Rolling a Non Aerobat 150

Rod wrote:
I don't necessarily think that omitting spins from the PTS is the best
move the FAA has made, but I don't know the whole story.

They had more people killed in spin training than were preventyed by the
training.


Then they were done wrong. Started out too low?

I've had one inadvertant spin in my entire flying career... back when I was
doing slow flight while working on my commercial license. The air wasn't
particlarly smooth and a wing dropped. I picked it up with rudder and
immediately snapped over into a spin. Fortunately, I'd had spin training when
finishing up my private license and once you've seen that sight picture once,
you remember it for life. I instantly knew what had happened, what to do, and
then did it. I doubt we made more than half a turn.

My instructor was shaken up though: "Let's call it a day." I guess he was one
of those "new generation" instructors who never did much with spins. It sure
showed.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

VE

I was doing some training with my CFI (aka my Dad over the weekend
for power-on stalls in a Cherokee 140. Not having much experience with
power-on stalls, I was surprised at how easily that plane would spin.
We were not trying to spin, but the stall was violent enough that we did
drop a wing and were in the entry to a spin as he recovered very
quickly. Considering the most likely spot for a power-on stall is just
after takeoff, I want that spin training (which we're going to do in a
C150).

As for the people getting killed in spin training, I concur with
Mortimer. They didn't start high enough. The PTS specifically states
for stalls (and I would expect this to apply to spins) that recovery
must be completed before reaching 1500' AGL. We start our power-on
stall training at 5000' MSL (4800' AGL) because of the threat of spins.
I'm SURE we will follow that same altitude rule for spin training.
Btw, our lowest altitude after /all/ of the stall practice was at least
4500' MSL (4300' AGL).

Chris


Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:
Rod wrote:

I don't necessarily think that omitting spins from the PTS is the best
move the FAA has made, but I don't know the whole story.

They had more people killed in spin training than were preventyed by the
training.



Then they were done wrong. Started out too low?

I've had one inadvertant spin in my entire flying career... back when I was
doing slow flight while working on my commercial license. The air wasn't
particlarly smooth and a wing dropped. I picked it up with rudder and
immediately snapped over into a spin. Fortunately, I'd had spin training when
finishing up my private license and once you've seen that sight picture once,
you remember it for life. I instantly knew what had happened, what to do, and
then did it. I doubt we made more than half a turn.

My instructor was shaken up though: "Let's call it a day." I guess he was one
of those "new generation" instructors who never did much with spins. It sure
showed.

Chris G. wrote:
I was doing some training with my CFI (aka my Dad over the weekend
for power-on stalls in a Cherokee 140. Not having much experience with
power-on stalls, I was surprised at how easily that plane would spin. We
were not trying to spin, but the stall was violent enough that we did
drop a wing and were in the entry to a spin as he recovered very
quickly. Considering the most likely spot for a power-on stall is just
after takeoff, I want that spin training (which we're going to do in a
C150).

Dropping a wing is not a spin, just a sloppy stall. The time is better
spent on nailing stalls than spinning the airplane.

Ron Natalie wrote:
Dropping a wing is not a spin, just a sloppy stall. The time is better
spent on nailing stalls than spinning the airplane.


Irregardless, the sight picture of a spin is unforgetable and unmistakable...
once you know what it looks like. An approach to stall isn't the same as a
stall. If you've ever carried a load of ice on the hairy edge of a stall,
you'll appreciate being able to balance yourself on the line if necessary.

I had a 135 checkride in a C-402 once where the check airman said, "let's do
stalls". OK, to me, that means STALL. It doesn't mean approach to stall. My
first 135 chief pilot, a grizzlied old USAF pilot, taught me to do full stalls
in the 402.

Good God... you would have thought I farted in church by the stunned reaction I
got when I didn't recover when the first burble was felt. I recovered
immediately after I felt the aircraft stall, and not before. "Let's try that
again", he said. We did the same thing again. It was only after some
discussion that I found that he meant to recover before I actually stalled.

The other guy along for the ride claimed that he NEVER did full stalls in a
twin. Well, it takes all kinds I guess. If it was good enough for my old chief
pilot it was good enough for me, but if these guys wanted a recovery initiated
when the stall is imminent, I can do that too. And did.

If anybody doesn't know, the C-402 stalls the same as the C-172. I don't
recommend it with asymetrical power though....




--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

VE

Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:
Irregardless, the sight picture of a spin is unforgetable and unmistakable...
once you know what it looks like.

You are so right about that!


An approach to stall isn't the same as a stall.

I agree. I want to be comfortable enough with stalls/spins to recognize
and recover from both at any point in their development cycle.

Chris

Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:
Ron Natalie wrote:
Dropping a wing is not a spin, just a sloppy stall. The time is better
spent on nailing stalls than spinning the airplane.


Irregardless, the sight picture of a spin is unforgetable and unmistakable...
once you know what it looks like. An approach to stall isn't the same as a
stall. If you've ever carried a load of ice on the hairy edge of a stall,
you'll appreciate being able to balance yourself on the line if necessary.

