Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: earl1937 on April 27, 2015, 01:26:35 PM
-
:airplane: I am not up to date, so to speak, on what the FAA is now requiring in so far as how much training one has to have to have a private license, so I ask this question with some hesitation!
Should someone who aspires to be a private pilot and be licensed to carry people around with him in a airplane, be required to under go aircraft spin recovery methods?
I used to get chastised for making a private pilot applicant to demonstrate spin recovery on a exam ride. The FAA at that time did not require it on a private pilot exam, but I always thought it important in the sense of safety for the applicant and anyone who might ride with him.
-
Next time trick the guy who chastised you into riding with you and take him for a "spin".
Honestly, being chastised for asking a pilot if he knows how to fly...
-
I think the argument was that most stall spin accidents occurred during spin training so by getting rid of the requirement the incidence of spin accidents was reduced.
This of course had the consequent effect that for many pilots their first spin was also their last.
But of course avoiding getting into a situation which leads to a spin should be emphasised. But recovering from a spin can't be taught if you never experienced one.
The problem of course is that most spins happen at too low an altitude for recovery. I lost two friends a couple of years ago when an engine failure (fuel) led to a stall which became a spin at about 300 feet. One was an Instructor who obviously should have known better. Many years ago I lost another friend in the same scenario. At low level once you enter a spin it's all over.
So there are two sides to the argument.
Many pilots are scared of spins never having experienced one. Not me. I remember once with an American friend trying to find the absolute ceiling of a Cessna 150 somewhere over Arkansas, it's 12000 feet or so we found. Naturally the best way to descend after that was to spin it down to 4000 feet. Great fun so we did it again only this time a botched recovery found us spinning inverted. I always remember the matter of fact comment from Andy beside me. 'It seems we're inverted' he said proving that Americans can do stiff upper lip too! :joystick:
-
But recovering from a spin can't be taught if you never experienced one.
True. I, for one, was surprised, to the point of being shocked, at how much the nose drops, and how quickly the speed builds up, in a spin. Having someone tell me that would not have prepared me for it.
- oldman
-
At least on this part of the pond spin training is a part of aerobatic licence training. A PPL-pilot does not do any spin recovery training. Prob because most GA aircraft are not certified for spin training. And it prob wise because the spin training would prob kill more people than the unintended spins. (Ex the "traumahawk")
Private pilot training is more focused on learning the pilots to avoid getting in a spin. Most fatal accident with spin involved are btw those were a pilot stall on final turn and spin into ground. In those cases there are no time to recover no matter if u are trained or not. U simply have to avioid a stall at low level.
-
If a DE ever tried/tries to make a student of mine do a spin on a checkride they are going to have problems.
That's not on the PTS. Nor is it a required task.
Anyone I ever signed off for a checkride received spin training. Usually in a 152 Aerobat for a demonstration and then an actual spin and accelerated cross control stalls but the 172s worked okay as well.
But inventing your own stuff to throw on a checkride as a jeopardy item? What task exactly would you have busted them on?
The DE on my initial multi engine checkride asked if I was comfortable (I said yes) demonstrated steep turns into and away from the failed engine. It was nice to see. But it wasn't part of the checkride.
-
If a DE ever tried/tries to make a student of mine do a spin on a checkride they are going to have problems.
That's not on the PTS. Nor is it a required task.
Anyone I ever signed off for a checkride received spin training. Usually in a 152 Aerobat for a demonstration and then an actual spin and accelerated cross control stalls but the 172s worked okay as well.
But inventing your own stuff to throw on a checkride as a jeopardy item? What task exactly would you have busted them on?
The DE on my initial multi engine checkride asked if I was comfortable (I said yes) demonstrated steep turns into and away from the failed engine. It was nice to see. But it wasn't part of the checkride.
:airplane: I should have included in the post that I always asked the student pilot if he would mind demonstrating spin recovery! If he did refuse, then if he passed all the required demonstrations of aircraft control, I would sign him off, but would recommend to his instructor to provide spin training. If he, the instructor, did provide the further training, a note was included in his record that he did in fact provide the training.
The problem at the time was a "legal" problem, in so far as an instructor being "sued" for not providing that training, if a spin was involved in an accident.
the whole point of teaching spin recovery is to teach the pilot how to avoid the spin to begin with! If he/she had never done one, how would they be expected to successfully recover from one, should one occur?
