Incipient spin instruction legalities
Thread Starter
Incipient spin instruction legalities
Is incipient spin training permitted in your aircraft?
That seems to put the kibosh on the majority of flying school trainers including the Cessna 172. Under the Normal Category Limitations the C172 POH states that aerobatic maneuvers, including spins are not approved. Incipient spins are still spins; therefore not approved
That seems to put the kibosh on the majority of flying school trainers including the Cessna 172. Under the Normal Category Limitations the C172 POH states that aerobatic maneuvers, including spins are not approved. Incipient spins are still spins; therefore not approved
Note that the RPL, PPL, CPL flight tests now require applicant to demonstrate incipient spins as per the MOS.
There are quite a few aircraft out there typically used a 'commercial' trainers and subsequently in CPL flight tests such as PA28R/PA32/C206's that cannot be used.
There are quite a few aircraft out there typically used a 'commercial' trainers and subsequently in CPL flight tests such as PA28R/PA32/C206's that cannot be used.
Legalese semantics.
Incipient spin is the entry prior to being a fully developed spin.
Fully developed generally meaning stabilized rotation.
”Incipient” spin is not a spin as much as attempted murder does not equal a murder charge.
The “authorities” need to concur on what the incipient stage is and when it’s considered no longer incipient.
Mind you newer models 172SP can only attempt to spin in Utility category which means with two adults size people you can barely carry enough fuel to climb to a safe altitude.
As an afterthought, we couldn’t spin our DA40’s as we didn’t have equipment required by the Type Certificate Data sheet. If memory serves me right spins were approved of equipped with the same make and model propeller as used during certification.
It spins and recovers nicely
Incipient spin is the entry prior to being a fully developed spin.
Fully developed generally meaning stabilized rotation.
”Incipient” spin is not a spin as much as attempted murder does not equal a murder charge.
The “authorities” need to concur on what the incipient stage is and when it’s considered no longer incipient.
Mind you newer models 172SP can only attempt to spin in Utility category which means with two adults size people you can barely carry enough fuel to climb to a safe altitude.
As an afterthought, we couldn’t spin our DA40’s as we didn’t have equipment required by the Type Certificate Data sheet. If memory serves me right spins were approved of equipped with the same make and model propeller as used during certification.
It spins and recovers nicely
Last edited by B2N2; 22nd May 2019 at 16:33.
As B2N2 says, CASA require incipient spin recovery in the MOS.
The MOS however does not define what an incipient spin is (as far as I can find).
It seems to get taught as anything from a stall with minor wing drop/yaw to managing a a falling leafy type manoeuvre to a multiple turn spin entry depending on the aircraft and also instructor/school interpretation of what CASA means when they say incipient spin.
I think this should be better defined in the MOS. What is the actual competency they are wanting a pilot to demonstrate?
Perhaps demonstrating the ability to control/prevent yaw during stall recovery?
Perhaps demonstrating the ability to recover from a spin prior to it becoming stable (if the aircraft they operate allows spins)?
Something else?
The MOS however does not define what an incipient spin is (as far as I can find).
It seems to get taught as anything from a stall with minor wing drop/yaw to managing a a falling leafy type manoeuvre to a multiple turn spin entry depending on the aircraft and also instructor/school interpretation of what CASA means when they say incipient spin.
I think this should be better defined in the MOS. What is the actual competency they are wanting a pilot to demonstrate?
Perhaps demonstrating the ability to control/prevent yaw during stall recovery?
Perhaps demonstrating the ability to recover from a spin prior to it becoming stable (if the aircraft they operate allows spins)?
Something else?
Moderator
Several concerns come to mind.
(a) there has long been a disjoint betwixt certification and operations. After a few serious prangs, this starts to get fixed in this area and that - eg the rudder/manoeuvring nonsense which led to the loss of AA 587 and a subsequent major overhaul in training emphasis
(b) for normal category, certification stall requirements have varied over the years but, in the basics, are done relatively sedately with a reasonably prompt recovery. Generally, power is not restored until after the aircraft is well and truly unstalled and speed is increasing nicely. I recall a flight test tale relating to TP training on a B58. Evidently, the military student thought to hold the aircraft into the stall to see what might transpire .. which was a somewhat surprising and eyebrow raising flick into an inverted spin. The certification looked at a prompt recovery from the initial evidence of the stall.
