(Captain Wubba) wrote in message . com...
Hello. I'm finishing up my CFI training. My CFI and I went up in a 172
(certified for spins) and tried to get the plane to spin for my spin
training. The airplane was loaded properly in the utility category. We
could not get the airplane to enter a fully developed spin. It would
enter the incipient stage just fine, but would not remain in the spin
for even one complete rotation. My CFI is very experienced, and has
spun this airplane numerous times before with other students. Part of
the problem may be that I weigh about 300 lbs (and am 6'6 tall), so we
are rather forward in the CG department.

What exactly are the definitions of 'spin training' that the FAA
requires for CFI logbook endorsement? I am having trouble locating
specific definitions. Does entry into and recovery from an incipient
spin count? Does it need to be a fully developed spin (with a minimum
number of turns). While I would truly love to experience some
fully-developed spins, I *did* recover correctly from the incipient
ones, both left and right. We have no other planes available that are
certified for spins, and the nearest place I can get dedicated
aerobatic training is quite a few hours away, and rather difficult to
schedule. We cannot fit into a 152 without being significantly over
the max gross weight.

While I want to do this right, I don't want to put my training (I am
almost ready for the checkride) on hiatus for several months while I
find a way to coordinate schedules and travel to the place with the
Citabria.

Any ideas, comments or suggestions?

Thanks,

Cap


This might help, excerpted from "The Light Airplane Pilot's Guide to
Stall/Spin Awareness," due out later this year (I hope):

----Excerpt---
If you are a flight instructor applicant, don't settle for the
obligatory one-turn spin in each direction. Make sure you are well
versed in stall/spin theory as well as stall/spin practice. Your spin
endorsement states that you are "proficient in spins"–make sure the
endorsement rings true. If your instructor is uncomfortable or
unwilling to provide the required stall/spin training, search out one
who can provide it. If you are already a CFI, realize that you are a
central figure in the prevention of accidents. The attitude you
project can have a profound effect on your students. If you are
unfamiliar or uncomfortable with the stall/spin awareness
requirements, the best investment you can make in yourself and your
students is to find a competent peer and get yourself proficient in
the training scenarios. Challenge yourself to become exceptionally
well qualified to teach stall/spin awareness. Ditto if you're a
Designated Examiner.

If you are searching for hands-on spin training, look for training
that puts stalls and spins in the context of stall/spin accidents;
training that includes not only intentional spins, but recoveries from
unintentional spins as well; training that combines theory with
practice at a safe altitude, using a suitable spin training aircraft,
with a competent instructor; training that will instill a healthy
respect for the complexities of spin dynamics; training that will
expand your experience without giving you a false sense of security
about the dangers of fooling around with high angles of attack close
to the ground, or in airplanes not approved for spins; training that
will encourage you to map out a continuing stall/spin regimen.

Each training session should have two sets of well-defined objectives:
knowledge-based objectives, which outline what you need to know; and
skill-based objectives, which outline what you need to do. Be sure
your instructor clearly explains the objectives before each flight.
Ground school briefings should provide you with relevant background
knowledge as well as a description of the specific skills to be
practiced in the air. Training flights should logically integrate the
elements discussed on the ground, with special emphasis on developing
the mental and physical skills....


Assessing Stall/Spin Experience
Pilots love aviation credentials almost as much as all those aviation
acronyms. Ratings, certificates, titles, flight time–we tend to read a
lot into these. Pilots tend to be goal-oriented after all, and what
better way to measure and compare progress than with ratings and
hours? But what story do these accoutrements really tell? Take three
instructors as an example, each with 2,000 hours of flight time. The
bulk of Instructor A's time has been spent training pilots in the
instrument environment. The bulk of Instructor B's time has been spent
training pilots in tailwheel airplanes. Instructor C concentrates on
stall/spin and emergency maneuver training.

Three FAA-certificated instructors, identical total times, but
dissimilar types of experience. It's not that one instructor's flight
time is any better than the others'; their fortes are just different.
Want to get an instrument rating? Instructor A is probably a wise
choice. Want a tailwheel endorsement? See Instructor B. Want to
explore the stall/spin envelope in a spins-approved airplane? Schedule
Instructor C. When evaluating "experience," it's important to look
deeper, to know what's been done with the flight time. Unfortunately
when it comes to stalls and spins, too many instructors simply lack
the depth of experience necessary to teach safely and competently in
this demanding part of the flight envelope. If you have any doubt
about stalling or spinning with a particular instructor, don't be shy
about asking some questions first, for instance:

1. Approximately how many spins have you done?
2. When was the last time you did spins?
3. Have you ever intentionally spun an airplane that was not approved
for spins?
4. When was the last time you spun this particular model?
5. At what altitude will we practice our stalls or spins?
6. Will we be using the manufacturer-recommended procedures, and where
in the AFM is that information listed?
7. Does this airplane have any idiosyncrasies when stalling or
spinning?

