Spins

[[email protected]]

I went over to the student board a while back. Someone, who I believe
was not yet even a student pilot, was all on about how spins should
not be allowed because they were too dangerous to be taught.

That's a complete and total crock.

Airplanes are suspended in a 3D space, they can be in any orientation
in that space, at any speed within their envelope, at any angle of
attack. I've heard this fact called "flight situations", which is a
good term.

If I'm uncomfortable or afraid when in any of the possible flight
situations that I could be faced with while flying a typical GA
aircraft, if some of the potential attitudes and dynamics of that
aircraft make me cringe, then I need to learn how to master those
flight situations -- BEFORE I get a PPL. Not only for my safetly, but
for the safety of any and all kinds of non-participants in what I'm
doing.

Why is it that a PPL is obtainable without basic spin recovery
demonstration? What about inverted recoveries?

Spins were demonstrated to me during primary training -- twice. I have
read that even a commercial license is issued for some (maybe all)
without the pilot really demonstrating competence in recovering from a
spin. You just need to prove theoretical knowledge, which the FAA
calls "spin awareness", or similar. Inverted flight? Never.

I think this is bizarre.

The reality is that I am to date completely UNTESTED against spins and
inverted attitudes.

I can recall practicing power-on stalls (full stall breaks, not the
pre-stall variety), and being puckered because it occured to me that I
was up there with only *theory* to deal with a potential spin because
of a screwed up practice stall (power on or off).

No dual instruction, just PARE.

Well, I'll be fixing that soon, on my own initiative.

Anyway I say all of us should have to be able to save our butts (and
those of our passengers) from all unusual attitudes. Make us learn
spins and aileron rolls. Teach us how to deal with any "flight
situation" that can -- and frequently does -- occur.

Does anyone know why the FAA ****e-canned the spin recovery
demonstration requirement in the PTS? Was it fear of litigation (since
a spin might lead to a crash, after all)?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

wrote in news:6d564a7c-8f92-45c2-baae-
:

> I went over to the student board a while back. Someone, who I believe
> was not yet even a student pilot, was all on about how spins should
> not be allowed because they were too dangerous to be taught.
>
> That's a complete and total crock.
>
> Airplanes are suspended in a 3D space, they can be in any orientation
> in that space, at any speed within their envelope, at any angle of
> attack. I've heard this fact called "flight situations", which is a
> good term.
>
> If I'm uncomfortable or afraid when in any of the possible flight
> situations that I could be faced with while flying a typical GA
> aircraft, if some of the potential attitudes and dynamics of that
> aircraft make me cringe, then I need to learn how to master those
> flight situations -- BEFORE I get a PPL. Not only for my safetly, but
> for the safety of any and all kinds of non-participants in what I'm
> doing.
>
> Why is it that a PPL is obtainable without basic spin recovery
> demonstration? What about inverted recoveries?
>
> Spins were demonstrated to me during primary training -- twice. I have
> read that even a commercial license is issued for some (maybe all)
> without the pilot really demonstrating competence in recovering from a
> spin. You just need to prove theoretical knowledge, which the FAA
> calls "spin awareness", or similar. Inverted flight? Never.
>
> I think this is bizarre.
>
> The reality is that I am to date completely UNTESTED against spins and
> inverted attitudes.
>
> I can recall practicing power-on stalls (full stall breaks, not the
> pre-stall variety), and being puckered because it occured to me that I
> was up there with only *theory* to deal with a potential spin because
> of a screwed up practice stall (power on or off).
>
> No dual instruction, just PARE.
>
> Well, I'll be fixing that soon, on my own initiative.
>
> Anyway I say all of us should have to be able to save our butts (and
> those of our passengers) from all unusual attitudes. Make us learn
> spins and aileron rolls. Teach us how to deal with any "flight
> situation" that can -- and frequently does -- occur.
>
> Does anyone know why the FAA ****e-canned the spin recovery
> demonstration requirement in the PTS? Was it fear of litigation (since
> a spin might lead to a crash, after all)?


No, it was because the figured they were losing more in spin training
than they were in accidental spins.
In the late fifties, I think.
Most other countries around the world have dropped them for the private
and commercial by now as well. Most still require them for instructors.

Over the years since then, airplanes got more difficult to spin
accidentally, but still the accidental spin persist.


I've never soloed anyone who hasn't had some introduction to them.
Usually.I just demonstrated them, the idea to get the mystique out of
the way, and then, if they were of a mind to try them themselves, I'd
let them try one or two. Then I'd show them how to avoid them and the
bulk of the lesson would be centered on how they develop and how to
recover from an incipient spin. For glider insturction, this became much
more of an issue and a bit more time was spent on it since most (
excliding the 2-33 ) spin very easily. Likewise when I taught in cubs,
though they're actually a bit difficult to spin.
The spins themselves are no big deal and there's not a lot to be learned
from doing precise three turn spins for a private pilot. An introduction
to show what the dragon at the edge of the earth looks like, and then
repeated and varied demos on how they develop and how to recognise one
before it even starts is the most productive way to approach instruction
in spins. Towards the end of their training, we would revisit the spin.
Few achieved what you would call dazzling proficiency in them, but they
went away better defended against an accidental spin.


Bertie
>

[[email protected]]

> No, it was because the figured they were losing more in spin training
> than they were in accidental spins.
> In the late fifties, I think.

Seems like I read that somewhere. Stick and Rudder? Probably some
other places too.

> Most other countries around the world have dropped them for the private
> and commercial by now as well. Most still require them for instructors.

Some recent AOPA pub or maybe Aviation Safety had an article in which
it was claimed some instructors were getting by with mere awareness --
ie an endorsement from some other instructor after a what amounted to
a demonstration of knowledge, not demonstration of practice.

> I've never soloed anyone who hasn't had some introduction to them.
> Usually.I just demonstrated them, the idea to get the mystique out of
> the way, and then, if they were of a mind to try them themselves, I'd
> let them try one or two. Then I'd show them how to avoid them and the
> bulk of the lesson would be centered on how they develop and how to
> recover from an incipient spin.

We did that before I soloed too, and if I had asked, I might have
received.

Nonetheless, the reality that I did not have to demonstrate recovery
means there is that "dragon at the edge of the earth" out there. A
great image, by the way. It will remain everytime I practice stalls
until I go get some dual training and do a couple of recoveries (that
will be soon).

It might not be a big deal, but at least an endorsement from the
instructor: "This student has recovered from an incipient spin".

It sounds like you've done that with some of your students anyway. I
say that's a good idea. Why doesn't the FAA say that's a good idea,
too?

> The spins themselves are no big deal and there's not a lot to be learned
> from doing precise three turn spins for a private pilot.

I'm not arguing for that.

> An introduction
> to show what the dragon at the edge of the earth looks like, and then
> repeated and varied demos on how they develop and how to recognise one
> before it even starts is the most productive way to approach instruction
> in spins. Towards the end of their training, we would revisit the spin.
> Few achieved what you would call dazzling proficiency in them, but they
> went away better defended against an accidental spin.

I think this is the right track, but as I note above, since you're
spinning anyway (thus taking on the risk the FAA is saying they want
to aviod) -- make the student recover. At least once. How about twice?
Go higher if the extra altitude is needed for safety. As you say, no
big deal. Yet it looms in the mind of the student and the PPL. I
haven't met a whole lot of people that say they feel comfortable with
stalls, let alone spins. But if they've recovered from a spin, then
the stall shouldn't bother them anymore.

Don't even talk about being upside down.

We're flying. You have to have some cajones.

[Jim Logajan]

Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> wrote:
>> Does anyone know why the FAA ****e-canned the spin recovery
>> demonstration requirement in the PTS? Was it fear of litigation (since
>> a spin might lead to a crash, after all)?
>
>
> No, it was because the figured they were losing more in spin training
> than they were in accidental spins.
> In the late fifties, I think.

Just FYI, Rich Stowell considers that reason a likely myth, as he writes
here:

http://www.apstraining.com/article10_fci_training_sep03.htm

Of the aerobatic schools that continue to do spin training he notes that
during the course of ~250,000 spins, there were 0 fatalities over the
period studied. In the above link he quotes the reasons given for
rescinding spin training in the 1949 CAR Amendment 20-3 and notes that spin
training accidents were not mentioned as a reason.

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 03:54:53 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

> wrote in news:6d564a7c-8f92-45c2-baae-
> :
>
> > Does anyone know why the FAA ****e-canned the spin recovery
> > demonstration requirement in the PTS? Was it fear of litigation (since
> > a spin might lead to a crash, after all)?>
>
> No, it was because the figured they were losing more in spin training
> than they were in accidental spins.

IIRC, Canada still requires spin training, but the US and Canadian accident rate
due to spins is about the same. They might have fewer accidental spins, but the
accidents during training make up for it, like Bertie says.

Nowadays, though, you almost never hear of someone getting into an accidental
spin at 3,000 feet and spinning all the way to the ground. Most spin accidents
occur in the traffic pattern, especially the base-to-final turn. Often,
recovery isn't possible. Hence, the FAA emphasizes how to AVOID spins, instead
of recovering from them.

I got into an accidental spin the first time I carried a passenger after I got
my Private. I had had an hours' worth of spin/acrobatic training months
earlier. But what still impresses me today, nearly forty years later, is how
quickly that Citabria *bit* when it was mishandled. The spins I had performed
during training were all pull-the-power-off, nose up, gradually slow, kick the
rudder when it stalls, and watch the nose majestically drop down and start
rotating.

This spin entry was different. There I was, about a seventy-degree left bank,
pulling hard on the stick to impress my buddy in the back seat, and WHAM. Ol'
N1660G snapped to the right, went inverted, and tucked into a whirling dervish
of an upright spin.

Stick forward, opposite rudder, haul back on the stick, feel my back soak
instantly with sweat, and hear my buddy ask in a shaky voice if I really, TRULY
knew what I was doing....

The really scary thing? I routinely had been performing that same manuever...IN
THE TRAFFIC PATTERN. The difference was a further-aft CG and perhaps a
slightly more-enthusiastic pull.

I quit doing that....

Ron Wanttaja

[[email protected]]

> This spin entry was different. *There I was, about a seventy-degree left bank,
> pulling hard on the stick to impress my buddy in the back seat, and WHAM. *Ol'
> N1660G snapped to the right, went inverted, and tucked into a whirling dervish
> of an upright spin. *

Yikes.

Okay. Do you think you'd have saved your skins if you had not taken it
upon yourself to get the extra spin training? What if you'd never
recovered from a spin before?

I admit that the prospect of death wonderfully concentrates the mind.
Still, practice makes better. No practice, well ...

[[email protected]]

> IIRC, Canada still requires spin training, but the US and Canadian accident rate
> due to spins is about the same. *They might have fewer accidental spins, but the
> accidents during training make up for it, like Bertie says.

Are there some numbers on this?

It just seems like if doing spins really resulted in higher death
rates then it would definitely show up in aerobatic schools of the
type Rich Stowall runs and the independant aerobatic instructors like
my primary flight instructor was/is.

Those people have done uncountable numbers of spins.

All respect to Langewiesche, et al, but ... shouldn't people like
Stowell and other aerobatics types simply be dead?

I wonder: how many pilots on this board had a spin demonstrated to
them during PPL training? How many got to recover from a spin during
PPL training? After getting the PPL?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Jim Logajan > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> wrote:
>>> Does anyone know why the FAA ****e-canned the spin recovery
>>> demonstration requirement in the PTS? Was it fear of litigation
>>> (since a spin might lead to a crash, after all)?
>>
>>
>> No, it was because the figured they were losing more in spin training
>> than they were in accidental spins.
>> In the late fifties, I think.
>
> Just FYI, Rich Stowell considers that reason a likely myth, as he
> writes here:
>
> http://www.apstraining.com/article10_fci_training_sep03.htm
>
> Of the aerobatic schools that continue to do spin training he notes
> that during the course of ~250,000 spins, there were 0 fatalities over
> the period studied. In the above link he quotes the reasons given for
> rescinding spin training in the 1949 CAR Amendment 20-3 and notes that
> spin training accidents were not mentioned as a reason.
>

OK, first time I heard that. It might be that they were trying to make
aviation more accesable to people...


Bertie

[[email protected]]

> Of the aerobatic schools that continue to do spin training he notes that
> during the course of ~250,000 spins, there were 0 fatalities over the
> period studied. In the above link he quotes the reasons given for
> rescinding spin training in the 1949 CAR Amendment 20-3 and notes that spin
> training accidents were not mentioned as a reason.

Interesting link, thanks.

I was just watching his video tonight, which in part inspired my OP,
but, it's been on my mind before I found out about Stowell & his work.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

wrote in news:9ae769af-dc7c-47d0-bd90-
:


>
> Some recent AOPA pub or maybe Aviation Safety had an article in which
> it was claimed some instructors were getting by with mere awareness --
> ie an endorsement from some other instructor after a what amounted to
> a demonstration of knowledge, not demonstration of practice.

I dunno. I had to do thenm for my private (it wasn't required, but the
examiner had me do some anyway) and it was required for my instructor
rating. They may have changed it, but if they have it was relativley
recently.
>
>> I've never soloed anyone who hasn't had some introduction to them.
>> Usually.I just demonstrated them, the idea to get the mystique out of
>> the way, and then, if they were of a mind to try them themselves, I'd
>> let them try one or two. Then I'd show them how to avoid them and the
>> bulk of the lesson would be centered on how they develop and how to
>> recover from an incipient spin.
>
> We did that before I soloed too, and if I had asked, I might have
> received.
>
> Nonetheless, the reality that I did not have to demonstrate recovery
> means there is that "dragon at the edge of the earth" out there. A
> great image, by the way. It will remain everytime I practice stalls
> until I go get some dual training and do a couple of recoveries (that
> will be soon).
>

Yeah, it;s not a big deal, really. One lesson is enough to give you the
basics.

> It might not be a big deal, but at least an endorsement from the
> instructor: "This student has recovered from an incipient spin".
>

Well, the ideal recovery from an incipient spin would mean you hardly
dropped a wing at all!

> It sounds like you've done that with some of your students anyway. I
> say that's a good idea. Why doesn't the FAA say that's a good idea,
> too?


Dunno. It's more than a good idea as far as I'm concerned. It's
essential for any pilot to be able to enter a spin and recover from it
and also recognise an incipient spin and stop it before it develops into
a ful spin.
>
>> The spins themselves are no big deal and there's not a lot to be
learned
>> from doing precise three turn spins for a private pilot.
>
> I'm not arguing for that.


I know, I'm just ranting!

>
> I think this is the right track, but as I note above, since you're
> spinning anyway (thus taking on the risk the FAA is saying they want
> to aviod) -- make the student recover. At least once. How about twice?
> Go higher if the extra altitude is needed for safety. As you say, no
> big deal. Yet it looms in the mind of the student and the PPL. I
> haven't met a whole lot of people that say they feel comfortable with
> stalls, let alone spins. But if they've recovered from a spin, then
> the stall shouldn't bother them anymore.
>
> Don't even talk about being upside down.

Well, there's a good case for that being made mandatory for Commercial
pilots.


> We're flying. You have to have some cajones.
>

It really isn't that drastic a thing to learn. I really don't like
teaching developed spins too much. I usualy end up feeling not so great.
And as an aerobatic nmanuever, one is enough per session, You've not a
lot of control during the spin any way, unless you're getting fancy.
One reason most schools don't do them is it's very hard on gyros. you
can completely wreck a DG or AI in one session. An airplane that is spun
regularly will definitely go through some gyros unless they're designed
for it.



Bertie

[[email protected]]

> An airplane that is spun
> regularly will definitely go through some gyros unless they're designed
> for it.
>
> Bertie-

And you know I once wondered why my instructor had so many old gyros
sitting around on her bookshelves. There were like four or five of
them, just sitting there. And three months ago I found it racked in
the Aerobat needing repairs. I never asked ...

Heh.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Ron Wanttaja > wrote in
:

> On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 03:54:53 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
> wrote:
>
>> wrote in news:6d564a7c-8f92-45c2-baae-
>> :
>>
>> > Does anyone know why the FAA ****e-canned the spin recovery
>> > demonstration requirement in the PTS? Was it fear of litigation
>> > (since a spin might lead to a crash, after all)?>
>>
>> No, it was because the figured they were losing more in spin training
>> than they were in accidental spins.
>
> IIRC, Canada still requires spin training, but the US and Canadian
> accident rate due to spins is about the same. They might have fewer
> accidental spins, but the accidents during training make up for it,
> like Bertie says.
>
> Nowadays, though, you almost never hear of someone getting into an
> accidental spin at 3,000 feet and spinning all the way to the ground.
> Most spin accidents occur in the traffic pattern, especially the
> base-to-final turn. Often, recovery isn't possible. Hence, the FAA
> emphasizes how to AVOID spins, instead of recovering from them.
>
> I got into an accidental spin the first time I carried a passenger
> after I got my Private. I had had an hours' worth of spin/acrobatic
> training months earlier. But what still impresses me today, nearly
> forty years later, is how quickly that Citabria *bit* when it was
> mishandled. The spins I had performed during training were all
> pull-the-power-off, nose up, gradually slow, kick the rudder when it
> stalls, and watch the nose majestically drop down and start rotating.
>
> This spin entry was different. There I was, about a seventy-degree
> left bank, pulling hard on the stick to impress my buddy in the back
> seat, and WHAM. Ol' N1660G snapped to the right, went inverted, and
> tucked into a whirling dervish of an upright spin.
>
> Stick forward, opposite rudder, haul back on the stick, feel my back
> soak instantly with sweat, and hear my buddy ask in a shaky voice if I
> really, TRULY knew what I was doing....
>
> The really scary thing? I routinely had been performing that same
> manuever...IN THE TRAFFIC PATTERN. The difference was a further-aft
> CG and perhaps a slightly more-enthusiastic pull.
>
> I quit doing that....


Good idea!

I do remember the Citabria spinning relatively easily, but nothing
untoward. It was entirely predictable once you knew what made it tick.
They have an unhealthy spin accident history compared to modern
airplanes, of course. An awful lot of realtively easily spinnable
airplanes do end up spinning in accidentally. No good reason for it
except the pilots simply cnnot be proficient in them.
One thing worth mentioning regarding spins is that an awful lot occur
during engine failures and the pilot forgets rule number one. Aviate.
They start messing around looking for cab heat or fuel selectos and
don't pay enough attention to the attitude. Better to fly into a barn
than to allow the airplane to spin in.

Bertie

[[email protected]]

> One thing worth mentioning regarding spins is that an awful lot occur
> during engine failures and the pilot forgets rule number one. Aviate.
> They start messing around looking for cab heat or fuel selectos and
> don't pay enough attention to the attitude. Better to fly into a barn
> than to allow the airplane to spin in.
>
> Bertie-

I think that's right.

On my last flight, with an instructor during a checkout, conversation
with him made me drift all over the place course wise. Alone I'm
always dead on. Same with altitude.

Real slop. I guess that's one of the next rungs up: be able to nail
that kind of thing while holding a conversation.

Of course you're talking about something different. Have you ever had
to put down with no power, by the way?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

wrote in
:

>> This spin entry was different. *There I was, about a seventy-degree
>> left
> bank,
>> pulling hard on the stick to impress my buddy in the back seat, and
>> WHAM.
> *Ol'
>> N1660G snapped to the right, went inverted, and tucked into a
>> whirling der
> vish
>> of an upright spin. *
>
> Yikes.
>
> Okay. Do you think you'd have saved your skins if you had not taken it
> upon yourself to get the extra spin training? What if you'd never
> recovered from a spin before?
>
> I admit that the prospect of death wonderfully concentrates the mind.
> Still, practice makes better. No practice, well ...
>


But if you have no idea what is going on your chances are next to zilch.

The typicl spin accident, if there is such a thing, is the famous
overcooked turn onto final. You're at 400 feet or so, you're looking at
the end of the runway, let the speed bleed off a bit and you bank too
much and pull too hard whilst simultaneously trying to rudder it into
line with the runway. Next thig is a wing drops and the nose with it.
"What caused that?" you think. Now the airplane might not be rotating
much and your mind is now turned to a reptilian wire of instinct. You
aren't going to mentally turn to page 179 in Kershner and remember the
procedure for recovery because the verbal and logical part of your brain
is too busy screaming OH ****!. No, the reptilian part, the one you
wired with training, is the part that is going to save your bacon. Thing
is, you have to have wired it in the first place.. That is what all
training is for...

Oh and sorry, I know you were asking Ron, but I was on a roll!

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

wrote in news:f9312263-47db-4463-99d6-
:

>> An airplane that is spun
>> regularly will definitely go through some gyros unless they're designed
>> for it.
>>
>> Bertie-
>
> And you know I once wondered why my instructor had so many old gyros
> sitting around on her bookshelves. There were like four or five of
> them, just sitting there. And three months ago I found it racked in
> the Aerobat needing repairs. I never asked ...

Well, the Aerobat should have a cageable gyro. I've got very little time in
them and I can't remember if it did or not, but it must have had.
I've wrecked many a gyro though!


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

wrote in news:f978f345-d4d6-47ba-8e2f-abe016c2b8e8
@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com:

>> One thing worth mentioning regarding spins is that an awful lot occur
>> during engine failures and the pilot forgets rule number one. Aviate.
>> They start messing around looking for cab heat or fuel selectos and
>> don't pay enough attention to the attitude. Better to fly into a barn
>> than to allow the airplane to spin in.
>>
>> Bertie-
>
> I think that's right.
>
> On my last flight, with an instructor during a checkout, conversation
> with him made me drift all over the place course wise. Alone I'm
> always dead on. Same with altitude.
>
> Real slop. I guess that's one of the next rungs up: be able to nail
> that kind of thing while holding a conversation.
>
> Of course you're talking about something different. Have you ever had
> to put down with no power, by the way?
>


Only about 700 times!

696 were kind of expected to go that way, though.

and tow of the remaing four were also kind of expected since we ran out of
gas!
Not bragging about that BTW.


Bertie

[Big John]

On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 06:09:12 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote:

>Ron Wanttaja > wrote in
:
>
>> On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 03:54:53 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> wrote in news:6d564a7c-8f92-45c2-baae-
>>> :
>>>
>>> > Does anyone know why the FAA ****e-canned the spin recovery
>>> > demonstration requirement in the PTS? Was it fear of litigation
>>> > (since a spin might lead to a crash, after all)?>
>>>
>>> No, it was because the figured they were losing more in spin training
>>> than they were in accidental spins.
>>
>> IIRC, Canada still requires spin training, but the US and Canadian
>> accident rate due to spins is about the same. They might have fewer
>> accidental spins, but the accidents during training make up for it,
>> like Bertie says.
>>
>> Nowadays, though, you almost never hear of someone getting into an
>> accidental spin at 3,000 feet and spinning all the way to the ground.
>> Most spin accidents occur in the traffic pattern, especially the
>> base-to-final turn. Often, recovery isn't possible. Hence, the FAA
>> emphasizes how to AVOID spins, instead of recovering from them.
>>
>> I got into an accidental spin the first time I carried a passenger
>> after I got my Private. I had had an hours' worth of spin/acrobatic
>> training months earlier. But what still impresses me today, nearly
>> forty years later, is how quickly that Citabria *bit* when it was
>> mishandled. The spins I had performed during training were all
>> pull-the-power-off, nose up, gradually slow, kick the rudder when it
>> stalls, and watch the nose majestically drop down and start rotating.
>>
>> This spin entry was different. There I was, about a seventy-degree
>> left bank, pulling hard on the stick to impress my buddy in the back
>> seat, and WHAM. Ol' N1660G snapped to the right, went inverted, and
>> tucked into a whirling dervish of an upright spin.
>>
>> Stick forward, opposite rudder, haul back on the stick, feel my back
>> soak instantly with sweat, and hear my buddy ask in a shaky voice if I
>> really, TRULY knew what I was doing....
>>
>> The really scary thing? I routinely had been performing that same
>> manuever...IN THE TRAFFIC PATTERN. The difference was a further-aft
>> CG and perhaps a slightly more-enthusiastic pull.
>>
>> I quit doing that....
>
>
>Good idea!
>
>I do remember the Citabria spinning relatively easily, but nothing
>untoward. It was entirely predictable once you knew what made it tick.
>They have an unhealthy spin accident history compared to modern
>airplanes, of course. An awful lot of realtively easily spinnable
>airplanes do end up spinning in accidentally. No good reason for it
>except the pilots simply cnnot be proficient in them.
>One thing worth mentioning regarding spins is that an awful lot occur
>during engine failures and the pilot forgets rule number one. Aviate.
>They start messing around looking for cab heat or fuel selectos and
>don't pay enough attention to the attitude. Better to fly into a barn
>than to allow the airplane to spin in.
>
>Bertie


Bertie

Don't they say "fly it all the way to the crash site"?

Big John

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Big John > wrote in
:

>
> Don't they say "fly it all the way to the crash site"

Never heard it put that way before, but yeah!


Bertie

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 21:38:05 -0800 (PST), wrote:

> > This spin entry was different. *There I was, about a seventy-degree left bank,
> > pulling hard on the stick to impress my buddy in the back seat, and WHAM. *Ol'
> > N1660G snapped to the right, went inverted, and tucked into a whirling dervish
> > of an upright spin. *
>
> Yikes.
>
> Okay. Do you think you'd have saved your skins if you had not taken it
> upon yourself to get the extra spin training? What if you'd never
> recovered from a spin before?

Being a real aviation hound from a tender age, I think I would have figured out
what was going on and remembered the recovery process. And I think good 'ol
Sixty Golf, being a benevolent early-model Citabria, would have probably dished
out and recovered on its own, eventually. Remember, 7ECAs were produced under
the old Aeronca Champ type certificate, from the days when a plane WAS expected
to recover on its own.

But, even with the training, I think if it *had* happened in the pattern, I
would have had a very narrow chance of recovering in time. Unlike all my
practice, it was THAT violent.

As I've aged, taking BFRs has become interesting. The CFIs get younger and
younger, and some of them, well...they don't seem to understand the stuff
they're supposed to be teaching.

About ten years ago, I was taking a BFR and was asked to do a power-off stall.
I did it the way I was trained to...power off, then hold the nose pretty much
level as the plane decelerates.

Didn't wash with the instructor, though: "Come on, pull the nose up! It'll
never stall if you don't get the nose up high!"

Sheesh.

I read a great article in Flying magazine a while back, where the writer
described the process for setting oneself up for a spin entry like mine. IIRC,
it was just basically level flight at low power, in a turn with about a
half-ball skid. Takes a while, but he describes an explosive break like I
experienced.

Ron Wanttaja

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Ron Wanttaja > wrote in
:


>
> As I've aged, taking BFRs has become interesting. The CFIs get
> younger and younger, and some of them, well...they don't seem to
> understand the stuff they're supposed to be teaching.
>

I agree, but to be fair, a lot of the old guys didn't know what they were
talking about either. I've met a few.
But it's true the direction has changed and not alwasys for the better.
If I hear one more guy say "but that's how the pros do it"....

Bertie

[Al Borowski]

> Why is it that a PPL is obtainable without basic spin recovery
> demonstration? What about inverted recoveries?


In Australia, at least, no glider pilot can solo without demonstrating
spin entry and recovery. At the other extreme, ultralight (the
Australian term, think LSA) pilots CANNOT spin during training,
because no ultralight is legally allowed to spin.

Sadly we had a fatality here a while back, when a fellow in an
ultralight registered motorglider spun in. I don't think he had
received any spin training because he was an 'ultralight' pilot.

Al

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-01-17, > wrote:
> I wonder: how many pilots on this board had a spin demonstrated to
> them during PPL training? How many got to recover from a spin during
> PPL training? After getting the PPL?

I had one demonstrated to me. I don't recall if I did the recovery; what I
do recall is getting airsick and having to clean up the 172. Haven't done
one since.

My instructor firmly believed that every pilot should have at least seen one
during primary training. I can't disagree, although I'm not sure I learned
much from it.

M<y instructor also believed in doing one true dead-stick landing during
primary training...damn, a Warrior sure gets quiet when you pull the pixture
to idle cutoff in flight. We were at pattern altitude abeam the numbers on
downwind when he did that, and there was no trouble at all making the runway
(he also taught nice, tight patterns). Whatever your feelings about
instructors who do that, I am at least comfortable that, having done so, I
wouldn't be quite so scared if it were to happen again.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
http://www.hercules-390.org (Yes, that's me!)
Buy Hercules stuff at http://www.cafepress.com/hercules-390

[Ron Natalie]

Jay Maynard wrote:
> On 2008-01-17, > wrote:
>> I wonder: how many pilots on this board had a spin demonstrated to
>> them during PPL training? How many got to recover from a spin during
>> PPL training? After getting the PPL?
>
> I had one demonstrated to me. I don't recall if I did the recovery; what I
> do recall is getting airsick and having to clean up the 172. Haven't done
> one since.
>
Most likely a spiral. It's hard to get a 172 to spin and keep spinning
and I've it's not the nausea ride that a prolonged rotation of a spiral
(or even steep turns) can be.

My rather whacko instructor (and roommate) had me doing spins in a 152
on my second lesson, but I'm not sure I'd recommend that to the general
population. We were both young at the time.

[[email protected]]

On Jan 17, 3:23 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

> I agree, but to be fair, a lot of the old guys didn't know what they were
> talking about either. I've met a few.
> But it's true the direction has changed and not alwasys for the better.
> If I hear one more guy say "but that's how the pros do it"....
>
> Bertie

Very true -- just because you "been there" doesn't mean you learned
much.

Regarding spins -- There's some dangerous self-delusion going on if
you think your 50 spins in a Citabria will keep you alive when you
spin a loaded C210/PA-28/A36/S35, etc on base to final.

Few pilots fly airplanes loaded in the utility category (if the
airplane is so certified at all). Many are flown in the Normal
category, with an aft (though still within limits) CG.

Spin a normal category, aft-loaded airplane not certified for spins
and all the PARE in the world won't assure your survival.

Dan

[Dave[_3_]]

I was trained (in Canada) to do spins during PPL training, recovery
was required within a certain alt loss.

Incipient, 1/2 turn, fully developed, power on, power off..

I guess I have spun 152s and 172s maybe 100 times in the past 25
years... actually its fun.... :)

Side benefit is that one does learn what the "danger zone feels like"
just before the spin. Hopefully to recognise it in time.. - although
this probaly varies a lot between different aircraft.

Dave




On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 21:48:17 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

>> IIRC, Canada still requires spin training, but the US and Canadian accident rate
>> due to spins is about the same. *They might have fewer accidental spins, but the
>> accidents during training make up for it, like Bertie says.
>
>Are there some numbers on this?
>
>It just seems like if doing spins really resulted in higher death
>rates then it would definitely show up in aerobatic schools of the
>type Rich Stowall runs and the independant aerobatic instructors like
>my primary flight instructor was/is.
>
>Those people have done uncountable numbers of spins.
>
>All respect to Langewiesche, et al, but ... shouldn't people like
>Stowell and other aerobatics types simply be dead?
>
>I wonder: how many pilots on this board had a spin demonstrated to
>them during PPL training? How many got to recover from a spin during
>PPL training? After getting the PPL?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

" > wrote in
:

> On Jan 17, 3:23 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>> I agree, but to be fair, a lot of the old guys didn't know what they
>> were talking about either. I've met a few.
>> But it's true the direction has changed and not alwasys for the
>> better.
>> If I hear one more guy say "but that's how the pros do it"....
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Very true -- just because you "been there" doesn't mean you learned
> much.
>
> Regarding spins -- There's some dangerous self-delusion going on if
> you think your 50 spins in a Citabria will keep you alive when you
> spin a loaded C210/PA-28/A36/S35, etc on base to final.
>


Well, spin training isn't about that. It's about recognising the spin long
before it happens. It will do that if done properly.

> Few pilots fly airplanes loaded in the utility category (if the
> airplane is so certified at all). Many are flown in the Normal
> category, with an aft (though still within limits) CG.
>
> Spin a normal category, aft-loaded airplane not certified for spins
> and all the PARE in the world won't assure your survival.


Well, you don't do that!

Bertie>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Ron Natalie > wrote in
m:

> Jay Maynard wrote:
>> On 2008-01-17, > wrote:
>>> I wonder: how many pilots on this board had a spin demonstrated to
>>> them during PPL training? How many got to recover from a spin during
>>> PPL training? After getting the PPL?
>>
>> I had one demonstrated to me. I don't recall if I did the recovery;
>> what I do recall is getting airsick and having to clean up the 172.
>> Haven't done one since.
>>
> Most likely a spiral. It's hard to get a 172 to spin and keep
> spinning and I've it's not the nausea ride that a prolonged rotation
> of a spiral (or even steep turns) can be.
>

Yes, I've never gotten one to do more than about a half a turn no matter
what we tried. Swept fin 150s will only do three turns for the most part
and 152s even less.

