Flat Spins

[sandpiper]

Thanks John. I agree with you and am not overly concerned, just curious as it seems awefully difficult in today's modern LSA to get into a flat spin and thought I would ask the question.

 

And you should always remain curious and continually increase your knowledge. Enjoy your new rating.

[Doug G.]

My take away from this discussion is that I am not doing any intentional spins no matter what the reason FD prohibits them is.

[Jim]

A BRS can make the pattern spin survivable, but you'd have to be Johnny-on-the-spot pulling that handle. Much better to avoid the situation entirely.

 

Takes lots of disciple. We lost a pilot a few years ago. He spun it base to final and witnesses watched him fight the spin all the way to the ground, even though he had a BRS.

[Ed Cesnalis]

I think we need one or more of the CFIs to at least offer incipient spin recovery training?

 

I'm reluctant to do it myself even thought I'm comfortable with spin recovery in a Cessna. If I understood the reason for the limitation I might be more or less reluctant.

 

At present I would pull the chute on a < 500' base to final spin entry, I would rather have some experience with it to base my decision on.

 

[WmInce]

I think we need one or more of the CFIs to at least offer incipient spin recovery training?

 

I'm reluctant to do it myself even thought I'm comfortable with spin recovery in a Cessna. If I understood the reason for the limitation I might be more or less reluctant.

 

At present I would pull the chute on a < 500' base to final spin entry, I would rather have some experience with it to base my decision on.

 

Excellent video demo!

 

Thanks CT for posting that.

[Ed Cesnalis]

http://www.recreatio...7_Airplanes.pdf

 

Designation: F 2245 – 07

Standard Specification for

Design and Performance of a Light Sport Airplane1

This standard is issued under the fixed designation F 2245; the number immediately following the designation indicates the year of

original adoption or, in the case of revision, the year of last revision. A number in parentheses indicates the year of last reapproval. A

superscript epsilon (e) indicates an editorial change since the last revision or reapproval.

 

4.5.9 Spinning:

4.5.9.1 For airplanes placarded “no intentional spins,” the

airplane must be able to recover from a one-turn spin or a 3-s

spin, whichever takes longer, in not more than one additional

turn, with the controls used in the manner normally used for

recovery.

4.5.9.2 For airplanes in which intentional spinning is allowed,

the airplane must be able to recover from a three-turn

spin in not more than one and one-half additional turn.

4.5.9.3 In addition, for either 4.5.9.1 or 4.5.9.2:

(1) For both the flaps-retracted and flaps-extended conditions,

the applicable airspeed limit and limit maneuvering load

factor may not be exceeded

 

(2) There may be no excessive control forces during the

spin or recovery.

(3) It must be impossible to obtain uncontrollable spins

with any use of the controls.

(4) For the flaps-extended condition, the flaps may be

retracted during recovery.

4.5.9.4 For those airplanes of which the design is inherently

spin resistant, such resistance must be proven by test and

documented. If proven spin resistant, the airplane must be

placarded “no intentional spins” but need not comply with

4.5.9.1-4.5.9.3.

[Ed Cesnalis]

Sling LSA Prototype Lost During Spin Testing

 

http://www.eaa.org/n...02-25_sling.asp

 

The second set of spin tests in the new configuration went normally until the test called for the aircraft to be put into flat spin. The crew was not able to recover from the maneuver and deployed the ballistic aircraft parachute...

[Ed Cesnalis]

http://www.ntsb.gov/...601X20158&key=1

 

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident to be:

 

The pilots’ failure to avoid and recover from the prohibited maneuver of aerodynamic spin during a training flight, for undetermined reasons. Contributing to the severity of the accident was the failure of the ballistic parachute rocket as a result of the manufacturer’s use of an inadequate thread sealant glue on the end caps of the rocket. Contributing to the severity of the occupants’ injuries was the separation of their shoulder belt attachment brackets at impact.

[Ed Cesnalis]

After a little research I see:

• Spin testing in LSA sometimes results in flat spin crashes
  
• Spin training in LSA sometimes results in spin incidents, even though they are mostly prohibited.
  

I have to assume:

• My CTSW is not especially prone to spin entry
  
• My CTSW will likely demonstrate a fully developed spin
  
• CTSWs require conventionl technique for spin recovery.
  
