Close shave during C150 spin.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Close shave during C150 spin.
Experienced instructor. He asked student instructor to patter a spin recovery - they climbed all the way to 7500 ft agl. After two turns he said recover, and despite correct recovery actions (except he relaxed on the backward pressure instead of placing wheel well forward of neutral), the C150 continued spinning. Despite several attempts to recover by the instructor the aircraft did not recover until around 1500 ft when it came out of the spin. The instructor felt that the problem may have been in the initiation of the spin when he forced the aircraft into the spin before it had actually stalled. Has anyone else struck a problem with C150 recovery times and anything unusual about the spin? The significance point of the spin which I described, is that it had only gone through 1-2 turns before recovery action initiated. I can understand that it is asking for trouble if recovery action is delayed until after 4-5 turns because it can flatten.
Guest
Posts: n/a
IMHO the problem was probably a control mishandling altering the spin mode. The correct action in this case is to go back to full PRO-SPIN controls for half a turn, then restore recovery actions. Another possibility is that the throttle wasn't fully closed, which can have remarkable effects.
I've not seen this on a C150, but the Bulldog and Tucano will do this without much trouble - they always recover eventually (I do recall a 15 turn eventually once in a Tincano).
I can see the C150 winding itself up too much, but am surprised you think it'll flatten.
G
I've not seen this on a C150, but the Bulldog and Tucano will do this without much trouble - they always recover eventually (I do recall a 15 turn eventually once in a Tincano).
I can see the C150 winding itself up too much, but am surprised you think it'll flatten.
G
Guest
Posts: n/a
I've seen lots of C150 & C152 'wind-up' after about 2 turns.
CofG made a significant difference to recovery. I'm only light but I've noticed the recovery varying with the size of my student & his/her seat position.
Also if they don't ensure the throttle is closed &/or don't move the column forward reasonably briskly.
I've had one instance of the recovery being delayed when the student moved the column forward before applying rudder input.
Another where a big burly chap froze while holding onto the controls with them in pro-spin. He'd never properly spun before & was taken aback by the whole thing after he mucked up a stall recovery.
As Genghis said, if the input isn't working correctly reset the system to its original state ie controls to match the spinning condition, & then re-try with thorough application of the technique.
CofG made a significant difference to recovery. I'm only light but I've noticed the recovery varying with the size of my student & his/her seat position.
Also if they don't ensure the throttle is closed &/or don't move the column forward reasonably briskly.
I've had one instance of the recovery being delayed when the student moved the column forward before applying rudder input.
Another where a big burly chap froze while holding onto the controls with them in pro-spin. He'd never properly spun before & was taken aback by the whole thing after he mucked up a stall recovery.
As Genghis said, if the input isn't working correctly reset the system to its original state ie controls to match the spinning condition, & then re-try with thorough application of the technique.
Moderator
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,137
Likes: 38
From: Australia
Centaurus, how does this fit in with your argument re. heights to go to for stall training in light singles?
Just wondering!
[This message has been edited by Charlie Foxtrot India (edited 28 August 2000).]
Just wondering!
[This message has been edited by Charlie Foxtrot India (edited 28 August 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
I agree with Genghis but don’t like his half turn pro – I would think a couple of turns or more might be needed to do the job in some cases.
Spinning is one of those pastimes that produces occasional odd balls. It always has and anybody who is deliberately doing it without plenty of height (to say nothing of not having a parachute) is taking some degree of risk especially if they (or a student) use a vaguely executed or non standard entry or do not maintain the 100% correct recovery actions for at least two turns in the event of a problem,
Spinning is one of those pastimes that produces occasional odd balls. It always has and anybody who is deliberately doing it without plenty of height (to say nothing of not having a parachute) is taking some degree of risk especially if they (or a student) use a vaguely executed or non standard entry or do not maintain the 100% correct recovery actions for at least two turns in the event of a problem,
Guest
Posts: n/a
I agree in general terms JF, although I can't think of any aircraft I've spun that really needed a full 2 turns of pro-spin again to ensure recovery. If all else fails however, it would certainly be sensible.
