Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions
Reload this Page >

Spinning practice in a Cessna 172

The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

Spinning practice in a Cessna 172

Old 10th Sep 2014, 00:56
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Hollister, Hilo, Pago Pago, Norfolk Is., Brisbane, depending which day of the week it is...
Age: 51
Posts: 1,348
Received 11 Likes on 7 Posts
Might help if people would refer to their flight manuals to understand the limitations.

(Chapter 2 in most standard manuals)
Cessna 172M-N

This aircraft is not designed for purely aerobatic flight. However, in the aquisition of various certificates such as commercial pilot, instructor pilot and flight instructor, certain maneuvres (sic) are required by the FAA. all of these maneuvres are permitted in this airplane when operated in the utility category.
In the utility category, the baggage compartment and rear seat must not be occupied. No aerobatic are approved except those listed below;

If you want to know what they are, look them up. Max weight while operating in the utility category is 2000lbs (907kg). C172P and R models get 2100lbs (952kg) and S models 2200lbs (998kg).

Aerobatics that may impose high loads should not be attempted. The important thing to bear in mind in flight maneuvres is that the airplane is clean in aerodynamic design and will build up speed quickly with the nose down. Proper speed control is an essential requirement for execution of any maneuver, and care should always be exercised to avoid excessive speed which in turn can impose excessive loads. In the execution of all maneuvres, avoid abrupt use of controls. Intentional spins with flaps extended are prohibited.
R and S models do not have the spinning prohibition with flaps extended.

The CofG envelopes in the utility category are VERY different to the normal category. Spinning outside of the rear limit may send the spin flat, making recovery "difficult".

As always, spinning should not be attempted unless properly qualified or being instructed by a qualified person.

As with stalling, you don't need to be scared of them, but you must respect them.

Last edited by MakeItHappenCaptain; 10th Sep 2014 at 01:43. Reason: Shpellin.
MakeItHappenCaptain is offline  
Old 10th Sep 2014, 05:25
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Enzed
Posts: 2,289
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
buzz.lightyear
and with sids and ageing aircraft in general.... a stupid thing to do... it's all about risk management.
Have you actually done any spinning? If you have you'll know it's a low "G" manoeuvre. The highest "G" is in the recovery from the dive after recovery, and that isn't usually all that high.

Remember the original post was about doing spins in a C172 for instructor training, so spins being done by an experienced instructor with someone with more than just ab initio experience. A fairly controlled environment I would expect.

There's likely to be mores stresses and strains from flying in turbulence. Shall we stop all older Cessna's that need SIDs from flying in turbulence?

In the scenario mentioned in the first post, spinning a C172 could be considered pointless but certainly not stupid.
27/09 is offline  
Old 10th Sep 2014, 09:23
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Infinity and beyond
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Have I done any spinning? Yes I have... As a Grade 1 and former CFI.. 40+ years and 25K+hours
If a lesson is not that positive e.g. spins in a C172 with all the restrictions etc.. then there is no point and it is indeed a stupid thing to do... Can you imagine the patter that goes with a demo for this...
Certainly a 'Low G' thing except for the recovery if heading to be lumpy custard..then the statement for ageing aircraft comes in... I have a number of friends with older aircraft who found a 100 hourly turned out $$$ due to cancer etc requiring new wings... not something you would want when the ASI hits the red zone and you pull up quick in a panic..
buzzz.lightyear is offline  
Old 10th Sep 2014, 13:40
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,186
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 4 Posts
Although the OP is about spinning, I have often wondered why every flying school that I know states in their Ops manual that practice stalling should be conducted so that recovery is by a minimum of 3000 ft agl. Stall practice is not aerobatics and never has been. Normal height loss during stall recovery in a C172 and similar types is around 100 feet. Not only that, but student pilots are not certified as competent to conduct solo practice stalling unless they have demonstrated a safe standard to their instructor. Presumably a "safe standard" entails a minimum height loss during recovery - again around 100-150 feet. I have even seen the Ops Manual of a RAA operator that states practice stalling must be conducted such that recovery is effected by a minimum of 3000 ft.