> My rather whacko instructor (and roommate) had me doing spins in a 152
> on my second lesson, but I'm not sure I'd recommend that to the
> general population. We were both young at the time.
>

Baptism of fire, eh?

Bertie

[Robert M. Gary]

On Jan 16, 7:40*pm, wrote:

> Why is it that a PPL is obtainable without basic spin recovery
> demonstration? What about inverted recoveries?


1) Because most training planes today are not certified for spins.
Unless you can round up an old 172 or Cherokee you're probably out of
luck. Today, most students don't want to flly planes that old so FBOs
don't tend to purchase them.
2) Because even if you found a plane so old that it was certified for
spins the FBO would likely prohibit it because they use the planes for
instrument training as well. FBOs don't have the old J-3's in the back
of the hanger that they use for private training, they want all their
planes to be useable for instrument training.

-Robert

[[email protected]]

On Jan 17, 7:00 am, " > wrote:

> Very true -- just because you "been there" doesn't mean you learned
> much.
> Regarding spins -- There's some dangerous self-delusion going on if
> you think your 50 spins in a Citabria will keep you alive when you
> spin a loaded C210/PA-28/A36/S35, etc on base to final.
> Few pilots fly airplanes loaded in the utility category (if the
> airplane is so certified at all). Many are flown in the Normal
> category, with an aft (though still within limits) CG.
> Spin a normal category, aft-loaded airplane not certified for spins
> and all the PARE in the world won't assure your survival.

No, spinning a heavily-loaded, aft CG airplane at 400 feet
surely will kill you. But if you did spins in training, you know WHAT
they are, WHAT causes them, that you SHOULD avoid them and HOW to
avoid them. A pilot who has never spun has only the theory in his
head, and is like the trike pilot who has never flown a taildragger:
he really doesn't know how necessary those feet are.
In Canada the PPL student has to see a spin demonstrated.
The CPL student must be able to do them. The instructor must be able
to teach them. We don't kill people doing spins. Anything up to one
turn is considered an incipient spin. A wing drop is just a wing drop.
Our Citabrias get spun a lot. The 172 is a real pain to spin.
The gyros do take a beating, but as the Director of
Maintenance (and a flight instructor) for a flight college I can tell
you that a heated hangar goes much farther toward gyro life than not
doing spins. Before we had heated storage the gyros went out once or
twice every winter. The tiny ball bearings in these things have a very
light grease that solidifies in the cold and gets squeezed out of the
way so the bearings run dry and die real quick, spins or no spins.

Dan

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

wrote:
> On Jan 17, 3:23 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>> I agree, but to be fair, a lot of the old guys didn't know what they were
>> talking about either. I've met a few.
>> But it's true the direction has changed and not alwasys for the better.
>> If I hear one more guy say "but that's how the pros do it"....
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Very true -- just because you "been there" doesn't mean you learned
> much.
>
> Regarding spins -- There's some dangerous self-delusion going on if
> you think your 50 spins in a Citabria will keep you alive when you
> spin a loaded C210/PA-28/A36/S35, etc on base to final.
>
> Few pilots fly airplanes loaded in the utility category (if the
> airplane is so certified at all). Many are flown in the Normal
> category, with an aft (though still within limits) CG.
>
> Spin a normal category, aft-loaded airplane not certified for spins
> and all the PARE in the world won't assure your survival.
>
> Dan
>
>
>

If the instructor giving spin instruction was any good at all, the pilot
flying this "aft loaded" airplane would not be flying it out of aft cg
number one, and number two, wouldn't be placing that airplane in a
position where it could spin.
Spin avoidance rather than spin recovery is the main focus of spin
instruction. Your "50 spins in a Citabria" are there to make you
completely familiar with the left side of a flight envelope and what can
happen there.
There is MUCH more to a well run spin program than learning how to
recover from the spin.


--
Dudley Henriques

[Jim K]

> wrote in message
...
>I went over to the student board a while back. Someone, who I believe
> was not yet even a student pilot, was all on about how spins should
> not be allowed because they were too dangerous to be taught.
>
> That's a complete and total crock.

Like, DUUUhhhhhh.

<...>
>
> Does anyone know why the FAA ****e-canned the spin recovery
> demonstration requirement in the PTS? Was it fear of litigation (since
> a spin might lead to a crash, after all)?

It was because spins are fun. The FAA doesn't want people to have fun. They
want paperwork.

Geoff

[[email protected]]

On Jan 17, 10:51 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> wrote:
> > On Jan 17, 3:23 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> >> I agree, but to be fair, a lot of the old guys didn't know what they were
> >> talking about either. I've met a few.
> >> But it's true the direction has changed and not alwasys for the better.
> >> If I hear one more guy say "but that's how the pros do it"....
>
> >> Bertie
>
> > Very true -- just because you "been there" doesn't mean you learned
> > much.
>
> > Regarding spins -- There's some dangerous self-delusion going on if
> > you think your 50 spins in a Citabria will keep you alive when you
> > spin a loaded C210/PA-28/A36/S35, etc on base to final.
>
> > Few pilots fly airplanes loaded in the utility category (if the
> > airplane is so certified at all). Many are flown in the Normal
> > category, with an aft (though still within limits) CG.
>
> > Spin a normal category, aft-loaded airplane not certified for spins
> > and all the PARE in the world won't assure your survival.
>
> > Dan
>
> If the instructor giving spin instruction was any good at all, the pilot
> flying this "aft loaded" airplane would not be flying it out of aft cg
> number one, and number two, wouldn't be placing that airplane in a
> position where it could spin.
> Spin avoidance rather than spin recovery is the main focus of spin
> instruction. Your "50 spins in a Citabria" are there to make you
> completely familiar with the left side of a flight envelope and what can
> happen there.
> There is MUCH more to a well run spin program than learning how to
> recover from the spin.
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

Very true, but my point was that an airplane -- that may be spin-able
in the utility category -- can easily be within the certificated load
limits in the normal category and be unable to recover from a spin.

There is no doubt that familiarity in all possible flight regimes adds
to the bag of tricks. The question is -- does everyone need this
knowledge in order to safely fly an airplane?

If the pilot avoids stalls, his/her likelihood of experiencing a spin
is greatly reduced -- and in the normal flight conditions, eliminated.

The majority of spin fatalities occur in cross controlled conditions
on base to final. I'm sure these pilots were taught NOT to cross
control (except in slips and in those cases only for limited times).

Yet they spin in.

I doubt that requiring spin training will reduce the spin accident
total. The conditions that produced the accident could have been
avoided by remembering something far simpler than spin recovery --
coordinated flight.

Dan



..



..

However, making this a requirement for all PPLs seems a stretch.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

wrote:
> On Jan 17, 10:51 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> wrote:
>>> On Jan 17, 3:23 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>> I agree, but to be fair, a lot of the old guys didn't know what they were
>>>> talking about either. I've met a few.
>>>> But it's true the direction has changed and not alwasys for the better.
>>>> If I hear one more guy say "but that's how the pros do it"....
>>>> Bertie
>>> Very true -- just because you "been there" doesn't mean you learned
>>> much.
>>> Regarding spins -- There's some dangerous self-delusion going on if
>>> you think your 50 spins in a Citabria will keep you alive when you
>>> spin a loaded C210/PA-28/A36/S35, etc on base to final.
>>> Few pilots fly airplanes loaded in the utility category (if the
>>> airplane is so certified at all). Many are flown in the Normal
>>> category, with an aft (though still within limits) CG.
>>> Spin a normal category, aft-loaded airplane not certified for spins
>>> and all the PARE in the world won't assure your survival.
>>> Dan
>> If the instructor giving spin instruction was any good at all, the pilot
>> flying this "aft loaded" airplane would not be flying it out of aft cg
>> number one, and number two, wouldn't be placing that airplane in a
>> position where it could spin.
>> Spin avoidance rather than spin recovery is the main focus of spin
>> instruction. Your "50 spins in a Citabria" are there to make you
>> completely familiar with the left side of a flight envelope and what can
>> happen there.
>> There is MUCH more to a well run spin program than learning how to
>> recover from the spin.
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> Very true, but my point was that an airplane -- that may be spin-able
> in the utility category -- can easily be within the certificated load
> limits in the normal category and be unable to recover from a spin.
>
> There is no doubt that familiarity in all possible flight regimes adds
> to the bag of tricks. The question is -- does everyone need this
> knowledge in order to safely fly an airplane?
>
> If the pilot avoids stalls, his/her likelihood of experiencing a spin
> is greatly reduced -- and in the normal flight conditions, eliminated.
>
> The majority of spin fatalities occur in cross controlled conditions
> on base to final. I'm sure these pilots were taught NOT to cross
> control (except in slips and in those cases only for limited times).
>
> Yet they spin in.
>
> I doubt that requiring spin training will reduce the spin accident
> total. The conditions that produced the accident could have been
> avoided by remembering something far simpler than spin recovery --
> coordinated flight.
>
> Dan
>
>
>
> .
>
>
>
> .
>
> However, making this a requirement for all PPLs seems a stretch.


This is the old FAA argument and is true enough in the general sense.
You need two factors present to spin an airplane; stall and a yaw rate.
You avoid both at the same time and you avoid spins.
But this isn't the entire answer by a long shot. Spins can and do occur
for various reasons and people still die in spin accidents.
The main reason to take spin training is to become a better all around
pilot, not just to learn spin recovery. For this reason alone, spin
training is desirable.
Should spin training be mandatory? Personally I don't favor this
approach, as instructing a spin training program properly takes both an
airplane suitable for it and a flight instructor suitable to teach it.
The bottom line from me is that spin training is something I highly
recommend that every pilot take after obtaining their license. I treat
it as simple advanced training.
Pecking out the in's and out's and pro's and con's of spin training as
it applies to specific type, category, and loading of aircraft isn't the
way to deal with this issue.
Spin training is money well spent. I don't believe I've ever met a pilot
who has taken an aerobatics or spin recovery course from a qualified
instructor teaching these programs who wasn't a better pilot after
finishing that program; and this includes their basic VFR piloting skills.


--
Dudley Henriques

[[email protected]]

>
> This is the old FAA argument and is true enough in the general sense.

Because the FAA uses the argument doesn't invalidate it.

> The main reason to take spin training is to become a better all around
> pilot, not just to learn spin recovery. For this reason alone, spin
> training is desirable.

Agreed.

> Should spin training be mandatory? Personally I don't favor this
> approach, as instructing a spin training program properly takes both an
> airplane suitable for it and a flight instructor suitable to teach it.
> The bottom line from me is that spin training is something I highly
> recommend that every pilot take after obtaining their license. I treat
> it as simple advanced training.

Agreed.

> Pecking out the in's and out's and pro's and con's of spin training as
> it applies to specific type, category, and loading of aircraft isn't the
> way to deal with this issue.

Not exactly -- it's critical to know that the 172 you practiced
spinning last weekend with Bob Grizlevators is no longer in the
utility category when you toss your FAA handbook collection in the
back seat and you may not recover from a spin -- ever.

> Spin training is money well spent. I don't believe I've ever met a pilot
> who has taken an aerobatics or spin recovery course from a qualified
> instructor teaching these programs who wasn't a better pilot after
> finishing that program; and this includes their basic VFR piloting skills.
>

Absolutely true for any advanced training -- IFR rating included. The
question is -- should this be mandatory (again) in the US as it is in
some other countries?

I agree that the right answer is "no."

Dan

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> wrote:
>>> Does anyone know why the FAA ****e-canned the spin recovery
>>> demonstration requirement in the PTS? Was it fear of litigation (since
>>> a spin might lead to a crash, after all)?
>>
>>
>> No, it was because the figured they were losing more in spin training
>> than they were in accidental spins.
>> In the late fifties, I think.
>
> Just FYI, Rich Stowell considers that reason a likely myth, as he writes
> here:
>
> http://www.apstraining.com/article10_fci_training_sep03.htm
>
> Of the aerobatic schools that continue to do spin training he notes that
> during the course of ~250,000 spins, there were 0 fatalities over the
> period studied. In the above link he quotes the reasons given for
> rescinding spin training in the 1949 CAR Amendment 20-3 and notes that
> spin
> training accidents were not mentioned as a reason.

Apples and Oranges? I'd say there's a major difference between aerobatic
training and regular PPL training.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

wrote:

>Not exactly -- it's critical to know that the 172 you practiced
> spinning last weekend with Bob Grizlevators is no longer in the
> utility category when you toss your FAA handbook collection in the
> back seat and you may not recover from a spin -- ever.



You seem to be under the impression that a normal category airplane
being flown within it's weight and balance envelope can't be recovered
from a spin?
Am I reading you correctly here?


--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Matt W. Barrow" > wrote in news:7NLjj.9678
:

>
> "Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>> wrote:
>>>> Does anyone know why the FAA ****e-canned the spin recovery
>>>> demonstration requirement in the PTS? Was it fear of litigation
(since
>>>> a spin might lead to a crash, after all)?
>>>
>>>
>>> No, it was because the figured they were losing more in spin
training
>>> than they were in accidental spins.
>>> In the late fifties, I think.
>>
>> Just FYI, Rich Stowell considers that reason a likely myth, as he
writes
>> here:
>>
>> http://www.apstraining.com/article10_fci_training_sep03.htm
>>
>> Of the aerobatic schools that continue to do spin training he notes
that
>> during the course of ~250,000 spins, there were 0 fatalities over the
>> period studied. In the above link he quotes the reasons given for
>> rescinding spin training in the 1949 CAR Amendment 20-3 and notes
that
>> spin
>> training accidents were not mentioned as a reason.
>
> Apples and Oranges? I'd say there's a major difference between
aerobatic
> training and regular PPL training.
>

No, if spins were more thoroughly understood by the pilot population and
instructors in particular, there's no reason why they couldn't be taught
to the same standard as in the aerobatic schools.

Bertie
>

[[email protected]]

On Jan 17, 11:59 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> wrote:
>
> >Not exactly -- it's critical to know that the 172 you practiced
> > spinning last weekend with Bob Grizlevators is no longer in the
> > utility category when you toss your FAA handbook collection in the
> > back seat and you may not recover from a spin -- ever.
>
> You seem to be under the impression that a normal category airplane
> being flown within it's weight and balance envelope can't be recovered
> from a spin?
> Am I reading you correctly here?
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

The 172 N Model I fly from time to time is only approved (and thus was
only tested) for spins when CG falls within the utility category.
Though it may be recovered from a spin when loaded within the normal
category range, it was not certificated that way. Which tells me there
is no assurance of recovery.

The Bonanzas (A36 and straight 35), though Utility category, are not
approved for spins.

Dan

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

" > wrote in news:613bba69-a2ce-
:

> On Jan 17, 11:59 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Not exactly -- it's critical to know that the 172 you practiced
>> > spinning last weekend with Bob Grizlevators is no longer in the
>> > utility category when you toss your FAA handbook collection in the
>> > back seat and you may not recover from a spin -- ever.
>>
>> You seem to be under the impression that a normal category airplane
>> being flown within it's weight and balance envelope can't be
recovered
>> from a spin?
>> Am I reading you correctly here?
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> The 172 N Model I fly from time to time is only approved (and thus was
> only tested) for spins when CG falls within the utility category.

They're all like that, but it's likely it was tested with a CG much
further aft than it's certified for.

> Though it may be recovered from a spin when loaded within the normal
> category range, it was not certificated that way. Which tells me there
> is no assurance of recovery.
>
> The Bonanzas (A36 and straight 35), though Utility category, are not
> approved for spins.
>

Well, it's al besides the point. Most airplanes will easily recover from
an incipient spin easily enough. That's pretty much all you need to
know about them. You're not going to do spin training in them anyway and
you're only interest in their spin capability is their ability, on the
day, to recover reasonably easy from an incipient spin. There's no
reason an incipient spin should even get to the point of dropping a wing
if the pilot is sharp (disregarding VMC rolls in twins) Airplanes that
are not cetified for spins are usually , though not always, fairly
difficult to spin anyway.
The point of spin training isn't to get you out of a Jimmy Cagney type
spinning-out-of-control-and-I-never-told-her-I-loved-her-but-the-other-
mug-is-a-decent-guy-who-will-look-after-her-anyway-and -it's-a-far-far-
better-thing and all that kind of a moment anyway. It's about
recognitionand learnign how to control the airplane better.
But to the original point, a fully developed spin in a 172 of any
vintage, with four up and a bit of baggage, should recover form a spin
easily. in fact, it;s probably recover all by itself in less than one
turn. I'm not going to go out and try it, but I'd be very surprised if
it didn't. Same with most of the small tourers like Cherokees and such,
thugh the Cherokee will stay in a spin for much longer.

[[email protected]]

On Jan 17, 1:06 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> " > wrote in news:613bba69-a2ce-
> :
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 17, 11:59 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >Not exactly -- it's critical to know that the 172 you practiced
> >> > spinning last weekend with Bob Grizlevators is no longer in the
> >> > utility category when you toss your FAA handbook collection in the
> >> > back seat and you may not recover from a spin -- ever.
>
> >> You seem to be under the impression that a normal category airplane
> >> being flown within it's weight and balance envelope can't be
> recovered
> >> from a spin?
> >> Am I reading you correctly here?
>
> >> --
> >> Dudley Henriques
>
> > The 172 N Model I fly from time to time is only approved (and thus was
> > only tested) for spins when CG falls within the utility category.
>
> They're all like that, but it's likely it was tested with a CG much
> further aft than it's certified for.
>
> > Though it may be recovered from a spin when loaded within the normal
> > category range, it was not certificated that way. Which tells me there
> > is no assurance of recovery.
>
> > The Bonanzas (A36 and straight 35), though Utility category, are not
> > approved for spins.
>
> Well, it's al besides the point. Most airplanes will easily recover from
> an incipient spin easily enough. That's pretty much all you need to
> know about them. You're not going to do spin training in them anyway and
> you're only interest in their spin capability is their ability, on the
> day, to recover reasonably easy from an incipient spin. There's no
> reason an incipient spin should even get to the point of dropping a wing
> if the pilot is sharp (disregarding VMC rolls in twins) Airplanes that
> are not cetified for spins are usually , though not always, fairly
> difficult to spin anyway.
> The point of spin training isn't to get you out of a Jimmy Cagney type
> spinning-out-of-control-and-I-never-told-her-I-loved-her-but-the-other-
> mug-is-a-decent-guy-who-will-look-after-her-anyway-and -it's-a-far-far-
> better-thing and all that kind of a moment anyway. It's about
> recognitionand learnign how to control the airplane better.
> But to the original point, a fully developed spin in a 172 of any
> vintage, with four up and a bit of baggage, should recover form a spin
> easily. in fact, it;s probably recover all by itself in less than one
> turn. I'm not going to go out and try it, but I'd be very surprised if
> it didn't. Same with most of the small tourers like Cherokees and such,
> thugh the Cherokee will stay in a spin for much longer.

That may be true -- but if the airplane POH states "SPINS APPROVED IN
UTILITY CATEGORY" or some such, it's likely there was some behavior
evident in flight testing that warranted such a statement.

The OP referenced the training of private pilots -- not test pilots.

Otherwise we're in complete agreement.

(Though I don't remember the flick with Cagney at the controls....must
be my youth)

Dan

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

" > wrote in news:2e75f7b6-4b0f-4eae-
:
>
> That may be true -- but if the airplane POH states "SPINS APPROVED IN
> UTILITY CATEGORY" or some such, it's likely there was some behavior
> evident in flight testing that warranted such a statement.

It's possible, but not neccesarily likely.

One of the reasons that they are done in the utility category is the stress
put on the airplane by the spin and the recovery. It is, after all, an
aerobatic manuever.

>
> The OP referenced the training of private pilots -- not test pilots.

Well, I wasn't talking abou ttraining in these airplanes. They're not
really suitable for it for several reasons, some being the beating the
instruments take and the relative difficulty in even getting them to spin
in the first place without some severe provocation.
I'm merely trying to point out that if one were to enter a spin with a full
load you wouldn't just bend over and kiss your ass goodbye. It'd probably
be easily recoverable once it was initiated in a timely fashion....

>
> Otherwise we're in complete agreement.
>
> (Though I don't remember the flick with Cagney at the controls....must
> be my youth)

Well it was made before I was born. What kind of pilot are you if you
haven't seen Captain of the Clouds on a rainy saturday afternoon?

I ask you!


Bertie

[[email protected]]

On Jan 17, 1:25 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

> Well it was made before I was born. What kind of pilot are you if you
> haven't seen Captain of the Clouds on a rainy saturday afternoon?
>
> I ask you!
>
> Bertie

::hanging head in shame::

True, that.

Dan

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

" > wrote in news:f1a886dd-872b-4726-
:

> On Jan 17, 1:25 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>> Well it was made before I was born. What kind of pilot are you if you
>> haven't seen Captain of the Clouds on a rainy saturday afternoon?
>>
>> I ask you!
>>
>> Bertie
>
>::hanging head in shame::
>
> True, that.
>

At the risk of starting another best movie thread. it is a classic, as is
test pilot..


Bertie

[Michael[_1_]]

On Jan 16, 11:56*pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
> > No, it was because the figured they were losing more in spin training
> > than they were in accidental spins.
> > In the late fifties, I think.
>
> Just FYI, Rich Stowell considers that reason a likely myth

Well, but he has to. I mean, think about the way he makes his
living. If you accept that spin training will kill more in training
than it will save, then much of what he does is counterproductive.
Also, mcuh of his clientele is there for safety. What's he going to
say - that his safety course is more likely to kill them than save
them?

Actually, I think the reason is valid - in spite of what Rich Stowell
writes. The underlying cause is simple - instructors who teach
aerobatics are not at all representative of the instructor population
as a whole. Mostly, aerobatics are taught by pilots who really like
aerobatics and do it a lot, or at least used to do it a lot. I would
be VERY surprised if there were any accidents when such a pilot was
teaching the fairly elementary spin entry and recovery stuff at a safe
altitude in a docile airplane that is probably kept in pretty good rig
(being an acro trainer).

On the other hand, when spin training was required, it was taught by
any random CFI in whatever was handy. That's a different population
than aerobatic training.

That's why I don't favor mandatory spin training, and actually think
it's a pretty bad idea for the average CFI to teach spins. Most of
the planes aren't terribly suitable (including most of the ones that
are spin-approved) and most of the CFI's haven't had enough exposure
to that part of the envelope to be adequately prepared for something
unexpected happening. And something unexpected IS going to happen.

Unlike most people, I've actually been in an inadvertent spin. Back
when I used to instruct in gliders, I had a middle aged low time power
pilot as a transition studet. He had something like 60 hours in
Cherokees, so of course he had no clue what the rudder was for. He
also didn't have the best physical reflexes - that stuff degrades with
age. Nonetheless, he wasn't doing badly. It was only his second
flight, and he had flown on aerotow totally unassisted (other than
some verbal coaching) from about 1500 ft (not where I gave it to him -
that was much lower - but where he finally caught on to how it worked)
to 3000. There was a little bit of weak lift, and I was teaching him
to thermal. He wasn't doing too badly. His coordination and speed
control weren't really there, but he was improving and had reached the
stage where all he really needed was practice and a bit of coaching.
We were at 1500-2000 ft or so over the field, and I was mostly sitting
in the back and giving the occasional pointer.

The last thing I was thinking about was spinning.

I had done my CFI spin training in that same glider type (a Blanik
L-23) and I was well familiar with its spin characteristics. I had
much better spin training than most CFI's get (I think most just do
two incipient and a one-turn these days) which included spins to
headings. We had done these close to the cg aft limit (but still
within), and I still had to force the glider into the spin and
forcibly keep it in the spin until I was ready for it to come out. If
you had asked me how likely an inadvertent spin was in that glider, I
would have said next to impossible. I had flown aerobatic airplanes
that would really spin - this wasn't one of them.

And then we spun. I still can't explain how it happened. He was
slow, but not critically slow (thermalling flight is often done at 5
kts or so above stall speed anyway). He was uncoordinated, but not
critically so. There was a gust, but nothing unusual for thermaling
below 2000 ft in Texas. And the next thing I knew, we were spinning.

I guess the big advantage of having spun a lot and done aerobatics is
that it's not scary anymore. I simply told the student that he was in
a spin, and that he should recover. He let off on the stick, and the
glider was out of the spin. It was all pretty sloppy so we probably
lost 500 ft or more in the spin and recovery, which was no major
deal. I just talked the student through the pattern and landing.

I tried to explain to my student that letting off on the stick does
not, by far, guarantee a recovery - but I think I was just a talking
head. He had let off on the stick, and the glider recovered instantly
- just as it always had when I spun it. Of course in my experience it
had never spun until forced to, either - until that one and only
time. Something unexpected happened. When you fly in that part of
the envelope, eventually something unexpected is going to happen. The
first time it does should not be with a student - because a student
adds a degree of difficulty. You need to experience the unexpected
yourself before you take a student there. You're not going to get
that from one hour of spin training, and that's all most CFI's get. I
don't think making it 3 hours will be any better. You need to go out
there and fly in that corner of the envelope for a while, explore, get
used to it, have stuff you don't expect happen.

We routinely fly gliders in turbulent air at airpseeds close to stall,
and in a bank. Airplanes, not so much unless you do aerobatics. I've
managed to stall a plane inadvertently and completely unexpectedly at
100 kts pointing straight down (coming off the back side of a loop).
I think that did much more to prepare me for the unexpected spin than
any amount of training could have.

Michael

[george]

On Jan 18, 4:47 am, wrote:

>
> No, spinning a heavily-loaded, aft CG airplane at 400 feet
> surely will kill you. But if you did spins in training, you know WHAT
> they are, WHAT causes them, that you SHOULD avoid them and HOW to
> avoid them. A pilot who has never spun has only the theory in his
> head, and is like the trike pilot who has never flown a taildragger:
> he really doesn't know how necessary those feet are.

My sentiments exactly.
Learn what a spin is , what it looks like, feels like and how to
recover.
If you know all that you can recognise the onset and change the
conditions before you get bitten !

[[email protected]]

On Jan 17, 9:17 am, " > wrote:
> The majority of spin fatalities occur in cross controlled conditions
> on base to final. I'm sure these pilots were taught NOT to cross
> control (except in slips and in those cases only for limited times).
>
> Yet they spin in.

In a descending turn, the inside wing has a higher angle
of attack and will stall first, even if the airplane is coordinated in
the turn. Then it'll spin. Too many students are never taught that.
They think that as long as they're coordinated, they're safe. It's not
true. That's why we have stall/spin scenario training: so they see the
various conditions that can cause it. Awareness is greatly enhanced,
believe me. They get much more careful in the circuit.

Dan

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

wrote:
> On Jan 17, 11:59 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Not exactly -- it's critical to know that the 172 you practiced
>> > spinning last weekend with Bob Grizlevators is no longer in the
>> > utility category when you toss your FAA handbook collection in the
>> > back seat and you may not recover from a spin -- ever.
>>
>> You seem to be under the impression that a normal category airplane
>> being flown within it's weight and balance envelope can't be recovered
>> from a spin?
>> Am I reading you correctly here?
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> The 172 N Model I fly from time to time is only approved (and thus was
> only tested) for spins when CG falls within the utility category.
> Though it may be recovered from a spin when loaded within the normal
> category range, it was not certificated that way. Which tells me there
> is no assurance of recovery.
>
> The Bonanzas (A36 and straight 35), though Utility category, are not
> approved for spins.
>
> Dan

I don't have the regulations in front of me (I hate looking up
regulations :-) but for FAA certification in the normal category the
aircraft must be flight tested for the ability to recover from a 1 turn
spin and a recovery on a time line of 3 seconds after a departure.
This certification parameter has nothing to do with a category
authorization for spins and most certainly one should NOT be spinning
any aircraft being operated in the normal category.
It DOES mean however that if you are flying the airplane within the
normal category and within it's cg envelope, you most certainly should
be able to recover from a spin entry without over stressing the aircraft.
Generally, there is little stress on the aircraft while it's spinning.
It's the recovery where you get into trouble if you're not properly
trained on spin recovery.
Again, the main reason for spin training isn't focused on spin recovery
alone. The main emphasis, even though you are training in spin recovery,
is STILL spin avoidance.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

wrote:
In a descending turn, the inside wing has a higher angle
> of attack and will stall first, even if the airplane is coordinated in
> the turn. Then it'll spin. Too many students are never taught that.
> They think that as long as they're coordinated, they're safe. It's not
> true. That's why we have stall/spin scenario training: so they see the
> various conditions that can cause it. Awareness is greatly enhanced,
> believe me. They get much more careful in the circuit.
>
> Dan

We'll have to get together someday and have a quiet drink over this one
Dan :-)))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Cubdriver]

On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 19:40:35 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

>Why is it that a PPL is obtainable without basic spin recovery
>demonstration? What about inverted recoveries?

Spins are not allowed in the planes available for rent at the airport
from which I fly, probably because they are in two cases more than
sixty years old.

So I went to Chandler AZ to take spin training and found it very
useful. They used a Great Lakes for aerobatics and spin training. They
also had a Super Cub, and since I fly a J-3, I asked if I could do
some spins in the PA-18. The answer was no, because it might tumble
the gyros. So there's another reason folks don't teach spins.

(That said, my young instructor did demonstrate a spin, which is why I
became so fascinated that I went to Arizona for serious training.)


Blue skies! -- Dan Ford

Claire Chennault and His American Volunteers, 1941-1942
new from HarperCollins www.FlyingTigersBook.com

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Cubdriver <usenet AT danford DOT net> wrote in
:

> On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 19:40:35 -0800 (PST),
> wrote:
>
>>Why is it that a PPL is obtainable without basic spin recovery
>>demonstration? What about inverted recoveries?
>
> Spins are not allowed in the planes available for rent at the airport
> from which I fly, probably because they are in two cases more than
> sixty years old.



J-3s are actually kinda difficult to get to spin anyway. They'll do it, but
with two up they need a bit of coaxing. not great for incipient spin
training.
Best airplane for it ever was one of my old luscombes. I took the washout
out of the wing to make it go faster, which works, BTW. and as a result,
the airplane was , um, interesting to stall. It was absolutely impossible
to stall without a big wing drop. Doing a falling leaf was like clog
dancing. if you let it go at al it was on it's back in no time. It was also
a very early one with the more difficult ground handling whic, in addition
to the "Fun with Stalls" habit earned it the name "the humiliater"
It was considered an excellent primer for homebuilts. Great airplnae and
it's still flying, though i think with a bit of washout now.


Bertie

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Cubdriver <usenet AT danford DOT net> wrote in
> :
>
>> On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 19:40:35 -0800 (PST),
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Why is it that a PPL is obtainable without basic spin recovery
>>> demonstration? What about inverted recoveries?
>> Spins are not allowed in the planes available for rent at the airport
>> from which I fly, probably because they are in two cases more than
>> sixty years old.
>
>
>
> J-3s are actually kinda difficult to get to spin anyway. They'll do it, but
> with two up they need a bit of coaxing. not great for incipient spin
> training.
> Best airplane for it ever was one of my old luscombes. I took the washout
> out of the wing to make it go faster, which works, BTW. and as a result,
> the airplane was , um, interesting to stall. It was absolutely impossible
> to stall without a big wing drop. Doing a falling leaf was like clog
> dancing. if you let it go at al it was on it's back in no time. It was also
> a very early one with the more difficult ground handling whic, in addition
> to the "Fun with Stalls" habit earned it the name "the humiliater"
> It was considered an excellent primer for homebuilts. Great airplnae and
> it's still flying, though i think with a bit of washout now.
>
>
> Bertie
The Silvaire was a joy to spin. Snappy little bird!

The best spin entry for the J3 is to start a 1g stall carrying just a
tad of power. then just before the stall break, acellerate it up and in
with back stick and a shot of power for the rudder. Then imm ediately
off the power, hard pro spin rudder and full back stick.
Fun for all involved :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Cubdriver <usenet AT danford DOT net> wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 19:40:35 -0800 (PST),
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Why is it that a PPL is obtainable without basic spin recovery
>>>> demonstration? What about inverted recoveries?
>>> Spins are not allowed in the planes available for rent at the
>>> airport from which I fly, probably because they are in two cases
>>> more than sixty years old.
>>
>>
>>
>> J-3s are actually kinda difficult to get to spin anyway. They'll do
>> it, but with two up they need a bit of coaxing. not great for
>> incipient spin training.
>> Best airplane for it ever was one of my old luscombes. I took the
>> washout out of the wing to make it go faster, which works, BTW. and
>> as a result, the airplane was , um, interesting to stall. It was
>> absolutely impossible to stall without a big wing drop. Doing a
>> falling leaf was like clog dancing. if you let it go at al it was on
>> it's back in no time. It was also a very early one with the more
>> difficult ground handling whic, in addition to the "Fun with Stalls"
>> habit earned it the name "the humiliater" It was considered an
>> excellent primer for homebuilts. Great airplnae and it's still
>> flying, though i think with a bit of washout now.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
> The Silvaire was a joy to spin. Snappy little bird!
>
> The best spin entry for the J3 is to start a 1g stall carrying just a
> tad of power. then just before the stall break, acellerate it up and
> in with back stick and a shot of power for the rudder. Then imm
> ediately off the power, hard pro spin rudder and full back stick.
> Fun for all involved :-))


Yeah, pretty much exactly as I did it. Not so good for teaching
incipient spins when it looks so difficult to get into one!
I can't remember how easy they were to provoke with say, a stepp turn,
but I can't imagine they'd be all that much more likely to depart form
one of those either. It was a lot better solo form the rear seat,
though.


