Spins...

[Mr. Cole]

They are required in this case.

Dave

 

[Mr. Cole]

Props,

During the fully developed spin the ailerons are not that effective in general, flaps or no flaps. In fact the incorrect use of ailerons could of couse be pro-spin and cause it to flatten. I'm sure you already know this, just stating it for someone who may not be as familiar. My reference to rudder effectiveness was due to situations where the airflow over the rudder is blanketed, making recovery more difficult. The vortices coming off the flaps could contribute to further disturbance of the airflow over the tail.

Dave

Not real strong in the fundamentals for aerodynamics and flaps, but I believe that flaps actually reduce aileron effectiveness not rudder effectiveness.

 

[Uncle Sparky]

A spin is a stalled maneuver. If you're accelerating and gaining airspeed during the spin, you're in a graveyard spiral. Not a spin. You shouldn't be worried about overspeeding the airplane.

.

FAA-H-8083-3

Spin Procedures

Step 6-- BEGIN APPLYING BACK-ELEVATOR PRESSURE TO RAISE THE NOSE TO LEVEL FLIGHT. Caution must be used not to apply excessive back-elevator pressure after the rotation stops. Excessive back-elevator pressure can cause a secondary stall and result in another spin. Care should be taken not exceed "G" load limits and airspeed limitations during recovery. If the flaps and/or retractable landing gear are extended prior to the spin, they should be retracted as soon as possible after the spin entry.

Even though the source of this info is the FAA, I still consider it to be worthy of review. That and the fact that the publication is titled The Airplane Flying Handbook .

 

[nosehair]

The only time parachutes are not required is during spins for a CFI rating.

I don't have access to it at the moment, but I have seen an interpretation that the training need not be specifically for the CFI Certificate.
Stall/spin awareness is required training for a Private Pilot. The fact that a spin is not required for the checkride does not mean that an instructor cannot do spin training with the Private applicant. That is the only true way of teaching stall/spin awareness.

Don't even think about saying that talking about it is enough.

 

[avbug]

Uncle Sparky,

Perhaps you need to go re-read your publications. You appear to be trying to contradict what I said about spins by showing a FAA publication that states one must be careful to avoid exceeding aircraft limitations during recovery.

Apples and oranges.

During recovery, aircraft limitations may certainly be exceeded; you may recover in the vertical and rapidly accelerate. During recovery, the spin is over, the stall is broken.

HOWEVER, during the spin, in a steady state spin, you're in a stalled condition and not gaining airspeed, nor are you going to go busting through the speed limits. In a standard spin entry from level, unaccelerated flight, you'll see the airspeed needle bounding and doing very little. The spin of itself isn't going to overstress anything.

A spin is nothing more than a coupled yawing and rolling motion in a stalled state, that experiences evoloutions of varying pitch. So long as it's in the spin, it's stalled. If you're gaining airspeed and busting limitations, you're not in a spin, you're in a graveyard spiral.

 

[Uncle Sparky]

The trick of intentional spins is to remain within Va during the maneuver. In the C172 aircraft this is very easy to. When the flaps are extended, you now need to recover before exceeding the flap speed.

This is the quote you quoted.
Now......if you don't consider the recovery to be part of the maneuver, I'd like to know where you fly and the next time that you plan on doing a spin so that I can bring my camera! And before you go on with your broken record routine about how we're all more interested in flaming you than we are in adressing the question at hand, perhaps you should reread your own post...the one where you countered what the guy who was passing good info....was saying.

 

[avbug]

Exceeding flap speed on the recovery is the least of your worries. Altered spin characteristics are life and death critical. Worrying if you'll exceed a flap speed when recovering from the spin, due to bad plot technique in the recovery, is nothing.

How about not spinning with the flaps extended to begin with? How about retracting them in the spin? If you are going to recover with flaps extended, then recover properly. Yes, if you hold the downline long enough, you're going to build excess speed. Don't do that. If you pull hard you're going to incur a secondary stall. Don't do that.

That's purely an issue with pilot technique. The airplane in the spin encounters no undue forces, and isn't going to increase speed beyond flap limtiations. Once the spin is over, once the stall is broken the spin is ancient history, and exceeding limitations in a spin is irrelevant. Spin recovery is not the same as being in a spin.

