Rolling a Non Aerobat 150

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

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.

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

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

However, this is meaingless. The issue isn't how many were killed by
spins during training vs. otherwise, the issue is how many people
recovered from a spin and thus weren't killed.

That is not even close to the issue. The issue is how many dead while spins
were required vs. how many dead after the requirement was dropped. The
later is a smaller number thus the logical option.

It is sort of like
looking at stats for engine failures with singles vs. twins. We know
how many singles lose an engine as they make a power-off landing, often
off airport.

We certainly do not know that number. There are hundreds if not thousands
of unreported off field landings due to engine failure every year.

We don't know, however, how many twins didn't make an
emergency or off-airport because they were able to make it to an airport
on their remaining engine.
I also don't see the logic in spin recognition vs. spin training. I
don't see how you can learn to be proficient in spin entry

Who cares if one is proficient in spin entry. For normal flight it is a
totally useless ability.

and recovery
without learning to recognize a stall and incipient spin. So this whole
concept of stall recognition vs. stall training seems pretty illogical
to me.

We are not talking about stalls. Stalls do not equal spins. But as long as
you brought it up, learning to recognize and recover from an incipent stall
(NOT SPIN) will prevent a spin. It's the old chain of events scenario.
Break the chain early on and you don't need to worry about what might
happen later. This makes spin recovery an unneeded ability. If you've
screwed the pooch bad enough to get into a spin you are probably out of
altitude anyway and all the training in the world won't do you any good.

It's all extremely logical.


Matt

Dave Stadt wrote:
We are not talking about stalls. Stalls do not equal spins. But as long as
you brought it up, learning to recognize and recover from an incipent stall
(NOT SPIN) will prevent a spin. It's the old chain of events scenario.
Break the chain early on and you don't need to worry about what might
happen later. This makes spin recovery an unneeded ability. If you've
screwed the pooch bad enough to get into a spin you are probably out of
altitude anyway and all the training in the world won't do you any good.

It's all extremely logical.



So I'm curious. Have you ever spun an airplane?



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

VE

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" wrote in message
...
Dave Stadt wrote:
We are not talking about stalls. Stalls do not equal spins. But as long
as
you brought it up, learning to recognize and recover from an incipent
stall
(NOT SPIN) will prevent a spin. It's the old chain of events scenario.
Break the chain early on and you don't need to worry about what might
happen later. This makes spin recovery an unneeded ability. If you've
screwed the pooch bad enough to get into a spin you are probably out of
altitude anyway and all the training in the world won't do you any good.

It's all extremely logical.



So I'm curious. Have you ever spun an airplane?



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

VE


Yep.

Dave Stadt wrote:
So I'm curious. Have you ever spun an airplane?

Yep.


And you learned *nothing* worthwhile from that experience? I sure found it an
eye opener the one time I inadvertently spun. If I hadn't known what it was and
what to do about it I could see myself augering in.

On a practical note, I used to fly overgrossed aircraft from time to time. I've
also carried my share of ice. To suggest that I'd never stall/spin involves a
whole bunch of wishing.

I am reminded of a prospective pilot my employer was interviewing: what would he
do if he stumbled into a thunderstorm. Expecting the usual techniques, I was
surprised to hear him say: "I don't go into thunderstorms". My boss kept
pushing him on the subject: "Well, if you somehow did, what would you do?" The
prospect kept bleating he didn't fly in thunderstorms. Well, I don't either,
willingly, but sometimes they're hiding out there. He might as well have said
he didn't ever fly in real IFR. He didn't get the job.

I wonder what he'd have said if the boss asked him what would he do if the
aircraft entered a spin?



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

VE

"Dave Stadt" wrote in message
om...


Who cares if one is proficient in spin entry. For normal flight it is a
totally useless ability.


The key words being "For normal flight". Can anyone here guarantee that
they will not be exposed to "unusual circumstances". You never know. You
won't know until it happens, and you become a test pilot. As a flight
instructor, I was once rolled almost inverted in a Cessna 172 on a base to
final turn. Yes, I was not really paying attention. Yes, I was allowing the
student to get deeper (i.e.make more mistakes in a row) than I should have.
I have had spin training, and it works. A private pilot friend in a 150 was
run over by a Piper. (Saratoga nears Van Nuys, I think). He lost a good
portion of the left wing tip and aileron. From left downwind, at night, he
made a high power, right aileron, right rudder, left traffic approach to a
full stop. He planned a "normal flight". He had no intention of
demonstrating the unlikely. The Piper went into an apartment house. It is
very easy to find the edge of an envelope. Ask someone who has packed some
ice around.

If you've screwed the pooch bad enough to get into a spin you are probably
out of
altitude anyway and all the training in the world won't do you any good.


You are partly correct. I was out of altitude, maybe 300-400 feet. Until
then I didn't know the hardware store on short final had a Trane air
conditioner, for instance. You would be amazed at what Thrust & Rudder can
do.

Are you telling me that if something very strange happens to your
aircraft, you will make no effort to rectify the situation? You "PROBABLY"
can't do anything about it so why try? In 7000 hours, I've had 7 engine
failures on 6 aircraft, and landed every one of them on a paved runway. (3
singles, 3 twins) You should go listen to Al Haynes the next time he speaks.
(DC10, Sioux City). The pilots I know, will to a man/woman, fly the biggest
piece to the ground, and park it. Some of them have.


It's all extremely logical.

Try lifting a Lear 24B from the very end of a runway by "pucker" factor
alone, then we'll talk. There should be a another column in the takeoff
distance charts, labeled "Fire warning activated, Single Engine past V1,
Night, Ice/Snow, High Altitude, Heavy, over a 1000' obstacle. Hint: turn the
landing light off.

Al Gerharter CFIAMI