To require a student to demonstrate all the different ways to get into a spin would require to much additional training, added expense and etc!
the only one I ever ask anyone to do, was to simulate a turn to final with full flaps, which is the most likely to end up in a fatal accident. I was not trying to train a aerobatic pilot, just someone who had the fundamental knowledge of recognizing flight attitudes which could produce a spin.
Glad to see that you do provide some spin recovery training, that's kinda like a doctor receiving CPR training!
-
Back in the late 70's when I got my training spins were frowned upon by the school operator, claimed something about tumbling the gyros. My instructor was an old grizzled B-17 pilot who thought it was bs and said even if it were true I was going to get that training and I did in all kinds of attitudes and many different aircraft.
-
Ok, now I want to hear some stories of recovering from spins and the pucker factor that goes along with them...
-
Ok, now I want to hear some stories of recovering from spins and the pucker factor that goes along with them...
:airplane: All aircraft, in the light single engine class, have to demonstrate spin recovery during the certification phase of a permit from the FAA to build the thing.
Most aircraft will recover themselves if you just turn the controls loose! Most people when I asked the question like this: "if in a left turn, with full flaps, and the aircraft stalls, which way will it turn first"?
I will just leave the answer blank, to see how many can get that right!
The only aircraft which I flew which was difficult to recover from a spin was a T-6 and a "Stearman PT-17! both aircraft required the same action, full forward on stick, applying opposite rudder to the direction of the spin. If you have had the proper stall recovery methods taught you, its almost an instinctive move to recover from one.
-
Most people when I asked the question like this: "if in a left turn, with full flaps, and the aircraft stalls, which way will it turn first"?
I will just leave the answer blank, to see how many can get that right!
The answer is that it depends. It depends on aircraft type, power on or power off, if there is any yaw present, which direction any yaw is in (ie. slipping or skidding turn), and if there is any aileron input during the stall.
I taught spin training in both the T-37 and T-6, and have probably done a couple thousand spins. My record in one flight in the T-37 was 32 spins but I was solo, just getting a better feel for both normal and abnormal spins and spin entries. Those "which direction will it go" questions bug me because its a safe bet that I could take a variety of aircraft and prove you wrong, depending on exactly how I flew the stall/spin entry.
My answer to that question is "Assuming the aircraft is not bent beyond manufacturer's original specifications, it could go left, right, or not spin at all depending on if there is any yaw, any uncompensated torque/p-factor, or any significant aileron deflection at the time of the stall." And I can prove my answer in flight, because that's something I used to do for a living. 9 years and some 1600ish hours teaching primary flight training in high performance aircraft.
The T-6 had a prohibition against "inverted stalls". What they meant to prohibit was "negative-G stalls". I must have broken that prohibition or watched students break that prohibition a hundred times when a student added too much back stick pressure at the top of a loop and put the plane into a mild wings-level inverted positive-G stall. Since it was positive G (hence positive angle of attack on the wing), nothing different happened than if the student had made the same control inputs but upright instead of inverted. Aircraft attitude has little to do with stall and spin entry modes except for certain specific conditions where an exaggerated nose-high attitude leads to the airspeed (and hence aircraft energy) bleeding off fast enough to let the plane transition from one spin mode to another before the spin develops. But that is a very specific situation, and it is of course one I can also demonstrate in the aircraft :)
-
Stick full forward, neutral lateral, lock your harness
Rudder opposite turn needle
If no recovery:
Stick into turn needle
If engine stalls, both throttles smoothly to idle
Recovery indicated:
Controls neutralize
Recover at 17 units AOA, thrust as required
If flat spin is verified by flat attitude, increasing yaw rate, increasing eyeball–out g, and lack of pitch and roll rates:
Eject (RIO command eject)
Hard to forget the boldface procedures when you covered them a few hundred times before flights. I'm with earl, proper spin training should be an essential part of GA. If it's done properly at altitude in a certified, maintained, and inspected plane it's a perfectly safe maneuver. I mention the maintenance and inspection because spins can put a lot of stress on an aircraft so they need to be checked out more frequently. At Pax River the T-2 was a somewhat boring aircraft to be assigned but certified for spins so we'd activate the spin area and spend the flight doing spins. Upright, inverted, Lomcovaks. Spins build a tremendous amount of confidence and it becomes second nature to identify where the edge is.
-
Ok, now I want to hear some stories of recovering from spins and the pucker factor that goes along with them...
