Spins

wrote:
On Jan 17, 5:22 pm, Bob Moore wrote:
wrote

The 172 N Model I fly from time to time is only approved (and thus was
only tested) for spins when CG falls within the utility category.
Though it may be recovered from a spin when loaded within the normal
category range, it was not certificated that way. Which tells me there
is no assurance of recovery.
BULL****!!

Section 23.221: Spinning.
(a) Normal category airplanes. A single-engine, normal category airplane
must be able to recover from a one-turn spin or a three-second spin,
whichever takes longer, in not more than one additional turn after
initiation of the first control action for recovery, or demonstrate
compliance with the optional spin resistant requirements of this
section.

(1) The following apply to one turn or three second spins:

(i) For both the flaps-retracted and flaps-extended conditions, the
applicable airspeed limit and positive limit maneuvering load factor
must not be exceeded;

(ii) No control forces or characteristic encountered during the spin or
recovery may adversely affect prompt recovery;

(iii) It must be impossible to obtain unrecoverable spins with any use
of the flight or engine power controls either at the entry into or
during the spin;

I would suggest that you read the entire FAR section 23.221 for Normal,
Utility, and Aerobatic category aircraft.

Bob Moore
ATP CFI

I've read the FARs.

I've also read the POH, which states "Spins approved when loaded
within utility category."

I'll see your Bullchip and raise you three chickships.

Dan

Dan

You're arguing with the wrong guy Dan, and you are going to lose your
three chickships whatever the heck they are :-)))

.. Bob's right and you are wrong. You seem to be hung up on the fact that
because the POH states that spins are approved only in the Utility
category, that this means the airplane can't be spun in the Normal
Category. This simply is not true AERODYNAMICALLY which is the ONLY
context we are discussing here. LEGALLY it can't be spun in the Normal
Category but otherwise it will spin just fine in the Normal Category;
unless you have an aft cg issue and then it's up for grabs either normal
or utility category.
Naturally, if your 172's POH says that spins are not approved in the
Normal Category, that's exactly what it means. It means that spins are
not APPROVED in the Normal Category.
It does NOT mean the airplane won't spin in the Normal Category. It most
certainly will spin, and as both Moore and I have both attempted to tell
you, that 172 in fact had to meet a spin requirement to be licensed in
that Normal Category.

--
Dudley Henriques

On Jan 17, 5:49 pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:
wrote:
On Jan 17, 5:22 pm, Bob Moore wrote:
wrote

The 172 N Model I fly from time to time is only approved (and thus was
only tested) for spins when CG falls within the utility category.
Though it may be recovered from a spin when loaded within the normal
category range, it was not certificated that way. Which tells me there
is no assurance of recovery.
BULL****!!

Section 23.221: Spinning.
(a) Normal category airplanes. A single-engine, normal category airplane
must be able to recover from a one-turn spin or a three-second spin,
whichever takes longer, in not more than one additional turn after
initiation of the first control action for recovery, or demonstrate
compliance with the optional spin resistant requirements of this
section.

(1) The following apply to one turn or three second spins:

(i) For both the flaps-retracted and flaps-extended conditions, the
applicable airspeed limit and positive limit maneuvering load factor
must not be exceeded;

(ii) No control forces or characteristic encountered during the spin or
recovery may adversely affect prompt recovery;

(iii) It must be impossible to obtain unrecoverable spins with any use
of the flight or engine power controls either at the entry into or
during the spin;

I would suggest that you read the entire FAR section 23.221 for Normal,
Utility, and Aerobatic category aircraft.

Bob Moore
ATP CFI

I've read the FARs.

I've also read the POH, which states "Spins approved when loaded
within utility category."

I'll see your Bullchip and raise you three chickships.

