A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Newbie Qs on stalls and spins



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old November 17th 04, 08:02 PM
Stefan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ramapriya wrote:

Oh, so the ones that become transport aircraft pilots don't ever get
to practice stall and spin recoveries, then? That'd make me more
jittery before going on a plane the next time...


I think most of them train stalls in the simulator on a regular basis.
Spins however... I might be wrong, but to my knowledge, most transport
category airplanes would break on spin recovery.

Stefan

  #22  
Old November 17th 04, 08:12 PM
John Galban
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Morgans" wrote in message ...
Besides, spins are aerobatic maneuvers and you are required to have
parachutes unless you are doing it as part of a certificate or rating.


Nope - you don't need to be "doing it as part of a certificate or rating".

Hilton

Cites please?


I believe he's referring to 91.307(c). It says :

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

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

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

"C" basically restricts the rule to pilots of aircraft that are
carrying persons other than crewmembers. So, I can go out and spin my
Cherokee solo, but if I'm carrying a passenger, we both require
chutes. Then there is another exception :

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

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

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

(i) A certificated flight instructor; or

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

So, the parachute rule also does not apply if I'm doing a flight
test, or if I'm performing spins or other maneuvers required for any
certificate or rating, as long as there's an instructor. It doesn't
say that I have to be in training for a particular rating. The (2)
part of the rule excepts the type of manuevers, it doesn't require
that you be training for a specific rating.

This rule allows an instructor to demonstrate a spin to a PPL
student without requiring that they wear parachutes. Even though
there is no spin training required in the PPL, the maneuver itself is
allowed because it is "required by the regulations for any certificate
or rating".

To me (not being a CFI), this means that I can spin my Cherokee
without chutes either solo, or with an instructor, but if the person
in the next seat is not an instructor or ATP, chutes are required.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)
  #23  
Old November 17th 04, 08:28 PM
Gary Drescher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"John Galban" wrote in message
m...
To me (not being a CFI), this means that I can spin my Cherokee
without chutes either solo, or with an instructor,


Are there Cherokees that permit intentional spins? The Arrow and Warrior
POHs prohibit them.

--Gary


  #24  
Old November 17th 04, 11:14 PM
David CL Francis
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 at 09:43:22 in message
, Bob Gardner
wrote:

You will never experience a stall in a "commercial"
aircraft.


If you do you may not survive it.

Ref: Air Disaster Volume 3 by Macarthur Job
April 26. 1994 A300 Airbus flying from Yaipei to Nagoya in Japan.

On approach to land in clear conditions at night and fully configured
for landing it passed the outer marker. But 3nm from touch down it
briefly levelled off. Descent continued but at decreasing speed and nose
up pitch increased. At 1nm and 500ft to go engine power was increased,
then after a brief interval cut again.

Several seconds later power was increased again and it nosed up into a
steep climb. The crew called 'Going around' but the climb increase
sharply. It climber steeper and steeper with the speed falling and after
gaining 1500ft it stalled. The nose came up a bit after the stall but it
struck the ground very hard. Only 7 passengers survived out of 256.

It is easy to write the above bare facts, what happened required a lot
of pages to explain. It depended on not recognising what was happening,
misunderstanding whether or not the autopilot was engaged and a
misunderstanding of how the aircraft would respond with the autopilot
engaged. Except in Land and Go Around mode the auto pilot disconnects
when force is applied to the control column. In those modes the
autopilot reacts by changing the tail plane trim to cancel the crew
input. It seems the Go Around Lever may have been accidentally engaged.


--
David CL Francis
  #25  
Old November 18th 04, 03:00 AM
Andrew Sarangan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

OK OK... What I meant was, every normal landing (other than short field
techniques) would involve a stall. I guess I have to be more careful in
my choice of words :-)



"Peter Duniho" wrote in
:

"Andrew Sarangan" wrote in message
7...

I have to respectfully disagree. A short field landing is where you
plonk the airplane on the runway while it still has some flying
speed.


Sorry...weren't you the guy who just today posted "every landing
involves a stall"?

Usenet's going to be just that much less fun if you picking apart your
*own* posts.

Anyway, to each their own regarding technique. However, with a nice
steep approach and low airspeed, you can have both minimum flying
speed (or even a stall), and still have a rapid flare with no float.
It's all about keeping your approach speed sufficiently slow.

Yes, if you fly your approach at 1.3 Vs0, a full stall landing will
mean a nice long float. But that's not the correct airspeed for a
short field landing.

Anyway, I take it you now agree with what was my main point: that it's
NOT true that "every landing involves a stall". Thank you for your
cooperation.


Pete



  #26  
Old November 18th 04, 03:41 AM
Morgans
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"John Galban" wrote

To me (not being a CFI), this means that I can spin my Cherokee
without chutes either solo, or with an instructor, but if the person
in the next seat is not an instructor or ATP, chutes are required.

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


So CFI's get to do stuff that we can not do without them. With no chutes,
CFI's and students, and others all splat the same. Just a comment.
--
Jim in NC


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.797 / Virus Database: 541 - Release Date: 11/15/2004


  #27  
Old November 18th 04, 05:37 AM
G.R. Patterson III
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Andrew Sarangan wrote:

OK OK... What I meant was, every normal landing (other than short field
techniques) would involve a stall. I guess I have to be more careful in
my choice of words :-)


No, you have to take another look at it. NO normal landing involves a stall.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.
  #28  
Old November 18th 04, 07:14 AM
Peter Duniho
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Andrew Sarangan" wrote in message
1...
OK OK... What I meant was, every normal landing (other than short field
techniques) would involve a stall.


See George's post. Your modified statement is still incorrect.


  #29  
Old November 18th 04, 03:26 PM
Bill Denton
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Well, from what I understand, the generally accepted aviation definition of
a "stall" is when a lifting portion of the aircraft is no longer lifting.

Given that, if the lifting parts never stalled the aircraft would never stop
flying.




"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...


Andrew Sarangan wrote:

OK OK... What I meant was, every normal landing (other than short field
techniques) would involve a stall. I guess I have to be more careful in
my choice of words :-)


No, you have to take another look at it. NO normal landing involves a

stall.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to

have
been looking for it.



  #30  
Old November 18th 04, 05:28 PM
John Galban
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message ...

Are there Cherokees that permit intentional spins? The Arrow and Warrior
POHs prohibit them.


Yes. It depends on the year and equipment configuration. Most
-140s are approved for intentional spins in the Utility category.
Many early body (pre '73) Cherokee -180s were also approved for
intentional spins in the Utility category. In '73 the -180 fuselage
was stretched 5 inches, which moved the C.G. back and intentional
spins were no longer approved. The Archer and Warrior both use the
longer fuselage and are not approved.

Note : There are some exceptions for -140 and -180 models equipped
with the large fresh air blower in the tail. You should check the
paperwork and placards on an individual airplane to determine if it is
approved. Also, the PA28 is very sensitive to C.G. in a spin. W&B
MUST be in the Utility category.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
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
All I Wanted For Christmas Were Inverted Spins [email protected] Aerobatics 3 December 29th 04 07:40 PM
Spin Training Captain Wubba Piloting 25 April 12th 04 02:11 PM
Cessna 150 Price Outlook Charles Talleyrand Owning 80 October 16th 03 02:18 PM
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) Rich Stowell Piloting 25 September 11th 03 01:27 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:34 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.