She will suddenly drop the right wing and start to roll into a spin.

My instructor did this to me without telling me what would happen or what to do. This was the classic base leg to finals turn spin, I lost 1500ft so would have died if at 500ft, next try only lost 300ft.

Taught me a good lesson add 5mph in turns in circuit and keep an eye on air speed and react fast to any stall warner bleat by lowering the nose, not to much, add power.

The 150/2 is not the pussycat that people would have you believe in this configuration. If you want to do a little bit of areos then the cessna 150 Aerobat is a good starter machine can go to 40 of flap but don't side slip at this setting and better for training than 152 or pa28 as climbs better, so not so much time wasted getting to a safe level.

[India Four Two]

cessna 150 Aerobat is a good starter machine can go to 40 of flap but don't side slip at this setting

Really? Why?

I've sideslipped 172s, 177s and 182s with full-flaps with no problems. The manuals say "avoid" sideslips, not "prohibited".

[9 lives]

The C 150 can be slipped just fine with any flap setting. Some 172s are placarded to avoid, but it is not a prohibition. Do not deliberately spin with flaps extended simply because it is likely that you will exceed the flap limiting speed in the resulting dive, before you can get them retracted.

If you find the 150/152 too docile recovering from a spin, hold it in a few more turns, and then initiate recovery, and you'll have to work a bit more for it. Sure, there are more brutal spinning aircraft than the 150/152/172, however, if you learn well spins and recoveries in one of those types, you are adequately skilled for preventative incipient spin recovery in any type.

On the other hand, if, with good spin training and skills, you allow an incipient spin to progress beyond one turn, before you initiate recovery, you are careless, and about to be a test pilot. All certified single engine aircraft have demonstrated recovery from a one turn spin in no more than one additional turn, and the piloting skills necessary to affect that recovery, are adequately mastered in a 150/152/172 with qualified training and practice.

"Better" spinning aircraft are great if you can get training on one, but the Cessna training is perfectly adequate for PPL level spin recovery skills. The skill being mastered at the PPL level is not that of skillfully nudging the obstinate aircraft out of the nasty multi turn spin, but rather recognition of the entry, and prompt application of effective control in the correct direction. That done, the 150/152/172 will recover, as will every other certified aircraft. Just the certified aircraft which are not spin approved may take you for an exciting dive on the way out, and exceeding a limitation is a greater risk.

[foxmoth]

Taught me a good lesson add 5mph in turns in circuit

No need for this, just make sure your speed is CORRECT!

[Pace]

There was a post here by a PPL (new ) who was scared of practising stall recovery on his own!
Most fear is fear of the unknown and his fear was the aircraft going beyond a stall into a spin on his own!
He had never experienced a spin or spin recovery!
Aircraft do spin at high level not just base to final ? They also spiral dive at altitude and I beg the question on how you determine whether the aircraft is spiral diving or spinning when you are not familiar with both ?
For me a spiral dive is a more potentially dangerous yet that is approved spins are not !

I used to race cars and see a similarity with the race car you had to be comfortable with the car over the limit playing oversteer and under steer and slides at high speed! You were completely comfortable like that!
How could racing work recovering before the car broke and how much confidence would the driver have if he had never experienced what lies beyond ?
Get a good aerobatic instructor and an aerobatic machine! Abuse it and go beyond in every way you can
It's worth its weight in gold ! Forget all this incipient rubbish that comes second ))

This is probably the reason there have been so many loss of control accidents high level where the pilots have failed to recover and broken the aircraft

So a few hours with the right instructor and machine will be the best money you can spend

Pace

[abgd]

Perhaps worth revisiting the whole history of why spin-training was dropped from the syllabus: far more people were being lost in training, than when qualified.

We fly even though it would be safer to keep our feet on the ground. So if you like spinning, go spinning because you enjoy it.

My own feeling is that I've read a number of stories of experienced instructors discovering unrecoverable spin modes in aircraft like the Cessnas. For that reason, I'd personally prefer to do spinning in something aerobatic. But then the spinning characteristics may not resemble those of whatever you usually fly...

[Gertrude the Wombat]

2 flights in the PPL recovering from a "Full Stall" and Standard stall recovery into the go around when the stall warner blips in the land/appch config is as much use as a chocolate teapot!
I'm sure I had more stalling than that, including being sent off to do it on my own, plus a fair amount of incipient spin recovery - isn't that done any more?

(Plus I did ask to have a spin demonstrated, but didn't find it interesting enough to want to do any more.)

[Pace]

AB

I am not saying it has to go back into the curriculum in your average spam can with your average instructor! Yes the reason they stopped spinning was the fact that more aircraft were lost in spin training than in accidents but was that the fault of spin training or the aircraft and experience of the instructors used ?

I remember when I learnt to fly spin training was compulsory and I had an inexperienced instructor who was visibly nervous on being told to do spin training with me ((

Yes aircraft will spin differently but will come out if enough height is available and the correct techniques used and those techniques can vary

I still feel that fear of the Unknown is the worst fear and hence its worth its weight in gold to abuse an aircraft every way you can not just spinning in the right aircraft with the right instructor

Pace

[rjtjrt]

SuperFlying Animal wrote:
I would like to do more of this...spin recovery (for fun and just in case I need it)...but wonder if it's money well spent?

Yes, it is money well spent.
If you enjoyed the spin training, you should ask to do another sortie specifically on stall and spin.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Agree with TangoAphad but try at 4500ft with an instructor in the 152.
1500 rpm 30 of flap and just try and fly level with the speed bleeding back slowly. She will suddenly drop the right wing and start to roll into a spin.

