Re: Rolling a Non Aerobat 150

[Tom Inglima]

Spins have NEVER been in the private pilot PTS. The PTS (Practical Test
Standard) only has been in existence for around 20 years or so. The last
time spins were required for a Private Certificate was back in the early
1950's or maybe the late 1940's. Note that there is nothing that prevents
an instructor from teaching spins to a student pilot. However you would
have to wear parachutes to be legal since the regs only allow spins without
the wearing of parachutes for people training for a flight instructor
certificate.

The predecessor for the PTS was the Flight Test Guides. These were slim
volumes of not more than 20 pages and about 2 or 3 inches wide and about 4
inches high. In any case they were smaller than a 3 by 5 index card. they
had very broad descriptions of maneuvers' and gave examiners and inspectors
wide latitude in what and how they wanted you to perform various maneuvers.
Part 61 was actually a much better regulation then in that it clearly made
the CFI responsible for preparing a competent pilot that was able to show
good judgment.

The predecessor regs and guidance was to list the actual maneuvers in the
reg. If you could get a monkey to somehow do the maneuver a certificate
would be issued.

Tom Inglima

"Chris G." <nospam@noemail> wrote in message
eenews.net...
> Besides, spin training is NOT required for a private pilot certificate.
> Spin AWARENESS (aka recognizing you're going to get into a spin) is
> required. Spins are not part of the PTS anymore though.
>
> I don't necessarily think that omitting spins from the PTS is the best
> move the FAA has made, but I don't know the whole story. I know I'm
> having my instructor make sure he teaches me spins in the 150 I'm learning
> in. I believe that training in spins and spin recovery is a very
> important skills that could save my life one day.
>
> Chris
>
>
> wrote:
>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 14:46:42 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
>> <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote:
>>
>>
> wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>>On 27 Apr 2005 09:43:30 -0700, "Noah Fiedel" >
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In addition, were you & your instructor wearing parachutes
>>>>>as required for aerobatic flight?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Not required, since spin training is required for a rating.
>>>
>>>Looked to me like a roll not a spin.
>>
>>
>> Oooops.
>>
>> Never mind.
>>
>>
>>

[RST Engineering]

Note that what is said here is not true. The regs say that you can teach
any maneuver that is "required for a rating" without parachutes. This
includes spins. You can teach a student spins without a parachute(s) if
you wish.

Jim


Note that there is nothing that prevents
> an instructor from teaching spins to a student pilot. However you would
> have to wear parachutes to be legal since the regs only allow spins
> without the wearing of parachutes for people training for a flight
> instructor certificate.

[Jim Macklin]

A CFI may instruct spins to any level of pilot without
parachutes being worn. The spin is required for the CFI
applicant, but since it is required for some level of
certificate, it may be taught to any pilot. Of course no
passengers may be aboard, just the CFI and the "student."

91.307
(c) Unless each occupant of the aircraft is wearing an
approved parachute, no pilot of a civil aircraft carrying
any person (other than a crewmember) may execute any
intentional maneuver that exceeds-

(1) A bank of 60 degrees relative to the horizon; or

(2) A nose-up or nose-down attitude of 30 degrees relative
to the horizon.

(d) Paragraph (c) of this section does not apply to-

(1) Flight tests for pilot certification or rating; or

(2) Spins and other flight maneuvers required by the
regulations for any certificate or rating when given by-

(i) A certificated flight instructor; or

(ii) An airline transport pilot instructing in accordance
with §61.67 of this chapter





"Tom Inglima" > wrote in message
.. .
| Spins have NEVER been in the private pilot PTS. The PTS
(Practical Test
| Standard) only has been in existence for around 20 years
or so. The last
| time spins were required for a Private Certificate was
back in the early
| 1950's or maybe the late 1940's. Note that there is
nothing that prevents
| an instructor from teaching spins to a student pilot.
However you would
| have to wear parachutes to be legal since the regs only
allow spins without
| the wearing of parachutes for people training for a flight
instructor
| certificate.
|
| The predecessor for the PTS was the Flight Test Guides.
These were slim
| volumes of not more than 20 pages and about 2 or 3 inches
wide and about 4
| inches high. In any case they were smaller than a 3 by 5
index card. they
| had very broad descriptions of maneuvers' and gave
examiners and inspectors
| wide latitude in what and how they wanted you to perform
various maneuvers.
| Part 61 was actually a much better regulation then in that
it clearly made
| the CFI responsible for preparing a competent pilot that
was able to show
| good judgment.
|
| The predecessor regs and guidance was to list the actual
maneuvers in the
| reg. If you could get a monkey to somehow do the maneuver
a certificate
| would be issued.
|
| Tom Inglima
|
| "Chris G." <nospam@noemail> wrote in message
|
eenews.net...
| > Besides, spin training is NOT required for a private
pilot certificate.
| > Spin AWARENESS (aka recognizing you're going to get into
a spin) is
| > required. Spins are not part of the PTS anymore though.
| >
| > I don't necessarily think that omitting spins from the
PTS is the best
| > move the FAA has made, but I don't know the whole story.
I know I'm
| > having my instructor make sure he teaches me spins in
the 150 I'm learning
| > in. I believe that training in spins and spin recovery
is a very
| > important skills that could save my life one day.
| >
| > Chris
| >
| >
| > wrote:
| >> On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 14:46:42 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
| >> <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote:
| >>
| >>
| > wrote in message
| ...
| >>>
| >>>>On 27 Apr 2005 09:43:30 -0700, "Noah Fiedel"
>
| >>>>wrote:
| >>>>
| >>>>
| >>>>>In addition, were you & your instructor wearing
parachutes
| >>>>>as required for aerobatic flight?
| >>>>
| >>>>
| >>>>Not required, since spin training is required for a
rating.
| >>>
| >>>Looked to me like a roll not a spin.
| >>
| >>
| >> Oooops.
| >>
| >> Never mind.
| >>
| >>
| >>
|

