How safe is stall practice in a non spin certified aircraft?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Auckland
Age: 43
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How safe is stall practice in a non spin certified aircraft?
Sorry if this has been covered before ..
As you know, we practice a fair amount of stall recovery as part of PPL training.
My question is this:
In a recent flight lesson in a Robin 2120 practising stalls, my instructor made a comment along the lines of: Lets always make sure we recover from a potential stall early so that we don't end up spinning, as we might not get out of it.
Maybe the comment was a bit of tongue and cheek (although I appreciate the seriousness of recognising a potential stall early) - It did make me wonder however, if the aeroplane was really to enter a spin (accidentally) for whatever reason - is it almost a done deal that we would not have gotten out of it as this particular aircraft is not spin certified?
I appreciate that there is a difference between a fully developed spin and an incipient spin - I guess I'm referring to a fully developed spin.
Keen to hear your thought?
Vabsie
As you know, we practice a fair amount of stall recovery as part of PPL training.
My question is this:
In a recent flight lesson in a Robin 2120 practising stalls, my instructor made a comment along the lines of: Lets always make sure we recover from a potential stall early so that we don't end up spinning, as we might not get out of it.
Maybe the comment was a bit of tongue and cheek (although I appreciate the seriousness of recognising a potential stall early) - It did make me wonder however, if the aeroplane was really to enter a spin (accidentally) for whatever reason - is it almost a done deal that we would not have gotten out of it as this particular aircraft is not spin certified?
I appreciate that there is a difference between a fully developed spin and an incipient spin - I guess I'm referring to a fully developed spin.
Keen to hear your thought?
Vabsie
Moderator
In a type certified aircraft, it will be very safe to enter and recover a fully developed stall (with all of the appropriate precautions, of course), without spinning. If a spin were to develope because of your carelessness, or poor technique, the aircraft would be recoverable with proper technique and adequate altitude.
You are flying an aircraft which meets this, or something like it (my bold):
523.201 Wings Level Stall
(a) [ It must be possible to produce and to correct roll by unreversed use of the rolling control and to produce and to correct yaw by unreversed use of the directional control, up to the time the aeroplane stalls.
(b) [ The wings level stall characteristics must be demonstrated in flight as follows. Starting from a speed at least 10 knots above the stall speed, the elevator control must be pulled back so that the rate of speed reduction will not exceed one knot per second until a stall is produced, as shown by either:
[(1) An uncontrollable downward pitching motion of the aeroplane;
[(2) A downward pitching motion of the aeroplane that results from the activation of a stall avoidance device (for example, stick pusher); or
[(3) The control reaching the stop.
(c) [ Normal use of elevator control for recovery is allowed after the downward pitching motion of paragraphs (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this section has unmistakably been produced, or after the control has been held against the stop for not less than the longer of two seconds or the time employed in the minimum steady slight speed determination of 523.49.
(d) [ During the entry into and the recovery from the manoeuvre, it must be possible to prevent more than 15 degrees of roll or yaw by the normal use of controls.
(e) [ Compliance with the requirements of this section must be shown under the following conditions:
[(1) Wing flaps. Retracted, fully extended, and each intermediate normal operating position.
[(2) Landing gear. Retracted and extended.
[(3) Cowl flaps. Appropriate to configuration.
[(4) Power:
[(i) Power off; and
[(ii) 75 percent of maximum continuous power. However, if the power-to-weight ratio at 75 percent of maximum continuous power result in extreme nose-up attitudes, the test may be carried out with the power required for level flight in the landing configuration at maximum landing weight and a speed of 1.4 VSO, except that the power may not be less than 50 percent of maximum continuous power.
[(5) Trim. The aeroplane trimmed at a speed as near 1.5 VS1 as practicable.
[(6) Propeller. Full increase r.p.m.. position for the power off condition.]
