cessna 152/172 spin excercise

[co-joe]

From a purely academic discussion standpoint I'd say that it would depend greatly on how you had her trimmed at the time.

[photofly]

As to you ancedotal, one off example. That is what it is. The exception. Not the rule.

But there is no rule. You shouldn't be claiming there is one. If there's no rule there can be no such thing as an exception to the rule.

But this begs the question of what we should be teaching as the required spin recovery technique.

I don't see there's any doubt about the answer. Teach what's in the POH for the aircraft. If there's nothing in the POH then it's appropriate to consider both PARE and Muller/Beggs.

[PilotDAR]

If there's nothing in the POH then it's appropriate to consider both PARE and Muller/Beggs.

I don't know these people, did they write valid spin recovery procedures generic to all aircraft?

If these people's procedures are being considered, what is the perspective of the person doing the considering of their applicability to an aircraft for which no POH information is presented?

[photofly]

Did *anyone* write valid spin recovery procedures generic to *all* aircraft? No. That's the point.


Detail on MB:
http://spirit.eaa.org/intheloop/article ... covery.asp

[Big Pistons Forever]

I think it is important to make clear that the MB method is intended for spins in the context of aerobatic maneuvering. Botched aerobatic maneuvers can result in extreme upsets with the aircraft very rapidly entering aggravated spin modes erect or inverted or transitioning from one to the other. It is effectively impossible to enter any of these spin modes in a single engine Cessna, including an inverted spin.

Most of these outcomes are a result of the design flying characteristics of purpose built aerobatic aircraft.

None of this discussion IMO has anything to do with the OP's question regarding spins in a C 172
As was pointed out by several earlier posters, the POH for this aircraft has a spin recovery procedure. That and only that should be used

But a bigger point in my mind is that there is no reason to spin a C 172 other than that what is required to demonstrate to the instructor and then the examiner (CPL) that you can effectively apply the POH required spin recover actions.

The C 172 is not an aerobatic airplane and a spin is an aerobatic maneuver.

[CpnCrunch]

Did *anyone* write valid spin recovery procedures generic to *all* aircraft? No. That's the point.

Nobody said PARE was applicable to *all* aircraft. However it is applicable to most (all?) general aviation training aircraft. C150/C172/PA32/PA28 all use PARE.

But there is no rule

PARE would be the rule.

Also, if you have a look at the Tipsy Nipper POH you'll see it says "Normal recovery methods are quite adequate, and the action is immediately effective." So it in fact does use the "rule" as well (although it appears from that accident report that it doesn't always work!)

[photofly]

So if it's the rule, why do we all agree it's terribly important to read the POH?

[AuxBatOn]

Finally the certification standard for a spin certified aircraft is 6 turns. If you go pass 6 turns you are a test pilot......

A little over-dramatic. While the certification process requires 6 turns, I would be very surprised if the aircraft wasn't spun past 6 turns.

If there is no prohibition in the Flight Manual about spinning more than 6 turns in the developped stage, it is not wrong to go past 6 turns. Once you are stabilized in the developped spin, unless inputs are changed, the mode remains the same and the recovery is not less safe.

[Old Dog Flying]

The POH for te Grumman AA1A specifies that intentional spins are prohibited. That is why you check the POH.

Barney

[CpnCrunch]

Out of curiosity, which GA planes have non-standard spin recovery techniques?

[Big Pistons Forever]

Finally the certification standard for a spin certified aircraft is 6 turns. If you go pass 6 turns you are a test pilot......

A little over-dramatic. While the certification process requires 6 turns, I would be very surprised if the aircraft wasn't spun past 6 turns.

If there is no prohibition in the Flight Manual about spinning more than 6 turns in the developped stage, it is not wrong to go past 6 turns. Once you are stabilized in the developped spin, unless inputs are changed, the mode remains the same and the recovery is not less safe.

I think you message is not a good one. There is no requirement to do spin testing past 6 turns so your supposition that manufacturers do it anyway may or not may be true. However one thing is true, spin your 150 more than 6 turns and you are operating outside the certification boundaries of the airplane. Is that really the message you want to send to the student or low time pilots reading this forum ? Do you choose to deliberately operate your CF 18 outside of its tested limits ?

