I have been told and taught (and believe-?....pretty much)

The full spin is the most stable and predictable method of descending through a thick (vertical) solid overcast. It can be confidently used if you are proficient 'spinner' and KNOW there is sufficient height under the overcast to recover. This is meant as a 'keep your ass intact' maneuver when you have NO gyros aboard (or have no instrument flying skills) and are caught 'on top'.

The other method I have been taught-but this seriously needs to be tested ahead of time in you specific aircraft-is to put the airplane in a stable low power descent and then hands and feet off the controls as you pass through the thick stable air. I have way less confidence in this method since you can encounter unstable air within a thick stable looking layer. Also not all aircraft are rigged properly hence the 'know your aircraft' qualification.

I have always been careful in my cub to be a 'fair weather' flier, so have no experience 'real world' with either method, but have kept them both in the back of my mind for decades as 'save my ass' options.
With a GPS these days you know your exact position-so using the spin method or decent method you could know the positions of hills that would 'ruin you day'...

I started this under the "Spin recovery" topic, but thought that even though it relates, it probably deserves its own thread.

I would like this forums opinion on the above.....

Have at it, boys.....
lc

Up north, where vacuum, gyro, electrical, everything failure due to cold was a constant reality, we practiced this scenario quite a bit. In a single engine airplane the drill was to:

1) Slow it down, and set full prop and about 1,200 RPM on the tach.
2) Pull full flaps.
3) Trim full nose up.
4) Let go of everything, and hold a compass heading with your feet/rudder.

That way even if you didn't see the ground until you hit it coming out the bottom of your cloud deck, you were wings level at a minimal speed, and the airplane would not be able to build up uncontrolled speed or G's during the descent.

The spin method works, as long as you KNOW you have a ceiling beneath you, but I don't think I'd like to pop out of a 50 ft overcast in a spin. Much easier to be wings level, pull power and flare when you see the ground.

Go try it with your airplane... Full flaps/power off that is, and see what it does. You may have to tweak the trim and power settings to really stabilize things. But that way you'll know ahead of time.

Gump

The spin down method was used by the old fish spotting airplanes when they would return home only to find the west coast marine layer had moved in. with only an old 10 channel HF radio they would have to find somebody to give them an accurate ceiling and down they would go. At least that was what my dad told me 40 years ago.

Thanks, Gump. That one is going into my permanent memory. I don't ever plan on having to use it, but I want to make sure I have it rattling around in my head somewhere in case I ever need it. I'm going to head out and fly in that configuration for awhile, just to see exactly what it looks and feels like while I can still see out the windows.

GUMP
Best advice you can give.

1) Slow it down, and set full prop and about 1,200 RPM on the tach.
2) Pull full flaps.
3) Trim full nose up.
4) Let go of everything, and hold a compass heading with your feet/rudder.

Works in most everything.
I know a Stinson and a Maule, you just trim all the way up and dance on the rudders!
Add enough power to keep the nose up.
Usually if you use full flaps you get 1000 fpm No flaps 5-700fpm
Sure does take like 20 minues it seems like to go through 1000' of soup!
Someone told me this one time?
GT

It seems to me like the spin-down method gets you through the layer quickest, but has no other redeeming qualities. Is getting through quickly that important? I like the approach Gump listed, as it is designed to make use of the available features of flight that are most likely to bring you through the layer alive. My two cents.

Gumps method would be better, IF you can keep the compass from even starting to turn. With leading and lagging and all that stuff you learned in ground school It would be damn hard to get it stopped once you got a turn started.

Troy Hamon wrote:It seems to me like the spin-down method gets you through the layer quickest, but has no other redeeming qualities. Is getting through quickly that important? I like the approach Gump listed, as it is designed to make use of the available features of flight that are most likely to bring you through the layer alive. My two cents.

Don't even THINK about trying to spin down through an under cast unless you've THOROUGHLY explored the multiple turn spin characteristics of your airplane. Note that is YOUR airplane, not one that looks just lik it.