[Ron Natalie]

RST Engineering wrote:
> Note that what is said here is not true. The regs say that you can teach
> any maneuver that is "required for a rating" without parachutes. This
> includes spins. You can teach a student spins without a parachute(s) if
> you wish.
>
Actually the regulation specifically mentions spins. It doesn't
matter they were required for a rating or not. The "required
for a rating" part applies to the "and other maonouvers".

The FAA has affirmed that once a manouver is required in
training (not necessarily for the checkride) for any rating
it's fare game for ANY instructional use at any time.

Except of course, while using MSFS.

[Jose]

> Actually the regulation specifically mentions spins. It doesn't
> matter they were required for a rating or not.

Well, not quite. See below:

> (2) Spins and other flight maneuvers required by the
> regulations for any certificate or rating when given by-

That is, "Spins and other...", which means something different from
"Spins, and other..."

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"RST Engineering" > wrote in message
...
> Note that what is said here is not true. The regs say that you can teach
> any maneuver that is "required for a rating" without parachutes. This
> includes spins. You can teach a student spins without a parachute(s) if
> you wish.
>
> Jim
>

And, one could consider the fact that wearing a parachute or not won't make
one bit of difference (at least as far as survival is concerned) in 90+% of
the aircraft used for training if one were to find a spin to be
unrecoverable and/or if one were to pull the wings off.

For the parachute to do any good, you would have to be able to open the door
far enough to actually get out of the airplane. You could do it in a
Citabria or 150 Acro with the door release - or something like a Cub. But
anything else? Naah...

But, of course, if one were to die inside the aircraft, having a 'chute on
should be enough to assure that one would go to heaven since he and/or she
would have died while complying with FAA regulations. The rest of us will
end up in a significantly less comforable environment, eh?

Personally I think spins are fun.

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[vincent p. norris]

> The last time spins were required for a Private Certificate was back in the early
>1950's or maybe the late 1940's.

I can verify that spins were required in 1947.

vince norris

[Todd W. Deckard]

"Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk at wow way d0t com> wrote in message
> And, one could consider the fact that wearing a parachute or not won't
> make one bit of difference (at least as far as survival is concerned) in
> 90+% of the aircraft used for training if one were to find a spin to be
> unrecoverable and/or if one were to pull the wings off.

Why would you say this? The door would be fairly easy to open in a spin.
In a high
speed loss of control it might be very difficult to overcome aerodynamic
resistance but
it is possible to open a forward hinged door and force it open enough to
squeeze out
at even 100kts in straight flight. With a modern canopy you stand a chance
of a survivable
deployment at even a few hundred feet.

The only reason I responded to the post is to encourage anyone wearing a
parachute
to drill the procedure like any other flying skill (and I know this was a
casual usenet
post, but avoid those negative thoughts).

1. Jettison the canopy/pull the door release pins (if so equipped)
2. Grasp the door frame/strut with one hand
3. Then, release the seat belt(s) with the other hand
4. pull clear and jump
5. assume the hard arch position, look, grasp the ripcord with both hands
and pull
to full arm extension until the cables clear the housing.
6. Discard the ripcord handle and look over your right shoulder.

There was a series of articles in Soaring/Sport Aerobatics a few years ago:

http://www.silverparachutes.com/uploads/EMERGENCY%20BAILOUT%20PROCEDURES.htm

I would encourage anyone to make a recreational jump, even a tandem, to
familiarize
themselves with the experience. You may find it opens the door to a whole
new
expression of aviation; after all riding in a boat ain't swimming and by the
same token
sitting in an airplane isn't really flying ...

Stay Lucky,
Todd

[Alan Gerber]

In rec.aviation.student Todd W. Deckard > wrote:
> I would encourage anyone to make a recreational jump, even a tandem, to
> familiarize
> themselves with the experience. You may find it opens the door to a whole
> new
> expression of aviation; after all riding in a boat ain't swimming and by the
> same token
> sitting in an airplane isn't really flying ...

Neither is dropping straight down to the earth.

.... Alan
--
Alan Gerber
PP-ASEL
gerber AT panix DOT com

[john smith]

In article et>,
"Todd W. Deckard" > wrote:

> Why would you say this? The door would be fairly easy to open in a spin.
> In a high speed loss of control it might be very difficult to overcome
> aerodynamic resistance but it is possible to open a forward hinged door
> and force it open enough to squeeze out at even 100kts in straight flight.
> With a modern canopy you stand a chance of a survivable deployment at
> even a few hundred feet.