Finally just because the last XXX number of times the spin worked fine doesn't necessarily mean that A XXX + 1 you might get an entirely unexpected outcome

I always thought that it was impossible to get into a flat spin in a C 150. That was until a fellow I know had that exact thing happen to him. He thinks that just as the aircraft was starting to enter the spin a large updraft caused the aircraft to abruptly pitch up and reduced the airspeed to a very low value. It then entered a very fast rotation with the nose above the horizon and the initial attempt to recover with the standard actions was totally ineffective. He then applied full power, full out of spin rudder, full down elevator and full into spin aileron. The aircraft almost immediately violently pitched down, so he chopped the throttle and almost simultaneously the rotation stopped allowing a normal pull out. The aircraft lost 2000 feet. He is firmly convinced that his aerobatic training saved the day and your average low time instructor would have rode the aircraft to the ground.

[AuxBatOn]

Finally the certification standard for a spin certified aircraft is 6 turns. If you go pass 6 turns you are a test pilot......

A little over-dramatic. While the certification process requires 6 turns, I would be very surprised if the aircraft wasn't spun past 6 turns.

If there is no prohibition in the Flight Manual about spinning more than 6 turns in the developped stage, it is not wrong to go past 6 turns. Once you are stabilized in the developped spin, unless inputs are changed, the mode remains the same and the recovery is not less safe.

I think you message is not a good one. There is no requirement to do spin testing past 6 turns so your supposition that manufacturers do it anyway may or not may be true. However one thing is true, spin your 150 more than 6 turns and you are operating outside the certification boundaries of the airplane.

There is also no requirement in the certification process to publish takeoff speeds and distances for configurations other than takeoff flaps yet companies still do. If there is a cliff not to be reached, it is the responsibility of the test team to recommend a limitation or at least a warning in the Flight Manual and the company's to publish it.

The message is understanding what you are doing and operating within the flight clearance of the aircraft (which is the POH in this case). If the POH doesn't prohibit it and regulations allow it, then it is legal. Smart? Not necessarily.

In the case if a spin, once the inertial forces and aerodynamic forces stabilized, only a disturbance willl change its mode: outside (gust but that should be negligeable), control inputs, C.G. shift.

For your friend, the fact it was certified for 6 matters not. Had whatever happened that made him go into a flat spin happen after 2 turns, the same would have happenned.

[PilotDAR]

I have to admit that I feel inadequate, I don't know who PARE is. I suppose I should look it up. I wonder how I have spun and recovered so many planes over all the years, many with no published procedures for doing so, having never heard of PARE.

I have never read a flight manual recovery procedure which was in conflict with: Reduce AoA, apply rudder to stop rotation, and recover to normal flight.

The POH for te Grumman AA1A specifies that intentional spins are prohibited. That is why you check the POH.

Is true. However many planes will still provide recovery procedures in their flight manual, as inadvertent spin entry is still possible.

The C 172 is not an aerobatic airplane and a spin is an aerobatic maneuver.

Though in fairness, it's limitations placard does read:

No acrobatic maneuvers approved except those listed below.

Chandelles 115 mph (100 knots)
Lazy eights 115 mph (100 knots)
Steep turns 115 mph (100 knots)
Spins Slow deceleration
Stalls (except whip stalls) Slow deceleration"

So that placard does acknowledge the spin as an aerobatic maneuver, and approved in the 172 (under certain operating conditions.)

[CpnCrunch]

I don't know who PARE is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PARE_(aviation)

[PilotDAR]

Ah. To me, "Pare" means to trim something (with a knife), so I thought trim.

But now I'm presented with the notion that upon entering a life threatening loss of control situation, instead of applying muscle memory to reduce AoA and arrest rotation with rudder, I'm I am to search my mind for a word otherwise unrelated to aviation, decode it, and then once I recall the unusual meaning, adjust the power first to affect the recovery. Now I get why "letting go" has merit as a spin recovery tactic, it's easier to remember then PARE, and faster to apply!

Personally, I avoid acronyms as a checklist crutch. For me, it's either important enough that it's a memory, or muscle memory item, for instant application in an urgent situation, or it's flow/checklist use when getting it right with appropriate time available ('cause you planned it). I accept that there must be pilot minds in cockpits who can remember, process, and apply acronyms so quickly that it becomes a blur of appropriately moving hands and feet. Great if you can do all that, I'm a low workload pilot, so I'll just fly the plane.

I am not an instructor, so in fairness, I must defer to formally recognized training techniques. But, I have never been trained to apply acronyms to flying an aircraft, particularly during times of urgency. Thus, I never train this way during more advanced mentoring, I would think it would distract my fellow pilot to have to remember more than is required to just fly safely.

