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

Crash at SunShine coast.

Old 15th Aug 2022, 11:36
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Aus
Posts: 2,102
Likes: 0
Received 33 Likes on 21 Posts
I think your the special one here leadie. Theres no hard evidence what technique was employed. You are just making yourself look argumentative and trolling with such an attack, I do pity your feeble existance that you try to belittle those you disagree with. Or were you present or have a copy of the CVR fron this incident? Or do you want to continue with the line that its absolutely certain what happened here? Iam truely interested in how you are so certain that the loss of control is difinitively because of the recovery technique, or do you agree that its just a likely scenario?
43Inches is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2022, 11:41
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 4,671
Received 25 Likes on 17 Posts
Originally Posted by 43Inches View Post
I think your the special one here leadie. Theres no hard evidence what technique was employed. You are just making yourself look argumentative and trolling with such an attack, I do pity your feeble existance that you try to belittle those you disagree with. Or were you present or have a copy of the CVR fron this incident? Or do you want to continue with the line that its absolutely certain what happened here? Iam truely interested in how you are so certain that the loss of control is difinitively because of the recovery technique, or do you agree that its just a likely scenario?
Quoted just to make sure there’s evidence of what you originally posted.

QED.
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2022, 11:56
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Aus
Posts: 2,102
Likes: 0
Received 33 Likes on 21 Posts
My original post was stating that we have no firm idea what actually happened here. The statement that they could have even tried the poh technique, that was not my determination of what happened, just a slight possibility. We have no idea what the instructor knew, he may well have read the POH technique, we dont know. It may have been employed too late to effect recovery. There is no hard evidence at all apart from the flight path indicating a descent path consistant with the spin sequence and a failure to recover.
43Inches is offline  
Old 16th Aug 2022, 10:05
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Aus
Posts: 2,102
Likes: 0
Received 33 Likes on 21 Posts
You do realise that this is a statement from the ATSB report;

The ATSB was unable to ascertain which of the recovery technique(s) was being utilised at the various stages of the spin recovery preceding the accident. For this reason, the ATSB was unable conclude if the use of an inappropriate recovery technique contributed to the accident.
and

Although the reason for the accident could not be fully established, the investigation identified that one of the spin recovery methods that was to be practiced on the day of the accident would most likely not recover the Cessna A150M Aerobat from a spin
Which is important to recognise that we have no conclusive evidence of what exactly caused this accident. The ATSB report is written to highlight the issues withe MB techniques when applied to the A150 and that pilots should seek guidance on a particular type prior to conducting spinning exercises.

I'm not sure what tangent you two are going off on but the important issue here is that spinning an A150 is not straight forward, and even with POH recovery technique the recovery can take time and seem futile until it works. So therefore it is plausible that the instructor may have tried the A150 technique too late in the piece to have recovered or possibly something else complicated the recovery, we just don't know. The briefing is just what the instructor expected to happen, as they were exploring the two generalised spin recoveries, that does not mean he was unaware of the A150 recovery technique, however it is also highly possible he was not etc etc....

Now it is most likely that what was briefed was practiced, that is the MB recovery was demonstrated, didn't work, then the extra time taken to recover led to insufficient height to pull out. But it is just the most plausible scenario, not an actual statement of fact.

On the previous event reported in CYO the correct POH recovery was attempted and the sequence almost ended in the same result, so while its easy to say the MB and PARE did not work, it also seems previously the pilots were almost killed when using the POH recovery. Why is that important? so that anyone who intends to spin A150s should be very cautious about it, and not just feel safe that they are not using the MB technique, lest we end up having the same conversation again when another spin exercise goes wrong. It might be found one day that a particular fuel quantity stabilising in the spin at a specific weight and CoG even within limits might have a nasty bite, who knows.

I was never questioning the ATSB report or its findings.
43Inches is offline  
Old 16th Aug 2022, 10:10
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 3,474
Received 16 Likes on 12 Posts
Sounds like a law suit in the making.
Squawk7700 is offline  
Old 17th Aug 2022, 02:07
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 4,671
Received 25 Likes on 17 Posts
We should be thankful to 43” for his masterclass in what constitutes evidence and the different standards of proof that apparently apply here:

There's “no evidence”.