(Change 523-4 (96-09-01))
(Change 523-5)
523.203 [Turning Flight and Accelerated Turning Stalls
[Turning flight and accelerated turning stalls must be demonstrated in tests as follows:
(a) [ Establish and maintain a co-ordinated turn in a 30 degree bank. Reduce speed by steadily and progressively tightening the turn with the elevator until the aeroplane is stalled, as defined in 523.201(b). The rate of speed reduction must be constant, and:
(1) [ For a turning flight stall, may not exceed one knot per second; and
(2) [ For an accelerated turning stall, be 3 to 5 knots per second with steadily increasing normal acceleration.
(b) [ After the aeroplane has stalled, as defined in 523.201(b), it must be possible to regain wings level flight by normal use of the flight controls, but without increasing power and without:]
(1) Excessive loss of altitude;
(2) Undue pitch-up;
(3) Uncontrollable tendency to spin;
(4) [ Exceeding a bank angle of 60 degrees in the original direction of the turn or 30 degrees in the opposite direction in the case of turning flight stalls;
(5) [ Exceeding a bank angle of 90 degrees in the original direction of the turn or 60 degrees in the opposite direction in the case of accelerated turning stalls; and
[(6) Exceeding the maximum permissible speed or allowable limit load factor.
(c) [ Compliance with the requirements of this section must be shown under the following conditions:
(1) [ Wing flaps: Retracted, fully extended, and each intermediate normal operating position;]
(2) Landing Gear: Retracted and extended;
(3) Cowl Flaps: Appropriate to configuration;
(4) [ Power:
[(i) Power off; and
[(ii) 75 percent of maximum continuous power. However, if the power-to-weight ratio at 75 percent of maximum continuous power results in extreme nose-up attitudes, the test may be carried out with the power required for level flight in the landing configuration at maximum landing weight and a speed of 1.4 VSO, except that the power may not be less than 50 percent of maximum continuous power.]
(5) Trim: The aeroplane trimmed at a speed as near l.5 VS1 as practicable.
[(6) Propeller. Full increase r.p.m. position for the power off condition.]
(Change 523-4 (96-09-01))
(Change 523-5)
Always ensure you are properly trained and current in stalls, and if possible spins, before you fly these alone, or fly with appropriate supervision.
That said, a lot of flight testing goes into assuring that the certified planes you fly are safe and tolerant.
You are flying an aircraft which meets this, or something like it (my bold):
523.201 Wings Level Stall
(a) [ It must be possible to produce and to correct roll by unreversed use of the rolling control and to produce and to correct yaw by unreversed use of the directional control, up to the time the aeroplane stalls.
(b) [ The wings level stall characteristics must be demonstrated in flight as follows. Starting from a speed at least 10 knots above the stall speed, the elevator control must be pulled back so that the rate of speed reduction will not exceed one knot per second until a stall is produced, as shown by either:
[(1) An uncontrollable downward pitching motion of the aeroplane;
[(2) A downward pitching motion of the aeroplane that results from the activation of a stall avoidance device (for example, stick pusher); or
[(3) The control reaching the stop.
(c) [ Normal use of elevator control for recovery is allowed after the downward pitching motion of paragraphs (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this section has unmistakably been produced, or after the control has been held against the stop for not less than the longer of two seconds or the time employed in the minimum steady slight speed determination of 523.49.
(d) [ During the entry into and the recovery from the manoeuvre, it must be possible to prevent more than 15 degrees of roll or yaw by the normal use of controls.
(e) [ Compliance with the requirements of this section must be shown under the following conditions:
[(1) Wing flaps. Retracted, fully extended, and each intermediate normal operating position.
[(2) Landing gear. Retracted and extended.
[(3) Cowl flaps. Appropriate to configuration.
[(4) Power:
[(i) Power off; and
[(ii) 75 percent of maximum continuous power. However, if the power-to-weight ratio at 75 percent of maximum continuous power result in extreme nose-up attitudes, the test may be carried out with the power required for level flight in the landing configuration at maximum landing weight and a speed of 1.4 VSO, except that the power may not be less than 50 percent of maximum continuous power.
[(5) Trim. The aeroplane trimmed at a speed as near 1.5 VS1 as practicable.
[(6) Propeller. Full increase r.p.m.. position for the power off condition.]
