Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Spinning in a C152 - beyond immediate recovery

But what worries me more than anything is that the prerequisites for becoming an instructor have been lowered to a ridiculous level.

I did the IR course with a bunch of ATPL ab-initio youngsters in 2011. They were 18-19 years old and writing each other letters and catapulting paper balls with rulers. All but two had zero experience flying any type of aircraft but there was one super whizz with 10 000h of MS Flight Simulator experience, bragging about how he flew a B747 in real time to Australia and how he solved several engine problems during that trip...

Today almost all of them are done with the training. None of them has a cockpit job so far. One of them was sent to an FI course and then "employed" by the very same FTO as a PPL FI.

Yes, you are right. This is worrisome.

ADDENDUM for Cobalt: I just downloaded the POH of the C152 from our FTO website because I didn't have it on this computer yet: Spinning with flaps extended is NOT ALLOWED with this aircraft!

Somebody should have told the aircraft. I thought it was clear that this was the result of a stalling exercise that went wrong, since I do not believe in

...teaching sissy stalls -- as soon as the Cessna toots, push the nose down.

Neither do I believe in exceeding limitations. If you fly into a fully developed stall the wing can drop, and that can lead to a spin if mis-handled. Hence the perfectly sensible mandatory spin recovery training for instructors.

BTW - that limitation is due to the risk of exceeding Vfe in the recovery.

I did spin training in the C152 as part of my PPL at a well known FTO at your homebase EDDS. There was no placard about intentional spinning and it was an exercise well worth it. I have to say that the CFI asked me whether I want to do it.

There was an AD addressing faulty rudder stops which could jam the rudder fully deflected / over-deflected, which I believe gave the option of modifying the rudder stops or placarding the aircraft spinning prohibited. All the C152's we fly have that mod installed [the CFI and I checked before we went spinning]. There were a couple of fatal accidents linked to jammed pro-spin rudders.

As I remember the old US/Canadian study AeroPlus is referring to, the risk increase from spin training does not come from training accidents, but from spin trained pilots spinning after obtaining the license. The study showed a surprising risk increase after spin training, even after correcting for aircraft types and kinds of operation.

Any idea where to find this? This is probably the most convincing argument, other than the opinion here being 90% against, with achima being the only exception...

Biggin Hill

If you fly into a fully developed stall the wing can drop, and that can lead to a spin if mis-handled. Hence the perfectly sensible mandatory spin recovery training for instructors.

There are two completely different mindsets here. I/we (the followers of the stall avoidance approach) will not let a fully developed stall happen. The best recovery technique is useless if someone stalls at low level, and this is where most stall accidents happen. Instead we teach how to stay well clear from the stall. And therefore I couldn't care less what the possible results of a fully developed stall might be. Just like converting students to retractable types. We teach them to always land with the gear extended. Not what do to in case they forget to lower it ...

Mind you, I have been instructing before our rulemakers shifted the focus from stall recovery to stall avoidance. I have had my fair share of fully developed stalls gone wrong. Including flipping inverted (in a 17000 hour C150 that didn't have much in common any more with the aircraft that left the factory 25 years earlier) or pulling an undertermined number of g's to get out of the past Vne dives that can result from poorly handled stalls. This didn't teach the students anything other than (hopefully) getting scared enough to stay well clear of stalls...

EDDS - Stuttgart

This "flying in the comfort zone" approach to instruction has other consequences, too. I have observed that today's instructors often tell students to add a few knots on top of the approach speed given in the POH for safety. You can see that very often with Cirrus pilots who -- even after years -- are in awe of the aircraft and think it will do very bad things if they come near 1.3 * Vso. This can have bad consequences because they are nowhere near the POH distances for landing and they don't have the feel of the machine.

It is very prominent in the US where runways are long. I was shocked when I rented a C172 last year and the company slapped a "no runway under 3000ft" sticker on my checkout form, not listening to my protest and reference to sufficient hours and a homebase much shorter than that. During checkout, the FI considered 70KIAS to be a good approach speed. Ugh.

It is my gut feeling that these kinds of pilots end up causing the Air France and Asiana types of accidents...

PS: What does the "recover when Cessna toots" type of pilot that has never experienced a stall in his life do when the horn doesn't work? When he hears buffeting, he will think this refers to a billionaire from Omaha...

I have observed that today's instructors often tell students to add a few knots on top of the approach speed given in the POH for safety.

Not "a few knots". There are two speeds, Vref which is 1.3 times the stall speed in the chosen landing configuration and Vtgt which has the extra few knots added for wind and gusts. How many knots depends on the wind speed and gusts. POH landing distances are calculated for overflying the threshold at 50 ft with Vref, adding 1/2 of the wind speed will not increase the landing distance by a single meter because your ground speed will still be lower than Vref. Plain and simple. That is now taught from day one. And no: This is NOT what is causing the Air France and Asiana types of accidents, because it trains pilots to look at their airspeed indicator frequently. And approaches with (simulated) defective ASI are of course taught as well as is short field landing technique (all part of the training syllabus which you should be familiar with).

