Another stall spin

the value of the procedure in the EASA certification spec is that its
a 'guaranteed spin recovery method' for gliders so certified. So
personally I treat it with great respect, and rigorously teach that
procedure. With anything else, one is a test pilot. However,
manufacturer's suggestions are certainly welcome.


At 03:42 10 September 2012, Eric Greenwell wrote:
On 9/9/2012 8:18 PM, Andrew wrote:
I see the sailplane spin recovery procedure in the EASA
certification specs is

ailerons neutral
full opposite rudder
stick forward until rotation stops
centralise rudder and ease out of the dive

I'd guess any flap change that manufacturers recommend is
more
in preparation for the likely high speeds in the dive.

No need to guess, as the flight manual for my ASH 26 E (and my
ASW 20 B
before) is clear:

"Furthermore, spin recovery will be achieved more quickly if the
flap
deflection is reduced. It is advisable to reduce circling flap to the
neutral flap setting."

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us"
to
email me)

Hi Eric

Sorry to be obscure - I think we actually agree entirely.
Follow the standard procedure until the spin stops.

I am sure you are way more experienced than I. So - free opinion and
worth every cent you paid.

Aviate first comment applies to thinking all the time - rather than
applying rote process.

In my experience - It helps to always try to have the objective in mind
when you do something in the cockpit.
In a departure from controlled flight, that is turning into "something"
the first thing to do is to correct the condition that caused the
departure. In the instances we were discussing that is a stalled wing.
If your primary objective is to un-stall the wing then, again in my
limited experience, the manual on a flapped ship says something along
the lines of "reduce the flap setting".

So my thinking is first move flaps to neutral or negative as indicated.
This will reduce AoA, and MAY arrest the departure.

Then one should assess what the aircraft is actually doing.

If and only if you are simultaneously rotating about all three axes with
relatively stable speed and the G force is not increasing and the other
indicators unique to the type of aircraft you are flying indicate that
you are in fact spinning - then the logical thing to do is to initiate
the standard spin recovery.

If you are in a steeply descending turn with airspeed increasing and
experiencing elevated G load, you are probably in a spiral dive.

If you are - like Bruno - simply in a bit of a slip, with one wing low
and airspeed and control normal, well straighten up and fly right.

In the vast majority of gliders the reduction in AoA from flap change
will arrest the departure. The aircraft may be at an unusual attitude,
but it is fully under control. (as was the case in the video)

Following a rote spin recovery in this situation is irrational , and
with a flapped ship it may be especially dangerous. Many gliders will
accelerate rapidly enough that - especially if you have not reduced the
flap setting - you will exceed limiting speed for the aircraft
configuration and damage something. In at least two cases I have seen
this was at least a contributory factor in a fatality.

Therefore I advocate - first reduce AoA, by changing flap - that way you
have taken the action most likely to recover with the minimum
disturbance and very importantly, you have configured your aircraft for
the possible / probable high speed that will eventuate if you do have to
recover from a fully developed spin or spiral dive. And then continue
with the rest of the standard recovery process until the spin is arrested.

Again I think we agree - the critical point for me is that in a flapped
aircraft the flaps should be the first control input, and that the
result of each input should be assessed lest you do something
inappropriate to the circumstances simply because it is the next action
on the standard recovery procedure.

As a thought - consider what might have happened with Bruno if he had
immediately centralised the controls without changing flap first.
--
Bruce Greeff
T59D #1771

On Sep 12, 5:06*am, BruceGreeff wrote:

As a thought - consider what might have happened with Bruno if he had
immediately centralised the controls without changing flap first.

Motivated by this thread, I tested all this on my last flight.

What happens in my ASW20B -- if I provoke a scenario identical to
what's seen in Bruno's video, then apply normal spin recovery while
staying in #4 flap -- is that the "snap roll" stops a little past 90
degrees, the nose drops about 20 and I am able to re-establish a
thermal turn without ever exceeding 65 kts. It isn't exactly the
stuff of horror films.

A fully developed steady state spin does reasonably call for shifting
flaps to #2 (-4 deg) to avoid over stressing things on recovery. But
recovery from an incipient spin can be made (and imo should be made)
with normal spin recovery inputs.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

On Thursday, August 30, 2012 2:13:31 PM UTC-6, (unknown) wrote:
e
This is an example of where RAS can be really scary.

We see a video of a non standard recovery to am incipient spin and my impression is that this writer may well embrace this as a viable alternative to the long proven and taught spin recovery technique of applying opposite rudder, neutralizing aileron, and reducing the angle of attack by moving the stick forward.

I like Bruno and his videos, but some of what he does and shows do not reflect examples of how we should all fly. This is such an example.

So- what does Crabby UH say he did wrong?

1- Obviously exceeded the critical angle of attack of the inboard wing- gust likely a factor- could happen to any of us, and does.

2- As the wing starts to drop, adds top aileron, obviously as an automatic and likely habitual reaction. This has the effect of increasing the angle of attack on the most critical portion of the wing at exactly the wrong time.

