Flying Instructors & Examiners A place for instructors to communicate with one another because some of them get a bit tired of the attitude that instructing is the lowest form of aviation, as seems to prevail on some of the other forums!

Incipient Spins

Old 24th Nov 2019, 18:20
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: West Coast Canada
Posts: 3,541
Incipient Spins

FYI there is an interesting discussion on the Pacific GA thread on this topic. It is an area that I feel does not get enough respect.
Big Pistons Forever is offline  
Old 26th Nov 2019, 13:11
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Bressuire
Posts: 116
Big Pistons Forever, CASA is clearly addressing this issue and I agree with your summary in the other thread. The incipient spin is not being fully addressed in the UK. An increasing number of UK instructors have minimal spinning experience, don't like it, and appear to believe: an incipient spin is at the wing drop although this is no more than a development of the (advanced) stall. An incipient spin can only be when a rotation has begun. The ICAO type certification requirements: all controls remaining effective throughout the first rotation, mean that the standard stall recovery technique will be effective during the early onset of the incipient stage of the spin. Therefore during the early stages the spin can be broken, as for stall recovery, by pitching with a coordinated use of the rudder and aileron of course.

The majority of training aircraft available nowadays are prohibited from intentional spinning. I have never seen an exemption to allow incipient spins. If the manual states: "No intentional spins" then it must be correct that the instructor draws the line at the wing drop and goes no further but this should not infer that this can be considered an incipient spin.

Last edited by Fl1ingfrog; 26th Nov 2019 at 17:21.
Fl1ingfrog is online now  
Old 26th Nov 2019, 22:44
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 1,041
Originally Posted by Fl1ingfrog View Post
Big Pistons Forever, CASA is clearly addressing this issue ......
I don’t see that CASA is effectively addressing the issue at all. Vague words in their Part 61 so-called Manual of Standards. Nil guidance. Nil oversight. A series of spin accidents with a flight instructor as pilot in command. Too many fatalities.

Originally Posted by Fl1ingfrog View Post
The incipient spin is not being fully addressed in the UK. An increasing number of UK instructors have minimal spinning experience, don't like it, and appear to believe: an incipient spin is at the wing drop although this is no more than a development of the (advanced) stall.
My guess is that CASA will wind back their new rules to the way it was previously. The minimal spin competencies here will then match the training required.
djpil is offline  
Old 27th Nov 2019, 01:53
  #4 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: West Coast Canada
Posts: 3,541
Part of the problem is terminology. What should be specified is spin entry recognition and recovery, not incipient spin training.

The intent should be to recognize that the aircraft is starting to depart from just stalled to stalled and now yawing with the wing dropping which is the entry to the spin.

If immediate positive correct control inputs are applied to reduce AOA and prevent the yaw at the beginning it is impossible for the aircraft to spin. That is the lesson the PPL should be learning and it should be presented as a realistic scenario like a stall in a climbing turn trying to avoid an obstacle on a short field takeoff or as a late base to final turn with the nose ruddered around to try to get the aircraft to point at the runway.

Teaching PPL's how to enter a spin so they can recover from the spin they caused is IMO negative training

"Spin" training IMO has no place in PPL training it should be done as part of an introduction to aerobatics course.
Big Pistons Forever is offline  
Old 27th Nov 2019, 10:48
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 2,421
EASA now requires an 'Advanced UPRT' course to be completed prior to a pilot's first type rating on a single-pilot complex or a multi-pilot aeroplane. The training (5 hours theoretical knowledge and 3 hours flight training) is also now required to be included in the integrated ATPL course. The course includes recoveries from nose high and nose low upsets, spiral dives, stalls and incipient spins at extreme angles of pitch and bank and instructors are required to undergo a specific initial training course before conducting UPRT instruction, as well as recurrent training to maintain the qualification. There is also a strong implication in the Regulation that the training cannot be achieved in a normal category aeroplane.
BillieBob is offline  
Old 27th Nov 2019, 14:58
  #6 (permalink)  

de minimus non curat lex
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: sunny troon
Posts: 923
Originally Posted by BillieBob View Post
. The course includes recoveries from nose high and nose low upsets, spiral dives, stalls and incipient spins at extreme angles of pitch and bank and instructors are required to undergo a specific initial training course before conducting UPRT instruction, as well as recurrent training to maintain the qualification. There is also a strong implication in the Regulation that the training cannot be achieved in a normal category aeroplane.
As Incipient Spins are required to be taught, it follows that unless the student is “an ace of the base”, mishandling the recovery is a distinct possibility by the ordinary joe, resulting in the ‘post incipient stage’. viz. a developing spin prior to a stabilised state.