• My CTSW is not shown to resist flat spins
  
• My CTSW is not known to be capable of recovering from a flat spin
  
• In case of flat spin I will open my door before I give up on recovery.
  
• I intend to pull the chute instead of dying trying to recover
  

[FastEddieB]

 

Let's put it another way. Do you beat your children? If you child of three years of age insists on impulsively darting into traffic do you reason with the child or do you spank them and threaten them? I bet nearly all of you will beat your child if you think that will keep them alive. That is the Fast Eddie approach to stall avoidance. I, on the other hand, believe in thoughtful, considerate reasoning. Then if the little bleeder runs into traffic I can say it wasn't my fault.

 

Are we children?

 

Wow!

 

It's amazing what can become contentious here!

 

I think my positions are pretty straightforward here:

 

1) One should not spin an aircraft which is placarded against intentional spins. Is that really open to debate?

 

2) A spin in the pattern is nearly always fatal.

 

To be honest, in my hyperbole I first typed that spins in the pattern were 99.999% fatal. My conservatism got the better of me and I decrease it by one order of magnitude and drop a "9" figuring maybe someone, somewhere occasionally manages to survive a spin from the pattern. I'll see if I can find any supporting data, but my number was chosen for effect, not accuracy.

 

I have taught a lot of spins and spin avoidance in a variety of planes, mostly Citabrias. Part of the confusion here may be defining a spin.

 

We would often do three-revolution spins and attempt to recover on a heading. To stay oriented you would start lined up with a road, and then count, "One half...One...One and a half...Two...Two and a half...start recovery". Done right you would end up back over your same road pointed in the same direction. I mention this because an imminent spin or a developing spin is a very different animal from a fully developed spin. The counting in the spins to a heading always sped up markedly as the spin fully developed, with the "One half...One...One and a half..." being at a fairly slow cadence, but the "Two...Two and a half..." counting off very, very fast as the spin wound up.

 

In the photo of the spinning plane that hit the ground with survivors, I'd hold that a 1/2 turn spin is barely a spin at all - it's still developing. Amazing that they survived, but had the spin "wound up" I don't think they would have.

 

In any case, I'll stipulate that if Ed has lightning reflexes he might be able to pull the chute from a spin in the pattern. Whether it would deploy in time is another matter. I don't think that the vast majority of pilots (myself included) could, in that 2 or 3 seconds of terror, find the wherewithal to find and pull the chute handle - but I may be wrong on this.

 

This came up in a Cirrus fatal in FL. I'll try to find a link. Remember, that plane in Ed's video lost 1,200', and that was with the pilot expecting it and executing a near perfect recovery. As perfect as it was, it would have been into the ground at pattern altitude.

 

BTW, I strongly advocate spin training, or at least imminent spin training from cross-controlled stalls. If you slam the nose forward and kick opposite rudder RIGHT NOW as the wing drops and the plane starts to roll near inverted, you have a good chance of stopping the spin within a quarter turn or so. THAT is very possible survivable in the pattern - but let go just a bit longer and the ground will come up VERY fast.

[FastEddieB]

Here's that Cirrus accident:

 

http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=825ebbf6-b989-4a1e-ab0b-0d04cb27d3da

 

Apparently the pilot did manage to get the chute pulled, but from low altitude it did not serve its purpose.

 

While searching, I did come up with this AOPA article on the subject:

 

http://m.aopa.org/asf/publications/topics/stall_spin.html

[sandpiper]

I would like to think that, should I stall out of a skidding base to final turn and start the spin that I would pull the chute in time because, heck, I'm so good I can even fly the crate it came in.

 

Big B.S. here.

 

My training from day one 48 years ago did not include a B.R.S. Until I got the CT 7 years ago a B.R.S. wasn't even in my mind. All my training and instruction given to others did not include B.R.S. So, I'm actually gonna have a few seconds of WTF before the law of primacy takes over and I go with first learned response of trying to recover. By the time I think of the chute it will be too late. Unfortunate but, for me and many with similar training, probably true.

[Ed Cesnalis]

I don't know how fast I can react but ever since I tried simulating a base to final stall spin at altitude I have had a different mindset on that turn. The sudden way that spin entry happens is on my mind every time I do a similar turn near the ground. If its on my mind I assume my reaction time would be good.

