Spin training

In article , lefty133
@bellsouth.net says...
"Ron Wanttaja" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 16:23:36 -0400, Stubby
wrote:

I just got back from my spin training for my CFI....

Yup. Should be a requirement before PPL.

I believe it was required long ago, perhaps 30 years. I had a bit of
spin work in the glider. It might be required. It was fun!

Yeah, was eliminated in the late '60s, I think. Basic reason, IIRC, is
that the
number of casualties that occurred during training were thought to be
about
equal to the additional spin fatalities if training WEREN'T required.
Since
most stall/spin accidents occur at very low altitudes (the base-to-final
turn,
usually) the FAA decided to emphasize stall recognition/avoidance,
instead.

True "spin" accidents (those that occur at high enough altitudes to
recover and
not associated with any physical problem with the airplane) are quite
rare.
Canada still requires spin training, and I understand their stall/spin
accident
rate is about the same as the US.

Ron Wanttaja

Back in the early '80s, spin training was not required and was only
marginally available. When I demanded it, after getting a little too close
for comfort on a final turn in the PA-38 Tomohawk, I had to interview more
than one additional instructor before I found one who was comfortable doing
spins.

IMHO the important point was that, once I was comfortable about the spin
entry, it was almost ridiculously easy to fly away from an incipient spin in
the C-150M and C-152. After getting over the initial discomfort, I found
that recovery during the first half turn used very little altitude and
recovering on point after 2 or 3 turns became easy. Both Cessna models
recovered very sharply on command and could have easily been flown away from
a spin entry at below 300 feet.

At that time, I was unable to find an instructor who was comfortable in the
PA-38. It remains my opinion that they simply lacked training and
experience with the aircraft; and therefore believed the scare stories which
circulated. It certainly was no less controllable, and had no less rudder
authority during a stall. Remember that there still a lot of pilots who
believe that turning a twin toward an inoperative engine is less safe than
"Russian Roulette" with 2 cartridges in the ol' wheel-gun.

I think the problem probably lies with an instructor that doesn't mind
the physical sense of spinning in a Traumahawk

(that's the trouble I had). BTW, I got an instructor to put the a/c in
a spin and recover under the hood - on one session. My recoverys were a
bit steep (I *tried* to allow for the instrument lag, honest!) But I'm
really glad I did that exercise.

--
Duncan

My problem with the PA 38 was the number of control wheels
that broke. I heard of CFI carrying Vise-Grips to use in an
emergency. Look the AD up.



"Dave Doe" wrote in message
. nz...
| In article ,
lefty133
| @bellsouth.net says...
| "Ron Wanttaja" wrote in
message
| news | On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 16:23:36 -0400, Stubby
| wrote:
|
| I just got back from my spin training for my
CFI....
|
| Yup. Should be a requirement before PPL.
|
| I believe it was required long ago, perhaps 30
years. I had a bit of
| spin work in the glider. It might be required.
It was fun!
|
| Yeah, was eliminated in the late '60s, I think. Basic
reason, IIRC, is
| that the
| number of casualties that occurred during training
were thought to be
| about
| equal to the additional spin fatalities if training
WEREN'T required.
| Since
| most stall/spin accidents occur at very low altitudes
(the base-to-final
| turn,
| usually) the FAA decided to emphasize stall
recognition/avoidance,
| instead.
|
| True "spin" accidents (those that occur at high enough
altitudes to
| recover and
| not associated with any physical problem with the
airplane) are quite
| rare.
| Canada still requires spin training, and I understand
their stall/spin
| accident
| rate is about the same as the US.
|
| Ron Wanttaja
|
| Back in the early '80s, spin training was not required
and was only
| marginally available. When I demanded it, after getting
a little too close
| for comfort on a final turn in the PA-38 Tomohawk, I had
to interview more
| than one additional instructor before I found one who
was comfortable doing
| spins.
|
| IMHO the important point was that, once I was
comfortable about the spin
| entry, it was almost ridiculously easy to fly away from
an incipient spin in
| the C-150M and C-152. After getting over the initial
discomfort, I found
| that recovery during the first half turn used very
little altitude and
| recovering on point after 2 or 3 turns became easy.
Both Cessna models
| recovered very sharply on command and could have easily
been flown away from
| a spin entry at below 300 feet.
|
| At that time, I was unable to find an instructor who was
comfortable in the
| PA-38. It remains my opinion that they simply lacked
training and
| experience with the aircraft; and therefore believed the
scare stories which
| circulated. It certainly was no less controllable, and
had no less rudder
| authority during a stall. Remember that there still a
lot of pilots who
| believe that turning a twin toward an inoperative engine
is less safe than
| "Russian Roulette" with 2 cartridges in the ol'
wheel-gun.
|
| I think the problem probably lies with an instructor that
doesn't mind
| the physical sense of spinning in a Traumahawk
|
| (that's the trouble I had). BTW, I got an instructor to
put the a/c in
| a spin and recover under the hood - on one session. My
recoverys were a
| bit steep (I *tried* to allow for the instrument lag,
honest!) But I'm
| really glad I did that exercise.
|
| --
| Duncan

