Spinning an RV-10

rvbuilder2002 said:

First off, I commend the O.P. for baring his sole to all the world, and admitting to a situation he got himself into that could have ended very tragically..........

If you undertake the job of test pilot, you need to already be ready for anything the airplane could possibly do. .........

Please consider the flight testing of your new airplane to be a serious undertaking.....

There is no shame in using a more experienced pilot for some (or even all) of the test flying.

Click to expand...

I agree 100%....and that is why I had someone do the first flight and tested several portions I wasn't positive I was qualified to do.

szicree said:

So suppose I'm doing accelerated stalls as part of my phase one "tests". I assume this is to make sure the plane reacts predictably in the stall. But suppose it doesn't. What then? Isn't the whole point of the test to find out what it's going to do? Isn't one of the most likely adverse outcomes a spin? Doing this kind of testing without spin training seems like a pretty bad idea (to me).

Click to expand...

I have a confession to make, and it is made at the risk of being considered an inferior pilot by some.

During the course of the past thirteen years and 1100 hours I have never done an accelerated stall in my RV-6. The very real possibility of a botched accelerated stall resulting in a spin, and the fact I have no formal spin training, and the RV-6's known ability to spin up so fast it even scares Van himself means I have no business exploring this corner of the envelope. I have instead devoted considerable efforts to avoiding an accelerated stall in the RV-6. There are two angle of attack indicators in the panel, I am obsessive about keeping the ball centered, and am very careful with airspeed control during the last two turns to a landing.

The past thirteen years in the RV have been a wonderful experience and it has taken me places I would not have otherwise been. But I recognize my limits, and am cognizant of the consequences of exceeding them.

Taking a high performance aircraft into corners of the envelope with which we are not familiar is not just risky, but foolhardy. If we are determined to change our safety culture we must recognize the risk inherent in our "test flying" and make sure we are totally trained and mentally prepared to address any problem that can arise. I'm not, so some aspects of my plane's performance remain unexplored.

I'm with you (philosophically) Sam. I see no point in getting anywhere close to a stall/spin. I have done them and know the procedure to get out of one. I just do not need to do one in my RV to verify the flight characteristics of that event.

Soon I will explore the engine out turnback maneuver. It will be at around 12000' MSL (Field elevation 6840') and probably no more than 45 degrees of bank. The results may not be as good as the best pilot alive, but in terms of strictly piloting...I am not the best pilot alive.

RV's don't spin easily even after an accelerated stall. One really has to have the rudder hard over to work to get one to spin. The other day I got in an accelerated stall on the back side of a loop from pullling a little too hard after being below Vs at the top, unloaded. It started to spiral. Unloading the airplane (in this case, releasing back pressure) stopped the spiral. My loop ended up not looking like anything close to a loop.

But if one want's to do aft-cg testing, then its really prudent to get some acro training.

Stalls / Spins

One guy's data point regarding stalls / spins during flight test of my -8A:

The most surprising discovery was how the plane instantly recovered from any stall / spin when I released the controls. Purpose of my tests were not to explore flying qualities in fully developed stalls / spins - but to recognize and provide an experience database of flight characteristics immediately prior to and after various stall / spin scenarios. Take hands off sstick and feet off rudders and my -8A would quickly return to controlled flight. Don't know if this applies to all RV's or if the accumulated errors in my control surface building / rigging produced a flying qualities sweet spot.

Another point from my Navy training not yet mentioned: Disorientation in a spin. One could become so disoriented from conflicting visual cues that one of the first steps in spin recovery was to check the turn needle to determine spin direction - then apply opposite rudder.

pvalovich said:

Another point from my Navy training not yet mentioned: Disorientation in a spin. One could become so disoriented from conflicting visual cues that one of the first steps in spin recovery was to check the turn needle to determine spin direction - then apply opposite rudder.

Click to expand...

Just wanted to mention that won't work during an accidental inverted spin. Advanced spin training becomes much more important when doing serious aerobatics. These types of airplanes don't have turn needles. There are better emergency spin recovery techniques than looking at a turn needle.

Spins

Disagree - it will work, at least with the turn needle in the A-4 relative to which rudder peddle to engage. I also believe the "checking" steps were inserted to slow the process down to perhaps help prevent inadvertent introduction of pro-spin controls.

rocketbob said:

RV's don't spin easily even after an accelerated stall. One really has to have the rudder hard over to work to get one to spin. The other day I got in an accelerated stall on the back side of a loop from pullling a little too hard after being below Vs at the top, unloaded. It started to spiral. Unloading the airplane (in this case, releasing back pressure) stopped the spiral. My loop ended up not looking like anything close to a loop.

But if one want's to do aft-cg testing, then its really prudent to get some acro training.

Click to expand...

I was very pleasantly surprised to experience this and found it exactly to be the case.

Last year, as part of my continuous education/learning, I took a spin training with my instructor and performed about 15 spins. Thanks to RV climb rate, we could do this all in one hour time. Anyway, what I learned was that you have to be really cross coordinated to get it to spin and it would come out relatively easy if you did not keep the [wrong side] rudder in.

Having done that, I will not spin it on my own intentionally but planning on taking another hour training just to keep things refresh .

pvalovich said:

Disagree - it will work, at least with the turn needle in the A-4 relative to which rudder peddle to engage.

Click to expand...

You did inverted spins in the A-4?

luddite42 said:

You did inverted spins in the A-4?

Click to expand...

The Navy did not due intentional spins in the A4. They would use a T2 to simulate various aircraft for students. It was a very good course on Out of Control flight. The nice thing about the T2 was it would come out of a spin or other departure using the procedures for almost any aircraft. The A4 and TA4 did have a inverted spin mode that was more often noted in the TA4. The wildest ride I ever went though however was in a F-18. The out of control flight procedures for the F-18 were so long it was almost funny. Before any air combat flight it was required for someone to brief the out of control flight procedures for each aircraft type on the mission. The looks from some of the airforce guys after hearing the F-18 procedure were very funny!!!
If you actually departed a hornet and got to the end of the OCF procedure you had already lost a huge amount of altitude. The Hornet did have one nice feature. What was essentially a giant turn needle would appear in the Hud to assist you in picking the right recovery procedure.

Since they are still ingrained in my brain for your amusement here are the F-18 recovery procedures. Note the first two steps however. They are a good start for any aircraft!

