Spin Training

[triplese7en]

Are we talking about x-planes, jets and spaceshuttles or 172's?

jubjub - welcome to the discussion. This is about airplanes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airplane

So, in your 150-hour-wisdom, should we all ignore what NASA has said for the spin recovery?

[Cat Driver]

Tripleese7 I have no intention of reading all the documents you are quoting for the simple reason I already know how to fly and how to survive.

My difference with you is what you say you teach.....

Quote:
When the wing drops in the stall, the airplane doesn't really roll around its longitudinal axis. It sort of falls off to one side as if it's falling/rolling off the top of a ball. Due to that, its heading will change. Who cares?!

I do.

Once you've recovered from the stall, roll wings level on that heading and pull up. Maintaining a heading into an out of a stall is pointless and counterproductive. The best way to recovery is essentially let the plane do what it wants to do.

No, absolutely no, the flight controls allow me to decide where my airplane is going.

In my opinion what you are teaching is wrong if you let the airplane do what it wants to do.

Your students may die if they follow that advice.

[jubjub]

My point was simply that exceptions exist and to consult your handy POH and act accordingly. I have no intention of arguing with NASA. I'll leave that to you.

Only reason I mentioned I'm a 150 hour wonder is that you could have been and could still be my instructor and I would know no better. I don't think I'm very special, but I do want to live and I do consider my self very safety conscious.

Edited to reply to your 150 hour jab.

[triplese7en]

Tripleese7 I have no intention of reading all the documents you are quoting for the simple reason I already know how to fly and how to survive.

I am not surprised. The arrogance of the 'older pilots' on here is incredible!

I'd bet a lot of money that not a single soul has read those documents I posted.

When I said "The best way to recovery is essentially let the plane do what it wants to do." I was specifically talking about not forcing the airplane to maintain a heading that is away from where it is actually going. In spin recover and stall recovery you are trying to get the pointy end of the airplane to align with the flight path of the airplane. Using rudder to force the nose away from the direction of the airplane is counterproductive. That is my point.

Let the airplane fall off to the left and recover on whatever heading it 'falls' onto. As soon as the airplane stalls, do the recovery procedure. The wing drop in a Cessna, if you do that, will be very minimal. As I stated before, when you have a wing drop at the stall it does NOT roll around the longitudinal axis - your heading will change. Heading has nothing to do with aerodynamics!!! F*ck the heading... get the plane out of the aerodynamic stall by getting the nose pointed in the direction the airplane is heading!

I'm not in any way advocating you give control to the airplane to do what it pleases. However, in this ONE instance where you have a wing drop at the point of a stall - forget about getting the nose back to the original heading, get the nose pointing to where the airplane is heading and then recover on that heading.

Again, emphasis is on the fact that a particular heading has nothing to do with the aerodynamics of flight!

[triplese7en]

jubjub -

My point was simply that exceptions exist and to consult your handy POH and act accordingly. I have no intention of arguing with NASA. I'll leave that to you.

Excellent! Now that you've acknowledged that exceptions exist, and that you should consult the POH and follow it, I'm recommending everyone do the EXACT same thing.

The recovery procedure that I am only repeating from the documents I've referenced is similar to the NASA PARE recovery for spins, in that they are the general recovery procedures that should be taught to pilots.

Certain aircraft will have certain aerodynamic differences where the ideal recovery will be slightly different than the general recovery procedure. Those notes, which the flight test pilots will write, will be included in the POH for the pilot if it's deemed necessary for the pilot to know.

[triplese7en]

I have no intention of arguing with NASA. I'll leave that to you.

jubjub said that, but I find that quite interesting.

You're willing to accept what NASA says, without question, but you will forcefully reject and fight what the FAA says, what Airbus/Boeing say, and what the Transport Canada Advisory Circular on Training and Checking Practices for Stall Recovery all say.

You (everyone) need to get it through your heads that I'm not making this sh*t up! I provided all the damn references. What more do you want? You have a problem with it, then take it up with the people who made the document. At the end of the Advisory Circular there is contact information published. Contact them! Tell them you think they're talking out of their a$$.

[Sulako]

Hey guys. Just checking in to confirm that everyone involved here is going to play nice going forward. I toasted a few not-nice posts from this page, and I'd sure hate to have to come back and do that again.

Try to discuss the merits of the argument, not the qualities of the person making it.

Safe flights!

[Cat Driver]

triplese7en , what is your background as a flight instructor?

[triplese7en]

triplese7en , what is your background as a flight instructor?

That is not in any way important.

Sulako just came here and said, "Try to discuss the merits of the argument, not the qualities of the person making it."

I think we should use that advice.

Again, I am repeating what is written in these documents that I have referenced. You have admitted to not reading them. It wouldn't matter if we were talking about apples, if I hadn't read a document about apples that was being discussed how could I contribute positively to the discussion?