Bertie
>

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> Cubdriver <usenet AT danford DOT net> wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 19:40:35 -0800 (PST),
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Why is it that a PPL is obtainable without basic spin recovery
>>>>> demonstration? What about inverted recoveries?
>>>> Spins are not allowed in the planes available for rent at the
>>>> airport from which I fly, probably because they are in two cases
>>>> more than sixty years old.
>>>
>>>
>>> J-3s are actually kinda difficult to get to spin anyway. They'll do
>>> it, but with two up they need a bit of coaxing. not great for
>>> incipient spin training.
>>> Best airplane for it ever was one of my old luscombes. I took the
>>> washout out of the wing to make it go faster, which works, BTW. and
>>> as a result, the airplane was , um, interesting to stall. It was
>>> absolutely impossible to stall without a big wing drop. Doing a
>>> falling leaf was like clog dancing. if you let it go at al it was on
>>> it's back in no time. It was also a very early one with the more
>>> difficult ground handling whic, in addition to the "Fun with Stalls"
>>> habit earned it the name "the humiliater" It was considered an
>>> excellent primer for homebuilts. Great airplnae and it's still
>>> flying, though i think with a bit of washout now.
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>> The Silvaire was a joy to spin. Snappy little bird!
>>
>> The best spin entry for the J3 is to start a 1g stall carrying just a
>> tad of power. then just before the stall break, acellerate it up and
>> in with back stick and a shot of power for the rudder. Then imm
>> ediately off the power, hard pro spin rudder and full back stick.
>> Fun for all involved :-))
>
>
> Yeah, pretty much exactly as I did it. Not so good for teaching
> incipient spins when it looks so difficult to get into one!
> I can't remember how easy they were to provoke with say, a stepp turn,
> but I can't imagine they'd be all that much more likely to depart form
> one of those either. It was a lot better solo form the rear seat,
> though.
>
>
> Bertie
>

Yeah. I always flew the J3 from the back as well. In fact, the one we
had available was back seat solo only. Talk about fun....I flew that
damn thing all the way down the East Coast one spring when I had a month
off to myself. Most of the way I was several hundred yards off shore.
The weather was warm and I had the upper panel open most of the trip.
Every now and then I would throttle back to idle and try shouting at
people down below. I saw them shout back but to tell you the truth I
never heard a word they were saying :-)
Ended up at Key West, stayed several days, island hopped a bit then flew
it home again.
One of the best aviation experiences I ever had really. It's funny when
you stop to think about it. Of all the fancy airplanes that crossed my
path in life, that little J3 and that trip down the coast would be right
up there at the top of the heap for just plain fun with an airplane.


--
Dudley Henriques

[[email protected]]

On Jan 17, 4:34 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> > Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
> >> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> >>> Cubdriver <usenet AT danford DOT net> wrote in
> :
>
> >>>> On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 19:40:35 -0800 (PST),
> >>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>> Why is it that a PPL is obtainable without basic spin recovery
> >>>>> demonstration? What about inverted recoveries?
> >>>> Spins are not allowed in the planes available for rent at the
> >>>> airport from which I fly, probably because they are in two cases
> >>>> more than sixty years old.
>
> >>> J-3s are actually kinda difficult to get to spin anyway. They'll do
> >>> it, but with two up they need a bit of coaxing. not great for
> >>> incipient spin training.
> >>> Best airplane for it ever was one of my old luscombes. I took the
> >>> washout out of the wing to make it go faster, which works, BTW. and
> >>> as a result, the airplane was , um, interesting to stall. It was
> >>> absolutely impossible to stall without a big wing drop. Doing a
> >>> falling leaf was like clog dancing. if you let it go at al it was on
> >>> it's back in no time. It was also a very early one with the more
> >>> difficult ground handling whic, in addition to the "Fun with Stalls"
> >>> habit earned it the name "the humiliater" It was considered an
> >>> excellent primer for homebuilts. Great airplnae and it's still
> >>> flying, though i think with a bit of washout now.
>
> >>> Bertie
> >> The Silvaire was a joy to spin. Snappy little bird!
>
> >> The best spin entry for the J3 is to start a 1g stall carrying just a
> >> tad of power. then just before the stall break, acellerate it up and
> >> in with back stick and a shot of power for the rudder. Then imm
> >> ediately off the power, hard pro spin rudder and full back stick.
> >> Fun for all involved :-))
>
> > Yeah, pretty much exactly as I did it. Not so good for teaching
> > incipient spins when it looks so difficult to get into one!
> > I can't remember how easy they were to provoke with say, a stepp turn,
> > but I can't imagine they'd be all that much more likely to depart form
> > one of those either. It was a lot better solo form the rear seat,
> > though.
>
> > Bertie
>
> Yeah. I always flew the J3 from the back as well. In fact, the one we
> had available was back seat solo only. Talk about fun....I flew that
> damn thing all the way down the East Coast one spring when I had a month
> off to myself. Most of the way I was several hundred yards off shore.
> The weather was warm and I had the upper panel open most of the trip.
> Every now and then I would throttle back to idle and try shouting at
> people down below. I saw them shout back but to tell you the truth I
> never heard a word they were saying :-)
> Ended up at Key West, stayed several days, island hopped a bit then flew
> it home again.
> One of the best aviation experiences I ever had really. It's funny when
> you stop to think about it. Of all the fancy airplanes that crossed my
> path in life, that little J3 and that trip down the coast would be right
> up there at the top of the heap for just plain fun with an airplane.
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

Sounds like fun! Makes me wonder if being a banner tower would be so
bad?? Hours of slow flight along the beach?

After reading Rinker buck's "Flight of Passage" all I wanted to do was
replicate that flight.

Flying Pittsburgh to Phoenix in an A36 in 10 hours wasn't the same....

Dan

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

wrote:
> On Jan 17, 4:34 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>> :
>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>> Cubdriver <usenet AT danford DOT net> wrote in
>>>>> :
>>>>>> On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 19:40:35 -0800 (PST),
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Why is it that a PPL is obtainable without basic spin recovery
>>>>>>> demonstration? What about inverted recoveries?
>>>>>> Spins are not allowed in the planes available for rent at the
>>>>>> airport from which I fly, probably because they are in two cases
>>>>>> more than sixty years old.
>>>>> J-3s are actually kinda difficult to get to spin anyway. They'll do
>>>>> it, but with two up they need a bit of coaxing. not great for
>>>>> incipient spin training.
>>>>> Best airplane for it ever was one of my old luscombes. I took the
>>>>> washout out of the wing to make it go faster, which works, BTW. and
>>>>> as a result, the airplane was , um, interesting to stall. It was
>>>>> absolutely impossible to stall without a big wing drop. Doing a
>>>>> falling leaf was like clog dancing. if you let it go at al it was on
>>>>> it's back in no time. It was also a very early one with the more
>>>>> difficult ground handling whic, in addition to the "Fun with Stalls"
>>>>> habit earned it the name "the humiliater" It was considered an
>>>>> excellent primer for homebuilts. Great airplnae and it's still
>>>>> flying, though i think with a bit of washout now.
>>>>> Bertie
>>>> The Silvaire was a joy to spin. Snappy little bird!
>>>> The best spin entry for the J3 is to start a 1g stall carrying just a
>>>> tad of power. then just before the stall break, acellerate it up and
>>>> in with back stick and a shot of power for the rudder. Then imm
>>>> ediately off the power, hard pro spin rudder and full back stick.
>>>> Fun for all involved :-))
>>> Yeah, pretty much exactly as I did it. Not so good for teaching
>>> incipient spins when it looks so difficult to get into one!
>>> I can't remember how easy they were to provoke with say, a stepp turn,
>>> but I can't imagine they'd be all that much more likely to depart form
>>> one of those either. It was a lot better solo form the rear seat,
>>> though.
>>> Bertie
>> Yeah. I always flew the J3 from the back as well. In fact, the one we
>> had available was back seat solo only. Talk about fun....I flew that
>> damn thing all the way down the East Coast one spring when I had a month
>> off to myself. Most of the way I was several hundred yards off shore.
>> The weather was warm and I had the upper panel open most of the trip.
>> Every now and then I would throttle back to idle and try shouting at
>> people down below. I saw them shout back but to tell you the truth I
>> never heard a word they were saying :-)
>> Ended up at Key West, stayed several days, island hopped a bit then flew
>> it home again.
>> One of the best aviation experiences I ever had really. It's funny when
>> you stop to think about it. Of all the fancy airplanes that crossed my
>> path in life, that little J3 and that trip down the coast would be right
>> up there at the top of the heap for just plain fun with an airplane.
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> Sounds like fun! Makes me wonder if being a banner tower would be so
> bad?? Hours of slow flight along the beach?
>
> After reading Rinker buck's "Flight of Passage" all I wanted to do was
> replicate that flight.
>
> Flying Pittsburgh to Phoenix in an A36 in 10 hours wasn't the same....
>
> Dan
Back in the (old days;) a lot of new commercial pilots tried the banner
towing game. It seemed the banner outfits were always looking for new
pilots. (Something in that somewhere for smart people I think :-)

I never did any towing, but a lot of those who did informed me that they
learned fairly fast that it wasn't the easiest game in town. Many of the
airplanes being used were VERY old. One outfit down in Atlantic City
were using old Navy N3N's and towing with these crates meant that much
of the time you were riding the ragged edge on the left side of the
envelope.
It was good work for the learning involved and great training for those
who did it.


--
Dudley Henriques

[Stefan]

Michael schrieb:

> managed to stall a plane inadvertently and completely unexpectedly at
> 100 kts pointing straight down (coming off the back side of a loop).
> I think that did much more to prepare me for the unexpected spin than
> any amount of training could have.

Voluntarily executing a spin (1, 2, 3, there we go, yahoo!) is one
thing. But suddenly seeing nothing in front of oneself except some
blurry rotating green is a completely different story. I've learnt this
during my second aerobatics camp.

All the basic stuff was mastered, including spins in all kind of
configurations. So spins were pretty SOP, one should think. Then came my
first flight in a Fox (I'm talking gliders here). A half flick to
inverted, followed by a half loop downwards. Obviously there was still
some slip present, because suddenly, at 45 degrees pitch, just where the
G load starts to build, that pretty landscape in front of me disappeared
and all I saw was a blurry, undefined and rotating green disc.

Surprize, I can tell you! One second or even two went by before I
understood what was going on. Maybe another second to recognize to wich
side the disc was rotating. And maybe a third second to sort out which
foot to use.

The actual recovery then was a non event, and I succeeded even to hit
the axis. But since that experience I strongly believe that the usual
spin demonstration (1,2,3, yank that stick back and stomp onto the
pedal) is pretty much useless to prepare a pilot for that accidental spin.

[Stefan]

Cubdriver schrieb:

> some spins in the PA-18. The answer was no, because it might tumble
> the gyros. So there's another reason folks don't teach spins.

I'll never understand why non-cageable gyros even exist.

[[email protected]]

On Jan 17, 5:22 pm, Bob Moore > wrote:
> wrote
>
> > The 172 N Model I fly from time to time is only approved (and thus was
> > only tested) for spins when CG falls within the utility category.
> > Though it may be recovered from a spin when loaded within the normal
> > category range, it was not certificated that way. Which tells me there
> > is no assurance of recovery.
>
> BULL****!!
>
> Section 23.221: Spinning.
> (a) Normal category airplanes. A single-engine, normal category airplane
> must be able to recover from a one-turn spin or a three-second spin,
> whichever takes longer, in not more than one additional turn after
> initiation of the first control action for recovery, or demonstrate
> compliance with the optional spin resistant requirements of this
> section.
>
> (1) The following apply to one turn or three second spins:
>
> (i) For both the flaps-retracted and flaps-extended conditions, the
> applicable airspeed limit and positive limit maneuvering load factor
> must not be exceeded;
>
> (ii) No control forces or characteristic encountered during the spin or
> recovery may adversely affect prompt recovery;
>
> (iii) It must be impossible to obtain unrecoverable spins with any use
> of the flight or engine power controls either at the entry into or
> during the spin;
>
> I would suggest that you read the entire FAR section 23.221 for Normal,
> Utility, and Aerobatic category aircraft.
>
> Bob Moore
> ATP CFI

I've read the FARs.

I've also read the POH, which states "Spins approved when loaded
within utility category."

I'll see your Bullchip and raise you three chickships.

Dan

Dan

[Stefan]

Bob Moore schrieb:

> (iii) It must be impossible to obtain unrecoverable spins with any use
> of the flight or engine power controls either at the entry into or
> during the spin;

I once had the chance to talk to the chief test pilot of a muanufactorer
(no names here) and asked exactly this. His answer was clear: Sure their
airplanes recover from spins. But they don't trust the pilots, and they
don't even trust the average instructor. So they decided to prohibit
spins to avoid liability issues.

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

wrote:
> On Jan 17, 5:22 pm, Bob Moore > wrote:
>> wrote
>>
>>> The 172 N Model I fly from time to time is only approved (and thus was
>>> only tested) for spins when CG falls within the utility category.
>>> Though it may be recovered from a spin when loaded within the normal
>>> category range, it was not certificated that way. Which tells me there
>>> is no assurance of recovery.
>> BULL****!!
>>
>> Section 23.221: Spinning.
>> (a) Normal category airplanes. A single-engine, normal category airplane
>> must be able to recover from a one-turn spin or a three-second spin,
>> whichever takes longer, in not more than one additional turn after
>> initiation of the first control action for recovery, or demonstrate
>> compliance with the optional spin resistant requirements of this
>> section.
>>
>> (1) The following apply to one turn or three second spins:
>>
>> (i) For both the flaps-retracted and flaps-extended conditions, the
>> applicable airspeed limit and positive limit maneuvering load factor
>> must not be exceeded;
>>
>> (ii) No control forces or characteristic encountered during the spin or
>> recovery may adversely affect prompt recovery;
>>
>> (iii) It must be impossible to obtain unrecoverable spins with any use
>> of the flight or engine power controls either at the entry into or
>> during the spin;
>>
>> I would suggest that you read the entire FAR section 23.221 for Normal,
>> Utility, and Aerobatic category aircraft.
>>
>> Bob Moore
>> ATP CFI
>
> I've read the FARs.
>
> I've also read the POH, which states "Spins approved when loaded
> within utility category."
>
> I'll see your Bullchip and raise you three chickships.
>
> Dan
>
> Dan
>


But you said your 172N hadn't been tested when in the utility
configuration. 23.221 pretty much shows that is not the case. There is a
difference in approved and tested.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

wrote:
> On Jan 17, 5:22 pm, Bob Moore > wrote:
>> wrote
>>
>>> The 172 N Model I fly from time to time is only approved (and thus was
>>> only tested) for spins when CG falls within the utility category.
>>> Though it may be recovered from a spin when loaded within the normal
>>> category range, it was not certificated that way. Which tells me there
>>> is no assurance of recovery.
>> BULL****!!
>>
>> Section 23.221: Spinning.
>> (a) Normal category airplanes. A single-engine, normal category airplane
>> must be able to recover from a one-turn spin or a three-second spin,
>> whichever takes longer, in not more than one additional turn after
>> initiation of the first control action for recovery, or demonstrate
>> compliance with the optional spin resistant requirements of this
>> section.
>>
>> (1) The following apply to one turn or three second spins:
>>
>> (i) For both the flaps-retracted and flaps-extended conditions, the
>> applicable airspeed limit and positive limit maneuvering load factor
>> must not be exceeded;
>>
>> (ii) No control forces or characteristic encountered during the spin or
>> recovery may adversely affect prompt recovery;
>>
>> (iii) It must be impossible to obtain unrecoverable spins with any use
>> of the flight or engine power controls either at the entry into or
>> during the spin;
>>
>> I would suggest that you read the entire FAR section 23.221 for Normal,
>> Utility, and Aerobatic category aircraft.
>>
>> Bob Moore
>> ATP CFI
>
> I've read the FARs.
>
> I've also read the POH, which states "Spins approved when loaded
> within utility category."
>
> I'll see your Bullchip and raise you three chickships.
>
> Dan
>
> Dan
>
You're arguing with the wrong guy Dan, and you are going to lose your
three chickships whatever the heck they are :-)))

.. Bob's right and you are wrong. You seem to be hung up on the fact that
because the POH states that spins are approved only in the Utility
category, that this means the airplane can't be spun in the Normal
Category. This simply is not true AERODYNAMICALLY which is the ONLY
context we are discussing here. LEGALLY it can't be spun in the Normal
Category but otherwise it will spin just fine in the Normal Category;
unless you have an aft cg issue and then it's up for grabs either normal
or utility category.
Naturally, if your 172's POH says that spins are not approved in the
Normal Category, that's exactly what it means. It means that spins are
not APPROVED in the Normal Category.
It does NOT mean the airplane won't spin in the Normal Category. It most
certainly will spin, and as both Moore and I have both attempted to tell
you, that 172 in fact had to meet a spin requirement to be licensed in
that Normal Category.

--
Dudley Henriques

[[email protected]]

On Jan 17, 5:49 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> wrote:
> > On Jan 17, 5:22 pm, Bob Moore > wrote:
> >> wrote
>
> >>> The 172 N Model I fly from time to time is only approved (and thus was
> >>> only tested) for spins when CG falls within the utility category.
> >>> Though it may be recovered from a spin when loaded within the normal
> >>> category range, it was not certificated that way. Which tells me there
> >>> is no assurance of recovery.
> >> BULL****!!
>
> >> Section 23.221: Spinning.
> >> (a) Normal category airplanes. A single-engine, normal category airplane
> >> must be able to recover from a one-turn spin or a three-second spin,
> >> whichever takes longer, in not more than one additional turn after
> >> initiation of the first control action for recovery, or demonstrate
> >> compliance with the optional spin resistant requirements of this
> >> section.
>
> >> (1) The following apply to one turn or three second spins:
>
> >> (i) For both the flaps-retracted and flaps-extended conditions, the
> >> applicable airspeed limit and positive limit maneuvering load factor
> >> must not be exceeded;
>
> >> (ii) No control forces or characteristic encountered during the spin or
> >> recovery may adversely affect prompt recovery;
>
> >> (iii) It must be impossible to obtain unrecoverable spins with any use
> >> of the flight or engine power controls either at the entry into or
> >> during the spin;
>
> >> I would suggest that you read the entire FAR section 23.221 for Normal,
> >> Utility, and Aerobatic category aircraft.
>
> >> Bob Moore
> >> ATP CFI
>
> > I've read the FARs.
>
> > I've also read the POH, which states "Spins approved when loaded
> > within utility category."
>
> > I'll see your Bullchip and raise you three chickships.
>
> > Dan
>
> > Dan
>
> You're arguing with the wrong guy Dan, and you are going to lose your
> three chickships whatever the heck they are :-)))
>
> . Bob's right and you are wrong. You seem to be hung up on the fact that
> because the POH states that spins are approved only in the Utility
> category, that this means the airplane can't be spun in the Normal
> Category. This simply is not true AERODYNAMICALLY which is the ONLY
> context we are discussing here. LEGALLY it can't be spun in the Normal
> Category but otherwise it will spin just fine in the Normal Category;
> unless you have an aft cg issue and then it's up for grabs either normal
> or utility category.
> Naturally, if your 172's POH says that spins are not approved in the
> Normal Category, that's exactly what it means. It means that spins are
> not APPROVED in the Normal Category.


Whoa there, pardner...

Let's back to flame train up.

First, I'm not accepting anyone's statement because of "who he/she
is." If it's reasonable and/or proven, I'll weigh it and accept it or
reject it (to my advantage or peril, but so be it). I would hope
anyone posting/reading a newsgroup about aviation would take this
approach.

Now, my point regarding spins is that I have no *assurance*
(aerodynamically or legally) from anyone that the airplane will
recover when flown with CG in the Normal range (FARS notwithstanding
-- The fact that the airplane met the requirements of the FAR for
certification tells me that the manufacturer certified to the letter
of the law with an experienced pilot in ideal conditions. Neither the
manufacturer nor anyone else will stand by the capability outside a
certain narrowly defined range).

I have assurance in the POH that the airplane can recover when CG is
within the utility range.

I am not a test pilot (and haven't even played one on TV), thus should
not intentionally or unintentionally enter a spin in this airplane
when CG load is outside the utility category.

Now, while it may be the case that the airplane will recover in that
condition, that is speculation to me and anyone else until proved
otherwise in a fairly dangerous experiment in test piloting.

To recap, since the discussion has blurred:

Will a pilot who has been through spin training be better prepared if
a spin should occur? Probably.

Will the appropriate PARE reaction recover most airplanes from an
incipient spin? Most likely.

Does this establish that spin training is essential to PPL training?

Not really.

Dan

[Kloudy via AviationKB.com]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>Have you ever had to put down with no power, by the way?
>
>Only about 700 times!
>
>696 were kind of expected to go that way, though.
>
>Bertie

kinda curious

What kind of flying are you doing where you're expecting to be letting down
w/o power?

I mean, for me its actually 100%

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200801/1

[[email protected]]

> I once had the chance to talk to the chief test pilot of a muanufactorer
> (no names here) and asked exactly this. His answer was clear: Sure their
> airplanes recover from spins. But they don't trust the pilots, and they
> don't even trust the average instructor. So they decided to prohibit
> spins to avoid liability issues.

This I believe.

Let's see. The reasons for not asking a PPL to demonstrate a 1/2 or 1
turn recovery from a spin (or if not on the PTS then have an
endorsement from their instructor like a CPL):
1) Kills more pilots than it saves
2) Instructors not competent enough.
3) Planes not available
4) FBOs won't allow it.
5) Spin awareness good enough

There may be some other reasons given. I still say I'd feel better
having performed at least one recovery by myself. If I were doing it
again I'd ask my instructor to do some spins with me and have me
recover before I soloed. Now some comments on the reasons given:
1) Let's see the numbers -- otherwise it's a myth
2) They should be trained up properly (competency of an instructor to
recover promptly from a spin should NOT be in doubt)
3) This is more a result of litigation, I'd wager, than anything else.
And probably is the biggest practical road block for pilots to be
properly trained in handling an aircraft in all possible flight
situations.
4) See 3 above.
5) No, it's not good enough, IMO.

Experience in handling an aircraft in all flight situations, though,
is good enough. Even once or twice is better than no training. Bertie
pointed out in a post quite far up that it's the training, the instant
response that is going to save you. Maybe not 1000 feet above the
ground -- but at 2000 a little previous experience might just save
your butt.

By the way that long article by Rich Stowell has very interesting
section titled "Student Pilots & Their Instructors" from which I quote
as related to #2 above:

"The most foreboding aspect of the Veillette study, however, involved
the hands-on spin experience of flight instructors. Ninety-eight
percent noted that their formal spin training consisted of no ground
instruction and a mere two spins--one in each direction. Nonetheless,
these instructors readily received logbook endorsements certifying
that they were competent to teach spins. We'd surely consider it
absurd, for example, if all it took to qualify to be an instrument
instructor (CFII) was a logbook entry showing that the applicant had
performed a grand total of two instrument approaches. On the contrary,
instrument training has evolved into a rigorous process involving
specially equipped airplanes and specially certified instructors. Just
as the instrument flight environment places unique demands on its
pilots and airplanes, so too does the spin environment place unique
demands--aerodynamically, physiologically, psychologically--on those
who enter its realm. It is equally unforgiving of incompetence as
well. Yet too many pilots remain nonchalant in their attitudes toward
spinning."

So, okay, the FAA doesn't require spin recovery for PPL. As Dudley
says, you ought to go get as soon as you are able after the PPL. No
one seems to think you'll be worse off for it.

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
> wrote in
> :
>
<...>
> The typicl spin accident, if there is such a thing, is the famous
> overcooked turn onto final.

I watched two guys die after doing that on a tight, low, turn to a short
final...

Geoff

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe wrote:
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> wrote in
>> :
>>
> <...>
>> The typicl spin accident, if there is such a thing, is the famous
>> overcooked turn onto final.
>
> I watched two guys die after doing that on a tight, low, turn to a short
> final...
>
> Geoff
>
>
What gets them isn't really the turn per se, but the way that turn is
flown. The combination of the increased stall speed due to the turn
coupled with some excess inside rudder causing a skid as the stall
breaks is a perfect pro-spin setup. The two ingredients for spin are
present; stall and a yaw rate coupled simultaneously .
You can get away with a tight low turn if it's coordinated and you feed
in enough power to offset the drag rise; or even better yet an unloaded
tight descending turn if some altitude and some radius need to be
scrubbed off,(I don't recommend doing these BTW :-) but it's that lack
of attention to the extra needed thrust as the drag rises in the turn
and cheating a bit with inside rudder to "force that nose around that
will get you killed.


--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

>>
>
> Yeah. I always flew the J3 from the back as well. In fact, the one we
> had available was back seat solo only.


Prewar, then. I flew one that only had a front seat for banner towing and
ended up on my nose several times. Better from the back always,really, but
ost of my time in them is instructing and that was always from the front.

Talk about fun....I flew that
> damn thing all the way down the East Coast one spring when I had a month
> off to myself. Most of the way I was several hundred yards off shore.
> The weather was warm and I had the upper panel open most of the trip.
> Every now and then I would throttle back to idle and try shouting at
> people down below. I saw them shout back but to tell you the truth I
> never heard a word they were saying :-)
> Ended up at Key West, stayed several days, island hopped a bit then flew
> it home again.
> One of the best aviation experiences I ever had really. It's funny when
> you stop to think about it. Of all the fancy airplanes that crossed my
> path in life, that little J3 and that trip down the coast would be right
> up there at the top of the heap for just plain fun with an airplane.
>
>

Yep. I'd never buy one but they were great fun to fly. I had several
'unique' experiences with them which I had better not post until i check
the statute of limitations on them.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

" > wrote in news:56de88a2-1e68-4789-
:

> Sounds like fun! Makes me wonder if being a banner tower would be so
> bad?? Hours of slow flight along the beach?


One of my first jobs, and in a cub. this one was a TG8 which was a military
glider sold off after the war. There was a kit to turn it back into a J-3.
It had an 100 hp O-235 which you'd have at full throttle to maintian 50
mph. On a windy day a circuit of your route would take a loooong time!

I learned a lot doing that kind of flying.

>
> After reading Rinker buck's "Flight of Passage" all I wanted to do was
> replicate that flight.
>
> Flying Pittsburgh to Phoenix in an A36 in 10 hours wasn't the same....
>

Well, it's like the difference between motorcycling and driving in a Buick.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> wrote:
>> On Jan 17, 4:34 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>>> Cubdriver <usenet AT danford DOT net> wrote in
>>>>>> :
>>>>>>> On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 19:40:35 -0800 (PST),
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Why is it that a PPL is obtainable without basic spin recovery
>>>>>>>> demonstration? What about inverted recoveries?
>>>>>>> Spins are not allowed in the planes available for rent at the
>>>>>>> airport from which I fly, probably because they are in two cases
>>>>>>> more than sixty years old.
>>>>>> J-3s are actually kinda difficult to get to spin anyway. They'll
>>>>>> do it, but with two up they need a bit of coaxing. not great for
>>>>>> incipient spin training.
>>>>>> Best airplane for it ever was one of my old luscombes. I took the
>>>>>> washout out of the wing to make it go faster, which works, BTW.
>>>>>> and as a result, the airplane was , um, interesting to stall. It
>>>>>> was absolutely impossible to stall without a big wing drop. Doing
>>>>>> a falling leaf was like clog dancing. if you let it go at al it
>>>>>> was on it's back in no time. It was also a very early one with
>>>>>> the more difficult ground handling whic, in addition to the "Fun
>>>>>> with Stalls" habit earned it the name "the humiliater" It was
>>>>>> considered an excellent primer for homebuilts. Great airplnae and
>>>>>> it's still flying, though i think with a bit of washout now.
>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>> The Silvaire was a joy to spin. Snappy little bird!
>>>>> The best spin entry for the J3 is to start a 1g stall carrying
>>>>> just a tad of power. then just before the stall break, acellerate
>>>>> it up and in with back stick and a shot of power for the rudder.
>>>>> Then imm ediately off the power, hard pro spin rudder and full
>>>>> back stick. Fun for all involved :-))
>>>> Yeah, pretty much exactly as I did it. Not so good for teaching
>>>> incipient spins when it looks so difficult to get into one!
>>>> I can't remember how easy they were to provoke with say, a stepp
>>>> turn, but I can't imagine they'd be all that much more likely to
>>>> depart form one of those either. It was a lot better solo form the
>>>> rear seat, though.
>>>> Bertie
>>> Yeah. I always flew the J3 from the back as well. In fact, the one
>>> we had available was back seat solo only. Talk about fun....I flew
>>> that damn thing all the way down the East Coast one spring when I
>>> had a month off to myself. Most of the way I was several hundred
>>> yards off shore. The weather was warm and I had the upper panel open
>>> most of the trip. Every now and then I would throttle back to idle
>>> and try shouting at people down below. I saw them shout back but to
>>> tell you the truth I never heard a word they were saying :-)
>>> Ended up at Key West, stayed several days, island hopped a bit then
>>> flew it home again.
>>> One of the best aviation experiences I ever had really. It's funny
>>> when you stop to think about it. Of all the fancy airplanes that
>>> crossed my path in life, that little J3 and that trip down the coast
>>> would be right up there at the top of the heap for just plain fun
>>> with an airplane.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Dudley Henriques
>>
>> Sounds like fun! Makes me wonder if being a banner tower would be so
>> bad?? Hours of slow flight along the beach?
>>
>> After reading Rinker buck's "Flight of Passage" all I wanted to do
>> was replicate that flight.
>>
>> Flying Pittsburgh to Phoenix in an A36 in 10 hours wasn't the
>> same....
>>
>> Dan
> Back in the (old days;) a lot of new commercial pilots tried the
> banner towing game. It seemed the banner outfits were always looking
> for new pilots. (Something in that somewhere for smart people I think
> :-)
>
> I never did any towing, but a lot of those who did informed me that
> they learned fairly fast that it wasn't the easiest game in town. Many
> of the airplanes being used were VERY old. One outfit down in Atlantic
> City were using old Navy N3N's


Flew a few of those as well.They were OK.No ball of fire and no
Stearman, but adequate. Better than a Cub, I thought at the time.

Guess where?

Believe it or not, I think Andre is still alive ( He was Cape May based,
BTW, with a small branch operation at Bader)

and towing with these crates meant that
> much of the time you were riding the ragged edge on the left side of
> the envelope.
> It was good work for the learning involved and great training for
> those who did it.
>

Yeah, and it was relatively safe. You crash pretty slow in a Cub.

Bertie
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Stefan > wrote in news:c98be$478fd695$d9a2716b
:

> Cubdriver schrieb:
>
>> some spins in the PA-18. The answer was no, because it might tumble
>> the gyros. So there's another reason folks don't teach spins.
>
> I'll never understand why non-cageable gyros even exist.
>

Money


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Kloudy via AviationKB.com" <u33403@uwe> wrote in
news:7e5db3ce8f0d3@uwe:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>Have you ever had to put down with no power, by the way?
>>
>>Only about 700 times!
>>
>>696 were kind of expected to go that way, though.
>>
>>Bertie
>
> kinda curious
>
> What kind of flying are you doing where you're expecting to be letting
> down w/o power?
>
> I mean, for me its actually 100%
>

Well, the relatively large number should have been a bit of a clue!

Gliders.

The others weren't that dramatic really.