(c) for normal category, use of rudder in the stall generally emphasises the prevention of further yawing motion. Picking up wings with significant rudder application is operational pipedream nonsense tending to stupidity. How do you spell "spin", again ?
If a Regulator requires exposure to spin training (to whatever extent), then the flying schools really should be using an aerobatic aircraft for those sequences to provide some buffer for manipulative incompetence in the training sequences. This writer cannot understand the rationale behind the present absence of elementary spin training to save a few nickels and dimes in the overall scheme of things.
Sure, we have all been able to get away with this and that ... however, after a lot of such events, fatigue might just have progressed to the stage where the next pilot gets a very unpleasant and fatal surprise ?
Perhaps demonstrating the ability to
Perhaps, first, one should delve into the relevant TCDS, design regs and ACs to get an idea of what the certification might have looked at .. go too far beyond that envelope in ignorance or stupidity and you are signing up to the untrained TP brigade and get what those folk often get ..
(a) there has long been a disjoint betwixt certification and operations. After a few serious prangs, this starts to get fixed in this area and that - eg the rudder/manoeuvring nonsense which led to the loss of AA 587 and a subsequent major overhaul in training emphasis
(b) for normal category, certification stall requirements have varied over the years but, in the basics, are done relatively sedately with a reasonably prompt recovery. Generally, power is not restored until after the aircraft is well and truly unstalled and speed is increasing nicely. I recall a flight test tale relating to TP training on a B58. Evidently, the military student thought to hold the aircraft into the stall to see what might transpire .. which was a somewhat surprising and eyebrow raising flick into an inverted spin. The certification looked at a prompt recovery from the initial evidence of the stall.
(c) for normal category, use of rudder in the stall generally emphasises the prevention of further yawing motion. Picking up wings with significant rudder application is operational pipedream nonsense tending to stupidity. How do you spell "spin", again ?
If a Regulator requires exposure to spin training (to whatever extent), then the flying schools really should be using an aerobatic aircraft for those sequences to provide some buffer for manipulative incompetence in the training sequences. This writer cannot understand the rationale behind the present absence of elementary spin training to save a few nickels and dimes in the overall scheme of things.
Sure, we have all been able to get away with this and that ... however, after a lot of such events, fatigue might just have progressed to the stage where the next pilot gets a very unpleasant and fatal surprise ?
Perhaps demonstrating the ability to
Perhaps, first, one should delve into the relevant TCDS, design regs and ACs to get an idea of what the certification might have looked at .. go too far beyond that envelope in ignorance or stupidity and you are signing up to the untrained TP brigade and get what those folk often get ..
From memory, the good old 172s are approved for spins when operated in utility category - max 2 people and limited fuel - fine for a lesson or flight test. You'd image this was done by Cessna because spins are required in US CPLs and it would be embarrassing to Cessna if you had to use someone's else aircraft for the flight test!
So really no fuss for those schools with Cessnas. For the other schools, logically an incipient would be anything between a wing-drop and fully developed auto-rotation - no reason not to take the stall right up to the wing drop and show sensible recovery using rudder. The important bit is that the student doesn't freak-out at the uncommanded wing drop, and tie the thing in knots using the aileron.
So really no fuss for those schools with Cessnas. For the other schools, logically an incipient would be anything between a wing-drop and fully developed auto-rotation - no reason not to take the stall right up to the wing drop and show sensible recovery using rudder. The important bit is that the student doesn't freak-out at the uncommanded wing drop, and tie the thing in knots using the aileron.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: london
Age: 60
Posts: 439
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No spinning required for FAA CPL. You might be thinking of the spin endorsement for initial CFI. ?
