To Spin…or Not to Spin

Originally posted by mixtec
The difference is not about the structural strength of the aircraft but about aerodynamics. So your asking all the aircraft manufactures to redesign all their aircraft, taking performance penaltys to make a safe spinning aircraft?? Dont think it will happen. Its possible to make an aircraft almost spin proof, such as the Schwiezer 2-33 sailplane, but then what would be the value of spin training with a plane that wont spin?

You are right of course, it won’t happen but basically what I am saying is that any new designs for basic training aircraft should be cleared for deliberate spinning as part of the certification process. It is certainly unreasonable to expect the manufacturers to redesign types thatare already in production due to the expense involved. The reason I say this is that people do not always stay with the same type of aircraft all through their flying life and if they learn on an unspinable machine they should undergo spin training before being let loose solo in a machine that is spinable

This Labour government employs lots of spin doctors..Would thay help??:D

Originally posted by mike currill
What difference does it make to the aitframe whether a spin is deliberate or accidental? as far as I can see, none at all hence the reason I think all trainers should be cleared for deliberate spinning.

The difference is not about the structural strength of the aircraft but about aerodynamics. So your asking all the aircraft manufactures to redesign all their aircraft, taking performance penaltys to make a safe spinning aircraft?? Dont think it will happen. Its possible to make an aircraft almost spin proof, such as the Schwiezer 2-33 sailplane, but then what would be the value of spin training with a plane that wont spin?

What difference does it make to the aitframe whether a spin is deliberate or accidental? as far as I can see, none at all hence the reason I think all trainers should be cleared for deliberate spinning.

A good idea but where would you draw the line? Are you talking about trainers that can be spun just for a PPL or for new ratings, licences etc?
What about the people (me not included!) that cant stomach spins etc whilst they are trying to complete there training they are being sick everywhere!
Dont get me wrong spin training is important, but more so is everything else that comes before it.
It is, however, handy to see what a spin looks like so you know and should you get into one you will understand whats happening.

Originally posted by mike currill
Which brings me back to one of my previous posts which didn’t trigger a response from anyone much to my surprise.

As I firmly believe that sin recovery should still be part of tthe PPL sylabus I feel that any aircraft certified as a trainer should be cleared for deliberate spinning. This would save the expense of doing the spin recovery exercise on an aerobatic aircraft, which all the local FTOs charge more per hour for

I totally agree with you here, there should be a light aircraft designed specifically to be a trainer. Not neccesarily have aerobatic ability, buy simply have safe flying characteristics in all flight regimes be it in normal flying speed, slow flight, in stalls, spins, etc. (I even started a thread on the topic of what is the “perfect trainer” here a while back which was not responded too and eventually deleted)

Originally posted by mixtec
I think jgs43 made a good comment about that earlier in this thread. Ill copy and paste it so you dont have to look for it:

“The fact that an aircraft is placarded as not to be spun, is not necessarily because it is dangerous to spin it or it has not been designed for spinning. In many cases it is because it does not meet the requisite requirements within the JAR or FAA design requirements to permit it to be used for intentional spin training. With gliders this may be because the air brakes are not speed limiting under the JAR requirements in Europe.”

Which brings me back to one of my previous posts which didn’t trigger a response from anyone much to my surprise.

As I firmly believe that sin recovery should still be part of tthe PPL sylabus I feel that any aircraft certified as a trainer should be cleared for deliberate spinning. This would save the expense of doing the spin recovery exercise on an aerobatic aircraft, which all the local FTOs charge more per hour for

Originally posted by mike currill

Therein lies the basic problem , a lot of training aircraft are not cleared for intentional spinning which poses another question. If an aircraft is cleared for unintentional spinning why not intentional spinning?

I think jgs43 made a good comment about that earlier in this thread. Ill copy and paste it so you dont have to look for it:

“The fact that an aircraft is placarded as not to be spun, is not necessarily because it is dangerous to spin it or it has not been designed for spinning. In many cases it is because it does not meet the requisite requirements within the JAR or FAA design requirements to permit it to be used for intentional spin training. With gliders this may be because the air brakes are not speed limiting under the JAR requirements in Europe.”