Bertie

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

wrote:
> On Jan 17, 5:49 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> wrote:
>>> On Jan 17, 5:22 pm, Bob Moore > wrote:
>>>> wrote
>>>>> The 172 N Model I fly from time to time is only approved (and thus was
>>>>> only tested) for spins when CG falls within the utility category.
>>>>> Though it may be recovered from a spin when loaded within the normal
>>>>> category range, it was not certificated that way. Which tells me there
>>>>> is no assurance of recovery.
>>>> BULL****!!
>>>> Section 23.221: Spinning.
>>>> (a) Normal category airplanes. A single-engine, normal category airplane
>>>> must be able to recover from a one-turn spin or a three-second spin,
>>>> whichever takes longer, in not more than one additional turn after
>>>> initiation of the first control action for recovery, or demonstrate
>>>> compliance with the optional spin resistant requirements of this
>>>> section.
>>>> (1) The following apply to one turn or three second spins:
>>>> (i) For both the flaps-retracted and flaps-extended conditions, the
>>>> applicable airspeed limit and positive limit maneuvering load factor
>>>> must not be exceeded;
>>>> (ii) No control forces or characteristic encountered during the spin or
>>>> recovery may adversely affect prompt recovery;
>>>> (iii) It must be impossible to obtain unrecoverable spins with any use
>>>> of the flight or engine power controls either at the entry into or
>>>> during the spin;
>>>> I would suggest that you read the entire FAR section 23.221 for Normal,
>>>> Utility, and Aerobatic category aircraft.
>>>> Bob Moore
>>>> ATP CFI
>>> I've read the FARs.
>>> I've also read the POH, which states "Spins approved when loaded
>>> within utility category."
>>> I'll see your Bullchip and raise you three chickships.
>>> Dan
>>> Dan
>> You're arguing with the wrong guy Dan, and you are going to lose your
>> three chickships whatever the heck they are :-)))
>>
>> . Bob's right and you are wrong. You seem to be hung up on the fact that
>> because the POH states that spins are approved only in the Utility
>> category, that this means the airplane can't be spun in the Normal
>> Category. This simply is not true AERODYNAMICALLY which is the ONLY
>> context we are discussing here. LEGALLY it can't be spun in the Normal
>> Category but otherwise it will spin just fine in the Normal Category;
>> unless you have an aft cg issue and then it's up for grabs either normal
>> or utility category.
>> Naturally, if your 172's POH says that spins are not approved in the
>> Normal Category, that's exactly what it means. It means that spins are
>> not APPROVED in the Normal Category.
>
>
> Whoa there, pardner...
>
> Let's back to flame train up.
>
> First, I'm not accepting anyone's statement because of "who he/she
> is." If it's reasonable and/or proven, I'll weigh it and accept it or
> reject it (to my advantage or peril, but so be it). I would hope
> anyone posting/reading a newsgroup about aviation would take this
> approach.
>
> Now, my point regarding spins is that I have no *assurance*
> (aerodynamically or legally) from anyone that the airplane will
> recover when flown with CG in the Normal range (FARS notwithstanding
> -- The fact that the airplane met the requirements of the FAR for
> certification tells me that the manufacturer certified to the letter
> of the law with an experienced pilot in ideal conditions. Neither the
> manufacturer nor anyone else will stand by the capability outside a
> certain narrowly defined range).
>
> I have assurance in the POH that the airplane can recover when CG is
> within the utility range.
>
> I am not a test pilot (and haven't even played one on TV), thus should
> not intentionally or unintentionally enter a spin in this airplane
> when CG load is outside the utility category.
>
> Now, while it may be the case that the airplane will recover in that
> condition, that is speculation to me and anyone else until proved
> otherwise in a fairly dangerous experiment in test piloting.
>
> To recap, since the discussion has blurred:
>
> Will a pilot who has been through spin training be better prepared if
> a spin should occur? Probably.
>
> Will the appropriate PARE reaction recover most airplanes from an
> incipient spin? Most likely.
>
> Does this establish that spin training is essential to PPL training?
>
> Not really.
>
> Dan
>
Anything you say Dan.
Thank you


--
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
>> wrote:
>>> On Jan 17, 4:34 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>>>> :
>>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>>>> Cubdriver <usenet AT danford DOT net> wrote in
>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 19:40:35 -0800 (PST),
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Why is it that a PPL is obtainable without basic spin recovery
>>>>>>>>> demonstration? What about inverted recoveries?
>>>>>>>> Spins are not allowed in the planes available for rent at the
>>>>>>>> airport from which I fly, probably because they are in two cases
>>>>>>>> more than sixty years old.
>>>>>>> J-3s are actually kinda difficult to get to spin anyway. They'll
>>>>>>> do it, but with two up they need a bit of coaxing. not great for
>>>>>>> incipient spin training.
>>>>>>> Best airplane for it ever was one of my old luscombes. I took the
>>>>>>> washout out of the wing to make it go faster, which works, BTW.
>>>>>>> and as a result, the airplane was , um, interesting to stall. It
>>>>>>> was absolutely impossible to stall without a big wing drop. Doing
>>>>>>> a falling leaf was like clog dancing. if you let it go at al it
>>>>>>> was on it's back in no time. It was also a very early one with
>>>>>>> the more difficult ground handling whic, in addition to the "Fun
>>>>>>> with Stalls" habit earned it the name "the humiliater" It was
>>>>>>> considered an excellent primer for homebuilts. Great airplnae and
>>>>>>> it's still flying, though i think with a bit of washout now.
>>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>>> The Silvaire was a joy to spin. Snappy little bird!
>>>>>> The best spin entry for the J3 is to start a 1g stall carrying
>>>>>> just a tad of power. then just before the stall break, acellerate
>>>>>> it up and in with back stick and a shot of power for the rudder.
>>>>>> Then imm ediately off the power, hard pro spin rudder and full
>>>>>> back stick. Fun for all involved :-))
>>>>> Yeah, pretty much exactly as I did it. Not so good for teaching
>>>>> incipient spins when it looks so difficult to get into one!
>>>>> I can't remember how easy they were to provoke with say, a stepp
>>>>> turn, but I can't imagine they'd be all that much more likely to
>>>>> depart form one of those either. It was a lot better solo form the
>>>>> rear seat, though.
>>>>> Bertie
>>>> Yeah. I always flew the J3 from the back as well. In fact, the one
>>>> we had available was back seat solo only. Talk about fun....I flew
>>>> that damn thing all the way down the East Coast one spring when I
>>>> had a month off to myself. Most of the way I was several hundred
>>>> yards off shore. The weather was warm and I had the upper panel open
>>>> most of the trip. Every now and then I would throttle back to idle
>>>> and try shouting at people down below. I saw them shout back but to
>>>> tell you the truth I never heard a word they were saying :-)
>>>> Ended up at Key West, stayed several days, island hopped a bit then
>>>> flew it home again.
>>>> One of the best aviation experiences I ever had really. It's funny
>>>> when you stop to think about it. Of all the fancy airplanes that
>>>> crossed my path in life, that little J3 and that trip down the coast
>>>> would be right up there at the top of the heap for just plain fun
>>>> with an airplane.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>> Sounds like fun! Makes me wonder if being a banner tower would be so
>>> bad?? Hours of slow flight along the beach?
>>>
>>> After reading Rinker buck's "Flight of Passage" all I wanted to do
>>> was replicate that flight.
>>>
>>> Flying Pittsburgh to Phoenix in an A36 in 10 hours wasn't the
>>> same....
>>>
>>> Dan
>> Back in the (old days;) a lot of new commercial pilots tried the
>> banner towing game. It seemed the banner outfits were always looking
>> for new pilots. (Something in that somewhere for smart people I think
>> :-)
>>
>> I never did any towing, but a lot of those who did informed me that
>> they learned fairly fast that it wasn't the easiest game in town. Many
>> of the airplanes being used were VERY old. One outfit down in Atlantic
>> City were using old Navy N3N's
>
>
> Flew a few of those as well.They were OK.No ball of fire and no
> Stearman, but adequate. Better than a Cub, I thought at the time.
>
> Guess where?
>
> Believe it or not, I think Andre is still alive ( He was Cape May based,
> BTW, with a small branch operation at Bader)
>
> and towing with these crates meant that
>> much of the time you were riding the ragged edge on the left side of
>> the envelope.
>> It was good work for the learning involved and great training for
>> those who did it.
>>
>
> Yeah, and it was relatively safe. You crash pretty slow in a Cub.
>
> Bertie
>
The name Blackie seems to stick in my mind for the Cape May operation.
Am I far off because I never actually met the guy?.


--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:



>>>
>>
>> Yeah, and it was relatively safe. You crash pretty slow in a Cub.
>>
>> Bertie
>>
> The name Blackie seems to stick in my mind for the Cape May operation.
> Am I far off because I never actually met the guy?.
>
>

Oh God you're before my time!

I've heard of him.

There was a Mustang based there as well. It flew regularly, too. They guy
gave rides for the then astronomical sum of fifty bucks. Still kicking
myself for not taking a ride..


Bertie

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk At Wow Way D0t C0m> wrote
>
> I watched two guys die after doing that on a tight, low, turn to a short
> final...

Someone did that at OSH a few years back. 2001?
--
Jim in NC

[[email protected]]

On Jan 17, 6:00*am, " > wrote:
> On Jan 17, 3:23 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> > I agree, but to be fair, a lot of the old guys didn't know what they were
> > talking about either. I've met a few.
> > *But it's true the direction has changed and not alwasys for the better.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
>
>
>>> Yeah, and it was relatively safe. You crash pretty slow in a Cub.
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>>
>> The name Blackie seems to stick in my mind for the Cape May operation.
>> Am I far off because I never actually met the guy?.
>>
>>
>
> Oh God you're before my time!
>
> I've heard of him.
>
> There was a Mustang based there as well. It flew regularly, too. They guy
> gave rides for the then astronomical sum of fifty bucks. Still kicking
> myself for not taking a ride..
>
>
> Bertie
That would have been Jack Shaver's airplane. Jack ran the commuter out
of Bader for a while. He loved that 51!!

--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>
>>
>>>> Yeah, and it was relatively safe. You crash pretty slow in a Cub.
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>>>
>>> The name Blackie seems to stick in my mind for the Cape May
>>> operation. Am I far off because I never actually met the guy?.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Oh God you're before my time!
>>
>> I've heard of him.
>>
>> There was a Mustang based there as well. It flew regularly, too. They
>> guy gave rides for the then astronomical sum of fifty bucks. Still
>> kicking myself for not taking a ride..
>>
>>
>> Bertie
> That would have been Jack Shaver's airplane. Jack ran the commuter out
> of Bader for a while. He loved that 51!!
>

Yep, that's right. I remember the name now. It was Don something or
another running the commuter at the time, though. Maybe he ws a silent
partner or something. SJA, right? Had a bunch of Twin Otters. i think
they started out with Volpar 18s though.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in news:Xns9A2928BE93316****upropeeh@
207.14.116.130:

> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>
> Yep, that's right. I remember the name now. It was Don something or
> another running the commuter at the time, though.

Don Young

Bertie

[[email protected]]

> In the three hour course I and many other instructors I've trained
> teach, pilots will end up doing 20 or so spin entries/recoveries.
> Sure, they'll do intentional 1- and 2-turn spins. But they'll also
> experience aggravated spin modes. They'll recover from spins entered
> from many different attitudes and configurations. And they'll perform
> numerous spin recognition/prevention exercises.

An earlier post made note of an unintentional spin that happened
during a steep turn, 70 degrees, where the aircraft rolled over
opposite and entered the spin. In your training program are entries of
that sort demonstrated/practiced? Any ohter kind of "unintentional
entries"?

It seems like much is written in books and on this thread about how
unintentional entries occur. Spending some time in those situations to
understand them with prevention in mind (especially letting it go
until you do enter the spin) seems like valuable training to me. I'm
thinking of the skidding turn onto final, for instance.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in news:Xns9A2928BE93316****upropeeh@
> 207.14.116.130:
>
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>
>> Yep, that's right. I remember the name now. It was Don something or
>> another running the commuter at the time, though.
>
> Don Young
>
> Bertie
Yup, that him; Young's Flying Service. I used to fly in there several
times a week in our 337 owned by a friend of mine who owned motels in
Wildwood Crest.
About the commuter line at Bader; I seem to remember Shaver was using
Beech 1900's near the end of his run there if I'm not mistaken. I can't
recall what they started with. I think they were tied into Altair at one
time.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Bob Fry]

>>>>> "sp" == sockpuppet > writes:

sp> Why is it that a PPL is obtainable without basic spin recovery
sp> demonstration? What about inverted recoveries?

For the same reason that two-wheel drifts, skids, and so on aren't
required for a normal driving test.
--
We, on our side, are praying to Him to give us victory, because we
believe we are right; but those on the other side pray to Him, too,
for victory, believing they are right. What must He think of us?
~ Abraham Lincoln

[[email protected]]

> * * sp> Why is it that a PPL is obtainable without basic spin recovery
> * * sp> demonstration? What about inverted recoveries?
>
> For the same reason that two-wheel drifts, skids, and so on aren't
> required for a normal driving test.

What reason is that?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in news:Xns9A2928BE93316****upropeeh@
>> 207.14.116.130:
>>
>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>>
>>> Yep, that's right. I remember the name now. It was Don something or
>>> another running the commuter at the time, though.
>>
>> Don Young
>>
>> Bertie
> Yup, that him; Young's Flying Service. I used to fly in there several
> times a week in our 337 owned by a friend of mine who owned motels in
> Wildwood Crest.
> About the commuter line at Bader; I seem to remember Shaver was using
> Beech 1900's near the end of his run there if I'm not mistaken. I can't
> recall what they started with. I think they were tied into Altair at one
> time.
>

Might have been. I never met the guy anyway. The Young family were running
SJA which was the Allegheny commuter operator as well as the FBO in Bader,
OC and Cape May. Interesting airport, Cape May. Lots of nifty stuff there.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Bob Fry > wrote in :

>>>>>> "sp" == sockpuppet > writes:
>
> sp> Why is it that a PPL is obtainable without basic spin recovery
> sp> demonstration? What about inverted recoveries?
>
> For the same reason that two-wheel drifts, skids, and so on aren't
> required for a normal driving test.

But we should do!


Bertie

[[email protected]]

On Jan 17, 10:39 pm, wrote:
> On Jan 17, 6:00 am, " > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 17, 3:23 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> > > I agree, but to be fair, a lot of the old guys didn't know what they were
> > > talking about either. I've met a few.
> > > But it's true the direction has changed and not alwasys for the better.
> > > If I hear one more guy say "but that's how the pros do it"....
>
> > > Bertie
>
> > Very true -- just because you "been there" doesn't mean you learned
> > much.
>
> > Regarding spins -- There's some dangerous self-delusion going on if
> > you think your 50 spins in a Citabria will keep you alive when youspina loaded C210/PA-28/A36/S35, etc on base to final.
>
> > Few pilots fly airplanes loaded in the utility category (if the
> > airplane is so certified at all). Many are flown in the Normal
> > category, with an aft (though still within limits) CG.
>
> > Spina normal category, aft-loaded airplane not certified for spins
> > and all thePAREin the world won't assure your survival.
>
> > Dan
>
> Many assume that they have been "spin trained" if they've done a few
> intentional spins to a heading. Although the intentional one- or two-
> turn spin is among the stock spin training exercises, it does not in
> and of itself constitute a complete spin training program, which
> necessarily must encompass stall/spin awareness and so much more.
>
> In fact, pilots who have only done an intentional spin or two, devoid
> of any context vis-a-vis how that experience relates to typical
> accident scenarios, will be no more capable of preventing an
> accidental spin departure than pilots who have not done intentional
> spins. (Several studies back this contention up.)
>
> Recovering from an intentional spin is one thing (and that exercise is
> good for developing control discipline and the ability to ignore the
> sensory commotion associated with spinning), but learning the
> mechanisms that lead to a spin departure, and learning to recognize
> the conditions preceding spin accidents, and knowing the warning signs/
> precursors of an impending spin departure are far more important,
> especially since 90+ percent of stall/spin accidents occur at or below
> traffic pattern altitude where insufficient room is available for
> recovery.
>
> The other point to remember is that spins do not occur in a vacuum. It
> is the pilot who, knowingly or unknowingly, creates the conditions
> necessary to spin. The airplane simply does what it's told.
>
> As for Normal category aircraft -- even though intentional spins are
> not approved, as long as the aircraft is loaded within its prescribed
> weight & balance envelope, and as long as sufficient altitude exists,
> and as long as the pilot performs the correct recovery inputs, even a
> Normal category type must be recoverable from at least a one turn spin
> departure. Unfortunately, by the time such airplanes enter an
> inadvertent spin, it is already too late from a practical standpoint.
>
> In the three hour course I and many other instructors I've trained
> teach, pilots will end up doing 20 or so spin entries/recoveries.
> Sure, they'll do intentional 1- and 2-turn spins. But they'll also
> experience aggravated spin modes. They'll recover from spins entered
> from many different attitudes and configurations. And they'll perform
> numerous spin recognition/prevention exercises.
>
> Rich Stowellwww.richstowell.com
> 30,000 spin entries/recoveries in 170 different airplanes, several
> students with documented "saves," and not dead yet...

Thanks for the clarification, Rich -- very informative without
pontificating.

Dan

This is the value in newsgroups -- submit a position, knock it around,
see what comes up, and re-evaluate your current position based on
evidence and experience.

[Peter Dohm]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
> Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe wrote:
>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>> .. .
>>> wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>> <...>
>>> The typicl spin accident, if there is such a thing, is the famous
>>> overcooked turn onto final.
>>
>> I watched two guys die after doing that on a tight, low, turn to a short
>> final...
>>
>> Geoff
> What gets them isn't really the turn per se, but the way that turn is
> flown. The combination of the increased stall speed due to the turn
> coupled with some excess inside rudder causing a skid as the stall breaks
> is a perfect pro-spin setup. The two ingredients for spin are present;
> stall and a yaw rate coupled simultaneously .
> You can get away with a tight low turn if it's coordinated and you feed in
> enough power to offset the drag rise; or even better yet an unloaded tight
> descending turn if some altitude and some radius need to be scrubbed
> off,(I don't recommend doing these BTW :-) but it's that lack of attention
> to the extra needed thrust as the drag rises in the turn and cheating a
> bit with inside rudder to "force that nose around that will get you
> killed.
>
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

Since I probably qualify as hopelessly unqualified, and also since both of
you have already described this in different words, I should probably "keep
my mouth shut"; but from all I have heard, things happen much more suddenly
as part of an uncoordinated accellerated stall.

I never personally got to explore the accellerated stall portion of the
envelope, and only had an accellerated stall demonstrated to me once. That
once was by a pilot who was so proficient, smooth and coordinated that the
stall was a complete non-event and we simply flew out of it and continued
the turn as though nothing had happened. And, yes, this was in a Cessna 152
that was appropriately certified for that sort of work. However, viewed in
another manner, the guy (who was a high time instructor) would have been the
perfect candidate to train new instrucors to let their students kill them...

When I resume flying, as I plan to do, I also plan to more fully explore the
accelerated stall area of the envelope--in an appropriate trainer of course.

Peter

[[email protected]]

On Jan 17, 6:58 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Stefan > wrote in news:c98be$478fd695$d9a2716b
> > I'll never understand why non-cageable gyros even exist.
>
> Money

Because pilots forget to uncage them before takeoff into the
soup and lose control. I leaned on an airplane that had a cageable
DG, and used to set it to the runway heading, then forget to unlock
the thing after I lined up. If I'd been flying into IMC and had caged
a gyro horizon I'd have been in much bigger trouble.
Our Citabrias have a pullable breaker for the turn
coordinator. Prevents damage during spins or other aerobatics.

Dan

[[email protected]]

On Jan 17, 8:08*pm, wrote:
> > In the three hour course I and many other instructors I've trained
> > teach, pilots will end up doing 20 or so spin entries/recoveries.
> > Sure, they'll do intentional 1- and 2-turn spins. But they'll also
> > experience aggravated spin modes. They'll recover from spins entered
> > from many different attitudes and configurations. And they'll perform
> > numerous spin recognition/prevention exercises.
>
> An earlier post made note of an unintentional spin that happened
> during a steep turn, 70 degrees, where the aircraft rolled over
> opposite and entered the spin. In your training program are entries of
> that sort demonstrated/practiced? Any ohter kind of "unintentional
> entries"?
>
> It seems like much is written in books and on this thread about how
> unintentional entries occur. Spending some time in those situations to
> understand them with prevention in mind (especially letting it go
> until you do enter the spin) seems like valuable training to me. I'm
> thinking of the skidding turn onto final, for instance.


Some of the stall/spin prevention exercises we do:
Many power on and power off stalls where the student performs the
entire sequence, from entry through recovery, looking only at one wing
tip, or counting cars on the freeway below, or looking into the right
rear seat; coordinated turns into skidded turns and back to
coordinated turns; falling leaf/rudder stalls; incipient spins where
the pilot instantly recovers the moment the airplane departs.

Some aggravated spins we do, each starting from a normal spin
configuration first:
A spin where we change throttle setting only; a spin where we change
aileron position; a spin where we move the elevator forward
prematurely (prior to opposite rudder).

Some of the unusual attitude spin entries we do:
The classic skidded turn into a spin; a climbing left turn/over the
top right spin entry; a spin entry at the top of a loop; an
accelerated stall/spin from level flight (snap roll); a spin from an
Immelmann; a spin during the pivot from a Hammerhead.

We also do a number of coordination exercises, spiral entries/
recoveries (to contrast against the spin), gliding approaches to
landings, and other stuff.

Rich
www.richstowell.com
author, "The Light Airplane Pilot's Guide to Stall/Spin Awareness"

[[email protected]]

On Jan 17, 1:23 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> wrote:
>
> In a descending turn, the inside wing has a higher angle
>
> > of attack and will stall first, even if the airplane is coordinated in
> > the turn. Then it'll spin. Too many students are never taught that.
> > They think that as long as they're coordinated, they're safe. It's not
> > true. That's why we have stall/spin scenario training: so they see the
> > various conditions that can cause it. Awareness is greatly enhanced,
> > believe me. They get much more careful in the circuit.
>
> > Dan
>
> We'll have to get together someday and have a quiet drink over this one
> Dan :-)))
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

Love to do that. Coffee, though. Here's a good article on
the subject:

http://www.casa.gov.au/fsa/2000/sep/FSA34-35.pdf

Second page deals with it.

Dan

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Peter Dohm wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe wrote:
>>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>>> .. .
>>>> wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>
>>> <...>
>>>> The typicl spin accident, if there is such a thing, is the famous
>>>> overcooked turn onto final.
>>> I watched two guys die after doing that on a tight, low, turn to a short
>>> final...
>>>
>>> Geoff
>> What gets them isn't really the turn per se, but the way that turn is
>> flown. The combination of the increased stall speed due to the turn
>> coupled with some excess inside rudder causing a skid as the stall breaks
>> is a perfect pro-spin setup. The two ingredients for spin are present;
>> stall and a yaw rate coupled simultaneously .
>> You can get away with a tight low turn if it's coordinated and you feed in
>> enough power to offset the drag rise; or even better yet an unloaded tight
>> descending turn if some altitude and some radius need to be scrubbed
>> off,(I don't recommend doing these BTW :-) but it's that lack of attention
>> to the extra needed thrust as the drag rises in the turn and cheating a
>> bit with inside rudder to "force that nose around that will get you
>> killed.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> Since I probably qualify as hopelessly unqualified, and also since both of
> you have already described this in different words, I should probably "keep
> my mouth shut"; but from all I have heard, things happen much more suddenly
> as part of an uncoordinated accellerated stall.
>
> I never personally got to explore the accellerated stall portion of the
> envelope, and only had an accellerated stall demonstrated to me once. That
> once was by a pilot who was so proficient, smooth and coordinated that the
> stall was a complete non-event and we simply flew out of it and continued
> the turn as though nothing had happened. And, yes, this was in a Cessna 152
> that was appropriately certified for that sort of work. However, viewed in
> another manner, the guy (who was a high time instructor) would have been the
> perfect candidate to train new instrucors to let their students kill them...
>
> When I resume flying, as I plan to do, I also plan to more fully explore the
> accelerated stall area of the envelope--in an appropriate trainer of course.
>
> Peter
>
>
>
Good idea. Reason for this is that the majority of accidental stall
incidents will be accelerated. It takes a pilot seriously asleep to
gently allow an airplane to stall accidentally at power off and 1g.
Accelerated stall is an area of flight that all pilots should be
completely familiar with.
I spent MUCH more time with accelerated stall than simple power off
stalls at 1g with every student I taught to fly. I only wish all
instructors did the same.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

wrote:
> On Jan 17, 1:23 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> wrote:
>>
>> In a descending turn, the inside wing has a higher angle
>>
>>> of attack and will stall first, even if the airplane is coordinated in
>>> the turn. Then it'll spin. Too many students are never taught that.
>>> They think that as long as they're coordinated, they're safe. It's not
>>> true. That's why we have stall/spin scenario training: so they see the
>>> various conditions that can cause it. Awareness is greatly enhanced,
>>> believe me. They get much more careful in the circuit.
>>> Dan
>> We'll have to get together someday and have a quiet drink over this one
>> Dan :-)))
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> Love to do that. Coffee, though. Here's a good article on
> the subject:
>
> http://www.casa.gov.au/fsa/2000/sep/FSA34-35.pdf
>
> Second page deals with it.
>
> Dan
Got it. Drop me a line back channel and I'll make a few comments on it
and we can toss it around a bit :-)

--
Dudley Henriques

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Dudley Henriques" wrote:
> better yet an unloaded tight descending turn if some altitude and some
> radius need to be scrubbed off,(I don't recommend doing these BTW :-)

Why not, Dudley? This is a maneuver I use quite often because I like to
make power-off landings.

Am I on the verge of augering in without realizing it?

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Dan Luke wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" wrote:
>> better yet an unloaded tight descending turn if some altitude and some
>> radius need to be scrubbed off,(I don't recommend doing these BTW :-)
>
> Why not, Dudley? This is a maneuver I use quite often because I like to
> make power-off landings.
>
> Am I on the verge of augering in without realizing it?
>
Good question. Let me explain.

In posting on the forums where student pilots might be involved, when
discussing things like unloaded descending turns from base to final, I
try not to post comments without a "warning" of some kind. The reason I
do this is that although well trained pilots can and indeed make turnds
like this all day long in perfect safety, they are still in the category
of a tight turn made at low altitude and I don't want anyone getting
hurt trying to something based on what I have said on a forum.
Becoming capable to make a turn like we are discussing is part of a
pilot's training that should be accomplished in the airplane with a
competent instructor there on the job to make sure the pilot learns how
to make such a turn properly. Once this is accomplished, most pilots
won't even think about making that turn. They will know from where they
are in the pattern, how tight the turn has to be, and whether or not the
conditions are within safe parameters or outside safe parameters.
In other words, it's safe enough if done properly as I'm sure you are
aware, but only after a thorough examination of the factors involved.

Just as an aside; I always covered late base to final turns with my own
students before solo!

--
Dudley Henriques

[gatt[_2_]]

> wrote in message
...
>I went over to the student board a while back. Someone, who I believe
> was not yet even a student pilot, was all on about how spins should
> not be allowed because they were too dangerous to be taught.
>
> That's a complete and total crock.

Getting ready to go do them again for the CFI rating. I did them during my
private training, but it was so long ago and not for a rating that
theoretically they could fail me because we didn't wear parachutes.
Aww...bummer. Have to go have fun in a C-152 again.

During my Commercial checkride the examiner said that instructors need to
put more emphasis on stall entry recognition and spin avoidance since, often
as not, spins occur during departure or approach at altitudes far to low for
spin recovery to occur.


-c

[gatt[_2_]]

"Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message

> This spin entry was different. There I was, about a seventy-degree left
> bank,
> pulling hard on the stick to impress my buddy in the back seat, and WHAM.
> Ol'
> N1660G snapped to the right, went inverted, and tucked into a whirling
> dervish
> of an upright spin.

Wow! I had spin training working on my PPL too, but if that happened to me
my first time out with pax, I wonder if I'd ever gotten back on that horse.
Needless to say, your practice paid off.


-c

[Michael[_1_]]

On Jan 17, 5:27*pm, Stefan > wrote:
> A half flick to
> inverted, followed by a half loop downwards. Obviously there was still
> some slip present, because suddenly, at 45 degrees pitch, just where the
> G load starts to build, that pretty landscape in front of me disappeared
> and all I saw was a blurry, undefined and rotating green disc.

You did in that Fox out of a split-S what I almost did in the
Starduster out of a loop. The difference is that the Starduster is a
biplane with the wings set slightly differently (if it's rigged right)
and so after you stall the top wing, you get a little time to
recognize it before you stall the bottom wing. If you're sloppy
enough to stall the bottom wing too, and you are even slightly
uncoordinated, you're going for a ride.

As an aside - I would love to fly a Fox if I could do it without
having to purchase one or join a club. Where can they be rented?

> Surprize, I can tell you! One second or even two went by before I
> understood what was going on. Maybe another second to recognize to wich
> side the disc was rotating. And maybe a third second to sort out which
> foot to use.

Yeah, well, that's why there's an order of magnitude difference
between enough altitude for an expert to do acro safely and a novice
to learn it safely.

> The actual recovery then was a non event, and I succeeded even to hit
> the axis. But since that experience I strongly believe that the usual
> spin demonstration (1,2,3, yank that stick back and stomp onto the
> pedal) is pretty much useless to prepare a pilot for that accidental spin.

Well, maybe. I would argue that having practiced the recovery still
has some value. How much? Well, probably not enough to subject
oneself to the risk of being 'taught' to do it by someone who isn't
really prepared either.

Actually, I'll go a step further. I would argue that the usual stall
demonstration is no more useful for preparing a pilot for that
accidental stall. But see, this is where instructor experience comes
in. An experienced pilot who has experimented with the edges of the
envelope will have, as a minimum, flirted with inadvertent stall.
Maybe an inadvertent spin as well. When that kind of instructor pilot
does spin training, the risk isn't really there (which is why the
aerobatic training record is pretty clean). At that point, I think an
intro to spins, limited as it is, is justifiable.

Michael

[Stefan]

Michael schrieb:

> As an aside - I would love to fly a Fox if I could do it without
> having to purchase one or join a club. Where can they be rented?

Depends on where you're living :-) I know some in different places in
Europe, however if you should happen to live on the other side of the
pond, a search through the glider sites listed at SSA's should help.

I know from earlier internet searches that two operators in Phoenix have
been renting aerobatic gliders (Arizona soaring a Fox, Turf soaring a
Swift) but I'm sure there are more.

[JGalban via AviationKB.com]

wrote:
>
>Now, while it may be the case that the airplane will recover in that
>condition, that is speculation to me and anyone else until proved
>otherwise in a fairly dangerous experiment in test piloting.
>

I think I see the disconnect here. My Cherokee is one of those planes
that is placarded for spins in the Utility Category only. It's there for
good reason. As the CG moves aft towards the back end of the Utility
envelope, the spin tends to flatten on about the 3rd or 4th turn.

The thing to remember is that this placard is directed at intentional spins.
That's entirely different from the certification standards in Part 23 (or CAR
3, for older planes) that the plane must be able to recover from a 1 turn
spin in the Normal Category. I wouldn't consider it speculation, since the
factory was required to demonstrate the capability in a loaded airplane
during certification. The only light single that I know of that has not
passed spin testing during certification is the Cirrus.

The reason I think that getting some spin training is a good idea is
because the experience will probably help the pilot recognize what is going
on while the spin is still in the incipient phase.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200801/1

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"JGalban via AviationKB.com" <u32749@uwe> wrote in
news:7e69c4aa98ddd@uwe:

> wrote:
>>
>>Now, while it may be the case that the airplane will recover in that
>>condition, that is speculation to me and anyone else until proved
>>otherwise in a fairly dangerous experiment in test piloting.
>>
>
> I think I see the disconnect here. My Cherokee is one of those
> planes
> that is placarded for spins in the Utility Category only. It's there
> for good reason. As the CG moves aft towards the back end of the
> Utility envelope, the spin tends to flatten on about the 3rd or 4th
> turn.
>
> The thing to remember is that this placard is directed at
> intentional spins.
> That's entirely different from the certification standards in Part 23
> (or CAR 3, for older planes) that the plane must be able to recover
> from a 1 turn spin in the Normal Category. I wouldn't consider it
> speculation, since the factory was required to demonstrate the
> capability in a loaded airplane during certification. The only light
> single that I know of that has not passed spin testing during
> certification is the Cirrus.


No, there have been a lot of them over the years. Criteria, IIRC is that if
it can't spin, you don't have to prove it;'s capability!

Not that that stopped a guy I knew from trying everything he could to get a
no pedals Ercoupe to spin!


Bertie

[[email protected]]

>*The only light single that I know of that has not
> passed spin testing during certification is the Cirrus. *
>

What was the deal with that? I have "heard" that they put the BRS
system on because they couldn't pass spin testing. What does that
mean? Was it just an insurance policy against litigation on Cirrus'
part? How did the BRS relate to certification of the aircraft for part
23?

I'm not against BRS though. (I put on my flame retardant suit before
writing that last.)

[Morgans[_2_]]

> wrote

What was the deal with that? I have "heard" that they put the BRS
system on because they couldn't pass spin testing. What does that
mean? Was it just an insurance policy against litigation on Cirrus'
part? How did the BRS relate to certification of the aircraft for part
23?