Some of the best advice I heard was to scream 'Omigod I'm going to die, release the controls and cover your eyes. The aircraft recovers itself, assuming you have the altitude. Otherwise you die.
My best story, although I'm not sure if it's true involves the Gippsland Airvan in which I have nearly a thousand hours and is difficult to spin. Being a bit of a teddy bear of an aeroplane. Apparently it all went wrong for the test pilot and he bailed. But he found himself falling towards the front of the aircraft and actually passed through the arc of the propeller which was turning slowly luckily. I get the shivers thinking of it.
Another story involved a military pilot in a Vampire trainer. Having got into a irrecoverable spin. The Instructor told the student to eject, which he did. The change in airflow caused the jet to recover from the spin and the Instructor flew home, cabriolet as it were. Meanwhile the student found himself alone in the middle of nowhere thinking his Instructor was dead. He knocked on a peasants cottage for help but the man insisted on payment for bringing him to civilisation on his cart and horse.
-
The answer is that it depends. It depends on aircraft type, power on or power off, if there is any yaw present, which direction any yaw is in (ie. slipping or skidding turn), and if there is any aileron input during the stall.
I taught spin training in both the T-37 and T-6, and have probably done a couple thousand spins. My record in one flight in the T-37 was 32 spins but I was solo, just getting a better feel for both normal and abnormal spins and spin entries. Those "which direction will it go" questions bug me because its a safe bet that I could take a variety of aircraft and prove you wrong, depending on exactly how I flew the stall/spin entry.
My answer to that question is "Assuming the aircraft is not bent beyond manufacturer's original specifications, it could go left, right, or not spin at all depending on if there is any yaw, any uncompensated torque/p-factor, or any significant aileron deflection at the time of the stall." And I can prove my answer in flight, because that's something I used to do for a living. 9 years and some 1600ish hours teaching primary flight training in high performance aircraft.
The T-6 had a prohibition against "inverted stalls". What they meant to prohibit was "negative-G stalls". I must have broken that prohibition or watched students break that prohibition a hundred times when a student added too much back stick pressure at the top of a loop and put the plane into a mild wings-level inverted positive-G stall. Since it was positive G (hence positive angle of attack on the wing), nothing different happened than if the student had made the same control inputs but upright instead of inverted. Aircraft attitude has little to do with stall and spin entry modes except for certain specific conditions where an exaggerated nose-high attitude leads to the airspeed (and hence aircraft energy) bleeding off fast enough to let the plane transition from one spin mode to another before the spin develops. But that is a very specific situation, and it is of course one I can also demonstrate in the aircraft :)
:airplane: Excellent reply! However, in the interest of clarity, you must remember that the question, 99% of the time was put to a civilian, who had no formal military training and the answer which I was seeking from the student was that more than likely, the high wing will stall first, assuming in a co-oranated turn, such as from base to final approach when the aircraft is closest to the ground, yet in a turn. However, as you point out, if aircraft is slipping or skidding in the turn, it might just "tuck' under the low wing.
I have never done any instructing in a high performance aircraft, as most of my instructing was instrument and multi-engine training, in internal combustion engine aircraft.
-
In a final turn, the "common" error is to skid in the turn as the idiot over-confident or novice pilot will apply rudder into the turn. In that case the low wing stalls first and the plane will spin in the direction of the turn. I think this is probably the most common stall/spin scenario across the board and since it is invariably fatal due to low altitude, it has been the stall/spin scenario I probably spent the most time instructing to.
This error is one part of the dreaded but incorrect "downwind final turn" myth, where overshooting or tail winds cause a pilot to attempt to tighten down the final turn to maintain their normal ground track, not realizing that the winds are causing the ground track to look different. Invariably the pilot deceived by unusual winds in the final turn will recognize that they're overshooting their desired ground track and will try to tighten down the turn with increased bank and rudder into the turn, not realizing that their airspeed is rapidly dropping and the increased bank and skid angle has put them right on the edge of the stall. When that stall comes due to the otherwise stable entry conditions, the entry is very often abrupt and in the form of a rapid roll to near inverted in the direction of the turn with a dramatic nose drop as well. The aircraft configuration and accelerated stall situation often masks the approach to stall indications (stall horn and/or airframe buffeting) so it feels like the stall and spin happened with no warning. The warnings still happened, but the pilot is generally fixated on the final turn and not on what the plane is telling him/her, so they miss the very brief period of stall warning before the bottom wing stalls and the plane wraps itself up.
