Mad Jock: Care to tell us how you recovered? I read these stories to learn from people and would love to know, should I inadvertently get into such a situation, what the most effective way out is..... after all, if I'm spinning and opposite rudder isn't helping me, I'd like to think I had some idea of a Plan B rather than "manipulate the controls and hope for the best" and learning from the more experienced is the only way I have of "preparing", if you get my drift.

The other two being? But more importantly, how did you recover? Think it would be interesting to hear from the more experienced pilots telling us about their "This is it" moments and how they managed to survive and tell the tale - unless the reason for this was pure luck.......

After all, if it happened to you, it could happen to any of us......

Nice old training film from 1943.

Nice find, Flyingmac. Any more where that came from?

Steve6443:

My similar situation in a C152 Aerobat required power to recover after five turns in a spin. 150/152's don't normally need power for flow over the rudder/elev to recover from a spin. It seemed like a good idea at the time, and I'm here to report that it was.

Here's an interesting vid on the subject

The fii was was doing a demo at the time so he recovered it by applying power in fact red line power until it started recovering. I still to this day don`t know if I was meant to take control off him before he did it or what. We knocked it on the head that day after that and got the engineers to check the plane out when we got back. They checked the rigging and found nothing wrong. Ever since then I have stayed well away from stalling in a steep turn. I presume they test the stalling up to 30deg bank. Anything more than that and your on your tod. In C of A test flights we only have to do up to 30 degs for the stick push function test.

The othere one was getting caught in mountain wave to the north of the cairgorm did a 160 back towards the spey and got out of it.

The third was in the works machine with wind shear on approach in imc and just did the training for that event. Including turning off the engine protection systems and getting 105% out of them both. Thought i had just burned half a million worth of engines but it turned out because we hadn`t exceeded the exhaust gas temp limits all that was required was a program of SOAP sampling, both engines were fine.

Piperboy:

Science and government can create whatever to protect you against yourself, but there will always be someone who will explore and override the design safety mechanism(s). It's an unchangeable human trait. :rolleyes:

The Cirrus' leading edge difference (washout) to reduce incidence at the outboard end of the wing has been in existence for sometime in many airplanes (as I'm sure you know). Bertorelli explains the Cirrus leading edge like it was a safety feature Cirrus created, which I'm sure was not his intention. My particular old-school, 1971 Cessna 185 has washout...and no airframe parachute. The biggest safety enhancement any aircraft can have is the judgment and ability of the guy/gal in the left seat, IMO.

Want to eliminate stall/spin? Drive a car and don't get in the vast majority of airplanes.

I'm wondering about this spin I think mad jock is writing about.

By any chance was your weight and balance slightly aft c of g?

desert I found it interesting you have been in a similar mode of spin in that type.

I have spoken to a few other pilots that have also been in that mode and required power to get it out. I have never found anything documented on this alternative mode or for that matter a published recovery procedure.

Its is definitely not the usual Cessna spin which almost recovers itself if you let go of everything.

From 5000ft we recovered at 500ft agl to S&L coming out of rotation at 1000ft agl

Genghis with your boffin hat on have you got any ideas what was going on?

BTW if there are any budding test pilots out there wanting to prove MJ is talking nonsense I would strongly advise you are up at 8k-10k ft just in case you do get it to happen. It could be we had a bent wing or a unlucky gust at just the wrong time but if she does go it makes a tommy spin look tame.

Hmmm, unsure from the amount of information to go on. I'll give it a stab, but may wel be completely wrong.

I'm guessing you had reasonable power on when you entered the spin, which probably meant you saw a higher AoA than would be normal, it *may* have locked you into a different to normal spin mode. Possibly one with the wings locked stably into a higher AoA condition that would be normal. I'm assuming it was an erect spin (yaw and roll in the same direction) as opposed to an inverted spin (way and roll in opposite directions)?

