Inquest results

Post by Surfer!
Http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/northamptonshire/5094056.stm
http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/cms_resources/G-FORS%203-06.pdf
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/northamptonshire/4581851.stm

Sounds to me like the instructor was more interested in showing off his
questionable ability than teaching the guy to fly. Since IIRC far more
people die from being unable to recover from an intentional spin than die
from an inadvertent one I can't see the point in spinning anyway. To devise
your own type of 'oscillatory' spin and then demonstrate it to ab-initio
students seems to me ludicrous and, certainly in this case, dangerous.

During 'normal' flying IMHO the place you're most likely to get in a spin is
too near the ground to expect to recover anyway. Time spent teaching
avoidance and recovery at or before the incipient stage beats wasting time
spinning for the hell of it.

And yes, I was 'taught' spinning by a chap who was also very interested in
showing me how good he was. He also died a few years later in an air
accident, pushing his luck.

Rgds

Andy R

Surfer!

2006-06-20 11:05:59 UTC

In message <***@individual.net>, Andy R <***@ukhome.net>
writes

Oscillatory stall, but it does talk a lot about spinning. My reading
was that the stalling lead to the spin.

Post by Andy R
and then demonstrate it to ab-initio
students seems to me ludicrous and, certainly in this case, dangerous.
During 'normal' flying IMHO the place you're most likely to get in a spin is
too near the ground to expect to recover anyway. Time spent teaching
avoidance and recovery at or before the incipient stage beats wasting time
spinning for the hell of it.
And yes, I was 'taught' spinning by a chap who was also very interested in
showing me how good he was. He also died a few years later in an air
accident, pushing his luck.

They guys building up to going solo in the Junior (glider) keep talking
about having to do spinning...

--
Surfer!
Email to: ramwater at uk2 dot net

Dave

2006-06-20 11:55:52 UTC

Sounds to me like the instructor was more interested in showing off his
questionable ability than teaching the guy to fly. Since IIRC far more
people die from being unable to recover from an intentional spin than die
from an inadvertent one I can't see the point in spinning anyway. To devise
your own type of 'oscillatory' spin and then demonstrate it to ab-initio
students seems to me ludicrous and, certainly in this case, dangerous.
During 'normal' flying IMHO the place you're most likely to get in a spin is
too near the ground to expect to recover anyway. Time spent teaching
avoidance and recovery at or before the incipient stage beats wasting time
spinning for the hell of it.
And yes, I was 'taught' spinning by a chap who was also very interested in
showing me how good he was. He also died a few years later in an air
accident, pushing his luck.
Rgds
Andy R

What additional information do you have to justify your judgement that
one of the people who died was "showing off" or had devised their "own
type of oscillatory spin (sic)"?
The report says the instructor was "conscientious".
Whilst I have never heard the manouevre called "oscillatory stalling"
until this incident, the practice of picking up a dropped wing with
rudder used to be widely taught and is probably the same as the classic
"falling leaf" manouevre that's been known since about 1915 and is still
taught on handling courses.

On your comment about spin training ... it has the same benefits as any
other training: it develops handling skills, improves airmanship and
makes people better pilots who are more aware. Someone who has read
about spin recovery but has not been trained is unlikely to recover if
they need to do so. Like everything else in life it carries risk and
like everything else in life we manage the risk.

And on the final comment about your own instructor: "very interested in
showing <you> how good he was" and "died ... pushing his luck"; you
obviously have no qualms about denigrating the reputations of those that
can't fight back.

Dave

Andy R

2006-06-20 13:00:42 UTC

Sounds to me like the instructor was more interested in showing off his
questionable ability than teaching the guy to fly. Since IIRC far more
people die from being unable to recover from an intentional spin than die
from an inadvertent one I can't see the point in spinning anyway. To
devise your own type of 'oscillatory' spin and then demonstrate it to
ab-initio students seems to me ludicrous and, certainly in this case,
dangerous.
During 'normal' flying IMHO the place you're most likely to get in a spin
is too near the ground to expect to recover anyway. Time spent teaching
avoidance and recovery at or before the incipient stage beats wasting
time spinning for the hell of it.
And yes, I was 'taught' spinning by a chap who was also very interested
in showing me how good he was. He also died a few years later in an air
accident, pushing his luck.
Rgds
Andy R

What additional information do you have to justify your judgement that one
of the people who died was "showing off" or had devised their "own type of
oscillatory spin (sic)"?

Yep, hands up, I read this report some time ago and didn't read much of it
again when responding to the o/p:-(
I was confusing this with another report about a spinning accident therefore
a lot of what I wrote doesn't apply to this.

The report says the instructor was "conscientious".

It also said the oscillatory manoevre was unnecessary and inappropriate and
no reference to it could be found in the UK PPL syllabus. Therefore, why
was he doing it?

Whilst I have never heard the manouevre called "oscillatory stalling"
until this incident, the practice of picking up a dropped wing with rudder
used to be widely taught and is probably the same as the classic "falling
leaf" manouevre that's been known since about 1915 and is still taught on
handling courses.

