My guess is he got himself into a spin, panicked, held full aft stick for a long time. So, either he didn't lose 5000', or he spun for 5000', which would mean he did dozens of turns.
Steve
Van's Air Force
Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.
RV-6A spins
- Thread starter albertaflyer
- Start date
My guess is he got himself into a spin, panicked, held full aft stick for a long time. So, either he didn't lose 5000', or he spun for 5000', which would mean he did dozens of turns.
Steve
JonJay
Well Known Member
Spins really don't stress the airframe
The recovery may induce some stress but relative to other manuevers a spin is one of the most docile in g loading. I have heard tell of old time pilots caught over IMC with a known floor would intentionally spin to get below the cloud deck. This was less risky than the potential of over stressing due to spacial disorientation, stall, recovery, etc... It got you down quickly in a known orientation with little or no airframe stress. Now, the stress on the pilot might be something else to ponder!
The recovery may induce some stress but relative to other manuevers a spin is one of the most docile in g loading. I have heard tell of old time pilots caught over IMC with a known floor would intentionally spin to get below the cloud deck. This was less risky than the potential of over stressing due to spacial disorientation, stall, recovery, etc... It got you down quickly in a known orientation with little or no airframe stress. Now, the stress on the pilot might be something else to ponder!
Hope I never have to do that, but if I did, I think I would prefer to stall the airplane straight ahead and hold stick back with neutral rudder and aileron through the cloud deck. You won't spin or gain airspeed, and you'll be able to recover with much less altitude loss (compared to the spin recovery) once you break out.
Not trying to add insult to injury, but someone posted here that he thought spin training was a good idea to do once, but then pointless ever again. I think this is shown here to clearly not be the case...unless of course you regularly practice them on your own.
Last edited:
Remember the Dash 8 that crashed in Buffalo? I bet he wished that airline pilots did more stall/spin training.
Airline pilots are taught to slow to the stick shaker, then recover. The Buffalo Captain ignored the stick shaker, then overcame the stick pusher at least twice, and held full aft yoke all the way to the ground. Never even firewalled the engines.
Everybody needs spin and stall training! And more than just one time. Just because you learned how to spin and recover during your primary training, doesn't mean that many years later, you're just as proficient.
Steve
Airline pilots are taught to slow to the stick shaker, then recover. The Buffalo Captain ignored the stick shaker, then overcame the stick pusher at least twice, and held full aft yoke all the way to the ground. Never even firewalled the engines.
Everybody needs spin and stall training! And more than just one time. Just because you learned how to spin and recover during your primary training, doesn't mean that many years later, you're just as proficient.
Steve
Last edited:
David-aviator
Well Known Member
Zack Spivey displayed some courage posting the experience of entering an unintentional spin and recovering some 5000' later. Many pilots would not do so out of a concern for a damaged ego and being criticized by fellow pilots, not for being the messenger but for getting into the situation in the first place.
The overriding lesson here is the importance of an awareness of proper airspeed at all times. Nothing is more important for safe flight.
One of the reasons I gave up flight instruction was the resistance some students had to exercising a discipline to maintain safe flying speed at all times. It just was not important to them and extremely frustrating to me. To advocate going out and practicing spin recovery just in case an airplane is inadvertently stalled and spun is putting the cart in front of the horse. Keep the airplane happy with adequate air speed and it will NEVER enter a spin.
The lesson here with Zack's report is fly the airplane, don't let it get away. Obviously he did fly the airplane after it departed but all that could have been avoided with a bit of airspeed awareness trying to top the big cloud. The situation he got into is easy to do, you're focused on going over and not entering the cloud and if only this thing would climb a bit faster.....I've been there, done that, but did not let the machine stall. The situation will resolve itself with a quick descending 180 or at the very least a level off and turn.
By the way, sometimes even if you do clear the top of a growing cloud, like a cumulous nimbus, it can give you quite a ride. Fortunately it is usually up and not down. There is quite a bit of air motion in the clear ahead of the rising visible cloud.
The overriding lesson here is the importance of an awareness of proper airspeed at all times. Nothing is more important for safe flight.
One of the reasons I gave up flight instruction was the resistance some students had to exercising a discipline to maintain safe flying speed at all times. It just was not important to them and extremely frustrating to me. To advocate going out and practicing spin recovery just in case an airplane is inadvertently stalled and spun is putting the cart in front of the horse. Keep the airplane happy with adequate air speed and it will NEVER enter a spin.