(Change 523-4 (96-09-01))
(Change 523-5)
523.203 [Turning Flight and Accelerated Turning Stalls
[Turning flight and accelerated turning stalls must be demonstrated in tests as follows:
(a) [ Establish and maintain a co-ordinated turn in a 30 degree bank. Reduce speed by steadily and progressively tightening the turn with the elevator until the aeroplane is stalled, as defined in 523.201(b). The rate of speed reduction must be constant, and:
(1) [ For a turning flight stall, may not exceed one knot per second; and
(2) [ For an accelerated turning stall, be 3 to 5 knots per second with steadily increasing normal acceleration.
(b) [ After the aeroplane has stalled, as defined in 523.201(b), it must be possible to regain wings level flight by normal use of the flight controls, but without increasing power and without:]
(1) Excessive loss of altitude;
(2) Undue pitch-up;
(3) Uncontrollable tendency to spin;
(4) [ Exceeding a bank angle of 60 degrees in the original direction of the turn or 30 degrees in the opposite direction in the case of turning flight stalls;
(5) [ Exceeding a bank angle of 90 degrees in the original direction of the turn or 60 degrees in the opposite direction in the case of accelerated turning stalls; and
[(6) Exceeding the maximum permissible speed or allowable limit load factor.
(c) [ Compliance with the requirements of this section must be shown under the following conditions:
(1) [ Wing flaps: Retracted, fully extended, and each intermediate normal operating position;]
(2) Landing Gear: Retracted and extended;
(3) Cowl Flaps: Appropriate to configuration;
(4) [ Power:
[(i) Power off; and
[(ii) 75 percent of maximum continuous power. However, if the power-to-weight ratio at 75 percent of maximum continuous power results in extreme nose-up attitudes, the test may be carried out with the power required for level flight in the landing configuration at maximum landing weight and a speed of 1.4 VSO, except that the power may not be less than 50 percent of maximum continuous power.]
(5) Trim: The aeroplane trimmed at a speed as near l.5 VS1 as practicable.
[(6) Propeller. Full increase r.p.m. position for the power off condition.]
(Change 523-4 (96-09-01))
(Change 523-5)
Always ensure you are properly trained and current in stalls, and if possible spins, before you fly these alone, or fly with appropriate supervision.
That said, a lot of flight testing goes into assuring that the certified planes you fly are safe and tolerant.
In a recent flight lesson in a Robin 2120 practising stalls, my instructor made a comment along the lines of: Lets always make sure we recover from a potential stall early so that we don't end up spinning, as we might not get out of it.
Why didn't you ask your instructor about his comment after the flight?
Moderator
and recover a fully developed stall
I'd add a caveat -
(a) the certification stall technique has varied over the years
(b) it is important to review the certification basis of the particular aircraft to determine just what was what
(c) the typical pilot training stall technique can vary somewhat from what the particular Type/Model may have demonstrated
(d) in particular, for some aircraft, holding the initial stall for an extended period may produce unexpected results. One tale I have heard from a very experienced TP related to a well-known twin which, when held into the developing stall ... promptly flicked into an inverted spin. The student TP who caused the problem no doubt learned a useful lesson regarding cavalier and ad hoc flying techniques ..
(e) it is a good idea to read what the OEM has to say on stall technique and not casually go too far away from that guidance .. unless you really do know what you are doing.
I'd add a caveat -
(a) the certification stall technique has varied over the years
(b) it is important to review the certification basis of the particular aircraft to determine just what was what
(c) the typical pilot training stall technique can vary somewhat from what the particular Type/Model may have demonstrated
(d) in particular, for some aircraft, holding the initial stall for an extended period may produce unexpected results. One tale I have heard from a very experienced TP related to a well-known twin which, when held into the developing stall ... promptly flicked into an inverted spin. The student TP who caused the problem no doubt learned a useful lesson regarding cavalier and ad hoc flying techniques ..
(e) it is a good idea to read what the OEM has to say on stall technique and not casually go too far away from that guidance .. unless you really do know what you are doing.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Auckland
Age: 43
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
N707ZS - When he said it I took it just as that: "That it would be very risky to let the aircraft spin"
I obviously thought enough about it subsequently to want to post a question on pprune.