The LSA I have flown simply do not stall in the classic sense. They just nod and recovery effected with max height loss of 50 feet. Yet this magic figure of 3000 ft which is a just a myth has been around for decades.

It is certainly a good money spinner given the time it takes to claw a 150 or a Warrior to 3500 ft or higher. Same with an LSA although they have a better rate of climb than a 172. One can argue that 3000 ft is rorting of a students money; which is no doubt why almost every flying school operator makes sure it is in the Ops manual (CASA approved, naturally)
Centaurus is offline  
Old 10th Sep 2014, 21:59
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Enzed
Posts: 2,289
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Centaurus

A money spinner it might be but I think the 3000' thing is probably historical, going back to days where training aircraft weren't so docile and the chance of a spin with a poorly executed stall entry or recovery was quite high. No one has bothered to make any changes with the more docile aircraft we now have.
27/09 is offline  
Old 11th Sep 2014, 00:12
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Centaurus, I totally agree with your sentiments.

In my view, the brighter side of the introduction of Parts 61, 141 & 142 is that we now have an excellent opportunity to re-write training syllabi which can reflect the modern age of teaching, learning theory and practice and reflect modern aircraft technology and handling characteristics.

Flying schools should now be taking up the challenge to modernise their syllabi.
LexAir is offline  
Old 11th Sep 2014, 02:37
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Qld troppo
Posts: 3,498
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Stall practice is not aerobatics and never has been.
That maybe true but when a Traumahawk rolls on its back from a stall with power and flap it sure feels like aerobatics!

Dr
ForkTailedDrKiller is offline  
Old 11th Sep 2014, 03:00
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: SEQ
Age: 54
Posts: 512
Received 24 Likes on 9 Posts
Not sure I completely agree with Centaurus this time. Most times a stall should be and is a non-event, agreed, but St Murphy, the patron saint of students will ensure that somewhere, some day, when approaching the edges of the flight envelope, either a student will do something stupid or an aircraft will spring a surprise on you - at which point it is very comforting to have a bit of space beneath.

Full disclosure, I'm not an instructor, but once managed to cause a little damage to our respective underwear by being overenthusiastic in correcting a wing drop with rudder in an unfamiliar aircraft - the resulting roll reversal was pretty impressive and we'd lost the thick end of 1,000' by the time I got it tidied up. Did I mishandle it, yes certainly, but doubt that I'm alone in doing that.

Point being that if we'd started at 1,500' on the basis that we shouldn't lose more than 150' in the recovery, the trees would have been looming during the recovery, the perfect scenario for more hamfisted behaviour like an accelerated stall.
spinex is offline  
Old 11th Sep 2014, 08:06
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,186
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 4 Posts
I'm not an instructor, but once managed to cause a little damage to our respective underwear by being overenthusiastic in correcting a wing drop with rudder in an unfamiliar aircraft - the resulting roll reversal was pretty impressive
Correcting a wing drop with rudder? The instructor who taught you that technique needs re-training. It can be potentially dangerous at low level as it can result in an incipient spin in the other direction. Picking up the wing with rudder is No 10 in hoary old general aviation myths taught by flying schools down throughout the ages. No wonder you had a roll as you described. Suggest you should only apply enough rudder to prevent the wing from going down further. That means usually about one quarter of rudder pedal travel. At the same time use ailerons to level the wings. Include stick forward to unstall the wings and apply full power as necessary. If all done simultaneously it should take less than five seconds if done correctly. Practice until perfect.

Most general aviation trainers today are designed to have a benign stall characteristics including ailerons effective below the stall. On the other hand if flying a war bird type, a wing drop is likely if mishandled at point of stall. But let's face it very few ab-initio or private pilots fly a warbird like a Mustang or Trojan?

Because most light trainers are designed to have benign stalling characteristics and wing drop stall training is mentioned in some CASA syllabus, it is common to see instructors deliberately placing the aircraft into the most frightening attitudes that would never happen in real life and crossing the controls so much that it forces a wing drop and they can proudly announce to the student "see Bloggs, look at the wing drop and the way to stop that is to shove on the rudder and pick up the dropped wing".

