Incipient Spins
Thread Starter
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, 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.
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 16:21.
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.
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.
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.
Thread Starter
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.
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.
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.
de minimus non curat lex
. 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.
Therefore spin recovery training will need to form part of the experience.......?
Thread Starter
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.
Thread Starter
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....?
de minimus non curat lex
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
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.
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
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
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. .....
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. .....
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
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.
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.
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.
de minimus non curat lex
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 14:29.
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.
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 19:20.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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.
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.
Thread Starter
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.
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.
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 09:11.
An aircraft is not required to be approved for aerobatics to enable intentional spins as some have said or inferred.
GM1 FCL.745.A
(d) Aeroplanes used in this course should be:
(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.
(2) provide sufficient safety margins to cater for student and instructor errors.
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.
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 22:19.