Incipient spin instruction legalities

[Judd]

Is incipient spin training permitted in your aircraft? (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/safety-advisory-notice/ao-2017-096-san-012/)

That seems to put the kibosh on the majority of flying school trainers including the Cessna 172. Under the Normal Category Limitations the C172 POH states that aerobatic maneuvers, including spins are not approved. Incipient spins are still spins; therefore not approved

[DynamicStall]

Note that the RPL, PPL, CPL flight tests now require applicant to demonstrate incipient spins as per the MOS.

There are quite a few aircraft out there typically used a 'commercial' trainers and subsequently in CPL flight tests such as PA28R/PA32/C206's that cannot be used.

[B2N2]

Legalese semantics.
Incipient spin is the entry prior to being a fully developed spin.
Fully developed generally meaning stabilized rotation.
”Incipient” spin is not a spin as much as attempted murder does not equal a murder charge.
The “authorities” need to concur on what the incipient stage is and when it’s considered no longer incipient.
Mind you newer models 172SP can only attempt to spin in Utility category which means with two adults size people you can barely carry enough fuel to climb to a safe altitude.

As an afterthought, we couldn’t spin our DA40’s as we didn’t have equipment required by the Type Certificate Data sheet. If memory serves me right spins were approved of equipped with the same make and model propeller as used during certification.

It spins and recovers nicely

https://youtu.be/GQXLUaA3yo4

[jonkster]

As B2N2 says, CASA require incipient spin recovery in the MOS.

The MOS however does not define what an incipient spin is (as far as I can find).

It seems to get taught as anything from a stall with minor wing drop/yaw to managing a a falling leafy type manoeuvre to a multiple turn spin entry depending on the aircraft and also instructor/school interpretation of what CASA means when they say incipient spin.

I think this should be better defined in the MOS. What is the actual competency they are wanting a pilot to demonstrate?

Perhaps demonstrating the ability to control/prevent yaw during stall recovery?

Perhaps demonstrating the ability to recover from a spin prior to it becoming stable (if the aircraft they operate allows spins)?

Something else?

[john_tullamarine]

Several concerns come to mind.

(a) there has long been a disjoint betwixt certification and operations. After a few serious prangs, this starts to get fixed in this area and that - eg the rudder/manoeuvring nonsense which led to the loss of AA 587 and a subsequent major overhaul in training emphasis

(b) for normal category, certification stall requirements have varied over the years but, in the basics, are done relatively sedately with a reasonably prompt recovery. Generally, power is not restored until after the aircraft is well and truly unstalled and speed is increasing nicely. I recall a flight test tale relating to TP training on a B58. Evidently, the military student thought to hold the aircraft into the stall to see what might transpire .. which was a somewhat surprising and eyebrow raising flick into an inverted spin. The certification looked at a prompt recovery from the initial evidence of the stall.

(c) for normal category, use of rudder in the stall generally emphasises the prevention of further yawing motion. Picking up wings with significant rudder application is operational pipedream nonsense tending to stupidity. How do you spell "spin", again ?

If a Regulator requires exposure to spin training (to whatever extent), then the flying schools really should be using an aerobatic aircraft for those sequences to provide some buffer for manipulative incompetence in the training sequences. This writer cannot understand the rationale behind the present absence of elementary spin training to save a few nickels and dimes in the overall scheme of things.

Sure, we have all been able to get away with this and that ... however, after a lot of such events, fatigue might just have progressed to the stage where the next pilot gets a very unpleasant and fatal surprise ?

Perhaps demonstrating the ability to

Perhaps, first, one should delve into the relevant TCDS, design regs and ACs to get an idea of what the certification might have looked at .. go too far beyond that envelope in ignorance or stupidity and you are signing up to the untrained TP brigade and get what those folk often get ..

[drpixie]

From memory, the good old 172s are approved for spins when operated in utility category - max 2 people and limited fuel - fine for a lesson or flight test. You'd image this was done by Cessna because spins are required in US CPLs and it would be embarrassing to Cessna if you had to use someone's else aircraft for the flight test!