In article z5EYg.3142$XX2.290@dukeread04, p51mustang[threeX12]
@xxxhotmail.calm says...
My problem with the PA 38 was the number of control wheels
that broke. I heard of CFI carrying Vise-Grips to use in an
emergency. Look the AD up.

No thank you!

Wouldn't one just use the other wheel?

--
Duncan

There were reported cases of both breaking. Piper built all
the PA38 aircraft in a rush in order to beat Beech to the
market. Many of the airplanes were junk.

"Dave Doe" wrote in message
. nz...
| In article z5EYg.3142$XX2.290@dukeread04,
p51mustang[threeX12]
| @xxxhotmail.calm says...
| My problem with the PA 38 was the number of control
wheels
| that broke. I heard of CFI carrying Vise-Grips to use
in an
| emergency. Look the AD up.
|
| No thank you!
|
| Wouldn't one just use the other wheel?
|
| --
| Duncan

In article yKNYg.4751$XX2.3882@dukeread04, p51mustang[threeX12]
@xxxhotmail.calm says...
There were reported cases of both breaking. Piper built all
the PA38 aircraft in a rush in order to beat Beech to the
market. Many of the airplanes were junk.

Interesting. I thought they built it in competition to the Cessna. I
know that a known potential weak point was in the T-tail, where the
thing is welded onto the control actuator (hope I've got that right). I
was told to always check that weld as best I could w' ma naked eye for
cracks.

--
Duncan

Look up Beech Skipper and Piper Tomahawk, visually nearly
identical. There was some industrial espionage with an
employee named Piper working for both companies.


Beech had a prototype flying in the mid 70s with out the T
tail, then added the T tail. Piper started the PA38 in the
late 70s and delivered over 1,000 airplanes before Beech did
their first one.


"Dave Doe" wrote in message
. nz...
| In article yKNYg.4751$XX2.3882@dukeread04,
p51mustang[threeX12]
| @xxxhotmail.calm says...
| There were reported cases of both breaking. Piper built
all
| the PA38 aircraft in a rush in order to beat Beech to
the
| market. Many of the airplanes were junk.
|
| Interesting. I thought they built it in competition to
the Cessna. I
| know that a known potential weak point was in the T-tail,
where the
| thing is welded onto the control actuator (hope I've got
that right). I
| was told to always check that weld as best I could w' ma
naked eye for
| cracks.
|
| --
| Duncan

In article HBWYg.5034$XX2.3466@dukeread04,
"Jim Macklin" wrote:

Look up Beech Skipper and Piper Tomahawk, visually nearly
identical. There was some industrial espionage with an
employee named Piper working for both companies.

Tomahawk has a aT-tail, Skipper has a cruixiform tail.