Spins and other “aerobatics”
Posted: Tue Nov 24, 2020 7:14 pm
As a young CFI applicant I was taught spin entry and recovery by my CFI as a FAA requirement for that certificate. The Cessna recommended entry and recovery is very basic and quite predictable for C-150 aircraft, which was my primary training aircraft.
For a few years afterward I demonstrated the maneuver to my clients who were at the appropriate point in their training to experience that maneuver. These demonstrations typically involved 3-turn spins which were predictable in recovery, and always entered above 5K AGL or greater. These 3-turn spins usually required 2-thousand feet in 150 aircraft and 2500’ in 172 aircraft. The attraction for me as a young CFI to perform these demonstrations was the exhilaration of the maneuver, as well as the reward-felt in teaching it.
I’ve also spun the Avions-Mudry CAP-10B left, right, and inverted, as well as numerous other aerobatic maneuvers in that airplane as a client at the Gene Soucy aerobatics school. That course was a part of what I considered necessary for pilot training and frankly, I would endorse any and every CFI to take such instruction.
I write this as a lead-in to discussion of performing spins... or avoiding them....in our 60-year-old Cessna 170’s.
I’ve occasionally heard of and read of 170 pilots who have spun their airplanes and, frankly, it gives me concern. Not only are these airframes 60+ years old, even the best of them, in fully-restored condition, are not the airplanes I feel good about spinning, for several reasons.
For one, they are rarely found in their original condition as far as rigging, weight-and-balance, and structural integrity. Cables, pulleys, and tensions ...as well as attachment hardware and mountings... are no longer pristine...not even in “restored” aircraft. I own such an aircraft and despite it’s having been awarded the “Restoration Award” at AirVenture Oshkosh ‘97... I do not feel it should be spun. The actual weighing and subsequent calculations of it’s CG and accuracy of “utility category” status is not the same as when it left Wichita in Nov ‘52 as a ‘53 B-model.
For another, although many of these airplanes are still “earning a living” in some commercial services and for others they are reasonably-priced daily flyers.... I view our 170’s as “flying museum artifacts” worthy of extra care, not only for their preservation for future generations of pilots to enjoy, but also to avoid unnecessary risk and exposure to hazardous operations. Yes! I consider spins to be hazardous operations when conducted outside of advanced pilot-training and/or airframe certification-flights. Those type flights deserve extra care in the categories of maintenance, pre-planning, and exigency-planning.
What I am suggesting is: If anyone wishes to investigate spins then it is best to do so in an aircraft which is regularly used in that instruction and includes bail-out capabilities with parachutes.
I do not expect universal agreement from our fellow owners, but I hope this topic will be helpful and encouraging to a similar view.
If anyone is “fence-sitting” on this topic, I’d encourage them to consider the National Test Pilot School (NTPS) accident which occurred in 2014, wherein a meticulously-maintained aircraft which was specifically-designed for spin training was lost with a NTPS instructor and NTPS engineering student who were killed while demonstrating spins. The aircraft had been recently inspected for rigging, Wt/Bal and was dispatched for the specific purpose of demonstrating 3 and 6 turn spins. It was an aircraft which had very predictable spin characteristics and was equipped with a jettison-able canopy and the crew wore 5-point harnesses and parachutes. Despite extensive experience and the correct aircraft for the purpose, that airplane could not recover and entered a 34-turn spin into the ground and the mandatory bailout altitude of 6,000’ proved insufficient for survival. Both parties died, the instructor-pilot never able to get out of his seat and the student jumping from the right wing too late.
WHY? Why did an airplane that had been purposed for spin-training not been capable of recovery even by a spin-proficient instructor and a student who on previous flights also had demonstrated ability to recover a spin?
I believe there are times when aircraft don’t always do what the “book” says. I believe there are conditions which creep into familiar situations that may go unnoticed and may alter expected outcomes, and even the best preparations sometimes go awry.
Bottom line:I do not recommend spinning your 170.
http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2017/05/s ... fr_14.html
For a few years afterward I demonstrated the maneuver to my clients who were at the appropriate point in their training to experience that maneuver. These demonstrations typically involved 3-turn spins which were predictable in recovery, and always entered above 5K AGL or greater. These 3-turn spins usually required 2-thousand feet in 150 aircraft and 2500’ in 172 aircraft. The attraction for me as a young CFI to perform these demonstrations was the exhilaration of the maneuver, as well as the reward-felt in teaching it.
I’ve also spun the Avions-Mudry CAP-10B left, right, and inverted, as well as numerous other aerobatic maneuvers in that airplane as a client at the Gene Soucy aerobatics school. That course was a part of what I considered necessary for pilot training and frankly, I would endorse any and every CFI to take such instruction.
I write this as a lead-in to discussion of performing spins... or avoiding them....in our 60-year-old Cessna 170’s.
I’ve occasionally heard of and read of 170 pilots who have spun their airplanes and, frankly, it gives me concern. Not only are these airframes 60+ years old, even the best of them, in fully-restored condition, are not the airplanes I feel good about spinning, for several reasons.
For one, they are rarely found in their original condition as far as rigging, weight-and-balance, and structural integrity. Cables, pulleys, and tensions ...as well as attachment hardware and mountings... are no longer pristine...not even in “restored” aircraft. I own such an aircraft and despite it’s having been awarded the “Restoration Award” at AirVenture Oshkosh ‘97... I do not feel it should be spun. The actual weighing and subsequent calculations of it’s CG and accuracy of “utility category” status is not the same as when it left Wichita in Nov ‘52 as a ‘53 B-model.
For another, although many of these airplanes are still “earning a living” in some commercial services and for others they are reasonably-priced daily flyers.... I view our 170’s as “flying museum artifacts” worthy of extra care, not only for their preservation for future generations of pilots to enjoy, but also to avoid unnecessary risk and exposure to hazardous operations. Yes! I consider spins to be hazardous operations when conducted outside of advanced pilot-training and/or airframe certification-flights. Those type flights deserve extra care in the categories of maintenance, pre-planning, and exigency-planning.
What I am suggesting is: If anyone wishes to investigate spins then it is best to do so in an aircraft which is regularly used in that instruction and includes bail-out capabilities with parachutes.
I do not expect universal agreement from our fellow owners, but I hope this topic will be helpful and encouraging to a similar view.
If anyone is “fence-sitting” on this topic, I’d encourage them to consider the National Test Pilot School (NTPS) accident which occurred in 2014, wherein a meticulously-maintained aircraft which was specifically-designed for spin training was lost with a NTPS instructor and NTPS engineering student who were killed while demonstrating spins. The aircraft had been recently inspected for rigging, Wt/Bal and was dispatched for the specific purpose of demonstrating 3 and 6 turn spins. It was an aircraft which had very predictable spin characteristics and was equipped with a jettison-able canopy and the crew wore 5-point harnesses and parachutes. Despite extensive experience and the correct aircraft for the purpose, that airplane could not recover and entered a 34-turn spin into the ground and the mandatory bailout altitude of 6,000’ proved insufficient for survival. Both parties died, the instructor-pilot never able to get out of his seat and the student jumping from the right wing too late.
WHY? Why did an airplane that had been purposed for spin-training not been capable of recovery even by a spin-proficient instructor and a student who on previous flights also had demonstrated ability to recover a spin?
I believe there are times when aircraft don’t always do what the “book” says. I believe there are conditions which creep into familiar situations that may go unnoticed and may alter expected outcomes, and even the best preparations sometimes go awry.
Bottom line:I do not recommend spinning your 170.
http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2017/05/s ... fr_14.html