![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article , Andrew Warbrick
writes snip I won't let a spin demo go beyond the incipient stage below 1500', but then, I'm a wimp. Dear Andrew, You are not a wimp, you are sensible and alive. And so are your students. Having flown many spins in a military training environment, there was always a "golden rule" on recovery heights. Heights for spin entry and minimum heights for recovery were always such that if recovery had not taken place, there was sufficient height to bale out or eject as appropriate. I speak of the fully-developed spin, of course. Bale-out heights were, to my recollection, something like 4000 ft for a Harvard and Jet Provost and no less than 12000 ft for a Hunter. I recall a Hunter spin bottom out once at 6000 ft but passing 12 it was recovering so the crew stuck with it. They started at 35k, by the way! It is this simple safety rule that some parts of the gliding world seem to have forgotten. An instructional cult seems to have grown up in some places that seems to think that low level spinning is an absolute necessity to teach student pilots of the dangers. I instructed in gliders for 35 years and IMHO, it is not necessary. Recovery from fully-developed spins can be taught at a safe height just as in other branches of aviation. There is nothing "macho" about spinning too low, just a failure to understand the dynamics of the manoeuvre and the possible dangers not only to the instructor but to the innocent student. In any case, the emphasis in instruction should be on quick recovery at the wing-drop or incipient stage before the spin has developed fully. THAT should be practised very regularly and full multi-turn spins only rarely to show what can happen if the correct actions are not taken early enough. I have even heard it said by some instructors that deliberate low level spinning is required because the student must experience the visual "ground rush" that he/she would get in a real situation of an inadvertent spin at low level. This is a good way to an early grave, particularly if something happens in one of these low level spins such as control failure, rudder cable slackness, or even as simple as someone's foot trapped the wrong side of a rudder pedal. Also, spins are not regular reliable manoeuvres with streamlined stable airflow, they are complex interactions between turbulent (stalled) airflow, significant control moments and inertia/gyroscopic effects. Occasionally, for no particular reason other than statistics, a spin will go deeper into the stall (high alpha) than normal, and recovery will be delayed. Think of this before continuing a deliberate fully-developed spin below the height above the hard stuff at which it would be possible to bale out if the recovery were to go wrong. There are old pilots and there are bold pilots, but there are few old, bold, pilots. An aviation truism, I think. Me, I'm old but still here and enjoying cross country soaring! -- Ian Strachan |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
Who's At Fault in UAV/Part91 MAC? | Larry Dighera | Instrument Flight Rules | 24 | April 29th 04 03:08 PM |
Single-Seat Accident Records (Was BD-5B) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 41 | November 20th 03 05:39 AM |
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools | RT | Military Aviation | 104 | September 25th 03 03:17 PM |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Piloting | 25 | September 11th 03 01:27 PM |