The owners of Cirrus were committed to having a whole airplane recovery
system, and that if they did, they could avoid having to go though spin
recovery testing.

The standards basicly say that the plane has to be spin resistant, and if it
did spin, that it had to be recoverable. There is an out, in that if there
is an alternate way to recover from spinning, that can be the method of
which is to be used for certification, and the chute is it.

The parachute avoided a very costly series of tests, and they wanted the
chute, anyway.

It is not that it could not pass spin testing, but that they did not do spin
testing. The prescribed proceedure for recovering from a spin is to pull
the chute. Mucho money saved.

Some people have said that the Cirrus has been spun successful, and
recovered without the chute. It is not public record, and will not be part
of any recognized proceedure.
--
Jim in NC

Does that say it well enough?

[[email protected]]

On Jan 17, 8:06 pm, "Morgans" > wrote:
> "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk At Wow Way D0t C0m> wrote
>
>
>
> > I watched two guys die after doing that on a tight, low, turn to a short
> > final...
>
> Someone did that at OSH a few years back. 2001?
> --
> Jim in NC

And another in Arlington in about '97. I saw that. One guy dead.
Fooling around with a big ultralight, taking off short, climbing
steeply and making a rather steep turn to return to the runway. Did
this several times until it went bad.

Dan

[Morgans[_2_]]

> > wrote
>
> What was the deal with that? I have "heard" that they put the BRS
> system on because they couldn't pass spin testing. What does that
> mean? Was it just an insurance policy against litigation on Cirrus'
> part? How did the BRS relate to certification of the aircraft for part
> 23?
************************************
Morgans then posted the following:

> The owners of Cirrus were committed to having a whole airplane recovery
> system, and that if they did, they could avoid having to go though spin
> recovery testing.
>
> The standards basicly say that the plane has to be spin resistant, and if
> it did spin, that it had to be recoverable. There is an out, in that if
> there is an alternate way to recover from spinning, that can be the method
> of which is to be used for certification, and the chute is it.
>
> The parachute avoided a very costly series of tests, and they wanted the
> chute, anyway.
>
> It is not that it could not pass spin testing, but that they did not do
> spin testing. The prescribed proceedure for recovering from a spin is to
> pull the chute. Mucho money saved.
>
> Some people have said that the Cirrus has been spun successful, and
> recovered without the chute. It is not public record, and will not be
> part of any recognized proceedure.
> --
> Jim in NC
>
> Does that say it well enough?
********************************
Morgans then add the following.

Sorry about the way this posted, without the original post having the (<)
included; so I will separate it on this post, with a line of (*****) before
my part starts.
--
Jim in NC

[JGalban via AviationKB.com]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
>No, there have been a lot of them over the years. Criteria, IIRC is that if
>it can't spin, you don't have to prove it;'s capability!
>

Eh? Are you sure you're thinking of light singles? CAR3 and Part 23
require a demostrated recovery from a single turn. If you wanted to certify
for intentional spins you had to go further, but as far as I know, everyone
(besides Cirrus) had to do the single turn recovery to get certified. Cirrus
did not officially perform the 1 turn recovery, but instead claimed an
alternate method of recovery using the BRS.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200801/1

[JGalban via AviationKB.com]

wrote:
>
>What was the deal with that? I have "heard" that they put the BRS
>system on because they couldn't pass spin testing. What does that
>mean? Was it just an insurance policy against litigation on Cirrus'
>part? How did the BRS relate to certification of the aircraft for part
>23?
>
A lot of people have "heard" the same story, but Cirrus says it's not true.
For certification requirements, they chose to substitute the BRS for a
standard spin recovery. That does not mean that the Cirrus can't recover
from a 1 turn spin. It only means that they chose not to demonstrate it
during certification. As for the reasons why, somebody high up in the
company would have to answer that one. As it stands, the BRS is the official
way to recover from a spin in an SR-20 or SR-22.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200801/1

[JGalban via AviationKB.com]

JGalban wrote:
>>No, there have been a lot of them over the years. Criteria, IIRC is that if
>>it can't spin, you don't have to prove it;'s capability!
>
> Eh? Are you sure you're thinking of light singles? CAR3 and Part 23
>require a demostrated recovery from a single turn. If you wanted to certify
>for intentional spins you had to go further, but as far as I know, everyone
>(besides Cirrus) had to do the single turn recovery to get certified. Cirrus
>did not officially perform the 1 turn recovery, but instead claimed an
>alternate method of recovery using the BRS.
>

Bzzzzt. Never mind. I figured out what you meant. If the plane is
unspinnable (like the Ercoupe), then you can't very well test it. As for
there have been "lots of them", can you give me a few other examples? Pretty
much any certified plane with independent rudder control oughta be able to do
it under the right conditions.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via http://www.aviationkb.com

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

JGalban via AviationKB.com wrote:
> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> No, there have been a lot of them over the years. Criteria, IIRC is that if
>> it can't spin, you don't have to prove it;'s capability!
>>
>
> Eh? Are you sure you're thinking of light singles? CAR3 and Part 23
> require a demostrated recovery from a single turn. If you wanted to certify
> for intentional spins you had to go further, but as far as I know, everyone
> (besides Cirrus) had to do the single turn recovery to get certified. Cirrus
> did not officially perform the 1 turn recovery, but instead claimed an
> alternate method of recovery using the BRS.
>
> John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)
>

The Ercoupe was an interesting airplane. It had a placard on the panel
that said "This airplane is incapable of spinning" The rudder (what
there was of it) was directly linked to the yoke and any tendency to
spin was automatically countered. No rudder pedals..just a brake pedal
and a yoke. If I remember right, I think the elevator was limited to 13
degrees as well which made it real hard to even stall. It would mush
like hell but stay on the front side of it's max Cl line.
Landing that thing was something else. A Lot of people don't know this
but Tex Johnston out at Boeing practiced crosswind landings in an
Ercoupe just to get the feel of landing in a crab since he couldn't drop
a wing in the prototype -80 because of the engine pods.
It was a great little airplane to fly and a lot of fun. The one fault we
found with it was a high sink rate that could develop on final if you
let it get too slow. But if you kept the speed up a bit it was a joy to fly.
Never did get one to spin!! :-)

--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"JGalban via AviationKB.com" <u32749@uwe> wrote in
news:7e6ad81efd7da@uwe:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>
>>No, there have been a lot of them over the years. Criteria, IIRC is
>>that if it can't spin, you don't have to prove it;'s capability!
>>
>
> Eh? Are you sure you're thinking of light singles? CAR3 and Part
> 23
> require a demostrated recovery from a single turn. If you wanted to
> certify for intentional spins you had to go further, but as far as I
> know, everyone (besides Cirrus) had to do the single turn recovery to
> get certified. Cirrus did not officially perform the 1 turn recovery,
> but instead claimed an alternate method of recovery using the BRS.

Well, being an anteeker.I'm most familiar with the old cert system
introcduced in 28 and which ran til 48. How do you think they sertified the
general Skyfarer, the Gwynn Skycar and the Ercoupe?
If it could spin then it had to be tested for them. That included airliners
and all!



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"JGalban via AviationKB.com" <u32749@uwe> wrote in
news:7e6af1177af1b@uwe:

> JGalban wrote:
>>>No, there have been a lot of them over the years. Criteria, IIRC is
>>>that if it can't spin, you don't have to prove it;'s capability!
>>
>> Eh? Are you sure you're thinking of light singles? CAR3 and Part
>> 23
>>require a demostrated recovery from a single turn. If you wanted to
>>certify for intentional spins you had to go further, but as far as I
>>know, everyone (besides Cirrus) had to do the single turn recovery to
>>get certified. Cirrus did not officially perform the 1 turn recovery,
>>but instead claimed an alternate method of recovery using the BRS.
>>
>
> Bzzzzt. Never mind. I figured out what you meant. If the plane is
> unspinnable (like the Ercoupe), then you can't very well test it. As
> for there have been "lots of them", can you give me a few other
> examples? Pretty much any certified plane with independent rudder
> control oughta be able to do it under the right conditions.
>


There were a few. The aforementioned skyfarer, the Gwynn Skycar were two. I
was pretty sure the Swift had some issues tht required some mods to make it
unspinnable, but I was wrong about that. I'll have to look around.


Bertie

[JGalban via AviationKB.com]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
>There were a few. The aforementioned skyfarer, the Gwynn Skycar were two. I
>was pretty sure the Swift had some issues tht required some mods to make it
>unspinnable, but I was wrong about that. I'll have to look around.
>
I remember the Swift deal (well not personally, but a friend had one). It
did its certification flights in '45. After they found that the spins were
going flat, they were allowed to get by with a placard that prohibited
intentional spins. I'm not sure that was CAR3, though. I thought that CAR3
and Part 23 were similiar in that you had to do something about spin recovery
(more than a placard), if the aircraft was capable of entering a spin.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via http://www.aviationkb.com

[[email protected]]

On Jan 18, 5:33 pm, "JGalban via AviationKB.com" <u32749@uwe> wrote:
> wrote:
>
> >Now, while it may be the case that the airplane will recover in that
> >condition, that is speculation to me and anyone else until proved
> >otherwise in a fairly dangerous experiment in test piloting.
>
> I think I see the disconnect here. My Cherokee is one of those planes
> that is placarded for spins in the Utility Category only. It's there for
> good reason. As the CG moves aft towards the back end of the Utility
> envelope, the spin tends to flatten on about the 3rd or 4th turn.
>
> The thing to remember is that this placard is directed at intentional spins.
> That's entirely different from the certification standards in Part 23 (or CAR
> 3, for older planes) that the plane must be able to recover from a 1 turn
> spin in the Normal Category. I wouldn't consider it speculation, since the
> factory was required to demonstrate the capability in a loaded airplane
> during certification. The only light single that I know of that has not
> passed spin testing during certification is the Cirrus.
>
> The reason I think that getting some spin training is a good idea is
> because the experience will probably help the pilot recognize what is going
> on while the spin is still in the incipient phase.
>
> John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)
>
> --
> Message posted via AviationKB.comhttp://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200801/1

That makes sense... thanks for the clarification.

Dan

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> JGalban via AviationKB.com wrote:
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> No, there have been a lot of them over the years. Criteria, IIRC is
>>> that if it can't spin, you don't have to prove it;'s capability!
>>>
>>
>> Eh? Are you sure you're thinking of light singles? CAR3 and Part
>> 23
>> require a demostrated recovery from a single turn. If you wanted to
>> certify for intentional spins you had to go further, but as far as I
>> know, everyone (besides Cirrus) had to do the single turn recovery to
>> get certified. Cirrus did not officially perform the 1 turn
>> recovery, but instead claimed an alternate method of recovery using
>> the BRS.
>>
>> John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)
>>
>
> The Ercoupe was an interesting airplane. It had a placard on the panel
> that said "This airplane is incapable of spinning" The rudder (what
> there was of it) was directly linked to the yoke and any tendency to
> spin was automatically countered. No rudder pedals..just a brake pedal
> and a yoke. If I remember right, I think the elevator was limited to
> 13 degrees as well which made it real hard to even stall. It would
> mush like hell but stay on the front side of it's max Cl line.
> Landing that thing was something else. A Lot of people don't know this
> but Tex Johnston out at Boeing practiced crosswind landings in an
> Ercoupe just to get the feel of landing in a crab since he couldn't
> drop a wing in the prototype -80 because of the engine pods.
> It was a great little airplane to fly and a lot of fun. The one fault
> we found with it was a high sink rate that could develop on final if
> you let it get too slow. But if you kept the speed up a bit it was a
> joy to fly. Never did get one to spin!! :-)
>


Yeah, I checked a guy ( and myself) out in one that he had restored. The
manual actually told you to hold th estick full aft to increse your sink
rate if you were high on finals!

!!!!!


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"JGalban via AviationKB.com" <u32749@uwe> wrote in
news:7e6b9d37fc6c5@uwe:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>
>>There were a few. The aforementioned skyfarer, the Gwynn Skycar were
>>two. I was pretty sure the Swift had some issues tht required some
>>mods to make it unspinnable, but I was wrong about that. I'll have to
>>look around.
>>
> I remember the Swift deal (well not personally, but a friend had
> one). It
> did its certification flights in '45. After they found that the spins
> were going flat, they were allowed to get by with a placard that
> prohibited intentional spins. I'm not sure that was CAR3, though. I
> thought that CAR3 and Part 23 were similiar in that you had to do
> something about spin recovery (more than a placard), if the aircraft
> was capable of entering a spin.
>
> John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)


No, it was under the old sequential ATC system that ended in '48. The rules
changed a bit after that. But anything certified before that has
grandfather rights til this day. Incldung all engines certified before then
and that would include the OX-5, and the Ford model A engine!

Bertie
>

[[email protected]]

> Yeah, I checked a guy ( and myself) out in one that he had restored. The
> manual actually told you to hold th estick full aft to increse your sink
> rate if you were high on finals!
>
> !!!!!
>
> Bertie-

An exemplar of the "safety airplane" Langewiesche writes about in
Stick and Rudder?

Ercoupe's are definitely cool airplanes. Are those few flying now also
rudderless, or did they bring rudders back?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

wrote in news:f938ccb0-7650-48cb-92cf-c452cb0c10f8
@p69g2000hsa.googlegroups.com:

>> Yeah, I checked a guy ( and myself) out in one that he had restored. The
>> manual actually told you to hold th estick full aft to increse your sink
>> rate if you were high on finals!
>>
>> !!!!!
>>
>> Bertie-
>
> An exemplar of the "safety airplane" Langewiesche writes about in
> Stick and Rudder?
>
Can't remember. They had a competition in the early twenties for a Safety
airplane. There were some very interesting entries with some very advanced
thinking. none of them went into production. The idea persisted. The really
odd Gwynn Air Car was one that was supposed to be really easy to fly. It
didn't even have a rudder. just a fixed fin, and was set to go into
production when Frank hawks killed himself in one through no fault of the
airplane. The Ercoupe is the only one to go into big time production.

> Ercoupe's are definitely cool airplanes. Are those few flying now also
> rudderless, or did they bring rudders back?
>
They have rudders, they're co-ordinated with the aileron. The later ones
had rudder pedals and many were converted to have them. Mooney built it at
the end in the sixties as the Mooney Cadet with a Mooney style fin and
rudder. I believe that one was spinable.
The Ercouple had one really cool feature I always thought was pretty
clever. The lower opart of th escissors had a fairing on it theat went
flush with the nosewheel strut when it was completely extended. WOnder why
they all don't have that?
It was cool to fly for the novelty value bu tI would never buy one.

Bertie

[Mike Luther]

To: Bertie the Bunyip
>>>
>>> The Ercoupe was an interesting airplane. It had a placard on the >>> panel
that said "This airplane is incapable of spinning" The rudder >>> (what there
was of it) was directly linked to the yoke and any >>> tendency to spin was
automatically countered. No rudder pedals..just >>> a brake pedal and a yoke.
If I remember right, I think the elevator >>> was limited to 13 degrees as well
which made it real hard to even >>> stall. It would mush like hell but stay on
the front side of it's >>> max Cl line. Landing that thing was something else.
A Lot of people >>> don't know this but Tex Johnston out at Boeing practiced
crosswind >>> landings in an Ercoupe just to get the feel of landing in a crab
>>> since he couldn't drop a wing in the prototype -80 because of the >>>
engine pods. It was a great little airplane to fly and a lot of fun. >>> The
one fault we found with it was a high sink rate that could >>> develop on final
if you let it get too slow. But if you kept the >>> speed up a bit it was a joy
to fly. Never did get one to spin!! :-) >>>

BtB> The ercoupe was an effecient airplane even by today's
BtB> standards. Remeber
BtB> it came out in 1938 and it's an astonishing bit of airplane.
BtB> Stil too girly for me, though!

Fred Weik, the creator of the Ercoupe was a professor here at Texas A&M College
for a good while. He lived Southeast of the old Historic Southside in College
Station, Texas, where our family Historic House is still located and this is
being written. You could go down Hereford Street and sort of lumber your way
to his homesite, which included his own private airstrip! He actually flew the
original Ercoupe on good weather days from his private airstrip here in College
Station to Easterwood Airport to work way back then!
Adjacent to his old homesite was a small 8 hole golf course just there on the
Southeast side of Texas A&M as well!

He wound up participating in the design team for the B36 during WWII.

Traditionally, each Texas Aggie home football game is opened by a fly-over of
some kind by the military folks here. A reminder, sort of, of the very first
airplane landing in the whole College Station - Bryan area. That happened a
few years after the Wright Brothers flew at Kitty Hawk. The key engineer
working on the later Wright Flyer(s) wanted to show the folks in the military
the future of aviation at Texas A&M. So he made the first flight here down the
old railroad tracks from Dallas to the area to land it -- in the football
stadium -- at Texas A&M!

Of all things, he had trouble with the carb in it just over Bryan,Texas, before
he got to the stadium in College Station. So he put it down on the old Bryan
Municipal Golf Course, still there on College Avenue going from A&M into old
downtown Bryan there just East of the railroad lines. He adjusted the carb,
took off again. Then made that first ever landing into the football statium of
Texas A&M to make his point!

From that came the tradition of the opening roar of whatever for each home
football game here. And as part of that came the curious end of the
evolutionary tale of the Ercoupe and Fred as his creative life peaked from the
small to the large of aviation. He was allowed to open the Thanksgiving Day
battle between Texas University and Texas A&M that year after the B36 came to
life in the sky above. I watched Fred fly the B36 about 500 feet high, I think
less, grin, just over our Historic Home in College Station that day! It is
right in the path over which every one of these flights soars to announce the
kickoff for the game.

I'll never forget that flight. And regret I was too young to know the
importance of taking out my Kodak box camera and swerving with it pointed
upward to take a picture of that incredible bird.


--> Sleep well; OS/2's still awake! ;)

Mike @ 1:117/3001

--- Maximus/2 3.01
* Origin: Ziplog Public Port (1:117/3001)
--- Synchronet 3.15a-Win32 NewsLink 1.85
* Derby City LiveWire BBS - Lousiville, KY - telnet://derbycitybbs.com

[Blueskies]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message .. .
>>>
>>
>> The Ercoupe was an interesting airplane. It had a placard on the panel
>> that said "This airplane is incapable of spinning" The rudder (what
>> there was of it) was directly linked to the yoke and any tendency to
>> spin was automatically countered. No rudder pedals..just a brake pedal
>> and a yoke. If I remember right, I think the elevator was limited to
>> 13 degrees as well which made it real hard to even stall. It would
>> mush like hell but stay on the front side of it's max Cl line.
>> Landing that thing was something else. A Lot of people don't know this
>> but Tex Johnston out at Boeing practiced crosswind landings in an
>> Ercoupe just to get the feel of landing in a crab since he couldn't
>> drop a wing in the prototype -80 because of the engine pods.
>> It was a great little airplane to fly and a lot of fun. The one fault
>> we found with it was a high sink rate that could develop on final if
>> you let it get too slow. But if you kept the speed up a bit it was a
>> joy to fly. Never did get one to spin!! :-)
>>
>
>
> Yeah, I checked a guy ( and myself) out in one that he had restored. The
> manual actually told you to hold th estick full aft to increse your sink
> rate if you were high on finals!
>
> !!!!!
>
>
> Bertie
>

That, and you can hang your hand out the side slide down window which acts like a spoiler. A guy on the field here has I
think 4 'Coupes along with his Twister and Meyers 200. Sometimes I think he prefers the 'Coupes over them all. He
mumbles under his breath damn cessners and pippers...

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Blueskies wrote:
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message .. .
>>> The Ercoupe was an interesting airplane. It had a placard on the panel
>>> that said "This airplane is incapable of spinning" The rudder (what
>>> there was of it) was directly linked to the yoke and any tendency to
>>> spin was automatically countered. No rudder pedals..just a brake pedal
>>> and a yoke. If I remember right, I think the elevator was limited to
>>> 13 degrees as well which made it real hard to even stall. It would
>>> mush like hell but stay on the front side of it's max Cl line.
>>> Landing that thing was something else. A Lot of people don't know this
>>> but Tex Johnston out at Boeing practiced crosswind landings in an
>>> Ercoupe just to get the feel of landing in a crab since he couldn't
>>> drop a wing in the prototype -80 because of the engine pods.
>>> It was a great little airplane to fly and a lot of fun. The one fault
>>> we found with it was a high sink rate that could develop on final if
>>> you let it get too slow. But if you kept the speed up a bit it was a
>>> joy to fly. Never did get one to spin!! :-)
>>>
>>
>> Yeah, I checked a guy ( and myself) out in one that he had restored. The
>> manual actually told you to hold th estick full aft to increse your sink
>> rate if you were high on finals!
>>
>> !!!!!
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>>
>
> That, and you can hang your hand out the side slide down window which acts like a spoiler. A guy on the field here has I
> think 4 'Coupes along with his Twister and Meyers 200. Sometimes I think he prefers the 'Coupes over them all. He
> mumbles under his breath damn cessners and pippers...
>
>
It was fun to slide those two canopy sides down and feel the breezes.
The windshield was wide enough that you didn't get that blast in the
puss you could get in a Pitts for example, when you rolled back the
canopy or in a T6 when opening the canopy drew every old cigarette butt
and dust ball off the bottom of the tail cone and deposited them all
right in your face :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Blueskies" > wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>>>>
>>>
>>> The Ercoupe was an interesting airplane. It had a placard on the
>>> panel that said "This airplane is incapable of spinning" The rudder
>>> (what there was of it) was directly linked to the yoke and any
>>> tendency to spin was automatically countered. No rudder pedals..just
>>> a brake pedal and a yoke. If I remember right, I think the elevator
>>> was limited to 13 degrees as well which made it real hard to even
>>> stall. It would mush like hell but stay on the front side of it's
>>> max Cl line. Landing that thing was something else. A Lot of people
>>> don't know this but Tex Johnston out at Boeing practiced crosswind
>>> landings in an Ercoupe just to get the feel of landing in a crab
>>> since he couldn't drop a wing in the prototype -80 because of the
>>> engine pods. It was a great little airplane to fly and a lot of fun.
>>> The one fault we found with it was a high sink rate that could
>>> develop on final if you let it get too slow. But if you kept the
>>> speed up a bit it was a joy to fly. Never did get one to spin!! :-)
>>>
>>
>>
>> Yeah, I checked a guy ( and myself) out in one that he had restored.
>> The manual actually told you to hold th estick full aft to increse
>> your sink rate if you were high on finals!
>>
>> !!!!!
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>>
>
> That, and you can hang your hand out the side slide down window which
> acts like a spoiler. A guy on the field here has I think 4 'Coupes
> along with his Twister and Meyers 200. Sometimes I think he prefers
> the 'Coupes over them all. He mumbles under his breath damn cessners
> and pippers...
>
>
He has a Meyers 200 and an Ercoupe?

Now that's a werid combination!

The ercoupe was an effecient airplane even by today's standards. Remeber
it came out in 1938 and it's an astonishing bit of airplane.
Stil too girly for me, though!

Bertie
>

[Blueskies]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message .. .
> "Blueskies" > wrote in
> :
>
>>
>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>> .. .
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The Ercoupe was an interesting airplane. It had a placard on the
>>>> panel that said "This airplane is incapable of spinning" The rudder
>>>> (what there was of it) was directly linked to the yoke and any
>>>> tendency to spin was automatically countered. No rudder pedals..just
>>>> a brake pedal and a yoke. If I remember right, I think the elevator
>>>> was limited to 13 degrees as well which made it real hard to even
>>>> stall. It would mush like hell but stay on the front side of it's
>>>> max Cl line. Landing that thing was something else. A Lot of people
>>>> don't know this but Tex Johnston out at Boeing practiced crosswind
>>>> landings in an Ercoupe just to get the feel of landing in a crab
>>>> since he couldn't drop a wing in the prototype -80 because of the
>>>> engine pods. It was a great little airplane to fly and a lot of fun.
>>>> The one fault we found with it was a high sink rate that could
>>>> develop on final if you let it get too slow. But if you kept the
>>>> speed up a bit it was a joy to fly. Never did get one to spin!! :-)
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Yeah, I checked a guy ( and myself) out in one that he had restored.
>>> The manual actually told you to hold th estick full aft to increse
>>> your sink rate if you were high on finals!
>>>
>>> !!!!!
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>>
>>
>> That, and you can hang your hand out the side slide down window which
>> acts like a spoiler. A guy on the field here has I think 4 'Coupes
>> along with his Twister and Meyers 200. Sometimes I think he prefers
>> the 'Coupes over them all. He mumbles under his breath damn cessners
>> and pippers...
>>
>>
> He has a Meyers 200 and an Ercoupe?
>

Yea, and the Twister is a pretty hot little bird also. He flew it in a couple of races...

> Now that's a werid combination!
>
> The ercoupe was an effecient airplane even by today's standards. Remeber
> it came out in 1938 and it's an astonishing bit of airplane.
> Stil too girly for me, though!
>
> Bertie
>>
>

Ol' Bill would take exception to that girly statement! The 'Coupes cruise faster than a 150/152 any day, and they do
nice barrel rolls...

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Blueskies" > wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> "Blueskies" > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>>
>>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>>> .. .
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The Ercoupe was an interesting airplane. It had a placard on the
>>>>> panel that said "This airplane is incapable of spinning" The
>>>>> rudder (what there was of it) was directly linked to the yoke and
>>>>> any tendency to spin was automatically countered. No rudder
>>>>> pedals..just a brake pedal and a yoke. If I remember right, I
>>>>> think the elevator was limited to 13 degrees as well which made it
>>>>> real hard to even stall. It would mush like hell but stay on the
>>>>> front side of it's max Cl line. Landing that thing was something
>>>>> else. A Lot of people don't know this but Tex Johnston out at
>>>>> Boeing practiced crosswind landings in an Ercoupe just to get the
>>>>> feel of landing in a crab since he couldn't drop a wing in the
>>>>> prototype -80 because of the engine pods. It was a great little
>>>>> airplane to fly and a lot of fun. The one fault we found with it
>>>>> was a high sink rate that could develop on final if you let it get
>>>>> too slow. But if you kept the speed up a bit it was a joy to fly.
>>>>> Never did get one to spin!! :-)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, I checked a guy ( and myself) out in one that he had
>>>> restored. The manual actually told you to hold th estick full aft
>>>> to increse your sink rate if you were high on finals!
>>>>
>>>> !!!!!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>>>
>>>
>>> That, and you can hang your hand out the side slide down window
>>> which acts like a spoiler. A guy on the field here has I think 4
>>> 'Coupes along with his Twister and Meyers 200. Sometimes I think he
>>> prefers the 'Coupes over them all. He mumbles under his breath damn
>>> cessners and pippers...
>>>
>>>
>> He has a Meyers 200 and an Ercoupe?
>>
>
> Yea, and the Twister is a pretty hot little bird also. He flew it in a
> couple of races...
>
>> Now that's a werid combination!
>>
>> The ercoupe was an effecient airplane even by today's standards.
>> Remeber it came out in 1938 and it's an astonishing bit of airplane.
>> Stil too girly for me, though!
>>
>> Bertie
>>>
>>
>
> Ol' Bill would take exception to that girly statement! The 'Coupes
> cruise faster than a 150/152 any day, and they do nice barrel rolls...

Well, they haven't got the requisite number of wings and they engine is
the wrong shape!


Bertie

[[email protected]]

On Jan 19, 10:21 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> "Blueskies" > wrote t:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>
> >>> The Ercoupe was an interesting airplane. It had a placard on the
> >>> panel that said "This airplane is incapable of spinning" The rudder
> >>> (what there was of it) was directly linked to the yoke and any
> >>> tendency to spin was automatically countered. No rudder pedals..just
> >>> a brake pedal and a yoke. If I remember right, I think the elevator
> >>> was limited to 13 degrees as well which made it real hard to even
> >>> stall. It would mush like hell but stay on the front side of it's
> >>> max Cl line. Landing that thing was something else. A Lot of people
> >>> don't know this but Tex Johnston out at Boeing practiced crosswind
> >>> landings in an Ercoupe just to get the feel of landing in a crab
> >>> since he couldn't drop a wing in the prototype -80 because of the
> >>> engine pods. It was a great little airplane to fly and a lot of fun.
> >>> The one fault we found with it was a high sink rate that could
> >>> develop on final if you let it get too slow. But if you kept the
> >>> speed up a bit it was a joy to fly. Never did get one to spin!! :-)
>
> >> Yeah, I checked a guy ( and myself) out in one that he had restored.
> >> The manual actually told you to hold th estick full aft to increse
> >> your sink rate if you were high on finals!
>
> >> !!!!!
>
> >> Bertie
>
> > That, and you can hang your hand out the side slide down window which
> > acts like a spoiler. A guy on the field here has I think 4 'Coupes
> > along with his Twister and Meyers 200. Sometimes I think he prefers
> > the 'Coupes over them all. He mumbles under his breath damn cessners
> > and pippers...
>
> He has a Meyers 200 and an Ercoupe?
>
> Now that's a werid combination!
>
> The ercoupe was an effecient airplane even by today's standards. Remeber
> it came out in 1938 and it's an astonishing bit of airplane.
> Stil too girly for me, though!
>
> Bertie
>
>

Sad story follows...

A friend has a thing for Ercoupes. Been looking for one for years
within his price range -- around $15k.

Sees an ad in trade-a-plane, calls., the widow states, "I have to get
17 -- my husband said it was worth 17."

"Well, for the equipment you have in it, etc..all I can offer is 15."

"Sorry."

Months later.. he calls back, "You still have that airplane?"

"Yep, and not selling it for less than 17."

"OK."

A few months later 'You still have that airplane?"

"Nope..sold it to a fellow -- he paid 17."

"Well, that's pretty good. Seventeen thousand is a good price for an
ercoupe."

Silence.

"Ma'am?"

"Seventeen thousand, you said?"

"Yes, ma'am."

"I sold it for seventeen hundred -- and included all the boxes of
parts."

More conversation ensues --seems the deceased was restoring it, hoping
to place at Oshkosh -- thus the minimal equipment listed. Included
lots of brandy-new spares, parts, etc.

For $1,700.

Yikes.

Moral -- clarify your terms!

Dan

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

" > wrote in
:

> On Jan 19, 10:21 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> "Blueskies" > wrote
>> t:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>> .. .
>>
>> >>> The Ercoupe was an interesting airplane. It had a placard on the
>> >>> panel that said "This airplane is incapable of spinning" The
>> >>> rudder (what there was of it) was directly linked to the yoke and
>> >>> any tendency to spin was automatically countered. No rudder
>> >>> pedals..just a brake pedal and a yoke. If I remember right, I
>> >>> think the elevator was limited to 13 degrees as well which made
>> >>> it real hard to even stall. It would mush like hell but stay on
>> >>> the front side of it's max Cl line. Landing that thing was
>> >>> something else. A Lot of people don't know this but Tex Johnston
>> >>> out at Boeing practiced crosswind landings in an Ercoupe just to
>> >>> get the feel of landing in a crab since he couldn't drop a wing
>> >>> in the prototype -80 because of the engine pods. It was a great
>> >>> little airplane to fly and a lot of fun. The one fault we found
>> >>> with it was a high sink rate that could develop on final if you
>> >>> let it get too slow. But if you kept the speed up a bit it was a
>> >>> joy to fly. Never did get one to spin!! :-)
>>
>> >> Yeah, I checked a guy ( and myself) out in one that he had
>> >> restored. The manual actually told you to hold th estick full aft
>> >> to increse your sink rate if you were high on finals!
>>
>> >> !!!!!
>>
>> >> Bertie
>>
>> > That, and you can hang your hand out the side slide down window
>> > which acts like a spoiler. A guy on the field here has I think 4
>> > 'Coupes along with his Twister and Meyers 200. Sometimes I think he
>> > prefers the 'Coupes over them all. He mumbles under his breath damn
>> > cessners and pippers...
>>
>> He has a Meyers 200 and an Ercoupe?
>>
>> Now that's a werid combination!
>>
>> The ercoupe was an effecient airplane even by today's standards.
>> Remeber it came out in 1938 and it's an astonishing bit of airplane.
>> Stil too girly for me, though!
>>
>> Bertie
>>
>>
>
> Sad story follows...
>
> A friend has a thing for Ercoupes. Been looking for one for years
> within his price range -- around $15k.
>
> Sees an ad in trade-a-plane, calls., the widow states, "I have to get
> 17 -- my husband said it was worth 17."
>
> "Well, for the equipment you have in it, etc..all I can offer is 15."
>
> "Sorry."
>
> Months later.. he calls back, "You still have that airplane?"
>
> "Yep, and not selling it for less than 17."
>
> "OK."
>
> A few months later 'You still have that airplane?"
>
> "Nope..sold it to a fellow -- he paid 17."
>
> "Well, that's pretty good. Seventeen thousand is a good price for an
> ercoupe."
>
> Silence.
>
> "Ma'am?"
>
> "Seventeen thousand, you said?"
>
> "Yes, ma'am."
>
> "I sold it for seventeen hundred -- and included all the boxes of
> parts."
>
> More conversation ensues --seems the deceased was restoring it, hoping
> to place at Oshkosh -- thus the minimal equipment listed. Included
> lots of brandy-new spares, parts, etc.
>
> For $1,700.
>
> Yikes.
>
> Moral -- clarify your terms!
>

Holy crap! You can't get a second hand Datsun for that.

