German pilot killed in Polish air show
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UK
Age: 79
Posts: 1,086
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Modern pilots have never experienced a spin because it is no longer taught in basic training.
The powers that be decided that there were more deaths in spin training than from accidental spins.
The powers that be decided that there were more deaths in spin training than from accidental spins.
For reasons that are quite longwinded to explain, the effect of aileron on a spinning aircraft is dependent upon the relationship between the wing inertia and the fuselage inertia of the aircraft at that moment in time (Often referred to as B/A ratio). For some aircraft there is always a benefit in applying a particular aileron (in or out spin). If so it will say so in the pilots handbook.
Many aircraft however operate in a regime where the B/A ratio is close to the point at which the required antispin aileron may be in or out depending upon things like CofG and fuel load. Since its obviously better to apply NO aileron rather than the WRONG aileron the advice is therefore to leave ailerons neutral for those aircraft.
Spins, (incipient and fully developed) - and of course the recovery therefrom - are mandatory parts of the gliding training syllabus in Australia and probably elsewhere, and AFAIK all pilots down here are required to demonstrate effective recovery from spins as a part of their annual checks . Gliders can spend a lot of their flight regime circling in thermals - not all that much above the stall speed, often at high angles of bank and in varying turbulence. Additionally the correct and constant use of the rudder is essential for efficient turning, so it all has to be closely co-ordinated. While pilots are trained to recognise and correct at the incipient stage until this becomes an automatic and instinctive reaction to the telltale symptoms, it's clearly far better to fly with sufficient accuracy and awareness such that the issue never arises. Happily most / all gliders require very similar control inputs for spin recovery. Spins were fun. I used to do one or two occasionally as part of the rare and privileged 'hangar flight' in the early days when I was young and adventurous, and gliders were much less "slippery" than they are today.
Last edited by FullOppositeRudder; 20th Jun 2019 at 12:21.
Condor
It wasnt incorrect spin recovery but an idiot who had adjusted up the brakes and restricted the rudder movement. He had been grounded after running out of fuel taxying in after a cross country and took it on his own initiative to illegaly adjust the brakes and not tell anyone. He later became an airline pilot.
My pupil many years later got into modifying pitts to roll faster, I gave him a grand to travel to portugal to see if we could buy the air force chipmunks. He was a big bloke and had served on avaition fuel convoys in the way. His first crash was air testing an aircraft in shoreham after major restoration where the AoA rear spar clevis pins had been left out.
The Christian Eagle crash was an inadvertent spin although the report stated he was doing low level aeros which I don't believe...but who believes all accident reports in their right mind anyway.
my bit about centralising the controls wasnt about spin recovery.
My pupil many years later got into modifying pitts to roll faster, I gave him a grand to travel to portugal to see if we could buy the air force chipmunks. He was a big bloke and had served on avaition fuel convoys in the way. His first crash was air testing an aircraft in shoreham after major restoration where the AoA rear spar clevis pins had been left out.
The Christian Eagle crash was an inadvertent spin although the report stated he was doing low level aeros which I don't believe...but who believes all accident reports in their right mind anyway.
my bit about centralising the controls wasnt about spin recovery.
Last edited by blind pew; 20th Jun 2019 at 16:14. Reason: Forgot a bit
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Paisley, Florida USA
Posts: 289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Grog
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Looking for the signals square at LHR
Posts: 236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The real problem here in the US anyway is that there is no statutory requirement that a prospective pilot ever experience a spin before becoming licensed. This is one reason (I believe) that stall spin accidents in the pattern and elsewhere are still far too common. For the majority of those accidents the pilot keeps the stick buried to the rear, primarily out of fear and inexperience I'm guessing. If the PIC had simply released the back pressure up to the point of autorotation or even in most cases after it they would not have fatally crashed their perfectly good airplane. Everything I have written here is intended primarily for that audience- the one who doesn't know what adverse yaw even looks like, much less a developing spin. For that audience, and perhaps that audience only, keeping the stick back is simply not the right advice and nearly all GA aircraft will fail to recover or will take unduly long to recover if the back pressure on the stick is not released immediately after applying opposite rudder.
Perhaps I was wrong when I offered that spins are not the great unknown- they aren't, but how your aircraft will react when in one or entering one is highly variable, hence this discussion.
Warm regards-
dce
Perhaps I was wrong when I offered that spins are not the great unknown- they aren't, but how your aircraft will react when in one or entering one is highly variable, hence this discussion.