I wouldn't be too positive about those statements.
I have over 300 freefalls and 25 hours of acro in a Citabria.
The Citabria only has one door... on the right side. In a right spin,
the rate of descent is still going to be about 800 fpm with an indicated
airspeed of 45-50 mph. That's quite and airload on the inside turn side
of the airframe. Add to that centrifugal forces and getting through the
doorway after jettisoning the door will be a challenging proposition.
You have two sets of seatbelts to release, a headset to remove and a
body with a parachute attached to fit through the doorway. When you exit
you will be on the inside side of the airplane, which you have to clear
before you pull the D-ring.
Tic-toc, the clock is winding down as fast as the altimeter.
I have knowledge of only one acro pilot who successfully exited a
Decathlon.

[NoSpam]

john smith wrote:
.... snipped
> the rate of descent is still going to be about 800 fpm with an indicated
> airspeed of 45-50 mph. That's quite and airload on the inside turn side
.... snipped

800 fpm is surprisingly low - are you sure? The aircraft I normally fly
does about 300 feet per turn and about 1-2 seconds per turn - so being
conservative that's about 10,000 fpm.

Dave

[john smith]

In article >,
NoSpam > wrote:

> john smith wrote:
> ... snipped
> > the rate of descent is still going to be about 800 fpm with an indicated
> > airspeed of 45-50 mph. That's quite and airload on the inside turn side
> ... snipped
>
> 800 fpm is surprisingly low - are you sure? The aircraft I normally fly
> does about 300 feet per turn and about 1-2 seconds per turn - so being
> conservative that's about 10,000 fpm.
> Dave

Oops, you're right, it is higher. Don't know what I was thinking when I
wrote that.

[Roger[_4_]]

On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 21:35:00 -0500, "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea
Hawk at wow way d0t com> wrote:

>"RST Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>> Note that what is said here is not true. The regs say that you can teach
>> any maneuver that is "required for a rating" without parachutes. This
>> includes spins. You can teach a student spins without a parachute(s) if
>> you wish.
>>
>> Jim
>>
>
>And, one could consider the fact that wearing a parachute or not won't make
>one bit of difference (at least as far as survival is concerned) in 90+% of
>the aircraft used for training if one were to find a spin to be
>unrecoverable and/or if one were to pull the wings off.

A spin is a fully stalled condition. The doors of a 150 or 172 should
be *relatively* easy to open as opposed to being in a high speed
spiral.

>
>For the parachute to do any good, you would have to be able to open the door
>far enough to actually get out of the airplane. You could do it in a
>Citabria or 150 Acro with the door release - or something like a Cub. But
>anything else? Naah...
>
>But, of course, if one were to die inside the aircraft, having a 'chute on
>should be enough to assure that one would go to heaven since he and/or she
>would have died while complying with FAA regulations. The rest of us will
>end up in a significantly less comforable environment, eh?
>
>Personally I think spins are fun.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[DR]

Roger wrote:

>
>
> A spin is a fully stalled condition. The doors of a 150 or 172 should
> be *relatively* easy to open as opposed to being in a high speed
> spiral.

As I understand it, there is a difference in the _extent_ of the stall
between the two wings. If that were not the case and both wings were
fully stalled (which would require AOA to be ~90 degrees I think) the
yaw would decay due to fusilage and tail drag?

Cheers Mark

------------ And now a word from our sponsor ---------------------
For a secure high performance FTP using SSL/TLS encryption
upgrade to SurgeFTP
---- See http://netwinsite.com/sponsor/sponsor_surgeftp.htm ----

[Dylan Smith]

On 2007-03-05, DR > wrote:
> Roger wrote:
>> A spin is a fully stalled condition. The doors of a 150 or 172 should
>> be *relatively* easy to open as opposed to being in a high speed
>> spiral.
>
> As I understand it, there is a difference in the _extent_ of the stall
> between the two wings.

I think 'fully stalled' in the context of a spin means that both wings
exceed the critical angle of attack. That's not to say one wing can't
have a different AoA than the other (IIRC, the critical angle of attack
is something on the order of 16 degrees)

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[Stefan]

Dylan Smith schrieb:

> I think 'fully stalled' in the context of a spin means that both wings
> exceed the critical angle of attack. That's not to say one wing can't

The outer wing isn't necessairily stalled.

> have a different AoA than the other (IIRC, the critical angle of attack
> is something on the order of 16 degrees)

Even without a thorough knowledge, I dare to believe that this depends
on the profile...

[stearmandriver]

On Mar 4, 8:59 pm, DR > wrote:
> Roger wrote:
>
> > A spin is a fully stalled condition. The doors of a 150 or 172 should
> > be *relatively* easy to open as opposed to being in a high speed
> > spiral.
>
> As I understand it, there is a difference in the _extent_ of the stall
> between the two wings. If that were not the case and both wings were
> fully stalled (which would require AOA to be ~90 degrees I think) the
> yaw would decay due to fusilage and tail drag?
>
> Cheers Mark
> thought I'd jump in on this one. I've been a Stearman driver for about 30 years and might have about as much time in "unusual attitudes" as right side up. In a fully developed spin, the door on the outside of the spin will be pretty difficult to open, and in fact it's tough to even move yourself out on that side. the old military training in open cockpits was to bail to the inside of the spin if unrecoverable. so, the quick release pins are in the aerobat to ensure you can get the door off- Centrifigal force and wind presssure will keep it closed otherwise.