So really no fuss for those schools with Cessnas. For the other schools, logically an incipient would be anything between a wing-drop and fully developed auto-rotation - no reason not to take the stall right up to the wing drop and show sensible recovery using rudder. The important bit is that the student doesn't freak-out at the uncommanded wing drop, and tie the thing in knots using the aileron.

[custardpsc]

From memory, the good old 172s are approved for spins when operated in utility category - max 2 people and limited fuel - fine for a lesson or flight test. You'd image this was done by Cessna because spins are required in US CPLs .

No spinning required for FAA CPL. You might be thinking of the spin endorsement for initial CFI. ?

[Judd]

Sensible Recovery using rudder
Could you be more specific? For example do you mean only sufficient rudder to prevent further yaw towards the dropped wing? Or, do you mean using rudder to deliberately skid the dropped wing around the horizon to the point where the wings are level? (this is a common method taught by some instructors. Known as picking up the wing with rudder. Can lead to a spin in the opposite direction). Finally what is a "sensible" recovery?

[Andy_RR]

Mind you newer models 172SP can only attempt to spin in Utility category which means with two adults size people you can barely carry enough fuel to climb to a safe altitude.


Surely you are allowed to use the aircraft to the utility category limits once you've burned off sufficient fuel?

[john_tullamarine]

no reason not to take the stall right up to the wing drop and show sensible recovery using rudder.

Now, on what engineering or certification basis do you make such a sweeping statement ? If you go beyond what the test program looked at you might just get a surprising ride for your trouble. Rudder is not the stall recovery device ...

For example do you mean only sufficient rudder to prevent further yaw towards the dropped wing?

Which generally reflects the flight test work.

Surely you are allowed to use the aircraft to the utility category limits once you've burned off sufficient fuel?

The utility category certification generally involves restricted weight and very restricted CG. You need to make sure that you meet both.

[drpixie]

no reason not to take the stall right up to the wing drop and show sensible recovery using rudder.

Now, on what engineering or certification basis do you make such a sweeping statement ? If you go beyond what the test program looked at you might just get a surprising ride for your trouble. Rudder is not the stall recovery device ...

That'll teach me to make sensible statements - someone will find a way to misinterpret anything ... if you'd like, how about "and show recovery using rudder to prevent further roll & yaw, instead of aileron which involves risk of exacerbating the situation." Shouldn't be anything outside normal non-aerobatic operations required to do that - if there is, you ain't doing it right :)

[swh]

Is incipient spin training permitted in your aircraft? (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/safety-advisory-notice/ao-2017-096-san-012/)

That seems to put the kibosh on the majority of flying school trainers including the Cessna 172. Under the Normal Category Limitations the C172 POH states that aerobatic maneuvers, including spins are not approved. Incipient spins are still spins; therefore not approved

You always have to follow the limits certified for the particular aircraft model, the information stated by the ATSB is slightly misleading, spins with a decelerated approach are certified in the DA40F under the following conditions.

The DA40F is certified for intentional spin if OÄM 40-201 is installed.

The following additional Limitations/Conditions apply:

Center of Gravity Range 2,45 – 2,50 m
Maximum fuel loading 2x38 liters (2x10gal)
Canopy Jettison System OÄM 40-203 must be installed
Mt Propeller MT 188R135-4G must be installed
Elevator settings must be according to OÄM 40-201
Long Range Tank must not be installed
Wheel fairings must not be installed
Baggage is not allowed

the aerial photo of the crash site shows a wheel fairing next to the aircraft, so even if that was a DA40F it should not have been spun.

Similar with the C172, they can be spun if certified to do so, the restrictions are listed in the TCDS as to what models are permitted, the limitations such as utility category. Eg the C172 without floats

NO ACROBATIC MANEUVERS EXCEPT THOSE LISTED BELOW: Recommended Recommended Maneuver Entry speed Maneuver Entry Speed

Chandelles Lazy eights Steep turns

105 knots 105 knots 95 knots)

Spins Stalls (except whip stalls)

Slow deceleration Slow deceleration

Altitude loss in stall recovery - 180 feet.

