turboplanner

Thanks DJP, that should bring us back to reality.

Jeez Hiho, now look what you've done. ditDot's like a penny rolling down the street.

Since it seems that we are discussing spins, I have a question...... What the hell does CASA expect of a non spin trained pilot who finds them selves in a spin.

There shouldn't be too many of those if they've been trained in responding to Incipient spins though, or am I the only one who's received training.

It was running hot in Poets' Corner, but the big sub was rolling aimlessly in circles.

The group had left Japan two months ago but were yet to get into Australian waters.

The poems came to an instant stop when the sensitive listening devices picked up the sound of an approaching Nuclear Sub skippered by Svetlana Kapanina.

ditDot immediately forgot about poetry and disobeying orders, tapped out an enquiry to Svetlana - the sort of enquiry he used with success at the BNS scene.

NYET! came back the response and that was the end of that romance.

The big sub relentlessly surged closer; what were they to do?

Regards engine power:

Lots is good,

 

more is better,

 

and too much is just enough.

 

 

 

but none is not good

Then there was Planey

Who was totally insaney

Called Tomo a flyer

Who was just a crier

and rolled the old story ahead

Did you see the little message she sent me in the first video?

I'd kill for a Nobel peace prize.

"Le quotations de Hiho est getting Longet et Longet"

Most AC have to be deliberately held in the spin and many will not stay in the the spin more than a couple of revolutions e.g. the Cessna 150.

The AC is simply stalled during spins it is under very little stress and therefore it will not fly to bits...lets clear that up right now or we will have paranoid RAA pilots scared XXXXless about spinning and we don't want that.

 

Let us clear this up, it is the spin recovery that can overstress the AC not the spin itself.

 

Spin training should be mandatory but it isn't.

I'm guilty of an earlier generalisation.

To get a clear understanding we should separate the incipient spin from the spin, and separate the spin from the pilot's reactive input.

In the incipient spin, where correct control action is applied quickly, I'd agree there is very little G force, but my feeling is it's more than the 2G felt at 60 degrees of bank. So no reason for an aircraft to suffer strain or break up.

The operative word is "correct control action" and when that is taught by a qualified instructor and the pilot has recency, he/she has a good chance of a safe recovery virtually anywhere down to Final in the circuit.

For that reason I'm a strong promoter of training in Incipient Spins, which I've received in both GA and Rec Aviation.

Incipient spins only involve a part rotation, but that's plenty to teach you the correct control inputs.

I Your suggestion that spin training should be mandatory poses a problem for RA pilots, which came to light in a similoar thread on aerobatics. We don't have suitable aircraft in the schools and it would involve the extra expense of being trained by an aerobatics endorsed trainer in an aerobatic aircraft.

Given the reaction of one of our members who did an aerobatics course, it's something to be recommended, and which would make you a more experienced pilot, but I'd suggest the incipient spin training we get shows us how to recognise a developing spin and take corrective action.

In the spin itself, I'd agree that theoretically since one wing is stalled and the other is free to rise there's no stress there either - in the early stages and before the pilot comes into the equation.

To you, with your experience, I imagine an unexpected spin coming on would be a routine experience which you would react to subconsciously with correct control inputs.

However, on this forum we have a lot of people who have never experienced one, and have not been trained on recovery from incipient spins.

They may freeze, and let the aircraft exceed VNE, or they may try to get the ground out of their face too soon, and both those actions can break the aircraft up.

I realise that's what you are saying, and I'm not disagreeing with you, just emphasising that we have to allow for the early solo student, who will not know what to do if he/she gets a little tight turning final etc. so it should not be passed off lightly.

Your comment that a C150 will noty stay in a spin for more than a couple of revolutions is not correct as one young man could attest to if he was here, but he died after spinning vertically down from 1000 feet, neatly drilling the ground spinner first, with all debris confined to a radius of about 4 metres.

This aircraft didn't break up in flight, but went in with full up elevator, almost certainly because he had never been trained in spin recovery.

If that can happen in an aircraft with millions of dollars spent on it's design, then I'd argue that whatever the placard said, no pilot should be entertaining the thought that "well it doesn't stop me trying out an unintentional spin"

I also have an issue with the theme from some pilots (I notice they are usually the same people) who maintain that they can conduct aerobatics, spins etc with no unsafe stress to the aircraft.

No one that I know of has a G Meter in their posterior wired to their brain, and if highly trained and skilled aerobatic pilots fit a G Meter to their aircraft to record high loadings, I'd suggest its very unrealiable for a recreational pilot to think he can judge G forces accurately once his adrenaline is running and the aircraft starts rotating.

As an example, there were many times when I would go out in a race car for four or five runs in a night, and if you asked me at the end of the night how it went I'd have said the track was smooth and no one hit me.

However the next day in the shower I'd be black and blue down one side from being thrown against the side of the car by the G forces.

So just because you've done something and the aircraft still appears to be unstressed, you can't be sure without a metallurgical examination.

For those who say this thread is separate from aircraft operations and is just about grammar on a placard:

The concise Oxford Dictionary lists the meaning of the "intentional" as "done on purpose"

So if you decide to try an "Unintentional Spin" you'd be doing it on purpose, and you'd be amazed at how many passengers tell people about the "loops and aerobatics they experience" and how many instant cameras there are on the ground these days.

If you would be more comfortable with a sign saying "No Spins" or any other wording, there's nothing to stop you putting an argument to the Regulator.

and this site is a ......... playground?

No, but there are a few devils......

What placard is in the chipmunk. There is a significant difference between a drifter and a Jab which are stable in spin and the Chipmunk which we are informed will/may develop a spin through to a flat spin. Now a flat spin I am afraid of.