1. Controls- Release, feet off rudders, speedbrake in
2. Throttles-idle
3. Altitude, AOA, Yaw rate, airspeed check
4. If spin developes complete spin recovery procedures
If in AoA hangup or falling leaf mode
5. Stick full forward if AOA positive
6. Stick full aft if AOA negative
If AOA and Yaw rate tones removed and side forces subsided and airspeed passing 180 knots throttles mil or max roll upright and recover
If passing 7000 feet with no sign of recovery
7. Eject

If above confirms spin with command arrows present
1. lateral stick full with arrows
With command arrow not present
2. Spin recovery switch-Recovery
3. Lateral stick full with arrow
When yaw rate stops
4. Lateral stick smoothly neutral
5. spin recovery switch normal
6. complete remaining out of control flight procedures.

The above were simplified procedures. Early in the Hornet program they were even longer. The main reason I post it all is that if you only ingrain the first two procedures in your mind then most departures can be recovered almost instantly.

Basically that comes down to when the aircraft starts doing something you don't want it to do neutralize the controls and pull the throttle to idle. That will keep most of us out of further trouble.

George

luddite42 said:

Just wanted to mention that won't work during an accidental inverted spin........There are better emergency spin recovery techniques than looking at a turn needle.

Click to expand...

Hmmm....well not according to the United States Navy. Here is the OCF (Out of Control Flight) manual currently in use for all Naval Aviators in Primary Flight School. https://www.cnatra.navy.mil/pubs/folder5/T34C/P-354.pdf
It's actually a good read. Of course, as you point out, if the aircraft has no turn needle....well then obviously.....

Well said!

rvbuilder2002 said:

First off, I commend the O.P. for baring his sole to all the world, and admitting to a situation he got himself into that could have ended very tragically.
He is also to be commended for doing what very few people seem to do during phase 1... actually testing the airplane.
He is even loading the airplane to different C.G. locations so that he can fully evaluate the flight characteristics, and at the same time better learn how to fly the airplane. Even fewer people do this.

Having said that, I am hoping that people will learn from his experience (I'm sure he has already), and realize that flight testing is much more serious business than most people making first flights and doing phase 1 flight testing think.

If you undertake the job of test pilot, you need to already be ready for anything the airplane could possibly do. This is not a learn as you go occupation. You need to already know what to do at the start of a spin entry, and be able to make the proper control inputs by seeing what is happening out the windscreen (the instruments are not going to give you the best indication). Making an incorrect determination of what is going on, making incorrect control inputs, or delaying taking proper action, can quickly turn a simple anomaly, in to a very serious situation (like it did here).

Please consider the flight testing of your new airplane to be a serious undertaking.
Please consider carefully, whether you are prepared for all of the different situations that could pop up during a first flight, and all of the testing that follows.

And please consider, There is no shame in using a more experienced pilot for some (or even all) of the test flying.

Click to expand...

I agree / better said than I would have.

My golden rule for test flying -

Keep the corners in front of me.

I'm still alive (knock-on-wood)

Sam Buchanan said:

I have a confession to make, and it is made at the risk of being considered an inferior pilot by some.

During the course of the past thirteen years and 1100 hours I have never done an accelerated stall in my RV-6. The very real possibility of a botched accelerated stall resulting in a spin, and the fact I have no formal spin training, and the RV-6's known ability to spin up so fast it even scares Van himself means I have no business exploring this corner of the envelope. I have instead devoted considerable efforts to avoiding an accelerated stall in the RV-6. There are two angle of attack indicators in the panel, I am obsessive about keeping the ball centered, and am very careful with airspeed control during the last two turns to a landing.

The past thirteen years in the RV have been a wonderful experience and it has taken me places I would not have otherwise been. But I recognize my limits, and am cognizant of the consequences of exceeding them.

Taking a high performance aircraft into corners of the envelope with which we are not familiar is not just risky, but foolhardy. If we are determined to change our safety culture we must recognize the risk inherent in our "test flying" and make sure we are totally trained and mentally prepared to address any problem that can arise. I'm not, so some aspects of my plane's performance remain unexplored.

Click to expand...

Sam,
I can't much argue with your decision not to explore some of the extremes of the flight envelope of your RV since you have no training in spins. That is exactly what we are talking about... people doing things they have no training in.
What I do disagree with, is not getting training and then becoming more familiar with how our own airplane reacts in a given situation.

It is my opinion, that one of the serious issues we have within our non-professional pilot population is the fear of stalls and what the airplane will do because of one. After all of the years of doing demo flights, and the countless times I have encountered pilots who just about have a panic attack when you ask them if they want to see the stall characteristics of the airplane, I am convinced of this.

I am convinced that we have countless pilots who fly with a fear of stalls, and because of that it makes them unsafe in many other ways.

I can sit all day watching airplanes land at most any airport and seemingly half the pilots need 2500 ft (sometimes even more) to land an airplane, that flown properly can land in a 3rd of that (or less). I think it is because they fear stalling. And because of that fear, they make sure they have a healthy (overly excessive) speed margin above the stall speed, to help them make sure that it never happens.

This may seem like it is not dangerous, but these guys wreck airplanes all the time because they decide to land somewhere that the runway is just a bit shorter than the big airports they usually use, because in the back of their mind they know the airplane is fully capable. The problem is, as a pilot, they are not. We all know the outcome. they run off the end of the runway, or wreck the airplane while forcing it to land while too fast, when they realize they are running out of runway, and choose to not go around (another whole different issue of it self).

Even worse...
They have an engine failure that leaves them with an only landing option of a very small field... but they (and maybe others with them) die because they are still in the air as they plow through the trees at the opposite end of the landing area. They can't land in 800 ft when their life does depend on it, because they never do any other time.

We could list situation after situation where things will turn out bad just because a pilot does not fly in a skilled manner that allows him to fly the airplane at the speed it is capable of being flown at, but I think you probably get what I am talking about.

Sam, I in no way mean to imply that you are one of these pilots I am describing, just because you have chosen not to do accelerated stalls and spins. I am also not advocating that everyone should do in depth stall and spin testing.

But what I am meaning to say is, that if we are going to improve our safety culture, we need to find ways to become more familiar and comfortable with the flight characteristics of the airplane(s) we fly, rather than find ways to stay at arms length from the situations that make us uncomfortable.
Avoiding getting anywhere close to those situations works for a while, but eventually, something bad might happen (there is a reason they are called "accidents", not "on purposes"). If that day ever comes, we would all be better off if we have experienced the situation before, we know what to do, and we know before hand what the result will be if we do it.