We use two C172s for spin training, they are sequential serial numbers, equipped identically and neither has been bent or repaired. One will stabilize in a spin and stay there (assuming full in spin control inputs) for at least six turns. The other airplane is difficult to induce into a spin, and at two turns, it blows out of the spin hard into a really hard spiral. It's all about rigging but both these planes are rigged within Cessna specs.

Gumps procedure, on the other hand works in most aircraft.

Better yet, if you have a turn and bank or turn coordinator, add that to your descent tools. Most older craft have a t/b installed and a mag compass. If your mag compass doesn't work, replace it or relocate it till it does...they can be life savers.

Finally, if there is an ATC radar anywhere near, give them a call, and see if there's anywhere around with a hole in the overcast, then get vectors there. If nothing else, they can also ensure you won't surprise some IFR tye as you descend through that cloud....that could ruin your day too. Also, they can get you weather (as in ceiling)where you are about to descend and give you reassurance of terrain elevation and ALTIMETER setting.

When ATC asked me once in such a scenario if the airplane and pilot were instrument certified, my response was "yes and no". I was, it wasn't. They didnt ask any more questions, and they cleared a corridor for me to descend in. When it was done I asked if they wanted me to give them a call, and they said, "Nope, have a good day". And it was.
MTV

I don't know what is being taught to IFR students now days, but when I got my instrument rating in 1978 I did several hours of "partial panel" work that eventually included flying PAR approaches in a C-172 with everything in the panel covered except the mag. compass, airspeed, altitude, and tach. My instructor called it a "confidence building excercise" I called it something else at the time. I haven't flown any serious IFR in years, but it is possible to do quite a bit without any gyros in the panel if you practice for it.

In my 180, full flaps, full nose up trim, yoke all the way back, I was 40kts. forward speed(GPS) and decending 1200 fpm.
Figured if I couldn't see what was goin on, didn't have powered control, that was the best way down.
Gary

And, by the way....how many folks on this forum own or operate an airplane that is certified for spins, and therefore spin tested??

I'm guessing not many.

Anyone? Oh, and in current configuration?..

MTV

1 Skybolt
2?? Brousard, but I can't read french to be sure, but was ex military so just guessing? But have not tried it!
Mike your getting Technical now!!
GT

My 1957 C-172 is certified for spins at a gross weight of 1950 pounds or less. In 1975 my PPL checkride included a spin and recovery, so I will guess about any light plane of that age or older should be certified for spins.

Dale,

Wrong....my C 170 is not certified for spins, since it has been modified with an O 360 engine, as well as several other mods.

None of the C-180s are approved for spins. None of the 182s are approved, I believe. The 185 is not approved, nor is the 206.

Any airplane that has substantial modifications, such as for example, VGs, is probably no longer approved for spins, and in any case, VGs will generally make most airplanes unstable in spins. In other words, they're apt to recover without pilot input.

If you've modified that airplane, you might want to CAREFULLY read the STC for that mod....it might just say no more Utility category ops. If so, no spins are approved.

Super Cubs??? Any mods as noted above, but also note that the PA 18 is legal for spins at or below 1500 pounds max weight. Try to get there with any gas and two people in most cubs.....

We operate a Top Cub. It's not only not legal for spins, it's not even legal for night operations.

Might want to read up on your Airplane Flight Manual some, folks. Sometimes there are some surprises there.

MTV

I doubt any of us have planes with large enough gross weights needed to haul the massive "balls"around it'd take to put a plane in an intentional spin after inadvertantly getting in IMC if not rated/equipped. I've always chuckled when hearing this method!

mtv wrote:Dale,

Wrong....my C 170 is not certified for spins, since it has been modified with an O 360 engine, as well as several other mods.

None of the C-180s are approved for spins. None of the 182s are approved, I believe.

MTV

Mike, your right about mine. Spins NOT approved for my 58 Skylane.

