Spinning Dilema
Thread Starter
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
From: POH - Section 2
Spinning Dilema
I have a feeling that, despite this line, some mutant will still say that "The only choice is not to go!!" (and, on the whole, I agree) - however......
I recently had to renew my JAA Instructor Rating. Elected to do a flight test with an examiner. Had a PA28 booked from the school.
Turn up on the day and meet Mr. Examiner - who then says "We have been given a Cessna 150 because we have to do spinning".
I protest, saying that a C150, with the two of us, would be both overweight and out of balance - neither of which are conducive to spin recovery.
Mr. Examiner says "The PA28 is not approved for spinning, we HAVE to do it, if you want the rating...you will go in the Cessna."
I think that anybody who says they would not have gone at all - and would do without the rating - is probably lying...but what would you have done??
I recently had to renew my JAA Instructor Rating. Elected to do a flight test with an examiner. Had a PA28 booked from the school.
Turn up on the day and meet Mr. Examiner - who then says "We have been given a Cessna 150 because we have to do spinning".
I protest, saying that a C150, with the two of us, would be both overweight and out of balance - neither of which are conducive to spin recovery.
Mr. Examiner says "The PA28 is not approved for spinning, we HAVE to do it, if you want the rating...you will go in the Cessna."
I think that anybody who says they would not have gone at all - and would do without the rating - is probably lying...but what would you have done??
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 550
Likes: 0
From: UK
Max, should you not have known that spinning was a requirement and that the PA28 was not approved for it. If I was not prepared to fly a C150 ie. I hadn't flown one for a while then I definitely would not have flown it, especially out of CG. If the examiner expects you to do spinning in this scenario I would call the CAA and ask serious questions about his suitability for the job.
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
From: UK
Greaser
UNFORTUNATLY.....in the real world I would guess that many, if not most flights with an SPL in a C150 or similar are done overweight. Spinning overweight however is simply asking for trouble.
UNFORTUNATLY.... i have no solutions.
.
UNFORTUNATLY.....in the real world I would guess that many, if not most flights with an SPL in a C150 or similar are done overweight. Spinning overweight however is simply asking for trouble.
UNFORTUNATLY.... i have no solutions.
.
Safety First!
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 516
Likes: 0
From: New Zealand
With two average sized people weighing approximately 170 lbs each, and half tanks, the C150/152 is within CofG and MAUW limits. You could prove to the examiner that the aicraft is or is not within limits by completing a weight and balance calculation sheet. The problem may occur if the aircraft has been left with full tanks from the previous flight.
Kermie
Kermie
Beacon Outbound
Joined: Mar 2002
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 710
Likes: 22
From: "Home is were the answer machine is"
I think you will find that most PA28s are cleared for spinning (maybe not the newer ones), provided that W&B is within utility category limits.
Problem is loading them within those limits. In a 140 it is often not possible to get the CofG far enough forward to get within utility limits. A 180 with a bigger lump of metal at the front is better for this.
Having said this, they don't actually spin very well and you normally end up in a spiral dive (gives you the opportunity to show to the examiner that you know the difference and the different recovery technique required!).
Regards
Gerard
[email protected]
Problem is loading them within those limits. In a 140 it is often not possible to get the CofG far enough forward to get within utility limits. A 180 with a bigger lump of metal at the front is better for this.
Having said this, they don't actually spin very well and you normally end up in a spiral dive (gives you the opportunity to show to the examiner that you know the difference and the different recovery technique required!).
Regards
Gerard
[email protected]
. Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
From: Shoreham West Sussex
If weight and balance is a problem for you in spinning why not take a smaller Examiner?? All three available at Redhill/ Shoreham weigh less than 130 lbs and will not compromise your MAUW in C152s unless you are over 210 lbs and if you are, should you really be instructing in them in the first place?
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 4,777
Likes: 9
From: Blighty
IMHO, spinning in any aircraft without a parachute is dodgy. I've had several close calls with spinning during 6 years of professional instruction - all with the Irvin letdown option! Now I do a bit of recreational instruction, the once every three years is frequent enough.
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
From: UK
You had a choice.
Option 1 - Grab examiner's ears, pull down sharply so that his face connects with your up moving knee. Once he is slumped on the ground, remove his license from his pocket, add his CAA refence number to the relevent page of your licence and then take his still quivering hand to offer some kind of signature. Job done, money saved.
Option 2 - Refuse to fly, report him to the CAA and feel the satisfaction of some-how improving the overall standard of flight safety by removing a 'rogue' examiner from the system.
Option 3 - Fly, pray to god the aircraft recovers, hopefully complete the test and at least have the satisfaction that you have something you can bribe him with at a later date.
Have been in a similar situation myself, only with an examiner who wanted to spin above 8/8 cloud.
Decision? I took option 3, only I haven't bribed the examiner. Because, (a) he is a good bloke who was going to pass me (b) I thought the risk was acceptable (good horizon, RIS etc.)
So what did you do, dick-wad?
Option 1 - Grab examiner's ears, pull down sharply so that his face connects with your up moving knee. Once he is slumped on the ground, remove his license from his pocket, add his CAA refence number to the relevent page of your licence and then take his still quivering hand to offer some kind of signature. Job done, money saved.