Bertie

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> " > wrote in
> :
>
>> On Jan 19, 10:21 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>> "Blueskies" > wrote
>>> t:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>>>> .. .
>>>>>> The Ercoupe was an interesting airplane. It had a placard on the
>>>>>> panel that said "This airplane is incapable of spinning" The
>>>>>> rudder (what there was of it) was directly linked to the yoke and
>>>>>> any tendency to spin was automatically countered. No rudder
>>>>>> pedals..just a brake pedal and a yoke. If I remember right, I
>>>>>> think the elevator was limited to 13 degrees as well which made
>>>>>> it real hard to even stall. It would mush like hell but stay on
>>>>>> the front side of it's max Cl line. Landing that thing was
>>>>>> something else. A Lot of people don't know this but Tex Johnston
>>>>>> out at Boeing practiced crosswind landings in an Ercoupe just to
>>>>>> get the feel of landing in a crab since he couldn't drop a wing
>>>>>> in the prototype -80 because of the engine pods. It was a great
>>>>>> little airplane to fly and a lot of fun. The one fault we found
>>>>>> with it was a high sink rate that could develop on final if you
>>>>>> let it get too slow. But if you kept the speed up a bit it was a
>>>>>> joy to fly. Never did get one to spin!! :-)
>>>>> Yeah, I checked a guy ( and myself) out in one that he had
>>>>> restored. The manual actually told you to hold th estick full aft
>>>>> to increse your sink rate if you were high on finals!
>>>>> !!!!!
>>>>> Bertie
>>>> That, and you can hang your hand out the side slide down window
>>>> which acts like a spoiler. A guy on the field here has I think 4
>>>> 'Coupes along with his Twister and Meyers 200. Sometimes I think he
>>>> prefers the 'Coupes over them all. He mumbles under his breath damn
>>>> cessners and pippers...
>>> He has a Meyers 200 and an Ercoupe?
>>>
>>> Now that's a werid combination!
>>>
>>> The ercoupe was an effecient airplane even by today's standards.
>>> Remeber it came out in 1938 and it's an astonishing bit of airplane.
>>> Stil too girly for me, though!
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>>
>>>
>> Sad story follows...
>>
>> A friend has a thing for Ercoupes. Been looking for one for years
>> within his price range -- around $15k.
>>
>> Sees an ad in trade-a-plane, calls., the widow states, "I have to get
>> 17 -- my husband said it was worth 17."
>>
>> "Well, for the equipment you have in it, etc..all I can offer is 15."
>>
>> "Sorry."
>>
>> Months later.. he calls back, "You still have that airplane?"
>>
>> "Yep, and not selling it for less than 17."
>>
>> "OK."
>>
>> A few months later 'You still have that airplane?"
>>
>> "Nope..sold it to a fellow -- he paid 17."
>>
>> "Well, that's pretty good. Seventeen thousand is a good price for an
>> ercoupe."
>>
>> Silence.
>>
>> "Ma'am?"
>>
>> "Seventeen thousand, you said?"
>>
>> "Yes, ma'am."
>>
>> "I sold it for seventeen hundred -- and included all the boxes of
>> parts."
>>
>> More conversation ensues --seems the deceased was restoring it, hoping
>> to place at Oshkosh -- thus the minimal equipment listed. Included
>> lots of brandy-new spares, parts, etc.
>>
>> For $1,700.
>>
>> Yikes.
>>
>> Moral -- clarify your terms!
>>
>
> Holy crap! You can't get a second hand Datsun for that.
>
> Bertie

Hell, it's getting to the point where you can't FILL UP a second hand
Datsun with gas for that :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:
>>
>> Holy crap! You can't get a second hand Datsun for that.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Hell, it's getting to the point where you can't FILL UP a second hand
> Datsun with gas for that :-))
>
He he.

I have to say, I couldn't have done that to that woman. I would have told
her.
Well, depending!


Bertie

[[email protected]]

>
> Holy crap! You can't get a second hand Datsun for that.
>
> Bertie


Yeah... that's not a deal -- it's a steal.

Evidently it wasn't in "flying condition" because he crated it each
winter, removed the tires, etc to maintain its pristine condition.

It would be tempting but there's a point where you're really taking
advantage of somebody. The guy that paid $1,700 crossed the line, I
think.

Dan

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>>> Holy crap! You can't get a second hand Datsun for that.
>>>
>>> Bertie
>> Hell, it's getting to the point where you can't FILL UP a second hand
>> Datsun with gas for that :-))
>>
> He he.
>
> I have to say, I couldn't have done that to that woman. I would have told
> her.
> Well, depending!
>
>
> Bertie
>
You know, it's uncanny. I actually started to post exactly that and for
some reason stopped and posted the stupid gas thing instead. I would
have told her as well.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> :
>>>> Holy crap! You can't get a second hand Datsun for that.
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>> Hell, it's getting to the point where you can't FILL UP a second
>>> hand Datsun with gas for that :-))
>>>
>> He he.
>>
>> I have to say, I couldn't have done that to that woman. I would have
>> told her.
>> Well, depending!
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>>
> You know, it's uncanny. I actually started to post exactly that and
> for some reason stopped and posted the stupid gas thing instead. I
> would have told her as well.
>


I was offered a car, an old MG, by some old guy years ago.
He thought it was worth a few hundred. The car was perfect, though it
had been sitting, and easily worth 10 grand even then ( MGA twin cam) I
told him to take it to an auction house... Poor old guy didnt have a pot
to **** in. I'm not sure where the car came from and never found out
where it went, but I hope it bought him a few comforts.
Someone bought an old Chevvy Nova off my Aunt after my uncle died. Gave
her $200 for it. Actually it wasn't old then, maybe four years old. and
it was a perfectly kept old person's car. you know the type. Easily
worth $1200 at the time. *******s!

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

" > wrote in news:4941dae1-edf0-4ac1-
:

>
>>
>> Holy crap! You can't get a second hand Datsun for that.
>>
>> Bertie
>
>
> Yeah... that's not a deal -- it's a steal.
>
> Evidently it wasn't in "flying condition" because he crated it each
> winter, removed the tires, etc to maintain its pristine condition.
>
> It would be tempting but there's a point where you're really taking
> advantage of somebody. The guy that paid $1,700 crossed the line, I
> think.

Yeah, unless she had it to burn anyway. Still.

Bertie
>
>

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>> :
>>>>> Holy crap! You can't get a second hand Datsun for that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bertie
>>>> Hell, it's getting to the point where you can't FILL UP a second
>>>> hand Datsun with gas for that :-))
>>>>
>>> He he.
>>>
>>> I have to say, I couldn't have done that to that woman. I would have
>>> told her.
>>> Well, depending!
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>>
>> You know, it's uncanny. I actually started to post exactly that and
>> for some reason stopped and posted the stupid gas thing instead. I
>> would have told her as well.
>>
>
>
> I was offered a car, an old MG, by some old guy years ago.
> He thought it was worth a few hundred. The car was perfect, though it
> had been sitting, and easily worth 10 grand even then ( MGA twin cam) I
> told him to take it to an auction house... Poor old guy didnt have a pot
> to **** in. I'm not sure where the car came from and never found out
> where it went, but I hope it bought him a few comforts.
> Someone bought an old Chevvy Nova off my Aunt after my uncle died. Gave
> her $200 for it. Actually it wasn't old then, maybe four years old. and
> it was a perfectly kept old person's car. you know the type. Easily
> worth $1200 at the time. *******s!
>
> Bertie
It's things like these that when and if they cross your path, can define
what you are to yourself all through your life.
My motto is that as long as you feel good about yourself, you've done it
right.
I sure hope this is good philosophy because if it isn't, I've lost many
a good opportunity in my life :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>>> Holy crap! You can't get a second hand Datsun for that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>> Hell, it's getting to the point where you can't FILL UP a second
>>>>> hand Datsun with gas for that :-))
>>>>>
>>>> He he.
>>>>
>>>> I have to say, I couldn't have done that to that woman. I would
>>>> have told her.
>>>> Well, depending!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>>>
>>> You know, it's uncanny. I actually started to post exactly that and
>>> for some reason stopped and posted the stupid gas thing instead. I
>>> would have told her as well.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I was offered a car, an old MG, by some old guy years ago.
>> He thought it was worth a few hundred. The car was perfect, though it
>> had been sitting, and easily worth 10 grand even then ( MGA twin
>> cam) I told him to take it to an auction house... Poor old guy didnt
>> have a pot to **** in. I'm not sure where the car came from and never
>> found out where it went, but I hope it bought him a few comforts.
>> Someone bought an old Chevvy Nova off my Aunt after my uncle died.
>> Gave her $200 for it. Actually it wasn't old then, maybe four years
>> old. and it was a perfectly kept old person's car. you know the type.
>> Easily worth $1200 at the time. *******s!
>>
>> Bertie
> It's things like these that when and if they cross your path, can
> define what you are to yourself all through your life.
> My motto is that as long as you feel good about yourself, you've done
> it right.
> I sure hope this is good philosophy because if it isn't, I've lost
> many a good opportunity in my life :-))
>

Ah, something you get that way won't give you any genuine pleasure.

Bertie

[[email protected]]

On Jan 19, 11:09*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote :
>
>
>
>
>
> > Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> >> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
> >>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> >>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
> >>>>>> Holy crap! You can't get a second hand Datsun for that.
>
> >>>>>> Bertie
> >>>>> Hell, it's getting to the point where you can't FILL UP a second
> >>>>> hand Datsun with gas for that :-))
>
> >>>> He he.
>
> >>>> I have to say, I couldn't have done that to that woman. I would
> >>>> have told her.
> >>>> Well, depending!
>
> >>>> Bertie
>
> >>> You know, it's uncanny. I actually started to post exactly that and
> >>> for some reason stopped and posted the stupid gas thing instead. I
> >>> would have told her as well.
>
> >> I was offered a car, an old MG, by some old guy years ago.
> >> He thought it was worth a few hundred. The car was perfect, though it
> >> had been sitting, *and easily worth 10 grand even then ( MGA twin
> >> cam) I told him to take it to an auction house... Poor old guy didnt
> >> have a pot to **** in. I'm not sure where the car came from and never
> >> found out where it went, but I hope it bought him a few comforts.
> >> Someone bought an old Chevvy Nova off my Aunt after my uncle died.
> >> Gave her *$200 for it. Actually it wasn't old then, maybe four years
> >> old. and it was a perfectly kept old person's car. you know the type.
> >> Easily worth $1200 at the time. *******s!
>
> >> Bertie
> > It's things like these that when and if they cross your path, can
> > define what you are to yourself all through your life.
> > My motto is that as long as you feel good about yourself, you've done
> > it right.
> > I sure hope this is good philosophy because if it isn't, I've lost
> > many a good opportunity in my life :-))
>
> Ah, something you get that way won't give you any genuine pleasure.
>
> Bertie- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I gotta agree.

I know a guy though who gets a thrill out of cheating fast food places
out of large drinks: he'll order medium, then when he gets up to the
second window (after paying) says, "You know, I really do want a
supersize drink". They give it to him on the house because it's too
much hassle to go back to the register. It makes him all giddy n
sheet.

The dude earns six figures, too.

I just don't get that.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

wrote in
:

> On Jan 19, 11:09*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote
>> innews:Cu-dnTFMUPcDsA_anZ2dnUV
> :
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> >> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> :
>>
>> >>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> >>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> :
>> >>>>>> Holy crap! You can't get a second hand Datsun for that.
>>
>> >>>>>> Bertie
>> >>>>> Hell, it's getting to the point where you can't FILL UP a
>> >>>>> second hand Datsun with gas for that :-))
>>
>> >>>> He he.
>>
>> >>>> I have to say, I couldn't have done that to that woman. I would
>> >>>> have told her.
>> >>>> Well, depending!
>>
>> >>>> Bertie
>>
>> >>> You know, it's uncanny. I actually started to post exactly that
>> >>> and for some reason stopped and posted the stupid gas thing
>> >>> instead. I would have told her as well.
>>
>> >> I was offered a car, an old MG, by some old guy years ago.
>> >> He thought it was worth a few hundred. The car was perfect, though
>> >> it had been sitting, *and easily worth 10 grand even then ( MGA
>> >> twin cam) I told him to take it to an auction house... Poor old
>> >> guy didnt have a pot to **** in. I'm not sure where the car came
>> >> from and never found out where it went, but I hope it bought him a
>> >> few comforts. Someone bought an old Chevvy Nova off my Aunt after
>> >> my uncle died. Gave her *$200 for it. Actually it wasn't old then,
>> >> maybe four years old. and it was a perfectly kept old person's
>> >> car. you know the type. Easily worth $1200 at the time. *******s!
>>
>> >> Bertie
>> > It's things like these that when and if they cross your path, can
>> > define what you are to yourself all through your life.
>> > My motto is that as long as you feel good about yourself, you've
>> > done it right.
>> > I sure hope this is good philosophy because if it isn't, I've lost
>> > many a good opportunity in my life :-))
>>
>> Ah, something you get that way won't give you any genuine pleasure.
>>
>> Bertie- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> I gotta agree.
>
> I know a guy though who gets a thrill out of cheating fast food places
> out of large drinks: he'll order medium, then when he gets up to the
> second window (after paying) says, "You know, I really do want a
> supersize drink". They give it to him on the house because it's too
> much hassle to go back to the register. It makes him all giddy n
> sheet.
>
> The dude earns six figures, too.
>
> I just don't get that.
>

Actually, that, i get!


Bertie

[Cubdriver]

On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 23:27:53 +0100, Stefan >
wrote:

>Maybe another second to recognize to wich
>side the disc was rotating. And maybe a third second to sort out which
>foot to use.

The Mueller-Beggs Recovery:

1) power to idle, let go of everything, and watch the airspeed
indicator

2) if your speed is increasing, you're in a descending spiral: level
the wings and raise the nose

3) if the speed is steady, you're stalled: the rudder pedal that
offers resistance to your foot is the one to stomp.

Blue skies! -- Dan Ford

Claire Chennault and His American Volunteers, 1941-1942
new from HarperCollins www.FlyingTigersBook.com

[Cubdriver]

On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 23:31:06 GMT, "Kloudy via AviationKB.com"
<u33403@uwe> wrote:

>What kind of flying are you doing where you're expecting to be letting down
>w/o power?

I go to idle when I'm abreast of the touchdown point. I finish the
downwind, and fly the base and final legs, without power unless I've
goofed in turning base too late.

And that reminds me: I've often wondered how much difference it makes
if the engine is actually dead and the prop is windmilling, as opposed
to revolving at idle. If I do actually lose engine power, will I sink
more rapidly?

Blue skies! -- Dan Ford

Claire Chennault and His American Volunteers, 1941-1942
new from HarperCollins www.FlyingTigersBook.com

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Cubdriver wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 23:31:06 GMT, "Kloudy via AviationKB.com"
> <u33403@uwe> wrote:
>
>> What kind of flying are you doing where you're expecting to be letting down
>> w/o power?
>
> I go to idle when I'm abreast of the touchdown point. I finish the
> downwind, and fly the base and final legs, without power unless I've
> goofed in turning base too late.
>
> And that reminds me: I've often wondered how much difference it makes
> if the engine is actually dead and the prop is windmilling, as opposed
> to revolving at idle. If I do actually lose engine power, will I sink
> more rapidly?
>
> Blue skies! -- Dan Ford
>
> Claire Chennault and His American Volunteers, 1941-1942
> new from HarperCollins www.FlyingTigersBook.com

Far less drag on a dead prop than on the windmilling disk, but it
shouldn't matter really. On any unpowered landing you should be making
your altitude and airspeed adjustments in the approach automatically
using the sight picture the configuration of the airplane is giving you
based on the remaining geometry that you're seeing between where you are
in the approach vs where you have to be to make the landing at the spot
chosen.
Much is made of the drag factors between these two scenarios, but as it
relates to the real life situation, it's what you see vs what has to be
done that matters. All you need to be dealing with in a power off
landing is the scenario you've been given.


--
Dudley Henriques

[B A R R Y]

On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 04:58:49 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote:
>
>They have rudders, they're co-ordinated with the aileron. The later ones
>had rudder pedals and many were converted to have them.

My Beech Sundowner has an aileron to rudder linkage. It helps
coordination, but the plane won't slip as well as a PA-28.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

B A R R Y > wrote in
:

> On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 04:58:49 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
> wrote:
>>
>>They have rudders, they're co-ordinated with the aileron. The later ones
>>had rudder pedals and many were converted to have them.
>
> My Beech Sundowner has an aileron to rudder linkage. It helps
> coordination, but the plane won't slip as well as a PA-28.
>
>

Ah, i didn;'t know they had that. Tripacers had it as well. Springs so you
could still cross them.


Bertie

[B A R R Y]

On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 21:34:27 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote:
>
>Ah, i didn;'t know they had that. Tripacers had it as well. Springs so you
>could still cross them.

Some Sundowner owners don't know they have it. <G>

The springs fight the cross controlling in the slip, kinda' ruining
it.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

B A R R Y > wrote in
:

> On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 21:34:27 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
> wrote:
>>
>>Ah, i didn;'t know they had that. Tripacers had it as well. Springs so
>>you could still cross them.
>
> Some Sundowner owners don't know they have it. <G>
>
> The springs fight the cross controlling in the slip, kinda' ruining
> it.
>

Yes, one of my students bought a pacer converted from a Tri-pacer, and the
springs were still in it!
Made the thing a bit of a mess to handle so she removed them.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Mike Luther" -107b-this> wrote in
:


>
> BtB> The ercoupe was an effecient airplane even by today's
> BtB> standards. Remeber
> BtB> it came out in 1938 and it's an astonishing bit of airplane.
> BtB> Stil too girly for me, though!
>
> Fred Weik, the creator of the Ercoupe was a professor here at Texas
> A&M College for a good while. He lived Southeast of the old Historic
> Southside in College Station, Texas, where our family Historic House
> is still located and this is being written. You could go down
> Hereford Street and sort of lumber your way to his homesite, which
> included his own private airstrip! He actually flew the original
> Ercoupe on good weather days from his private airstrip here in College
> Station to Easterwood Airport to work way back then!
> Adjacent to his old homesite was a small 8 hole golf course just
> there on the
> Southeast side of Texas A&M as well!
>
> He wound up participating in the design team for the B36 during WWII.

He also helped design the Cherokee.


>
> I'll never forget that flight. And regret I was too young to know the
> importance of taking out my Kodak box camera and swerving with it
> pointed upward to take a picture of that incredible bird.
>

You still have the pic?


Bertie

[[email protected]]

On Jan 19, 2:34 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >>They have rudders, they're co-ordinated with the aileron. The later ones
> >>had rudder pedals and many were converted to have them.
>
> > My Beech Sundowner has an aileron to rudder linkage. It helps
> > coordination, but the plane won't slip as well as a PA-28.
>
> Ah, i didn;'t know they had that. Tripacers had it as well. Springs so you
> could still cross them.
>
> Bertie

Some 172s did, too. We have here a 172M that had the factory
seaplane stuff installed (forward strut lugs on the firewall, diagonal
braces behind the windshield, and the backside of all metal primed),
and they included a couple of springs between the aileron and rudder
cables in the belly. You hardly know they're there. I wonder if it was
a means of avoiding an extra keel surface like you see on Beavers and
some other floatplanes.
This one never did fly on floats.

Dan

[[email protected]]

On Jan 19, 9:36 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:

>
> > Holy crap! You can't get a second hand Datsun for that.
>

>
> Hell, it's getting to the point where you can't FILL UP a second hand
> Datsun with gas for that :-))

Your ages are showing. Some young punk is going to ask what a
Datsun is.

Dan

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

wrote in
:

> On Jan 19, 2:34 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >>They have rudders, they're co-ordinated with the aileron. The later
>> >>ones had rudder pedals and many were converted to have them.
>>
>> > My Beech Sundowner has an aileron to rudder linkage. It helps
>> > coordination, but the plane won't slip as well as a PA-28.
>>
>> Ah, i didn;'t know they had that. Tripacers had it as well. Springs
>> so you could still cross them.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Some 172s did, too. We have here a 172M that had the factory
> seaplane stuff installed (forward strut lugs on the firewall, diagonal
> braces behind the windshield, and the backside of all metal primed),
> and they included a couple of springs between the aileron and rudder
> cables in the belly. You hardly know they're there. I wonder if it was
> a means of avoiding an extra keel surface like you see on Beavers and
> some other floatplanes.
> This one never did fly on floats.

Well, those are to compensate for the extra area out front. I wonder if
land 172 had them. I haven;t got a whole lot of 172 time but I've never
heard of those in any case..

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

wrote in news:ce7b4c5c-e781-4d51-87a9-
:

> On Jan 19, 9:36 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
>>
>> > Holy crap! You can't get a second hand Datsun for that.
>>
>
>>
>> Hell, it's getting to the point where you can't FILL UP a second hand
>> Datsun with gas for that :-))
>
> Your ages are showing. Some young punk is going to ask what a
> Datsun is.
>

Oncethey're not asking yuo what a Hupmobile is, you're not tdoing too bad.


Bertie

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

wrote:
> On Jan 19, 9:36 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
>>> Holy crap! You can't get a second hand Datsun for that.
>
>> Hell, it's getting to the point where you can't FILL UP a second hand
>> Datsun with gas for that :-))
>
> Your ages are showing. Some young punk is going to ask what a
> Datsun is.
>
> Dan

I had a Cub Scout ask me once what Orville Wright was REALLY like?
:-)

--
Dudley Henriques

[[email protected]]

On Jan 19, 4:31 pm, B A R R Y > wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 04:58:49 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >They have rudders, they're co-ordinated with the aileron. The later ones
> >had rudder pedals and many were converted to have them.
>
> My Beech Sundowner has an aileron to rudder linkage. It helps
> coordination, but the plane won't slip as well as a PA-28.

The Bonanza has rudder-aileron bungie interconnect.

Not my favorite feature.

Dan

[Dana M. Hague]

On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 14:45:39 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote:

>...Swept fin 150s will only do three turns for the most part
>and 152s even less.

I beg to differ. I've done up to 12 turns in C-150's (could have been
a 152, it's been a long time), no trouble at all.

Back when I was learning, I asked my instructor to teach me spins
(this was in 150's). Not just "demonstrating", he had me doing 3 turn
spins and recoveries myself... and told me (with a smile, knowing that
the 17 year old kid I was would do whatever I damm well pleased) not
to do them solo.

Did 20 turns once in my T-Craft... and on another occasion spun the
T-Craft down through an overcast when I got stuck on top ('bout 8
turns as I recall).

-Dana
--
--
If replying by email, please make the obvious changes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I never entertain wicked thoughts...Wicked thoughts entertain me.

[Morgans[_2_]]

> wrote

> Some 172s did, too. We have here a 172M that had the factory
> seaplane stuff installed (forward strut lugs on the firewall, diagonal
> braces behind the windshield, and the backside of all metal primed),
> and they included a couple of springs between the aileron and rudder
> cables in the belly. You hardly know they're there. I wonder if it was
> a means of avoiding an extra keel surface like you see on Beavers and
> some other floatplanes.

Not likely. No way an interconnect is going to correct for insufficient
tail area, when the floats add area ahead of the center of aerodynamic
pressure.

More likely that the 172 has enough extra vertical fin to be OK, even with
the floats added. Most likely, there is not as much extra area after the
floats are bolted on! <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Dana M. Hague]

On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 14:07:46 -0800 (PST), "
>Sounds like fun! Makes me wonder if being a banner tower would be so
>bad?? Hours of slow flight along the beach?

Hours of slow flight, on the verge of stall, over the same section of
beach over and over again?

I was once offered a towing job years ago. Real low budget operation
on the Jersey shore, had a couple of extremely ratty Cessna Bird Dogs
and a Stearman (which was the only reason I considered it). So low
budget that they didn't even care that I didn't have a commercial
certificate, only that I had a reputation as a good tailwheel pilot.
Turned him down as he wanted a commitment for 8 hours a day, Saturday
and Sunday, all summer long. One day a week and I might have gone for
it, but I had a life.

Couple of weeks later one of the Bird Dogs crashed while picking up a
banner from an island.

-Dana


--
--
If replying by email, please make the obvious changes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can I deduct last years taxes as a bad investment?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_22_]]

Dana M. Hague <d(dash)m(dash)hague(at)comcast(dot)net> wrote in
:

> On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 14:45:39 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
> wrote:
>
>>...Swept fin 150s will only do three turns for the most part
>>and 152s even less.
>
> I beg to differ. I've done up to 12 turns in C-150's (could have been
> a 152, it's been a long time), no trouble at all.
>
> Back when I was learning, I asked my instructor to teach me spins
> (this was in 150's). Not just "demonstrating", he had me doing 3 turn
> spins and recoveries myself... and told me (with a smile, knowing that
> the 17 year old kid I was would do whatever I damm well pleased) not
> to do them solo.
>
> Did 20 turns once in my T-Craft... and on another occasion spun the
> T-Craft down through an overcast when I got stuck on top ('bout 8
> turns as I recall).
>


Yeah, that used to be a common way for airmail pilots to get down through a
layer.


Bertie

[[email protected]]

On Jan 19, 4:26*pm, wrote:
> On Jan 19, 9:36 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
>
>
> > > Holy crap! You can't get a second hand Datsun for that.
>
> > Hell, it's getting to the point where you can't FILL UP a second hand
> > Datsun with gas for that :-))
>
> * * * * Your ages are showing. Some young punk is going to ask what a
> Datsun is.
>
> * * * * * * Dan

It's a Nissan, that's what.

I'll never forget those lovely little Datsun pickups and the long
empty beaches of the Texas coast, girlfriend right there handy at your
side. Useful, those pickups were.

[[email protected]]

> Did 20 turns once in my T-Craft... and on another occasion spun the
> T-Craft down through an overcast when I got stuck on top ('bout 8
> turns as I recall).
>
> -Dana

So ... sheet ... how did you know where the bases were?!

I read a bit out of Adolf Galland's "The First And The Last" about
something like that, except it wasn't spinning through it was diving
through to demonstrate the Stuka to some Luftwaffe big wigs. The guys
burst out of the base at 300 feet and promptly dug holes in the
ground.

Dobeh!

[[email protected]]

On Jan 19, 3:35 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

> Well, those are to compensate for the extra area out front. I wonder if
> land 172 had them. I haven;t got a whole lot of 172 time but I've never
> heard of those in any case..
>
> Bertie

Nope. The land-only 172s don't have them.

Dan

[Bertie the Bunyip[_22_]]

wrote in news:68caed63-52d4-41c7-87cb-
:

> On Jan 19, 3:35 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>> Well, those are to compensate for the extra area out front. I wonder if
>> land 172 had them. I haven;t got a whole lot of 172 time but I've never
>> heard of those in any case..
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Nope. The land-only 172s don't have them.
>


Hmm, Not a seaplane guy myself. Someone must know!

Bertie

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

> wrote:

> I'll never forget those lovely little Datsun pickups and the long
> empty beaches of the Texas coast, girlfriend right there handy at your
> side. Useful, those pickups were.

A '67 Barracuda fastback was better.

Fold down the back seats and you had 7 feet of carpeted space to play in.

Keep the engine running, the AC on and the windows up and you could have your
fun without those West Galveston Beach sand flies feasting on your tender
bits.

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

[Cubdriver]

On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 18:00:11 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

>> Did 20 turns once in my T-Craft... and on another occasion spun the
>> T-Craft down through an overcast when I got stuck on top ('bout 8
>> turns as I recall).
>>
>> -Dana
>
>So ... sheet ... how did you know where the bases were?!

Spinning through the overcast was accepted procedure in the 1920s and
1930s.

I suppose there was always a chance that you would impact the ground
before the visibility cleared, but that's seldom, and the alternative
is to hang around up there until you run out of gasoline.


Blue skies! -- Dan Ford

Claire Chennault and His American Volunteers, 1941-1942
new from HarperCollins www.FlyingTigersBook.com

[Dana M. Hague]

On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 18:00:11 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

>So ... sheet ... how did you know where the bases were?!

I had taken off under the overcast, climbed up through a hole (not a
good idea), after which the holes closed. As I recall, the ceiling
underneath was around 4500' or so, and I knew it couldn't have lowered
enough to be a problem in the time I was on top.

-Dana
--
--
If replying by email, please make the obvious changes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If one synchronized swimmer drowns, do the rest have to drown too?

[Stefan]

Cubdriver schrieb:

> The Mueller-Beggs Recovery:
....

Beware!!! Eric Müller himself stressed that this applies *only* to
aircraft with conventional elevator. He stressed this in his book
(Flight Unlimited) and later again in an accident report (Eric was an
accident investigator) when an experienced military pilot had spun a
"H-101 Salto" (a V-tail aerobatic glider) into the ground.

There's nothing more dangerous than half-cooked advice by semi-skilled
people.

[Michael[_1_]]

On Jan 21, 7:13*am, Stefan > wrote:
> Beware!!! Eric Müller himself stressed that this applies *only* to
> aircraft with conventional elevator.

It's actually more limited than that. For example, airplanes with
aileron-rudder interconnects (springs/bungees, not hard links like the
Ercoupe) will make it difficult (or impossible) depending on the
design to determine which rudder is the one offering resistance (they
both will, to different and varying degrees, since the boundary layer
will have separated and the ailerons will be in the chaotic region).

These interconnects are not, to my knowledge, still being designed in,
but so much of the fleet is either old or built to old designs, so a
lot of them are out there.

Michael

[Peter Clark]

On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 05:44:58 -0800 (PST), Michael
> wrote:

>These interconnects are not, to my knowledge, still being designed in,
>but so much of the fleet is either old or built to old designs, so a
>lot of them are out there.

The Malbu, Malibu Mirage, and the Meridian all have it.

[Cubdriver]

On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 13:13:41 +0100, Stefan >
wrote:

>There's nothing more dangerous than half-cooked advice by semi-skilled
>people.
'
The alternative, of course, is to spin into the ground. Which would
you rather try?

Blue skies! -- Dan Ford

Claire Chennault and His American Volunteers, 1941-1942
new from HarperCollins www.FlyingTigersBook.com

[Stefan]

Cubdriver schrieb:

>> There's nothing more dangerous than half-cooked advice by semi-skilled
>> people.

> The alternative, of course, is to spin into the ground. Which would
> you rather try?

The alrternative, of course, is to learn the correct spin recovery
method for the particular plane you fly. Trying Müller-Beggs in a plane
which doesn't respond to it *will* result in spinning into the ground.

[Bertie the Bunyip]

On Jan 21, 2:44*pm, Michael > wrote:
> On Jan 21, 7:13*am, Stefan > wrote:
>
> > Beware!!! Eric Müller himself stressed that this applies *only* to
> > aircraft with conventional elevator.
>
> It's actually more limited than that. *For example, airplanes with
> aileron-rudder interconnects (springs/bungees, not hard links like the
> Ercoupe) will make it difficult (or impossible) depending on the
> design to determine which rudder is the one offering resistance (they
> both will, to different and varying degrees, since the boundary layer
> will have separated and the ailerons will be in the chaotic region).
>

You´re now into a region well beyond what a private pilot entering an
accidental spin will be able to digest during the event, unless he
gots quite a few hours of spin training.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip]

On Jan 22, 10:17*am, Stefan > wrote:
> Cubdriver schrieb:
>
> >> There's nothing more dangerous than half-cooked advice by semi-skilled
> >> people.
> > The alternative, of course, is to spin into the ground. Which would
> > you rather try?
>
> The alrternative, of course, is to learn the correct spin recovery
> method for the particular plane you fly. Trying Müller-Beggs in a plane
> which doesn't respond to it *will* result in spinning into the ground.