It's “pure speculation” that the accident is “the result” of the MB or PARE technique.

It’s “just a possibility”.

There’s “no hard evidence”.

Do you want to continue with the line that its “absolutely certain”.

How are you “so certain” that the loss of control is “difinitively because of” the recovery technique.

We have “no conclusive evidence” of “what exactly caused” this accident.

It is “plausible” that the instructor “may have” tried the A150 technique too late in the piece to have recovered or “possibly something else” complicated the recovery.

It is also “highly possible”.

It is “most likely” that “what was briefed was practiced”.

It is just “the most plausible scenario”.
Only a formidable mind could reconcile the simultaneous assertions that:

- It is most likely that what was briefed was practised, that being the most plausible scenario, and

- Any suggestion that what was briefed was practised is pure speculation supported by no evidence.

There is actually evidence, admissible in civil proceedings at least, as to what happened. There is a human being who can give first-hand evidence of what was briefed. There are written notes taken by both 'students'. Where do you think the ATSB got this from:
One of the students indicated that, during the pre-flight briefing, they were not instructed on what recovery method was recommended in the Aerobat Pilot’s Operating Handbook (POH), or that it closely aligned with the PARE method. Further, they were instructed on the advantages of the Mueller/Beggs method, but not on its limitations; namely, if the Mueller/Beggs method was utilised on an Aerobat, the aircraft would not recover from a spin to the left (see Aerodynamic spins).

Both students were instructed to write down the 2 spin recovery methods on a piece of paper for reference in flight when the practical component of the spin recovery was to be undertaken. One of the students indicated that they believed they were going to utilise both methods of spin recovery during their flight instruction. The first method written down on both students’ spin recovery notes was the Mueller/Beggs method.
And the applicable standard of proof is not “certainty”. If a civil court finds, as you have found 43", that it is most likely that what was briefed was practised, that’s what the court will find happened in fact. That’s how standards of proof work. Your “most likely” far exceeds the “balance of probabilities” threshold.

The ATSB used the word “ascertain” for a reason. Of course it could not find out what happened “with certainty”. (Then there’s the “fully established” nonsense, which was ATSB’s attempt to say “ascertain” again…) ATSB does not investigate by reference to standards of proof. It leaves that to courts. You should, too, 43".
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 17th Aug 2022, 02:31
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Aus
Posts: 2,102
Likes: 0
Received 33 Likes on 21 Posts
Leadie, thanks on that drivel you have written but it holds zero relevance to this thread and just makes you look like a legalistic pedant when I'm trying to promote a safety message here... If you want to belittle me PM me all you want, but dont waste the readers time with your shite personal attacks.
43Inches is offline  
Old 17th Aug 2022, 03:21
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 4,671
Received 25 Likes on 17 Posts
Your "safety message" seems to me to be that the most likely cause of this accident - supported by the available evidence - is just pure speculation. I disagree. And plenty of us have already written in our Big Book Of Aviation Wisdom that it's very important to understand the specific characteristics, systems, procedures and limitations (and 'odd quirks') of the specific aircraft we're flying from time to time.
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 17th Aug 2022, 03:27
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Aus
Posts: 2,102
Likes: 0
Received 33 Likes on 21 Posts
Originally Posted by Lead Balloon View Post
Your "safety message" seems to me to be that the most likely cause of this accident - supported by the available evidence - is just pure speculation. I disagree. And plenty of us have already written in our Big Book Of Aviation Wisdom that it's very important to understand the specific characteristics, systems, procedures and limitations (and 'odd quirks') of the specific aircraft we're flying from time to time.
Actually its to highlight that in addition to the MB and PARE techniques the A150 is still difficult to recover using POH technique and is unusual in this way. Therefore anyone considering spinning this type should be careful about a number of factors, not the least weight and CG position.

Hence why I harped on the fact that this might not be related to MB technique, although on balance of surrounding circumstance it most likely started with a MB demo. Why they didn't recover is more likely not understanding how long the aircraft takes to recover using any technique.