Thread Starter
Sensible Recovery using rudder
Could you be more specific? For example do you mean only sufficient rudder to prevent further yaw towards the dropped wing? Or, do you mean using rudder to deliberately skid the dropped wing around the horizon to the point where the wings are level? (this is a common method taught by some instructors. Known as picking up the wing with rudder. Can lead to a spin in the opposite direction). Finally what is a "sensible" recovery?
Could you be more specific? For example do you mean only sufficient rudder to prevent further yaw towards the dropped wing? Or, do you mean using rudder to deliberately skid the dropped wing around the horizon to the point where the wings are level? (this is a common method taught by some instructors. Known as picking up the wing with rudder. Can lead to a spin in the opposite direction). Finally what is a "sensible" recovery?
Surely you are allowed to use the aircraft to the utility category limits once you've burned off sufficient fuel?
Moderator
no reason not to take the stall right up to the wing drop and show sensible recovery using rudder.
Now, on what engineering or certification basis do you make such a sweeping statement ? If you go beyond what the test program looked at you might just get a surprising ride for your trouble. Rudder is not the stall recovery device ...
For example do you mean only sufficient rudder to prevent further yaw towards the dropped wing?
Which generally reflects the flight test work.
Surely you are allowed to use the aircraft to the utility category limits once you've burned off sufficient fuel?
The utility category certification generally involves restricted weight and very restricted CG. You need to make sure that you meet both.
Now, on what engineering or certification basis do you make such a sweeping statement ? If you go beyond what the test program looked at you might just get a surprising ride for your trouble. Rudder is not the stall recovery device ...
For example do you mean only sufficient rudder to prevent further yaw towards the dropped wing?
Which generally reflects the flight test work.
Surely you are allowed to use the aircraft to the utility category limits once you've burned off sufficient fuel?
The utility category certification generally involves restricted weight and very restricted CG. You need to make sure that you meet both.
no reason not to take the stall right up to the wing drop and show sensible recovery using rudder.
Now, on what engineering or certification basis do you make such a sweeping statement ? If you go beyond what the test program looked at you might just get a surprising ride for your trouble. Rudder is not the stall recovery device ...
Now, on what engineering or certification basis do you make such a sweeping statement ? If you go beyond what the test program looked at you might just get a surprising ride for your trouble. Rudder is not the stall recovery device ...
Is incipient spin training permitted in your aircraft?
That seems to put the kibosh on the majority of flying school trainers including the Cessna 172. Under the Normal Category Limitations the C172 POH states that aerobatic maneuvers, including spins are not approved. Incipient spins are still spins; therefore not approved
That seems to put the kibosh on the majority of flying school trainers including the Cessna 172. Under the Normal Category Limitations the C172 POH states that aerobatic maneuvers, including spins are not approved. Incipient spins are still spins; therefore not approved
The DA40F is certified for intentional spin if OÄM 40-201 is installed.
The following additional Limitations/Conditions apply:
Center of Gravity Range 2,45 – 2,50 m
Maximum fuel loading 2x38 liters (2x10gal)
Canopy Jettison System OÄM 40-203 must be installed
Mt Propeller MT 188R135-4G must be installed
Elevator settings must be according to OÄM 40-201
Long Range Tank must not be installed
Wheel fairings must not be installed
Baggage is not allowed
the aerial photo of the crash site shows a wheel fairing next to the aircraft, so even if that was a DA40F it should not have been spun.
Similar with the C172, they can be spun if certified to do so, the restrictions are listed in the TCDS as to what models are permitted, the limitations such as utility category. Eg the C172 without floats
NO ACROBATIC MANEUVERS EXCEPT THOSE LISTED BELOW: Recommended Recommended Maneuver Entry speed Maneuver Entry Speed
Chandelles Lazy eights Steep turns
105 knots 105 knots 95 knots)
Spins Stalls (except whip stalls)
Slow deceleration Slow deceleration
Altitude loss in stall recovery - 180 feet.
Abrupt use of the controls prohibited above 97 knots
Spin recovery: opposite rudder - forward elevator - neutralize controls. Intentional spins with flaps extended are prohibited. Flight into known icing conditions prohibited. This airplane is certified for the following flight operations as of date of original airworthiness certificate.