My instructor did this to me without telling me what would happen or what to do. This was the classic base leg to finals turn spin, I lost 1500ft so would have died if at 500ft, next try only lost 300ft.

.

Your instructor needs to read the Cessna 152 POH, specifically the section on spinning which ends with the following note.

Quote

Intentional spins with flaps extended are prohibited, since the high speeds which may occur during recovery are potentially damaging to flap/wing structure.

Unquote

[9 lives]

My own feeling is that I've read a number of stories of experienced instructors discovering unrecoverable spin modes in aircraft like the Cessnas.

And that's what they were - stories.

Sec. 23.221

Spinning.

[(a) Normal category airplanes. A single-engine, normal category airplane 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, .......
(iii) 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; ..........

My abridging, and bold.

If any pilot managed to create an unrecoverable spin in a spin approved Cessna, they were outside the limitations, or their skill. In a proper training environment, with skilled mentoring, lots of altitude, and proper preparation, training spins are perfectly safe in 150/152/172s.

[n5296s]

My own feeling is that I've read a number of stories of experienced instructors discovering unrecoverable spin modes in aircraft like the Cessnas.
I'm curious about how these stories would have been written, or recorded. Texted from the instructors' mobiles in the last few seconds of their lives? There's the true story of the Top Gun filming, where someone (forget the name) did radio "I'm really having trouble" before pancaking a Pitts (not Cessna) from a flat spin. Are there really other stories like that?

The big danger with spins is that they go flat. Keeping the CG well forward will ensure that doesn't happen. Recovering from an intentional flat spin is enjoyable but it is kind of spooky seeing the ASI pegged at zero. As long as a spin doesn't flatten, and the aircraft has met the certification requirements, it had better recover.

But there is a huge difference between a one-turn spin (which is really still incipient) and a fully developed beyond-three turn spin. And there are planes (like the Extra - not that I've flown one) that need specific, careful handling to recover.

[bingofuel]

India Four Two

The reason Some Cessnas should not be slipped with full flap, usually the 40 deg variants, is that you can get a sudden and unexpected strong pitch down due to the fin blanking the elevator.

[abgd]

I suppose I should have said 'nearly unrecoverable' or 'unrecoverable by standard techniques'.

An example would be Mad Jock's story e.g

Standard Spin Recovery [Archive] - PPRuNe Forums (http://www.pprune.org/archive/index.php/t-326378.html)

Or Genghis the Engineer's assertion that many aircraft have been found to have unrecoverable modes: (4)

FLYER Forums ? View topic - Spinning myths - suggestions please? (http://forums.flyer.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=83078&start=15)

I don't have the aerodynamic acumen to understand why, and I can't currently find the reference, but I've read a suggestion that aircraft that are designed to be benign in the stall are more likely to have uncommon spin modes that are difficult to recover from.

Then of course there are the 'gotchas' such as having the wrong balance of fuel in the wings e.g. the accident that led to the loss of the ETPS Hunter.

[Pace]

I think we are loosing the point here. I go back to a new PPL who posted that he was scared stiff of practising stalls on his own.
It came out in the conversations that his real fear was that he could get into a situation beyond recovery at incipient and get into something he had no experience of and as such no knowledge of how to handle it.

there were a few loss of control accidents in advanced singles at high level where pilots failed to recover and where the situation was recoverable if pilots had full training and were instinctive about the out of the box situation they were in and how to rectify it.

sadly they didn't have that knowledge and hence ability and the crashes were fatal. One in a Cirrus was recovered at high speed by the BRS which was way over its operating limits.

It always puzzles me on how you get pilots to quickly and instinctively identify and rectify a spiral dive and spin if they have never experienced both?
Pilots are only used to straight and level and not to see the sky and ground changing position and the disorientation and utter confusion that can cause if a pilot is not used to operating in situations like that

A spin is a relatively stable condition a spiral dive is not.
In fact in earlier days of aviation the spin was considered so stable that it was used to remain in one spot for a controlled descent through cloud with aircraft with poor instrumentation and navigation ability.

With precaution a pilot should be trained to handle all out of the box situations to a level where they are comfortable in dealing with what that PPL poster considered the unknown.
A lot of the training nowadays involves recovery at incipient a very important accident avoidance technique but sadly accidents happen which means that recovery at incipient has not happened for whatever reason and then your only other chance is to recover beyond incipient or die

addendum
I personally feel the authorities removed spinning from the training schedule based on statistics and not by looking at why those spinning accidents happened and removing those rogue aircraft and instructors from the equation

Pace

[funfly]

Entering unusual situations under the hood with half of the instruments blocked out (IF training) now that IS cool.

FF

[A and C]

It is a refreshing change that so much common sence is being written on these pages on the spinning subject.

A lot happens in a spin and for those new to flying it happens very fast so when taking a student spinning it is vital that the briefing is very comprehensive, it is also very likely that the student will only be able to absorb the information from 3 or 4 spins due to sensory overload.

To achieve a student who is confident with their ability to recover from a spin it is likely to take three or four flights that are quite short.

My tactic is following a ground brief for slow flight and the basic spinning brief to fly the slow flight part of the training and then demonstrate the spin ( usually twice) and then let the student do one or two spins.

Once the student has recovered from the inital shock of what is for the tyro quite a dynamic situation I re-brief using a number of instructional aids including the RAF training film " spinning modern aircraft " this wonderful bit of early 1960's flim making will in a very low tech way unlock the mysteries of the spin to the student, the most important thing is that it explains clearly to the student why the correct recovery technique will result in an increased rate of roll just before the aircraft recovers.