BTW I've know students who have spun training aircraft on purpose during area solo, one even filming themselves and posting it on youtube. So education on the dangers of spinning is not just for advanced aerobatic pilots reading this.
43Inches is offline  
Old 17th Aug 2022, 03:31
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 4,671
Received 25 Likes on 17 Posts
Those are important and valid points. It would be helpful if you could always express them that succinctly.
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 17th Aug 2022, 08:10
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 1,139
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally Posted by 43Inches View Post
Actually its to highlight that in addition to the MB and PARE techniques the A150 is still difficult to recover using POH technique and is unusual in this way.
In some spin modes it demands the correct application of the POH method. It is not difficult

Cessna especially emphasises even slight aileron deflection, leaving some power on, moving elevator before rudder, slow rather than brisk movement of the elevator.

There are other types which also demand, in some spin modes, correct application of the method in the POH. I had a scare in a Pitts S-2A (in the days before we knew about Beggs-Mueller) when it wouldn't recover from a spin after I'd delayed my normal control actions finishing a lomcevak. The S-2A in a power off spin to the right where outspin aileron is held to flatten the spin will not recover when aileron is neutralised using "normal spin recovery technique" according to the factory. They discovered this in 1980 and added an extra cockpit placard: "For flat spins use aileron with the spin for recovery". That placard hadn't long been in the aeroplane when I needed to know about it. I quickly considered what was going on and then fixed it.

Read Brian Lecomber's magazine article and his delayed spin recovery in an Extra 230. Read Dave Mond's article about his delayed spin recovery in a Pitts S-2B. Read the ATSB's accident report on VH-UPB for the Chipmunk spin saga 60+ years ago. Over the years I've had a number of spin instructors tell me about delayed recoveries in a Decathlon and I ask about their recovery technique - invariably I respond with "you were lucky that you didn't die" and refresh them on the correct recovery method amply described in the manuals.

Originally Posted by 43Inches View Post
... should be careful about a number of factors, not the least weight and CG position ...
Inertia is related to those parameters but is a separate parameter. Cessna has noted "Distribution of the weight of the airplane can have a significant effect on spin behaviour. The addition of weight at any distance from the center of gravity of the airplane will increase its moment of inertia about two axes. This increased inertia independent of the center of gravity location or weight will tend to promote a less steep spin attitude and more sluggish recoveries." e.g. extra fuel will increase both roll and yaw moments of inertia. They are second moments (the moment arm squared) so there is a bigger change to the moments of inertia than CG for changes along the fuselage centre-line, even more so with tanks in the wing.

It is worth recalling this text from the FAA's Flight Instructor Bulletin #18: "The subject of airplane spinning is a complex one, which is often over-simplified during hangar-flying sessions. ….. This has resulted in some confusion and misunderstanding over the behaviour of airplanes in spinning flight, and it appears this lack of understanding may have contributed to some serious accidents. …" from 40+ years ago.

djpil is offline  
Old 17th Aug 2022, 10:54
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 541
Likes: 0
Received 9 Likes on 2 Posts
Shame the post descends into a slanging match as it is not only a interesting subject but one where there is a strong safety message. Lead Balloon and Djpil have hit the nail on the head. ‘Know your aeroplane, the POH and any peculiarities to spin recovery for the type’ one size does not fit all.

I have spun half a dozen different types, the only classic one is the DH82, textbook spin recovery. The Chipmunk, after opposite rudder, requires the stick full forward to the stop and some even speed up one more turn before recovery. They also will go flat with an aft C of G , for example a light weight in the front and a NRL player in the backseat. The Victa Airtourer will stop spinning with central rudder. All are slightly different in some way.

I know of one instructor killed in a Grumman AA1 where the fuel contained in a tubular spar runs to the wingtips and stabilises the spin. Then you have some of these RAA machines with very dubious spin qualities.

I think it was a mistake to remove spinning from the syllabus. I understand the theory was, it is dangerous. This accident I guess proves that point.