Therefore spin recovery training will need to form part of the experience.......?
parkfell is offline  
Old 27th Nov 2019, 15:16
  #7 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: West Coast Canada
Posts: 3,541
Originally Posted by BillieBob View Post
EASA now requires an 'Advanced UPRT' course to be completed prior to a pilot's first type rating on a single-pilot complex or a multi-pilot aeroplane. The training (5 hours theoretical knowledge and 3 hours flight training) is also now required to be included in the integrated ATPL course. The course includes recoveries from nose high and nose low upsets, spiral dives, stalls and incipient spins at extreme angles of pitch and bank and instructors are required to undergo a specific initial training course before conducting UPRT instruction, as well as recurrent training to maintain the qualification. There is also a strong implication in the Regulation that the training cannot be achieved in a normal category aeroplane.
As described this training absolutely should only be done in an aircraft certified in the aerobatic category with an instructor holding an aerobatic instructor rating.
Big Pistons Forever is offline  
Old 27th Nov 2019, 15:20
  #8 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: West Coast Canada
Posts: 3,541
Originally Posted by parkfell View Post
As Incipient Spins are required to be taught, it follows that unless the student is “an ace of the base”, mishandling the recovery is a distinct possibility by the ordinary joe, resulting in the ‘post incipient stage’. viz. a developing spin prior to a stabilised state....?
i don’t agree with your conclusion that therefore spin training is necessary, What is necessary is clear direction to flight schools that this training never be allowed to progress beyond the initial post stall wing drop and yaw. If the student doesn’t immediately recover the instructor has to take over to prevent the aircraft exceeding its certification envelope
Big Pistons Forever is offline  
Old 27th Nov 2019, 16:01
  #9 (permalink)  

de minimus non curat lex
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: sunny troon
Posts: 923
Originally Posted by Big Pistons Forever View Post
i don’t agree with your conclusion that therefore spin training is necessary, What is necessary is clear direction to flight schools that this training never be allowed to progress beyond the initial post stall wing drop and yaw. If the student doesn’t immediately recover the instructor has to take over to prevent the aircraft exceeding its certification envelope
Clearly the aircraft will need to be approved for aerobatics for the UPRT course.
Certification limits will therefore not be exceeded when things go wrong which invariably will occur.
Competency at Spinning by the Instructor will be needed?

When the UK CAA approved a “Commerical flying instructor” under CAP509 (pre JAR/EASA) for CPL/IR integrated courses, aerobatics competency was a requirement.

Depending upon the type of aircraft, the first rotation may well be regarded as ‘incipient stage’.

Immediate recovery/taking control would apply to multi engine training when an incorrect input when simulating asymmetric flight such as EFATO.
parkfell is offline  
Old 28th Nov 2019, 00:05
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 13,656
The Late Darrol Stinton, who I knew well and worked with maintained that the incipient stage was the first 5-6 turns, and there are good data to back him up.

Personally I think it's until the direction of the spin is clearly established. We had some good arguments about that.

Either way, we need some clear definitions that I don't think are currently in universal use.

I do not understand the justification for requiring spin or UPRT training in an integrated course, but not any other form of CPL course. It's the same licence and the same need.

G
Genghis the Engineer is offline  
Old 28th Nov 2019, 00:33
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 1,041
Originally Posted by Big Pistons Forever View Post
Part of the problem is terminology. What should be specified is spin entry recognition and recovery, not incipient spin training.

The intent should be to recognize that the aircraft is starting to depart from just stalled to stalled and now yawing with the wing dropping which is the entry to the spin. ......... Teaching PPL's how to enter a spin so they can recover from the spin they caused is IMO negative training. .....
Totally agree. Hopefully CASA's promised guidance will get back to that.

Originally Posted by BillieBob View Post
EASA now requires an 'Advanced UPRT' course to be completed prior to a pilot's first type rating on a single-pilot complex or a multi-pilot aeroplane. ....
I wonder if CASA will introduce that requirement but I've seen no sign of it happening.


Originally Posted by parkfell View Post
As Incipient Spins are required to be taught .... Therefore spin recovery training will need to form part of the experience.......?
EASA is very specific as to what they want for an incipient spin and it will require the spin recovery actions per the AFM. Interesting that EASA requires UPRT instructors to undertake advanced spin training, far beyond what CASA requires of an instructor teaching spin endorsements.

Originally Posted by Big Pistons Forever View Post
i don’t agree with your conclusion that therefore spin training is necessary ..
I'm not sure whether parkfell is referring to EASA UPRT (in which case it would be necessary) or CASA ab initio.