Run away from any instructor who will spin an airplane not approved
for intentional spins. And avoid jumping into an airplane to do spins
without first receiving a thorough ground briefing detailing the
objectives of the flight, including how those objectives will be
achieved.

Be aware, too, that just because someone might claim to be an
"aerobatic" pilot doesn't mean that pilot has any more experience with
spins than a "non-aerobatic" pilot. We might assume that so-called
aerobatic pilots generally possess a higher level of stall/spin
experience based on the type of flying they do, but the assumption
might very well be wrong. Case in point: Pilots participating in
sanctioned competitive aerobatic events are not required to show proof
of spin training. In the various levels of competitive aerobatics,
participants may be required to perform only a one- or
one-and-a-quarter-turn intentional spin. Being able to perform a
competition-style spin, however, has little bearing on recovering from
an accidental spin entered from a botched aerobatic maneuver, or even
recovering from a developed spin. Believe it or not, a lot of
aerobatic pilots have little-to-no practical experience with anything
other than the intentional incipient spin performed to competition
standards.


Assessing the Airplane's Suitability
Just because an airplane might be approved for intentional spins does
not necessarily mean it is suitable for use as a bona fide spin
training platform. Three noteworthy examples are the Cessna 172, the
Piper Tomahawk, and the Piper Cherokee 140. All are approved for
intentional spins within certain weight and balance limitations, yet
for different reasons, all are unsuitable for spin training.

Take the Cessna 172: Spins are approved in this airplane when
operating within its Utility envelope. Cessna literature for 172L
through K models, however, states the following: "Entries at all
utility loadings will be difficult.... spiral tendencies will be
evident and the airplane will usually spiral out of the spin by 2-1/2
to 3-1/2 turns even at [utility aft] c.g. loadings. There is no real
steady phase with this model." Recall that the spin-to-spiral
transition abruptly imposed +5.5 g's on the Cessna 172X used by NASA
during its spin test program. Spins-approved airplanes that display
uncommanded spin-to-spiral tendencies are not suitable for spin
training. Consistency is vital for effective learning to take place.
And developing consistent actions on the part of the pilot demands an
airplane that exhibits consistent behavior while spinning. Otherwise,
the experience becomes a series of apparently uncontrollable and
random events that can leave pilots less confident in their abilities
than before the spin training. And in the case of the Cessna 172, the
possibility of structural damage during the process is real.

Depending on the source, the stall/spin accident rate of the Piper
PA-38-112 Tomahawk has been calculated to be anywhere from two to
nearly six times greater than its comparable, spins-approved rivals:
the Cessna 150 and Beech Skipper. The Tomahawk's stall/spin behavior
reportedly varies widely from airplane to airplane, ranging from
conventional to totally unpredictable. For this and other reasons, the
Tomahawk is not suitable as a spin training platform (see Appendix B
for a more detailed analysis).

The Piper Cherokee 140 has a narrow spins-approved envelope. Moreover,
the airplane's spin behavior is extremely sensitive to center of
gravity. Completely unrecoverable spins are possible, for example,
with the center of gravity as little as a quarter of an inch aft of
the spins-approved envelope. Consequently, precise weight and balance
calculations must be considered mandatory before each spin training
flight. This not only includes re-weighing the airplane, but also
weighing the pilots and knowing exactly into which holes the seats
will be adjusted before each and every spin training sortie. These
stringent measures and the zero tolerance for error render the
Cherokee 140 impractical as a spin training platform.

Other spins-approved airplanes may be suitable for spin training, but
only provided the following: they are well maintained and reasonably
well rigged; they will be loaded within the appropriate weight and
balance envelopes; their control cable tensions are within factory
tolerances; stall/spin-related Airworthiness Directives (ADs) have
been satisfied; and you can achieve full control deflections once
you've strapped in. A few examples of certificated airplanes that may
be suitable for spin training include the following: Cessna 150 & 152,
Beech 77 Skipper, Grob G115C, Zlin 242, Citabria & Decathlon, Great
Lakes, Stearman, Avions Robin, Mudry Cap 10, Beech T-34, Pitts S-2A,
S-2B, & S-2C, and Extra 200 & 300. The depth of spin training possible
in a given spins-approved airplane may be limited, too. For example, a
Pitts S-2B allows a much more thorough exploration of the spin
envelope than does a standard Cessna 150. It is important, therefore,
to know just how much of the spin envelope you'll be able to
investigate in a particular airplane. And the experience needs to be
framed in the context of the total spin envelope, not just a slice of
it limited either by the nature of the spin training itself, or by the
particular airplane's capabilities...
---END----

Rich
http://www.richstowell.com