PS: What does the "recover when Cessna toots" type of pilot that has never experienced a stall in his life do when the horn doesn't work? When he hears buffeting, he will think this refers to a billionaire from Omaha...

The patter that goes along with the stall exercises (which is exactly! the same for PPL and IR and ME and Jet training and checkrides) goes like this: "Clean/Approach configuration stall: Will recover at end of green/white arc or stall warning (stick shaker for the jet) or buffeting, whichever occurs first". And of course we fail them the stall warner and the ASI from time to time so that they will learn to recocgnise all three indications. That is of course also a point where those poor souls of Air France guys simply picked the wrong day, as their stick shaker and ASI were driven by the same faulty sensors and the airframe buffeting could not be felt because they were in the middle of an enourmously large line of thunderstorms (and this was their real big mistake: To fly right into this storm).

EDDS - Stuttgart

Hm. The EASA PPL syllabus requires recovery from a fully developed stall in clean configuration, while recoveries at the first indication are taught for stalls in the approach/landing configuration. Is that not taught that way in Germany? (SEP, not jets, of course)

The base-to-final stall (approach flap and partial power) appears not to be in the EASA syllabus, strangely enough as this is the one that probably the most dangerous in real life (as well as the one that gets the "best"/"worst" wing drop in a 152 if done to the left). It is certainly part of our training syllabus, though.

Biggin Hill

I'm with the pro-practice faction here - anything that can be experienced first hand, with the relative safety of an experienced FI on the right seat, should be done then and not at some point later in the flying career when many PPL flyers go down to 20h/year and (if it already came to a hairy situation) most likely are over their capacity anyways.

I'm not expecting that spin practice will save a guy every time - but I certainly remember that I was surprised the first time my FI showed me spin entry, and I'm glad I've had the chance to experience that during training, under supervision. Will probably ask for a refresher on my next checkride, too. We have C152 Aerobat at our flight school, which is just fine for this sort of exercise... and it wasn't really hard to get out of those spins either, once I got over the initial surprise at how quickly a nose can drop when lift is gone for good.

The way I see it, having done this sort of thing in training is one more tool in the box that might come in handy one day. So why not put it in there? I'm thinking about getting a taildwheel endorsement too, plus maybe aerobatics training - not because I'm going to start fooling around on my own in an Extra anytime soon, but again - tools in the box (so if anyone knows e.g. a Decathlon located within easy reach of EDDS and a good FI along with that... ;-) ).

Also I'd have liked to go real IMC during training, at least once, before stumbling into something on my own one day. Instead I've taken away a healthy respect of clouds and weather, probably to a point where some people would laugh me out of the room.

EDDS, Germany

I don't understand why you would want to execute a (fully developed) spin in a non-aerobatic aircraft, without a parachute and no accelerometer? What about the poor s*d who has to fly the same aircraft after you? How does s/he know the airframe hasn't been stressed beyond POH g limits?

I'm a firm believer in proper equipment and a properly trained aerobatic instructor for aerobatic manoeuvres.

Bordeaux

Is that not taught that way in Germany?

This is what the training syllabus says verbatim (first introduction of these exercises at around the 10th flying hour and mandatory before flying solo), underlining by me:

"Practical introduction to hazards: Basic stalling and recovery will be demonstrated. Stalling in different configurations. Recovery from the incipient stall will be demonstrated. After this demonstration stall entries have to be practised up to the first signs of loss of lift. Recovery from clean stall. Recovery from landing configuration stall. Recovery from stall during turn. Recovery from bank> 45° with nose up or down."

The training manual describes the exercises in detail (German only, too busy to translate now). There is no mention of a fully developed stall, only the incipient stall (whatever that might be is up the the instructor I suppose - I read it as pronounced buffeting and maybewing rocking, but certainly no wing or nose drop).

EDDS - Stuttgart

Will probably ask for a refresher on my next checkride, too. We have C152 Aerobat at our flight school, which is just fine for this sort of exercise.

Perfect aeroplane for the job! If a pilot asks me to do the bi-annual training flight with him and brings along such an aircraft, I will happily do spin entries and exits with him. For the full sixty minutes - or whatever time it takes for him to get sufficiently airsick to stop by himself. But not with a normal PPL student on the normal training program with our normal training aircraft.

Also I'd have liked to go real IMC during training, at least once...

This has been part of the JAR/EASA PPL training syllabus since the introduction of JAR-FCL. Up to eight hours, five of which can be flown using a simulator (minimum FNPT II): "Control and performance concept: Aircraft control only by instrument references; straight level flights and turns inclusive 180° back track turns; climbs and descents"

EDDS - Stuttgart
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top