Power [reduction] first? Really? That's not what has worked for me all these decades. Sure, reduce the power early in the recovery to eliminate the effects of torque on the spin, but I really feel that reducing AoA, and stopping rotation are more important, and thus the first actions I will apply. During testing, as required, I have deliberately spun aircraft each direction with 75% power set, to be reduced only after recovery is initiated. I agree depending upon the relationship between torque and direction of rotation, power can give you an exciting ride, but the spin is still recoverable. It is one of the requirements for certification of single engined airplanes that no application of control (which has been interpreted as including power) may cause a spin to develop is is not recoverable. You can certainly prolong it though!

Let me think....

LAND
Look (to assure you're lined up on a suitable landing surface)
Accelerate (upward from your descent path into a flare)
Negate (any drift)
Decelerate (so as to settle onto the surface)

TURN
Traverse (the area with your eyes to assure it is clear)
Unlevel (the plane in the desired direction)
Rudder (apply to coordinate)
No (unintended altitude change should occur)

TAXI
Take (into account the surface, route and obstacles)
Aim (the aircraft along the desired path)
Xamine (your path regularly to assure it remains clear)
Initiate (turns or stopping as required)

Never mind, I'm just going to apply my skill, judgement, and observation, and fly the plane.....

[photofly]

Power [reduction] first? Really? That's not what has worked for me all these decades.

Yes, really. It's the very first item in all the Cessna single-engine emergency spin recovery procedures:

"(1) RETARD THROTTLE TO IDLE POSITION"

You might want to adjust your muscle memory to include that. From the point of view of training, it's a required memory item from the rec permit flight test up.

Come to that, it's the first thing in the Muller Beggs recovery procedure too.

On the subject of acronyms: Only a tiny number of pilots carry out more than the single full spin recovery required by the PPL training syllabus in Canada, so they won't have the opportunity to build muscle memory for that scenario. Acronyms are one way to get people to remember a list of action items, and most people respond well to that method.

[trey kule]

Ah. To me, "Pare" means to trim something (with a knife), so I thought t

You need to spend more time studying aviation history and terminology
It is not an acronym at all, but the anglaziation of a French aviation term (like Mayday)..
When the French pilots got themselves into an unintentional spin, and were afraid they would croak, the procedure they would use was to simply release all controls and shout. " Notre Pere". Followed by a verbal checklist for such situations. The phrase was felt to be to long and cumbersome for English speakers and thus shortened to the modern term "Pare".

You might want to adjust your muscle memory to include that. From the point of view of training, it's a required memory item from the rec permit flight test up.

Hmmmmm. This seems like it just might be the first item on the TC spin recovery procedure...
Seems to me it is a good start to recovering..

[PilotDAR]

Yes, really. It's the very first item in all the Cessna single-engine emergency spin recovery procedures:

"(1) RETARD THROTTLE TO IDLE POSITION"

Yes, I accept that I have a differing view of this, and by regulation, the manufacturer's procedures are to prevail.

If you a pilot who is a little less instant in the way you apply corrective recovery control inputs, consider the reality that if a plane is in the attitude in which spin entry in imminent, and you're carrying some power, removing that power, and then pausing to think about the next thing of lowering the nose, may cause an alarming situation in the interval between reducing power, and reducing AoA.

But, I'm not an instructor, so follow the training of an instructor who is training the Flight Manual procedures, just realize the benefit of being prompt about combining recovery control inputs!

[photofly]

Deliberate spins in the various cessnas approved for it are entered with the power already at idle (or with a short burst of power for the 172) so there isn't much opportunity to practice having to reduce the power to idle in exercises. But it does make a difference in the recovery: a 172 with appropriate inputs will stay in a spin with enough power in a way it won't with the throttle closed.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Power in all normal spin modes is destabilizing so that as a general statement the reduction of power will reduce the propensity of the aircraft to continue the departure from controlled flight.

However for the purposes of PPL and CP flight training it is very important to emphasis that the point of spin training is not to learn how to do a spin, it is to learn how to recognize and recover from an inadvertent spin entry.

Since the airplane has to have stalled before it can spin the best spin recovery is to not let the aircraft stall in the first place and if it does stall to not let the aircraft yaw.

Spin should be recovered as soon as the aircraft enters auto-rotation, ( i.e at about 1/2 turn ) to let the aircraft go any further is IMO negative training as the is no reason outside of an aerobatics sequence to not immediately recover from a spin.