Abrupt use of the controls prohibited above 97 knots

Spin recovery: opposite rudder - forward elevator - neutralize controls. Intentional spins with flaps extended are prohibited. Flight into known icing conditions prohibited. This airplane is certified for the following flight operations as of date of original airworthiness certificate.

Pilots need to refer to the certification basis listed on the certificate of airworthiness, follow that through the Australian type acceptance data sheet, and look to the TCDS that the aircraft is certified to. This process needs to be understood and followed correctly, as the same aircraft model can have more than one Australian type acceptance data sheet, for exam0e,EASA and FAA. The correct data sheet applicable to the aircraft has to be applied.*

Do not assume the flight manual onboard is valid, it would have been valid at the time the aircraft was registered, however often the updates to them are often overlooked as part of the maintenance process.

[swh]

You are joking aren’t you? Do you mean some aircraft could be out there flying with an incorrect POH? Surely that’s just not possible in CASA’s Australia!

Not the POH, the AFM. I would guess there are a lot of operators (owners for private ops) not aware of their responsibility under CAR 54.

Some aircraft may have the approved AFM as part of the POH.

[The Green Goblin]

Incipient spin from my aerobatic experience many moons ago means an undeveloped spin. There’s rotation, but if you let go it will probably recover. You’re also generally holding control input to encourage it.

A spin/fully developed spin is when you need to hold control input to recover. Full forward stick and opposite rudder. like that time in a light twin....’cold sweats’.

[ve3id]

Is incipient spin training permitted in your aircraft? (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/safety-advisory-notice/ao-2017-096-san-012/)

That seems to put the kibosh on the majority of flying school trainers including the Cessna 172. Under the Normal Category Limitations the C172 POH states that aerobatic maneuvers, including spins are not approved. Incipient spins are still spins; therefore not approved

They key here is 'Normal Category'. I have done a lot of spin training in a C172, after confirming that I am not in the 'Normal Category'. I seem to remember only signing out an aircraft with half full tanks, too, but that might have been a local club extra-safe policy.

[B2N2]

Surely you are allowed to use the aircraft to the utility category limits once you've burned off sufficient fuel?

I’m drawing from memory from 12-13 years ago so forgive me if I’m slightly off on the numbers:
C172SP (later “new” model) with two normal size adults can only have 10 gallons of fuel in order to be in Utility category. This means start up with about 14-15 gallons, taxi and climb to 6500’.
Min fuel VFR is 30 min which is 5 gallons in the SP so you have 30 min to practice spins and back to the airport to land with 2-3 gallons in each tank with your LOW FUEL lights on.

[Pinky the pilot]

Full forward stick and opposite rudder. like that time in a light twin....’cold sweats’.

I seem to remember reading langtaimbak a post by someone who told of accidentally getting an A mod C402 into a spin when doing their time in PNG.

T'wern't you GG?

[27/09]

My experience of spinning a C 172 in the utility category, flaps up, as specified in the AFM, is they don't spin, at least not without pro spin aileron and being way out of balance. They are, in my opinion, absolutely useless for any worthwhile spin training.

[john_tullamarine]

and show recovery using rudder to prevent further roll & yaw, instead of aileron which involves risk of exacerbating the situation

Unless the OEM guidance differs, rudder should be used, sparingly and as required, to prevent further yaw. A bit of roll is not a concern and can be fixed up once the aircraft is back in unstalled flight. Suggest those who have a more cavalier attitude should read the relevant version of AC23-8 to get a feel for what might have applied to their aircraft in addition to whatever might be included in the POH/AFM

For any not-ancient certification, aileron should be quite effective right throughout the stall and, unless there be some words in the POH limitations proscribing the use of aileron, there is no reason why you can't do so. I suggest that the OWT about aileron's being a killer in the stall dates back aeons to the rather early rag bag aeroplanes with yaw and local stall problems associated with the use of aileron. The basic story is, read the POH/AFM guidance and limitations and stick with that information.

It's a case of horses for courses and, definitely, not one size fits all.

[ve3id]

It must have been the drugs I took then!

