Backcountry pilots specially should be proficient and understand this.
Here is a 1976 FAA video,useful and promoting practice of slow flight and stalls.
Opposed to the new slow flight regulation.
Prefer the old school myself.

Old but good one. The power line patrol pilot made a nice energy management turn. Hurried just a bit. Maybe 1.2 g.

The video is a good find. I noticed they propose a three step approach to spin recovery beginning about time 12.01 - (1. Power; 2. Rudder; 3. Elevator). I think the current research on spin recover suggests that for most SE aircraft the sequence follow "PARE" (1. Power; 2. Ailerons; 3. Rudder; 4. Elevator). NASA found that when ailerons are displaced from neutral they impede recovery.

I can watch these old FAA training videos over and over again. They are good productions that reflect a great period for aviation in this country. The information is timeless and presented practically.

This is one of my favorites:

Don't think I can remember ever starting spin where the stick wasn't "neutral" to start with.
Sometimes a touch of power to go with the rudder.

There was a time when some were teaching [& publishing] to just reduce power and then Schmuk-it -
LET GO OF EVERYTHING for a bit. A little slower rotation stop - still needed to get the stick started back.

Have had a couple of badly rigged and borrowed planes surprise me with a roll over near a stall.
First thing I did- [instinctively]- was to let go of everything so I knew it was NOT my input error.
Took maybe three seconds after letting go to figure out where the plane was going before I took over again.
Instant thought, the first time was, "Did a damned wing come off?"

Wannabe,

When very young I erroneously thought the chandell would cause an altitude gain in a 150 in the mountains. Inadvertent stall and began spin near Montrose, Colorado. Like you, I just turned loose and things got better.

Contact

wannabe wrote:There was a time when some were teaching [& publishing] to just reduce power and then Schmuk-it -
LET GO OF EVERYTHING for a bit. A little slower rotation stop - still needed to get the stick started back.

Cause it works!! I've had this demonstrated and tried it on my own. Works amazingly well...I'm sure it's something originally designed with a "high work" pilot in mind. The types of pedestrian airplanes I've flown this would work, also just a brisk forward stick to the stop and reduce AOA will get it done too. Figure out everything else after that. I've been told some planes (competition aerobatic stuff with symmetrical air foils and what not) will not recover with the hands off or brisk forward stick or PARE; they need power over the elevator to command the nose. Also, too much forward stick and get you on your back.

Is a difficult plane to get it to spin, also more difficult to recover from the spin?

motoadve wrote:Is a difficult plane to get it to spin, also more difficult to recover from the spin?

Depends on the airplane. Some aircraft that are placarded against spins are 'spin resistant', but get into one and you may not get out. It all depends on design, the W&B envelope, etc. Read your POH closely. And get a knowledgeable CFI (in type) to ride with you if the aircraft is certified, W&B, and configured for the maneuver, and you want to spin it. Letting go of the controls doesn't always work, even in docile aircraft..

Just a couple of weeks ago, two experienced pilots were killed in a 172 doing spin training. One was the chief pilot at a local school and the other was a cfi candidate. Nobody knows really what happened. Witnesses saw the first spin and a good recovery. The second one they tried, they never recovered and augered into a local reservoir killing both. I'm not sure what my point about this is - but be careful out there.

My cub wouldn't spin without some rather aggressive rudder and aileron inputs. I think we need more spin training, not less. Once I understood spins and recovery - stalls because very benign to me. But that feeling is only for them in that airplane - they are all different and exhibit different recovery behavior. Before spin training - while training to be a private pilot - I have to admit I was pretty effing scared of stalls and spins. Almost to the point of panic. I needed spin training but I didn't know it.

My 180 is not approved for spins so I won't do them in it. I wish it was, because I'd feel better if I knew for sure it would recover properly - or at least how it behaves.

The reason for the A (ailerons) of PARE is that some pilots, faced with an inadvertent spin, will tend to use the ailerons, just like a good many pilots, who do a stall which results in a wing dropping, will use the ailerons to lift the wing. While using the ailerons to recover from a wing-dropped stall isn't necessarily awful (still not best practice), using them while in a spin will often aggravate the spin and make spin recovery very difficult if not impossible.

So while an intentional, practiced spin is rarely initiated with anything but neutral aileron, it's a fact that inexperienced pilots, or pilots with no spin training, can really muck up a spin recovery if they try to stop the rotation with any aileron at all. A of PARE really means "lock the ailerons absolutely neutral!!!!" It makes a huge difference.

I disagree with letting go to recover from a spin. Yeah, many airplanes will recover, but it takes a whole lot of altitude for that to happen. It's much better to do it right. If the POH doesn't cover the technique for that airplane, use PARE. But don't wait until you're in a spin to wonder, "how do I get out of this?" Get some spin recovery training first.

Overall, that's one of the FAA's better training videos. Some of them leave me scratching my head, asking "what were they thinking, to put that crap into a video?" But not this one.