I had a 135 checkride in a C-402 once where the check airman said, "let's do
stalls". OK, to me, that means STALL. It doesn't mean approach to stall. My
first 135 chief pilot, a grizzlied old USAF pilot, taught me to do full stalls
in the 402.

Good God... you would have thought I farted in church by the stunned reaction I
got when I didn't recover when the first burble was felt. I recovered
immediately after I felt the aircraft stall, and not before. "Let's try that
again", he said. We did the same thing again. It was only after some
discussion that I found that he meant to recover before I actually stalled.

The other guy along for the ride claimed that he NEVER did full stalls in a
twin. Well, it takes all kinds I guess. If it was good enough for my old chief
pilot it was good enough for me, but if these guys wanted a recovery initiated
when the stall is imminent, I can do that too. And did.

If anybody doesn't know, the C-402 stalls the same as the C-172. I don't
recommend it with asymetrical power though....

I'd rather find that out by going through it as an exercise rather than
discover it turning final one engine out in turbulence ..
and you're point about recovery on the onset of the stall
It is a commonly taught exercise nowadays

george wrote:


Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:

Ron Natalie wrote:

Dropping a wing is not a spin, just a sloppy stall. The time is better
spent on nailing stalls than spinning the airplane.


Irregardless, the sight picture of a spin is unforgetable and unmistakable...
once you know what it looks like. An approach to stall isn't the same as a
stall. If you've ever carried a load of ice on the hairy edge of a stall,
you'll appreciate being able to balance yourself on the line if necessary.

I had a 135 checkride in a C-402 once where the check airman said, "let's do
stalls". OK, to me, that means STALL. It doesn't mean approach to stall. My
first 135 chief pilot, a grizzlied old USAF pilot, taught me to do full stalls
in the 402.

Good God... you would have thought I farted in church by the stunned reaction I
got when I didn't recover when the first burble was felt. I recovered
immediately after I felt the aircraft stall, and not before. "Let's try that
again", he said. We did the same thing again. It was only after some
discussion that I found that he meant to recover before I actually stalled.

The other guy along for the ride claimed that he NEVER did full stalls in a
twin. Well, it takes all kinds I guess. If it was good enough for my old chief
pilot it was good enough for me, but if these guys wanted a recovery initiated
when the stall is imminent, I can do that too. And did.

If anybody doesn't know, the C-402 stalls the same as the C-172. I don't
recommend it with asymetrical power though....


I'd rather find that out by going through it as an exercise rather than
discover it turning final one engine out in turbulence ..
and you're point about recovery on the onset of the stall
It is a commonly taught exercise nowadays


Agreed. When I got my ticket back in 85, spin training was not required.
I got my instructor to show ne proper recovery technique.
Since that time every so often when I'm up, over a non populated area I
have at it. I usually do a power off stall with the nose as hard up as
it will go. Kick in rudder and do a wingover. Usually get recovered
and back to straight and level within a turn and a half and 100 feet alt
loss. It's a lot of fun and the training could save your ass one day.
I agree with george. On final is not the place to learn.

You are mostly correct. According to FAA-H-8083-3, "Airplane Flying
Handbook," pages 5-12 through 5-13 under the heading of "Sping Procedures":

"The entry phase [of a spin] is where the pilot provides the necessary
elements for a spin, either accidentally or intentionally."

"The incipient phase [of a spin] is from the time the airplane stalls
and rotation starts until the spin has fully developed."

"The developed phase [of a spin] occurs when the airplane's angular
rotation rate, airspeed, and vertical speed are stabilized while in a
flightpath that is nearly vertical."

---
Now, You are correct in that dropping a wing is not necessarily a spin,
but it CAN be considered the entry phase of a spin. We were in an
incipient spin based in the sight picture having gone way screwy on me.
My instructor was demonstrating how uncoodinated flight during a
power-on stall can cause the plane to snap and very quickly develop into
a spin. I don't yet know how far the spin developed, but I would think
it was between 1/4-1/2 turn.

Personally, I would feel much more comfortable knowing I can both
recognize and recover from a stall (at any point in the stall process)
and recognize and recover from a spin (at any phase of a spin). If that
means I spend extra time on stalls and spins, fine by me! You only get
to screw up once if you don't recover.

Cheers!
Chris


Ron Natalie wrote:
Dropping a wing is not a spin, just a sloppy stall. The time is better
spent on nailing stalls than spinning the airplane.

Chris G. wrote:
Considering the most likely spot for a power-on stall is just
after takeoff, I want that spin training (which we're going to do in a
C150).

I'm quite happy with the training I was given that allows me to recognize an
impending stall and avoid that. If I don't stall the aircraft, it's not going to
spin.

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.

George Patterson wrote:

Chris G. wrote:

Considering the most likely spot for a power-on stall is just after
takeoff, I want that spin training (which we're going to do in a C150).


I'm quite happy with the training I was given that allows me to
recognize an impending stall and avoid that. If I don't stall the
aircraft, it's not going to spin.

And I'm happy that you are happy with substandard training. However,
I'm not happy with substandard training. Not training in spins is like
not training on PP for the instrument rating. Sure, if you avoid a
vacuum failure, then you avoid the need for PP. The trouble is,
sometimes bad things happen...


Matt