[pittss1c]

I know of one to get out of a decathlon. It was from the back seat no less.
(It helps when the wing has departed and there is a big hole above your
head though)

Mike

john smith wrote:
> In article et>,
> "Todd W. Deckard" > wrote:
>
>> Why would you say this? The door would be fairly easy to open in a spin.
>> In a high speed loss of control it might be very difficult to overcome
>> aerodynamic resistance but it is possible to open a forward hinged door
>> and force it open enough to squeeze out at even 100kts in straight flight.
>> With a modern canopy you stand a chance of a survivable deployment at
>> even a few hundred feet.
>
> I wouldn't be too positive about those statements.
> I have over 300 freefalls and 25 hours of acro in a Citabria.
> The Citabria only has one door... on the right side. In a right spin,
> the rate of descent is still going to be about 800 fpm with an indicated
> airspeed of 45-50 mph. That's quite and airload on the inside turn side
> of the airframe. Add to that centrifugal forces and getting through the
> doorway after jettisoning the door will be a challenging proposition.
> You have two sets of seatbelts to release, a headset to remove and a
> body with a parachute attached to fit through the doorway. When you exit
> you will be on the inside side of the airplane, which you have to clear
> before you pull the D-ring.
> Tic-toc, the clock is winding down as fast as the altimeter.
> I have knowledge of only one acro pilot who successfully exited a
> Decathlon.

[Cox]

If you do manage to get out of a spinning aircraft, I wouls estimate close
to a 100% better chance of survival if you have a chute on. I sure would
hate to be the person who was able to get out of the so called "impossible
aircraft to get out of" only to find they didn't have a chute on.

Wear a chute, what can it hurt?

Adam

Adam Cope
www.dcaerobatics.com
703-623-9445

[Don Tuite]

On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 21:36:51 -0400, "Cox" > wrote:

>If you do manage to get out of a spinning aircraft, I wouls estimate close
>to a 100% better chance of survival if you have a chute on. I sure would
>hate to be the person who was able to get out of the so called "impossible
>aircraft to get out of" only to find they didn't have a chute on.
>
>Wear a chute, what can it hurt?
>
>Adam
>
Then there's this:

http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=527668a4-0271-4a20-86f5-7233c1bb43f8&

(Hope it's not a repost. It's about the 150 rudder bumpers jamming.)

Don

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Cox wrote:
> If you do manage to get out of a spinning aircraft, I wouls estimate close
> to a 100% better chance of survival if you have a chute on. I sure would
> hate to be the person who was able to get out of the so called "impossible
> aircraft to get out of" only to find they didn't have a chute on.
>
> Wear a chute, what can it hurt?
>
> Adam
>
> Adam Cope
> www.dcaerobatics.com
> 703-623-9445
>
>

I totally agree with this. The " you'll never get out of this airplane
because of the door" routine is something I've heard repeated many times
through my career teaching aerobatics. My standard answer and "lecture"
on this issue is as follows;
For spins, even if the regulations don't call for chutes, I always
recommend wearing them. I always had chutes available for whatever
aircraft we were using for spin training.
A lot has been written and said about the difficulties involved in
getting out of Aerobats, Citabrias, and Decathlons.
There is no doubt that especially with a structural failure, exiting one
of these aircraft could be iffy. That's why any good instructor not only
supplies chutes for spin training, but as well performs a complete
egress brief specific to aircraft type to the point where once the bail
out call has been made, each occupant knows what the exit procedure will
be. This is especially critical in tandem aircraft.
I should mention that even with the most complete egress briefing, there
is STILL an element of doubt that a successful exit from these airplanes
can be executed in the time available under extreme g in a post
structural failure.
The factors involving a successful bail out are so diverse that there
are just no guarantees.
In the Pitts S2 for example, if the upper wing fails, the flying wires
will most likely remain attached and the upper wing will beat the
occupants to death before a bail out can be achieved.
All this being considered, the use of chutes is not only recommended,
but in my opinion a necessary part of every non- standard flight whether
it be aerobatics or spin training.
The bottom line is that wearing a chute gives you a fighting chance for
survival. Not wearing a chute gives you no chance at all.
Its a smart pilot who takes advantage of all available options!
Dudley Henriques