[Judd]

I suggest that the OWT about aileron's being a killer in the stall dates back aeons to the rather early rag bag aeroplanes with yaw and local stall problems associated with the use of aileron.
Agree. The DH 82 Tiger Moth is a good example. So was the Wirraway. The DC3 too especially a full flap partial power stall. The myth of rigidly avoiding any use of aileron to level the wings following a severe wing drop in any aircraft, has been perpetuated throughout the ages. Occasionally faulty rigging of a wing may cause a sudden wing drop at point of stall. If that occurs the aircraft is unairworthy and the maintenance release so annotated so the next pilot to fly that aircraft is not caught out

[djpil]

Incipient spin from my aerobatic experience many moons ago means an undeveloped spin. There’s rotation, but if you let go it will probably recover. You’re also generally holding control input to encourage it.
Yep.
It is interesting to compare the two vastly different incipient spin recovery techniques and the techniques for stall recovery with and without a wing drop in CASA’s Flight Instructor Manual with the FAA’s revised Airplane Flying Handbook.

I wonder whether CASA will go back to the old Day VFR Syllabus with just a wing drop as an incipient spin or go with EASA’s new definition of the incipient spin required for training.


A spin/fully developed spin is when you need to hold control input to recover.
Yep. It also works beyond a wing drop and the airplane is aggressively progressing towards a spin.


Full forward stick and opposite rudder.
In my airplane that results in a neat transition to an inverted spin.

[megan]

In my airplane that results in a neat transition to an inverted spinWhat the NZ CAA teach for wing drop recovery. The recovery may be discussed in three parts, but the ultimate objective is to coordinate all three actions.
To unstall
Keep the ailerons neutral.
At the same time
Simultaneously decrease the back pressure/check forward and apply sufficient appropriate rudder to prevent further yaw.
Excessive rudder should not be applied (to level the wings through the secondary effect of rudder) as this may cause a stall and flick manoeuvre in the opposite direction to the initial roll (wing drop).

https://www.caa.govt.nz/fig/advanced-manoeuvres/wing-drop-stalling/

[djpil]

.... Suggest those who have a more cavalier attitude should read the relevant version of AC23-8 to get a feel for what might have applied to their aircraft in addition to whatever might be included in the POH/AFM.Interesting that for my FAR 23 certified airplane the manual states not to use the aileron as large aileron deflections will aggravate a near-stalled condition - it does indeed. I can demonstrate that a small aileron deflection near the stall will cause the opposite wing to drop, just like simple pilot theory. I'm not an old wife but feel free to call me a dinosaur.

John T and I generally only discuss certified airplanes. We now have AC 23-15 for small, simple low performance airplanes which still requires testing for abnormal control usage in that first turn of a spin. Worth noting that the spin testing required for LSAs is much less stringent than for FAR 23 normal category. Then there are homebuilts.

Stall recovery per the manual for my certified airplane is lower nose and add full power simultaneously. Use the rudder to maintain lateral control. Pretty much what CASA states in the stall chapter of the Flight Instructor Manual. Get it not quite right and it will spin doing that per https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=455183408172041 (near the start of the video).

The placard summarising the emergency spin recovery procedure for FAR 23 normal category types is relevant. Normal category certification flight tests start that spin recovery procedure at one turn (or 3 seconds). The emergency spin recovery procedure is to be used when stall recovery is delayed or messed up and it is progressing towards a spin. Still in the incipient stage by that one turn. Do people assume that the emergency spin recovery procedure in the placard and in the AFM is only to be used once you are in a fully developed spin with a normal category airplane?

I suggest that the OWT about aileron's being a killer in the stall dates back aeons to the rather early rag bag aeroplanes with yaw and local stall problems associated with the use of aileron. The basic story is, read the POH/AFM guidance and limitations and stick with that information.Nought on the subject in the AFM of a newish normal category airplane that I sometimes fly so I'd go with the new, rewritten advice in Chapter 4 of the FAA's Airplane Flying Handbook at https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/airplane_handbook/ Fairly consistent with what one sees in an AFM about stalls and spins.