Unfortunately I didn't noticed it when getting in.

I wouldn't wish the unexpected experience on anyone

An idle mind is the devil’s playground.

Tomo, unfortunately you have been influenced by some very irresponsible posting, and I would hate to think you became one of its victims.

Suggest you read the posts over again taking note of the responsible ones, and you will find that while there are some aircraft that might fly to bits, the biggest danger is the pilot ripping the wings off a perfectly good aircraft as he/she is taken by surprise and reacts instantly by the natural instinct to pull the tick back.

This thread contains some of the worst kind of playing with semantics when the intent should be to make our sport safer.

"Your honor, Mr Bloggs died when his aircraft didn't recover from a spin. He was an experienced pilot and had recovered from dozens of spins previously - the only difference was this time he was in a flawed aircraft. Jabiru knew this design was dangerous. The Jabiru company sold Mr Bloggs this aircraft even knowing that certain types of spins would be fatal. I believe if it weren't for the poor design of the J120 Mr Bloggs would still be with us today"

---

 

It kind of reminds me of the "Dangerous Dog" signs on fences. Is it better to warn people there is a dangerous dog? Or is it a bad idea to have the sign, because you are admitting you know the dog is dangerous?

The early US Public Liability cases worked like that. I recall one where a husband and wife were on the way home bobtail in a Prime Mover in the wet, came round a corner too fast, and slid into a pole whereupon the fuel tank was fractured and the resulting fire killed both occupants.

Even though virtually all Prime Movers have side tanks, the lawyers for the family argued that if a tank had been constructed to fit inside the chassis (moulded in and around crossmembers, prop shaft, suspension and various other necessities) the fatality would not have occurred, and won from memory $9 million with punitive damages against the manufacturer of about $11 million.

Fortunately over time common sense has prevailed, and we are now trained (some of us) to work to official Codes and Standards based on cutting edge technology. The last timje I looked the Jab was rated about the same as other Recreational Aircraft, none of them approved for spinning.

On the dog part, I was involved in a couple of cases where our group were seen to be invoilved in a sport where there was a risk to the public, albeit very small. When the inevitable accidents did crop up we lost because the members hadf not warned the public there was a risk.

Following another twist, where the Promoter's defence was that he had warned the Public there was a risk, but had failed to comply with industry safe practice we had to change all the warning clauses across the country to show the sport was dangerous, but the spectators had the right to sue the Promoter for any negligence. This has now stood the test of time for about a decade and protects both the Promoter and the Public.

If I was a lawyer Darky, and acting for a victim, I'd search the web looking for the past history of the pilot and his/her attitude. This will often bring to light several "priors" which helps to shorten the arguments considerably, particularly when there is a jury involved

Alternatively the placard isn't as badly worded as people thinkBasically, "No intentional spins" means that, no you can't spin it ok, but if you scr*w up that badly and do spin it, it's not going to fall to pieces

 

But note that I have never done a spin so I can't really comment on anything to do with that, I'm just saying how I would interpret the placard

 

No, there is no implication in the wording that structural damage will not occur, and no implication that unintentional spins are OK.

The wording is clear to anyone not looking for a loophole to put their life, the lives of others, and the safety standards of RAA at risk.

It means don't deliberately put the aircraft in a position where it will spin.

The placard most probably has the more specific wording as a result of clever dicks who love playing semantics criticising the simpler "No Spins" by pointing out that the placard should include "No crashes", "No stalls", No running out of fuel", No navigation errors etc.

And no Qwerty, you were not accused of being a "Spin Lunatic", it was someone else, who I believe was wrongly accused because the accusers didn't know the difference between a spin and an incipient spin, but had been scared out of their wits.

Yes and no.

The 1974 Trade Practices Act was brilliant, and only recently two companies were fined $1m each and executives $30,000 personally for collusion.

Yes, he's captured it perfectly.

When I go over my old notes now and again I find regulations which were as simple as road rules which have been superseded several times into something tens times a complicated and 10% as safe.

You're mot allowed to talk about bulldust here Ho Ho.

DarkStylish was agast! "They've got absolutely no fashion sense these old buggers!" she complained :rolleyes1: .....================

....but she didn't really mean it becaise she was busay breaking Torts.

Poor Turbo was getting lost in the intricacies of repartee, but thought the Rat had aimed below the belt....

It would be nice to get comprehensive RAAus statistics and then we could see what the danger areas were, and how to respond.

I'm totally in agreement with training on Incipient spins (I got it in both GA and Rec Av), and it was a Chipmunk and an Instructor with a vicious sense of humour which taught me the utter bewilderment of an aircraft flying in a very relaxed manner one minute, then when I decided (untrained) to do a steep (90 deg) turn like I'd experienced a few weeks previously (with a trained pilot), I found the sky has no bottom, and with head pushed over by G Forces, didn't know where I was.

I suspect the statistics in Ultralights/RAA are the mid air break ups - the ones caused by too much G force either then, or when a previous pilot decided he could handle spins etc. stretched the airframe and didn't tell anyone.

The training is Incipient Spins - incipient meaning "beginning" or "early stage", that is not in the spin yet where G forces are involved.

Maybe CASA weren't such a bunch of dummies after all.

NO ITS NOT OK TO DO UNINTENTIONAL SPINS QWERTY - not in the way you're implying.

CASA don't use "No Spins" for the same reason they don't use "No Crashes"

Why give us bad name by taunting the Regulator, and don't think that we are not under the microscope.

I went for a GA flight a few days ago, and the first thing I had to do was reassure the pilot from my own experience that an RAAus identity was not a "Spin" lunatic, and now we read this.