Thanks
Vabsie
I obviously thought enough about it subsequently to want to post a question on pprune.
Thanks
Vabsie
Guest
Posts: n/a
Vabsie
I think, from your comments, that you may be a student pilot. I have checked your profile, but is does not say. If my assumption is wrong, please accept my apologies.
I'm a PPL with a few hundred hours experience, which is rather less than some posters around here.
But I think it is enough to offer one interpretation of your instructors comments.
For most of us PPLs, the most likely scenario for a stall/spin/die accident is turning final.
If we are alert to the risks and symptoms of a stall and avoid these, then we won't spin.
If we spin at 500 feet, then recovery is very unlikely in most types.
That's my take on the comment, not that spinning is irrecoverable at altitude.
Why don't you ask the instructor? If I'm right, then kudos to him/her for trying to keep you safe with a very practical message, which has got through
I think, from your comments, that you may be a student pilot. I have checked your profile, but is does not say. If my assumption is wrong, please accept my apologies.
I'm a PPL with a few hundred hours experience, which is rather less than some posters around here.
But I think it is enough to offer one interpretation of your instructors comments.
For most of us PPLs, the most likely scenario for a stall/spin/die accident is turning final.
If we are alert to the risks and symptoms of a stall and avoid these, then we won't spin.
If we spin at 500 feet, then recovery is very unlikely in most types.
That's my take on the comment, not that spinning is irrecoverable at altitude.
Why don't you ask the instructor? If I'm right, then kudos to him/her for trying to keep you safe with a very practical message, which has got through
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does your instructor get you to recover from an incipient takeoff too 
Explain to him that you would like to experience fully developed stalls in all configurations including the most likely landing config in a banked turn.
I don't know where you are in your training regime but you need to be fully comfortable with anything the aircraft can throw at you and iIMO that should include spins.
At some point go and get some aerobatic lessons as it will help your confidence no end and that includes experiencing spins
Pace
Explain to him that you would like to experience fully developed stalls in all configurations including the most likely landing config in a banked turn.
I don't know where you are in your training regime but you need to be fully comfortable with anything the aircraft can throw at you and iIMO that should include spins.
At some point go and get some aerobatic lessons as it will help your confidence no end and that includes experiencing spins
Pace
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am guessing that you have yet to experience a spin?
Your first spin hopefully given that it is planned will still come as a big surprise. It is probably like nothing you have experienced before. Personally I think even if you had been taught the theory some pilots encountering an unexpected spin would not recover however much height they had. With some training your chances would improve enormously to the point at which the aircraft would become a greater factor than the pilot. That is because while the earlier post is correct about certification aircraft do vary in their readiness to recover from spin particularly if the spin is fully developed. Moreover aircraft vary greatly as to how they spin and how disorientating the spin is.
Pace is correct, I think everyone is well advised to experience spinning with an instructor if they are serious about their flying even if they never revisit spinning again. Just experiencing a few spins makes it so much less of a shock should it ever happen in anger.
To return to the earlier post and to be slightly pedantic not all seps have achieved the same degree of certification, for example a cirrus may well not recover from a spin; the poh requires the pilot to activate the chute should a spin develop.
Your first spin hopefully given that it is planned will still come as a big surprise. It is probably like nothing you have experienced before. Personally I think even if you had been taught the theory some pilots encountering an unexpected spin would not recover however much height they had. With some training your chances would improve enormously to the point at which the aircraft would become a greater factor than the pilot. That is because while the earlier post is correct about certification aircraft do vary in their readiness to recover from spin particularly if the spin is fully developed. Moreover aircraft vary greatly as to how they spin and how disorientating the spin is.
Pace is correct, I think everyone is well advised to experience spinning with an instructor if they are serious about their flying even if they never revisit spinning again. Just experiencing a few spins makes it so much less of a shock should it ever happen in anger.
To return to the earlier post and to be slightly pedantic not all seps have achieved the same degree of certification, for example a cirrus may well not recover from a spin; the poh requires the pilot to activate the chute should a spin develop.