Let me describe an event that relates to this video. The "student" was the same student I've described who thought IMC flight wasn't all that difficult, until I let him lose control in the clouds. But by the time this later event came along, he was a private pilot, with perhaps 80 hours flight time, and he wanted to be checked out in a 182. So I told him to study the manual, then bring along his wife and perhaps another person, and we'd do it. But when he showed up, he was alone, and he hadn't studied the manual--his excuse was (as I've heard many others mis-believe), "Aw, it's really just a wider 172--you can just show me the differences".

But as I like to say, a 182 is not just a fat 172; it's a different airplane. So I told him we weren't going to fly, because it would be a waste of time. Go home, study the manual, bring along someone for the back seat, and then we'll fly. He was a bit miffed, but I think he knew I was right--but remember, this guy was a bit boneheaded--brilliant, but stubborn.

The next day, he arrived for our rescheduled flight. Overnight, he had literally memorized the manual, and he had brought his wife and a friend of hers as "ballast". When I asked him questions about the airplane, for instance in response to "from cruise flight, how would you go from 8500' to 10,500'?", he would say something like, "referring to section 4, at page 4-15, and I would raise the nose to slow the airplane to 95 knots, then increase rpm to 2450. At 8500', I would already have the throttle all the way in." He had the exact book answers for every question I asked, so we loaded up.

After take off, I recall that we just flew around for a little while, so that he could become accustomed to the heavier controls. Then I told him to climb to 11,000', so that we could do some airwork, various kinds of stalls, steep turns, and the like.

During his initial training in the 172, one of the things I had taught him, to emphasize rudder control and effectiveness, was walking the rudder while in a full stall (falling leaf); in a normal 172, that can be done power off or power on, and he could do that extremely well. I had also taught him spins and spin recovery, and he was pretty proficient at that as well.

After we'd done some of the airwork in the 182, I mentioned that although he could walk the rudder power off in a 182, don't try it power on. He asked why, and I said, "Because nobody can do it--it's impossible." He said, "I bet I can do it!" Like a dummy, and thinking that it would be something he'd try on his own if I didn't let him prove that he was wrong with me aboard, I replied, "OK, smart guy, try it and you'll see."

A power on stall in a 182 with a somewhat aft CG (the 2 women) has an amazingly steep deck angle. When it stalled, it hung there for a moment and then started to fall off to the right. He caught it, and it oscillated to the left. Again he caught it, and it oscillated back to the right. This time, when he caught it and it oscillated to the left, it flipped over into a full power spin, and he froze! He did nothing--he still had full left rudder in, the yoke full back, and full power on. Ol' Dummy here attempted to calmly talk him out of it: "Steve, pull off the power, opposite rudder, stop the spin." I think I said that twice before I realized that he wasn't likely to do anything. I said, "I've got the airplane", and still he didn't respond. I shouted, "Let go of the controls!" Still he hung on.

Now it was getting critical. The women were screaming, the airplane was losing altitude. Finally I hit his arms so hard with my left arm to get him off the yoke that I had large bruises for several days afterwards. It took all my right leg's strength to push the rudder in. When the spin stopped, I leveled the airplane off less than a thousand feet above the ground. Fortunately, we were over the Big Hollow west of Laramie, but we were down to about 8000' MSL--only about 700' above the airport's elevation, but the Big Hollow dips down roughly 200' lower.

As we leveled off, he snapped out of it. He acted surprised that I was flying the airplane. We flew back to the airport, and as we slowed after landing, his wife asked, "Can you stop the airplane here--I want out!" So we stopped on the taxiway, I shut down the engine, the women got out, and we taxied back to the tie-downs. I wrote in his logbook something like, "182 checkout not completed--not authorized to solo 182, unsatisfactory stall series."

I don't know if anyone else ever checked him out in the 182, but I never flew with him again, and I let all the other instructors know about the experience.

Lesson learned--when a student doesn't immediately respond to a command, take over. Don't wait.

To answer your specific question, Motoadve, I can only tell you my own experience. Both a 172 and 182 are difficult to spin, but they both recover pretty quickly. A 172 in the utility category is authorized to be spun intentionally, and it will recover in slightly less than half a turn, even after a 2 or 3 turn spin. A 152 will similarly recover in less than half a turn--note that after the 3rd turn in a multi turn spin, it tends to oscillate and wind up tighter for a couple turns, which is interesting to say the least if you're not expecting it. A 182 is not authorized to be spun intentionally, but from that one experience above, I know that it will recover in about 3/4 of a turn after being in a spin for approximately 3-4 turns. All 3 POHs use words that describe the PARE technique. A Decathlon can be made to recover in less than a quarter turn, if the stick is pushed forward before the turning is stopped with rudder--in other words, not waiting until the turning stops. My aerobatics instructor showed me that. Those are the only airplanes I've spun. All certificated singles must be able to be recovered from a spin within one turn, using "standard spin recovery techniques", which is basically PARE.