Option 2 - Refuse to fly, report him to the CAA and feel the satisfaction of some-how improving the overall standard of flight safety by removing a 'rogue' examiner from the system.
Option 3 - Fly, pray to god the aircraft recovers, hopefully complete the test and at least have the satisfaction that you have something you can bribe him with at a later date.
Have been in a similar situation myself, only with an examiner who wanted to spin above 8/8 cloud.
Decision? I took option 3, only I haven't bribed the examiner. Because, (a) he is a good bloke who was going to pass me (b) I thought the risk was acceptable (good horizon, RIS etc.)
So what did you do, dick-wad?
Last edited by Clarance Over; 20th April 2002 at 10:36.
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
From: UK
Or alternatively there is Option 4:-
Engage soft spongy substance between ears and present yourself to an examiner with an aircraft capable of completing all of the known requirements for the renewal.
The problem is your lack of understanding of the renewal requirements - not the examiner's response!
I'm glad you weren't my instructor. The reason the examiner was put in an invidious position was down to you!
Engage soft spongy substance between ears and present yourself to an examiner with an aircraft capable of completing all of the known requirements for the renewal.
The problem is your lack of understanding of the renewal requirements - not the examiner's response!
I'm glad you weren't my instructor. The reason the examiner was put in an invidious position was down to you!
Thread Starter
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
From: POH - Section 2
Flying Fowl...
A reasonable argument, under normal circumstances - although you may have said it rather vociferously.
Actually, I did have access to a C172 that was (indeed, still is) cleared for spinning.
During all my conversations with the flight school (which specialises in JAA FIC instruction) I stated my intention to bring "my own aircraft" (not actually MINE - but a recognised turn of phrase).
The school eventually went to great lengths to point out that the transit times for my journey were not worthwhile and that I should use their own PA28 - which they always used for training and testing. As I'd done spinning before in a PA28 - and this was a recognised school - I didn't think to ask if they actually knew what they were talking about.
A previous attempt to renew the rating - one month earlier, with a different examiner, at a different school, did involve a conversation in which the examiner made it clear that the flight would be in a C172...for both W & B purposes and spinning purposes.
The earlier flight test was eventually cancelled due to both the examiner and I being 4,000 miles apart at the relevant weekend.
I would ask you, FF, to note that my post was not geared to attack the examiner (from whom I learned a great deal, as I always do on these flights), but was meant as a "poll" of which was the more suitable option - the overweight, out of balance aircraft that was cleared for spinning - or the non spin approved aircraft that was within its performance and control envelope.
....and I would still appreciate the book references for further study!!
A reasonable argument, under normal circumstances - although you may have said it rather vociferously.
Actually, I did have access to a C172 that was (indeed, still is) cleared for spinning.
During all my conversations with the flight school (which specialises in JAA FIC instruction) I stated my intention to bring "my own aircraft" (not actually MINE - but a recognised turn of phrase).
The school eventually went to great lengths to point out that the transit times for my journey were not worthwhile and that I should use their own PA28 - which they always used for training and testing. As I'd done spinning before in a PA28 - and this was a recognised school - I didn't think to ask if they actually knew what they were talking about.
A previous attempt to renew the rating - one month earlier, with a different examiner, at a different school, did involve a conversation in which the examiner made it clear that the flight would be in a C172...for both W & B purposes and spinning purposes.
The earlier flight test was eventually cancelled due to both the examiner and I being 4,000 miles apart at the relevant weekend.
I would ask you, FF, to note that my post was not geared to attack the examiner (from whom I learned a great deal, as I always do on these flights), but was meant as a "poll" of which was the more suitable option - the overweight, out of balance aircraft that was cleared for spinning - or the non spin approved aircraft that was within its performance and control envelope.
....and I would still appreciate the book references for further study!!
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
From: out west
Spinning Dilemma
Current policy is that a Fully developed spin and recovery is required for the initial FI(R) test. Incipient spinning is acceptable for the Revalidation. In any event you could opt to do the teaching work in one type and spin in another. Messy but at least you can be 'at home'.
Read the Manual/ POH and then find out how and when and IF you can spin your chosen aeroplane. If in doubt - don't do it until you have found out.
Read the Manual/ POH and then find out how and when and IF you can spin your chosen aeroplane. If in doubt - don't do it until you have found out.
Joined: Oct 1999
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
From: UK
Whilst we're on the subject....
My so called instructor on an FI course asked me to show him a spin in a C152 right off the bat, meaning that neither one of us could be sure of the CG position, or the overall W&B situation. He had no idea of what I weigh (it's far more than I look) and he was not a small chap. In addition, we were to enter the spin from 2800' AGL. Now, is that not cutting our margins a little close?
If we were to fully recover by 2000 above GL, then allowing 800' for entry, spin, and recovery is not very much...is it?
...Fun as it may be, past experience has shown me that spinning is not something to muck about with unless extreme care is taken (obviously).
N
If we were to fully recover by 2000 above GL, then allowing 800' for entry, spin, and recovery is not very much...is it?
...Fun as it may be, past experience has shown me that spinning is not something to muck about with unless extreme care is taken (obviously).
N