And on a whole new subject, whilst I agree with you John that a parachute is a bloody good idea when spinning, how many people actually bother during routine (as opposed to test) spinning work?
There are plenty of aircraft that will recover from the spin if you release the controls - just expect to get kneecapped!
G
And on a whole new subject, whilst I agree with you John that a parachute is a bloody good idea when spinning, how many people actually bother during routine (as opposed to test) spinning work?
There are plenty of aircraft that will recover from the spin if you release the controls - just expect to get kneecapped!
G
Guest
Posts: n/a
I have known of a few instructors having difficulties recovering from spins in a 150, so much so that the particular a/c was removed from spin training and 172's etc were used instead.
Other methods of recovery used were rocking, adding and reducing power (I know but when you are at a loss you'll try anything!)
Other methods of recovery used were rocking, adding and reducing power (I know but when you are at a loss you'll try anything!)
Guest
Posts: n/a
CFI. I see your point. But deliberately putting in gross control inputs such as full rudder and full back stick (which is required to initiate a spin)- is a bit different to setting up a practice stall with normal recovery action in which the expected height loss by a GFPT student, who had met the CASA Competency standards, would be no more than 200 ft.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Sorry Genghis – I was not trying to be dramatic re parachutes. I too have done plenty of spins without. I was just wishing to make the point that spinning does (statistically and historically) carry a degree (however small or large) of risk when compared with other manoeuvres.
Several personal experiences make me cautious about spinning in a way that does not apply to my attitude to other things that many people might consider to be of higher risk. (For example turning off the fuel to the critical engine of a twin engined transport at V1 minus 5 kts and continuing with the max AUW take off in ambient conditions of ISA +15 when you have no background on type or even complete documentation for the type).
The thing about spinning is that you cannot use the iterative process to ensure safety as I could and did with the case in brackets above.
When I was a QFI on JP 3s and 4s in 61/62 time we had one that did not spin as consistently as the rest. We asked for help. A Sqn collected it last thing Friday and on Saturday morning my CO phoned me at home and said they had jumped out of it. Later in ‘63 on my ETPS course visit to A Sqn I asked the CO (Roger Topp) what he thought about spinning. He took me to the Hunter 6 with LE extensions standing on the pan, and said “Look at that thing. It weighs x tons, it has all sorts of inertia and all sorts of aerodynamics. The whole thing is gyrating and doing over 100 kts – yet those silly little extensions transform the way it spins and recovers. How can that be. You just cant rely on simple common sense when it comes to spinning. If the aircraft is not identical it may spin totally differently. That is all you can be sure of”
This is no place to write a book, but spinning needs a very long one to cover it properly. Not a few paragraphs like most other manoeuvres…….
[This message has been edited by John Farley (edited 01 September 2000).]
Several personal experiences make me cautious about spinning in a way that does not apply to my attitude to other things that many people might consider to be of higher risk. (For example turning off the fuel to the critical engine of a twin engined transport at V1 minus 5 kts and continuing with the max AUW take off in ambient conditions of ISA +15 when you have no background on type or even complete documentation for the type).
The thing about spinning is that you cannot use the iterative process to ensure safety as I could and did with the case in brackets above.
When I was a QFI on JP 3s and 4s in 61/62 time we had one that did not spin as consistently as the rest. We asked for help. A Sqn collected it last thing Friday and on Saturday morning my CO phoned me at home and said they had jumped out of it. Later in ‘63 on my ETPS course visit to A Sqn I asked the CO (Roger Topp) what he thought about spinning. He took me to the Hunter 6 with LE extensions standing on the pan, and said “Look at that thing. It weighs x tons, it has all sorts of inertia and all sorts of aerodynamics. The whole thing is gyrating and doing over 100 kts – yet those silly little extensions transform the way it spins and recovers. How can that be. You just cant rely on simple common sense when it comes to spinning. If the aircraft is not identical it may spin totally differently. That is all you can be sure of”
This is no place to write a book, but spinning needs a very long one to cover it properly. Not a few paragraphs like most other manoeuvres…….