Last edited by Fuji Abound; 29th Apr 2011 at 07:27.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Pace/Fuji
Without knowing Vabsie's level of experience, I think it is hard to reach a firm judgment. Context is pretty relevant in this case.
It sounds to me like the advice an FI would give to a pre-solo student.
If you bear in mind the solo student accident at Southend a few years ago, this advice makes complete sense to me in the context of early training.
Vabsie, are you prepared to share your level of experience?
Without knowing Vabsie's level of experience, I think it is hard to reach a firm judgment. Context is pretty relevant in this case.
It sounds to me like the advice an FI would give to a pre-solo student.
If you bear in mind the solo student accident at Southend a few years ago, this advice makes complete sense to me in the context of early training.
Vabsie, are you prepared to share your level of experience?
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 4,598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm working on the same assumption. Pre-PPL, possibly pre-solo student.
I agree with what's been said. Get your instructor to demonstrate you a fully developed spin. The Robin 2120 is one of the few training aircraft that's cleared for intentional spins (well, at least the R2160 is, so I would assume the 2120 is too - but check the POH to make sure!). It's a great experience and one that can take the fear out of stalling. Whether that's a good point or not, I don't know though.
But I'd like to add another important point:
At your stage of training you are not practicing stalls. You are practicing incipient stall recognition and recovery. Your instructor demonstrates that, and ingrains that in you by doing full stalls, but being able to do full stalls is NOT the objective here. Being able to recognise the signs of a stall, and to do something about it is.
A full stall is a flight situation that you have to avoid at all costs, and at all altitudes, unless you are a test pilot or an aerobatics pilot (with the appropriate training, and in an appropriate aircraft). Because stalls can be dangerous even if they don't turn into a spin. Yes, your basic single engine straight wing trainer will probably have docile stall characteristics but there's no guarantee that the aircraft you will fly in the future will behave the same. Especially if they have multiple, underslung jet engines, swept wings, T-tails and whatnot. (*)
So what you should focus on is to recognise the signs of an impending stall (sloppy controls, stall warner, buffetting are the usual three, and in a S&L 1G stall you can also add low power and high pitch) and learn the correct recovery technique. Especially once you get to the solo stage. If you keep this in mind, and keep the ball in the middle during any stall recognition practice, you should not need to worry about spinning.
(*) Notice point (b)(2) in Pilot DARs post. Aircraft with a stick pusher don't have to get into a full stall in order to certify. They just have to be recoverable from the point where the stick pusher activates. And that may be several degrees AoA short of the point where the aerodynamic stall happens. Because in those types a stall will, in all likelihood, be unrecoverable within a reasonable height or without overstressing the aircraft.
I agree with what's been said. Get your instructor to demonstrate you a fully developed spin. The Robin 2120 is one of the few training aircraft that's cleared for intentional spins (well, at least the R2160 is, so I would assume the 2120 is too - but check the POH to make sure!). It's a great experience and one that can take the fear out of stalling. Whether that's a good point or not, I don't know though.
But I'd like to add another important point:
As you know, we practice a fair amount of stall recovery
[...]
In a recent flight lesson in a Robin 2120 practising stalls,
[...]
In a recent flight lesson in a Robin 2120 practising stalls,
A full stall is a flight situation that you have to avoid at all costs, and at all altitudes, unless you are a test pilot or an aerobatics pilot (with the appropriate training, and in an appropriate aircraft). Because stalls can be dangerous even if they don't turn into a spin. Yes, your basic single engine straight wing trainer will probably have docile stall characteristics but there's no guarantee that the aircraft you will fly in the future will behave the same. Especially if they have multiple, underslung jet engines, swept wings, T-tails and whatnot. (*)
So what you should focus on is to recognise the signs of an impending stall (sloppy controls, stall warner, buffetting are the usual three, and in a S&L 1G stall you can also add low power and high pitch) and learn the correct recovery technique. Especially once you get to the solo stage. If you keep this in mind, and keep the ball in the middle during any stall recognition practice, you should not need to worry about spinning.