Sounds to me not dissimilar to two spin modes that I have seen - one is the high rotational flattish spin mode achievable in the Bulldog through introduction of some in-spin aileron during an erect spin, the other is the power-on erect spin to the left in the Tucano, which is not particularly fast, but extremely stable.

So, you were in a fast and very stable spin, too stable for primary controls to get you out of and the only control available was apparently the throttle, so you gave it a go. Clearly a good guess as you survived the experience.

Introducing power, added torque at the propeller, this should have created oscillatory pitching and yawing moments, and my guess is that in addition to the effect you were getting inputs from the controls, this got you out of the spin. In the Tucano it would do that in one direction, although in the other would just stabilise the spin even more.

The Bulldog of course has suffered a number of "inexplicable" spinning losses over the years, generally when captained by very experienced service QFIs who can reasonably be assumed to have known what they were doing.

Somewhat disconcerting for you I'm sure, but re-inforces a couple of my prejudices:-

- Most aeroplanes have potential for an undiscovered spin mode somewhere that can bite, and was not found in the original flight test programme.

- Spinning and/or aerobatics without a personal parachute and route out of the aeroplane is silly, however well understood we *think* that the type is.

G

C of G was within limits more forward with two blokes in the front just a fire extinguisher and first aid box strapped in the back. Two hours of fuel.

Yes there was a fair bit of power on and also I presume a bit of the wrong way rudder as well.

And it was and erect spin.

Whats the certification testing? do they test up to 60degs or only up to 30degs?

And we hadn't planned on doing any spinning its was a patter a steep turn practical and he was showing me the common student screw ups after I had done my bit. It was more by luck than judgement we were at 5k.

Article in Flight Magazine of 24 October 1978 about spins in Cessnas with info from a Cessna test pilot - you should be able to find it online. FAA issued a safety bulletin for instructors on the subject at about the same time based on the same material but more comprehensive.
"Even small amounts of aileron deflection into the spin may increase the rotation rate and prolong recovery."
Info in Rich Stowell's excellent book too.

there was no aileron input into this spin after we flick inverted over the top.

Full rudder and full forward on the stick resulted in cock all happening.

Ah yes, well.

The reality is that the wording in the certification standards over spinning is so vague and minimal that it really comes down to the professionalism of the flight test team, and what they consider an appropriate level of testing.

I would always ensure a significant amount of mishandling, and a variety of spin entries - but some manufacturers do the absolute minimum, and the authorities sometimes let them get away with it. What was going on between FAA and Cessna in the 60s of course, is anybody's guess - Cessna wouldn't tell, and anybody who worked on it will have retired long ago, and in all likelihood are using another form of aerial conveyance by now.

Which basically means, nobody has a clue.

G

I think I am just going to continue my policy of not getting near a stall in a steep turn. Once was enough for me.

Back in 19** on my PPL course at Cranfield, we were taught dynamic stalling in steep turns. I well recall the buffeting and the stall warner screeching its head off as the aircraft stalled.

Some would roll further into the turn, others would depart in the opposite direction in an incipient spin. But they always recovered as soon as back pressure was released.

These were Reims-built Cessna 150s, but the big difference was that they were brand spanking new. We also used to spin them.

However, it wouldn't surprise me to learn that elderly C150 / C152, if deliberately mishandled, will bite the unwary. Rigging tolerances, mass distribution and other factors could be issues....

But closing the throttle and immediately centralising the controls should recover any incipient spin.....nevertheless, discovering that you have a rogue aircraft which won't recover quite so readily wouldn't be much fun....:uhoh:

In the Bulldog and Chipmunk, max rate turns on the 'buffet nibble' were an essential part of military flying training. As was recognition and recovery from any 'undemanded roll rate'.

Going back to earlier in the thread, way back when I was a boy we were taught (gliding) MINIMUM 30 degrees of bank for final turn.

Even through commercial training they wanted exactly 30 degrees of bank, not 20, not 31. 30!

PS. Despite much deliberate 'abuse' resulting in plenty of departures and spins, I never managed to provoke the 'difficult' spin which the Firefly is known tp possess.