 

The end result I think is that I am not afraid to bank in the pattern but I am certain to stay coordinated and keep my wing unloaded. In a CTSW this means your huge view is full of the ground while you are maneuvering so it may be unusual to some passengers.

 

Spin training, or perhaps in our case incipient spin training is what it is but the result is what you make it. Better to result in avoidance with a good margin then the idea that your protection is in your ability to recover. You will probably have to learn how to recover in order to learn how to recognize an imminent entry.

 

Levels:

1. Avoidance through approaching coordinated and at a good margin over stall, trimmed with little or no back pressure
    
   
2. Avoidance through recognition of imminent entry and stall avoidance.
    
   
3. Avoidance of rotation through early stall recovery and opposite rudder
    
   
4. Avoidance of fully developed spin through early recovery
   

To date I have remained at Level 1 on approach and would like to keep it that way when close to the ground. I'm not sure if base to final or low / slow maneuvering present the greatest risk.

 

Higher levels are required when transitioning mountain waves and other lee side turbulence.

[sandpiper]

Note to self: Add to landing checklist - Place hand on red handle before beginning base to final turn.

 

Maybe that will do it! JOKING!!

[Jim Meade]

I think the red handle could be in a much better position.

When we think about pulling the red handle we need to consider that in some circumstances g forces may make it hard to move our arms around to readily grab the handle.

 

I do not and will not change my idea that no matter what the manufacturer and the FAA say it is better to understand why things happen. It may help and I don't see how it can hurt. We are not children and should not be treated as children when the information is available.

 

Spin training in a spin prohibited airplane may be illegal. If you read the regs and FAA definitions, it seems like the combination of yaw and autorotation is by definition a spin. Old timers used to say it took three turns to make a spin and the preceding was spin entry or incipient spin. Maybe not per the regs.

 

 

 

[Andy]

When I was in the Navy, we had instructors from Naval Test Pilot school come down and do "out of control" training. They brought a T-2C with them, and we each took turns putting the airplane into a maneuver like a Lomchevak (going uphill no less) and then we held in pro spin controls to see instrument indications in a fully developed spin. If a spin is fully developed, airspeed will be stable or oscillating around a value and the turn needle (if you have one) will be fully pegged in the direction of the spin. If the airspeed is increasing, you are either in the incipient phase of the spin (in which case the airspeed will stabilize when the spin becomes developed) or a spiral (in which case the airspeed will continue to increase) and recovery controls are vastly different.

 

I'm with Jim on knowing as much as you can. Keeping people in the dark won't keep folks from exploring the dark netherlands if they choose to do so...and the information will help those who don't want to venture there stay out of them.

 

As for the whole pattern spin/death thing, I agree that most of the time such a situation might be fatal but might is the operative word, even without using the BRS. I've spun Cessna 150 Aerobats, Citabrias, and Decathalons, and though it's been a while (CFI training last year) losing 1000 feet would take several turns, though the spicy part would be whether there was enough altitude to finish the pullout without pancaking afterwards. My experience is that most of the time the spin doesn't get fully developed until somewhere between 2-3 turns in the airplanes I mentioned; I don't usually consider it "full" until I hit 3, though I'm a chicken and like to go for recovery shortly after that.

 

I also believe in both teaching avoidance and getting spin training when you can. Would like to be able to teach it but don't currently have an airplane where I can.

 

If I was hitting the scenario at 1000 feet, probably because all my training has been to recover without a chute, my first instinct would most likely to be to attempt a quick recovery, though once the nose dropped through and I'm looking straight down, I'd go for the BRS. I haven't really tried to get the CT into a spin and don't really care to find out the hard way how quickly she'd recover...or not.

[FastEddieB]

I'm with Jim on knowing as much as you can. Keeping people in the dark won't keep folks from exploring the dark netherlands if they choose to do so...and the information will help those who don't want to venture there stay out of them.

 

Just curious...

 

...has anyone here actually advocated NOT knowing as much as you can?

 

As to the rest of your post, I agree 100%, except possibly for the ability to get the chute pulled after a spin in the pattern - not saying one couldn't under ideal conditions - I just don't think I could react fast enough.

 

Though that may come from being an age the Beatles used to sing about as being in the far future!

[Jim]

Just curious...

 

...has anyone here actually advocated NOT knowing as much as you can?

 

Only when raising a teenager.