Dan

Dan

You're arguing with the wrong guy Dan, and you are going to lose your
three chickships whatever the heck they are :-)))

. Bob's right and you are wrong. You seem to be hung up on the fact that
because the POH states that spins are approved only in the Utility
category, that this means the airplane can't be spun in the Normal
Category. This simply is not true AERODYNAMICALLY which is the ONLY
context we are discussing here. LEGALLY it can't be spun in the Normal
Category but otherwise it will spin just fine in the Normal Category;
unless you have an aft cg issue and then it's up for grabs either normal
or utility category.
Naturally, if your 172's POH says that spins are not approved in the
Normal Category, that's exactly what it means. It means that spins are
not APPROVED in the Normal Category.


Whoa there, pardner...

Let's back to flame train up.

First, I'm not accepting anyone's statement because of "who he/she
is." If it's reasonable and/or proven, I'll weigh it and accept it or
reject it (to my advantage or peril, but so be it). I would hope
anyone posting/reading a newsgroup about aviation would take this
approach.

Now, my point regarding spins is that I have no *assurance*
(aerodynamically or legally) from anyone that the airplane will
recover when flown with CG in the Normal range (FARS notwithstanding
-- The fact that the airplane met the requirements of the FAR for
certification tells me that the manufacturer certified to the letter
of the law with an experienced pilot in ideal conditions. Neither the
manufacturer nor anyone else will stand by the capability outside a
certain narrowly defined range).

I have assurance in the POH that the airplane can recover when CG is
within the utility range.

I am not a test pilot (and haven't even played one on TV), thus should
not intentionally or unintentionally enter a spin in this airplane
when CG load is outside the utility category.

Now, while it may be the case that the airplane will recover in that
condition, that is speculation to me and anyone else until proved
otherwise in a fairly dangerous experiment in test piloting.

To recap, since the discussion has blurred:

Will a pilot who has been through spin training be better prepared if
a spin should occur? Probably.

Will the appropriate PARE reaction recover most airplanes from an
incipient spin? Most likely.

Does this establish that spin training is essential to PPL training?

Not really.

Dan

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Have you ever had to put down with no power, by the way?

Only about 700 times!

696 were kind of expected to go that way, though.

Bertie

kinda curious

What kind of flying are you doing where you're expecting to be letting down
w/o power?

I mean, for me its actually 100%

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums...ation/200801/1

I once had the chance to talk to the chief test pilot of a muanufactorer
(no names here) and asked exactly this. His answer was clear: Sure their
airplanes recover from spins. But they don't trust the pilots, and they
don't even trust the average instructor. So they decided to prohibit
spins to avoid liability issues.

This I believe.

Let's see. The reasons for not asking a PPL to demonstrate a 1/2 or 1
turn recovery from a spin (or if not on the PTS then have an
endorsement from their instructor like a CPL):
1) Kills more pilots than it saves
2) Instructors not competent enough.
3) Planes not available
4) FBOs won't allow it.
5) Spin awareness good enough

There may be some other reasons given. I still say I'd feel better
having performed at least one recovery by myself. If I were doing it
again I'd ask my instructor to do some spins with me and have me
recover before I soloed. Now some comments on the reasons given:
1) Let's see the numbers -- otherwise it's a myth
2) They should be trained up properly (competency of an instructor to
recover promptly from a spin should NOT be in doubt)
3) This is more a result of litigation, I'd wager, than anything else.
And probably is the biggest practical road block for pilots to be
properly trained in handling an aircraft in all possible flight
situations.
4) See 3 above.
5) No, it's not good enough, IMO.

Experience in handling an aircraft in all flight situations, though,
is good enough. Even once or twice is better than no training. Bertie
pointed out in a post quite far up that it's the training, the instant
response that is going to save you. Maybe not 1000 feet above the
ground -- but at 2000 a little previous experience might just save
your butt.