In the USAF this entry is taught as a power on turning stall or approach to stall, but the resultant abrupt spin isn't specifically demonstrated due to the abrupt nature of the spin entry. It can be shown in the sim though.
-
The chief test pilot of the Mig-25 was killed in a spin while turning onto final. Fuel gauges were registering nearly 0 fuel while his aircraft in reality was fully fueled. Turned with airspeed far too low.
Are jets more prone or less prone to spins than prop aircraft? In the video of the catastrophic 747 flight out of Afghanistan, it can be seen beginning to spin.
-
The chief test pilot of the Mig-25 was killed in a spin while turning onto final. Fuel gauges were registering nearly 0 fuel while his aircraft in reality was fully fueled. Turned with airspeed far too low.
Are jets more prone or less prone to spins than prop aircraft? In the video of the catastrophic 747 flight out of Afghanistan, it can be seen beginning to spin.
Jets aren't more or less prone to spin, however swept wing aircraft and aircraft with airfoils designed for high speeds (transonic or supersonic) can have stall and spin characteristics that are very different from slower straight-wing aircraft. Specifically, planes with swept wings may under some conditions enter a deep stall condition where much of the wing is stalled yet the plane "feels" like it is still flying. Control effectiveness may be lost in varying degrees, and pitch authority may be lost to the point where the pilot can't force the nose down to decrease angle of attack to break the stall. At that point any yaw or disruption in relative wind could snap the plane into a spin with little or no warning. Also, spin characteristics may be dramatically different in high performance fighter aircraft because of how the center of gravity and center of pressure may swap relative positions when a certain angle of attack is exceeded. This may make a plane statically and dynamically "stable" in the stalled or spinning condition, and there may not be enough control authority to get the plane out of the stall or spin.
Still, an airliner or even a large military transport is typically designed with more stability margin than that, even if the airfoil and aerodynamics are optimized for cruise efficiency or load carrying ability. In the case of the 747 that crashed after takeoff in Afghanistan, the reports indicated there was a massive rearward shift of very heavy cargo which made the plane completely uncontrollable. Build a flyable paper airplane and then attach about 20 paperclips to the tail, and see how well it flies... That's pretty much what happened to that 747.
The F-15E was initially more prone to spinning than the F-15A/B/C/D due to increased stabilator effectiveness at higher angles of attack and the LANTIRN pods being mounted ahead of the center of gravity. The flight controls had to be modified to make it harder to get it to spin. As a result the F-15E could be very aggressively maneuvered in conditions that would make an F-15C go out of control, because of the revised flight control laws. A well-flown F-15C could pull off maneuvers impossible in an F-15E, but an F-15E could be flown on the edge at will, with almost no risk of spinning. But once an F-15E entered a spin (it was still possible to get into one), it took just as long to get out of it as it did for an F-15C. The fact that it was a jet fighter with conventional delta wing configuration didn't make it inherently more or less prone to spinning, and in fact it was a very forgiving plane to fly as long as you knew what it could and could not do and didn't force it into an out of control situation.
The T-37, another forgiving jet aircraft, was actually modified to make it more spinnable and harder to get out of a spin once one was entered. This was deliberate, to force students to learn how to think under pressure and to make them learn how to apply specific procedures to get out of the spin. This was originally done because of the fairly poor post-departure behavior of the fighter aircraft in use at the time the T-37 entered service. Modern fighters recover from departures pretty much "hands off", and it shouldn't surprise anyone that the USAF's current primary trainer the T-6 recovers from spins by simply neutralizing the controls, which is not much different from a true "hands off" recovery procedure. Still, the F-15 does have one departure mode called an "auto-roll" which is a fairly nasty departure if the pilot isn't prepared for it. The recovery procedure from an auto-roll is very very specific, calling for smooth rudder input opposite of the roll direction and holding the stick slightly aft of neutral. If this procedure isn't followed precisely, the plane can *snap* out of the roll into an extreme nose-down pitching moment, which results in about negative 6 G's, causing significant aircraft damage and potentially some injury to the crew. The spin recovery procedure for the F-15 is also very specific, so much so that if the plane recognizes the spin, every display on the plane including the HUD changes mode to show spin recovery procedures. It shows a large arrow showing the pilot what direction to put the control stick, and even tells the pilot to pull one engine to idle and put the other one into full military (non-afterburning) power. The T-37 spin training was designed to prepare a fighter pilot for the unique specific recovery procedures. The T-6 spin recovery is taught in the same way mentally as a "boldface" procedure to be learned and executed flawlessly without hesitation, however it isn't very difficult and is arguably not as good training for a pilot destined to fly some of the older aircraft in the inventory.