[This message has been edited by John Farley (edited 01 September 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
No offence taken John.
The CAA are very fond of telling us that the only type with a significant spinning fatality rate is the Pitts. Not because it's unrecoverable, but because people keep spinning it close to the ground in competitions and displays.
Hopefully, if the likes of you and I did our job right, there should never be a need for a parachute in an aircraft cleared for deliberate spinning. But, all the same, it does make one feel that bit more secure...
G
The CAA are very fond of telling us that the only type with a significant spinning fatality rate is the Pitts. Not because it's unrecoverable, but because people keep spinning it close to the ground in competitions and displays.
Hopefully, if the likes of you and I did our job right, there should never be a need for a parachute in an aircraft cleared for deliberate spinning. But, all the same, it does make one feel that bit more secure...
G
Guest
Posts: n/a
Genghis
I don’t want to flog a dead horse, but a few comments re your last
I’m not sure much civvy spinning is done these days – it no longer being a licence requirement.
Even when a type has been well test flown by the pilots and engineers as you mention, I am quite sure that the team will not have covered every combination of entry control rates and deflections, cg conditions, fuel sloshing, throttle position, idle RPM setting and so on and so on. Therefore there is always the chance of a new mode arising.
Various aeroplanes and various people (Roger Topp and others) have convinced me that spinning is not the same as other manoeuvres and so I will always have reservations about the subject. And I submit that is not a bad thing – after all there is no law of aerodynamics that says controls that can be used to make an aeroplane spin will always be able to make it recover from a situation that is very different from the entry!
J
I don’t want to flog a dead horse, but a few comments re your last
I’m not sure much civvy spinning is done these days – it no longer being a licence requirement.
Even when a type has been well test flown by the pilots and engineers as you mention, I am quite sure that the team will not have covered every combination of entry control rates and deflections, cg conditions, fuel sloshing, throttle position, idle RPM setting and so on and so on. Therefore there is always the chance of a new mode arising.
Various aeroplanes and various people (Roger Topp and others) have convinced me that spinning is not the same as other manoeuvres and so I will always have reservations about the subject. And I submit that is not a bad thing – after all there is no law of aerodynamics that says controls that can be used to make an aeroplane spin will always be able to make it recover from a situation that is very different from the entry!
J
Guest
Posts: n/a
During a revision trip before my GFT I was asked to spin a C150. The aircraft of the day had very recently arrived at the flying organisation I was with and it had a reputation for markedly dropping a wing at the stall. I hadn't flown it before.
We entered the spin as per normal i.e. S&L, throttle closed and full pro spin controls applied but the aircraft rolled unusually rapidly on entry. As the spin stabilised the instructor asked if I noticed anything unusual.
I answered that a) we were inverted and b) the engine had just stopped!
He asked me to describe my recovery to which I answered "same as normal but control column fully back instead of the usual forwards movement?". He nodded, I did it and the aircraft came out of the spin.
The aircraft was grounded and a rigging check found different rigging angles on the wings.
We entered the spin as per normal i.e. S&L, throttle closed and full pro spin controls applied but the aircraft rolled unusually rapidly on entry. As the spin stabilised the instructor asked if I noticed anything unusual.
I answered that a) we were inverted and b) the engine had just stopped!
He asked me to describe my recovery to which I answered "same as normal but control column fully back instead of the usual forwards movement?". He nodded, I did it and the aircraft came out of the spin.
The aircraft was grounded and a rigging check found different rigging angles on the wings.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I think that ST has probably just proved you right JF. I'm not sure I disagreed with you anyway, it's all a matter of percentages.
Testing an aeroplane, our job is to make sure that something unexpected is very unlikely - wearing a parachute takes care of the other small percentage point.
I think more schools and civvie pilots spin regularly than admit to it - probably a good thing too.