Originally Posted by Big Pistons Forever View Post
What is necessary is clear direction to flight schools that this training never be allowed to progress beyond the initial post stall wing drop and yaw. If the student doesn’t immediately recover the instructor has to take over to prevent the aircraft exceeding its certification envelope
Agreed, but would need a change to Part 61 MOS as it currently mandates incipient spins in a variety of scenarios.
djpil is offline  
Old 28th Nov 2019, 01:23
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 1,041
Originally Posted by Genghis the Engineer View Post
The Late Darrol Stinton, who I knew well and worked with maintained that the incipient stage was the first 5-6 turns, and there are good data to back him up.

Personally I think it's until the direction of the spin is clearly established. We had some good arguments about that.

Either way, we need some clear definitions that I don't think are currently in universal use.
Per my prior post, EASA is quite specific as to what they want for an incipient spin in their advanced UPRT.

CASA has fairly clear explanations of incipient spin exercises in their Flight Instructor Manual chapter on spinning and, as described, require an intentional entry to a spin.

FAA AC 23-8C simply states "A spin is a sustained autorotation at angles-of-attack above stall."
I'm only interested in the notion of what an incipient spin is unless mandated by EASA, CASA etc. (The AC goes on "the fully developed spin is attained when the trajectory has become vertical and the spin characteristics are approximately repeatable from turn to turn. Some airplanes can autorotate for several turns, repeating the body motions at some interval, and never stabilize. Most airplanes will not attain a fully developed spin in one turn.")

Incidentally, I like the paper in the May 2014 Aeronautical Journal "Evaluating a set of stall recovery actions for single engine light aeroplanes" - I pointed CASA to this to consider the "Questions for Regulatory Authorities" - the link I had to this doesn't work.
djpil is offline  
Old 28th Nov 2019, 14:43
  #13 (permalink)  

de minimus non curat lex
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: sunny troon
Posts: 923
Originally Posted by Genghis the Engineer View Post
The Late Darrol Stinton, who I knew well ...........(gap)........I do not understand the justification for requiring spin or UPRT training in an integrated course, but not any other form of CPL course. It's the same licence and the same need.

G
I only met Darryl Stanton once. He came to Carlisle to approve me to conduct icing trials on a TB20 using the TKS system. Charming chap.

If memory serves, when I instructed on the AS202 Bravo at PIK, it took roughly 2 rotations before the nose would drop and enter a ‘stable’ spin state occurred. The great thing about the Bravo was just how predictable it was during the recovery ~ using the prescribed technique ! A fantastic aerobatic trainer, and a shear delight to fly. The handling characteristics were simply wonderful.

I also spun the PA38 at the Carlisle flying club. Again, lived to tell the ‘tail’ !

The UPRT requirements applies to all CPL/IR holders aspiring to their
first multi pilot type training wef 20 December 2019.

Last edited by parkfell; 28th Nov 2019 at 15:29.
parkfell is offline  
Old 28th Nov 2019, 20:03
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Bressuire
Posts: 116
For clarity

An aircraft is not required to be approved for aerobatics to enable intentional spins as some have said or inferred. The aeroplane is, of course, required to be approved for intentional spins.

It is worth saying that we should not only speak of a large wing drop existing before any spin. The spin entry: the aircraft stalled, column fully aft with wings level and followed by rudder to yaw is one important example of this. It is my preferred way to teach unintentional spinning and is more realistic. Scenario teaching such as the climbing turn stall, previously mentioned, using a shallow angle of bank, is also a good example of this, in my opinion.

Last edited by Fl1ingfrog; 28th Nov 2019 at 20:20.
Fl1ingfrog is online now  
Old 28th Nov 2019, 20:55
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 859
So how many aircraft spin from a wing drop. Most situations a wing drops leading to a tight spiral dive, because it's rare for full pro spin control to have been used, rather a sloppy entry. eg relaxed back pressure after stall and opposite aileron to stop wing drop. Often observers of accidents say the aircraft spun when in fact it dropped a wing and went tight spiral descent.
Recently acquired a Tomahawk and re-familiarising myself after 20 years last flying these aircraft.
Interesting to hold in prolonged buffet stall to wing drop, where it goes into a steep spiral descent, losing 700 feet in a few seconds. But in app. config very little buffet before wing drop.
Other accidents are wing drops very close to the ground go-around from say glide app. config, flaps down which i get students to practise at altitude.
And climbing turn stall usually occur because of steep turns at low speed shortly after takeoff.
Well known accident was Prince William of Gloucester crash. Tight left turn after takeoff, possibly to avoid collision with aircraft ahead that turn left across it's path.
Just look up the videos.
Prince William of Gloucester in Plane Crash
BigEndBob is offline  
Old 28th Nov 2019, 21:29
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Bressuire
Posts: 116
I agree with BigEndBob, a steep angle of bank will more likely result in a spiral dive but not a spin. In my example I particularly stipulated a shallow angle of bank during the climbing turn stall because of the sometimes surprising adverse reaction at the stall: a flick in the opposite direction of roll which is very disorientating to to the unaware. The C150 and the PA38 are good aircraft to demonstrate this by the way.
Fl1ingfrog is online now  
Old 29th Nov 2019, 04:51
  #17 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: West Coast Canada
Posts: 3,541
Originally Posted by Fl1ingfrog View Post
For clarity