If every pilot, regardless what airplane they fly, would get whatever training help they needed to explore the full performance range of their airplane, and then regularly practiced flying at minimum controllable airspeed for many different situations (steep turns, accelerated flight, high power climbs, gliding descents, etc.), I am convinced that the accident statistics for take-off, maneuvering flight, and landings would plummet.

spins

Regarding the post by RVBuilder 2002, I will take this a step further. It is not just the pilots who are flying private aircraft. The Air France accident is a horrid example of the complete lack of basic skills by SOME airline pilots.
Many years ago I instructed aerobatics full time for two years. A few times I flew with ten different people in one day. The number of really exceptional pilots I encountered during that period was maybe 15-20. The one that stands out after all these years was a Lockheed 1011 Captain for a major airline. We did just one flight in the Pitts S2B.He said something like this 'flying the 1011 to Europe hardly requires any skill at all" Of course he was talking about normal circumstances, no emergencies, no challenging weather etc.
He had never flown a Pitts before and wanted to see what it was like. We did some acro and some landings. He was totally the master of the airplane, the best I ever saw in the Pitts. had it been my airplane and had there been no insurance considerations I would have sent him off on his own after three landings.
Heres the reason he was so good: he owned either a Cessna 180 or 185 and regularly flew a T6. I am presenting this as an example of someone who was at the opposite end of the spectrum from the Air France pilots.
A pilot today who learned to fly in a Cessna or a Cherokee takes longer to check out in a taildragger than the typical student did to go from zero to solo in the same taildragger 40 years ago. At least part of the problem is the instructors. Some of the instructors 40 years ago had the same career goals as instructors do today. They were however, old school and not afraid of stalls and spins. They were far more dedicated to their profession than most instructors today.

Spin or spiral, unexpected

Just reinforcing the fact that a normally functioning turn needle or turn coordinator indicates the correct direction of a spin whether the spin is upright or inverted (differentiating those two only takes a glance at the "g" meter). Always apply rudder opposite to direction of the spin to initiate recovery. The turn needle can be used to tell the direction as can the way the airplane appears to rotate if you look directly along the top of the cowl. Unless you know the characteristics of your airplane well, keep ailerons neutral. Outspin aileron just flattens a spin and renders recovery more difficult, not less so. Inspin aileron accelerates the spin and this can be incredibly disorienting if you've not seen it before. I agree with other posters that this event was likely a spiral dive and not a spin. I'm very happy this (honest) pilot is OK and thank him for sharing his experience. I do believe his aircraft requires a thorough structural evaluation before flying again. The g loads during recovery were likely in multiple directions with rolling and yawing components as well as the positive g in pitch. Structural damage could have occurred.

They also dragged the wingtips off a LOT of cubs back then, and it was no big deal because there was no massive NTSB investigation, and you could buy a new cub for a few hundred bucks....but I agree with your basic points.

jrs14855 said:

Regarding the post by RVBuilder 2002, I will take this a step further. It is not just the pilots who are flying private aircraft. The Air France accident is a horrid example of the complete lack of basic skills by SOME airline pilots.
Many years ago I instructed aerobatics full time for two years. A few times I flew with ten different people in one day. The number of really exceptional pilots I encountered during that period was maybe 15-20. The one that stands out after all these years was a Lockheed 1011 Captain for a major airline. We did just one flight in the Pitts S2B.He said something like this 'flying the 1011 to Europe hardly requires any skill at all" Of course he was talking about normal circumstances, no emergencies, no challenging weather etc.
He had never flown a Pitts before and wanted to see what it was like. We did some acro and some landings. He was totally the master of the airplane, the best I ever saw in the Pitts. had it been my airplane and had there been no insurance considerations I would have sent him off on his own after three landings.
Heres the reason he was so good: he owned either a Cessna 180 or 185 and regularly flew a T6. I am presenting this as an example of someone who was at the opposite end of the spectrum from the Air France pilots.
A pilot today who learned to fly in a Cessna or a Cherokee takes longer to check out in a taildragger than the typical student did to go from zero to solo in the same taildragger 40 years ago. At least part of the problem is the instructors. Some of the instructors 40 years ago had the same career goals as instructors do today. They were however, old school and not afraid of stalls and spins. They were far more dedicated to their profession than most instructors today.

Click to expand...

accidents

Several years in a club with 60 members and four 65 hp airplanes. Luscombe was damaged twice, no damage to the other three.
Last 18 accident incidents, 8 were loss of control on takeoff or landing.
RV8 off side of runway and flipped, RV6A off runway nose gear collapse. If people can't stay on the runway what hope is there of avoiding stall/spin.

Training

Over the years I have watched flight training take several directions. Sometimes this has resulted in a lot of back peddling by the FAA and were currently in one of those time periods. As a result of the ATR Buffalo accident and the Air France accident and the American Flight 587 crash in New York has the FAA and flight schools promoting upset training.WHY?
Because we have gotton so far away from basic training, learning attitude flying and promoting the recovery at incept of the stall instead of doing full stalls an spin training.
Back in the late 70's the FAA was telling 141 schools and instructors to teach recovery at recognition of the stall the stall horn or the first buffet.This was further promoted by Simulator schools that taught jet training that ther was to be no altitude loss during the recovery from a stall or minimum at best.

As a result of several recent accidents we now have the FAA and flight schools promoting upset training. At the cost of several Thousand Dollars

These accidents happened because of lack of training and in a couple of the accidents because of lack of expierence.

You decide. Which is better... Flying along on an ILS , switching off the auto pilot and then the plane stalls. What did the pilot do.... Tried to hold altitude as he was taught.. Instead of relaxing the yoke, losing a couple hundred feet and recovering he flipped on his back to inverted and killed all 52 on board
The co pilot did not help by retracting the flaps either. It is irregardless that the plane was loaded with ice.. It flew just fine untill it stalled then the wrong recovery techinques were used.

I dont care if you race your Miata on the weekend or Scuba dive. Get training in all the areas you could end up in.. If your aircraft can spinget sall and spin training..
If your aircraft can fly in The clouds and you like to scud run. Get some IFR training and situation awareness training..CFIT is right near the top for accidents

Your flying a high loaded RV wing. Learn what that means. Well it is a lot higher loaded than a Cessna 152 or a Kitfox

Dwight, i am glad your safe.... There is no blame... Learn from your mistakes...
If you learned to fly back in the 60's we all made stupid mistakes..and were lucky to be writng these word of encourgment
There are several great acrobatic schools that an hour of training could save your life and not set you back more than a couple hundred dollars.

Just my opinion

Smilin' Jack
43 years of this flying.

Nothing beats learning aerobatics for making a better "stick"

Pilots that are uncomfortable with power on and accelerated stalls are just under trained, not bad pilots per se. Instructors that are uncomfortable
with power on stalls are far too abundant these days, and unfortunately reinforce their fears needlessly into their students.