Um. Ok...

bertie

[Ol Shy & Bashful]

On Jan 22, 10:33*am, Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote:
> On Jan 22, 10:17*am, Stefan > wrote:
>
> > Cubdriver schrieb:
>
> > >> There's nothing more dangerous than half-cooked advice by semi-skilled
> > >> people.
> > > The alternative, of course, is to spin into the ground. Which would
> > > you rather try?
>
> > The alrternative, of course, is to learn the correct spin recovery
> > method for the particular plane you fly. Trying Müller-Beggs in a plane
> > which doesn't respond to it *will* result in spinning into the ground.
>
> Um. Ok...
>
> bertie

Bertie
You seem to have some good advice and experience so I pay attention.
I've long been a proponent of spin training and think Rich Stowell is
one of the best around today for the training. My first spins came on
my first solo back in about 1959 in a J-5. My instructor didn't seem
too upset that I spent nearly a half hour doing spins before doing my
obligatory 5 T/Go.
Since then, as a flight instructor for the better part of 40+ years
(original FAA CFI issuance was 1967), I've done spin training in a
variety of aircraft and STILL teach spins when I get the chance. It
really disturbs me that the FAA is constantly dumbing down the pilots
of today and you can see it in the various publications. A lot of
material is deleted that still applies but it is as if someone is
afraid to teach it because it either scares them, or they simply don't
know how to address it except by deletion.
I'm senior instructor for a military training program and still fly
between 70-95 hours a month in addition to helicopter training on the
side. I keep pushing spin training for all who want it, and encourage
those who are afraid of them to get the basic training to avoid
getting killed with sloppy feet.
Best Regards
Ol S&B 24,000hrs and going strong (never thought I'd live this long
either at 71)

[Jim Logajan]

"Ol Shy & Bashful" > wrote:
> It really disturbs me that the FAA is constantly dumbing down the pilots
> of today and you can see it in the various publications. A lot of
> material is deleted that still applies but it is as if someone is
> afraid to teach it because it either scares them, or they simply don't
> know how to address it except by deletion.

With all due respect...

The statistics computed for the Nall Reports and by the NTSB seem to show
that the GA per-flight-hour accident rate has been generally on a very slow
decline over the last decade or two. So if the FAA is "dumbing down"
pilots, they aren't getting dumb fast enough to stem the decline in
accident rates.

Bottom line is that the declining accident rate doesn't seem to support the
claim of "dumbing down". Or perhaps if it is true then maybe "dumb" pilots
are safer pilots.... ;-)

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

Jim Logajan wrote:
> "Ol Shy & Bashful" > wrote:
>> It really disturbs me that the FAA is constantly dumbing down the pilots
>> of today and you can see it in the various publications. A lot of
>> material is deleted that still applies but it is as if someone is
>> afraid to teach it because it either scares them, or they simply don't
>> know how to address it except by deletion.
>
> With all due respect...
>
> The statistics computed for the Nall Reports and by the NTSB seem to show
> that the GA per-flight-hour accident rate has been generally on a very slow
> decline over the last decade or two. So if the FAA is "dumbing down"
> pilots, they aren't getting dumb fast enough to stem the decline in
> accident rates.
>
> Bottom line is that the declining accident rate doesn't seem to support the
> claim of "dumbing down". Or perhaps if it is true then maybe "dumb" pilots
> are safer pilots.... ;-)

While I tend to agree with you, a certain amount of that decline is
probably the result of less new pilots coming into the system. This will
have the effect of making the average experience of those pilots in the
system to go up.

[Michael[_1_]]

On Jan 22, 11:31*am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> > It's actually more limited than that. *For example, airplanes with
> > aileron-rudder interconnects (springs/bungees, not hard links like the
> > Ercoupe) will make it difficult (or impossible) depending on the
> > design to determine which rudder is the one offering resistance (they
> > both will, to different and varying degrees, since the boundary layer
> > will have separated and the ailerons will be in the chaotic region).
>
> You´re now into a region well beyond what a private pilot entering an
> accidental spin will be able to digest during the event, unless he
> gots quite a few hours of spin training.

That's rather the point. Muller-Beggs calls for the pilot to feel the
rudders, and to press on whichever rudder offers resistance.
Unfortunately, in an airplane with interconnected rudder and ailerons,
both rudders will offer varying resistance in the stall/spin. An
experienced pilot with sensitive feet might be able to sort it out,
but he probably wouldn't get into the situation in the first place
unless intentionally flirting with that edge of the envelope, and in
any case would know the correct recovery. So yes, that's my point -
for a typical private pilot entering an accidental spin in an airplane
equipped with rudder-aileron interconnects, the Muller-Beggs recovery
won't work, even though the elevator is conventional. Thus my point
that it is even more limited than Stefan noted.

Michael

[[email protected]]

On Jan 22, 3:38 pm, Gig 601XL Builder >
wrote:
> Jim Logajan wrote:
> > "Ol Shy & Bashful" > wrote:
> >> It really disturbs me that the FAA is constantly dumbing down the pilots
> >> of today and you can see it in the various publications. A lot of
> >> material is deleted that still applies but it is as if someone is
> >> afraid to teach it because it either scares them, or they simply don't
> >> know how to address it except by deletion.
>
> > With all due respect...
>
> > The statistics computed for the Nall Reports and by the NTSB seem to show
> > that the GA per-flight-hour accident rate has been generally on a very slow
> > decline over the last decade or two. So if the FAA is "dumbing down"
> > pilots, they aren't getting dumb fast enough to stem the decline in
> > accident rates.
>
> > Bottom line is that the declining accident rate doesn't seem to support the
> > claim of "dumbing down". Or perhaps if it is true then maybe "dumb" pilots
> > are safer pilots.... ;-)
>
> While I tend to agree with you, a certain amount of that decline is
> probably the result of less new pilots coming into the system. This will
> have the effect of making the average experience of those pilots in the
> system to go up.

The key metric in that case would be accident rate per hour per hour
of experience. All the data I've seen to date indicates that the
classic inverted curve remains in effect, trending from very careful
to careful to confident/apathetic/reckless to experienced to
instinctively proficient.

Also at play is society's increasing avoidance of risk, coupled with
increased litigation, tied to widespread, instantaneous news coverage.

The best quote I heard about this phenomenon was a Long Island
parent's lament, "Their raising these kids like veal."

Dan

[Jim Logajan]

" > wrote:
> On Jan 22, 3:38 pm, Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>> Jim Logajan wrote:
>> > Bottom line is that the declining accident rate doesn't seem to
>> > support the claim of "dumbing down". Or perhaps if it is true then
>> > maybe "dumb" pilots are safer pilots.... ;-)
>>
>> While I tend to agree with you, a certain amount of that decline is
>> probably the result of less new pilots coming into the system. This
>> will have the effect of making the average experience of those pilots
>> in the system to go up.
>
> The key metric in that case would be accident rate per hour per hour
> of experience. All the data I've seen to date indicates that the
> classic inverted curve remains in effect, trending from very careful
> to careful to confident/apathetic/reckless to experienced to
> instinctively proficient.

Some interesting data is in this document:

"Pilot Age and Accident Rates Report 3: An Analysis of Professional Air
Transport Pilot Accident Rates by Age"

http://www.faa.gov/library/reports/medical/age60/media/age60_3.pdf

One interesting quote:

"Overall, these analyses support the hypothesis that a "U"-shaped
relationship exists between the age of professional pilots holding Class 1
medical and ATP certificates and the accident rate for operations under 14
CFR §121 and §135."

Of course the above is relevant to this subthread only if average flight
hours of experience is linearly proportional to average age. I don't know
if that is a reasonable presumption or not.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_22_]]

Jim Logajan > wrote in
:

> "Ol Shy & Bashful" > wrote:
>> It really disturbs me that the FAA is constantly dumbing down the
>> pilots of today and you can see it in the various publications. A lot
>> of material is deleted that still applies but it is as if someone is
>> afraid to teach it because it either scares them, or they simply
>> don't know how to address it except by deletion.
>
> With all due respect...
>
> The statistics computed for the Nall Reports and by the NTSB seem to
> show that the GA per-flight-hour accident rate has been generally on a
> very slow decline over the last decade or two. So if the FAA is
> "dumbing down" pilots, they aren't getting dumb fast enough to stem
> the decline in accident rates.
>
> Bottom line is that the declining accident rate doesn't seem to
> support the claim of "dumbing down". Or perhaps if it is true then
> maybe "dumb" pilots are safer pilots.... ;-)

Well, there could be a few explanations for that. one could be that since
new recruits to the past-time are down, the experiance level is coming up.


Dunno, just offering it as food for thought.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_22_]]

"Ol Shy & Bashful" > wrote in
:

> On Jan 22, 10:33*am, Bertie the Bunyip >
> wrote:
>> On Jan 22, 10:17*am, Stefan > wrote:
>>
>> > Cubdriver schrieb:
>>
>> > >> There's nothing more dangerous than half-cooked advice by
>> > >> semi-skille
> d
>> > >> people.
>> > > The alternative, of course, is to spin into the ground. Which
>> > > would you rather try?
>>
>> > The alrternative, of course, is to learn the correct spin recovery
>> > method for the particular plane you fly. Trying Müller-Beggs in a
>> > plan
> e
>> > which doesn't respond to it *will* result in spinning into the
>> > ground.
>>
>> Um. Ok...
>>
>> bertie
>
> Bertie
> You seem to have some good advice and experience so I pay attention.
> I've long been a proponent of spin training and think Rich Stowell is
> one of the best around today for the training. My first spins came on
> my first solo back in about 1959 in a J-5. My instructor didn't seem
> too upset that I spent nearly a half hour doing spins before doing my
> obligatory 5 T/Go.
> Since then, as a flight instructor for the better part of 40+ years
> (original FAA CFI issuance was 1967), I've done spin training in a
> variety of aircraft and STILL teach spins when I get the chance. It
> really disturbs me that the FAA is constantly dumbing down the pilots
> of today and you can see it in the various publications. A lot of
> material is deleted that still applies but it is as if someone is
> afraid to teach it because it either scares them, or they simply don't
> know how to address it except by deletion.
> I'm senior instructor for a military training program and still fly
> between 70-95 hours a month in addition to helicopter training on the
> side. I keep pushing spin training for all who want it, and encourage
> those who are afraid of them to get the basic training to avoid
> getting killed with sloppy feet.
> Best Regards
> Ol S&B 24,000hrs and going strong (never thought I'd live this long
> either at 71)
>



Well, if I though tI was going to live as long as I have I'd hvae taken
better care of myself!

Thanks for the compliment, but I really think it's you ought to be
pumping out the advice! I'm not even current on singles.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_22_]]

Michael > wrote in news:cad2000c-a3c1-
:

> On Jan 22, 11:31*am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> > It's actually more limited than that. *For example, airplanes with
>> > aileron-rudder interconnects (springs/bungees, not hard links like
the
>> > Ercoupe) will make it difficult (or impossible) depending on the
>> > design to determine which rudder is the one offering resistance
(they
>> > both will, to different and varying degrees, since the boundary
layer
>> > will have separated and the ailerons will be in the chaotic
region).
>>
>> You´re now into a region well beyond what a private pilot entering an
>> accidental spin will be able to digest during the event, unless he
>> gots quite a few hours of spin training.
>
> That's rather the point.

OK..


Muller-Beggs calls for the pilot to feel the
> rudders, and to press on whichever rudder offers resistance.
> Unfortunately, in an airplane with interconnected rudder and ailerons,
> both rudders will offer varying resistance in the stall/spin. An
> experienced pilot with sensitive feet might be able to sort it out,
> but he probably wouldn't get into the situation in the first place
> unless intentionally flirting with that edge of the envelope, and in
> any case would know the correct recovery. So yes, that's my point -
> for a typical private pilot entering an accidental spin in an airplane
> equipped with rudder-aileron interconnects, the Muller-Beggs recovery
> won't work, even though the elevator is conventional. Thus my point
> that it is even more limited than Stefan note

Well, that's not the point I was making. We're not talking about fuly
developed spins here. We're talking about doing a few fuly developed
spins to remove the air of mystery around them, then getting heavily
into entry recognition and prevention. In the typical stall spin
accident theh best recovery technique going isn't going to save even Bob
Hoover because it will have happend to low for a recovery to take place,
wheras timely recognition of the stiuation will keep it from getting to
that point.
Now I'd be into learning all the ins and outs of spinning various
aircraft because I'm interesrted in that stuff, but without reasonably
frequent practice it's of little or no benefit to a private pilot. What
he needs is to take the correct action at the first sign of trouble and
the style of recovery will be moot.

Bertie

[Michael[_1_]]

On Jan 23, 1:29*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> What
> he needs is to take the correct action at the first sign of trouble and
> the style of recovery will be moot.

Sure - and that's the logic of stall/spin awareness training. This
may in fact be enough for a private pilot, airplane. I question
whether it's enough for a student pilot or glider pilot, though. At
least when I was a student pilot, the expectaion was that when you
were solo, you were practicing checkride maneuvers. A lot. All of
them. Including power-on stalls, straight ahead and turning, and slow
flight including turns, climbs, and descents. Gliders can't do power-
on stalls (except for a few oddities like the Grob 109, which honestly
resembles a tailwheel Tomahawk more than a normal glider) but they
thermal - meaning make steep turns a few knots above stall in rough
air.

A private pilot flying an airplane really has no reason to flirt with
stall except when he is inches from the ground. If he notices the
first indications of stall, he should immediately recover, and thus
spin recovery is a moot point.

A student pilot, glider pilot, and flight instructor don't have that
luxury. They operate close to stall for extended periods, routinely.
I doubt anyone questions the need for flight instructors to have
serious spin training (though I do hear some who claim that the
current three-spins approach is adequate) but I would argue that spin
recovery training for solo students is necessary as well. The point
is moot with glider students because I don't know any glider
instructors who will solo a student who has not spun.

Michael

[Bertie the Bunyip[_22_]]

Michael > wrote in news:cdd65e2f-bb45-
:

> On Jan 23, 1:29*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> What
>> he needs is to take the correct action at the first sign of trouble
and
>> the style of recovery will be moot.
>
> Sure - and that's the logic of stall/spin awareness training. This
> may in fact be enough for a private pilot, airplane. I question
> whether it's enough for a student pilot or glider pilot, though. At
> least when I was a student pilot, the expectaion was that when you
> were solo, you were practicing checkride maneuvers. A lot. All of
> them. Including power-on stalls, straight ahead and turning, and slow
> flight including turns, climbs, and descents. Gliders can't do power-
> on stalls (except for a few oddities like the Grob 109, which honestly
> resembles a tailwheel Tomahawk more than a normal glider) but they
> thermal - meaning make steep turns a few knots above stall in rough
> air.
>
> A private pilot flying an airplane really has no reason to flirt with
> stall except when he is inches from the ground. If he notices the
> first indications of stall, he should immediately recover, and thus
> spin recovery is a moot point.
>
> A student pilot, glider pilot, and flight instructor don't have that
> luxury. They operate close to stall for extended periods, routinely.
> I doubt anyone questions the need for flight instructors to have
> serious spin training (though I do hear some who claim that the
> current three-spins approach is adequate) but I would argue that spin
> recovery training for solo students is necessary as well. The point
> is moot with glider students because I don't know any glider
> instructors who will solo a student who has not spun.
>
Well, he student falls into the same category as the private, really.
The arguemtn is the private should have his spin training introduced
while he's a student. Gliders, absolutely, a vbit more swhould be
required, though good luck in a 2-33. ( I learned in gliders and taugth
in them for a long time as well) The Grob I flew once and hated. 'twas
neither fish nor fowl!
Flight instructors should be well versed in spins, period. No question
about it. And well versed in them.


Bertie
>
>
>

[JGalban via AviationKB.com]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
>Well, he student falls into the same category as the private, really.
>The arguemtn is the private should have his spin training introduced
>while he's a student. Gliders, absolutely, a vbit more swhould be
>required, though good luck in a 2-33. ( I learned in gliders and taugth
>in them for a long time as well) The Grob I flew once and hated. 'twas
>neither fish nor fowl!
>Flight instructors should be well versed in spins, period. No question
>about it. And well versed in them.
>

I can't agree more about the need for students to have some exposure. I
did my first spin on my 3rd solo flight. Got a little complacent with the
rudder while practicing stalls in the practice area. I'd never seen a spin
before and it was well developed before I figured out what was going on
(thanks to my ham-fisted, knee-jerk control inputs).

I don't think flight instructors get nearly enough exposure to spins.
Over the years, the only ones that cared to experience a spin in my plane (in
the Utility Category, of course) during a BFR were the ones that also taught
aerobatics. The rest of them looked at me like I was nuts.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via http://www.aviationkb.com

[Bertie the Bunyip[_22_]]

"JGalban via AviationKB.com" <u32749@uwe> wrote in
news:7ea5ced2990c9@uwe:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>
>>Well, he student falls into the same category as the private, really.
>>The arguemtn is the private should have his spin training introduced
>>while he's a student. Gliders, absolutely, a vbit more swhould be
>>required, though good luck in a 2-33. ( I learned in gliders and
>>taugth in them for a long time as well) The Grob I flew once and
>>hated. 'twas neither fish nor fowl!
>>Flight instructors should be well versed in spins, period. No question
>>about it. And well versed in them.
>>
>
> I can't agree more about the need for students to have some
> exposure. I
> did my first spin on my 3rd solo flight. Got a little complacent with
> the rudder while practicing stalls in the practice area. I'd never
> seen a spin before and it was well developed before I figured out what
> was going on (thanks to my ham-fisted, knee-jerk control inputs).
>
> I don't think flight instructors get nearly enough exposure to
> spins.
> Over the years, the only ones that cared to experience a spin in my
> plane (in the Utility Category, of course) during a BFR were the ones
> that also taught aerobatics. The rest of them looked at me like I was
> nuts.


Unfortuntely, that's the way it's going nowadays...

Bertie

[Michael[_1_]]

On Jan 23, 9:10*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Well, he student falls into the same category as the private, really.

Actually, no. If you think about it carefully, there is one important
difference between the student and private. Sure, they both had the
same limited spin recovery training - but the student had it
RECENTLY. That's why it's worth something.

About half the good pilots I know experienced inadvertent spin entries
- and almost all experienced inadvertent approaches to stall. I know
lots of pilots who never got close to inadvertently stalling the
plane, never mind spinning it - and most of them are not worth much.
They're mechanical, overly conservative, and generally not skilled.
There's a reason for this. You don't get to be good just by flying
straight and level on nice days. You get good by, among other things,
exploring the edges of the envelope. When you start doing this, you
are going to make mistakes. The only way not to make mistakes is not
to do anything. (As an aside, I think the ONLY reason we're seeing
any improvement in the fatal accident rate is that more and more
pilots are simply not doing anything other than going up to fly in
straight lines on nice days, not because the pilots are getting any
better/safer.)

It is exactly the student pilot who has the potential to develop into
a good pilot who is most at risk in the early stages. He's going to
be exploring the edges of the envelope a lot (especially the stall,
since he has a good excuse to be there, practicing for the checkride
and all) and he is the one who really needs spin recovery training -
because he is most likely to get into that mess, and because it will
most likely be at an altitude high enough for a novice to recover. He
won't really need it later, so it's no big deal if he forgets.

> The arguemtn is the private should have his spin training introduced
> while he's a student.

Yes, that would be great if it happened - but who will do it? Most
instructors these days have spin training inferior to what the average
private pilot got fifty years ago.

Do you remember what happened when the FAA took slow flight as we knew
it (Vso +5/-0, with the stall horn blaring) out of the PTS and
replaced it with flight at 1.2 Vso? And then a few years later, they
went back to the old way? I remember how the new instructors, who had
come up after the change, screamed. There was even one who refused to
teach his student real slow flight, and instead sent him to the
checkride with a letter explaining that this sort of flying was
unsafe, and that he had told the student never to do it? Remember
that mess?

Truth is, the instructor was probably right. It is unsafe - for him.
Spend enough time flying just a few knots over stall in turbulent air,
and maneuvering, and eventually you will buy yourself a spin entry.
Unless you are comfortable in recovery, you probably shouldn't be
there. Odds are he wasn't comfortable - he was probably one of these
guys who gets a minimal-standards spin endorsement.

I think it's OK to send off a solo student on minimal standards spin
training. A couple of incipients, so he learns to recognize it when
it happens, maybe a one turn in case he is slow, and spend the rest of
the time on stal/spin awareness, recognition, and avoidance. That's
fine for a solo student because his exposure is low - he's only going
to be doing slow flight and stalls for a few hours, and likely never
again. Makes no sense to burden him with the full gamut of spin
training. If he decides he's going to fly that part of the envelope,
he can always get it later. The CFI's exposure is much higher, and he
really needs to be trained to a higher standard. But what happens if
he's not? In that case, I think his student is probably better off
not getting any spin training - at least not from him - not because it
has no safety value, but because with someone who doesn't really
understand what he is doing, it's dangerous enough to erase the safety
gains.

That's really been my point all along. The FAA phased out spin
training for the private pilot because the net safety gain looked to
be nil. Looking at the Canadian stats, that's reasonable. But the
truth is, the real solution was not to phase out the spin training -
it was to increase the minimum spin proficiency standard for CFI's.
Make them spin a few different aircraft, so they can see the
difference. Pick some that don't auto-recover, but require that you
actually apply the proper anti-spin controls. Maybe even include some
oddballs where the proper anti-spin controls at first tighten the spin
(the PA-38 comes to mind) so they learn to have some faith in what
they are doing without immediate feedback.

Spin training ought to have no discernible fatality rate over and
above flight training as a whole. When done by competent instructors
(ie at aerobatic schools) that is indeed the case. Maybe we should
require CFI candidates to demonstrate solo aerobatics? At least at
the novice level? Surely someone who can't do a loop, roll, and spin
above 1500 ft has no business teaching anyone else to fly?

Of course the last time I suggested that in this forum I got
slammed....

Michael

[Jim Logajan]

Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Jim Logajan > wrote in
> :
>
>> "Ol Shy & Bashful" > wrote:
>>> It really disturbs me that the FAA is constantly dumbing down the
>>> pilots of today and you can see it in the various publications. A
>>> lot of material is deleted that still applies but it is as if
>>> someone is afraid to teach it because it either scares them, or they
>>> simply don't know how to address it except by deletion.
>>
>> With all due respect...
>>
>> The statistics computed for the Nall Reports and by the NTSB seem to
>> show that the GA per-flight-hour accident rate has been generally on
>> a very slow decline over the last decade or two. So if the FAA is
>> "dumbing down" pilots, they aren't getting dumb fast enough to stem
>> the decline in accident rates.
>>
>> Bottom line is that the declining accident rate doesn't seem to
>> support the claim of "dumbing down". Or perhaps if it is true then
>> maybe "dumb" pilots are safer pilots.... ;-)
>
> Well, there could be a few explanations for that. one could be that
> since new recruits to the past-time are down, the experiance level is
> coming up.

That's a pretty plausible explanation for the decline in accident rates.
Probably not enough raw data collected over the years to say whether that
is the reason for the decline. :-(

> Dunno, just offering it as food for thought.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_22_]]

Michael > wrote in news:4a490f0a-0e35-
:

> On Jan 23, 9:10*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Well, he student falls into the same category as the private, really.
>
> Actually, no. If you think about it carefully, there is one important
> difference between the student and private. Sure, they both had the
> same limited spin recovery training - but the student had it
> RECENTLY. That's why it's worth something.


Well, most haven;'t had spin training, that is the problem. Most don't
get it.
>
> About half the good pilots I know experienced inadvertent spin entries
> - and almost all experienced inadvertent approaches to stall. I know
> lots of pilots who never got close to inadvertently stalling the
> plane, never mind spinning it - and most of them are not worth much.

Very true.

> They're mechanical, overly conservative, and generally not skilled.

Also very true.

> There's a reason for this. You don't get to be good just by flying
> straight and level on nice days. You get good by, among other things,
> exploring the edges of the envelope. When you start doing this, you
> are going to make mistakes. The only way not to make mistakes is not
> to do anything. (As an aside, I think the ONLY reason we're seeing
> any improvement in the fatal accident rate is that more and more
> pilots are simply not doing anything other than going up to fly in
> straight lines on nice days, not because the pilots are getting any
> better/safer.)


Yep, agree with all of this.

>
> It is exactly the student pilot who has the potential to develop into
> a good pilot who is most at risk in the early stages. He's going to
> be exploring the edges of the envelope a lot (especially the stall,
> since he has a good excuse to be there, practicing for the checkride
> and all) and he is the one who really needs spin recovery training -
> because he is most likely to get into that mess, and because it will
> most likely be at an altitude high enough for a novice to recover. He
> won't really need it later, so it's no big deal if he forgets.
>
>> The arguemtn is the private should have his spin training introduced
>> while he's a student.
>
> Yes, that would be great if it happened - but who will do it? Most
> instructors these days have spin training inferior to what the average
> private pilot got fifty years ago.


Yep, but that's case I'm making.

That should change.

>
> Do you remember what happened when the FAA took slow flight as we knew
> it (Vso +5/-0, with the stall horn blaring) out of the PTS and
> replaced it with flight at 1.2 Vso?

Nope. Must have been out sick that week!

And then a few years later, they
> went back to the old way? I remember how the new instructors, who had
> come up after the change, screamed. There was even one who refused to
> teach his student real slow flight, and instead sent him to the
> checkride with a letter explaining that this sort of flying was
> unsafe, and that he had told the student never to do it? Remember
> that mess?


When theh hell was this? I probably wasn't teaching at the time.
>
> Truth is, the instructor was probably right. It is unsafe - for him.


Well, yes!

> Spend enough time flying just a few knots over stall in turbulent air,
> and maneuvering, and eventually you will buy yourself a spin entry.
> Unless you are comfortable in recovery, you probably shouldn't be
> there. Odds are he wasn't comfortable - he was probably one of these
> guys who gets a minimal-standards spin endorsement.
>
> I think it's OK to send off a solo student on minimal standards spin
> training. A couple of incipients, so he learns to recognize it when
> it happens, maybe a one turn in case he is slow, and spend the rest of
> the time on stal/spin awareness, recognition, and avoidance. That's
> fine for a solo student because his exposure is low - he's only going
> to be doing slow flight and stalls for a few hours, and likely never
> again. Makes no sense to burden him with the full gamut of spin
> training. If he decides he's going to fly that part of the envelope,
> he can always get it later.


Well, with students I usually gave them some idea before solo about what
a spin was and how to avoid it. A quick demo, and the usual series of
stalls, but the more complete examples would come later in the training.

The CFI's exposure is much higher, and he
> really needs to be trained to a higher standard.

Well, I would have thought so! A fairly high proficiency was expected
when I did my instructor's ticket..

But what happens if
> he's not?

Well, he can't teach them, that's for sure.



>
> Spin training ought to have no discernible fatality rate over and
> above flight training as a whole. When done by competent instructors
> (ie at aerobatic schools) that is indeed the case. Maybe we should
> require CFI candidates to demonstrate solo aerobatics? At least at
> the novice level? Surely someone who can't do a loop, roll, and spin
> above 1500 ft has no business teaching anyone else to fly?
>
> Of course the last time I suggested that in this forum I got
> slammed....
>

Really? I see a lot of support for your position here now. I agree with
you about all of it bar a few details and definitions.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_22_]]

Jim Logajan > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Jim Logajan > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> "Ol Shy & Bashful" > wrote:
>>>> It really disturbs me that the FAA is constantly dumbing down the
>>>> pilots of today and you can see it in the various publications. A
>>>> lot of material is deleted that still applies but it is as if
>>>> someone is afraid to teach it because it either scares them, or
>>>> they simply don't know how to address it except by deletion.
>>>
>>> With all due respect...
>>>
>>> The statistics computed for the Nall Reports and by the NTSB seem to
>>> show that the GA per-flight-hour accident rate has been generally on
>>> a very slow decline over the last decade or two. So if the FAA is
>>> "dumbing down" pilots, they aren't getting dumb fast enough to stem
>>> the decline in accident rates.
>>>
>>> Bottom line is that the declining accident rate doesn't seem to
>>> support the claim of "dumbing down". Or perhaps if it is true then
>>> maybe "dumb" pilots are safer pilots.... ;-)
>>
>> Well, there could be a few explanations for that. one could be that
>> since new recruits to the past-time are down, the experiance level is
>> coming up.
>
> That's a pretty plausible explanation for the decline in accident
> rates. Probably not enough raw data collected over the years to say
> whether that is the reason for the decline. :-(

Well, I can't see it being down to better training, because I don't see
the training for Privates as being any better than it was thirty years
ago. In some ways it's a lot worse. I thknk part of it may be down to
better equipment, especially Nav stuff. And some may be down to better
weather information and availability of same. Much of it has to be due
to better education, especially with weather related accidents.

Again, this is all just supposition.. I have no idea, really.


Bertie

[[email protected]]

On Jan 23, 2:37 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

> Well, I can't see it being down to better training, because I don't see
> the training for Privates as being any better than it was thirty years
> ago. In some ways it's a lot worse. I thknk part of it may be down to
> better equipment, especially Nav stuff. And some may be down to better
> weather information and availability of same. Much of it has to be due
> to better education, especially with weather related accidents.
>
> Again, this is all just supposition.. I have no idea, really.
>
> Bertie

My father learned to fly in '59 (J-3, TaylorCraft, etc). From his
experience I learned that the stick and rudder aspect was stressed --
and not much else. They did spins, rolls, loops -- the works. But I
doubt he could navigate or communicate in today's environment without
returning to a lengthy course of study.

While stall-spins on final add to the overall accident tally,
continued VFR into IMC, CFIT, approaches below minimums, spatial
disorientation in IMC, and fuel mismanagement result in far, far more
fatalities. Nearly every accident of this type is evidence of poor
judgment in a specific instance.

So while spin training should be on every pilot's to do list, it's not
the golden key to safer flight (the pilots that seek out such training
are a self-selecting group of exceptions).

Rather, what's needed is an increased emphasis on respectful caution,
with the corollary better judgment.

Reading NTSB reports on a regular basis can help -- and it's free.

Dan

[Bertie the Bunyip]

On 22 Jan, 18:48, Jim Logajan > wrote:
> "Ol Shy & Bashful" > wrote:
>
> > It really disturbs me that the FAA is constantly dumbing down the pilots
> > of today and you can see it in the various publications. A lot of
> > material is deleted that still applies but it is as if someone is
> > afraid to teach it because it either scares them, or they simply don't
> > know how to address it except by deletion.
>
> With all due respect...
>
> The statistics computed for the Nall Reports and by the NTSB seem to show
> that the GA per-flight-hour accident rate has been generally on a very slow
> decline over the last decade or two. So if the FAA is "dumbing down"
> pilots, they aren't getting dumb fast enough to stem the decline in
> accident rates.
>
> Bottom line is that the declining accident rate doesn't seem to support the
> claim of "dumbing down". Or perhaps if it is true then maybe "dumb" pilots
> are safer pilots.... *;-)

They seem to think so, but in fact thinking about this a lot of it can
be put down to greater influence of outfits like EAA, greater
availability of advanced courses not related to certification ( like
well organised aerobatics, for instance) and better education and more
available information from sources like the EAA, AOPA, etc, not to
mention the massive amount of information on the net.

Take Ken for instance. He's a virtual manual of how not to do things.
He's saving lives by the dozens just posting here!

Bertie

[Peter Dohm]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
On 22 Jan, 18:48, Jim Logajan > wrote:
> "Ol Shy & Bashful" > wrote:
>
> > It really disturbs me that the FAA is constantly dumbing down the pilots
> > of today and you can see it in the various publications. A lot of
> > material is deleted that still applies but it is as if someone is
> > afraid to teach it because it either scares them, or they simply don't
> > know how to address it except by deletion.
>
> With all due respect...
>
> The statistics computed for the Nall Reports and by the NTSB seem to show
> that the GA per-flight-hour accident rate has been generally on a very
> slow
> decline over the last decade or two. So if the FAA is "dumbing down"
> pilots, they aren't getting dumb fast enough to stem the decline in
> accident rates.
>
> Bottom line is that the declining accident rate doesn't seem to support
> the
> claim of "dumbing down". Or perhaps if it is true then maybe "dumb" pilots
> are safer pilots.... ;-)

They seem to think so, but in fact thinking about this a lot of it can
be put down to greater influence of outfits like EAA, greater
availability of advanced courses not related to certification ( like
well organised aerobatics, for instance) and better education and more
available information from sources like the EAA, AOPA, etc, not to
mention the massive amount of information on the net.

Take Ken for instance. He's a virtual manual of how not to do things.
He's saving lives by the dozens just posting here!

Bertie

Thanks! :-)))))))

Peter

[Bertie the Bunyip[_22_]]

" > wrote in news:70580dee-4cc0-
:

> On Jan 23, 2:37 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>> Well, I can't see it being down to better training, because I don't
see
>> the training for Privates as being any better than it was thirty
years
>> ago. In some ways it's a lot worse. I thknk part of it may be down to
>> better equipment, especially Nav stuff. And some may be down to
better
>> weather information and availability of same. Much of it has to be
due
>> to better education, especially with weather related accidents.
>>
>> Again, this is all just supposition.. I have no idea, really.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> My father learned to fly in '59 (J-3, TaylorCraft, etc). From his
> experience I learned that the stick and rudder aspect was stressed --
> and not much else. They did spins, rolls, loops -- the works. But I
> doubt he could navigate or communicate in today's environment without
> returning to a lengthy course of study.
>
Yeah, well the nav part is different, but most basic nav skills are
being lost these days as well.