I preferred the T-37 to the T-6, because it was really hard to break the T-37 or lose control so badly that it became uncontrollable. I could take a T-37 right to every single edge of the performance envelope with full confidence that I could hit every single edge and corner of that envelope without risking loss or damage to the aircraft. In the T-6, hitting or crossing some of those same envelope boundaries can cause significant damage to the engine or plane, so even the instructors rarely get a good feel for how the plane flies at its limits. It's just too risky to really learn the limits of the T-6, so instructors are positively discouraged from stepping outside the boundaries defined by syllabus maneuvers. In the T-37 though, it was fair game for an instructor to go find out what would happen if a student made any particular error and flipped the plane outside of the performance envelope. Really learning how to fly the plane at its limits made for safer and more effective instructors. With the T-6, instructors have to intervene much sooner when a student deviates from specific maneuver performance parameters, so the student never gets to find out what happens when he pushes the plane too far. A new USAF pilot today may be in a $100 million aircraft the first time he actually loses control without an instructor to intervene, which is kind of scary to think about in my opinion. The chance to foul it up and regain control without instructor intervention has been eliminated from pilot training with the switch from the T-37 to the T-6.
-
:airplane: I am not up to date, so to speak, on what the FAA is now requiring in so far as how much training one has to have to have a private license, so I ask this question with some hesitation!
Should someone who aspires to be a private pilot and be licensed to carry people around with him in a airplane, be required to under go aircraft spin recovery methods?
I used to get chastised for making a private pilot applicant to demonstrate spin recovery on a exam ride. The FAA at that time did not require it on a private pilot exam, but I always thought it important in the sense of safety for the applicant and anyone who might ride with him.
I’m an old CFI and the FAA approach to spin training on GA aircraft was simple, if the pilot never stalled, the pilot couldn’t spin. So I followed the guild lines presented to me and never did stall/spin training for anyone other then student CFI’s for whom spin training is mandatory .
But what I did do for every student pilot I ever instructed was to take them on a cross country that included a landing at a nearby glider park. I took them up in a 232 and let them spin and spin and spin until they understood exactly what was happening and why. You see, glider training includes spin recovery right from day one, hour one. All gliders are certified for spins.
The FAA still has it’s head up it’s butt on spin training for powered pilots and I still put each student in a glider and spin them until it hurts.
But I’ve never lost a student to a stall spin because when they fly with me, they don’t just learn about stalls and stall recovery, they learn how to get out of a spin, even if it’s inverted, on it’s back.
I also do spins at night on the night cross country.
-
I’m an old CFI ….I also do spins at night on the night cross country.
Cool
-
diddlytards! I was genuinely expecting gifs of milfs in sports bras on excercise bikes. Keep your airplane toejam in the airplanes and toejam forum!
-
Stick full forward, neutral lateral, lock your harness
Rudder opposite turn needle
If no recovery:
Stick into turn needle
If engine stalls, both throttles smoothly to idle
Recovery indicated:
Controls neutralize
Recover at 17 units AOA, thrust as required
If flat spin is verified by flat attitude, increasing yaw rate, increasing eyeball–out g, and lack of pitch and roll rates:
Eject (RIO command eject)
Which airplane is this procedure for?
-
I’m an old CFI and the FAA approach to spin training on GA aircraft was simple, if the pilot never stalled, the pilot couldn’t spin. So I followed the guild lines presented to me and never did stall/spin training for anyone other then student CFI’s for whom spin training is mandatory .
But what I did do for every student pilot I ever instructed was to take them on a cross country that included a landing at a nearby glider park. I took them up in a 232 and let them spin and spin and spin until they understood exactly what was happening and why. You see, glider training includes spin recovery right from day one, hour one. All gliders are certified for spins.
The FAA still has it’s head up it’s butt on spin training for powered pilots and I still put each student in a glider and spin them until it hurts.
But I’ve never lost a student to a stall spin because when they fly with me, they don’t just learn about stalls and stall recovery, they learn how to get out of a spin, even if it’s inverted, on it’s back.
I also do spins at night on the night cross country.