Miserlou,

It also depends how much you pull on the yoke ( = AoA) during your turn. You could make a 30° final turn where you let the aircraft finds it's own balance or you could pull hard to intercept the centerline. Hard to describe but you will understand.

When I did my PPL decades ago, spins were mandatory. We used C150s back then, and it was very difficult to get them to spin properly. I suspect that most C150 / 152 'spins' entered from the classic 'one knot per second' deceleration method are really semi-stalled spiral dives, hence the ease of recovery.

One very experienced instructor (ex-WW2 ex-Spitfire and ex-V bomber pilot) I flew with would use a deliberate flick entry into the spin, with the aeroplane rolling 'over the top' inverted and dropping into a spin as pro-spin controls were held. I recall these entries led to 'proper' spins in that they required the 'full opposite rudder, stick forward' spin recovery. But they did recover OK, not at all as MJ experienced.

Several decades of Chippying never led to any nasty spin experiences despite that aeroplane, at least in the early days, having a bit of a reputation in that department.

The Yak52 loved to spin and would do so at any opportunity. Flat spins off a botched stall turn being one of its party pieces. Recovery from flat spins (which I practiced with none other that Genna) required instant opposite rudder, full forward stick, and in-spin aileron. But recovery was fairly quick and reliable if you did it correctly (rotation in the spin was nose-high and fast).

I agree with Ghengis, however. Having done very many spins over the decades in many aeroplanes, only sometimes with a parachute, I was always aware that each was 'a bit different', and a nasty surprise might be around the corner. I also suspect that normally benign aircraft such as the C152 which are normally difficult to spin might be the very worst types to recover in very rare spin modes. I have no personal experience of that as MJ has..... It's just a feeling born of general spinning experience.

I think Ghengis is right about wearing a parachute for deliberate spinning (and of course ensuring there is the height to use it if recovery goes pear-shaped). We often didn't in the slightly more cavalier days of the 70s, 80s, and 90s (and in a biennial a few years ago we did a 5-turn Chipmunk spin without chutes) but nearly all of us got away with it. Some didn't.

Personally I think its better to teach them attitude flying properly then the buggers don't get near a stall in a steep turn.

Its worked for me for the last 10 years.

But what about aeros? If an aeros manouvre goes wrong it can often result in a spin. Furthermore, since the spin wasn't entered deliberately and wasn't expected, it might not at first be obvious which way you're spinning.

Aeros are for aeros type people in machines designed and tested for it being taught by pilots that know what they are doing.

Same with the mill boys and girls.

Not for PPL's and CPL's fannying around in clapped out heaps with the blind leading the blind in the RHS.

Well said Jock.

G

Dirk,
I do understand. The thinking behind the 'minimum 30 degree bank' is that if you are too slow the first sign is a higher rate of descent which is easily recovered from by levelling the wings.
It also ensures that both wings are at almost the same speed so that one wing doesn't stall before the other.
Furthermore, there is less urge to 'rudder' the turn more to tighten it.

There is little tendency to pull harder as the turn onto final is usually 'high' as the final approach will usually be the time where final flap settings will be made or the airbrakes increased accordingly.

Most satisfying is the final turn flowing into a nice side-slip flowing into the flare and three point touch down.

I thought glider base are at 45 degrees to final anyway.

Anyway the best way to do it is by not having a base at all and just keeping a constant aspect all the way round from down wind.

The base would be at 45 degrees from the downwind leaving a 135 degree turn to final.
The 45/135 degree base/final turn is just a formalization of the old RAF constant aspect approach effectively allowing one to turn in early at any point along the way.
The problem with it being is fitting more aircraft into the circuit and different types' gliding/speed characteristics.

Strange that the safest, most environmetally friendly and reliable way to get down morphed into cross country circuits.

