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.