[john hawkins]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Cox wrote:
>> If you do manage to get out of a spinning aircraft, I wouls estimate
>> close to a 100% better chance of survival if you have a chute on. I sure
>> would hate to be the person who was able to get out of the so called
>> "impossible aircraft to get out of" only to find they didn't have a
>> chute on.
>>
>> Wear a chute, what can it hurt?
>>
>> Adam
>>
>> Adam Cope
>> www.dcaerobatics.com
>> 703-623-9445
>>
>>
>
> I totally agree with this. The " you'll never get out of this airplane
> because of the door" routine is something I've heard repeated many times
> through my career teaching aerobatics. My standard answer and "lecture" on
> this issue is as follows;
> For spins, even if the regulations don't call for chutes, I always
> recommend wearing them. I always had chutes available for whatever
> aircraft we were using for spin training.
> A lot has been written and said about the difficulties involved in getting
> out of Aerobats, Citabrias, and Decathlons.
> There is no doubt that especially with a structural failure, exiting one
> of these aircraft could be iffy. That's why any good instructor not only
> supplies chutes for spin training, but as well performs a complete egress
> brief specific to aircraft type to the point where once the bail out call
> has been made, each occupant knows what the exit procedure will be. This
> is especially critical in tandem aircraft.
> I should mention that even with the most complete egress briefing, there
> is STILL an element of doubt that a successful exit from these airplanes
> can be executed in the time available under extreme g in a post structural
> failure.
> The factors involving a successful bail out are so diverse that there are
> just no guarantees.
> In the Pitts S2 for example, if the upper wing fails, the flying wires
> will most likely remain attached and the upper wing will beat the
> occupants to death before a bail out can be achieved.
> All this being considered, the use of chutes is not only recommended, but
> in my opinion a necessary part of every non- standard flight whether it be
> aerobatics or spin training.
> The bottom line is that wearing a chute gives you a fighting chance for
> survival. Not wearing a chute gives you no chance at all.
> Its a smart pilot who takes advantage of all available options!
> Dudley Henriques
>
>
Dudley,
Could you give some specifics about exiting a citabria?
I used to do aerobatics in one and always wore a chute. I never suspected
that I would have trouble exiting if I pulled the door hinge pins, I thought
the door would vanish and leave me a big hole to climb out.
The only serious instructor I had was in a Stearman and he never discussed
exiting in case of trouble.
Obviously I was completely ignorant. Better to learn late than never.


>

[george]

On Mar 23, 1:36 pm, "Cox" > wrote:
> If you do manage to get out of a spinning aircraft, I wouls estimate close
> to a 100% better chance of survival if you have a chute on. I sure would
> hate to be the person who was able to get out of the so called "impossible
> aircraft to get out of" only to find they didn't have a chute on.
>
> Wear a chute, what can it hurt?
>

And have quick release pins on the doors with the handles -inside-

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Our procedure was to yank the QR pins and turn the handle;
Champion may well have improved the quick release doors by now. Its been
a long time ago for me in the Citabria :-)
I would suggest a good look through the POH and a brief from the
airplane operator for the current scoop on this.
DH


john hawkins wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Cox wrote:
>>> If you do manage to get out of a spinning aircraft, I wouls estimate
>>> close to a 100% better chance of survival if you have a chute on. I sure
>>> would hate to be the person who was able to get out of the so called
>>> "impossible aircraft to get out of" only to find they didn't have a
>>> chute on.
>>>
>>> Wear a chute, what can it hurt?
>>>
>>> Adam
>>>
>>> Adam Cope
>>> www.dcaerobatics.com
>>> 703-623-9445
>>>
>>>
>> I totally agree with this. The " you'll never get out of this airplane
>> because of the door" routine is something I've heard repeated many times
>> through my career teaching aerobatics. My standard answer and "lecture" on
>> this issue is as follows;
>> For spins, even if the regulations don't call for chutes, I always
>> recommend wearing them. I always had chutes available for whatever
>> aircraft we were using for spin training.
>> A lot has been written and said about the difficulties involved in getting
>> out of Aerobats, Citabrias, and Decathlons.
>> There is no doubt that especially with a structural failure, exiting one
>> of these aircraft could be iffy. That's why any good instructor not only
>> supplies chutes for spin training, but as well performs a complete egress
>> brief specific to aircraft type to the point where once the bail out call
>> has been made, each occupant knows what the exit procedure will be. This
>> is especially critical in tandem aircraft.
>> I should mention that even with the most complete egress briefing, there
>> is STILL an element of doubt that a successful exit from these airplanes
>> can be executed in the time available under extreme g in a post structural
>> failure.
>> The factors involving a successful bail out are so diverse that there are
>> just no guarantees.
>> In the Pitts S2 for example, if the upper wing fails, the flying wires
>> will most likely remain attached and the upper wing will beat the
>> occupants to death before a bail out can be achieved.
>> All this being considered, the use of chutes is not only recommended, but
>> in my opinion a necessary part of every non- standard flight whether it be
>> aerobatics or spin training.
>> The bottom line is that wearing a chute gives you a fighting chance for
>> survival. Not wearing a chute gives you no chance at all.
>> Its a smart pilot who takes advantage of all available options!
>> Dudley Henriques
>>
>>
> Dudley,
> Could you give some specifics about exiting a citabria?
> I used to do aerobatics in one and always wore a chute. I never suspected
> that I would have trouble exiting if I pulled the door hinge pins, I thought
> the door would vanish and leave me a big hole to climb out.
> The only serious instructor I had was in a Stearman and he never discussed
> exiting in case of trouble.
> Obviously I was completely ignorant. Better to learn late than never.
>
>
>
>

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-02-28 19:41:14 -0800, john smith > said:

> In article et>,
> "Todd W. Deckard" > wrote:
>
>> Why would you say this? The door would be fairly easy to open in a spin.
>> In a high speed loss of control it might be very difficult to overcome
>> aerodynamic resistance but it is possible to open a forward hinged door
>> and force it open enough to squeeze out at even 100kts in straight flight.
>> With a modern canopy you stand a chance of a survivable deployment at
>> even a few hundred feet.
>
> I wouldn't be too positive about those statements.
> I have over 300 freefalls and 25 hours of acro in a Citabria.
> The Citabria only has one door... on the right side. In a right spin,
> the rate of descent is still going to be about 800 fpm with an indicated
> airspeed of 45-50 mph. That's quite and airload on the inside turn side
> of the airframe. Add to that centrifugal forces and getting through the
> doorway after jettisoning the door will be a challenging proposition.
> You have two sets of seatbelts to release, a headset to remove and a
> body with a parachute attached to fit through the doorway. When you exit
> you will be on the inside side of the airplane, which you have to clear
> before you pull the D-ring.
> Tic-toc, the clock is winding down as fast as the altimeter.
> I have knowledge of only one acro pilot who successfully exited a
> Decathlon.