By the way that long article by Rich Stowell has very interesting
section titled "Student Pilots & Their Instructors" from which I quote
as related to #2 above:

"The most foreboding aspect of the Veillette study, however, involved
the hands-on spin experience of flight instructors. Ninety-eight
percent noted that their formal spin training consisted of no ground
instruction and a mere two spins--one in each direction. Nonetheless,
these instructors readily received logbook endorsements certifying
that they were competent to teach spins. We'd surely consider it
absurd, for example, if all it took to qualify to be an instrument
instructor (CFII) was a logbook entry showing that the applicant had
performed a grand total of two instrument approaches. On the contrary,
instrument training has evolved into a rigorous process involving
specially equipped airplanes and specially certified instructors. Just
as the instrument flight environment places unique demands on its
pilots and airplanes, so too does the spin environment place unique
demands--aerodynamically, physiologically, psychologically--on those
who enter its realm. It is equally unforgiving of incompetence as
well. Yet too many pilots remain nonchalant in their attitudes toward
spinning."

So, okay, the FAA doesn't require spin recovery for PPL. As Dudley
says, you ought to go get as soon as you are able after the PPL. No
one seems to think you'll be worse off for it.

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
.. .
wrote in
:

...
The typicl spin accident, if there is such a thing, is the famous
overcooked turn onto final.

I watched two guys die after doing that on a tight, low, turn to a short
final...

Geoff

Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe wrote:
"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
.. .
wrote in
:

...
The typicl spin accident, if there is such a thing, is the famous
overcooked turn onto final.

I watched two guys die after doing that on a tight, low, turn to a short
final...

Geoff


What gets them isn't really the turn per se, but the way that turn is
flown. The combination of the increased stall speed due to the turn
coupled with some excess inside rudder causing a skid as the stall
breaks is a perfect pro-spin setup. The two ingredients for spin are
present; stall and a yaw rate coupled simultaneously .
You can get away with a tight low turn if it's coordinated and you feed
in enough power to offset the drag rise; or even better yet an unloaded
tight descending turn if some altitude and some radius need to be
scrubbed off,(I don't recommend doing these BTW :-) but it's that lack
of attention to the extra needed thrust as the drag rises in the turn
and cheating a bit with inside rudder to "force that nose around that
will get you killed.


--
Dudley Henriques

Dudley Henriques wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:



Yeah. I always flew the J3 from the back as well. In fact, the one we
had available was back seat solo only.


Prewar, then. I flew one that only had a front seat for banner towing and
ended up on my nose several times. Better from the back always,really, but
ost of my time in them is instructing and that was always from the front.

Talk about fun....I flew that
damn thing all the way down the East Coast one spring when I had a month
off to myself. Most of the way I was several hundred yards off shore.
The weather was warm and I had the upper panel open most of the trip.
Every now and then I would throttle back to idle and try shouting at
people down below. I saw them shout back but to tell you the truth I
never heard a word they were saying :-)
Ended up at Key West, stayed several days, island hopped a bit then flew
it home again.
One of the best aviation experiences I ever had really. It's funny when
you stop to think about it. Of all the fancy airplanes that crossed my
path in life, that little J3 and that trip down the coast would be right
up there at the top of the heap for just plain fun with an airplane.



Yep. I'd never buy one but they were great fun to fly. I had several
'unique' experiences with them which I had better not post until i check
the statute of limitations on them.


Bertie

" wrote in news:56de88a2-1e68-4789-
:

Sounds like fun! Makes me wonder if being a banner tower would be so
bad?? Hours of slow flight along the beach?


One of my first jobs, and in a cub. this one was a TG8 which was a military
glider sold off after the war. There was a kit to turn it back into a J-3.
It had an 100 hp O-235 which you'd have at full throttle to maintian 50
mph. On a windy day a circuit of your route would take a loooong time!

I learned a lot doing that kind of flying.


After reading Rinker buck's "Flight of Passage" all I wanted to do was
replicate that flight.

Flying Pittsburgh to Phoenix in an A36 in 10 hours wasn't the same....


Well, it's like the difference between motorcycling and driving in a Buick.