Interesting and informative reading on this thread.

Wings level, trimmed on airspeed, descend to an area of lower/softer terrain using the HSI and terrain info on your Garmin GPS to maintain heading and avoid rocks.

I can't imagine having an aircraft without an attitude indicator, and a plan for what to do if that fails. Entering a spin is not part of any plan B, C or D I have.

OOPS, my mistake on that one , the planes that I have actually spun on checkrides have been a C-150 (Private) and a cherokee arrow (commercial checkride, don't remember if I had to spin it for my CFI checkride or not but it was the same plane), and I have spun a C-172 and a couple of cherokee's a few times durring instruction. I agree, the idea of intentionally spining ANYTHING in IFR or at night is scary.

With leading and lagging and all that stuff you learned in ground school It would be damn hard to get it stopped once you got a turn started.

On a southerly heading, the compass will behave "properly", without the confusing lag reversal seen on a northerly heading. In other words, on a southerly heading a turn to the west (east) will display as a turn to the west (east). This means the turning error amplifies the compass response, giving you earlier warning and reducing chances of an unintentional turn.

In this scenario, if NORDO, my vote is for a southerly heading combined with Gump's descent technique.

As a CFII, I heard all sorts of ding-bat theories of how to get through a cloud deck. Spinning through it would not be my last resort--I'd never, ever do it, as the ding-battiest theory there is. But the best thing is not to get there in the first place. A VFR pilot should never, ever put him/herself in that position. Watch this video--it's incredibly accurate: http://www.aopa.org/asf/psa/178seconds. ... id=&wtmcid. Even if you're a competent "spinner", without visual cues, you are extremely likely to be so disoriented by the time you've spun through the clouds that your likelihood of recovery is close to nil.

One of my early students was a pretty good stick, but as a real "know-it-all", he was convinced that his 3 hours if IFR time for his private was enough that he'd never get into a bad IMC situation that he couldn't handle. He wanted to make his long dual XC to Jackson, which was OK with me--I like Jackson, and it was his nickle. But as we got northwest of Riverton, it was obviousl that we weren't going to Jackson. I was frankly surprised that he elected to turn around when he did, but he kept it under control in what was just barely legal VMC. We rerouted to Casper, had dinner, and then we headed home. Anticipating some visibility problems, I filed IFR before we left. Soon after crossing Casper Mountain, we started getting into some clouds, in and out, but we still could see the ground. Pretty soon he started drifting off into a spiral to the left. When I tapped the AI with my pencil, he immediately righted the airplane, but I decided to see if he would catch it before it became dangerous. So I called Center and asked for a block altitude, and advised ATC that this was a training flight so I anticipated some major deviations in both altitude and heading. Because we had no headsets or intercom, I could do that without my student knowing what I'd done.

So we flew for just a few minutes, maybe 3, and the airplane started drifting off to the left again. This time I let it go, and he allowed it to turn well more than 90 degrees in a steep left bank, descending well below the entry altitude. Instead of tapping the AI, I asked him if we were going back to Casper. He rather suddenly recovered, as if I had been doing unusual attitude training with him, climbed back to the altitude and resumed the heading. But within an even shorter time again, the airplane was in a steep descending left turn. This time, I made some comment about the altitude, and again he made a sudden recovery. But this time, he flew for less than a minute before he asked if I could take over--he was just getting too rattled. So I flew us somewhat south of Medicine Bow, the weather improved to decent VMC, and so I had him take over and fly us on to Laramie.

The lesson is clear: Without an instrument rating you have no business getting yourself into a situation in which you lose sight of the ground. If you have to go through the clouds, you are very likely to lose control, no matter what method you use, but almost guaranteed you'll lose control if you try spinning through them.

So there are 2 answers that apply. First, don't do it. Second, get your instrument rating. Your chances of living to tell your grandkids about your wonderful years of flight will greatly increase.

Cary