Warm regards-
dce
Wonkazoo is correct - the absence of spin appreciation from statutory licensing requirements is a serious omission. Frankly, I don't subscribe to the theory that modern light aircraft don't spin and therefore teaching recovery is not necessary. That might have a spurious validity in a straight and level stall (if the a/c can be made to stall) but most incidences seem to occur in the circuit, suggesting a spin initiated by an unintended wing drop or something similar. The rudder has become a secondary level of control and little understood by those brought up on flat-engined, nosewheel aircraft.
In a parallel thread related to IMC ratings, I have suggested that all PPL candidates should receive ca.10 hours basic IMC experience to give them a degree of competence when caught out by weather. Similarly, I think it would improve general safety and prove a useful piloting experience (I'm not advocating an advanced "skill") if spin recovery was reintroduced to the standard examination. Of course, where they find suitable aircraft is different problem . . .
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Near Stuttgart, Germany
Posts: 1,095
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
As this tragic accident shows, even experienced display pilots flying aerobatic aircraft can be caught out by certain types of spin. No matter how much spin training they have received in a Cessna 152 during their initial PPL course. Therefore I personally think that teaching spin avoidance instead of spin recovery is the right thing to do.
Thread Starter
As this tragic accident shows, even experienced display pilots flying aerobatic aircraft can be caught out by certain types of spin. No matter how much spin training they have received in a Cessna 152 during their initial PPL course. Therefore I personally think that teaching spin avoidance instead of spin recovery is the right thing to do.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Looking for the signals square at LHR
Posts: 236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As this tragic accident shows, even experienced display pilots flying aerobatic aircraft can be caught out by certain types of spin. No matter how much spin training they have received in a Cessna 152 during their initial PPL course. Therefore I personally think that teaching spin avoidance instead of spin recovery is the right thing to do.
Drain Bamaged
As this tragic accident shows, even experienced display pilots flying aerobatic aircraft can be caught out by certain types of spin. No matter how much spin training they have received in a Cessna 152 during their initial PPL course. Therefore I personally think that teaching spin avoidance instead of spin recovery is the right thing to do.
As this tragic accident shows, even experienced display pilots flying aerobatic aircraft can be caught out by certain types of controls malfunctions or sudden medical problems.
Too soon for me to simply conclude that he screwed the pooch on a spin via a grainy youtube video.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Nanaimo, B.C.
Age: 66
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Could it be as simple as the pilot applying an incorrect rudder input and holding it thinking that it takes a few turns for the aircraft to recover? Then by the time the mistake was realized it was too late to recover?
Older aircraft don't always react as they should
Had and know of several occurrences especially in turbulence.
Doing a clean stall in a Beech baron had it flick inverted with ailerons and rudder virtually centred. Similarly mountain flying in a grob twin Astir doing figure of eights at 200ft agl. Colleague doing high fly in a trident 1 and when the stick push went off the nose just hovered for several seconds.
Doing a clean stall in a Beech baron had it flick inverted with ailerons and rudder virtually centred. Similarly mountain flying in a grob twin Astir doing figure of eights at 200ft agl. Colleague doing high fly in a trident 1 and when the stick push went off the nose just hovered for several seconds.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Alameda, CA, USA
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to tvn24.pl (https://www.tvn24.pl/plock-pilot-jak...950295,s.html)
The camera that was attached to the outside of the plane and was pointing into the cockpit has been recovered. The face of the pilot although partially obscured is visible. Pilot was conscious until the very end and perished during initial impact. There does not appear to be any urgency in the pilots actions, which leads to speculation that the pilot might have been confused by the the reflections from the water surface and not aware of the low altitude. Preliminary investigation by Panstwowa Komisja Badania Wypadkow Lotniczych (NTSB equivalent) determined that the plane was fully serviceable and did not suffer any in flight malfunction. Although fuel contamination has not been ruled out as tests are still pending. At this point the main cause of the accident appears to be a pilot's error.
Olek
The camera that was attached to the outside of the plane and was pointing into the cockpit has been recovered. The face of the pilot although partially obscured is visible. Pilot was conscious until the very end and perished during initial impact. There does not appear to be any urgency in the pilots actions, which leads to speculation that the pilot might have been confused by the the reflections from the water surface and not aware of the low altitude. Preliminary investigation by Panstwowa Komisja Badania Wypadkow Lotniczych (NTSB equivalent) determined that the plane was fully serviceable and did not suffer any in flight malfunction. Although fuel contamination has not been ruled out as tests are still pending. At this point the main cause of the accident appears to be a pilot's error.
Olek
Last edited by oleczek; 5th Jul 2019 at 20:41. Reason: Missing crucial not