A GA aircraft like a c172 is very hard to put into a spin and it not happening during cross county light. As i said most spins ouccur . when turning to final and pulling to hard on the stick. In those cases it ends bad no matter if u know how to recover from a spin or not. And sadly: If spin training were mandatory the training itself would kill more people than the unintended spins do now. So learning the GA pilots to recognize and avoid stalls before they occur is the safest way to handle it imo.
-
A GA aircraft like a c172 is very hard to put into a spin and it not happening during cross county light. As i said most spins ouccur . when turning to final and pulling to hard on the stick. In those cases it ends bad no matter if u know how to recover from a spin or not. And sadly: If spin training were mandatory the training itself would kill more people than the unintended spins do now. So learning the GA pilots to recognize and avoid stalls before they occur is the safest way to handle it imo.
:airplane: While I don't agree about spin in the 172, I do agree that most stall, spin accidents are caused by turns to final, or buzzing a friends house, or just plain being stupid at low altitudes. As a matter of practice, I only introduced private pilot trainee's to stall/spin, with full flaps and simulate turning to final from base. It doesn't take many sessions of this to impress on the student pilot the importance of maintaining flying speed at any altitude.
One thing I always stressed was making "standard" rate turns in the pattern! some people teach 30 degrees of bank on every turn, but my thinking was this was help them later, if they decided to get a instrument ticket to go with their private certificate.
Nothing wrong with exposing a student to "speed vs bank angle vs turn rate at a early stage of their training! The better educated pilot is a safer pilot in my view!
-
(http://www.cyclefitsports.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/girls-spinning.jpg)
I honestly thought that this was the spin training you guys were talking about. Imagine my dismay when I clicked open this thread.
Before :x
After :angry:
-
A GA aircraft like a c172 is very hard to put into a spin and it not happening during cross county light. As i said most spins ouccur . when turning to final and pulling to hard on the stick. In those cases it ends bad no matter if u know how to recover from a spin or not. And sadly: If spin training were mandatory the training itself would kill more people than the unintended spins do now. So learning the GA pilots to recognize and avoid stalls before they occur is the safest way to handle it imo.
Here is just a couple 172 being spun, doesn't look that hard. I disagree with your comment "very hard to put into a spin and it not happening during cross county", no one ever flys into IMC and loses it, that never happens by you I'm guessing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWa6sCEAxvE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dSrjVR0MvE
-
Your point is...?
Of course u can spin w a 172, i just said its hard to put it in a spin (ie u have to provoke it a lot). As they said in the vid. "full rudder, full back pressure". It is not that just happen.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nm_hoHhbFo
This is a more typical stall/spinn accident.
-
I think people are missing the point, it's not really about just spin recovery. It never ceases to surprise me when people keep saying "no matter how much we warn pilots they continue to stall and spin in the landing pattern." Well, no kidding. Pilots do things every day they're told not to do because piloting isn't just an intellectual exercise, it's muscle memory and feel. If it were just "intellectual" then we'd just take our written tests and off we go. Spin training reinforces what pilots are told by allowing them to experience and learn to feel the edge and the best way to learn the edge means occasionally exceeding it. I know no pilots who have never exceeded a limit, intentionally or not, because they became distracted or task focused or too aggressive. It's the feeling of the controls, wing loading, slip, yaw and roll that tells the pilot they're close to the edge and then the development of muscle memory of what to do without relying simply on intellect (which goes into the crapper when things go wrong.) How many people stall and then stop to think "ok, based on my airspeed indicator I've stalled now I must reduce my angle of attack so I'll move the stick forward to break the stall and add power." Anyone except a nugget? No, of course not, you learn what it feels like and then react using the muscle memory you've developed in training and recover pretty much automatically. This is the point to spin training, that and the fact it also promotes a pilot's confidence factor that he can really fly his plane. If spin training is killing people then the spin training is faulty either due to technique, a structurally unsound plane, or a plane with bad spin characteristics. Just my opinion.
-
Your point is...?
My point was and still is with your comment that it is hard to put a C172 into a spin. Your comment on the CFI’s instruction of “full rudder, full back pressure” is exactly by the book how the FAA want’s stalls presented to a student.
I agree with you that more stall and spins occur on the turn from base to final and they generally result in death, but so does the none instrument rated pilot that fly into IMC.
But if you think a C172 will not roll over on it’s back in a crossed controlled stall, well, you’re just dead wrong.