I am convinced that the increase in roll rate during spin recovery has surprised some pilots and as a result they have un-applied the correct control inputs with fatal results.

I cannot over emphasise the importance of using the recovery technique detailed in the aircrafts flight manual, even slight mis handling can result in delay in recovering from the spin and this will result in the use of a lot of altitude......all of it below you !

[Capot]

I agree re spinning a 152 Aerobat (I'm sure sure that's the right designation, but you know what I mean) with full flap; it is allowed (I have always understood) and therefore done. But beware exceeding limiting speeds in the recovery.

Even more fun is side-slipping a 152 with full flap and no power, as in a PFL. With the maximum slip angle that can be achieved and held, the glide slope is astonishingly steep. It's quite difficult to straighten up < 35ft over the threshold of the selected field and touch down in one smooth controlled movement, but it pays to practise it.

[9 lives]

The reason Some Cessnas should not be slipped with full flap, usually the 40 deg variants, is that you can get a sudden and unexpected strong pitch down due to the fin blanking the elevator.

Sort of, but not quite. Some 172's are placarded to avoid slips with flaps extended - it is not a prohibition, just a word to the wise. This is well described by Bill Thompson, a Cessna test pilot, in his book "Cessna, Wings for the World.

Bill tells that the span of the flaps results in the trailing outboard corner of the extended flap being in just the right place to place a vortex across the H stab in that side in a slip, blanking the elevator on that side. I have done this many times, and it is controllable (or the plane would have not been certified). But there is some sponginess in pitch, so caution is needed. Doing it right into the flare would be unwise.

The 152, on the other hand can be slipped right onto a nice one wheel landing with no problem, other than some tire chirping if you do it to pavement.

I agree re spinning a 152 Aerobat (I'm sure sure that's the right designation, but you know what I mean) with full flap; it is allowed (I have always understood) and therefore done. But beware exceeding limiting speeds in the recovery.

If this is "understood" from reading the flight manual limitations, so be it - but I don't think so. KNOW your limitations before you do things in the plane! Be aware that flap limitations can be both a speed and a G, and you'll probably find that it is a combination of exceeding both at the same time which is the risk. That is very likely during a spin recovery, which is why any aerobatics with flaps extended (which would include spins) are prohibited in Aerobats. (Refer to limitations section of FM or TCDS).

[KeesM]

The POH ofmy 172(1956) says side slips prohibited with full flaps.
That is for the early models, later ones may say avoid.

[horizon flyer]

Believe early 172s with 40 of flap are prohibited but later models with only 30 max flap are OK same with 150 these have 40 max so prohibited 152s 30 limit so OK. Used to fly the 177 which is OK to slip with full flap 30 but power must NOT be applied with slip or it will flip on to it's back. So ball must be centred before apply power don't know if this applies to other high wing Cessna's.

If I was a low hour student I would not practise stalls solo may exceed skills to recover if she did roll into a spin.

[9 lives]

The topic of slips in 172s was covered here:

http://www.pprune.org/private-flying/472132-c172-flap-question.html

Used to fly the 177 which is OK to slip with full flap 30 but power must NOT be applied with slip or it will flip on to it's back. So ball must be centred before apply power don't know if this applies to other high wing Cessna's.

No, not applicable to high wing Cessnas, not even the 177.

'Little reason to add power during a slip, but in any case, a properly flown slip does not involve a stall, as that would be a sort of spin entry - which is not approved in a 177, and certainly not with flaps out. You can "flip [a Cessna] (or other types) on their back" with power - it's sort of a snap roll. If done from a slip, that sure was a horribly misflown slip!

Snap rolls are bad in Cessnas other than Aerobats.

[Big Pistons Forever]

If I was a low hour student I would not practise stalls solo may exceed skills to recover if she did roll into a spin.

If you are not proficient to practice stalls as a solo student then you are IMO not proficient to fly solo.

If stalls are properly taught then the reaction to lower the nose to reduce AOA and rudder as necessary to stop any yaw will be automatic reactions. It is impossible for an airplane to spin if yaw is controlled when the aircraft approaches a stall and when it stalls.

Spins were removed from the PPL syllabus in most countries because almost all real world inadvertent spins are entered while maneuvering after takeoff or prior to landing and thus were at such a low altitude that they were unrecoverable even if the correct spin recovery procedure was used. Now PPL training is concentrated on stall/spin recognition and recovery before the aircraft departs controlled flight. The secret not being a victim of the stall spin accident is not spin training, it is training to avoid the stall/spin sequence from ever happening.

[Pace]

BPF

That is the problem with modern thinking on pilot training
Always keep the AOA right and you can't go wrong?
Sadly there are far to many loss of control accidents on approach like the recent Malibu crash, on departure and high level in VMC or IMC
In a perfect world avoidance training is all that is required end of story and all in the garden is beautiful!
Sadly not the case! Pilots are imperfect creatures and they do make mistakes
Any loss of control accident whether resulting in a stall a spin or spiral dive will end up with an impact with the ground if low enough and not even a stall will recover from 50 feet
But it's not about whether you can recover a spin from 200 feet although you may retrieve the situation from developing but it's about aircraft handling and feeling comfortable with the aircraft out of shape in that way you stand a far better chance of recovering a situation than some poor guy who has been taught avoidance but not beyond!
The car driving is a good example. As an ex racer I am comfortable with a car sitting with the back in an oversteer situation or under steer, sliding or playing the car between all three.
Another driver is taught avoidance and never gets the car out of shape until one day they Skid and under steer straight into a brick wall foot firmly planted on the brake (( that is what we are discussing here

Pace

[bingofuel]

Step Turn Sort of, but not quite.