Hmmm. Back in the '70s at least at Barton, I don't remember there being such a 'brick wall' between 'aeros type' people and anyone doing a PPL. Often, on completing the PPL, aeros was the next logical step for some (indeed with some instructors and with interested students, you'd no doubt have done a bit of extra-curricular aeros during the basic training phase!). But it was a long time ago, and maybe I've forgotten exactly how it was.

mad_jock in post #13:
My father instructed in AT-6s during the big one (Harvard to my UK friends).

Part of the syllabus included IAS covered below 90 kt., so the student (WASPs in this case) learned to fly by feel, sound and attitude. Of course the instructor's pit still had a "live" IAS, but seldom was intervention called for.

And no, for the unwashed, this 600 hp taildragger had no stall warning!

I once got a flight in the front seat of a Stampe. It had stick, rudder, throttle, mixture, carb heat.... and a lot of instruments in that front cockpit. But all of instruments, every one, were paper cut-out ones glued onto the dash!

"That's all you need" said the guy in the back. He was right!

I suspect in the 70's at Barton the ratio of hairy arsed knows what they are doing occupants of the RHS to clueless idiots that couldn't find there backside without a mirror and a FMS was significantly different to today where the RHS may have only done 3-5 spins as part of their FIC.

Rofl!

Am I missing something here? You do your base leg getting further away from the airfield all the time?

Was I Lucky?...
 

Whilst doing some practice Power On 60deg Banked Turns in a C152, I caught up my own wake turbulence, and was spat out of the turn slightly over wings level and on a downward path.. Which was easily corrected.

I can only assume my upper wing encountered the turbulence and stalled, had the other wing stalled we would have been upside down in next to no time... Was I just lucky?

I don't think it would have stalled in a normal speed steep turn with a bit of turbulence off yourself.

What we are talking about to most PPL's and instructors is a rather extreme attitude. You really have to be trying to get anywhere near what we are talking about.

Which is another reason why I see it as a bit of a pointless exercise for the majority of pilots. I can see certain groups getting near it such as photo pilots and aero's but the majority of us won't get anywhere near it unless somebody makes us do it as part of an exercise.

No, you were unprecise and loosing altitude in your turn, otherwise the turbulence would have been below you. And wingrock is not stalled.

I disagree - it's quite common if flying at a steep bank angle in a slow aeroplane to hit your own wake vortex. The vortex does not descend very fast.

G

moose stall - some types in specific configurations and power setting will get the tailplane stalled if they fly through their own wake - sudden and violent nose down pitch. Numerous fatal accidents (can't shoot a coyote at high altitude).

I know that it is not uncommon, due to the reason, that it is not uncommon to descent unintentionaly in steep turns. What time do you need for a 360 in a C152? What is the span of a C152? Something like 33 feet? Most people will accept such a deviation in a steep turn as negligable. But loosing that altitude will bring you closer to your own wake, maintaining level keeps you out of it.

I know it is nitpicking, excuse my interruption.

Piper Classique,

The base would be a tangent to a circle with centre at threshold, the turn to base being started abeam the threshold.
So the base is actually a much more constant distance to the runway than your normal circuit.

If you think about aiming points and such, this is much easier to judge and adjust. Just a slight modification of a spiral where your aiming point would be completely constant, hence, constant aspect approach.

A 360 in a C152 at 60 aob could be done in around 15 seconds.

What is much harder to estimate of course is the behaviour of the wake vortex.

G

Another vote for being able to feel wake turbulence when doing 60 degree turns without losing height.

I have looked but not managed to find figures for how fast light aircraft wake vortices descend. I did find a suggestion that it was slower than a vortex from transport-sized aircraft. Or perhaps it's related to wing loading... same result. I'm afraid I've lost the link.

Do vortices initially descend? For example, if you were at the top of a loop, wouldn't your vortices actually go up? If so, then when doing a 60 degree turn your wing vortices will initially be cast off more laterally than downwards, and perhaps your outboard vortice will actually rise or stay level (in the pictures they always seem to diverge laterally outwards).