Cary

Good discussion and I enjoyed the vid. The comment regarding some aerobatic aircraft needing power to get airflow over the elevator is flawed though. Upright and inverted spin recoveries are always with power off. Even partial throttle will adversely affect the recovery. I have an airline pilot friend that I took up in the S2-B that learned this firsthand. He was blown away when he couldn't recover. Recovery was initiated with throttle back to the stops, stick neutral and opposite rudder and no ailerons. Partial throttle and trying to pick up the wing with the aileron flattens out the spin, it doesn't aid in the recovery. The hands off "Beggs" recovery works, but is really a last resort in my opinion.

I think every pilot not well trained in spins should seek out and get unusual attitude and spin recovery training. Besides making you a safer pilot, it's a lot of fun. Two flights ago in the C180 I spent the majority of my flight practicing slow flight, power on and off / approach and departure stalls, flaps up and down. Every flight in the Pitts I end with an inverted flat spin. It's a kick in the ass riot. Maybe I'm sick that way. Not all flying should be straight and level.

Rich

PittsDriver wrote:Good discussion and I enjoyed the vid. The comment regarding some aerobatic aircraft needing power to get airflow over the elevator is flawed though. Upright and inverted spin recoveries are always with power off. Even partial throttle will adversely affect the recovery.

Rich

Rich,

I really appreciate the narrative and your experience, thank you for posting. The "some" i was referring to two specific events directly related to me when I was getting aerobatic instruction. Two high time airshow/competition aerobatic pilots. Basically, power is for when things get really "flat." Like, AOA at 90 due to the plane spinning straight down and the relative wind is 60 to 90 degrees to the air foil. One of these instances was in an S1T and the other was experimental warbird. Both during airshow practice. Basically, due to the flat spin there was absolutely zero responsiveness in the tail to reduce AOA. I'm sure CG had a huge part in this The only relative wind available was from the prop.

Might sound like an unlikely case but I know directly of two guys that almost bailed and one that did (second hand) because of it. Again, i claim to know nothing of these types of spins...my direct experience is just standard aerobatic training in vanilla planes where PARE or just about any combination of reducing AOA would work. I was just was warned that it was a possibility and what to do to not get there.

Thanks,
Bill

Not to add to my post above...but to get this back on the OP's original intent. The line i mentioned above has little to do any normal category airplanes we fly and slightly little to do with the standard "Decathlon" upset training we'll get. So, apologies for taking the thread that way.

59SC

Bill,

Warbirds vs. acro aircraft are truly apples vs. oranges. Agreed that not all rules apply evenly.

The OP was/is about staling for safety. I don't think we strayed too far off topic. Just discussing the steps. I hope.

Motoadve is on the mark with his statement: "Opposed to the new slow flight regulation. Prefer the old school myself".

Blue Skies, Rich

soyAnarchisto wrote:Just a couple of weeks ago, two experienced pilots were killed in a 172 doing spin training. One was the chief pilot at a local school and the other was a cfi candidate. Nobody knows really what happened. Witnesses saw the first spin and a good recovery. The second one they tried, they never recovered and augered into a local reservoir killing both. I'm not sure what my point about this is - but be careful out there.

My cub wouldn't spin without some rather aggressive rudder and aileron inputs. I think we need more spin training, not less. Once I understood spins and recovery - stalls because very benign to me. But that feeling is only for them in that airplane - they are all different and exhibit different recovery behavior. Before spin training - while training to be a private pilot - I have to admit I was pretty effing scared of stalls and spins. Almost to the point of panic. I needed spin training but I didn't know it.

My 180 is not approved for spins so I won't do them in it. I wish it was, because I'd feel better if I knew for sure it would recover properly - or at least how it behaves.

Best guess is that what happened that killed the two was something similar to my story--even if they had done the first spin and recovery as witnessed (probably done by the instructor), when the next one wasn't recovered, it was because the "student" (actually a commercially certificated pilot, though not with a whole lot of experience yet) was doing it and froze. Believe me, when someone freezes like I described, it's really hard to get them to let go. I've known other instructors with similar experiences, and I've heard of various techniques which are uniformly really brutal to get the job done.

I agree that more, not less, spin training would be a good idea. I especially recommend full boat aerobatic training, as it really raises confidence significantly. I was already a CFII when I took mine, and it made me a much better stick & rudder pilot.

Your 180's wing and tail are not dissimilar from a 182's or 172's of the same era, other than the flying tail trim in the 180. Based on my single experience that I described in the 182, and upon perhaps as many as 80-100 spins in 172s, I'd say that your airplane would react about the same and recover about the same, much like a 172. Since spins are prohibited in it, if you were to take a 172 for a spin lesson, I think that would give you a pretty good feel for how your airplane would respond.

Cary

motoadve wrote:Backcountry pilots specially should be proficient and understand this.
Here is a 1976 FAA video,useful and promoting practice of slow flight and stalls.
Opposed to the new slow flight regulation.
Prefer the old school myself.

At 8:30. I want those pants.

Tim

Thanks for sharing that event Cary.