[Cat Driver]

O.K. triplese7en fair enough I can deal with that.

You of course must forgive me for not wanting to read all that stuff at this point in my career.

I often wonder what value all these discussions really have for those who are still students, how do they sift through all these pages and pages of posts written by unknown authors describing the best way to fly an airplane?

[triplese7en]

O.K. triplese7en fair enough I can deal with that.

You of course must forgive me for not wanting to read all that stuff at this point in my career.

I often wonder what value all these discussions really have for those who are still students, how do they sift through all these pages and pages of posts written by unknown authors describing the best way to fly an airplane?

I do forgive you. I understand you don't want to read through it. But please understand it from my point of view too! It's simply frustrating to deal with people in a discussion who ignore the material that's being presented and just blurt out things regarding what was verbally (in this case, written) in the discussion. The reference material needs to be read if there is to be a meaningful discussion about what's inside the reference material!

I do wonder that myself. I would imagine it'd be hard for the student. One problem is that they will believe (with great conviction) something that happens to make sense to them, even though it might actually be incorrect.

So, you don't want to read the references, but what do you think about what I said in my last reply to you? Does what I say make sense? Is there a particular part you don't agree with?

[Cat Driver]

I hope you are not too offended by what I am going to say triplese7en, I spent my whole career in aviation dealing with flying and the people who fly in a one on one relationship and I am just not wired to deal in depth with people in a vacuum such as an anonymous internet forum.

So best we just go our separate ways for now.

Logic to me dictates if I have no idea who I am dealing with it has limited value...you could be 12 years old using Google in your mommies living room.

[triplese7en]

Not knowing who I am doesn't make my points any less valid. Take what I'm saying (a repeat of what's essentially stated in all those documents) for what it is.

If you don't want to discuss it that's fine. But if you choose to do so, all I ask is that you have a look at those references because, as I've stated for about the 8th time now, it's not me who's making this up!

Cheers!

[Big Pistons Forever]

Time to stick a fork in this thread.....it is done.

[triplese7en]

I agree. It's a shame but I've more than explained my views which, for the 9th time, are the views expressed in the references which no one will read.

It does seem pointless to continue.

[Expat]

777,

Spinning was my best fun in aviation , even ahead of fly-in barbecues. I used to go flying early week end mornings, just for fun. I would climb to 5000, then do my routine. First, a couple of stalls, then spin entries, and when I was comfortable, do a one turn spin, recover, then a two turn, then, three turn spins. I was doing them seriously, over a highway, in order to recover on a steady heading.
I knew that recovery from a three turn spin takes exactly 500 feet in a Cessna. It also requires almost 180 degrees.

I was good at them, and knew what to do, and what to expect.

I never used aileron inputs, and learned how to line up on my recovery heading using feet only.

I would suggest that you should spin a little more, and then share your personal views on it, and not some publication.
Cheers,
expat.

[triplese7en]

Expat -

I was doing them seriously, over a highway, in order to recover on a steady heading.
I knew that recovery from a three turn spin takes exactly 500 feet in a Cessna. It also requires almost 180 degrees.

Ahh yes.. precision flying maneuvers! I am familiar with them. Go back and read what I wrote in regard to "precision flying maneuvers".

I would suggest that you should spin a little more, and then share your personal views on it, and not some publication.

I take it you don't have much respect for "publications". Join the rest of the crowd in this thread! If you'll disregard publications from Transport Canada and the FAA, who would you listen to then?!

I love spinning too! It's fun to toss a plane around the sky for an afternoon. I did a 12 turn spin in a Pitts S-2B - that was quite fun! However, I have a hard time figuring out how your post is related to anything that I've talked about so far.

As for my "personal views" they just so happen to align perfectly with what's written in the publications I've been referencing.

[Old Dog Flying]

As for my "personal views" they just so happen to align perfectly with what's written in the publications I've been referencing.

And we old farts are called arrogant.

[mcrit]

And we old farts are called arrogant.

You are. But that's ok. Some people like that in a pilot.

[Expat]

777,

Between emergencies here, I have a little time to reply.
This tread was about spin training. Most comments I have read were about the pros and cons of spin training, and the poor training standards in that respect.
Actually, you have a point. I never understood the meaning of your posts. And I think no one here either.
In this forum, as in life in general, you have to have an idea before you write, and then slowly convince your audience that your post is relevant, informative, and convincing. Failing to do that, you are inviting negative criticism, verbal abuse, or simply the fact that seasoned posters would think that you are a troll, or just a plain idiot.
That being said, I would really like to know how you got to that high skill level, where you would spin a Pitts 12 turns, and still seem to be a low hour pilot.
No offense.
expat