There was a guy down in Borrego Springs who managed to bail out when
his Citabria would not recover. Checking the wreckage later he found
the seatbelt from the rear seat had wrapped itself around the stick.

He could have sworn he had secured that thing.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[karl gruber[_1_]]

I have an acquaintance that kicked his way out the windshield of a Citabria,
after the wings folded up against the fuselage.

Karl
"Curator" N185KG


"john hawkins" > wrote in message
et...
>
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>
>> Cox wrote:
>>> If you do manage to get out of a spinning aircraft, I wouls estimate
>>> close to a 100% better chance of survival if you have a chute on. I
>>> sure would hate to be the person who was able to get out of the so
>>> called "impossible aircraft to get out of" only to find they didn't
>>> have a chute on.
>>>
>>> Wear a chute, what can it hurt?
>>>
>>> Adam
>>>
>>> Adam Cope
>>> www.dcaerobatics.com
>>> 703-623-9445
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I totally agree with this. The " you'll never get out of this airplane
>> because of the door" routine is something I've heard repeated many times
>> through my career teaching aerobatics. My standard answer and "lecture"
>> on this issue is as follows;
>> For spins, even if the regulations don't call for chutes, I always
>> recommend wearing them. I always had chutes available for whatever
>> aircraft we were using for spin training.
>> A lot has been written and said about the difficulties involved in
>> getting out of Aerobats, Citabrias, and Decathlons.
>> There is no doubt that especially with a structural failure, exiting one
>> of these aircraft could be iffy. That's why any good instructor not only
>> supplies chutes for spin training, but as well performs a complete egress
>> brief specific to aircraft type to the point where once the bail out call
>> has been made, each occupant knows what the exit procedure will be. This
>> is especially critical in tandem aircraft.
>> I should mention that even with the most complete egress briefing, there
>> is STILL an element of doubt that a successful exit from these airplanes
>> can be executed in the time available under extreme g in a post
>> structural failure.
>> The factors involving a successful bail out are so diverse that there are
>> just no guarantees.
>> In the Pitts S2 for example, if the upper wing fails, the flying wires
>> will most likely remain attached and the upper wing will beat the
>> occupants to death before a bail out can be achieved.
>> All this being considered, the use of chutes is not only recommended, but
>> in my opinion a necessary part of every non- standard flight whether it
>> be aerobatics or spin training.
>> The bottom line is that wearing a chute gives you a fighting chance for
>> survival. Not wearing a chute gives you no chance at all.
>> Its a smart pilot who takes advantage of all available options!
>> Dudley Henriques
>>
>>
> Dudley,
> Could you give some specifics about exiting a citabria?
> I used to do aerobatics in one and always wore a chute. I never suspected
> that I would have trouble exiting if I pulled the door hinge pins, I
> thought the door would vanish and leave me a big hole to climb out.
> The only serious instructor I had was in a Stearman and he never discussed
> exiting in case of trouble.
> Obviously I was completely ignorant. Better to learn late than never.
>
>
>>
>
>

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-03-23 08:33:20 -0700, "karl gruber" > said:

> I have an acquaintance that kicked his way out the windshield of a Citabria,
> after the wings folded up against the fuselage.
>
> Karl
> "Curator" N185KG

Amazing what you can do with the proper motivation.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[Roger[_4_]]

On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 19:42:32 -0700, C J Campbell
> wrote:

>On 2007-03-23 08:33:20 -0700, "karl gruber" > said:
>
>> I have an acquaintance that kicked his way out the windshield of a Citabria,
>> after the wings folded up against the fuselage.
>>
>> Karl
>> "Curator" N185KG
>
>Amazing what you can do with the proper motivation.

With some forms of motivation being far more effective than others.
Strange the thoughts you can have.

The last conscious thoughts I had as I watched the top of the SUV
disappear out of sight above the top of windsheild in the Trans Am
were, "Boy, I'll bet this is gonna hurt". (this was happening at 50
MPH Plus). Then I was thinking, I can't see a thing with all this dust
from the air bags, followed by "I think I'm spinning through two solid
lanes full of traffic. Maybe it's better I can't see out".
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[pittss1c]

C J Campbell wrote:
> On 2007-03-23 08:33:20 -0700, "karl gruber" >
> said:
>
>> I have an acquaintance that kicked his way out the windshield of a
>> Citabria,
>> after the wings folded up against the fuselage.
>>
>> Karl
>> "Curator" N185KG
>
> Amazing what you can do with the proper motivation.