Bertie

Dudley Henriques wrote in
news
wrote:
On Jan 17, 4:34 pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dudley Henriques wrote in
:
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Cubdriver usenet AT danford DOT net wrote in
:
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 19:40:35 -0800 (PST),
wrote:
Why is it that a PPL is obtainable without basic spin recovery
demonstration? What about inverted recoveries?
Spins are not allowed in the planes available for rent at the
airport from which I fly, probably because they are in two cases
more than sixty years old.
J-3s are actually kinda difficult to get to spin anyway. They'll
do it, but with two up they need a bit of coaxing. not great for
incipient spin training.
Best airplane for it ever was one of my old luscombes. I took the
washout out of the wing to make it go faster, which works, BTW.
and as a result, the airplane was , um, interesting to stall. It
was absolutely impossible to stall without a big wing drop. Doing
a falling leaf was like clog dancing. if you let it go at al it
was on it's back in no time. It was also a very early one with
the more difficult ground handling whic, in addition to the "Fun
with Stalls" habit earned it the name "the humiliater" It was
considered an excellent primer for homebuilts. Great airplnae and
it's still flying, though i think with a bit of washout now.
Bertie
The Silvaire was a joy to spin. Snappy little bird!
The best spin entry for the J3 is to start a 1g stall carrying
just a tad of power. then just before the stall break, acellerate
it up and in with back stick and a shot of power for the rudder.
Then imm ediately off the power, hard pro spin rudder and full
back stick. Fun for all involved :-))
Yeah, pretty much exactly as I did it. Not so good for teaching
incipient spins when it looks so difficult to get into one!
I can't remember how easy they were to provoke with say, a stepp
turn, but I can't imagine they'd be all that much more likely to
depart form one of those either. It was a lot better solo form the
rear seat, though.
Bertie
Yeah. I always flew the J3 from the back as well. In fact, the one
we had available was back seat solo only. Talk about fun....I flew
that damn thing all the way down the East Coast one spring when I
had a month off to myself. Most of the way I was several hundred
yards off shore. The weather was warm and I had the upper panel open
most of the trip. Every now and then I would throttle back to idle
and try shouting at people down below. I saw them shout back but to
tell you the truth I never heard a word they were saying :-)
Ended up at Key West, stayed several days, island hopped a bit then
flew it home again.
One of the best aviation experiences I ever had really. It's funny
when you stop to think about it. Of all the fancy airplanes that
crossed my path in life, that little J3 and that trip down the coast
would be right up there at the top of the heap for just plain fun
with an airplane.

--
Dudley Henriques

Sounds like fun! Makes me wonder if being a banner tower would be so
bad?? Hours of slow flight along the beach?

After reading Rinker buck's "Flight of Passage" all I wanted to do
was replicate that flight.

Flying Pittsburgh to Phoenix in an A36 in 10 hours wasn't the
same....

Dan
Back in the (old days a lot of new commercial pilots tried the
banner towing game. It seemed the banner outfits were always looking
for new pilots. (Something in that somewhere for smart people I think
:-)

I never did any towing, but a lot of those who did informed me that
they learned fairly fast that it wasn't the easiest game in town. Many
of the airplanes being used were VERY old. One outfit down in Atlantic
City were using old Navy N3N's


Flew a few of those as well.They were OK.No ball of fire and no
Stearman, but adequate. Better than a Cub, I thought at the time.

Guess where?

Believe it or not, I think Andre is still alive ( He was Cape May based,
BTW, with a small branch operation at Bader)

and towing with these crates meant that
much of the time you were riding the ragged edge on the left side of
the envelope.
It was good work for the learning involved and great training for
those who did it.


Yeah, and it was relatively safe. You crash pretty slow in a Cub.

Bertie

Stefan wrote in news:c98be$478fd695$d9a2716b
:

Cubdriver schrieb:

some spins in the PA-18. The answer was no, because it might tumble
the gyros. So there's another reason folks don't teach spins.

I'll never understand why non-cageable gyros even exist.


Money


Bertie