If you are afraid of these things, please get training. There is no reason to fear stalls or spins in an RV, I don't care how quick they spin, a Cessna 150 Aerobat will wrap itself up pretty well power off, and so will a Pitts with full power, outspin aileron and forward stick. All due respect to Van, I would pay more attention to what an accomplished and experienced acro pilot says about the spin characteristics of an RV than the designer. I doubt there is any light airplane out there right now that enters a full blown, wrapped up tight developed spin instantly. Once a wing stalls and drops, any aerobatically proficient pilot would know what to do to begin flying again almost instantly. 99% of them would never get to that point, they would recognize it's about to happen before it does.

I used to be one of those fearful pilots, and instructor, many years ago, until I started aerobatic training. Years later, when I bought my Pitts, towards the end of my training in it I would have the instructor take me up and put me in the most wrapped up nasty spins he could, while my eyes were closed. As soon as I heard "your airplane", I would open my eyes and recover. Sure, it takes time to work up to this point, but it's worth it. When you know that the worst thing that can happen if you botch an aerobatic maneuver, whether it be a loop or a torque roll or a tumble, is that you end up in some sort of inverted spin, and you are comfortable with those, you can explore all the edges of envelopes you want (staying within published limits of the plane, of course). But even if you own and fly a -10, if you get training in an aerobatic aircraft, you will be a far, far better, and safer, pilot in your -10.

Get the training, you will be amazed how much more confident you become as pilot. If you learn to fly aerobatics well enough to finish middle of the pack in the Sportsman category, I guarantee you won't need an airspeed, slip-skid, or AOA indicator in your airplane, you will have a feel for it and know when you are slipping, skidding, or approaching critical angle of attack. If you learn to pull across the top of a humpty at 20mph, right on the edge of a stall, or do a 360 degree turn at 160mph, again right on the edge of stalling, you won't need no steenkin' AOA!

Even if you don't go for a full blown aerobatic course, spin/unusual attitude training is better than nothing, and will help ally fears. To the unfamiliar it's often that "out of control" feeling that paralyzes them, and you can be sure once you are comfortable with spins and rolls, you are a much better, and safer pilot than you were.

Great excuse to fly!

I love all this advice and will definitely show it to my wife if she balks at me wanting to take aerobatic lessons. It's a great excuse to go fly some taildraggers!

spins

As usual Damon's writing is excellent. If the Air France and Buffalo pilots had been through at least ten hours of spin and upset training neither accident would have happened.
An old friend of mine from many years ago had become a contract pilot and later check airman/instructor for a large European airline. He was just 25 when he became Capt. He said: you can take any large airline and apply the 10/40 rule. The top 10% are exceptional pilots in every respect. The next 40% are above average, the next 40% are below average. The bottom 10% are the dregs of the industry, incompentents, misfits and lunatics. In recent years the airlines have done a much better job of weeding out the lunatics, but some are still there. Things really took a turn for the worse when they took responsibility for hiring away from the chief pilot and placed it in the hands of a new department called "human resources"
The 10/40 rule can also be applied to instructors.

I have donned my asbestos underwear and am fully prepared for the consequences of what I am about to say, but I am going to say it anyway.

This thread, more than any I have read in a long time, clearly explains why the accident statistics in Phase 1 flight test of Exp/Am built aircraft is horrible...

The FAA is shining light on this subject because the industry has been unwilling to discuss the 800# gorilla sitting in the living room.

Like it or not, that gorilla is this: Most pilots flying first flights and phase 1 flight test are seriously under-qualified to for that mission.

The lack of understanding of some basic aerodynamics and serious lack of knowledge of stalls and spins is really scary...

Before the libertarians (I am pretty libertarian myself) pile on about the "builders right to kill themselves in their own airplane." Lets remember that the Constitution doesn't say much about the Right to Fly. And even less about the right to fly homemade airplanes....

Talking about this will not change anything... We have to change the culture in the industry and acknowledge that most builders are just plain UN-qualified to make first flights and to explore the envelope as prescribed in phase 1 testing. Until the widely held expectation that builders do their own first flight becomes the exception rather than the norm, the accident statistics will not change.


Another option is that a ground and flight training course be created that prepares pilots for first flights.... That would be better, but much more expensive than hiring a test pilot.

I suppose the first step is to develop some criteria that a pilot could measure themselves against in making that decision...

Things like:

Time is type or similar, Spin Training, In-flight egress training, Total time, Time in type or similar in the preceding 12 months/ 90 days/30 days, Aeronautical training, First Flight training as it relates to ground testing of systems before first flight, (fuel delivery specifically)

If a person looked at what were reasonable qualifications and made the right decision and decided to seek a qualified test pilot, then those have to be available...

That means an industry certification of a qualified Exp Amateur built test pilot.

That would require a curriculum ground and flight for a pilot who wants attain that certification and a testing program.

The industry can either start working on these kinds of solutions, or we can stick our libertarian heads in the sand and fight for our right to continue to kill ourselves in our homemade airplanes.... Or we can wait for the FAA to do it for us. I vote for the former.

Tailwinds,
Doug Rozendaal

This only heightens the need for spin training and unusual attitude recovery. I never had to do either during my primary training, but went and did 1.5 hours in a decathlon to do unusual attitude and spin training. Best value I've ever had in flight training, even the free barf bag.



TODR

When I did my transition training with Mike Seager, prior to my first flight, I told him my main objective was to make sure I was ready for the first flight. All else was secondary to that goal.

Guess what we spent the most time on???

Stalls, landing, and slow flight--------------and keeping the plane on the numbers as to speed, altitude etc.

the_other_dougreeves said:

This only heightens the need for spin training and unusual attitude recovery. I never had to do either during my primary training, but went and did 1.5 hours in a decathlon to do unusual attitude and spin training. Best value I've ever had in flight training, even the free barf bag.

TODR

Click to expand...

Agreed...I am two hours into a ten hour aerobatic program (including a spin endorsement) to get myself ready for my first flight. After two hours (two hours each of flying and ground) in a Pitts, I can honestly say I learned more in those two hours of aerobatics than I did in 80 hrs of straight and level flight. And...the kicker is, I cant wait for the next 8 hrs as I know each hour will make me a better pilot.

I'm man enough to admit, I never practiced stalls solo because of exactly the theme most on here with a lot more experience than I, have emphasized...fear. I knew a sloppy stall could lead to a spin...and that scared me because we all know spins are "pilot killers"...simple as that. After you get past the initial shock of being upside down, banking more than 60 degs...or pointing the nose at the ground, your fear will subside...and that is a good thing. Fear locks up the brain in pressure situations. We shouldnt be flying our airplanes, while afraid of the "boogeyman". Spins need to be part of our training curriculum...even if the FAA doesnt mandate it. Just do a couple hours with a good instructor and it will make a world of difference...I promise you. Shake hands with the "boogeyman"...he isnt such a bad fellow once you get to know him. Fly safe my friends.

p.s. Read my blog post "Into the Fray" to see what its like for a low time pilot to fly in the Pitts S-2C for the first time

RV7Ron said:

I'm man enough to admit, I never practiced stalls solo because of exactly the theme most on here with a lot more experience than I, have emphasized...fear.