But not to ab-initio students.

On your comment about spin training ... it has the same benefits as any
other training: it develops handling skills, improves airmanship and makes
people better pilots who are more aware. Someone who has read about spin
recovery but has not been trained is unlikely to recover if they need to
do so. Like everything else in life it carries risk and like everything
else in life we manage the risk.

We'll have to agree to differ on whether spin recovery training is necessary
or statistically likely to save more lives that it takes.

And on the final comment about your own instructor: "very interested in
showing <you> how good he was" and "died ... pushing his luck"; you
obviously have no qualms about denigrating the reputations of those that
can't fight back.

The very fact that I haven't given you any clues as to who he was negates
your last point.

Rgds

Andy R

David Cartwright

2006-06-20 13:17:36 UTC

Post by Andy R
It also said the oscillatory manoevre was unnecessary and inappropriate
and no reference to it could be found in the UK PPL syllabus. Therefore,
why was he doing it?

There is not necessarily any harm in doing stuff that's not in the PPL
syllabus. In this case, in hindsight, it appears that the inclusion of this
exercise is commonly considered unwise, but that's not always the case. For
example, at about 40 hours into my PPL I remember spending a couple of
entertaining (though rather grey) hours being vectored around in real IMC,
then having a bash at an ILS approach, then going "missed", then watching
the master at work in the right-hand seat as he pulled off an impeccable ILS
approach to pop out of the clouds at 400 feet (ATC and the met people said
it was 800', so we figured we'd have a go and head for our the glorious blue
skies at our alternate if we couldn't get in) and hand over to me for the
landing. That wasn't in the syllabus either, but it was fantastically
valuable in proving that this instrumentation lark really does work like it
says in the book.

Post by Dave
Whilst I have never heard the manouevre called "oscillatory stalling"
until this incident, the practice of picking up a dropped wing with
rudder used to be widely taught and is probably the same as the classic
"falling leaf" manouevre that's been known since about 1915 and is still
taught on handling courses.

But not to ab-initio students.

Correct. Let's face it, a wing-dropping stall is the one that'll bite you on
the bum as you come round onto the final approach at 500 feet. The point is
that stuff should be taught at a stage in the course where the student is
able to comprehend it and deal with it.

D.

Peter

2006-06-20 14:16:26 UTC

Post by David Cartwright
There is not necessarily any harm in doing stuff that's not in the PPL
syllabus. In this case, in hindsight, it appears that the inclusion of this
exercise is commonly considered unwise, but that's not always the case. For
example, at about 40 hours into my PPL I remember spending a couple of
entertaining (though rather grey) hours being vectored around in real IMC,
then having a bash at an ILS approach, then going "missed", then watching
the master at work in the right-hand seat as he pulled off an impeccable ILS
approach to pop out of the clouds at 400 feet (ATC and the met people said
it was 800', so we figured we'd have a go and head for our the glorious blue
skies at our alternate if we couldn't get in) and hand over to me for the
landing. That wasn't in the syllabus either, but it was fantastically
valuable in proving that this instrumentation lark really does work like it
says in the book.

What he showed you could save your life one day, and if you don't do
what most new PPLs do pretty fast (stop flying for good) then it is
virtually certain that instrument training (legit or not) will one day
save your skin.

But this is not in the same league as spin training, which will never
save your life.

Unless you enter a spin at 15,000 feet (or whatever the aircraft
ceiling is) as a result of stalling the thing trying to do some
altitude record :)

Peter

2006-06-20 14:14:05 UTC

Post by Andy R
We'll have to agree to differ on whether spin recovery training is necessary
or statistically likely to save more lives that it takes.

The only place where a pilot should ever enter a spin is on the base
to final turn.

Everywhere else he will be going much too fast to stall, never mind
spin.

And a spin at the point referred to can't be recovered as there is not
enough height.

It would be better to teach proper use of the elevator trim - this is
an absolute prerequisite to maintaining a safe speed during all phases
of flight.

The FAA looked into this and found spin recovery is a waste of time,
and that is how the Cirrus aeroplanes got certified (with the BRS
chute). I posted the a reference for the data behind this here some
time ago.

Chris Cheney

2006-06-21 17:31:13 UTC

Post by Peter
The only place where a pilot should ever enter a spin is on the base
to final turn.
Everywhere else he will be going much too fast to stall, never mind
spin.

What you write might be true in powered aeroplanes, but the OP is a(n ab
initio) glider pilot. Glider pilots thermal at around min. sink speed, not
much higher than the stall speed. Consequently, spin recovery is taught and
checked in gliding.

Surfer!

2006-06-23 14:28:59 UTC

Post by Chris Cheney

Post by Peter
The only place where a pilot should ever enter a spin is on the base
to final turn.
Everywhere else he will be going much too fast to stall, never mind
spin.

I posted the original URL simply as a matter of interest. The idea of
getting into a spin in a thermal is horrible as there might well be
someone below you - for landing, we fly somewhat faster (55 knots in the
K21) that a general drifting around speed.