(*) Notice point (b)(2) in Pilot DARs post. Aircraft with a stick pusher don't have to get into a full stall in order to certify. They just have to be recoverable from the point where the stick pusher activates. And that may be several degrees AoA short of the point where the aerodynamic stall happens. Because in those types a stall will, in all likelihood, be unrecoverable within a reasonable height or without overstressing the aircraft.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: New Zealand
Age: 34
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well, at least the R2160 is, so I would assume the 2120 is too - but check the POH to make sure!
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Backpacker
I totally agree that avoiding a stall and knowing the signs is vitally important. That doesnt matter whether the pilot is a student or multi thousand hour.
But sadly there are situations where a full stall will occur maybe because the pilot is distracted or whatever or even a spin.
For me as an ex racing driver its a bit like teaching someone to drive, explaining about understeer or oversteer and teaching drivers to avoid those situations.
One day they wont! The driver who is totally comfortable out of shape and can play the car in understeer or oversteer situations is far more likely to avoid a crash than the avoid trained driver.
While it is vitally important to teach avoidance and recognition for me its also vitally important that our pilots know most things that the aircraft can throw at them and be comfortable with that.
Maybe I am old school and have had examiners who are old school too but we even fully stall twins at 10K in all configs as well as jets.
If it was up to me I would build a couple of hour aerobatic training into the PPL and drop a couple of hours off something less important.
Pace
I totally agree that avoiding a stall and knowing the signs is vitally important. That doesnt matter whether the pilot is a student or multi thousand hour.
But sadly there are situations where a full stall will occur maybe because the pilot is distracted or whatever or even a spin.
For me as an ex racing driver its a bit like teaching someone to drive, explaining about understeer or oversteer and teaching drivers to avoid those situations.
One day they wont! The driver who is totally comfortable out of shape and can play the car in understeer or oversteer situations is far more likely to avoid a crash than the avoid trained driver.
While it is vitally important to teach avoidance and recognition for me its also vitally important that our pilots know most things that the aircraft can throw at them and be comfortable with that.
Maybe I am old school and have had examiners who are old school too but we even fully stall twins at 10K in all configs as well as jets.
If it was up to me I would build a couple of hour aerobatic training into the PPL and drop a couple of hours off something less important.
Pace
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Londonish
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The r2160 has an extra directional stabiliser under the rudder to assist in spin recovery. I cannot remember what its called sorry.
It also gives some clues about the spin characteristics.
For Vabsie, I suggest it's harder to get into a spin than you think, though that's no reason to be complacent, and for most types (there are sure to be exceptions), a swift removal of AOA (remove back stick) will stop any wing drop etc. progressing.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 4,598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and the strake/keel bit makes it the only nosewheel aircraft I've ever 3 pointed
We recently had to replace that tailskid-thingy because it was too worn through to be safe.
I've been Googling and indeed the R2120 doesn't seem to have that keel. So I would assume its spin characteristics to be different indeed, assuming that spinning is allowed in the first place. So, yes, check the POH for your specific aircraft to see what it has to say about it.
If it was up to me I would build a couple of hour aerobatic training into the PPL and drop a couple of hours off something less important.
Anyway, the story I've heard is that more pilots (both students and instructors) were killed during spin training than during actual stall/spin accidents. That's apparently why the authorities took it out of the syllabus. Plus, at the same time, a far better understanding of the aerodynamics of a spin, how to design an airframe to be less spin-prone, and the development of certification standards like the ones Pilot DAR mentioned.
Last edited by BackPacker; 29th Apr 2011 at 09:15.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Auckland
Age: 43
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi All ..
Thanks for all the valuable comments so far.
I have done around 27 hours of flight training and did my solo after 12/13 hours at Stapleford in the UK.
The reason I have revisited stalls, and general handling recently was because I moved from the UK to New Zealand and haven't flown for about a year before my first lesson in New Zealand - And the new club of course wanted to confirm my ability.
My new instructor was pleased with my stall recovery technique. In the UK I have done one incipient spin, which was not a great feeling, but I managed.