Fear locks up the brain in pressure situations.

Click to expand...

Fear is the mind killer.

Sam Buchanan said:

I have a confession to make, and it is made at the risk of being considered an inferior pilot by some.

During the course of the past thirteen years and 1100 hours I have never done an accelerated stall in my RV-6.........

Click to expand...

N355DW said:

Pilots that are uncomfortable with power on and accelerated stalls are just under trained, not bad pilots per se. Instructors that are uncomfortable with power on stalls are far too abundant these days, and unfortunately reinforce their fears needlessly into their students.

If you are afraid of these things, please get training. There is no reason to fear stalls or spins in an RV, I don't care how quick they spin, a Cessna 150 Aerobat will wrap itself up pretty well power off, and so will a Pitts with full power, outspin aileron and forward stick. All due respect to Van, I would pay more attention to what an accomplished and experienced acro pilot says about the spin characteristics of an RV than the designer. I doubt there is any light airplane out there right now that enters a full blown, wrapped up tight developed spin instantly. Once a wing stalls and drops, any aerobatically proficient pilot would know what to do to begin flying again almost instantly. 99% of them would never get to that point, they would recognize it's about to happen before it does.

I used to be one of those fearful pilots, and instructor, many years ago, until I started aerobatic training. Years later, when I bought my Pitts, towards the end of my training in it I would have the instructor take me up and put me in the most wrapped up nasty spins he could, while my eyes were closed. As soon as I heard "your airplane", I would open my eyes and recover. Sure, it takes time to work up to this point, but it's worth it. When you know that the worst thing that can happen if you botch an aerobatic maneuver, whether it be a loop or a torque roll or a tumble, is that you end up in some sort of inverted spin, and you are comfortable with those, you can explore all the edges of envelopes you want (staying within published limits of the plane, of course). But even if you own and fly a -10, if you get training in an aerobatic aircraft, you will be a far, far better, and safer, pilot in your -10.

Get the training, you will be amazed how much more confident you become as pilot. If you learn to fly aerobatics well enough to finish middle of the pack in the Sportsman category, I guarantee you won't need an airspeed, slip-skid, or AOA indicator in your airplane, you will have a feel for it and know when you are slipping, skidding, or approaching critical angle of attack. If you learn to pull across the top of a humpty at 20mph, right on the edge of a stall, or do a 360 degree turn at 160mph, again right on the edge of stalling, you won't need no steenkin' AOA!

Even if you don't go for a full blown aerobatic course, spin/unusual attitude training is better than nothing, and will help ally fears. To the unfamiliar it's often that "out of control" feeling that paralyzes them, and you can be sure once you are comfortable with spins and rolls, you are a much better, and safer pilot than you were.

Click to expand...

Well....that didn't take long.....glad I have a thick skin.

And no, I'm not "fearful" (I don't think many fearful pilots would strap their hind end into a 250 lb airplane), and don't "need" an AOA, just cognizant that I don't have to explore everything my RV-6 is capable of doing in order for it to fill my mission profile. Aerobatic training can certainly expand a pilot's skill set, but there are a lot of competent, skilled, and safe pilots out there who have never had aerobatic training.

However, I join those who are very concerned about Phase 1 flights being conducted by individuals with inadequate preparation and skills. Like Mike, I was blessed by Mike Seager and that was time and $$$$'s well spent.

As you live in Denver, go to one of the Saiplane Clubs in the area, ask for a double height tow, and for spin training, it will be a good training, as there is no engine/instruments/gadgets to distract, it has to do with energy and feeling !

Thomas
RV7 - no builder just driver
Jantar Std3 - gone
Ximango AMT100 - gone
Nimbus4- gone
DG800b - gone
M20E - gone

Doug's on the right track

Doug, you are on the right track for improving training in lots of situations, not just flight test. I'm a USAF guy, so I could compare this notion to what we call a "Letter of Xs" (LoX). A LoX is just a spreadsheet, where all the possible qualifications a pilot could have are listed across the horizontal axis, with all the pilot names listed down the left side vertical axis. Then, an "X" is placed under each qualification a particular pilot has. By glancing at an LoX, you can quickly tell who the most qualified pilots are.

In the RV world, an equivalent might be a list of all those things you mentioned. It might then be wise to ensure your LoX is "full", or close to it, before becoming a test pilot on your plane. Even if you're not going to be a test pilot, each RV pilot might have a goal to fill in the gaps in their own training with such a concept. And I wouldn't call it good enough to be "qualified" in those events unless a similarly qualified instructor signed you off.

My suggested list of continuation training categories to add, in addition to the items of training you mentioned:
-Stalls
-Accelerated Stalls
-Spins (General/in type)
-Aerobatics (General/in type)
--Specific maneuvers?
-Formation wingman
-Formation flight lead
-Short field landings in type
-Soft field landings in type
-Mountain Flying Qual in type
-Emergency Procedures in type/specific airplane
--Engine-out landings
--Bailout training?
--Actual parachuting training

Just an idea to ponder - but its nice to have something objective to evaluate your own training against that's beyond the FAA's minimum requirements.

-Jordan

B25Flyer said:

I suppose the first step is to develop some criteria that a pilot could measure themselves against in making that decision...

Things like:

Time is type or similar, Spin Training, In-flight egress training, Total time, Time in type or similar in the preceding 12 months/ 90 days/30 days, Aeronautical training, First Flight training as it relates to ground testing of systems before first flight, (fuel delivery specifically)

If a person looked at what were reasonable qualifications and made the right decision and decided to seek a qualified test pilot, then those have to be available...

That means an industry certification of a qualified Exp Amateur built test pilot.

That would require a curriculum ground and flight for a pilot who wants attain that certification and a testing program.

The industry can either start working on these kinds of solutions, or we can stick our libertarian heads in the sand and fight for our right to continue to kill ourselves in our homemade airplanes.... Or we can wait for the FAA to do it for us. I vote for the former.