The FAA's new guidance is fairly straightforward - you get a stall recovery template and a spin recovery template (subject to what's in the AFM). Fairly clear as to when each is applicable. AFMs are the same - they talk about stall then they talk about spin. Nothing in between.

By comparison, CASA's Flight Instructor Manual has a method for stall recovery with an additional action for an uncommanded roll at the stall. Then it has two different incipient spin recovery methods in the spin chapter. Then it goes on to the recovery from the fully developed spin.

CASA on 23rd May: "CASA is developing further guidance material in relation to the conduct of incipient spins and advanced stalls and how to meet the flight training and testing standards in the Part 61 manual of standards. We expect to finalise these over the coming weeks." "Further guidance"?? - has there been any so far?

"It also highlighted that there can be varying interpretations of an ‘incipient spin’, and this has led to aircraft not approved for intentional spins being used for incipient spin training and assessment." Naturally, as CASA has never defined an incipient spin.

"Flight training operators, their Heads of Operations and Flight Examiners are obliged to ensure that aircraft used for training, flight reviews and testing purposes are certified for the manoeuvres being performed." I wonder why CASA didn't offer this advice upon reviewing Ops Manuals or non-conformances at audits when they know that types not approved for intentional spins are being used for incipient spin training.

Further good information from the FAA in their AC 61-67 https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_61-67C.pdf

[djpil]

What the NZ CAA teach for wing drop recovery.Full forward stick??

I like the NZ CAA stuff.

[jonkster]

Interesting that for my FAR 23 certified airplane the manual states not to use the aileron as large aileron deflections will aggravate a near-stalled condition - it does indeed. I can demonstrate that a small aileron deflection near the stall will cause the opposite wing to drop, just like simple pilot theory. I'm not an old wife but feel free to call me a dinosaur.


I had a quick look at Stowell's book "Stall/Spin Awareness and the stuff he had on the NASA spin test stuff done in the 70s-80s which looked at several aircraft (types still floating around in GA including some not certified for spinning) and their spin behaviour.

His summary (as I read it) was out of roll aileron was generally found to be pro spin for most of them - hence NASAs recommendation about neutral aileron as a general rule although timing was important - it could be used to prevent spin entry in some at an early entry stage but then became pro-spin soon after.

In Stowell's book there is a list of published spin recovery techniques from many manufacturers and many quote neutral aileron.

I think one problem is instructors are aware of the neutral aileron idea and know rudder is used but I believe many think it is the roll that must be immediately stopped and the aircraft must be brought wings level immediately.

Knowing they are not supposed to use aileron they use rudder "to pick up the wing".

I think some instructors have progressively been underdone on stalling over the years and are wary of it, having been poorly taught themselves and that passes on to students who then become instructors and so it continues.


"It also highlighted that there can be varying interpretations of an ‘incipient spin’, and this has led to aircraft not approved for intentional spins being used for incipient spin training and assessment." Naturally, as CASA has never defined an incipient spin.


Spot on I reckon. It must be taught but they don't define it.

[megan]

It also highlighted that there can be varying interpretations of an ‘incipient spin’, and this has led to aircraft not approved for intentional spins being used for incipient spin training and assessment." Naturally, as CASA has never defined an incipient spinAbout the best definition is that of the FAA in some documents. The incipient phase occurs from the time the airplane stalls and starts rotating until the spin has fully developed. This phase may take two to four turns for most airplanes. In this phase, the aerodynamic and inertial forces have not achieved a balance.

https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/airplane_handbook/media/06_afh_ch4.pdf
An incipient spin is that portion of a spin from the time the airplane stalls and rotation starts, until the spin becomes fully developed.

https://www.faa.gov/documentlibrary/media/advisory_circular/ac_61-67c.pdf

Full forward stick??I didn't see that said.

[LeadSled]

Full forward stick??

I like the NZ CAA stuff.

So do I, and I have flown quite a few aircraft that had mean stall/spin characteristics ---- including virtually any taper wing DH product.

The Hornet Moth was so bad that many were retro-modded with DH-82 wings. Ground loops in a Hornet Moth were not really ground loops at all --- they were incipient spins interrupted by mother earth.