3- No obvious use of opposite rudder.

4- No forward stick to reduce angle of attack, in fact it appears the stick is positively held back.

The dumping of flaps seems to be well practiced in recovering from this maneuver- I wonder who taught him this.

Bruno seems more worried about staying in the thermal than getting control of the glider. Maybe these techniques were why he spun it so much. Luckily not at low altitude.

The danger is when these habits are applied in a more critical situation, a tragedy can result.

PLEASE- Nobody follow this example.

Follow the training you were(I hope) given and proven techniques.

1 Opposite rudder immediately

2 Neutralize the stick to reduce angle of attack and eliminate any extra angle of attack on the inside wing which is already the slowest and at the highest angle of attack.

3 Recover smoothly from the ensuing post recovery attitude.

This should be automatic and instinctive.

Bruno- not personal
UH

UH,
I kinda have to laugh because Bruno was drug into this thread only because someone posted a link to one of his videos. I think you have obviously missed the fact B4 posts alot of these "Examples" to foster input and discussion and possibly keep others from harm someday. He is one of the few pilots that I know who does this and it is out of passion for the sport and a desire to make it safer. Ive flown the ship in the video and I can attest to its squirrelyness at thermal speed. If you can set your conjecture aside for a minute and rewatch the video B4 makes an off the cuff comment "Enter a spin" but all that happened is a wing dropped after he stalled in a gust. In the vid he even recited the recovery procedure per the POH verbatim (The reduction of flaps is in the POH as well). And, I am 100% certain that if this stall was low to the ground Bruno would not have been inclined to remain in this thermal. Lastly, Why would you make a harsh character assessment about the guy and his videos and then state "Nothing Personal"? That's whacked..
Kirk

At 15:54 12 September 2012, Evan Ludeman wrote:
On Sep 12, 5:06=A0am, BruceGreeff wrote:

As a thought - consider what might have happened with Bruno if he had
immediately centralised the controls without changing flap first.

Motivated by this thread, I tested all this on my last flight.

What happens in my ASW20B -- if I provoke a scenario identical to
what's seen in Bruno's video, then apply normal spin recovery while
staying in #4 flap -- is that the "snap roll" stops a little past 90
degrees, the nose drops about 20 and I am able to re-establish a
thermal turn without ever exceeding 65 kts. It isn't exactly the
stuff of horror films.

A fully developed steady state spin does reasonably call for shifting
flaps to #2 (-4 deg) to avoid over stressing things on recovery. But
recovery from an incipient spin can be made (and imo should be made)
with normal spin recovery inputs.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

From the ASW 20 flight manual:

1. Recovery from spin can be easier achieved, if the
flaps are set in negative position (handle
forward).

On Wednesday, September 12, 2012 2:23:49 PM UTC-4, K wrote:
On Thursday, August 30, 2012 2:13:31 PM UTC-6, (unknown) wrote: e This is an example of where RAS can be really scary. We see a video of a non standard recovery to am incipient spin and my impression is that this writer may well embrace this as a viable alternative to the long proven and taught spin recovery technique of applying opposite rudder, neutralizing aileron, and reducing the angle of attack by moving the stick forward. I like Bruno and his videos, but some of what he does and shows do not reflect examples of how we should all fly. This is such an example. So- what does Crabby UH say he did wrong? 1- Obviously exceeded the critical angle of attack of the inboard wing- gust likely a factor- could happen to any of us, and does. 2- As the wing starts to drop, adds top aileron, obviously as an automatic and likely habitual reaction. This has the effect of increasing the angle of attack on the most critical portion of the wing at exactly the wrong time. 3- No obvious use of opposite rudder. 4- No forward stick to reduce angle of attack, in fact it appears the stick is positively held back. The dumping of flaps seems to be well practiced in recovering from this maneuver- I wonder who taught him this. Bruno seems more worried about staying in the thermal than getting control of the glider. Maybe these techniques were why he spun it so much. Luckily not at low altitude. The danger is when these habits are applied in a more critical situation, a tragedy can result. PLEASE- Nobody follow this example. Follow the training you were(I hope) given and proven techniques. 1 Opposite rudder immediately 2 Neutralize the stick to reduce angle of attack and eliminate any extra angle of attack on the inside wing which is already the slowest and at the highest angle of attack. 3 Recover smoothly from the ensuing post recovery attitude. This should be automatic and instinctive. Bruno- not personal UH UH, I kinda have to laugh because Bruno was drug into this thread only because someone posted a link to one of his videos. I think you have obviously missed the fact B4 posts alot of these "Examples" to foster input and discussion and possibly keep others from harm someday. He is one of the few pilots that I know who does this and it is out of passion for the sport and a desire to make it safer. Ive flown the ship in the video and I can attest to its squirrelyness at thermal speed. If you can set your conjecture aside for a minute and rewatch the video B4 makes an off the cuff comment "Enter a spin" but all that happened is a wing dropped after he stalled in a gust. In the vid he even recited the recovery procedure per the POH verbatim (The reduction of flaps is in the POH as well). And, I am 100% certain that if this stall was low to the ground Bruno would not have been inclined to remain in this thermal. Lastly, Why would you make a harsh character assessment about the guy and his videos and then state "Nothing Personal"? That's whacked. Kirk