What is dangerous is not knowing your aeroplanes capabilities.
By George is offline  
Old 17th Aug 2022, 11:33
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Aus
Posts: 2,102
Likes: 0
Received 33 Likes on 21 Posts
As far as I know these peculiarities were limited to the A150, does it still apply to the C152A? I recall most of the recovery 'horror' stories being in the 150.
43Inches is offline  
Old 18th Aug 2022, 00:40
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 1,139
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally Posted by 43Inches View Post
As far as I know these peculiarities were limited to the A150, does it still apply to the C152A? I recall most of the recovery 'horror' stories being in the 150.
Perhaps because the FAA and Cessna took action with their publications and flight instructor seminar summarized in magazine articles - so a lot of publicity about it in the mid-late '70s. The NTSB commented: “Detailed investigation by the FAA, however, disclosed that problems were related to operational vagaries or anomalies, inadequate knowledge regarding the precise spin recovery procedures for the aeroplane, improper application or misapplication of recovery controls, apprehension, and confusion." The Cessna document is readily available free online. The 152 is very similar but a more forward CG and heavier so higher moments of inertia in pitch - more difficult to positively enter a spin. Kershner confirmed that the 152 Aerobat responds to Beggs-Mueller technique exactly the same as the 150. Kershner has two books which have detailed information about spinning (especially) the Cessna, it should be a reference for all who instruct on the type.


Note that demo of a hands off recovery after 2 turns - Kershner also demonstrates that once it gets to 2 1/4 it will not however when it gets to 4 turns it may do so - just those two points in the spin for that one particular example. People hear that comment about a hands off recovery being demonstrated so the misinformation spreads.
djpil is offline  
Old 18th Aug 2022, 00:45
  #55 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Aus
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
From your username, I'm wondering if you're David Pilkington? Much respect for your contributions in this thread and patient explanations. Might have to come down to MMB and do my endorsement with you!
MagnumPI is offline  
Old 18th Aug 2022, 01:29
  #56 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Aus
Posts: 2,102
Likes: 0
Received 33 Likes on 21 Posts
It does sound like a lot of this well documented knowledge on type has been lost in history with it being past down haphazardly by knowledgeable aerobatic instructors. I never taught aerobatics and spin training was part of my instructor rating and can not remember at any point having these discussions. Which is why I'm trying to prolong this discussion so others can share more information like djpil has provided.

I'm in 100% agreement with the 'know your type' mantra, but this is beyond what I consider normally available knowledge for the type. The POH recovery technique does not go into details such as djpil has provided and it's clear there's a few little tricks that can be employed in addition to the POH list that can be thrown in.

The ATSB statement that pilots should seek additional instruction as per Cessnas' advice is very pertinent in regard to these aircraft, or any aircraft you should intend to spin, even if its a variation of a familiar type.

As an aside, is it required for the spin recovery technique to be placarded in such aircraft?

I think a lot of this is still around today from what I've heard over the years regarding recoveries in 150/152s...

“Detailed investigation by the FAA, however, disclosed that problems were related to operational vagaries or anomalies, inadequate knowledge regarding the precise spin recovery procedures for the aeroplane, improper application or misapplication of recovery controls, apprehension, and confusion."
As far as required spin training during a normal syllabus. I don't see much point unless the student intends to do aerobatics, instruct or possibly some other edge of envelope type flying. A lot of stall accidents occur at a height that spin recovery would be effected too late anyway, and avoidance of the situation is the best cure, rather than recovery. Practice of low speed flight and awareness of the dangers is the key, how to stop a spin from developing in the first place is the most important knowledge.

Last edited by 43Inches; 18th Aug 2022 at 01:43.
43Inches is offline  
Old 18th Aug 2022, 03:05
  #57 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 1,139
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Thanks 43Inches, agreed. Yes, there is a placard in all certified to FAR 23 and CAR 3 for intentional spins. My old Cessna 150 Handling Notes (carved from the POH by the flight school) seems to provide adequate information although the essentials rather than the detail of the Cessna Spin Document. Remember when CASA required their own AFM to their template – I didn’t keep my copy for the Cessna nor Decathlon?

I'll be lobbying CASA to write an AC focussed on spin training, more on that later when I finish my notes.

By George would know about the Chipmunk spin saga of the ‘50s – the article from the Aviation Safety Digest back then is included in the ATSB’s report of VH-UPD’s spin accident. We know the instructor was teaching the incorrect spin recovery method. Incidentally, the ATSB noted that the old CASA AFM didn’t have any instructions for spin recovery of the Chipmunk?