What the instructor doesn't say is that you have to boot the poor Cessna in the arse all over the sky to force a wing to go down. Not exactly good instructional technique especially if the student copies his instructor during solo practice and over-stresses the airframe in attempting to force a wing drop.

Airliners like the 737 for example have very tame stall characteristics. They simply squash down at a high rate of descent and don't drop a wing. During stall recovery training in a 737 simulator it would be unheard of to have the instructor deliberately throw the 737 all over the sky booting in rudder to try and induce a wing drop like some instructors do at flying schools. That being so, it makes one wonder why flying school instructors including 250 hour grade 3 types and RAA instructors too, often stick their Cessna or LSA into quite astounding unrealistic attitudes to force a wing drop just to tick the syllabus box?

Last edited by Centaurus; 11th Sep 2014 at 08:27.
Centaurus is offline  
Old 11th Sep 2014, 09:36
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: SEQ
Age: 54
Posts: 512
Received 24 Likes on 9 Posts
it should take less than five seconds if done correctly.
- and therein lies the rub, cock ups happen and some free air beneath can be a real nice to have.

As far as the hoary old myth no.10, you're preaching to the converted, especially after that experience, but as with many other pilots I tend to go along with most of whatever the be-striped one in the RHS insists is gospel at the given time. Indeed I've been roundly castigated on this same forum for daring to suggest that an instructor may have been out of line in the cockpit.
spinex is offline  
Old 11th Sep 2014, 09:47
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Sydney
Age: 62
Posts: 458
Received 21 Likes on 6 Posts
Spinning practice in a Cessna 172

Centaurus: "Suggest you should only apply enough rudder to prevent the wing from going down further. That means usually about one quarter of rudder pedal travel. At the same time use ailerons to level the wings. Include stick forward to unstall the wings and apply full power as necessary. If all done simultaneously it should take less than five seconds if done correctly. Practice until perfect."
I fear this technique could end in tears in some types. The Pitts range of aircraft for example might very well reward you with an outside flick / snap roll following these control inputs.
The purpose of rudder application in response to a wing drop is to prevent further yaw, which should stop the wing dropping further. I totally agree there is no intention to lift a wing with rudder unless you're performing a falling leaf. Aileron input should not be made until the wings are unstalled. Application of power during these control inputs can lead to some undesired results in higher powered types. Think in terms if Boeings FCTM guidance on rudder use during engine inoperative ops- " In flight, correct rudder input approximately centers the control wheel. To center the control wheel, rudder is required in the direction that the control wheel is displaced. This approximates a minimum drag configuration." ie no yaw = no roll.
roundsounds is offline  
Old 11th Sep 2014, 10:29
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 1,164
Received 14 Likes on 11 Posts
roundsounds, I just have to agree yet again (except about the Boeing bit because I know nought about that).
djpil is online now  
Old 11th Sep 2014, 10:40
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: rangaville
Posts: 2,280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Where were all you blokes when I was doing my training?
Jack Ranga is offline  
Old 11th Sep 2014, 18:51
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: In a far better place
Posts: 2,480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Buzz.lightyear asserts
Spinning in a C172?..... absolutely stupid thing to do...
captjns asserts... Possibly the most asinine statement posted. Fine suitable aircraft, along with its little sister, the C-150 for spin training, both power on and power off entries.
captjns is offline  
Old 11th Sep 2014, 20:54
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: nosar
Posts: 1,287
Received 23 Likes on 12 Posts
It is certainly a good money spinner given the time it takes to claw a 150 or a Warrior to 3500 ft or higher
Your dreaming Centaurus. Seriously, you think this time is wasted? The average student has around four hours before the first stalling lesson. On the way up you review the previous lessons. Glad you wern't my instructor, otherwise we would have popped out of the circuit area and straight into a stall.

Where were all you blokes when I was doing my training?
No doubt telling everyone how good they were back when they instructed.
Aussie Bob is offline  
Old 12th Sep 2014, 21:37
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: -28.1494 / 151.943
Age: 68
Posts: 463
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
That maybe true but when a Traumahawk rolls on its back from a stall with power and flap it sure feels like aerobatics!
Been there done that 30 years ago as a 19 hour student, 1500 ft altitude loss.
over ...
Avgas172 is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.