I think the important statistic would be to look at the fatal accidents
where the pilot was wearing a parachute, and see how many are unstrapped
and trying to get out when they hit the ground.
In the searches I have done, I don't remember ever seeing this (although
I was focusing on Pitts accidents.


Mike

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"pittss1c" > wrote in message
...
>C J Campbell wrote:
>> On 2007-03-23 08:33:20 -0700, "karl gruber" >
<...>>
>> Amazing what you can do with the proper motivation.
>
> I think the important statistic would be to look at the fatal accidents
> where the pilot was wearing a parachute, and see how many are unstrapped
> and trying to get out when they hit the ground.
> In the searches I have done, I don't remember ever seeing this (although I
> was focusing on Pitts accidents.
>
>
> Mike

I didn't find any of those.

And, I was wrong. It _is_ possible to get out of a Cessna 150/172 - even a
Piper PA-28 without a quick release door. (see below)

Notes - most accidents involving Cessna's and parachutes are from jump
operations - you end up plowing though a lot of reports where the word
"parachute" appears but has nothing to do with the cause / outcome.

I ran into several fatal accidents where the occupants of Citabria's were
not wearing 'chutes while doing aerobatics.

Several fatal accidents with and without parachutes happened from aerobatics
at low altitudes.

Some where the occupants got out but not in time - there was no indicaton if
they took too long to start to get out or had too much trouble getting out
(These were Pitts in spins iirc) . In one, the student made it out, but the
instructor was still belted in (Citabria)

Then there was the guy who bailed out of a 150 when he ran out of gas on
final...

Excerpts from accident reports:

Cessna 172: "The pilot, Hodelin F. Rene, stated he arrived at Flowers Air
Charter, on December 3, 1994, at about 1000, and was introduced to his
passenger by Mr. Flowers. Miss Pascale stated she wanted to take several
pictures of a couple of houses in the Cutler Ridge area, and drew a circle
around the area on an aeronautical chart. He went to Terminal One, taxied
his airplane to Flowers Air Charter, and did a preflight inspection. The
passenger did her own preflight inspection, and asked several questions
about the operations of the right passenger door. They departed Opa Locka
Airport and flew to the area previously marked on the map. He leveled off at
5,000 feet agl, slowed the airplane to 70 mph, and asked her where she
wanted to go. She stated she would look outside to make sure. A short time
later, she stated she was going to take off the headset and move the seat
back so she could get a good shot. He then heard what sounded like a yell,
felt wind and noise simultaneously in the cabin area. He looked towards the
sound, she was already partly out of the airplane, and when their eyes met,
she jumped out. "I was in total amazement, shock and just froze for a
moment, not knowing what to do. I could not believe what had happened. After
about ten seconds, I called ATC and requested a descent as I struggled to
close the door." He then informed ATC that he would like to declare an
emergency, that his passenger had jumped out of the airplane."

PIPER PA-28-180: "THE PILOT HAD TRANSMITTED A DISTRESS CALL THAT THE
AIRPLANE WAS HAVING FUEL PRESSURE PROBLEMS. THE AIRPLANE WAS SQUAWKING
TRANSPONDER CODE 7700. IT THEN DISAPPEARED FROM RADAR. THE PILOT HAD EARLIER
LEFT A MESSAGE TO HIS WIFE ON A TELEPHONE ANSWERING MACHINE THAT 'I DON'T
WANT TO LIVE ANY MORE...' GROUND WITNESSES OBSERVED A MAN PARACHUTE FROM AN
AIRPLANE IN THE AREA AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT. THE PILOT'S BODY WAS FOUND
ON DECEMBER 21, 1994.

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of
this accident as follows:

THE PILOT'S INTENTIONAL DECISION TO ABANDON THE AIRPLANE AND ALLOW IT TO FLY
UNATTENDED."

Cessna 150E: "THE PILOT WAS COMPLETING A CROSS-COUNTRY TRIP WHEN HE LOST
ENGINE POWER ON FINAL APPROACH. ACCORDING TO THE FAA, HE TURNED THE AIRPLANE
AWAY FROM THE AIRPORT AND PARACHUTED FROM THE AIRCRAFT AT 'APPROXIMATELY 560
FEET AGL. THE PARACHUTE OPENED JUST PRIOR TO GROUND CONTACT, AND THE
AIRPLANE CRASHED IN THE BACKYARD OF A RESIDENCE.' THE PILOT STATED TO THE
FAA THAT HE THOUGHT HE HAD RUN OUT OF FUEL. THE FAA ALSO FOUND THAT, 'THE
AIRPLANE HAD RECEIVED DAMAGE TO ITS WINGS WHILE TAXIING ONE DAY PRIOR TO THE
ACCIDENT.' THE PILOT 'HAD APPARENTLY CONDUCTED HIS OWN REPAIRS TO THE RIGHT
WING' THAT WAS DAMAGED.

