Spin training

Beggs-Mueller does not work for all planes (although it does for Pitts'),
and some pilots do not necessarily believe in letting go of the stick for a
recovery, preferring to "fly" out of the spin.

In article ,
"Viperdoc" wrote:

Beggs-Mueller does not work for all planes (although it does for Pitts'),
and some pilots do not necessarily believe in letting go of the stick for a
recovery, preferring to "fly" out of the spin.

That's true, but shouldn't it at least be taught so that the student
fully understands spin recovery?

Probably, but it might fall into more advanced lessons, like inverted spins,
flat, crossover, etc. A single flight with a spin demo does not make most
pilots capable of recovery from inadvertent spins.

"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.

Peter

Viperdoc wrote:
Beggs-Mueller does not work for all planes (although it does for Pitts'),
and some pilots do not necessarily believe in letting go of the stick for a
recovery, preferring to "fly" out of the spin.

What airplanes does this (Beggs-Mueller) not work for?
Thx,
VL

Not sure, but here are some guesses.
F4, A4, F104, MU2, anything with heavy span loads and
anything with small elevator and rudder.



"vlado" wrote in message
ups.com...
|
| Viperdoc wrote:
| Beggs-Mueller does not work for all planes (although it
does for Pitts'),
| and some pilots do not necessarily believe in letting go
of the stick for a
| recovery, preferring to "fly" out of the spin.
|
| What airplanes does this (Beggs-Mueller) not work for?
| Thx,
| VL
|

Just letting go works on an F86.

On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 21:42:21 -0500, "Jim Macklin"
wrote:

Not sure, but here are some guesses.
F4, A4, F104, MU2, anything with heavy span loads and
anything with small elevator and rudder.



"vlado" wrote in message
oups.com...
|
| Viperdoc wrote:
| Beggs-Mueller does not work for all planes (although it
does for Pitts'),
| and some pilots do not necessarily believe in letting go
of the stick for a
| recovery, preferring to "fly" out of the spin.
|
| What airplanes does this (Beggs-Mueller) not work for?
| Thx,
| VL
|


GeorgeC

In article . com,
"vlado" wrote:

Viperdoc wrote:
Beggs-Mueller does not work for all planes (although it does for Pitts'),
and some pilots do not necessarily believe in letting go of the stick for a
recovery, preferring to "fly" out of the spin.

What airplanes does this (Beggs-Mueller) not work for?

Cessna 150.
Note that the Christen Eagle and Pitts were the only acro aircraft
tested extensively. Limited testing was done with the C-150.
Gene Beggs did not have the time nor the money to carry out extensive
testing on popular GA trainers and cruisers.
This research was conducted in the early 1980's.

john smith wrote:
In article . com,
"vlado" wrote:

Viperdoc wrote:
Beggs-Mueller does not work for all planes (although it does for Pitts'),
and some pilots do not necessarily believe in letting go of the stick for a
recovery, preferring to "fly" out of the spin.

What airplanes does this (Beggs-Mueller) not work for?

Cessna 150.
Note that the Christen Eagle and Pitts were the only acro aircraft
tested extensively. Limited testing was done with the C-150.
Gene Beggs did not have the time nor the money to carry out extensive
testing on popular GA trainers and cruisers.
This research was conducted in the early 1980's.

If anyone needs to know, Beggs-Mueller does work for the T-6, T-28 and
P-51 aircraft.
VL

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