CASA Flight Test spin requirements

[Tee Emm]

Question arises on spin training and assessment by an Examiner . How many turns of the spin must take place before recovery action is deemed to be taken?
The CASA CAAP states:"Normal, utility or aerobatic aircraft certified for intentional spinning have been tested to be recoverable from a six-turn spin. This differs for light sport aircraft, which must have been tested to be recoverable from a three-turn spin, within one and a half turns of the recovery control application prescribed in the aircraft's flight manual."

This suggests the certifying manufacturer's test pilot tested the aircraft to six turns and not beyond. For the CASA Examiner flight test it would seem prudent to limit the number of spin rotations to less than six turns - beyond which has not been tested. What is the point in taking the aircraft right up to the six turn limit during an Examiner flight test where the slightest delay in recovery action takes the aircraft into potentially unknown spinning characteristics? Threat and Error management would surely be a factor in this regard?

A three turn spin should be adequate enough for Examiner assessment and adequate enough for a student to observe normal spin characteristics before recovery action takes place?. Comments appreciated as this appears to have grey areas

[djpil]

“CASA Examiner flight test” - test for what purpose?

[Tee Emm]

Apologies. Badly worded. I'll try to rephrase. A CPL decides he wants a spinning endorsement. He does the required training in an appropriate aircraft. He is then tested by a pilot with Examiner qualifications to test spinning.
The purpose of the question was to find out how many turns of a spin would be required to be demonstrated to meet CASA competency requirements.

[Stickshift3000]

The Part 61 MOS (excerpt below) is not prescriptive regarding number of turns.

FAE-8.1 – Recover from spin
(a) perform pre-manoeuvre checks;
(b) enter and establish an upright spin;
(c) identify upright spin and direction of yaw;
(d) close throttle;
(e) stop yaw;
(f) unstall wing by reducing AOA;
(g) recover to controlled flight;
(h) recover within the number of turns normally required for upright spin recovery in the aircraft type, within the aircraft and height limitations.

[Runaway Gun]

My guess is that if the individual aircraft Flight Manual advises that the aircraft recovers within X turns, then that would be the aim.

If the pilot does not recover within that, then they are unlikely to be using the correct inputs, as described by the manual.

[djpil]

A CPL decides he wants a spinning endorsement. He does the required training in an appropriate aircraft. He is then tested by a pilot with Examiner qualifications to test spinning.An Examiner has nought to do with granting the spin flight activity endorsement as there is no test. An instructor with a spin training endorsement does it.

The purpose of the question was to find out how many turns of a spin would be required to be demonstrated to meet CASA competency requirements.
The Part 61 MOS (excerpt below) is not prescriptive regarding number of turns.

FAE-8.1 – Recover from spin
.......
(b) enter and establish an upright spin;Yep, and my opinion is that requires getting it into a fully developed spin.

FAE-8.1 – Recover from spin
.......
(h) recover within the number of turns normally required for upright spin recovery in the aircraft type, within the aircraft and height limitations.

My guess is that if the individual aircraft Flight Manual advises that the aircraft recovers within X turns, then that would be the aim.

If the pilot does not recover within that, then they are unlikely to be using the correct inputs, as described by the manual.That is supported by the underpinning knowledge requirements. Conversely, if a person does not know "spin entry and recovery techniques for the aircraft being flown" and does not demonstrate it in flight then, in my opinion, doesn't meet the standard.

The MOS was supposed to provide "practical competency standards" so why do we need to guess what the standards actually mean?

[Tee Emm]

Yep, and my opinion is that requires getting it into a fully developed spin.
That's sounds a valid assumption with three full turns a good compromise. Beyond that you are unnecessarily stressing the airframe/engine combination since a spin by any definition is a violent manoeuvre.

[By George]

I Think 'Runaway Gun' has hit the nail on the head.In my humble opinion you cannot make one rule to fit all. Stick to the type POH, all aeroplanes capable of spinning are different. The Victa Airtourer is approved for spinning but is a poor example of a standard spin recovery. To start with it is restricted to two turns only. It does not really want to spin and requires a little opposite direction aileron to get it into a fully developed spin, otherwise it just goes into a spiral dive. Harsh full opposite rudder will cause the bloody thing to change direction sometimes. It will recover just by centralising the rudder.Try that in aChipmunk and you will need a mining permit. The Chipmunk, while standard, requires good knowledge and discipline. Full opposite rudder and the stick forward to the stop. It then sometimes 'thinks about it' and can even do one turn faster. ( this caught out a young lass in South Australia from Royal Aero Club who spun into the gasworks at Outer Harbour). Don't have an aft C of G in the Chipmunk either with a heavy person in the back and a light one in the front. The Tiger Moth is the most textbook spin I've witnessed. Then there are aeroplanes that should never be spun. I know of a pilot killed in a AA-5 where the fuel moved to the wing-tips with that funny fuel system and stabilised the spin to a non recovery flat attitude. Some of these new RAA aircraft are proving to be dangerous in a spin. Terry Otway a retired Ansett pilot dying in a Bristell, being a good example. Great bloke and a tragic way to end a long career. Let the Test Pilots who certify the aeroplane do the testing and just follow the POH. I remember reading about the trials and tribulations of the Cessna 162 spinning trials. Very exciting job that one. Spinning is safe if the aeroplane is certified and you follow the rules applicable to that type in the POH.

[Tee Emm]

Terry Otway a retired Ansett pilot dying in a Bristell, being a good example.

Actually, it was a Brumby, not a Bristell

A few weeks earlier, at Penfield ALA, the same aircraft had experienced jamming of aileron hard over during flight control "full and free movement" part of pre-takeoff check . That defect was rectified. There was suspicion that the elevator may have jammed fully back during practice stall. Witness saw it spinning before crash but no evidence it was being spun deliberately.

Nothing conclusive but photo of wreckage also showed elevator full up. Could have been caused by impact but will probably never know. .

[By George]

Apologies TE they all look the same to me. I also agree that something unknown got them into a flat spin.