Tailwinds,
Doug Rozendaal

Click to expand...

spins

In the early days of the Interantional Aerobaic Club, the spin accident record was pretty dismal. A couple of examples; an Unlited Category pilot who bailed out of his Pitts when he couldn't recover from a spin. An airline pilot flying an airshow in a S1 Pitts who did an intentional flat inverted spin in an airhow and spun all the way to the ground. Density altitude was extremely high but that should not have been a significant factor.
These are just a couple of examples from tha era, people were getting killed in Pitts spin accidents far too frequently.
When the two place Pitts became available and more and more full time aerobatic schools started using the S2 Pitts, the spin accident rate gradually improved. Today it is pretty rare for a Pitts to spin all the way to the ground. I am concerned that this is again headed in the wrong direction. Insurance companys are now willing to insure a single seat Pitts with zero Pitts time.
For the poster who doesn't even practice stalls, how in the world do you get a BFR???

jrs14855 said:

In the early days of the Interantional Aerobaic Club, the spin accident record was pretty dismal. A couple of examples; an Unlited Category pilot who bailed out of his Pitts when he couldn't recover from a spin. An airline pilot flying an airshow in a S1 Pitts who did an intentional flat inverted spin in an airhow and spun all the way to the ground. Density altitude was extremely high but that should not have been a significant factor.
These are just a couple of examples from tha era, people were getting killed in Pitts spin accidents far too frequently.
When the two place Pitts became available and more and more full time aerobatic schools started using the S2 Pitts, the spin accident rate gradually improved. Today it is pretty rare for a Pitts to spin all the way to the ground. I am concerned that this is again headed in the wrong direction. Insurance companys are now willing to insure a single seat Pitts with zero Pitts time.
For the poster who doesn't even practice stalls, how in the world do you get a BFR???

Click to expand...

What I stated was, I didn't practice stalls 'solo'...last time I checked a BFR is not "solo" flight. Doesn't take long to get criticized on this forum for being honest.

stalls

If you're ok doing stalls on your BFR but won't do them solo then I would respectfully submit that you have a problem. I was out solo doing stalls in the cub with less than ten hours total time logged and that was over a period of two years, stopping altogether for the long upstate NY winters. My first couple of hours in the cub with my first instructor was mostly stalls. I hated them. I was too stubborn to quit.

jrs14855 said:

If you're ok doing stalls on your BFR but won't do them solo then I would respectfully submit that you have a problem. I was out solo doing stalls in the cub with less than ten hours total time logged and that was over a period of two years, stopping altogether for the long upstate NY winters. My first couple of hours in the cub with my first instructor was mostly stalls. I hated them. I was too stubborn to quit.

Click to expand...

If I botch a routine stall and enter a spin, solo, I wasn't 100% sure I could recover without proper training. So I vowed not to do them solo until I received spin training, which I am now doing. And I won't have any problem doing them solo now. If you were comfortable doing them without spin training, maybe you're just braver than I am, somehow I doubt it.

We all have to start somewhere. I am an inexperienced pilot and I work my butt off to become a better aviator but it takes time. You more experienced pilots should try to mentor and encourage the less experienced instead of flaming them.

I think it is reasonable to expect that anyone flying any airplane (not just the one they took all of their training in), should be component in demonstrating all of the requirements they had to meet for the private pilot practical test.
I am thinking that if you are not comfortable doing some of the maneuvers required in the standards, in the airplane you are flying now, then you should not be exercising the privileges of your pilot certificate until you get enough training so that you are comfortable.

The pertinent practical test standards for private pilot are -

VIII. AREA OF OPERATION: SLOW FLIGHT AND
STALLS
A. TASK: MANEUVERING DURING SLOW FLIGHT (ASEL and ASES)
REFERENCES: FAA-H-8083-3; POH/AFM.
Objective. To determine that the applicant:
1. Exhibits knowledge of the elements related to maneuvering during
slow flight.
2. Selects an entry altitude that will allow the task to be completed no
lower than 1,500 feet (460 meters) AGL.
3. Establishes and maintains an airspeed at which any further increase
in angle of attack, increase in load factor, or reduction in power,
would result in an immediate stall.
4. Accomplishes coordinated straight-and-level flight, turns, climbs, and
descents with landing gear and flap configurations specified by the
examiner.
5. Divides attention between airplane control and orientation.
6. Maintains the specified altitude, ?100 feet (30 meters); specified
heading, ?10?; airspeed, +10/−0 knots; and specified angle of bank,
?10?.

B. TASK: POWER-OFF STALLS (ASEL and ASES)
REFERENCES: FAA-H-8083-3, AC 61-67; POH/AFM.
Objective. To determine that the applicant:
1. Exhibits knowledge of the elements related to power-off stalls.
2. Selects an entry altitude that allows the task to be completed no
lower than 1,500 feet (460 meters) AGL.
3. Establishes a stabilized descent in the approach or landing
configuration, as specified by the examiner.
4. Transitions smoothly from the approach or landing attitude to a pitch
attitude that will induce a stall.
5. Maintains a specified heading, ?10?, in straight flight; maintains a
specified angle of bank not to exceed 20?, ?10?; in turning flight,
while inducing the stall.
6. Recognizes and recovers promptly after the stall occurs by
simultaneously reducing the angle of attack, increasing power to
maximum allowable, and leveling the wings to return to a straightand-
level flight attitude with a minimum loss of altitude appropriate
for the airplane.
7. Retracts the flaps to the recommended setting; retracts the landing
gear, if retractable, after a positive rate of climb is established.
8. Accelerates to VX or VY speed before the final flap retraction; returns
to the altitude, heading, and airspeed specified by the examiner.

C. TASK: POWER-ON STALLS (ASEL and ASES)
NOTE: In some high performance airplanes, the power setting may have to
be reduced below the practical test standards guideline power setting to
prevent excessively high pitch attitudes (greater than 30? nose up).
REFERENCES: FAA-H-8083-3, AC 61-67; POH/AFM.
Objective. To determine that the applicant:
1. Exhibits knowledge of the elements related to power-on stalls.
2. Selects an entry altitude that allows the task to be completed no
lower than 1,500 feet (460 meters) AGL.
3. Establishes the takeoff or departure configuration. Sets power to no
less than 65 percent available power.
4. Transitions smoothly from the takeoff or departure attitude to the
pitch attitude that will induce a stall.
5. Maintains a specified heading, ?10?, in straight flight; maintains a
specified angle of bank not to exceed 20?, ?10?, in turning flight,
while inducing the stall.
6. Recognizes and recovers promptly after the stall occurs by
simultaneously reducing the angle of attack, increasing power as
appropriate, and leveling the wings to return to a straight-and-level
flight attitude with a minimum loss of altitude appropriate for the
airplane.
7. Retracts the flaps to the recommended setting; retracts the landing
gear if retractable, after a positive rate of climb is established.
8. Accelerates to VX or VY speed before the final flap retraction; returns
to the altitude, heading, and airspeed specified by the examiner.