--
Surfer!
Email to: ramwater at uk2 dot net

B S D Chapman

2006-06-24 09:48:16 UTC

Post by Peter

Post by Andy R
We'll have to agree to differ on whether spin recovery training is necessary
or statistically likely to save more lives that it takes.

The only place where a pilot should ever enter a spin is on the base
to final turn.

I disagree strongly.
See the report for the Europa accident at Kemble last year.

Through my own stupidity, I went incipient in the Jodel once. Fortunately,
thanks to my training, I instictivly recognised and recovered from the
situation. If you haven't seen it before, you wouldn't INSTANTLY know wtf
was going on, and there isn't time to sit back and evaluate. No nose drop
(nose already low), speed not particularly low, just simple control
reversal... I bet most PPLs would put it down to strong turbulence and
push in more aileron.

And if you ever try steep/max rate turns in a Firefly, you'd better have
had some incipient spin training first, else you'll have a huge bruise
from the bite.

--
PERCUSSIVE MAINTENANCE:
The fine art of whacking the cr*p out of an electronic device to get it to
work again.

Peter

2006-06-24 12:39:11 UTC

Post by Peter
The only place where a pilot should ever enter a spin is on the base
to final turn.

I disagree strongly.
See the report for the Europa accident at Kemble last year.

Perhaps I should have added "during normal operations".

Post by B S D Chapman
Through my own stupidity, I went incipient in the Jodel once. Fortunately,
thanks to my training, I instictivly recognised and recovered from the
situation. If you haven't seen it before, you wouldn't INSTANTLY know wtf
was going on, and there isn't time to sit back and evaluate. No nose drop
(nose already low), speed not particularly low, just simple control
reversal... I bet most PPLs would put it down to strong turbulence and
push in more aileron.
And if you ever try steep/max rate turns in a Firefly, you'd better have
had some incipient spin training first, else you'll have a huge bruise
from the bite.

If you want to push aeroplanes to and beyond their limits, rather than
just fly them, then you need to know how they behave at and beyond
their limits. That's fair enough. Also if you fly types that have
unusual or weird behaviour, you need to know about that.

But during normal operations in normal FAR-23 aeroplanes you should
never be anywhere near the stall, never mind a spin.

B S D Chapman

2006-06-27 08:28:14 UTC

Post by Peter

Post by Peter
The only place where a pilot should ever enter a spin is on the base
to final turn.

I disagree strongly.
See the report for the Europa accident at Kemble last year.

Perhaps I should have added "during normal operations".

What is less normal about spinning on departure than spinning in on final?

--
PERCUSSIVE MAINTENANCE:
The fine art of whacking the cr*p out of an electronic device to get it to
work again.

Andy R

2006-06-27 08:45:59 UTC

Post by Peter

Post by Peter
The only place where a pilot should ever enter a spin is on the base
to final turn.

I disagree strongly.
See the report for the Europa accident at Kemble last year.

Perhaps I should have added "during normal operations".

What is less normal about spinning on departure than spinning in on final?

It's cheaper on departure. At Southend you'd get charged as soon as you
started the approach.

Rgds

Andy R

Peter

2006-06-27 09:06:13 UTC

Post by Peter
Perhaps I should have added "during normal operations".

What is less normal about spinning on departure than spinning in on final?

I think we all know what we are talking about, so why get into this
bouncing backwards and forwards?

Pre-takeoff, one sets the elevator trim to the takeoff position. This
will ensure that aeroplane can't stall *by itself*. It will come back
down pretty swiftly if you get an engine failure, but it will *fly* at
the trimmed speed. That's why trimming is so important. I was never
taught this in the PPL; the trim was presented as merely a means of
adjusting-out the yoke pressure (which is also true but is hardly the
real reason for having a trim).

Same with the approach. If you trim to say 90kt or whatever for the
downwind leg, then the plane will FLY AT 90KT, no more and no less. A
plane will fly at the trimmed speed, even if it doesn't have an
engine. (An engine just allows you to climb, and costs a load of
money, that's all).

At takeoff, one normally climbs straight ahead, wings level, full
power, then gently turns onto some other heading, and eventually one
transitions into a cruise climb, or perhaps just levels off. There
isn't a whole lot of potential for stalling. And if you did stall/spin
at takeoff, you will plummet so fast you won't have time to realise
what's happening, never mind implement some sort of spin recovery.

The place where a pilot might stall/spin is on the base to final turn
which, if misjudged, can result in a tightening turn to get back into
the runway centreline. We could argue what is a reasonable maneuver or
not, or a "legitimate error" but this is IMHO by far the most ripe
area for stalling.

That's why I fly downwind at 100kt, base at 90kt, turn to final at
90kt, full flaps then bring it back to 80kt (my stall speed then is
59kt). A nice safe margin. Just don't do it at Stapleford :)

If you do non-normal operations then that IMHO is called "aerobatics"
and the pilot should get special training. Same for flying types that
have weird behaviour.

David Cartwright

2006-06-20 13:05:51 UTC