I've communicated with Bruno and he understands my comment. I don't think I attacked his character, nor does he seem to think I did.
What I've taken him to task, is that his response is an example of how one could make the situation much worse. ie adding top aileron.
The point I have tried to get across is that, just because it worked here doesn't make it a good practice, mostly because if adding aileron in the early departure becomes a habit, it could lead to really bad results in other ships, for example a flapped ship that does not have interconnects to raise the flaps of maybe an unflapped ship.
What is personal are the dead guys that result from nad technique and bad judgement.
Cheers
UH

On Sep 12, 3:15*pm, Don Johnstone wrote:
At 15:54 12 September 2012, Evan Ludeman wrote:









On Sep 12, 5:06=A0am, BruceGreeff *wrote:

As a thought - consider what might have happened with Bruno if he had
immediately centralised the controls without changing flap first.

Motivated by this thread, I tested all this on my last flight.

What happens in my ASW20B -- if I provoke a scenario identical to
what's seen in Bruno's video, then apply normal spin recovery while
staying in #4 flap -- is that the "snap *roll" stops a little past 90
degrees, the nose drops about 20 and I am able to re-establish a
thermal turn without ever exceeding 65 kts. *It isn't exactly the
stuff of horror films.

A fully developed steady state spin does reasonably call for shifting
flaps to #2 (-4 deg) to avoid over stressing things on recovery. *But
recovery from an incipient spin can be made (and imo should be made)
with normal spin recovery inputs.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

From the ASW 20 flight manual:

1. Recovery from spin can be easier achieved, if the
flaps are set in negative position (handle
forward).


and that's a great thing to keep in mind in case you ever need it. I
don't have the manual handy, but I dispute the term "easier".
Opposite rudder, ailerons neutral, stick forward enough to break the
stall is "easy". And if it is done as quickly as it should be
(reflexively, as soon as you feel the break) this event is over before
there's any drama whatsoever. I hate the thought that guys might
construe that they *need* to fumble for the flap handle to make a
recovery. In any case, guys need to investigate their own ships and
discover what works for them.

T8

At 20:07 12 September 2012, Evan Ludeman wrote:
On Sep 12, 3:15=A0pm, Don Johnstone wrote:
At 15:54 12 September 2012, Evan Ludeman wrote:









On Sep 12, 5:06=3DA0am, BruceGreeff =A0wrote:

As a thought - consider what might have happened with Bruno if he
had
immediately centralised the controls without changing flap first.

Motivated by this thread, I tested all this on my last flight.

What happens in my ASW20B -- if I provoke a scenario identical to
what's seen in Bruno's video, then apply normal spin recovery while
staying in #4 flap -- is that the "snap =A0roll" stops a little past
90
degrees, the nose drops about 20 and I am able to re-establish a
thermal turn without ever exceeding 65 kts. =A0It isn't exactly the
stuff of horror films.

A fully developed steady state spin does reasonably call for shifting
flaps to #2 (-4 deg) to avoid over stressing things on recovery.
=A0But
recovery from an incipient spin can be made (and imo should be made)
with normal spin recovery inputs.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

From the ASW 20 flight manual:

1. Recovery from spin can be easier achieved, if the
flaps are set in negative position (handle
forward).


and that's a great thing to keep in mind in case you ever need it. I
don't have the manual handy, but I dispute the term "easier".
Opposite rudder, ailerons neutral, stick forward enough to break the
stall is "easy". And if it is done as quickly as it should be
(reflexively, as soon as you feel the break) this event is over before
there's any drama whatsoever. I hate the thought that guys might
construe that they *need* to fumble for the flap handle to make a
recovery. In any case, guys need to investigate their own ships and
discover what works for them.

T8

When I flew a flapped glider my hand was resting on the flap lever for most
of the time when I was flying, in common with many others, so moving both
levers forward would not have involved any fumbling. Moving the flap lever
forward instantly reduces the angle of attack, and inter alia, drag, which
can be no bad thing

I had an incipient departure just the other day. I fly an Apis M. In
deconstructing the event, I saw the nose dropping and not responding
to back pressure so I put the stick forward and it was all over in a
second. I think when the aircraft doesn't do what it should for the
input, there should be a reflex alternative action. Either flaps or
stick forward is probably ok. The stick feels more like it has more
authority to me.

In a fully established spin, flaps have to come off as you will likely
exceed the white arc in recovery.

The dicey scenarios are the ones where you have to think out what is
going on before acting. The whole thinking thing is easily derailed.

Mark

Regarding practice, how many people own gliders that are certificated for spins? The last two I have owned (ASH26E & Duo Discus) intentional spins are prohibited. That doesn't prevent you from practicing departures, and may be a result of conservative attorneys rather than any real issue, nevertheless that's what the manufacturer said and your insurer would probably agree.