If they still teach unusual attitude recovery as part of the PPL sylabus they should teach spin recovery then as spinning has to be just about the ultimate in unusual attitude. I can’t think of any other manouvre that can make you think you’re going the opposite way to the actual event even in VFR conditions

Did my PPL and Instructor ratings on the good old tomahawk and a very good training machine it is too. Not particularly docile in the stall, ie it will drop a wing, but not vicious at the same time. Classic bahaviour in the spin and during recovery and requires classic recovery technique. Enjoyable to fly too – but then again there aren’t many planes that aren’t 😀

That’s what I had heard too. 🙂 A lot of people swear by the plane even with the stall/spin issue.

Originally posted by Whiskey Delta
Speaking of the PA-38 does anyone have any significant experience stalling this model of airplane? I’ve heard horror stories regarding the Tomahawk and it’s stall/spin characteristics and am curious if anyone here has had first hand experience. It’s been more often referred to as the Trauma-hawk due to its reputation.

Yes and all i was told was – Keep good control, recover quickly and DONT LET IT EVEN THINK OF ENTERING A SPIN!
nice little plane though

[QUOTE]Originally posted by yak139
To spin or not to spin?

I wonder how many of you have been on a skid control course with your car since you passed your test. This improvement in car control could save your life.

I never spun an aircraft during my PPL, but since then I have had spin training on a Pitts and a Yak 52, and hopefully a better pilot for it!

There is no doubt the more flying in different types and IMC, taildragger, aerobatics flight the better pilot you will be. Do I think it should be compulsory, no. Do I think you should do it, when you are ready, yes.

However remember spin recovery does vary between aircraft, so if you can train in your particular regular mount then use it. [/QUOTE

Therein lies the basic problem , a lot of training aircraft are not cleared for intentional spinning which poses another question. If an aircraft is cleared for unintentional spinning why not intentional spinning?

To spin or not to spin?

I wonder how many of you have been on a skid control course with your car since you passed your test. This improvement in car control could save your life.

I never spun an aircraft during my PPL, but since then I have had spin training on a Pitts and a Yak 52, and hopefully a better pilot for it!

There is no doubt the more flying in different types and IMC, taildragger, aerobatics flight the better pilot you will be. Do I think it should be compulsory, no. Do I think you should do it, when you are ready, yes.

However remember spin recovery does vary between aircraft, so if you can train in your particular regular mount then use it.

Originally posted by oiitsme
How about 3 axis microlights are they allowed to spin,I am thinking of taking the licence..can’t afford a full ppl..

Not a regular on this forum – but have ben following this thread , 3 axis Micros can be spun – I started off on weightshifts (Mainair Gemini Flash 2 Alpha ) then took a few stints in a mate’s 3 axis , good fun spinning and doing wingovers ( not being used to that type of thing ) but am now back on weightshifts – great cheap “in your face ” fun.

Originally posted by weasel
The two accidents in UK I mention are one, an Oxford based PA38 in the early eighties…

Speaking of the PA-38 does anyone have any significant experience stalling this model of airplane? I’ve heard horror stories regarding the Tomahawk and it’s stall/spin characteristics and am curious if anyone here has had first hand experience. It’s been more often referred to as the Trauma-hawk due to its reputation.

How about 3 axis microlights are they allowed to spin,I am thinking of taking the licence..can’t afford a full ppl..

WD you are missing the point a bit here. The fact is that the regulator over here (UK) has already canned compulsory spinning. The reason, we are told is as I have previously stated.

We know that the laws of physics havn’t changed, but perhaps the regulators perception of what is an acceptable risk has changed. I haven’t quoted any specific accident ratios to you. The two accidents in UK I mention are one, an Oxford based PA38 in the early eighties, and the second was a PA28 140(?) off Blackpool in the mid-nineties. I have read of others (one in Canada in a 150/152 where the rudder jammed over) but can remember no specifics.

A good point you make about creating an in-flight emergency by shutting down an engine during a twin rating. As I say, the risks are managed. The aircraft isn’t intentionally brought back in that state anywhere near Vmca and the aircraft is still well and truly controllable. I haven’t anywhere in my posts suggested that spin training be banned throughout. I have said also that if a stude wants to spin I’ll spin them.

My bit on the bulldog is fact. Note my use of term a botched recovery, ie one where the recovery isn’t carried out as per the aircraft’s POH.

If we are going to look (anecdotally) at the UK fatal accident breakdown, the biggest killer is CFIT. That is fact. I also believe that there haven’t been any low-hours students spinning in in the circuit or elsewhere for that matter. There have been stall spin accidents over the past ten years but mainly involving qualified pilots. I believe that a significant number of these accidents involve a distracting element, such as partial or total power loss or other failure.

I guess we aren’t going to agree.

I guess I missed it too Mike. Students are at the most risk due to the types of flying that they do and the amount of time they have under their belt. I think that is them main reason why they should be exposed to it and confortable with spin recovery.

Originally posted by Whiskey Delta
It has to do with the inherent Postive Static Stability of the aircraft not CG. Your apprehension is fed by poor education and demonstation.

Ah, more fabricated stats. Again, 60 years of training spins at my flight school and there are no fatalities or accidents as a result. Allow for a enough altitude to complete a 4 turn spin and you’ll be fine. Please quote me your source for accidents ratios.

Release of back pressure before addition of rudder? I’ve never heard of a recovery even close to that. Isn’t it neutralize controls, opposite rudder, forward yoke and recover? I’ve never heard of an addition of back pressure as that will extend the stall state.

Funny that you would consider a intentional emergency an suitable risk as long as it’s properly mananged yet you are arguing to no end that doing the same for spin training is unacceptable.

Health warning? First I didn’t realize that there was a health risk involved with spinning. Perhaps if one is at risk for health related issues they shouldn’t be flying. Second, you spin apprihension is perpetuated from one pilot to the next just as you “stats” that prove it’s a fatal training procedure. Also just because someone was in the military doesn’t make them the be-all and end-all of pilot information. There are just as military idiot pilots as there are private sector pilots. Trust me, I’ve ended up flying with most of the idiots.

A dinosaur? What changed in the last 20 years that made spin training outdated? The laws of physics didn’t shift did they?

I never said that this is where it’s going to happen. Through a 15 hour student into an airplane for a solo practice of stalls and other manuvers and their inexperience can easily lead to them in advertantly spinning an aircraft. I’ve personally been there as have my students. It happens. Improper rudder or wind shift and send a power-on stall into a spin before you know it. If you haven’t experienced that yet as an instructor then it’s a matter of time.

The training cycle puts every student pilot into many stituations that if not handled properly can put them in a spin. I’ve talked to plenty of FAA inspectors that have found themselves staring at the spinning earth as a result of the pilot applicant (both the fault of the pilot and as a result of outside factors). While performing power-on stalls with an Instrument student in a C172 we suddenly entered a spin with no corrolating input from myself or the student. I took the aircraft(As he was under the hood) and recovered from the spin. Assuming that the student had done something to cause our spin we did attempted the stall again with the same result but with the student recovering. It seems an unnoticeable inadvertant adjustment to the fixed rudder trim tab had thrown off our ability to control the aircraft in slow flight even though the ball was centered.

It can happen, and believing other wise is fooling yourself and your student. Not preparing your student for every possiblity is cheating them.

“Teach them to fly only on calm, clear, smooth days and during daylight hours and equip them with only enough knowledge so they don’t kill themselves?”

I guess no one took any notice of what I said, Who is more likely to end up in an accidental spin than a ham fisted student , as far as I know low time students are the most likely candidates for an unintentional spin and therefor most definitely in need of PROPER spin appreciation and recovery training