I stand corrected, thank you.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Pace - I agree. However, how does a pilot gather and maintain the right sort of experience to be comfortable with the aeroplane 'out of shape'? When I did the PPL (late '70s) spinning was in the syllabus and we did them, recovering almost by rote in the C150. We did a few during training and had to demonstrate entry and recovery in the test. However, I don't think I was much better prepared for an inadvertent spin than is today's PPL because we didn't do it much, and we did it by rote in an aeroplane reluctant to demonstrate classic stall/spin departure characteristics.

It wasn't until I started to regularly fly aerobatics that I started to acquire a 'feel' for the aeroplane being 'unhappy' leading to an ability to predict 'departure' and effect recovery (or avoidance of departure) without really having to think about it. I think that fits your analogy of the driver's ability to safely deal with an under/oversteering car?

And if it happens for real at low level one will require that ability to prevent departure without thinking about it. There won't be time for thinking, and if departure actually happens recovery at low level is highly unlikely.

So unless we are to mandate regular aerobatic flying for all pilots, is there really any point in considering re-introducing mandatory spin recovery training into the PPL?

One further point - I have experienced a great many spins and some of them have been a bit 'odd'. Thankfully all recovered OK but it has left me convinced that spinning is not an accurate art. Most of the time the aeroplane does what you expect, but once in a while it doesn't. It's probably wise, therefore, to always do deliberate spinning while wearing a parachute, and with enough height to use it if necessary. I admit I didn't often do that - it was only in the Yak that we wore 'chutes on every flight. Never bothered in the Chippy, Citabria and others.

[Capot]

Not sure it's relevant to the discussion, but I once tried to spin a Cherokee 140, property of a friend, with another ex-RAF Transport pilot friend aboard whose day job at that time was flying a Herald.

We climbed to 8,000 ft to do this, and using the normal techniques for provoking a spin we could not do it, so finally I tried the method I learned from my Polish PPL instructor....slow to level flight just above the stall, then chop the power, stick/yoke hard back and full rudder, hold until spinning, centralise, recover.

It nearly finished us off. The aircraft did not spin, but went into a terrifyingly steep spiral dive, from which recovery meant trying not to overstress anything, while getting the nose up asap.

(I'm not proud of it, it was a stupid thing to do. We survived by the Grace of God and a strongly-built aircraft.)

[foxmoth]

It nearly finished us off. The aircraft did not spin, but went into a terrifyingly steep spiral dive, from which recovery meant trying not to overstress anything, while getting the nose up asap.

i have also found the Cherokee is hard to get into a proper spin and invariably ends up in a spiral dive as you describe. If you were properly trained in spin recovery you would have recognised it as a spiral rather than a spin almost immediately and should have been able to recover before the speed built up too much - another post that shows the importance of proper spin training!

[Pace]

There were two PC12 loss of control and High speed breakups from high altitude ! With the one the traces showed the aircraft all over the place from stalling to turning to a a high speed dive where it broke up!
We rarely discuss spiral dived yet in many ways they are potentially more dangerous than spins!
Even a slight pressure on the column can break the aircraft! In an article I read on beyond VNE the author recommended dropping the gear even if way over gear speed neforeattempting a pull out at very high speed.

Again quick and instinctive identification and rectification are a must! How the heck can you do that if you have never experienced a spin

Pace

[Capot]

Foxmoth - just for the record, I was properly trained in spin recovery (visual and under the hood), so I did recognise the spiral dive for what it was, mainly by the rapid and large increase in IAS, so that I could and did recover quickly without breaking up the aircraft, before the speed built up to the point where that would not have been possible. IE, within, I guess, 5 - 8 seconds. My RAF friend said little, at the time, but then stooging around all day in a Herald dulls the senses.

[foxmoth]

In that case it shows the importance of being current, having trained spinning in PA28 I know how it accelerates in a spiral and compared to some aircraft it is not that fast, with a "flick" entry as you describe the speed will normally be under 60kts on entry and one of the first things to check is what is happening with the speed, certainly it should be possible to have recovery started before 100kts and with no power on and the drag from the pull through the speed should not rise that far above that, certainly easy to keep under the Vne of 148 kts.

[Pace]

FoxMoth

My reference to beyond VNE and your best solution to that is dropping the gear was directed at very slippery retractable aircraft which can accelerate very fast and to beyond VNE.

The PC12 break up was thought to be an attempted pull out from such a spiral/dive where the aircraft will break with the slightest pull.

A much more draggy airframe with fixed undercarriage will not cause such a threat but there are many much faster aircraft which will accelerate like the Mooney or Cirrus unlike maybe the PA28
Who in such a situation at very high speed would think of the gear with gear limiting speeds drummed into us
You might end up minus the gear doors but it could save your life

Pace

[abgd]

I remember looking at my instructor in a Tomahawk immediately after a stall and saying 'are we in a spiral dive or a spin?'. When I looked back at the ASI we were just a whisker off VNE.

There was an interesting article in Flying magazine (I think) a while back stating that in a spiral dive even the trim forces for Va could potentially cause a structural failure - you don't necessarily need to pull back on the stick at all.

Revisiting the PC-12 Crash | Flying Magazine (http://www.flyingmag.com/technique/accidents/revisiting-pc-12-crash)

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

My mate was P2 in a 1-11 one day Manchester to Liverpool positioning flight, P1 flying, my mate doing the paperwork, when my mate noticed the boss hadn't raised the gear and they were through the speed where they should have done this. When my mate pointed this out, the boss leaned over and whipped the gear lever 'up'.