G
Testing an aeroplane, our job is to make sure that something unexpected is very unlikely - wearing a parachute takes care of the other small percentage point.
I think more schools and civvie pilots spin regularly than admit to it - probably a good thing too.
G
Guest
Posts: n/a
The Bulldog is unpredictable in the spin and was especially so early on in its history.
As RAF QFI's we were obliged to fly mutual high rotational spin recoveries once a month (or was it every 3 mths?). We used to pre-brief the entry and recovery drills so that the other "safety" pilot did not get left behind the plot, as things used to happen very quickly.
The two usual ways of getting a "high rotation" were either to reverse the rudder without following up with stick forward, or simply to move the stick forward about an inch from fully aft. As elevator loads in the spin were quite high for a light aircraft the latter was easy to get accidentally. For that reason students were taught to use both hands on the stick at entry. This also helped keep the ailerons neutral, which was also required to prevent oscillations / other funny things happening.
The roll acceleration and sustained rates were quite alarming.
Two incidents stick in my mind. One involved a QFI plus student. Student messed up recovery drills, a/c went high rot. QFI could not recover so told student to "Jump, Jump, Jump!" Stude OPENED the canopy rather than JETTISON it as he should have (so it slid back) and he went out. As soon as he departed the aircraft recovered. QFI watched the student's chute open and went home without him.
Second incident: QFI plus student. Aircraft not recoverable from spin. Both jumped. QFI fell out of harness as his chute opened, presumed to have inadvertantly rotated QRF box to "unlock" as he climbed out (possibly due to a mind-set about the normal a/c egress after landing which involved leaving the 'chute in the seat) and then it probably got knocked to release during the chute opening.
After that I always used to leave the aircraft with my parachute on so that I NEVER unlocked the QRF box whilst sitting in the aircraft. (Effectively every egress was an emergency one as far as parachute wearing was concerned; less chance of me incorrectly repeating history!)
As RAF QFI's we were obliged to fly mutual high rotational spin recoveries once a month (or was it every 3 mths?). We used to pre-brief the entry and recovery drills so that the other "safety" pilot did not get left behind the plot, as things used to happen very quickly.
The two usual ways of getting a "high rotation" were either to reverse the rudder without following up with stick forward, or simply to move the stick forward about an inch from fully aft. As elevator loads in the spin were quite high for a light aircraft the latter was easy to get accidentally. For that reason students were taught to use both hands on the stick at entry. This also helped keep the ailerons neutral, which was also required to prevent oscillations / other funny things happening.
The roll acceleration and sustained rates were quite alarming.
Two incidents stick in my mind. One involved a QFI plus student. Student messed up recovery drills, a/c went high rot. QFI could not recover so told student to "Jump, Jump, Jump!" Stude OPENED the canopy rather than JETTISON it as he should have (so it slid back) and he went out. As soon as he departed the aircraft recovered. QFI watched the student's chute open and went home without him.
Second incident: QFI plus student. Aircraft not recoverable from spin. Both jumped. QFI fell out of harness as his chute opened, presumed to have inadvertantly rotated QRF box to "unlock" as he climbed out (possibly due to a mind-set about the normal a/c egress after landing which involved leaving the 'chute in the seat) and then it probably got knocked to release during the chute opening.
After that I always used to leave the aircraft with my parachute on so that I NEVER unlocked the QRF box whilst sitting in the aircraft. (Effectively every egress was an emergency one as far as parachute wearing was concerned; less chance of me incorrectly repeating history!)
Guest
Posts: n/a
Thankyou - I think at the time that probably fewer words were exchanged and the conversation was in fairly high pitched voices! I was probably too inexperenced to realise the seriousness of the predicament and so I was a bit cooler than I was entitled to be....
John, the Jet Provost spin was also interesting at times and I am sure you can tell a story or two about that aircraft. I lost 10 thousand feet or so in a Mk3 once. Caused by me mishandling during aeros and then also being slow to take off full opposite rudder after the spin stopped....