The main reason for me asking the question was because I now train in a different aircraft, a Robin R2120 as suppose to a Cessna 152 which was my primary training aeroplane in the UK, and the instructor's comment about having to be very careful about not spinning. I remember in the UK my instructor used to say that it would not be the end of the world should we enter a fully developed spin before practising the incipient spin. I guess he wanted to reassure me.
I therefore assumed that maybe with certain aircraft it is impossible to exit a fully developed spin, even at altitude, and considering my instructor's comment wasn't sure whether the Robin R2120 was perhaps such an aircraft.
I hope this explains my situation a little better - hope it's not a silly question.
Thanks
Vabsie.
Thanks for all the valuable comments so far.
I have done around 27 hours of flight training and did my solo after 12/13 hours at Stapleford in the UK.
The reason I have revisited stalls, and general handling recently was because I moved from the UK to New Zealand and haven't flown for about a year before my first lesson in New Zealand - And the new club of course wanted to confirm my ability.
My new instructor was pleased with my stall recovery technique. In the UK I have done one incipient spin, which was not a great feeling, but I managed.
The main reason for me asking the question was because I now train in a different aircraft, a Robin R2120 as suppose to a Cessna 152 which was my primary training aeroplane in the UK, and the instructor's comment about having to be very careful about not spinning. I remember in the UK my instructor used to say that it would not be the end of the world should we enter a fully developed spin before practising the incipient spin. I guess he wanted to reassure me.
I therefore assumed that maybe with certain aircraft it is impossible to exit a fully developed spin, even at altitude, and considering my instructor's comment wasn't sure whether the Robin R2120 was perhaps such an aircraft.
I hope this explains my situation a little better - hope it's not a silly question.
Thanks
Vabsie.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: IRS NAV ONLY
Posts: 1,230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that every certified single-engine aircraft (at least according to EASA CS-23 and CS-VLA) must be able to recover from one-turn spin or a three-second spin, whichever it takes longer plus there are several requirements that spin characteristics shouldn't require above an average handling abilities, ... Everyone interested in details can read about the requirements in CS-23.221 CS-VLA 221. Provided this isn't satisfied, the aircraft has to be redesigned or fitted with balistic recovery system (Cirrus for example). So basically, every certified aircraft (except few aircraft which have BRS fitted insted) are able to recover from a single-turn spin, which would be result of a poorly executed stall.
As said before by Fuji and others, you should get a proper aircraft and an instructor, who is comfortable doing spins (many aren't) and try a few spins. I'm sure the first spin entry and recovery will probably be demonstrated by an instructor, and you will fell somewhat confused during the entry, since you aren't used to that kind of unusual attitudes and you most likely haven't done much handling at speeds which aircraft achieves during the recovery.
I agree with Pace, spin training should be included in PPL training. But don't get me wrong, I'm not saying one should be proficient in spin in order to show off in front of his buddies, girls, etc, but to be able to recognize and recover from one of the most deadliest types of accidents in GA: stall/spin on takeoff. Since most of the described accidents happen on takeoff/landing and I believe there is no way one could make proper recovery from a spin at 1000ft AGL, if he/she never done it before (reading on the subject helps, but there is no real substitute for actual flight training - otherwise the requirements for obtaining PPL would be: read 10.000 pages about flying and do the skill test), much less at 200-300ft where the stall/spin usually happens.
I see two main problems in spin training. First one is the lack of instructors, being able or comfortable to show proper spin entry and recovery, since most of them did the minimum spin training required for the issue of FI rating and off they went, probably not doing another spin ever again. The second issue is probably more serious: more and more new two-seat primary trainers are certified according to CS-VLA, which doesn't allow intentional spins (regardless of any flight testing that was done on that matter), unless you get an exception from EASA (which I believe takes a long time and a lot of money).
As said before by Fuji and others, you should get a proper aircraft and an instructor, who is comfortable doing spins (many aren't) and try a few spins. I'm sure the first spin entry and recovery will probably be demonstrated by an instructor, and you will fell somewhat confused during the entry, since you aren't used to that kind of unusual attitudes and you most likely haven't done much handling at speeds which aircraft achieves during the recovery.