Yes, MagnumPI and thanks. During the lockdowns I was using Facebook to login here and my real name was displayed but it seems that Facebook has been disabled for access here.

My Super Decathlon is currently in maintenance so between that and Melbourne’s weather I have plenty of time to sit in front of my computer and display my dinosaur attributes as explained by CASA https://www.flightsafetyaustralia.com/2017/12/the-unreachables-are-they-unteachable
It will be going again soon. I also have a Cessna 152 Aerobat and a share in a Pitts S-2C.
djpil is offline  
Old 18th Aug 2022, 03:23
  #58 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: SE Qld, Australia
Age: 76
Posts: 1,073
Received 8 Likes on 6 Posts
djpil

By George would know about the Chipmunk spin saga of the ‘50s – the article from the Aviation Safety Digest back then is included in the ATSB’s report of VH-UPD’s spin accident. We know the instructor was teaching the incorrect spin recovery method. Incidentally, the ATSB noted that the old CASA AFM didn’t have any instructions for spin recovery of the Chipmunk?
There were several factors with this one, e.g. a spin entry experienced with full power while inverted is VERY different from the usual "wings level. throttle closed, stick hard back at 50 kts and apply in-spin rudder" entry. Further, I believe this Chipmunk didn't even have an approved AFM (certainly the only source in the UK has no record of supplying one). This AFM not only discusses spin recovery but has a requirement for a cockpit placard stating "SPIN RECOVERY MAY NEED FULL FORWARD STICK..."
Dora-9 is offline  
Old 18th Aug 2022, 13:00
  #59 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Aus
Posts: 2,102
Likes: 0
Received 33 Likes on 21 Posts
Where I worked many years ago we had 5 152s, 3 of them aerobats. One of the Aerobats VH-RYI flew differently to the others, seemed to have slightly different attitudes and a bit more aggressive stall characteristics. We had the rigging checked numerous times, and found nothing different to the other two. Then there was VH-JBV that always felt under-powered, found out it had an alternate carburetor fitted that lost 2 or so HP, but apparently doesn't affect book figures enough for it to be documented. So even within a group of the same type there can be variation to be careful of. We did for a short time have two 150s on line, and whilst looking similar they had traps even for normal operations, like the extra stage of flap that turns it into a Stuka and less power, which doesn't go well with the speed brake hanging out. After a few students reported 'near death' experiences on selecting full flap we advised students not to use flap 40 unless familiar with its effects, especially if there's a chance of going around.

PS we were provided with the 150s in a pinch saying that there was little difference between them and 152s. In the days of CAA flight manuals and such, so pre having the POH on every flight or even available in a current copy, other than purchasing one yourself.

Last edited by 43Inches; 18th Aug 2022 at 13:11.
43Inches is offline  
Old 18th Aug 2022, 23:34
  #60 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Aus
Posts: 2,102
Likes: 0
Received 33 Likes on 21 Posts
This was the only real lead as far as the CFI check goes;

The CFI was not rated in aerobatics, and the check flight was limited to an assessment of the instructor’s general handling and area knowledge.
Really shows as to the limitations of hiring a contractor because you don't have the required approvals. The CFI possibly could have asked about spin recovery techniques, possibly not, its not in the notes. That being said the CFI was not aerobatic endorsed and the instructor showed a high level of general ability, which made them think he was competent across the board (I'm not saying he wasn't or was). I always thought that CFI/CPs had to hold all the endorsements and ratings conducted at the school, however the lack of ATSB mention about that makes me think its not a requirement at least anymore. I think it would have been more appropriate that the CFI possibly get the instructor to conduct one of the sequences for which he was contracted for, in hindsight you would think spinning being the obvious one that will be focused on from now.

As for the instructor, you don't know what you don't know. Read that POH and ask questions from mentors and others with type experience even if the aircraft is very similar to previous ones you have operated. There are no stupid questions in aviation.

Even in the airline business I ask previous crews 'how's this thing going today' which is the casual way of asking what little menaces it threw at them for the morning so I can be prepared for it, and that's flying the same type over and over. Even between airplanes in a single type they all have their quirks and nuances.
43Inches is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information

Copyright © 2023 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.