[This message has been edited by ShyTorque (edited 04 September 2000).]
John, the Jet Provost spin was also interesting at times and I am sure you can tell a story or two about that aircraft. I lost 10 thousand feet or so in a Mk3 once. Caused by me mishandling during aeros and then also being slow to take off full opposite rudder after the spin stopped....
[This message has been edited by ShyTorque (edited 04 September 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Im confused now.
I've been merrily spinning Terrorhawks for a couple of years now and not had any trouble - though it generally is different for each machine in our fleet.
But- point is, I always thought C150s were safer to spin than PA38s.
In view of the non-necessity for PPL licence I'm wondering if I want to do it now, as I only do it a few times a year so I'm not that current really.
Yours Worriedly....
I've been merrily spinning Terrorhawks for a couple of years now and not had any trouble - though it generally is different for each machine in our fleet.
But- point is, I always thought C150s were safer to spin than PA38s.
In view of the non-necessity for PPL licence I'm wondering if I want to do it now, as I only do it a few times a year so I'm not that current really.
Yours Worriedly....
Guest
Posts: n/a
Spiffy
If I have any part to play in you being confused or worried my apologies! – although I suspect you have your tongue firmly in your cheek. But in case you did not.....here goes
We all agree currency is important in all things aviation. To get recurrent (safely) with spinning IMHO just requires one to put the odds in ones favour, no big deal: You know what you should do. Just do it with the special care associated with switching off an unexploded bomb.
Have at least 6k above local ground level (or more if you can afford the time)
Have no appreciable cloud below you. Do not spin down into a limited hole. Have a good visual horizon.
Do your hazel checks
Decide which direction you are going to spin and start with the sun in view.
Tell yourself 2 turns only and plan to shout them out loud with respect to the sun
Enter with crisp full control inputs using two hands to hold the stick back with ailerons neutral
Call the first (mainly roll) turn as 1
After two turns shout recovering and be very careful to swop the rudder fully – indeed wedge the blighter as hard as you can, shout pause and start moving the stick progressively forward (all the way if necessary but it probably will not get that far before its out)
Shout three if the sun goes by again
As soon as the thing speeds up its rotation rate and drops its nose and the airspeed lurches up, be ready to quickly and positively centralise the rudder and stick.
Most spins that go weird are because something in that list of control actions was done sloppily or imprecisely.
When that is fine go back up (all the way) again and do it again with 3 turns before recovery.
Stick with one direction until happy to do your personal target of turns before trying the other direction – and build up gradually again.
Oh dear I am an idiot you knew all that.
If I have any part to play in you being confused or worried my apologies! – although I suspect you have your tongue firmly in your cheek. But in case you did not.....here goes
We all agree currency is important in all things aviation. To get recurrent (safely) with spinning IMHO just requires one to put the odds in ones favour, no big deal: You know what you should do. Just do it with the special care associated with switching off an unexploded bomb.
Have at least 6k above local ground level (or more if you can afford the time)
Have no appreciable cloud below you. Do not spin down into a limited hole. Have a good visual horizon.
Do your hazel checks
Decide which direction you are going to spin and start with the sun in view.
Tell yourself 2 turns only and plan to shout them out loud with respect to the sun
Enter with crisp full control inputs using two hands to hold the stick back with ailerons neutral
Call the first (mainly roll) turn as 1
After two turns shout recovering and be very careful to swop the rudder fully – indeed wedge the blighter as hard as you can, shout pause and start moving the stick progressively forward (all the way if necessary but it probably will not get that far before its out)
Shout three if the sun goes by again
As soon as the thing speeds up its rotation rate and drops its nose and the airspeed lurches up, be ready to quickly and positively centralise the rudder and stick.
Most spins that go weird are because something in that list of control actions was done sloppily or imprecisely.
When that is fine go back up (all the way) again and do it again with 3 turns before recovery.
Stick with one direction until happy to do your personal target of turns before trying the other direction – and build up gradually again.
Oh dear I am an idiot you knew all that.