Pilots need to refer to the certification basis listed on the certificate of airworthiness, follow that through the Australian type acceptance data sheet, and look to the TCDS that the aircraft is certified to. This process needs to be understood and followed correctly, as the same aircraft model can have more than one Australian type acceptance data sheet, for exam0e,EASA and FAA. The correct data sheet applicable to the aircraft has to be applied.*
Do not assume the flight manual onboard is valid, it would have been valid at the time the aircraft was registered, however often the updates to them are often overlooked as part of the maintenance process.
Some aircraft may have the approved AFM as part of the POH.
Incipient spin from my aerobatic experience many moons ago means an undeveloped spin. There’s rotation, but if you let go it will probably recover. You’re also generally holding control input to encourage it.
A spin/fully developed spin is when you need to hold control input to recover. Full forward stick and opposite rudder. like that time in a light twin....’cold sweats’.
A spin/fully developed spin is when you need to hold control input to recover. Full forward stick and opposite rudder. like that time in a light twin....’cold sweats’.
Is incipient spin training permitted in your aircraft?
That seems to put the kibosh on the majority of flying school trainers including the Cessna 172. Under the Normal Category Limitations the C172 POH states that aerobatic maneuvers, including spins are not approved. Incipient spins are still spins; therefore not approved
That seems to put the kibosh on the majority of flying school trainers including the Cessna 172. Under the Normal Category Limitations the C172 POH states that aerobatic maneuvers, including spins are not approved. Incipient spins are still spins; therefore not approved
C172SP (later “new” model) with two normal size adults can only have 10 gallons of fuel in order to be in Utility category. This means start up with about 14-15 gallons, taxi and climb to 6500’.
Min fuel VFR is 30 min which is 5 gallons in the SP so you have 30 min to practice spins and back to the airport to land with 2-3 gallons in each tank with your LOW FUEL lights on.
Man Bilong Balus long PNG
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Looking forward to returning to Japan soon but in the meantime continuing the never ending search for a bad bottle of Red!
Age: 69
Posts: 2,966
Received 92 Likes
on
53 Posts
Full forward stick and opposite rudder. like that time in a light twin....’cold sweats’.
T'wern't you GG?
My experience of spinning a C 172 in the utility category, flaps up, as specified in the AFM, is they don't spin, at least not without pro spin aileron and being way out of balance. They are, in my opinion, absolutely useless for any worthwhile spin training.
Moderator
and show recovery using rudder to prevent further roll & yaw, instead of aileron which involves risk of exacerbating the situation
Unless the OEM guidance differs, rudder should be used, sparingly and as required, to prevent further yaw. A bit of roll is not a concern and can be fixed up once the aircraft is back in unstalled flight. Suggest those who have a more cavalier attitude should read the relevant version of AC23-8 to get a feel for what might have applied to their aircraft in addition to whatever might be included in the POH/AFM
For any not-ancient certification, aileron should be quite effective right throughout the stall and, unless there be some words in the POH limitations proscribing the use of aileron, there is no reason why you can't do so. I suggest that the OWT about aileron's being a killer in the stall dates back aeons to the rather early rag bag aeroplanes with yaw and local stall problems associated with the use of aileron. The basic story is, read the POH/AFM guidance and limitations and stick with that information.
It's a case of horses for courses and, definitely, not one size fits all.
Unless the OEM guidance differs, rudder should be used, sparingly and as required, to prevent further yaw. A bit of roll is not a concern and can be fixed up once the aircraft is back in unstalled flight. Suggest those who have a more cavalier attitude should read the relevant version of AC23-8 to get a feel for what might have applied to their aircraft in addition to whatever might be included in the POH/AFM
For any not-ancient certification, aileron should be quite effective right throughout the stall and, unless there be some words in the POH limitations proscribing the use of aileron, there is no reason why you can't do so. I suggest that the OWT about aileron's being a killer in the stall dates back aeons to the rather early rag bag aeroplanes with yaw and local stall problems associated with the use of aileron. The basic story is, read the POH/AFM guidance and limitations and stick with that information.
It's a case of horses for courses and, definitely, not one size fits all.