D. TASK: SPIN AWARENESS (ASEL and ASES)
REFERENCES: FAA-H-8083-3, AC 61-67; POH/AFM.
Objective. To determine that the applicant exhibits knowledge of the
elements related to spin awareness by explaining:
1. Aerodynamic factors related to spins.
2. Flight situations where unintentional spins may occur.
3. Procedures for recovery from unintentional spins.

The entire standards doc can be viewed HERE

RV7Ron said:

We all have to start somewhere. I am an inexperienced pilot and I work my butt off to become a better aviator but it takes time. You more experienced pilots should try to mentor and encourage the less experienced instead of flaming them.

Click to expand...

Good post Ron. And we wonder why lower time pilots do not ask for help or want to post about an incident that they admitted they were over their head and lucky. There is a difference between instructing and trying to show how smart a person thinks they are.

If there was a patch with chevrons for quals... pilots will walk on broken glass for an ego patch... sad but true... but if it causes people to take training, im for it...

pilots will walk on broken glass for an ego patch

Click to expand...

Snortin coffee here dude.

B25Flyer said:

Like it or not, that gorilla is this: Most pilots flying first flights and phase 1 flight test are seriously under-qualified to for that mission.

The lack of understanding of some basic aerodynamics and serious lack of knowledge of stalls and spins is really scary...

Click to expand...

Having recently successfully transition trained a fairly low time pilot in a RV-6, I really got a good eye-popping lesson on the quality of instruction many people are getting nowadays. Never put much thought into this before but WOW. This gentleman was taught by a young 141 school CFI. I'm pretty blunt, asked him how he was able to pass a checkride after seeing how he performed the first couple of flights and his response was "I think the examiner felt sorry for me." To his credit he worked hard to get straightened out and I was determined to get him on the right path, which to me was very rewarding and now I find myself wanting to get my CFI rating. It all begins with quality instruction and I'm 100% certain unless you are an experienced pilot, 2-3 hours with an RV transition trainer is nowhere close to being enough.

training

For a short time many years ago I worked part time for a guy whose primary business was flight tests. He soon talked me into retraining some his failures.
A true story that he told me, I did not meet the person involved. Oral was OK first takeoff in a Cherokee, at about 100 feet pilot takes his feet off the rudder pedals and put his feet on the floor behind the pedals. Examiner says what are you doing. Pilot says I had terrible problems with overcontrolling on the rudder, I don't have that problem anymore. This was probably in the mid eighties, things haven't changed a whole lot.

Great example of the value of the AOA systems to prevent inadvertent stall/spin. I have been stall testing an RV7A with the AOA Pro now properly calibrated the past two days. Always get the angle angle push push...before anything nasty happens. Was surprised how thin the margin is on accelerated stalls pulling some Gs and 45-50 degrees of bank.
CopterJohn
DPE

RV7Ron,
Good post, good luck wth the training.

Like an old saying the beatings will continue until we all get stall and spin training

Seriously we don't need more regulations, we need a brotherhood.

Im not Mike Seagers, I admire what he does for the RV community.

Want help? Ask i am sure there are a lot of good instructors and acrobatic pilot who will help you.

Smilin' Jack
CFI-AI MEL
1961160

Sorry... but a test pilot in phase one should have no need for or concern about an AOA. I have nothing against AOA.... But it is not required epuipment for anyone qualified to flight test an airplane.... One of the tasks in phase 1 flight test would be to calibrate the AOA...

The more technology in the airplane... the more, not less experience needed to flight test it...

Diug Rozendaal

From:

http://www.rvflightsafety.org/safetyprogram/introduction/

"AOPA ASI discussion: Stalls and/or spins were implicated in seven of the 16 take-off and climb accidents, including four of the fatals; in seven of 13 descent and approach accidents, five of which were fatal; in 16 landing accidents and seven of the nine go-around accidents, including two of the three that were fatal; and eight fatal maneuvering accidents. Collectively, stalls accounted for 16% of RV accidents and 24% of fatal accidents, so this would seem like an area where some improvement could be made.

If an AOA can help prevent stall/spin accidents/fatalities then go for it. Calibrate as required during Phase 1.

Knowing how to recover from stall/spins is good but avoiding them in the first place is better.

I'll start.

Guys/gals, I came along right after spins were no longer required for the PPL but were for the CFI rating. I have spun countless airplanes, including Skyhawks and 150's.

If any of you are intimidated by any kind of stall in your airplane, come and see me...I'll run you through the whole series FOR FREE!

I'm fixin' to check out another CFI in my -10 so he can give basic lessons in an owner built -10.... FOR FREE!...professional courtesy to other CFI's.

I spend a pile of time during transition training doing landings of all sorts, with emphasis on precise airspeed control because some of the guys that came through here never had learned really good, basic piloting skills....and it doesn't take a J-3 or taildragger to learn either.

Many of the guys on here came through here and can testify about the number and variety of landings they did.

Best,

Safety is my point

Sam Buchanan said:

Well....that didn't take long.....glad I have a thick skin.

And no, I'm not "fearful" (I don't think many fearful pilots would strap their hind end into a 250 lb airplane), and don't "need" an AOA, just cognizant that I don't have to explore everything my RV-6 is capable of doing in order for it to fill my mission profile. Aerobatic training can certainly expand a pilot's skill set, but there are a lot of competent, skilled, and safe pilots out there who have never had aerobatic training.

However, I join those who are very concerned about Phase 1 flights being conducted by individuals with inadequate preparation and skills. Like Mike, I was blessed by Mike Seager and that was time and $$$$'s well spent.

Click to expand...

Sam, your post did indeed prompt mine, but I did not quote you on purpose. I do not know you, nor do I know your skill set, or what particular fears you have or don't have. I did not mean to imply you were a "fearful" pilot, nor do I mean in any way to demean your skills or judgement. However, your post rang a very familiar bell I have heard over the many years I have been an instructor, is all. And that is:

I do believe the majority of pilots are afraid of accelerated stalls, and/or spins. I believe the majority of flight instructors are as well. I said it that way to catch the attention of those who feel these fears. It's a healthy fear, but needless. (Or perhaps I should use the word "respect" instead of fear, pilots don't like that word, I guess.)

And no, I do not think of non-aerobatic pilots as "inferior". Just "under-trained"!

I wrote my post that way intentionally. No need for a thick skin, I posted because I believe very strongly in the value of spin/unusual attitude/aerobatic training. I am sorry you took it personally.