The spin entry: the aircraft stalled, column fully aft with wings level and followed by rudder to yaw is one important example of this. It is my preferred way to teach unintentional spinning and is more realistic. Scenario teaching such as the climbing turn stall, previously mentioned, using a shallow angle of bank, is also a good example of this, in my opinion.
What real world scenario would result in the inadvertent application of full aft stick followed by the deliberate application of rudder to create yaw ?
Big Pistons Forever is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2019, 05:59
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Sydney
Posts: 293
Originally Posted by Big Pistons Forever View Post
What real world scenario would result in the inadvertent application of full aft stick followed by the deliberate application of rudder to create yaw ?
low to the ground many pilots are wary of banking steeply. I see it on occasions with pilots turning base final if a bit low, they hold off bank and to keep the turn going, they over rudder the turn. They are usually unaware they are doing it until it is pointed out how out of balance they are. Some times they explain they don't bank too steepy close to the ground because of the danger of stalling (yet they still want to turn so they use rudder)

If doing that and if they are low and start pulling back to stretch the glide-path you can end up with spin entry controls set. I think this may explain some accidents where an aircraft spins in turning final while they are experiencing engine problems etc.

My father told me a ditty he learned in his initial training on Tiger Moths in WW2 - "watch him spin watch him burn, held off bank in a gliding turn". I have passed this on to many of my students.

Over ruddering turns also can happen in strong winds low to the ground. The side-slip illusion often makes people add uneccesary rudder. Same deal - if they are using too much back stick at that point they are pushing towards spin territory.

Last edited by jonkster; 29th Nov 2019 at 10:11.
jonkster is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2019, 10:26
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 2,421
An aircraft is not required to be approved for aerobatics to enable intentional spins as some have said or inferred.
I am not aware that anyone has suggested that an aircraft should be 'approved' for aerobatics. However, the manoeuvres involved in the EASA Advanced UPRT course cannot be achieved in an aircraft certified in the Normal category which, for example, limits the aircraft to 60º AOB. An aircraft certified in the Utility category would meet the current requirements.

GM1 FCL.745.A
(d) Aeroplanes used in this course should be:
(1) appropriately certified and operated by the ATO in a manner that takes into account the effects of repeated training manoeuvres on airframe fatigue life; and
(2) provide sufficient safety margins to cater for student and instructor errors.
The EASA Regulation also makes it quite clear that the UPRT course is not aerobatic training although it does recommend that instructors delivering such training hold an aerobatic rating (but not, necessarily, aerobatic instructor privileges).
BillieBob is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2019, 16:02
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Bressuire
Posts: 116
Big Pistons Forever and parkfell have both stated the requirement for the aircraft to be approved for aerobatics within their earlier contributions which they posted on the 27/11/19.

BillieBob, how far do you foresee the requirement for UPRT training should take things in regard to stall/spin? In the selection of aeroplanes GM1 FCL.745.A as guidance is very vague, perhaps deliberately. There will be wide differences of opinion as to whether a "normal" or "utility" aircraft is suitable or indeed a utility aeroplane may not be available. A fact which, there is no doubt in my mind, will perhaps influence the interpretation.

The UK ANO 2016 defines: ‘aerobatic manoeuvres include loops, spins, rolls, bunts, stall turns, inverted flying and any other similar manoeuvre’. The old ANO 2009 is superseded, there is no longer a limitation to pitch or angle of bank. I do not see that an instructor needs to hold an aerobatic rating unless it is intended to include such manoeuvres in the UPRT course. I would expect the instructor to have a high level of spin experience and assessment though.

Last edited by Fl1ingfrog; 29th Nov 2019 at 23:19.
Fl1ingfrog is online now  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.