Apples and oranges.

 

[Uncle Sparky]

Exceeding flap speed on the recovery is the least of your worries. Altered spin characteristics are life and death critical. Worrying if you'll exceed a flap speed when recovering from the spin, due to bad plot technique in the recovery, is nothing..

Hmmmm....help me on this one.....why did all of those Bonanza's and Malibu's fall out of the sky in pieces a few years ago?......If you don't think that instructing it as part of the maneuver(as I've already shown that the FAA, or any other normal instructor for that matter, does), or that the secondary stall/spin or overspeed and overstress, is just as serious a factor, then you need some serious re-education!

How about not spinning with the flaps extended to begin with? How about retracting them in the spin?..If you are going to recover with flaps extended, then recover properly. Yes, if you hold the downline long enough, you're going to build excess speed. Don't do that. If you pull hard you're going to incur a secondary stall. Don't do that..

I think that "spinning with the flaps extended" is a bad idea and that if you actually go back and read rest of the posts, you'll see that most here agree.

That's purely an issue with pilot technique. The airplane in the spin encounters no undue forces, and isn't going to increase speed beyond flap limtiations. Once the spin is over, once the stall is broken the spin is ancient history, and exceeding limitations in a spin is irrelevant. Spin recovery is not the same as being in a spin.

Apples and oranges..

I have seen that a common misconception is that the aircraft/airframe experiences excessive "G" and airspeed loads during a spin. . To clarify this ....is a good idea in my opinion. BUT.....if you don't put equal emphasis on proper recovery and emphasize the dangers of secondary stall and possible reentry into another spin than "apples and oranges" indeed! Because that student may end up looking like fruit salad in a field somewhere!

 

[avbug]

Hmmmm....help me on this one.....why did all of those Bonanza's and Malibu's fall out of the sky in pieces a few years ago?......

Was there some particular day in recent history in which a boatload of airplane scrap metal rained down, of which I am not aware? Or is it that inflight breakups have come to a grinding halt?

Pilots tearing up airplanes in flight is nothing new. It's been done since the first days of flight.

Very, very seldom do you ever hear about a pilot breaking an airplane up as part of a botched spin recovery. However, entering and not recognizing a graveyard spiral, and then attempting a recovery while in the spiral has accounted for many, many fatal events. This is a matter of recovery.

We don't teach spins in Bonanzas. We don't teach spins in Malibus either. Ergo, we don't teach spin recoveries in them.

In fact, we are not required, but for the sake of initial flight instructor airplane applicants any more, to teach spins at all. At least one internationally known aerobatics "celebrity" has publically stated he will never spin another airplane again, and the former world record holder on spins was killed doing one. In times past, more people were killed training in spins than experiencing them in actuality, and the FAA and the industry finally put their heads together to come to the obvious conclusion that if pilots recognize and never enter the spin, then recovery is a mute point.

Pilots attempting to recover from a graveyard spiral face a great probability of damage to the airframe, especially if the recovery is not smooth. Emerging from the bottom of a spin, one is not going to hurt an airplane in the recovery; worst case, one is going to enter a secondary stall and spin again. If one enters a graveyard spiral, failing to stop the rotation before breaking the stall, and then accelerates out of the spin in a graveyard spiral, one is experiencing forces that have absolutely nothing to do with a spin...an entirely different condition exists far and apart from spin dynamics, and yes, one can hurt the airplane.

This is common sense however. The fact is that in a spin, one is not going to exceed the aircraft limitations with respect to excessive speed. If one fails to recover after ending the spin, that may be another matter, but again, apples and oranges. The spin is over and the pilot is doing something else. To suggest otherwise, one might surmise that because a pilot could pull up hard and damage the airplane from level flight, that level flight is dangerous and could result in wings coming off. Hogwash. When the pilot elects to end level flight and enter the hard pullup, or snap roll, or whatever he elects to do, the level flight is ancient history. Just the same with the spin. When the spin is over the pilot may recover, continue building speed in a downline, modify the rotation after breaking the stall into a graveyard spiral, or do any number of things...but the spin is ancient history. The spin won't hurt you of it'self. Failure to exit the spin will, but once one has exited and moved into a different mode of flight, one can hardly suggest that one will exceed the requisite speed limits in the spin...the spin is over and can't be blamed for what comes next.

Only the pilot. The problem is irresponsible pilots who want to throw the blame elsewhere beyond themselves, and who can't fly airplanes. Bonanzas and Malibus don't break up of their own dumb volition; pilots break them.

 

[PropsForward]

Props,

During the fully developed spin the ailerons are not that effective in general, flaps or no flaps. In fact the incorrect use of ailerons could of couse be pro-spin and cause it to flatten. I'm sure you already know this, just stating it for someone who may not be as familiar. My reference to rudder effectiveness was due to situations where the airflow over the rudder is blanketed, making recovery more difficult. The vortices coming off the flaps could contribute to further disturbance of the airflow over the tail.

Dave

Yeah, you misunderstood me. The question at hand was the concern that flaps reduce rudder effectiveness. They do not. They reduce aileron effectiveness so in regard to spins, the amount of flaps does not matter since you use opposite rudder to recover from a spin.

I was not implying to ever use ailerson in spin recovery. This is bad, it can can delay or prevent a spin recovery. It can lead to a flat spin.

The source of my information about the relationship of flaps and ailerons was from discussion about using full flaps on crosswind landings where you do want to use ailerons to cross control the aircraft, and with reduced aileron effectiveness you may need less flaps to maintain proper cross control. In a 172, I suggest using full flaps on a crosswind and if you can't maintain proper cross control for the landing then you are most likely well beyond the demonstrated crosswind component.

 

[PropsForward]

This is the quote you quoted.
Now......if you don't consider the recovery to be part of the maneuver, I'd like to know where you fly and the next time that you plan on doing a spin so that I can bring my camera! And before you go on with your broken record routine about how we're all more interested in flaming you than we are in adressing the question at hand, perhaps you should reread your own post...the one where you countered what the guy who was passing good info....was saying.

Not quite sure what you are upset about. In the 172 Va is around 99-105, and flap speed is lower. If you're going to be doing intentional spins with the flaps extended, then you need to perform the maneuver (which includes recovery) within the most limiting speed. In the case of an intentional spin with full flaps it will be lower than Va.

 

[avbug]

Yeah, you misunderstood me. The question at hand was the concern that flaps reduce rudder effectiveness. They do not. They reduce aileron effectiveness so in regard to spins, the amount of flaps does not matter since you use opposite rudder to recover from a spin.

I was not implying to ever use ailerson in spin recovery. This is bad, it can can delay or prevent a spin recovery. It can lead to a flat spin.

Flaps reduce aileron effectiveness? Since when? Flaps are far more likely to reduce rudder effectiveness than aileron effectiveness. More importantly with respect to spin dynamics, rudder is only part of the equation, and flaps have the effect of both recuding aiflow over the rudder and horizontal stab, and alterning the download on the horizontal stab. Flaps can have a massive effect, recovery proceedures notwithstanding, on the spin dynamics themselves...very small things can have very big consequences on spin dynamics.

Be careful stipulating which controls do what in spin recovery. Only some aircraft use rudder. Others do use aileron, some into the spin, some against it. Look to the proceedures for the specific aircraft in it's specific configuration in question in any given case, because the proceedures do vary greatly.

 

[Uncle Sparky]

Was there some particular day in recent history in which a boatload of airplane scrap metal rained down, of which I am not aware? Or is it that inflight breakups have come to a grinding halt?

AvWeb
December 13, 2000
Malibu Mirage: The Ultimate Piston Single?

Between May 1989 and March 1991, the PA-46 suffered a string of seven fatal accidents, and the airplane became the unhappy target of an intensive investigation by the FAA and NTSB. The thought was that the airplane was somehow flawed and breaking up in flight due to design problems.......... Structural analysis demonstrated that the wings would flutter at 600 knots and the tail at about 1,000 knots. To put that in perspective, Vne is 198 KIAS. The airplane passed every other test with ease, including out-of-trim tests and tests of G forces at speeds as high as 200 KIAS, which is 40 knots higher than required......... The problem turns out to be pilot training. The study indicated that many pilots moving into a Mirage often do not have sufficient respect for the complexity of this type of high-performance aircraft nor the harsh environment of the flight levels.

....been hiding in a cave have we?

I suppose you've never heard of the "FORK TAILED DOCTOR KILLER" either.... the Model 35 Bonanza...."250 in-flight breakups between the beginning of production(1947) and the present". Remember Ritchie Valens?

There's nothing wrong with your info and emphasis on dynamics of a spin. And the last paragraph of your last post is good info as well. The FAA circular that I obtained my quote from began with a disclaimer which resembles the same message....general spin recovery techniques are good, but consult your AOM first. BUT... instruction on and information regarding a proper recovery should also be emphasized. How many "spiral" incidents started out as a stall/spin. If you recover from a spin without leveling the wings first, what will happen next? Most of these in-flight break-ups are due to the "graveyard spiral", but how many of these inexperienced guys trained in a highly forgiving trainer, without being taught all of the dangers and pitfalls of the stall/spin and then in turn hopped in a high performance single?

 

[avbug]

You cite an unauthoritative article which describes a design problem attributed to stupid pilots. What on earth has that to do with recovery following a spin? Any airplane, malibu, mirage, cessna 210, bonanza, or citation is going to break up if you push it hard enough...none of that changes the fact that no undue forces occur in a spin that are damaging, or serve to cause the design to overspeed. None.

The recovery occurs after the spin is over. Done, finished, kaput, past tense, history. A proper recovery does not lead to an overspeed, and for most designs that spin with flaps down, part of the recovery proceedure is retracting the flaps. Else a recovery may never be effected.

A bat cave? No. And yes, I do remember Ritchie Valens. Do YOU?

Fork tailed doctor killer? Did you just start in aviation? Is that something you picked out of a magazine somewhere?

Yes, the Bonanza has had a number of breakups, and it's been accompanied by a number of AD's. So what? Very few of those involved spins, incidentally, or spin recoveries. Further, the airplane isn't certificated for spins, so what on earth is your point? That we should start providing spin recovery training in Bonanza's?

Graveyard spirals break airplanes. Spins do NOT. What again, is your point???

 

[Uncle Sparky]

. What again, is your point???

.....at the moment? I hope you fly in an airplane that only requires one pilot. And if someone does have to spend many hours confined in a cramped space with a stressball like you....Gawd help em! That's the only point I can come up with at the moment! Good night and good luck.

 

[A Squared]

I suppose you've never heard of the "FORK TAILED DOCTOR KILLER" either.... the Model 35 Bonanza...."250 in-flight breakups between the beginning of production(1947) and the present". Remember Ritchie Valens?

Not that it's particularly relevant to the discussion at hand, but Ritchie Valens (and Buddy Holly, and JP Richardson) were killed after a departure into low IFR conditions, about 5 miles from the airport. From all appearences the airplane flew into the ground in a steep bank. From the CAB report of the accident: "There was no evidence of inflight structural failure or failure of the controls."

 

[minitour]

Not that it's particularly relevant to the discussionat hand, but Ritchie Valens (and Buddy Holly, and JP Richardson) werekilled after a departure into low IFR conditions, about 5 miles fromthe airport. From all appearences the airplane flew into the ground ina steep bank. From the CAB report of the accident: "There was noevidence of inflight structural failure or failure of thecontrols."

CFIT?

 

[350DRIVER]

Sparko,

Why the anger?. You may want to review the accident reports and what was found out after the fact prior to attempting to just throw things together that really don't mix, as A Squared has already pointed out. Opinion is much different than fact my friend.

Just a suggestion, may help your argument out if that is at all possible.

3 5 0

 

[A Squared]

CFIT?

No, I don't think so, generally CFIT implies tooling along, in complete control of the airplane and thundering into some dirt you had no idea was there. In this crash, the evidence suggests that the pilot was not able to control the plane by reference to instruments. THe pilot was no instrument rated, and the attitude Gyro was found caged, which suggests that it may have been caged during the flight. Non-insrument rated pilot, possible partial panel, dark night, loss of control at low altitude.

 

[avbug]

.....at the moment? I hope you fly in an airplane that only requires one pilot. And if someone does have to spend many hours confined in a cramped space with a stressball like you....Gawd help em! .

Thank you indeed for your judgemental professionalism. Very on-topic, and consistent with the logic displayed thus far.

That's the only point I can come up with at the moment!

That's pretty much what I thought. Thanks for playing.