Spins

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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)

"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.... ;-)

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.

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