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of
this accident as follows:

AN INFLIGHT COLLISION WITH TERRAIN DURING AN UNCONTROLLED DESCENT AFTER THE
PILOT PARACHUTED FROM THE AIRPLANE. CONTRIBUTING TO THE ACCIDENT WERE FUEL
EXHAUSTION AND THE PILOT'S DISREGARD FOR EMERGENCY PROCEDURES. "

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[Bertie the Bunyip]

On 26 Mar, 19:03, pittss1c > wrote:
> C J Campbell wrote:
> > On 2007-03-23 08:33:20 -0700, "karl gruber" >
> > said:
>
> >> I have an acquaintance that kicked his way out the windshield of a
> >> Citabria,
> >> after the wings folded up against the fuselage.
>
> >> Karl
> >> "Curator" N185KG
>
> > Amazing what you can do with the proper motivation.
>
> I think the important statistic would be to look at the fatal accidents
> where the pilot was wearing a parachute, and see how many are unstrapped
> and trying to get out when they hit the ground.
> In the searches I have done, I don't remember ever seeing this (although
> I was focusing on Pitts accidents.
>

I know of one, at least. Wing folded over the canopy. We think he
tried to roll it to get the wing untangled, but who knows? First
friend I lost to aerobatics. I also met a guy who only managed to get
out of his Decathlon at the last possible second when his elevators
got stuck full down.. He had got tangled in the structure for a
loooong time before he was sudenly ejectedat a few hundred feet just
before the thing hit the ground. The chute opend and he only broke his
legs. Was out competing in just a few months though!

[Gregg Germain]

"Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk at wow way d0t com> wrote:

>
> Some where the occupants got out but not in time - there was no indicaton
> if they took too long to start to get out or had too much trouble getting
> out (These were Pitts in spins iirc) . In one, the student made it out,
> but the instructor was still belted in (Citabria)

When I was in college I read a number of articles where pilots who bailed
out said they did hesitate a bit because jumping was so new to them...they
had never done it.

I knew that someday I'd be doing aerobatics so I went to a jump school and
took skydiving lessons. Back then (1976) you started out with static line
jumps. I did a few of those and worked up to 15 second free falls. I was
totally comfy with jumping and that was enough for me.

Now that I'm actually taking aerobatic lessons, I'm glad I did it. If I had
to get out, and could get out, I don't believe I'd think twice.

[john smith[_2_]]

In article >,
Gregg Germain > wrote:

> I knew that someday I'd be doing aerobatics so I went to a jump school and
> took skydiving lessons. Back then (1976) you started out with static line
> jumps. I did a few of those and worked up to 15 second free falls. I was
> totally comfy with jumping and that was enough for me.

Interesting. I did the same thing for the same reason (1973).
I skydived for six years before I started flying.
205 jumps and a Jumpmaster/C-license.

[Private]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
news:2007032308245816807-christophercampbell@hotmailcom...
> On 2007-02-28 19:41:14 -0800, john smith > said:
>
>> In article et>,
>> "Todd W. Deckard" > wrote:
>>
>>> Why would you say this? The door would be fairly easy to open in a spin.
>>> In a high speed loss of control it might be very difficult to overcome
>>> aerodynamic resistance but it is possible to open a forward hinged door
>>> and force it open enough to squeeze out at even 100kts in straight
>>> flight.
>>> With a modern canopy you stand a chance of a survivable deployment at
>>> even a few hundred feet.
>>
>> I wouldn't be too positive about those statements.
>> I have over 300 freefalls and 25 hours of acro in a Citabria.
>> The Citabria only has one door... on the right side. In a right spin,
>> the rate of descent is still going to be about 800 fpm with an indicated
>> airspeed of 45-50 mph. That's quite and airload on the inside turn side
>> of the airframe. Add to that centrifugal forces and getting through the
>> doorway after jettisoning the door will be a challenging proposition.
>> You have two sets of seatbelts to release, a headset to remove and a
>> body with a parachute attached to fit through the doorway. When you exit
>> you will be on the inside side of the airplane, which you have to clear
>> before you pull the D-ring.
>> Tic-toc, the clock is winding down as fast as the altimeter.
>> I have knowledge of only one acro pilot who successfully exited a
>> Decathlon.
>
> There was a guy down in Borrego Springs who managed to bail out when his
> Citabria would not recover. Checking the wreckage later he found the
> seatbelt from the rear seat had wrapped itself around the stick.
>
> He could have sworn he had secured that thing.
> --
> Waddling Eagle
> World Famous Flight Instructor
>
ISTR a report by an owner of a (new?) Citabria/Decathlon who successfully
bailed out of his aircraft after the rear seat back fell forward and jammed
behind the stick and limited back movement. My Citabria instructor was
quite clear that checking the small tie back cable on the seat back was a
required part of every pre-flight. IIRC there was a photo of him holding
his loose unpacked parachute and standing in front of a pile of what was
once his aircraft. IIRC the report was in the form of a thank you to the
manufacturer (Strong?) of the parachute and was on his website.

Happy landings,

[Viperdoc[_6_]]

The photo is seen often in the IAC magazine- it was a Paraphernalia chute. I
have had four of these in various iterations, and the master rigger that
repacks them for me says they have the best design, in his opinion. Dan
Tarasevich, of Paraphernalia, is at Oshkosh, and is a great guy, and
supports his product.

Bailing out can be a challenge under any circumstances, even when everything
goes right. However, getting a door open in a 152 and out of the plane,
without snagging on something could be a real challenge. If the plane is
within weight and balance limits, any spin should be recoverable (upright or
inverted), with the proper inputs and enough altitude.