Some will remember the Lockheed Hudson --- in Australia, civil versions had the final stage of landing flap locked out.

Tootle pip!!

[djpil]

About the best definition is that of the FAA in some documents.
https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/airplane_handbook/media/06_afh_ch4.pdf
Yes indeed, everyone should read that. So when CASA dropped the Day VFR Syllabus with its "wing drop" definition of incipient spin and introduced Part 61 with no definition of an "incipient spin" what did they expect instructors to do? Knowing that normal category airplanes were tested to one turn or 3 seconds of a spin did they assume that it was OK to do an incipient spin up to one turn?

https://www.faa.gov/documentlibrary/media/advisory_circular/ac_61-67c.pdfEveryone should read this too. Especially the advice at the end: "The pilot of an airplane placarded against intentional spins should assume that the airplane may become uncontrollable in a spin."

Those FAA documents and your AFM only mention stall recovery and spin recovery - nothing in between. My simple view is that if you intentionally put the aeroplane in a situation which requires the spin recovery procedure then you have intentionally entered a spin. i.e. a spin is a spin.

EASA is working on their UPRT requirements and they have defined an incipient spin in that context:
"Incipient spin’
refers to a transient flight condition in the post-stall regime where an initial, uncommanded roll in excess of 45° has resulted from yaw asymmetry during a stall and which, if recovery action is not taken, will lead rapidly to a developing spin. Prompt recovery during this incipient spin stage will normally result in an overall heading change, from pre-stall conditions, of not more than 180°.

‘Developing spin’
refers to a flight condition in the post-stall regime where the aeroplane exhibits abnormal, but varying, rates of yaw and roll, together with changing pitch attitude, following an incipient spin but before the establishment of a developed spin. A developing spin follows an unrecovered incipient spin and will usually persist, in the absence of any recovery action, until a developed spin ensues.

‘Developed spin’
refers to a flight condition in the post-stall regime where the aeroplane has achieved approximately constant pitch attitude, yaw rate and roll rate on a descending flight path. In transition from a stall with significant, persistent yaw, with no recovery action, to attaining a developed spin,the aeroplane is likely to have rolled through at least 540°."
Sorry, could only get you this link https://www.scribd.com/document/401443030/AMC-and-GM-to-Part-FCL-Amendment-7-Note-UPRT-Items

I look forward to CASA's further advice on incipient spin training. Further to what current advice?

[megan]

djpil, perhaps you or JT know the answer. Casting the memory back (always a dangerous thing to do) I seem to recall the Victa 100 had a three turn limit on spinning. Why? Because it got nasty?

As for the word "incipient" I'm happy with the dictionary definition - In an initial or early stage; just beginning to exist or appear. A good starting point for any investigation of "incipient" is the Latin verb incipere, which means "to begin." "Incipient" first emerged in English in a 1669 scientific text that referred to "incipient putrefaction." Later came the genesis of two related nouns, "incipiency" and "incipience," both of which are synonymous with "beginning." "Incipere" also stands at the beginning of the words "inception" ("an act, process, or instance of beginning") and "incipit," a term that literally means "it begins" and which was used for the opening words of a medieval text. "Incipere" itself derives from another Latin verb, capere, which means "to take" or "to seize." The AOPA in one paper quotes 10% of all accidents and 13.7% of all fatalities in GA are a result of stall/spin. In my day spinning was part of the syllabus, I gather not so now. The only time an incipient spin would be recognised would be by a well trained pilot, the average Joe has never seen a spin, by the time s/he got their wits about them it would be fully developed I suspect.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_L7o_JlPg5w

Note aileron a 172N, might call it incipient.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_FoXr4e3mM

[john_tullamarine]

I seem to recall the Victa 100 had a three turn limit on spinning.

I don't recall the Victa limitation - too long ago, now, and my copy of the original AFM is somewhere in the archives ... Dave and I did our initial aeros with Aub Coote on Dave's 100 back in the early 70s so he probably will have the information to hand.