I agree with Pace, spin training should be included in PPL training. But don't get me wrong, I'm not saying one should be proficient in spin in order to show off in front of his buddies, girls, etc, but to be able to recognize and recover from one of the most deadliest types of accidents in GA: stall/spin on takeoff. Since most of the described accidents happen on takeoff/landing and I believe there is no way one could make proper recovery from a spin at 1000ft AGL, if he/she never done it before (reading on the subject helps, but there is no real substitute for actual flight training - otherwise the requirements for obtaining PPL would be: read 10.000 pages about flying and do the skill test), much less at 200-300ft where the stall/spin usually happens.
I see two main problems in spin training. First one is the lack of instructors, being able or comfortable to show proper spin entry and recovery, since most of them did the minimum spin training required for the issue of FI rating and off they went, probably not doing another spin ever again. The second issue is probably more serious: more and more new two-seat primary trainers are certified according to CS-VLA, which doesn't allow intentional spins (regardless of any flight testing that was done on that matter), unless you get an exception from EASA (which I believe takes a long time and a lot of money).
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Backpacker
A spiral dive is a far more violent maneuver
Than the Spin.
My concern is the amount of students who can confuse the two with disastrous consequences.
You cannot teach that natural identification in the class. Being familiar and confident with both is a far more reliable avoidance.
I take your point that more pilots were killed practicing spins than for real.
The answer to that is to be more selective on aircraft that can be used for spin training or to add the two hours aerobatic training into the PPL syllabus in proper aerobatic machines.
As I have stated before train our pilots to be pilots not aircraft drivers
Pace
A spiral dive is a far more violent maneuver
Than the Spin.
My concern is the amount of students who can confuse the two with disastrous consequences.
You cannot teach that natural identification in the class. Being familiar and confident with both is a far more reliable avoidance.
I take your point that more pilots were killed practicing spins than for real.
The answer to that is to be more selective on aircraft that can be used for spin training or to add the two hours aerobatic training into the PPL syllabus in proper aerobatic machines.
As I have stated before train our pilots to be pilots not aircraft drivers
Pace
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Auckland
Age: 43
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The other thing that crossed my mind was whether I should perhaps switch back to training in a Cessna 152. I have done most training in a 152 and only 3 hours or so in the Robin 2120.
I do enjoy training in the Robin as it's much newer than the club's cessna 152, however, my understanding is that the Robin R2120 is not that common (I don't see many, or any other flying clubs use them), and I can therefore only assume that it would be difficult to compare it's actual safety record with that of a cessna 152 - I guess newer does not always mean better?
It also doesn't help that I just found this when doing a bit more research on the type of aircraft I train in - It is actually one of my club's aircraft - I appreciate you need to understand the circumstances in order make a more informed judgement.
Crash survivor praised - timaru-herald | Stuff.co.nz
Cheers for reading / all the advice and pointers
Vabsie
I do enjoy training in the Robin as it's much newer than the club's cessna 152, however, my understanding is that the Robin R2120 is not that common (I don't see many, or any other flying clubs use them), and I can therefore only assume that it would be difficult to compare it's actual safety record with that of a cessna 152 - I guess newer does not always mean better?
It also doesn't help that I just found this when doing a bit more research on the type of aircraft I train in - It is actually one of my club's aircraft - I appreciate you need to understand the circumstances in order make a more informed judgement.
Crash survivor praised - timaru-herald | Stuff.co.nz
Cheers for reading / all the advice and pointers
Vabsie
Don't know if it is very relevant, but here goes anyway:
In my country, and probably in many, it is forbidden to perform spins in a microlight. Yet stall and stall recovery are among the exam tests so they do get practised by every Belgian microlight pilot. I suppose the same must apply to many other countries.
In my country, and probably in many, it is forbidden to perform spins in a microlight. Yet stall and stall recovery are among the exam tests so they do get practised by every Belgian microlight pilot. I suppose the same must apply to many other countries.