-
Add a bit of power and the 172 will snap upside down and then into the spin.
My primary instruction was in a C150 aerobat so we did everything it was supposed to do and a few things it shouldn't.
My instructor put me into crazy power on stalls cross controlled under the hood and then turned it over to me just as it snapped.
I think stuff like that should be required.
-
One last comment and then I’ll go away. I still enjoy taking a student from zero hours logged through their private ticket. But today I spend much of my time transitioning pilots up in equipment and sometimes riding along as insurance on some actual IFR, helping them with those first few baby steps after they get their instrument rating.
I’m amazed at how much they have forgotten and lost in the way of basic airmanship skills. Today’s aircraft availability at many of the good FBO’s and clubs in my area have more sophisticated panels then I had available to me in a B727-400 back in the day.
I have them file an IFR flight plan for a round robin and include in the comments Training flight, CFI onboard. I remain dead silent in the right seat as they get the environment ready, request clearance copy and read back . Program that autopilot/flight director , I just watch as they prepare for takeoff. Off we go.
I watch their eager faces as they make that initial contact with ATC and watch them switch on the autopilot just as we are about to penetrate IMC. That’s when I fail the autopilot right after plunging into an overcast and it doesn’t take very long that they are far behind the aircraft, lost with no idea what to do in actual IMC on an IFR flight plan and less than 5 miles from the airport that they just departed from.
Depending on what they do next determines whether or not the flight continues. If they can’t articulate a plan within 10 seconds, I take control and request a return to the airport. Just to shame them I fly needle ball and airspeed with one VOR for the approach to our home base.
Those that have the plan I allow to continue the round robin hand flying the aircraft to our first stop and approach, We have lunch and I let them fly us back home using all their toys.
You would be surprised with the number of guys that are IFR rated pilots that have no business in actual IMC.
Today’s aircraft are truly automated wonders but if you plan to fly IFR you had better be able to take manual control at any time and fly an approach to minimums, if you can’t do that, you have no business in the airspace system and one day you are going to kill yourself and anyone else on board.
-
One last comment and then I’ll go away. I still enjoy taking a student from zero hours logged through their private ticket. But today I spend much of my time transitioning pilots up in equipment and sometimes riding along as insurance on some actual IFR, helping them with those first few baby steps after they get their instrument rating.
I’m amazed at how much they have forgotten and lost in the way of basic airmanship skills. Today’s aircraft availability at many of the good FBO’s and clubs in my area have more sophisticated panels then I had available to me in a B727-400 back in the day.
I have them file an IFR flight plan for a round robin and include in the comments Training flight, CFI onboard. I remain dead silent in the right seat as they get the environment ready, request clearance copy and read back . Program that autopilot/flight director , I just watch as they prepare for takeoff. Off we go.
I watch their eager faces as they make that initial contact with ATC and watch them switch on the autopilot just as we are about to penetrate IMC. That’s when I fail the autopilot right after plunging into an overcast and it doesn’t take very long that they are far behind the aircraft, lost with no idea what to do in actual IMC on an IFR flight plan and less than 5 miles from the airport that they just departed from.
Depending on what they do next determines whether or not the flight continues. If they can’t articulate a plan within 10 seconds, I take control and request a return to the airport. Just to shame them I fly needle ball and airspeed with one VOR for the approach to our home base.
Those that have the plan I allow to continue the round robin hand flying the aircraft to our first stop and approach, We have lunch and I let them fly us back home using all their toys.
You would be surprised with the number of guys that are IFR rated pilots that have no business in actual IMC.
Today’s aircraft are truly automated wonders but if you plan to fly IFR you had better be able to take manual control at any time and fly an approach to minimums, if you can’t do that, you have no business in the airspace system and one day you are going to kill yourself and anyone else on board.
:airplane: You bring back a lot of memories! That is the way I used to help new instrument rated pilots get their IFR legs also. I agree with you, there are a lot of people who have no business flying IFR, except those who fly often enough or do regular training sessions with an instructor!
But, unfortunately, humans being humans, they are going to "mess' up every once in a while.
I once heard a guy in a Piper Apache call Atlanta approach for radar vectors to McCollum field at Kennesaw, now mind you, it was IfR from 1,000 AGL to 15,000 that morning and the guy said he was VFR at 8500! Can you even guess how many pilots on that channel when to max pucker factor in that instance? (I was one of them)