Experienced aerobatic pilots don't have to think about recovery techniques in a situation, be it accelerated stall/,wake vortex encounter, low and slow uncoordinated base turn to final, they will feel the airplane telling them something is wrong, or going wrong, and then react almost instantly and automatically with the correct control inputs. If I can feel the airplane, and react correctly without thinking, isn't that better than all the shiny instruments I can afford to stick in my airplane? If I can "feel" what the airplane is telling me, now my eyes are outside the cockpit for a longer period of time while in the traffic pattern - the place where most midairs happen - instead of looking at the instrument panel. Isn't that a good thing?

My post was not meant as a dig, it was meant as a strong endorsement of the value of spin/unusual attitude/aerobatic training. It was meant to show how I became a better, safer, less fearful pilot, and to encourage others to do the same.

Aerobatic training may not fit everyone's "mission profile", and that's fine, I won't force anyone to get it, or lobby that laws be passed. I'm about as libertarian as they come. I have had a very few aerobatic students who, despite all their best efforts, could not get past the queasiness. It's not for everyone, I get that.

But I believe with all my heart, if you can do it, and will do it, it will make you a better, safer pilot than you already are.

Cheers

Pierre, same boat as you will help those who want help
How ya been?
Smilin Jack
Old Shrike Commander pilot for
Mr.Fulgum

Great day for flying in Georgia today
78 for the high in Jasper

N355DW said:

Sam, your post did indeed prompt mine, but I did not quote you on purpose. I do not know you, nor do I know your skill set, or what particular fears you have or don't have. I did not mean to imply you were a "fearful" pilot, nor do I mean in any way to demean your skills or judgement. However, your post rang a very familiar bell I have heard over the many years I have been an instructor, is all. And that is:

I do believe the majority of pilots are afraid of accelerated stalls, and/or spins. I believe the majority of flight instructors are as well. I said it that way to catch the attention of those who feel these fears. It's a healthy fear, but needless. (Or perhaps I should use the word "respect" instead of fear, pilots don't like that word, I guess.)

And no, I do not think of non-aerobatic pilots as "inferior". Just "under-trained"!

I wrote my post that way intentionally. No need for a thick skin, I posted because I believe very strongly in the value of spin/unusual attitude/aerobatic training. I am sorry you took it personally.

Experienced aerobatic pilots don't have to think about recovery techniques in a situation, be it accelerated stall/,wake vortex encounter, low and slow uncoordinated base turn to final, they will feel the airplane telling them something is wrong, or going wrong, and then react almost instantly and automatically with the correct control inputs. If I can feel the airplane, and react correctly without thinking, isn't that better than all the shiny instruments I can afford to stick in my airplane? If I can "feel" what the airplane is telling me, now my eyes are outside the cockpit for a longer period of time while in the traffic pattern - the place where most midairs happen - instead of looking at the instrument panel. Isn't that a good thing?

My post was not meant as a dig, it was meant as a strong endorsement of the value of spin/unusual attitude/aerobatic training. It was meant to show how I became a better, safer, less fearful pilot, and to encourage others to do the same.

Aerobatic training may not fit everyone's "mission profile", and that's fine, I won't force anyone to get it, or lobby that laws be passed. I'm about as libertarian as they come. I have had a very few aerobatic students who, despite all their best efforts, could not get past the queasiness. It's not for everyone, I get that.

But I believe with all my heart, if you can do it, and will do it, it will make you a better, safer pilot than you already are.

Cheers

Click to expand...

Good post.

What makes a pilot safe (safer) is a constant awareness of what is going on with the airplane. The training mentioned above is to that end. It can be achieved other ways also, like a never ending self critique of every flight and especially control of air speed. A lack of situational awareness contributes ot most stall spin accidents. They don't happen deliberately, the happen because the pilots brain is out to lunch and not aware of what is going on.

My biggest gripe giving flight instruction (and I am no expert on the subject) is lack of airspeed control. Pilots don't seem to care or are just lazy. That gripes me.

OK. I have stayed away for some time now on this threads and others like it due to the flaming that sometimes errupts, but I can't stay away from this one any more as I think some basics are being missed. And please read this softly. It is very clear, as others pointed out, that this was a spiral, or at minimum a bad recovery from an incipient spin that led to the high airspeeds and g loading. Aside from the fact that each of our airplanes are handbuilt (even though they are pre-punched) and are going to behave just a little bit differently from one model to the other, there is a missing awareness of the impact that mass behind the CG can have on aircraft recovery from stalls and spins. In the initial thread posting, if I'm not mistaken, there is reference to the AC (air conditioning) pulley hitting the cowl. That means there is air conditioning installed in this airplane, and even though the aircraft might be within CG limits, the effect of the mass of the airconditioner behind the aft bulkhead has a very potential dramatic effect upon the stall and spin characteristics of this airplane compared to the factory plane. Once the tail has started lateral movement it will take much more control pressure and airflow over the rudder to counteract/stop that lateral movement. Does anyone remember the Art Scholl accident? Art Scholl was killed while filming spin sequences for the movie Top Gun. The mere placement of a camera on his Pitts so dramatically changed his aircraft spin recovery characteristics that he was unable to recover from an inverted flat spin.
All of the other points about training, recognition, fear factors, etc., are right on, but the point I am trying to make is to pay attention to the construction of the aircraft.
For reference, I am a CFII with over 7000 hours of GA time, and am one of the few instructors who early on survived a flat spinning Tomahawk with a student and helped point out that the aircraft had a problem in that particular flight envelope.
Please be especially careful during Phase I, but more importantly, look at the big picture and ask "what's different here"? Preflight BOTH the pilot and the airplane with this same question.

Vic

cg

I agree with most of what Vic says, however real world experience is a bit different. The Extra 230 has a full size battery weighing around 25#, just forward of the vertical fin. This was done to correct a very forward cg condition. The 230 flies just fine, abolutely no adverse flight characteristics. I built a S1 Pitts with a German constant spped prop in place of the fixed pitch. I installed a very large oil cooler near the aft end of the turtledeck to balance the prop. Again this airplane flew just like any other similar Pitts I have flown.
NO ONE knows exactly what happened to Art Scholl. At the time of the accident Art probably had more experience with camera mounts than any other pilot. He had done extensive work with the Chipmunk with a tail mounted camera. He and Marion Cole were among the very first to do flat spin training in the Pitts. It is far more likely that either the camera came loose or there was some kind of control malfunction.
I timed Bob Herendeens flat spins once with and without the camera on the S1S. For an approximately 30 turn flat inverted spin, the spin with the camera seemed to be 2 seconds slower. This could be a timing error, the airplane was very high and therefore difficult to see exactly when the spin started. I also have video of Bob flying a show at Sussex NJ with the camera. All maneuvers were as I would expect without the camera.