My mate was expecting to hear the doors depart, but luckily all was well. As he said later, leaving the gear down and reducing speed would have been the correct thing to do - the doors are much more vulnerable to being ripped off during gear transit than when the gear is locked down.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Recovery form spiral dive - beware of 'rolling G' which can break an aeroplane at less loading than straight 'G'. Level the wings while taking off the power, then ease out of the dive.

At the risk of teaching egg sucking, simply pulling back when still in the spiral will increase 'G', speed, and rate of descent. But not for long!

[Pace]

In the extreme situation in which the Pilatus found itself, lowering the gear could be part of the spiral dive recovery: Power off, level the wings while trimming nose down, lower the gear — never mind the doors — and don't let the nose rise too rapidly. In a reciprocating-engine airplane, drag can be further increased by pushing the prop to high rpm.

It was another article I read which suggested the gear in such extreme situations but its nice to see this suggested here too. The article I read was much more technical and scientific. At very high speed you will break the aircraft.
the problem is we are not taught these options it is not suggested in any training for spiral dive or dive recovery and sadly because we are taught in the likes of the C150 or PA28 and no consideration is given to faster more slippery aircraft that a normal PPL might progress to.
So is the training at fault and should more out of the box thinking be encouraged ?
frankly who in such an extreme situation would even think of that?

Pace

[foxmoth]

Pace, my post was not referring to the PC12 but Capots post re Pa28 spiral.

[Pace]

FoxMoth

I realise you were referring to the PA28 :ok: But that is the problem as we are taught spiral dive and dive recovery in such aircraft.
Moving up into retractables and more slippery aircraft the speeds will be much higher and any normal recovery risks breaking the aircraft.
It is hard not to revert to instincts from your training and most pilots won't consider in such a situation dropping the gear or popping speed brakes before pulling out of a high speed dive /spiral they will just pull

Pace

[foxmoth]

I would go with that, but then it should be part of the training when you move onto types like this - not of course that you could practise it for real unless you have a sim for that type, a bit embarrassing returning with the gear doors torn off from practicing spiral dive recovery!

[Pace]

Agreed you cannot practice it but it is not even considered by 99% of pilots including me till I read the article describing the dangers of any attempt at pulling out of a very high speed dive.

Dropping the gear will not break the aircraft only the doors until a slower speed creates a better speed to pull out of the dive.

I never heard that discussed in any training moving onto retractable aircraft yet it could save your life

Pace

[Pilot DAR]

but then it should be part of the training when you move onto types like this

Yes! But more than training recovery, is the need to train recognition, and avoidance. It might be okay for the novice pilot to be new enough that they have to sort out if they are in a spin or spiral dive once they have carelessly blundered into one, and thus delay the correct recovery. But the pilot who has the experience to be "type" or "class" trained has to be better than that. If that pilot is new enough that they cannot fly so as to prevent entry entirely, they should not yet get their hands on the plane. At worst, they are trained on type and they demonstrate awesome reaction and instant recovery, so things don't build up to being dangerous.

I was type trained on the Grand Caravan, so I could go and fly spin tests in it. The Chief Pilot who trained me did not fly the tests with me, nor did she ask me to approach the stall with her. I installed a G meter - to allow me to pull the G's I would need to get out of the resulting dive.

I practiced iteratively. I would enter, then immediately recover. After getting use to that, I eventually held the required one turn before initiating recovery controls. There was no room for delay after that. Each of the 14 forward C of G one turn spins I flew required a 2.5 to 2.8G pullout from the resulting dive - at Vne. There is very little room left beyond that.

That is why all singles must demonstrate they can be recovered from a one turn spin, but they don't say that there will be lots of room left on the other side of the limitations. The pilots must have the skill to recognize very quickly, and not get that far in. I'm sure the spiral dive is similarly startling, though I was required to fly them in the Caravan tests.

Dropping the gear will not break the aircraft only the doors

Well.... You might not get three green after doing that. Yes, better to belly in, than an inflight breakup, but still not good. Some types are famous for the nose gear not locking down after an overspeed - early 310's

It's a neat trick, but then again, if you need to train this to new pilots - why? Can they not be trained to keep the aircraft from these dives by careful piloting and quick recognition and correction?

[Pace]

It's a neat trick, but then again, if you need to train this to new pilots - why? Can they not be trained to keep the aircraft from these dives by careful piloting and quick recognition and correction?

Pilot Dar

what should happen and what does happen even with experienced pilots is miles apart.

Yes all pilots flying the likes of a PC12 should be so good at hand flying and recovery that none of the inflight breakups occur but sadly they do.

In a way it brings us back full circle to why spin training is so important because a spin and a spiral can be confused and being familiar with both is so important in having the skills to recover before various in flight breakups through loss of control occur.
With advanced technology and autopilot systems I wonder if the modern pilot is more in tune with handling those systems than basic handling

Pace

[foxmoth]

If that pilot is new enough that they cannot fly so as to prevent entry entirely, they should not yet get their hands on the plane.
In normal situations I would agree with you, but there are abnormal situations where this might happen such as an unexpected wake turbulence encounter - autopilot is in, aircraft encounters a wake that throws it over and autopilot drops out at the same time - by the time you recover from the "Oh my God" factor you are in the spiral, this is when you wish someone had mentioned dropping the gear during training!

[Big Pistons Forever]

In normal situations I would agree with you, but there are abnormal situations where this might happen such as an unexpected wake turbulence encounter - autopilot is in, aircraft encounters a wake that throws it over and autopilot drops out at the same time - by the time you recover from the "Oh my God" factor you are in the spiral, this is when you wish someone had mentioned dropping the gear during training!

The only thing that is going to save you if you are rolled inverted in the scenario described above is either the experience gained from proper upset training or better still a full aerobatic course.

Personally I think students are being done a dis-favour if it is implied that spin training will save them if they lose control of the aircraft.

I taught stall/spin avoidance, not spin recovery in the PPL......and then strongly suggest that post PPL they continue on with an introductory aerobatic course where spins will be properly taught as one part of learning that an aircraft is always controllable regardless of which way it is pointed or what it is doing

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

I think a long time ago a 748 was lost when the ailerons, which had been poorly rigged, went to full deflection on the pilot commanding a moderate turn. It was possible to centralise them and indeed this was done, but the aircraft was by then deeply nose-down having rolled 360 degrees and impacted the ground.

Had the pilot had the aerobatic training to instinctively push the nose up with forward stick through the inverted (he kept pulling 'back stick' appropriate to a normal turn) they would probably have survived.

[GGR155]

Back in 1976 I was fortunate to do half of my PPL in PA28, which didnt really spin and half in a Beagle Pup, which definitely did! If you are learning today and are offered the chance to fly a more capable spinable aircraft you must do it! It will make you smile, and a better pilot.

Blue Skies.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Well I've never been trained to do it but I was in an accelerating overspeeding retractable with the power off I'd lower the gear to get the form drag up. I'd rather risk loosing the gear than the whole darned aeroplane and my life!

[421dog]

A million years ago, I was in the right seat of a P35 Bonanza, which stalled at 17k+ feet due to to newbie pilot stupidity. While my neophyte friend was struggling to not rip the tail off, I(also too stupid to deserve to survive) dropped the gear as we passed through 210 KIAS.
We lived.
The plane was uninjured.

[Pilot DAR]

P35 Bonanza, ....... struggling to not rip the tail off

Did it look like a "V" when you were done? :uhoh: (wrong direction V, sorry!)

I'd lower the gear to get the form drag up.

Yup, 'works for nearly every RG - other than the one I own, which actually has slightly more drag with the gear up than down! ;)

Though it is terribly unwise to point yourself into that corner of the envelope, a certified plane can be flown to 110% of Vne without hurting it, or 1.5 times the positive G limit (if you have a G meter) to measure that. Though once past 1.0 times the G limit, you might be wrinkling something.

It's interesting that the G limit for a given aircraft is about the only limitation by which the pilot is bound, which he/she has no way to measure. Unless that aircraft is equipped with a G meter, which is quite uncommon. Generally, what I experience are pilots who are too cautious to get enough G applied early in the recovery, and then the speed builds up, and they have a problem to resolve, which is getting worse fast. Get the G in as soon as you can without stalling the plane. If you have the limiting G applied by Va, you're probably doing your very best to affect a prompt recovery.

But, as BPF correctly states, the best thing is to train pilots to effectively avoid ever getting the plane there. My lesson was doing a gentle chandelle in a 182RG - to they ever build up speed fast on the way down! :eek:.

[Pace]

what I experience are pilots who are too cautious to get enough G applied early in the recovery, and then the speed builds up,

Pilot Dar

There is always a lapse between something happening, the pilot identifying what and then reacting to it. The better his handling skills the shorter that lapse time and the more likely he will have to recovering a situation.

As far as I remember with the PC12 crash traces the aircraft went from everything like a stall to steep bank a number of times before a very high rate of descent and the aircraft breaking up.
Had he reacted correctly earlier on the situation could have been halted before the high speed dive occurred.

its probably quite easy to take these things apart in the comfort in front of the computer but not easy with the fear confusion and disorientation such a situation will cause.

there was an incident in a CJ1 over Leeds where the single pilot was climbing high level in VS mode. The aircraft stalled and ended up in a dive. luckily the pilot recovered the situation albeit with the wings wrinkled and damaged and managed to land back.

The Argument by the anti spinning brigade is always that spins/spiral dives happen low level where recovery is impossible but that is not the case! There have been many loss of control incidents at high level where the pilot should be familiar with both spiral dives, dives and spins and be able to quickly identify and react.

There has over the years been a move to recover at incipient great in an ideal world not so great in the real world.
Infact after some major airline incidents where the pilot/pilots used the wrong techniques the FAA have insisted on more emphasis on basic handling which seems to have been forgotten in preference to advanced system management and an over reliance on autopilots.

This has filtered down into the light GA world with the growth of advanced systems and a spate of needless chute pulls in the Cirrus by button pushing pilots who were incapable in basic handling

Pace

[Pilot DAR]

There is always a lapse between something happening, the pilot identifying what and then reacting to it.

Yes, so the first and best objective is to arm the pilots with the skills to prevent the something happening to begin with. Though it's not my type of flying, it sounds to me that a number of upsets at altitude are the result of autopilots (perhaps poorly set) suddenly requiring the pilot to fly, when things have already gone wrong un-noticed. That needs to be fixed!

I am entirely in favour of qualified spin and spiral dive recovery training to the point of competence, and then occasional refresher training, or evidence of practice required. For those times that I have been required to spin during flight testing with another pilot along, when I ask of the other pilot, I usually get back their uneasy answer that they have not spun since their PPL training umpteen years ago.

The prompt recognition and action to recover spins and spiral dives must become and remain muscle memory for pilots. An hour or two during the PPL training, perhaps trainied by a novice instructor too, is not enough for that!

[foxmoth]

The only thing that is going to save you if you are rolled inverted in the scenario described above is either the experience gained from proper upset training or better still a full aerobatic course.


Depends a bit on the precise nature of the upset, but I would be the last person to object to proper upset training, indeed, more emphasis being put on this in the airlines and I know that UH are running upset courses for some largish players who believe this is worthwhile.

[rjmm]

I strongly agree with posts that Spinning Training is valuable. It was a mistake to remove this from the PPL syllabus. The argument that it wouldn't be needed if you flew correctly and observed your speed and attitude is a weak one.

I learned to fly in The RAF and at the time we leaned on the De Havilland Chipmunk T10 which spun beautifully text-book, before we went over to Bulldogs and thence to Jet Provosts. The Air Force training manuals made it clear: if the aircraft is capable of spinning then we will spin it. We spent much on time on stalling, Incipient Spins, and full Spins, to the left and right. a lot of time was covered recognising the conditions in which an incipient spin would occur as well as full recovery.

The Chipmunk entered the spin smoothly, rotated then steepened before stabilising in a textbook style spin. we would do at least 4 turns (from at least 4000') before recovering. Any solo general handling sortie included solo spinning and actually aerobatics if the weather was suitable. My main point here is that Spinning training helped to consolidate one's skills and knowledge of the aircraft's behaviour under these flight conditions. Moreover it increased our confidence in our own ability to recover.

The Central Flying School's RAF instructors were top rate, and in fact we had another interesting exercise; Recovery from unusual attitudes, nose high or nose low- it all helped to make us better pilots.

[Pace]

Pilot Dar

I personally feel spin training should come back into the PPL syllabus not as before where any inexperienced instructor can teach it but where trained instructors are licensed to teach upset recovery.

I would also limit the type of trainer used and put the level that training is carried out much higher because how can a pilot quickly identify a spin or spiral and rectify that situation if they are not familiar with both and have never spun an aircraft in their lives.
I was old school taught where a stall was stall, where a spin was a spin and a spiral a spiral and often where one would slip into the other

Pace

[John Farley]

One day my publisher, Ian Seager, asked me what changes I would make to the PPL syllabus if it were down to me. After some thought I decided my answer was nothing. However, if he had put the question to me back in the 1980s I would have seen it as an opportunity for a good old rant about such matters as spinning, basic aerobatics and formation flying. Since none of these are in the PPL syllabus today what has caused me to change my views?

For a start, I now have much more knowledge of the general aviation scene and of what the PPL is about than I did in the 1980s. At that time I rather naively assumed that the whole world learned the basics of flying in broadly the same way as I had been taught by the RAF. Later I came to realise that is not true and I will try and justify both my ‘nothing’ response and some changes to the overall GA flying training and licensing system that I think could be worthwhile.

The present PPL syllabus represents a course of instruction and experience that is aimed at enabling an individual to be competent to carry out a fairly limited range of flying activities. I would leave it alone but I would certainly rename it the Basic PPL (BPPL) and introduce a new Advanced PPL (APPL). To be awarded an APPL I propose the pilot should reach higher standards in what I call ‘pure flying and handling skills’ beyond those currently needed for the PPL. Spinning would certainly be one of the main elements of my APPL but I would limit it to the ability to enter and recover from a standard four turn erect spin on a type having normal spin behaviour and certainly not require prolonged or inverted spinning or indeed any spinning on an aircraft type where the manual calls for unusual entry or recovery techniques.

The value of such training in spinning lies in developing the pilot’s confidence to handle flying in general and is a necessary pre-requisite to advanced stalling. It is not about turning them into spinning experts. Once a pilot is able to handle a standard, clean configuration, idle power spin of four turns, advanced stall training becomes acceptable – another of my APPL syllabus topics. This should include deliberate stalling from a variety of attitudes and configurations all aimed at spin avoidance and not as part of advanced spin entry manoeuvres. The merit of being able to handle a basic spin is that it gives the pilot a real chance of recognising things at the incipient stage and so avoid a full blown inadvertent spin - just as advanced stall training is aimed at reducing the likelihood of future inadvertent stalling.

[Pace]

John

I totally agree with what you are saying its not about a pilot handling advanced or difficult aircraft spins but have a rounded understanding of what happens and how to react.

I go back to an earlier post in this thread which referred to another post by a new PPL who was scared to practice stall recovery at incipient on his own. It Transpired that he had never experienced a spin or recovery and was scared he might do something which flicked him into a spin and for which he was not capable of dealing with. The Biggest fear of all the unknown

So any upset ( A new wordIIII training has to be good for the confidence of a PPL and knowing what lies potentially beyond a stall recovery going wrong

Ideal world recover at the incipient real world people mess up

Pace

[Pilot DAR]

The present PPL syllabus represents a course of instruction and experience that is aimed at enabling an individual to be competent to carry out a fairly limited range of flying activities.

Yes, what an effective way of phrasing it! And... an unfortunate reality.

It is the responsibility of every pilot to improve their flying skills as they progress. For newly minted PPL's there seems to be ample opportunity. Seeking out competent spin training would be one great way to do this!

[Pace]

ndividual to be competent to carry out a fairly limited range of flying activities.

Not just that but with a fairly limited range of flying taking passengers who know no better :(
It is up to the regulators to make sure all pilots who carry a PPL are well rounded in their training and able to understand and recover from upset handling ( love that new phrase :ok:

Pace

[BEagle]

The simpler solution is the current PPL course, followed by the AOPA/BAeA Aerobatic Certificate course. The latter includes additional emphasis on dynamic stalling as well as spinning, recoveries from unusual attitudes etc as well as simple aeros - all in about 8 hours of flight time, 5 of which are considered to be 'aerobatic flight'.

[Teddy Robinson]

Some years ago I was teaching in a school equipped with the Pa38, an excellent little trainer, but with some well known sensitivities close to the stall.
Prior to solo there were the mandatory sessions of stall spin awareness which generally concentrated the minds of the students on the need to maintain an appropriate airspeed for their configuration especially during the base to final turn, but spinning was removed (officially) from the PPL syllabus, which begged a few questions.

On the one hand, post solo consolidation and prior to FHT, it might be appropriate to revisit the general handling exercises and authorise solo practice, but without exploring the stall regime properly to include the spin itself that was not something that I was prepared to do.
For those unfamiliar with the Pa38, the transition between a stall with wing drop and spin entry can be razor thin under certain circumstances, indeed an individual aircraft's characteristics across a small fleet were somewhat variable in this regard. Ergo, if you planned a stalling exercise, there was a reasonable probability that a bank angle exceeding 90 degrees may be encountered.

Thus school policy became type specific.
Those that trained on the Pa28's were trained, briefed and cleared for solo practice at an appropriate point in their course, however the Pa38 students completed further SSA training to include instructor demonstration of a fully developed spin (3 turns) and recovery after a single turn (student), only then were they authorised for solo stalling practice.
Solo spinning was not authorised.
Whilst this was a sensible, type specific add on precaution, it did make one wonder why spinning had been removed from the approved syllabus in the first place.

[foxmoth]

Whilst this was a sensible, type specific add on precaution, it did make one wonder why spinning had been removed from the approved syllabus in the first place.

Certainly a number of people were put off learning because of the way it ended up being taught in the aircraft at the time - prior to C150/Pa28 days the training aircraft would spin properly and it could be taught in a fairly relaxed manner, when spin training is done on the spam cans they are difficult to get into a spin and the spin will rapidly degrade to a spiral dive, with this spinning got taught with the "flick" entry and the instructor would be rushing his patter to get it in, this meant the spin came across as a manoeuvre that was uncomfortable and dangerous, very different to something like a Chippie or Bulldog where you can enter from level flight then the instructor can calmly point out all the in spin symptoms and properly patter the recovery, altogether a much more relaxed excercise, of course when PPLs who had learnt to spin on these aircraft became instructors they were wary of spinning themselves and this got passed on to their students.

[TheOddOne]

it did make one wonder why spinning had been removed from the approved syllabus in the first place.

I was told at the time that it was because spinning was killing more students (and instructors!!) than spin accidents to qualified pilots.


The 'nay-sayers' (who still seem to be alive and well, as in earlier posts) said that we'd all be dying of spin accidents. In fact I believe that the incidence of spin-related fatal accidents has FALLEN in recent years. Have a read of the GASCo paper on comparison between the Cessna 150 and the Cessna 152, quite remarkable how a re-design of the wing has resulted in NO fatal spin accidents in the 152 in recent years (be careful not to confuse 150 accidents). The same can be said of the plank-wing Cherokee and the taper-wing Warrior.

We can't possibly give complete and comprehensive training in all aspects of flying to 'expert' level in the 45 hours (even less so for the NPPL and LAPL 32 hours). All we can hope to do is give an introduction to produce someone who is reasonably safe within certain parameters. The PPL is often called a 'licence to learn'.

What HASN'T gone down in recent years are the all-too-sad fatal accidents where people fly perfectly serviceable aircraft into the ground in IMC, often whole families being wiped out. Whilst BEagle is quite right in that the best post-PPL course for aircraft handling is the AOPA/BAeA course, the (also AOPA-inspired) IMC course is a 'must-have' for post-PPL flying in the UK. When I did it all those years ago, it felt like doing the PPL course again, only properly. I would say that I've decided not to fly for weather-related reasons on more occasions than I think I would have otherwise.

When I look round the hangar to see what people are flying, in the most part it's aircraft that would recover from any upset by simply letting go of the controls, whereas practically all of them have instrumentation capable of achieving safe flight in IMC, if only the pilots know how to use it.

I recently revalidated my instructor rating. The long brief was on 6a. Concentration was made on the elements concerning flying in balance. For the flying, it was 10b, where again balance was emphasised. At the end, it was recovery from the incipient stage, that is, the first indication of the stall, in this case the stall warner light.

To sum up my ramble. If we are to enhance any part of flight training for the PPL, we should not be looking at spinning, but rather about better met-related decision-making and what to do if encountering deteriorating weather (and that's not just doing a 180!)

Oh, and another thing. The examiner seemed to think that our 'let down on the dead side for a crosswind join' was a pretty good idea.

Just my 4 pen'th.

TOO

[Pace]

The problem with all this including better met is that it is all avoidance including recoveries at incipient
As posted avoidance is great in principal but not so great in the real world where avoidance or recovery at incipient doesn't work !
There are many such accidents as people are imperfect beings and unless they have a broad training and knowledge of aircraft handling you are not equipping them with skills to save their lives
Pilots don't crash because they have recovered at incipient or had a deep understanding of met reports ( localised weather can be different ) they crash because they do stupid things, get distracted, inadvertently get out of their depth and a whole host of other things
Then avoidance is a thing gone recovery at incipient too late so what's left ?

Pace

[DirtyProp]

Those that trained on the Pa28's were trained, briefed and cleared for solo practice at an appropriate point in their course, however the Pa38 students completed further SSA training to include instructor demonstration of a fully developed spin (3 turns) and recovery after a single turn (student), only then were they authorised for solo stalling practice.
Solo spinning was not authorised.
I learned on the PA-38 as well, and spins were a NO-NO! in any configuration.
Actually if I remember correctly the FAA specifically prohibits spins in it, but I may be wrong.