> While stall-spins on final add to the overall accident tally,
> continued VFR into IMC, CFIT, approaches below minimums, spatial
> disorientation in IMC, and fuel mismanagement result in far, far more
> fatalities. Nearly every accident of this type is evidence of poor
> judgment in a specific instance.

Very true.
>
> So while spin training should be on every pilot's to do list, it's not
> the golden key to safer flight (the pilots that seek out such training
> are a self-selecting group of exceptions).
>

Never suggested it was, but it is A key..

> Rather, what's needed is an increased emphasis on respectful caution,
> with the corollary better judgment.
>
> Reading NTSB reports on a regular basis can help -- and it's free.
>

Well, al of that is very true, but the foundation of good aircraft
handling is still central in my view.

Bertie

[Peter Dohm]

"Peter Dohm" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
> On 22 Jan, 18:48, Jim Logajan > wrote:
>> "Ol Shy & Bashful" > wrote:
>>
>> > It really disturbs me that the FAA is constantly dumbing down the
>> > pilots
>> > of today and you can see it in the various publications. A lot of
>> > material is deleted that still applies but it is as if someone is
>> > afraid to teach it because it either scares them, or they simply don't
>> > know how to address it except by deletion.
>>
>> With all due respect...
>>
>> The statistics computed for the Nall Reports and by the NTSB seem to show
>> that the GA per-flight-hour accident rate has been generally on a very
>> slow
>> decline over the last decade or two. So if the FAA is "dumbing down"
>> pilots, they aren't getting dumb fast enough to stem the decline in
>> accident rates.
>>
>> Bottom line is that the declining accident rate doesn't seem to support
>> the
>> claim of "dumbing down". Or perhaps if it is true then maybe "dumb"
>> pilots
>> are safer pilots.... ;-)
>
> They seem to think so, but in fact thinking about this a lot of it can
> be put down to greater influence of outfits like EAA, greater
> availability of advanced courses not related to certification ( like
> well organised aerobatics, for instance) and better education and more
> available information from sources like the EAA, AOPA, etc, not to
> mention the massive amount of information on the net.
>
> Take Ken for instance. He's a virtual manual of how not to do things.
> He's saving lives by the dozens just posting here!
>
> Bertie
>
-------------------------------------------------

> Thanks! :-)))))))
>
> Peter
>
>
There was supposed to be a logical separation; but, occasionally and on some
messages, my newsreader fails to highlight the prior message. There is
clearly a pattern and cause, since a screen test continues to produce the
same result from some messages; but the pattern is not yet clear. My
appologies, as I continue to watch for it.

Peter

[[email protected]]

On Jan 24, 8:16 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> Well, al of that is very true, but the foundation of good aircraft
> handling is still central in my view.
>
> Bertie

While it may be true that aircraft handling is foundational, lack of
handling skills accounts for a small proportion of fatalities. This
seems to indicate that training and practice is deficient in
inculcating judgment.

The IMSAFE cutsie deal ain't cuttin' it.

Dan

[Michael[_1_]]

On Jan 23, 2:34*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> > Actually, no. *If you think about it carefully, there is one important
> > difference between the student and private. *Sure, they both had the
> > same limited spin recovery training - but the student had it
> > RECENTLY. *That's why it's worth something.
>
> Well, most haven;'t had spin training, that is the problem. Most don't
> get it.

True enough. But presolo spin recovery training was never much. I
got a couple of spin entries and one that went past that (a turn or
two, I think - this was back in the '90's so I don't exactly remember)
and that was all as far as spins went. We did do lots of full stalls,
of course. How much of that spin recovery training would I have
remembered years later if I hadn't done it post-private? Probably not
much. But that's OK - the primary exposure is during the solo stage,
not years later.

But you are right that these days most students don't get that much
either. One disturbing tendency I've noticed is that instructors are
now telling their solo students not to practice power-on stalls solo,
and some ask them not to practice slow flight solo either. I suppose
it reduces the exposure, but it also creates a mystique around that
part ot the flight envelope that shouldn't be there. I even know a
commercial pilot who won't practice stalls solo (ie without an
instructor). I find that downright disturbing.

> > Yes, that would be great if it happened - but who will do it? *Most
> > instructors these days have spin training inferior to what the average
> > private pilot got fifty years ago.
>
> Yep, but that's case I'm making.
> That should change.

Well, I agree - but good luck changing it. Most instructors these
days come from programs which are very structured - with the goal
being all the ratings in minimum hours. They graduate at 250-300
total hours as CFI/CFII/MEI. If you think about it, that's a minimum
of 7 checkrides:
Private, Instrument, Commercial Single, Commercial Multi, CFI, CFII,
MEI
In many of the programs it's more - this is a maximally streamlined
approach. That means an average of maybe 40 hours between checkrides
(maybe less). Thus there is really no time to go out and play with
the airplane, get a feel for the edges of the envelope - there's
really no time to do anything but learn checkride maneuvers, prep for
checkrides, take checkrides, lather, rinse, repeat. Those programs
don't include anything that isn't required. Since spins are not
tested on the CFI checkride, they get minimal spin training. You can
forget about aerobatics.

> > Do you remember what happened when the FAA took slow flight as we knew
> > it (Vso +5/-0, with the stall horn blaring) out of the PTS and
> > replaced it with flight at 1.2 Vso?
> When theh hell was this? I probably wasn't teaching at the time.

I'm thinking it all happened between '97 and '01. I know that when I
took my private ride in '94, slow flight was at stall speed +5/-0. I
also know that it went back to being that way when I took my CFI ride
in '01. But I remember that I knew some CFI's who had never done slow
flight as we know it, and had to teach themselves with students on
board when the rules changed.

> Well, I would have thought so! A fairly high proficiency was expected
> when I did my instructor's ticket..

Not when I did mine. I did my spin endorsement with an instructor who
was a fairly serious aerobatic pilot, but most of the CFI candidates I
knew got their spin endorsements in an hour, tops, and at best it
would consist of a couple of incipients, maybe a one turn spin to the
right and a one turn to the left, and then maybe a three turn. No
particular performance standard. And that was a best case. I know a
few who did one incipient to the left, one to the right, the
instructor demonstrated a one turn spin, and that was it!

I told a few of them about my spin training, and they were shocked by
the idea that I was expected to spin to a heading and recover back to
a normal glide with no more than 400 ft lost (this was in a Blanik
L-23, and anyone familiar with the type should know that 400 ft is NOT
challenging - a skilled pilot can do it in 200).

>> But what happens if he's not?
> Well, he can't teach them, that's for sure.

But that's my point - start requiring spin training at the private
level, and the CFI who got this minimal spin training will be teaching
it - even though he is not capable. And any safety advantage of
having spin training will be erased by the increased risk of this
'teaching.'

Michael

[Bertie the Bunyip[_22_]]

" > wrote in news:f2cbb5ae-e29a-
:

> On Jan 24, 8:16 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>
>> Well, al of that is very true, but the foundation of good aircraft
>> handling is still central in my view.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> While it may be true that aircraft handling is foundational, lack of
> handling skills accounts for a small proportion of fatalities. This
> seems to indicate that training and practice is deficient in
> inculcating judgment.
>
> The IMSAFE cutsie deal ain't cuttin' it.

Don;'t even know what that is, but I could guess.

ONe other thing I have noticed a significant degradation of, at least in
some cases, is that some fundamental ( there;s that word again)
practices are being laid to one side. I know of a recent accident in a
cherokee where the pilot taxiied to the end of the runway, did his
runup, his checks and then changed to the fullest tank.
Well he moved the selector to "off" by mistake and then , when the
engine quit at 300' or so, he tried to turn back to the runway.
Now, when I got checked out in my first low wing airplane, also a
cherokee, I was told to select the intended tank for takeoff just after
engine start, if necessary. that way, if there were something wrong with
teh supply from that tank, you'd know a looong time before you rolled.
As for turning back, this can be done , of course, but this guy was in
no way proficient enough to do it, nor had he ever practiced it. He
lived, but the airplane was written off.


Now, who wants to to be the first to start an argument about turning
back?


Bertie

[Andy Hawkins]

Hi,

In article >,
Bertie the > wrote:
> Now, when I got checked out in my first low wing airplane, also a
> cherokee, I was told to select the intended tank for takeoff just after
> engine start, if necessary. that way, if there were something wrong with
> teh supply from that tank, you'd know a looong time before you rolled.

The procedure our school use is to start the engine from the tank with the
least fuel, and use that tank to taxi to the point where you do your power
checks. Then you switch to the tank with the most in, and do the power
checks from there.

That way you've tested the feed from both tanks, and aren't fiddling with
the fuel selector for ages (the entire time it takes you to do the power
checks and get into position on the runway) before taking off, so you'd know
well in advance if you'd inadvertantly turned the fuel off or selected a
tank that couldn't feed fuel.

Andy

[Bertie the Bunyip[_22_]]

Michael > wrote in news:db710d25-53bf-
:

> On Jan 23, 2:34*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> > Actually, no. *If you think about it carefully, there is one
important
>
>> > difference between the student and private. *Sure, they both had
the
>> > same limited spin recovery training - but the student had it
>> > RECENTLY. *That's why it's worth something.
>>
>> Well, most haven;'t had spin training, that is the problem. Most
don't
>> get it.
>
> True enough. But presolo spin recovery training was never much.

Doesn't have to be.
Presolo training isn't much, period. The only reason for soloing is to
boost the student's confidence. Confidence is one of the most imprtant
ingredients in a pilot;s makeup and the student is usually only given
just enough to amke sure he can survive that. I mean logialy, he'd be
better off spending the whole of his instruction dual, but the solo
fliht portion is essential in boosting confidence as well as providing
an opportunity for the guy to practice without someone shouting at him
for a change.
Anyhow, the point is, the student could benefit from a lot more practice
at a lot of things before he solos.

> got a couple of spin entries and one that went past that (a turn or
> two, I think - this was back in the '90's so I don't exactly remember)
> and that was all as far as spins went. We did do lots of full stalls,
> of course. How much of that spin recovery training would I have
> remembered years later if I hadn't done it post-private? Probably not
> much. But that's OK - the primary exposure is during the solo stage,
> not years later.
>
> But you are right that these days most students don't get that much
> either.


Lots don't get any!

One disturbing tendency I've noticed is that instructors are
> now telling their solo students not to practice power-on stalls solo,
> and some ask them not to practice slow flight solo either. I suppose
> it reduces the exposure, but it also creates a mystique around that
> part ot the flight envelope that shouldn't be there. I even know a
> commercial pilot who won't practice stalls solo (ie without an
> instructor). I find that downright disturbing.


Sheesh!
Me too. Well, my students don't do that, in fact, unless they're going
somewhere I postiely encouraged them to do this stuff and discouraged
normal" flight.
>
>> > Yes, that would be great if it happened - but who will do it? *Most
>> > instructors these days have spin training inferior to what the
average
>> > private pilot got fifty years ago.
>>
>> Yep, but that's case I'm making.
>> That should change.
>
> Well, I agree - but good luck changing it. Most instructors these
> days come from programs which are very structured - with the goal
> being all the ratings in minimum hours. They graduate at 250-300
> total hours as CFI/CFII/MEI. If you think about it, that's a minimum
> of 7 checkrides:
> Private, Instrument, Commercial Single, Commercial Multi, CFI, CFII,
> MEI
> In many of the programs it's more - this is a maximally streamlined
> approach. That means an average of maybe 40 hours between checkrides
> (maybe less). Thus there is really no time to go out and play with
> the airplane, get a feel for the edges of the envelope - there's
> really no time to do anything but learn checkride maneuvers, prep for
> checkrides, take checkrides, lather, rinse, repeat. Those programs
> don't include anything that isn't required. Since spins are not
> tested on the CFI checkride, they get minimal spin training. You can
> forget about aerobatics.
>
>> > Do you remember what happened when the FAA took slow flight as we
knew
>> > it (Vso +5/-0, with the stall horn blaring) out of the PTS and
>> > replaced it with flight at 1.2 Vso?
>> When theh hell was this? I probably wasn't teaching at the time.
>
> I'm thinking it all happened between '97 and '01. I know that when I
> took my private ride in '94, slow flight was at stall speed +5/-0. I
> also know that it went back to being that way when I took my CFI ride
> in '01. But I remember that I knew some CFI's who had never done slow
> flight as we know it, and had to teach themselves with students on
> board when the rules changed.
>
>> Well, I would have thought so! A fairly high proficiency was expected
>> when I did my instructor's ticket..
>
> Not when I did mine. I did my spin endorsement with an instructor who
> was a fairly serious aerobatic pilot, but most of the CFI candidates I
> knew got their spin endorsements in an hour, tops, and at best it
> would consist of a couple of incipients, maybe a one turn spin to the
> right and a one turn to the left, and then maybe a three turn. No
> particular performance standard. And that was a best case. I know a
> few who did one incipient to the left, one to the right, the
> instructor demonstrated a one turn spin, and that was it!

Well, that's depressing. I have to renew my expired instructor ticket in
a month or so and I havent got a lot of an idea of what to expect. The
guy doing it is the same guy who did my private a long time ago ( I cant
believe he's still alive , neve mind still flying") so I'm expecting it
will be a more traditional sort of ride.
>
> I told a few of them about my spin training, and they were shocked by
> the idea that I was expected to spin to a heading and recover back to
> a normal glide with no more than 400 ft lost (this was in a Blanik
> L-23, and anyone familiar with the type should know that 400 ft is NOT
> challenging - a skilled pilot can do it in 200).

Sounds about right, but WTF is an L23? I only knew the L13 and I never
heard of or saw a later model.
>
>>> But what happens if he's not?
>> Well, he can't teach them, that's for sure.
>
> But that's my point - start requiring spin training at the private
> level, and the CFI who got this minimal spin training will be teaching
> it - even though he is not capable. And any safety advantage of
> having spin training will be erased by the increased risk of this
> 'teaching.'
>

Preaching to the choir, baby.

Bertie

[[email protected]]

On Jan 24, 11:59 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

> > The IMSAFE cutsie deal ain't cuttin' it.
>
> Don;'t even know what that is, but I could guess.
>
> ONe other thing I have noticed a significant degradation of, at least in
> some cases, is that some fundamental ( there;s that word again)
> practices are being laid to one side. I know of a recent accident in a
> cherokee where the pilot taxiied to the end of the runway, did his
> runup, his checks and then changed to the fullest tank.
> Well he moved the selector to "off" by mistake and then , when the
> engine quit at 300' or so, he tried to turn back to the runway.
> Now, when I got checked out in my first low wing airplane, also a
> cherokee, I was told to select the intended tank for takeoff just after
> engine start, if necessary. that way, if there were something wrong with
> teh supply from that tank, you'd know a looong time before you rolled.
> As for turning back, this can be done , of course, but this guy was in
> no way proficient enough to do it, nor had he ever practiced it. He
> lived, but the airplane was written off.
>
> Now, who wants to to be the first to start an argument about turning
> back?
>
> Bertie

IMSAFE is the FAA self-status checklist: Illness, Medications, Stress,
Alcohol, Fatigue, and Eating.

I wonder if the Cherokee pilot was taught that way or was it a
momentary lapse?

The typical accident waiting-to-happen pilot seems to get away with
just a little each time, thus proving to him/herself that those rules/
standards/checklist items don't really apply.

One of the airplanes I fly has an NTSB history -- the CFI flying solo
ran it off the end of the runway at 80 MPH when it did not rotate. The
gust lock in place made that happen. I can't imagine that "free and
correct" wasn't taught to this guy. So clearly it was a momentary
lapse.

Or was it a programmed lapse due to familiarity and complacency? Had
he flown many times before with no check of the flight controls? Or
was this the One Time he forgot to do that?

There is no way to know how many accidents are the result of that One
Time and how many are the odds finally catching up. But disciplined
rigor can help keep the first at arm's length and the second much less
inevitable.

I think fear can be a good motivator until experienced respect can
take over. But it's hard to sell the Wonders Of Flying using the F
word.

Dan


"It's when things are going just right that you'd better be
suspicious. There you are, fat as can be. The whole world is yours and
you're the answer to the Wright brothers' prayers. You say to
yourself, nothing can go wrong ... all my trespasses are forgiven.
Best you not believe it."

-- Ernest K. Gann

"Do not spin this aircraft. If the aircraft does enter a spin it will
return to earth without further attention on the part of the
aeronaut."

-- first handbook issued with the Curtis-Wright flyer

[Jim Logajan]

Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Now, who wants to to be the first to start an argument about turning
> back?

Seems to be a timeless topic. I just finished reading "Winged
Victory" by V. M. Yeates, a fictional account of his real life experience
flying Sopwith Camels during WW1. In it he describes one poor rookie
pilot's fatal attempt to turn back to the field after an engine failure
at takeoff. The story's main character wondered why the pilot made that
poor choice rather than fly it straight ahead. Guess the danger of
turning back was known less than 15 years after the invention of the
airplane.

The book has a great writeup on the vices (and virtues) of the Camel:

"Flying Camels was not everyone's work. They were by far the most
difficult of service machines to handle. Many pilots killed themselves by
crashing in a right hand spin when learning to fly them. A Camel hated an
inexperienced hand, and flopped into a frantic spin at the least
opportunity. They were unlike ordinary aeroplanes, being quite unstable,
immoderately tail-heavy, so light on the controls that the slightest jerk
or inaccuracy would hurl them all over the sky, difficult to land, deadly
to crash: a list of vices to emasculate the stoutest courage, and the
first flight on a Camel was always a terrible ordeal. They were bringing
out a two-seater training Camel for dual work, in the hope of reducing
that thirty per cent of crashes on first solo flights."
....
"Camels were wonderful fliers when you had got used to them, which
took about three months of hard flying. At the end of that time you were
either dead, a nervous wreck, or the hell of a pilot and a terror to
Huns, who were more unwilling to attack Camels than any other sort of
machine except perhaps Bristol Fighters. But then Bristol Fighters
weren't fair. They combined the advantages of a scout with those of a
two-seater. Huns preferred fighting SEs which were stationary engined
scouts more like themselves, for the Germans were not using rotary
engines except for their exotic triplanes, and the standard Hun scout was
the very orthodox Albatros. They knew where they were with SEs, which
obeyed the laws of flight and did as properly stabilized aeroplanes ought
to do. If you shot at one, allowing correctly for speed, you would hit
it: it would be going the way it looked as if it were going, following
its nose. But not so a Camel. A Camel might be going sideways or flat-
spinning, or going in any direction except straight backwards. A Camel in
danger would do the most queer things, you never knew what next,
especially if the pilot was Tom Cundall."

Great book of WW 1 flying (though I have to admit it is the only book
of WW 1 flight that I have read). In my opinion it does a better job with
the theme of "fate" than Gann's "Fate is the Hunter" and has elements of
Heller's "Catch-22" madness. And it predates both of them. Considering
the kind of machines Yeates and his contemporaries flew, it really makes
Gann and Heller's protagonists look pampered by comparison. All IMHO of
course.

[[email protected]]

On Jan 24, 11:30 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> > That way you've tested the feed from both tanks, and aren't fiddling
> > with the fuel selector for ages (the entire time it takes you to do
> > the power checks and get into position on the runway) before taking
> > off, so you'd know well in advance if you'd inadvertantly turned the
> > fuel off or selected a tank that couldn't feed fuel.
>
> Yeah, that should work OK. I'm not sure how long exactly it'd take to run a
> line outk, but a runup should do it.
>
> Bertie

The fuel downstream of the valve will be gone in a few
seconds at runup RPM. Not nearly enough to take off with. But I have
seen leaking fuel valves with old and rotten rubber seats in them that
no longer shut the flow completely off, and such a valve might allow
enough fuel for takeoff until the limited flow can't keep up. Or worn
valve linkage (as in a Cessna single) that can leave the valve partly
"off" while indicating "on." To find a leaking selector or shutoff
valve, turn the valve off, pull the strainer drain control and see if
the flow stops entirely. If it continues to dribble, the valve is
leaking.

Dan

[Michael[_1_]]

On Jan 24, 12:12*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Sounds about right, but WTF is an L23? I only knew the L13 and I never
> heard of or saw a later model.

I know the L-13 well, and in my opinion it's the better glider, but
they're getting old. Think of the L-23 as an unflapped L-13, and that
will be about right.

Michael

[Bertie the Bunyip[_22_]]

wrote in
:

> On Jan 24, 11:30 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> > That way you've tested the feed from both tanks, and aren't
>> > fiddling with the fuel selector for ages (the entire time it takes
>> > you to do the power checks and get into position on the runway)
>> > before taking off, so you'd know well in advance if you'd
>> > inadvertantly turned the fuel off or selected a tank that couldn't
>> > feed fuel.
>>
>> Yeah, that should work OK. I'm not sure how long exactly it'd take to
>> run a line outk, but a runup should do it.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> The fuel downstream of the valve will be gone in a few
> seconds at runup RPM. Not nearly enough to take off with. But I have
> seen leaking fuel valves with old and rotten rubber seats in them that
> no longer shut the flow completely off, and such a valve might allow
> enough fuel for takeoff until the limited flow can't keep up. Or worn
> valve linkage (as in a Cessna single) that can leave the valve partly
> "off" while indicating "on." To find a leaking selector or shutoff
> valve, turn the valve off, pull the strainer drain control and see if
> the flow stops entirely. If it continues to dribble, the valve is
> leaking.
>

Well, this guy got airborne Don't know how. It was an 181, if it makes any
difference.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_22_]]

" > wrote in news:702ad50b-3eb6-41e3-
:

> On Jan 24, 1:40 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>> > I think fear can be a good motivator until experienced respect can
>> > take over. But it's hard to sell the Wonders Of Flying using the F
>> > word.
>>
>> Why?
>> I tel them to watch the f..ing speed all the time.
>
>>
>> Bertie
>>
>
>
> The OTHER f word....


That would make you rather unpopular in the cockpit..

Well, open cockpit would be OK


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_22_]]

Jim Logajan > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Now, who wants to to be the first to start an argument about turning
>> back?
>
> Seems to be a timeless topic. I just finished reading "Winged
> Victory" by V. M. Yeates, a fictional account of his real life
> experience flying Sopwith Camels during WW1. In it he describes one
> poor rookie pilot's fatal attempt to turn back to the field after an
> engine failure at takeoff. The story's main character wondered why the
> pilot made that poor choice rather than fly it straight ahead. Guess
> the danger of turning back was known less than 15 years after the
> invention of the airplane.
>
> The book has a great writeup on the vices (and virtues) of the
> Camel:
>
> "Flying Camels was not everyone's work. They were by far the most
> difficult of service machines to handle. Many pilots killed themselves
> by crashing in a right hand spin when learning to fly them. A Camel
> hated an inexperienced hand, and flopped into a frantic spin at the
> least opportunity. They were unlike ordinary aeroplanes, being quite
> unstable, immoderately tail-heavy, so light on the controls that the
> slightest jerk or inaccuracy would hurl them all over the sky,
> difficult to land, deadly to crash: a list of vices to emasculate the
> stoutest courage, and the first flight on a Camel was always a
> terrible ordeal. They were bringing out a two-seater training Camel
> for dual work, in the hope of reducing that thirty per cent of crashes
> on first solo flights." ...
> "Camels were wonderful fliers when you had got used to them, which
> took about three months of hard flying. At the end of that time you
> were either dead, a nervous wreck, or the hell of a pilot and a terror
> to Huns, who were more unwilling to attack Camels than any other sort
> of machine except perhaps Bristol Fighters. But then Bristol Fighters
> weren't fair. They combined the advantages of a scout with those of a
> two-seater. Huns preferred fighting SEs which were stationary engined
> scouts more like themselves, for the Germans were not using rotary
> engines except for their exotic triplanes, and the standard Hun scout
> was the very orthodox Albatros. They knew where they were with SEs,
> which obeyed the laws of flight and did as properly stabilized
> aeroplanes ought to do. If you shot at one, allowing correctly for
> speed, you would hit it: it would be going the way it looked as if it
> were going, following its nose. But not so a Camel. A Camel might be
> going sideways or flat- spinning, or going in any direction except
> straight backwards. A Camel in danger would do the most queer things,
> you never knew what next, especially if the pilot was Tom Cundall."
>
> Great book of WW 1 flying (though I have to admit it is the only
> book
> of WW 1 flight that I have read). In my opinion it does a better job
> with the theme of "fate" than Gann's "Fate is the Hunter" and has
> elements of Heller's "Catch-22" madness. And it predates both of them.
> Considering the kind of machines Yeates and his contemporaries flew,
> it really makes Gann and Heller's protagonists look pampered by
> comparison. All IMHO of course.
>

Ernie Gann's " A gathering of Eagles" is about WW1 and is excellent. The
incoparable "Saggitarius Rising" has to be the best, though. Winged
Warfare by Billy Bishop, also very Good. Rene Fonck's autobiography as
well...


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_22_]]

Michael > wrote in news:37c56b8b-ad8e-
:

> On Jan 24, 12:12*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Sounds about right, but WTF is an L23? I only knew the L13 and I never
>> heard of or saw a later model.
>
> I know the L-13 well, and in my opinion it's the better glider, but
> they're getting old. Think of the L-23 as an unflapped L-13, and that
> will be about right.
>

Yeah, the ones I flew were brand new! Very good aerobatic airplane, too. I
believe they have a limited airframe life because of the very brittle type
of dural they ae made from? I remember one of our's needing major repairs
and the mechanic swearing at the difficult to cut sheet metal....

Bertie

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

Nice to see you back.

Still doing angel flights?

How's the Twinkie doing?

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Jim Logajan" wrote:

> "Winged Victory" by V. M. Yeates

Thx for the tip; I'll get it.

> Great book of WW 1 flying (though I have to admit it is the only book
> of WW 1 flight that I have read).

Try "Goshawk Squadron" by Derek Robinson. Fiction about SE-5s.

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

[Jim Logajan]

Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Ernie Gann's " A gathering of Eagles" is about WW1 and is excellent. The
> incoparable "Saggitarius Rising" has to be the best, though. Winged
> Warfare by Billy Bishop, also very Good. Rene Fonck's autobiography as
> well...

Great. More books to put on my "wish list"! :-)

[Jim Logajan]

"Dan Luke" > wrote:
> "Jim Logajan" wrote:
>
>> "Winged Victory" by V. M. Yeates
>
> Thx for the tip; I'll get it.

I put it on my Amazon "wish list" last year when the poster named Blueskies
mentioned it in a thread about the movie Flyboys:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aviation.piloting/msg/a56157903924aa85

So when I got a Barnes and Nobles gift certificate this holiday I finally
decided to buy it and read it.

>> Great book of WW 1 flying (though I have to admit it is the only book
>> of WW 1 flight that I have read).
>
> Try "Goshawk Squadron" by Derek Robinson. Fiction about SE-5s.

Thanks - will add it to my wish list!

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Peter Dohm" > wrote

> There was supposed to be a logical separation; but, occasionally and on
> some messages, my newsreader fails to highlight the prior message. There
> is clearly a pattern and cause, since a screen test continues to produce
> the same result from some messages; but the pattern is not yet clear. My
> appologies, as I continue to watch for it.

Mine have been doing that, too, but I don't see a pattern, yet.

I think it is in response to some people's posts.
--
Jim in NC

[Bertie the Bunyip[_22_]]

Jim Logajan > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Ernie Gann's " A gathering of Eagles" is about WW1 and is excellent.
>> The incoparable "Saggitarius Rising" has to be the best, though.
>> Winged Warfare by Billy Bishop, also very Good. Rene Fonck's
>> autobiography as well...
>
> Great. More books to put on my "wish list"! :-)

If it has to be one, read Sagitarrious Rising. Cecil Lewis was there and
flew and it's one of the best books of any type I've read.

Bertie

[Peter Dohm]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Peter Dohm" > wrote
>
>> There was supposed to be a logical separation; but, occasionally and on
>> some messages, my newsreader fails to highlight the prior message. There
>> is clearly a pattern and cause, since a screen test continues to produce
>> the same result from some messages; but the pattern is not yet clear. My
>> appologies, as I continue to watch for it.
>
> Mine have been doing that, too, but I don't see a pattern, yet.
>
> I think it is in response to some people's posts.
> --
> Jim in NC
>
Even worse than that, it is only some of some peoples posts. Perhaps it
involves something in, or missing from, a prior post; but so far nothing has
become obvious.

Peter

[Jim Logajan]

Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Ernie Gann's " A gathering of Eagles" is about WW1 and is excellent.

Found "In the Company of Eagles" by Gann; suspect you misremembered the
title?

> The incoparable "Saggitarius Rising" has to be the best, though.

Interesting that Amazon suggests Sagittarius and Winged Victory as a common
pairing.

> Winged
> Warfare by Billy Bishop, also very Good.

Noted.

> Rene Fonck's autobiography as well...

Is that book titled "Ace of Aces" by Capt. Rene Fonck? (There is another
book titled "Ace of Aces" by Jeffers about Eddie Rickenbacker.)

[Jim Logajan]

"Dan Luke" > wrote:
> "Jim Logajan" wrote:
>
>> "Winged Victory" by V. M. Yeates
>
> Thx for the tip; I'll get it.
>
>> Great book of WW 1 flying (though I have to admit it is the only book
>> of WW 1 flight that I have read).
>
> Try "Goshawk Squadron" by Derek Robinson. Fiction about SE-5s.

Thanks - noted. Looks like people who liked Yeates book also like that
book.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_22_]]

Jim Logajan > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Ernie Gann's " A gathering of Eagles" is about WW1 and is excellent.
>
> Found "In the Company of Eagles" by Gann; suspect you misremembered
> the title?


Yes, that's it. The story is perhaps a bit corny, but the imagery is
fantastic, especially the actual combat and flying descriptions. Highly
romanticised.
>
>> The incoparable "Saggitarius Rising" has to be the best, though.
>
> Interesting that Amazon suggests Sagittarius and Winged Victory as a
> common pairing.
>
>> Winged
>> Warfare by Billy Bishop, also very Good.
>
> Noted.
>
>> Rene Fonck's autobiography as well...
>
> Is that book titled "Ace of Aces" by Capt. Rene Fonck? (There is
> another book titled "Ace of Aces" by Jeffers about Eddie
> Rickenbacker.)
>


Yes, I think so. I read it years ago. Fonck is a bit of a braggart, but he
was probably the highest scoring ace of the war ( most of the action tok
place over Germany, so kills were easier to record for the Germans, IIRC
Albert Ball is another contender for that title) But it is a first person
account, as is Bishop's.

[FledgeIII]

On Jan 25, 1:24 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Jim Logajan > wrote :
>
> > Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> Ernie Gann's " A gathering of Eagles" is about WW1 and is excellent.
>
> > Found "In the Company of Eagles" by Gann; suspect you misremembered
> > the title?
>
> Yes, that's it. The story is perhaps a bit corny, but the imagery is
> fantastic, especially the actual combat and flying descriptions. Highly
> romanticised.
>
>
>
>
>
> >> The incoparable "Saggitarius Rising" has to be the best, though.
>
> > Interesting that Amazon suggests Sagittarius and Winged Victory as a
> > common pairing.
>
> >> Winged
> >> Warfare by Billy Bishop, also very Good.
>
> > Noted.
>
> >> Rene Fonck's autobiography as well...
>
> > Is that book titled "Ace of Aces" by Capt. Rene Fonck? (There is
> > another book titled "Ace of Aces" by Jeffers about Eddie
> > Rickenbacker.)
>
> Yes, I think so. I read it years ago. Fonck is a bit of a braggart, but he
> was probably the highest scoring ace of the war ( most of the action tok
> place over Germany, so kills were easier to record for the Germans, IIRC
> Albert Ball is another contender for that title) But it is a first person
> account, as is Bishop's.

Another interesting take on WWI aerial adventures is "Iron Men With
Wooden Wings" by Quentin Reynolds. Definitely long out of print - a
real find if you ever happen across it in a used book store.

[Michael[_1_]]

On Jan 24, 8:21*pm, "Dan Luke" > wrote:
> Nice to see you back.

Yeah, I guess I did vanish for a while. Too much was going on.

> Still doing angel flights?

Not as many as I used to, but I'm hoping that will change.

> How's the Twinkie doing?

2000+ hours on the engines, and still going strong.

Michael

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Michael" wrote:

>> Still doing angel flights?

> Not as many as I used to, but I'm hoping that will change.

Same here. I'm doing some flying for a conservation organization. Can't do
it all.

>> How's the Twinkie doing?

> 2000+ hours on the engines, and still going strong.

Bless her soul.

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM