Whiskey DeltaSorry about lumping the UK with Europe. 🙂 The differences are vast.
What’s the airspace situation like? Obviously London’s airports are going to be Class B (I think we both use the same classifications) but what can a pilot encounter in other outlying regions? Outside of the Metro areas in the US it’s basically free and clear from the surface to 10,000′ requiring no contact with a controlling agency.
A few years ago when I visited the Duxford museum (by the way, you Brits can put together a fine museum) we watched aircraft takeoff for local flights and it got me wondering. Can those lucky pilots blast off and zip around the countryside without a care or are they a little more restricted in how high/fast/far they can go before getting into controlled airspace?
Whiskey DeltaOriginally posted by mixtec
the spin is an aerobatic manuever that should be taught in an aerobaticly rated aircraft by an instructor fully experienced in aerobatics and the physcis of a spin.
An aircraft doesn’t have to be certified for aerobatics in order to do spins in it. It’s a manuever that isn’t aircraft specific and shouldn’t be treated as such.
Any CFI, at least in the US, has to do spin training in order to receive their certificate. I feel they are just as qualified as any other instructor that does aerobatics. Nearly every pilot who I know that does aerobatics couldn’t tell you enough about the physics of a spin to fill a cocktail napkin. Being an aerobatic pilot doesn’t make you any better at recovering from a spin. It does make you better at loops and rolls but that is not what’s needed.
Did you know that engineers that design and test aircraft DONT fully understand the reasons that cause and effect spins?
No I didn’t know that and I doubt that the engineers do either. All those books ans studies and they still don’t understand spins? That’s a good one. It’s not rocket science, it’s just a spin.
The spin is a dangerous manuever, a sort of vertical barrel roll and not recovering properly can cause a spiral dive or a deeper more unrecoverabel spin.
I guess this rules out practicing stalls too. If one doesn’t recover properly from a stall it could result in……are you ready?……. ANOTHER stall! That’s downright dangerous.
Spins aren’t dangerous, just people who aren’t familiar with them or understand them think they are.
the whole idea of that training is to fly in a way that avoids problems
The best way to avoid any unknown or problem in aviation is to stay on the ramp.
Training is TWO things:
1. Learning how to avoid problems in the first place.
2. Learning how to fix problems if they should occur (and they will).
Most problems in aviations are unexpected and therefor the pilot must prepare himself for every eventuality. They can’t just pick and chose what emergencies they want to plan for and train accordingly. That’s not fair to your passengers that put their lives in your hands.
If you stall or spin at low altitude, the place that its most likely to happen, your dead, thats it, stall or spin training goes with you into the ground.
With spin training you can learn to recover from a spin in a matter of several 100′ feet. Like I said before, it’s just as important if not more so to learn how to recover from a incipient spin than a developed one. That kind of training is what can save your backside if you should ever find yourself in that low altitude stall or spin.
Giving up in a situation is not a good plan of action. Learning to fly an aircraft in all sorts of situations in order to prepare for the unexpected is a lot smarter.
Whiskey DeltaEvery aircraft has limitations but that doesn’t rule them out as a good trainer. Plenty of people have learned to fly in a Cub and it has all sorts of issues that a more complicated aircraft doesn’t have to deal with. You’ll never find an aircraft that doesn’t have issues that a pilot has to deal with, its a matter of finding an aircraft that has it’s positives and negatives in balance. The Cessna 152 is one of those aircraft in my opinion.
I’ve never seen a C152’s airspeed indicator indicate incorrectly in crosswind conditions, it can happen in a slip though. The pitot tube isn’t the issue as it has to do with the static port’s air supply being disturbed in the slip. Common practice for most situations is to fly in a crab until nearing touchdown then transitioning to the slip. By then you not looking inside anyway to see what the speed reads. Plus, these airspeed errors are common in any aircraft that doesn’t have a dual static port system.
Originally posted by Moggy C
You don’t like flying then WD? 😉Moggy
Flying straight and level for 3 hours isn’t flying to me and that’s where George comes in handy. Now I agree that anything not at cruise or below 10,000′ should be hand flown. That’s when the real fun happens.
Whiskey DeltaWhat are the chances that the new media interpreted the report wrong and rather than being 7000 feet it was 7000 meters? At 7000 meters, this situation would be a lot more severe and expected.
Not that the new media ever gets anything wrong when discussing aviation. 🙂
Whiskey DeltaThe only version of the C172 that I know of that has a variable pitch prop is the C172RG Cutlass. It came with the slightly larger engine with 180 hp which showed a noticeable cruise performance increase with the prop. The climb and takeoff roll were no better in my opinion than your standard C172 if not worse depending on atmospheric conditions and loads.
The C172 is a much nicer version of the C152 in many regards. But, as a primary trainer I still feel the C152 is a better platform. The C172 is a bit too stable in my opinion for a primary student but is a great tool for the more advanced Instrument student. The addition of the approximate 50 hp is nice as it provides a better climb rate and faster cruise. Neither of those make a student a better pilot so as a trainer aren’t a factor.
As a personal aircraft I think the C172 is a lot nicer for the same reasons it’s not a better trainer. It’s more stable, climbs better and cruises faster. Throw in a nice avionics package and perhaps even a nice autopilot and it won’t get any better than that. 🙂
As for the high wing/low wing issue. A low wing provides as much a blind spot as a high wing, only on the opposite side of the aircraft. The high wing lends itself better to training in my opinion due to the high amount of ground reference work required. It’s just easier to work if you can see down. 😉
Whiskey DeltaI would like to see some hard facts (ie accident reports) that show an increase in training fataility due to spin training. I feel this is one of those myths perpetuated by the “anti-spin” crowd to justify their belief in not needing the training. I know I haven’t been at this that long but none of the accidents I’ve heard of involving a spin were a result of spin training, rather a spin entry due to other factors. Now if those folks had more time spent in spin training perhaps they wouldn’t have found themselves in that position.
Whiskey DeltaEven with the cargo area pressurized the pressure differential would be negligible at 7,000 feet. So rapid decompression at that altitude wouldn’t have the force to really blow anyone out an opened hatch or door.
The percentage of casualties is extremely high in this accident. An aircraft even of that size would have it’s cabin altitude equalize within a few seconds. It seemed from the article that the situation developed at a pace that allowed the pilots to announce to the passengers to move to the front all the while people were still falling out the rear.
At 7000′ there’s a chance that they were still climbing which would put the aircraft in a nose high attitude. When the cargo door opened, the passangers were basically dumped out of the rear of the aircraft. The pilots might have been unaware the severity of the problem in the back. A light up front saying the cargo door isn’t locked shut doesn’t necessarily mean the door is hanging open. The pilots could have assumed the door was closed but not locked, made an announcement for everyone to move forward away from the door and continued to climb (if they were doing so).
Anyone know if the cargo floor of the Il-76’s have rollers on them? It could be tough to stop yourself if your standing or sitting on some well greased rollers. Not only would you have to contend with that but the 100 people pushing down on you that couldn’t stop themselves because of the rollers.
I know this is a matter of backseat driving but it’s just a thought.
Whiskey DeltaSpongeBob Squarepants has his own airline now? United Airlines has launched that Low Cost Carrier called Starfish, is it that?
Whiskey DeltaDragging this thread up from the bottom…
I definately think it’s important to be taught spins during one’s PPL training. I also believe that it should be taught prior to someone’s first solo flight. I wasn’t given any spin training until I scared myself during my second solo practice flight. My instructor promptly too me up and gave me a good spin lesson. No problems for me after that. It was amazing the change in my confidence after that flight. I only wish that it had been done earlier on in my training.
It was a lesson I made sure to pass on to my own students. Full spin entries and recovers were demonstrated as well as performed by the students. One thing that I don’t think is covered much by the instructors I’ve dealt with is the incipient spin. While most are willing to run a student through the full blown spin I think it’s even more important to teach recovery from the incipient spin. Between a full and incipient spin, the incipient is most likely going to be the situation that a pilot finds himself in since a full spin can require 2-3 turns before developing. A pilot should be able to recover an aircraft within the first turn after the stall. At that point, it’s more of an unusual attitude recovery than a spin recovery.
Whiskey DeltaHey, just joined the forums and thought I’d throw in my 2 cents.
I’ve flown a couple of the more popular basic trainers out there and I really like the C152 the out of all of them. The high wing setup provides a bit more stability in gusty conditions which is nice. It also makes for a better training environment as you can see the ground easier when flying cross countries and other ground manuevers. Also on those hot sunny days the wing gives that extra bit of shade. Cessna’s are also unique (as compared to equivilant trainers) in that both windows open to give both pilots a nice breeze. There’s nothing worse than sitting in the left seat of a Piper sweating with only that little fist sized window to let air in. The Cessna’s also give each pilot their own door. It’s nice not to have to climb over another seat or pilot/passenger to get in and out.
It’s cockpit size is obviously smaller than some but I never thought of it that much once I was inside. Even through the high wing provides added stability it’s light weight does make it likely to get pushed around by winds. On a good windy day, proper crosswind technique is more important in a lighter aircraft than say a light twin. Now, of course the C152 isn’t any lighter than say an Arrow or Musketeer. I think it pays off to learn in a lighter aircraft as it requires a bit more effort to learn the basics. But when you move on to a larger aircraft, say a C172, the transition is easier than those that go from the larger/more stable to the smaller C152.
A bit deciding factor for most pilots is “what aircraft is the cheapest?” as learning to fly is an expense pasttime. Most likely the C152 will be the cheapest at the school you fly at. Nothing wrong with that. It’s a great plane to fly and the best trainer for the primary student.
Sign In