To the best of my recollection, the Victa wouldn't really spin - more or less a spiral dive sort of thing. Prior to my first solo - on the Victa at RACNSW some years earlier - I was a bit concerned that I hadn't looked at spinning. Cec (Randall) had me put the aircraft into a steep turn and then, totally unannounced, suddenly put in full top size 14, whereupon I had my first exposure to whatever it was that the Victa did. Certainly got my attention ... as I recall, I may have said a naughty word at the time whilst recovering.

My first exposure to a real spin was with John S-J in the RVAC Chippy a little later ... whence I acquired the long-lasting nickname, "Chuck". The three of us were on the Nomad program at GAF at the time.

[djpil]

djpil, perhaps you or JT know the answer. Casting the memory back (always a dangerous thing to do) I seem to recall the Victa 100 had a three turn limit on spinning. Why? Because it got nasty?Most Airtourer models have a limit of 2 turns because it will not stay in the spin - it develops into a spiral with airspeed increasing. The T-6 model has a limit of 1 1/2 turns. I've tried various things to try and get it to stay in something which looks more like a spin but barely able to change its behaviour. From the current AFM for an Airtourer 115:
https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/758x290/airtourer115spin_29a3dba1fe67e38e361813a8b238658b332b42b7.pn g
The AOPA in one paper quotes 10% of all accidents and 13.7% of all fatalities in GA are a result of stall/spin.Some data from a decade ago in the picture from the USA. CASA & ATSB gave similar statistics some years ago. Not much has changed since except that the NTSB and the FAA have been putting a lot of effort into it.
https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/617x705/lociproblem_0cb43f0ae12c49bacd5b8c9f55409fd98ca98b03.png
It is worth repeating that "Inflight loss of control is the leading cause of fatalities in aviation." While we wait for further guidance.

[LeadSled]

Folks,
I agree with djpil and JT about the Victa, it did n't develop a stable spin ----- and I did enough instructing on both the 100HP and the 115hp models for my students to have plenty of opportunity to get into the situation --- stall and recovery training "back in the day" was far different to now.
As an aside, the "good old " C-172 ( and many similar aircraft) was a very different animal at max weight and aft C.of G limit, compared to "utility" weight and C.of G, something I made certain all my students experienced and understood.
Re. many of the twins, not required to demonstrate spin recovery for certification, at the approach to the stall, a PA-23 (Apache/Aztec) had a degree of rudder blanketing such that you could waggle the rudder almost full deflection with little or no result.
Tootle pip!!

[ShyTorque]

I instructed on the RAF Bulldog for a few years. The propensity for "funny" spin modes was well publicised, well before my time in the job. As QFIs we had to practice entry and recovery form a high rotational spin on a regular basis (once a month). We had to carry this out on a mutual basis with another QFI. During the climb we briefed how we intended to enter the spin, how we intended to recover from it (and what minimum aircraft abandonment altitude was) and monitored each other. Always good fun but some QFIs hated doing it. Some QFIs preferred method of getting the spin rate to go high rotational was to enter with and hold some aileron. My technique was to enter normally with neutral aileron then allow the stick to come off the back stop by about one inch - that always worked nicely!

Not long before I left for another job I obtained more aircraft detail regarding weight and balance after the "Navaids upgrade" involved having the aircraft re-weighed (it hadn't been readily available in the past). I did some calculations on our squadron aircraft (I was practicing for my civvie exams). I discovered that it was likely that some were inadvertently being spun outside their C of G limits. If our squadron fleet was typical, it might explain why some pilots found the Bulldog more exciting than it should have been.

[Runaway Gun]

I'm worried that 3/4 of the Spin Recoveries mentioned here, does not include the very important first step of POWER - IDLE.

Remember that a spinning propellor will provide exciting and adverse gyroscopic effects.

[Tankengine]

You guys really need to get out to a gliding club!
Spinning required before solo so most Instructors have done thousands, unlike GA or RAA. (Unless ex gliding).

[djpil]

CASA on 23rd May: "CASA is developing further guidance material in relation to the conduct of incipient spins and advanced stalls and how to meet the flight training and testing standards in the Part 61 manual of standards. We expect to finalise these over the coming weeks." "Further guidance"?? - has there been any so far?I wonder what the official definition of "coming weeks" is?