The lesson here with Zack's report is fly the airplane, don't let it get away. Obviously he did fly the airplane after it departed but all that could have been avoided with a bit of airspeed awareness trying to top the big cloud. The situation he got into is easy to do, you're focused on going over and not entering the cloud and if only this thing would climb a bit faster.....I've been there, done that, but did not let the machine stall. The situation will resolve itself with a quick descending 180 or at the very least a level off and turn.
By the way, sometimes even if you do clear the top of a growing cloud, like a cumulous nimbus, it can give you quite a ride. Fortunately it is usually up and not down. There is quite a bit of air motion in the clear ahead of the rising visible cloud.
David-aviator
Well Known Member
Steve, you've got to be joking.
The reason airline crews do not practice spin recovery is that air transport aircraft are not spun during flight test or ever. In fact, going into a full stall is most serious, it may be very flat and there is no recovery. That's why in training the recovery must be initiated at the first nibble which is good technique in any airplane.
That Dash 8 bit the dust (snow) because of ice on the airframe and a lack of discipline - not for a lack of spin recovery training. Full power may have saved it, but it was close to the ground and ice was affecting elevator control. I'm sure you've practiced the low level micro burst event, full power and full aft stick and two quick Hail Mary's, maybe that's what the captain had in mind except he forgot to firewall the throttles. I don't think it would have mattered. I do believe the elevator was iced up.
It was a very sad day for everyone on that airplane.
(and this thread has 'bout had it, I am down periscope and out of here)
Ice was not believed to play any significant part in the Dash 8 accident. The approach was normal until gear/flap extension and setting the props to landing pitch. The power was left at idle from that point until the aircraft stalled. At the stall the control column was held almost full aft and for reasons unknown the copilot retracted the flaps making the situation unrecoverable.
It is thought the crew may have felt they had a tailplane stall due to icing but that was not the case. The aircraft stalled at its projected stall speed for its approach weight. The power was left at idle throughout the stall and never advanced. All in all quite a overall indictment to the state of training at many regional airlines.
George
It is thought the crew may have felt they had a tailplane stall due to icing but that was not the case. The aircraft stalled at its projected stall speed for its approach weight. The power was left at idle throughout the stall and never advanced. All in all quite a overall indictment to the state of training at many regional airlines.
George
Flyfalcons
Well Known Member
Ice had nothing to do with it. All models of the Dash 8 can take an amazing amount of ice build up. I've seen an inch and a half many times. If you couldn't hear ice slinging off the props and hitting the fuselage on the CVR, then they didn't have much ice.
The big mistake was made when they were configuring. Dropping the gear alone is a huge amount of drag. Running the props up while at a low power setting will throw you forward from the deceleration. They got behind the power curve, over powered the pusher, and never firewalled the engines.
What my point was, is that because this crew had never actually experienced the stick pusher, they didn't realize what was happening, and then overcame it.
Our Dash 8 sim was upgraded to be able to simulate the stick pusher. Part of our annual recurrent training requires us to actually slow past the shaker, and get into the stick pusher.
I have to say, I have 5000 hours in the Dash, and I've never experienced the shaker. Even in primary training. I've only experienced the shaker once, and that was primary training.
Many experienced pilots have crashed airplanes because they forgot the basics. I honestly believe that everybody should have spin training. At least stall training. I'll be the first to admit that pointed straight down, watching the earth spin, while holding full up elevator, is a scary thing. When I was in college, I'd take a lot of my friends up and do a spin. Just one turn was enough for them to get the point of what it feels like. All of them were blown away.
Steve
Sid Lambert
Well Known Member
Wow, these threads sure go on and on... So I'll add to the fire.
My aerobatics instructor told me there are 2 things that can happen when you botch a maneuver. A spin and a dive. You should be trained and have practiced both of them if you ever do any aerobatics.
You can over stress an airframe no matter what the G meter says. Look at all the Super D's out there with broken fuselages behind the rear pilot position. These are all from snap rolls. This is the same reason no one recommends snapping an RV at speed. I have a video showing the tail section of my RV-4 during a spin. It ain't pretty. That shaking you feel in the stall is coming from the tail moving.
Since this thread and the "impossible turn" thread won't end I'll try to bring them together. I once heard of a Pitts pilot who wanted to know how high he had to be to make the impossible turn. He found his best chance for success was to pitch up after the engine cut and kick it in to a 1/2 turn spin. He only lost 2 hundred feet and was lined back up with the runway when recovered.
My aerobatics instructor told me there are 2 things that can happen when you botch a maneuver. A spin and a dive. You should be trained and have practiced both of them if you ever do any aerobatics.
You can over stress an airframe no matter what the G meter says. Look at all the Super D's out there with broken fuselages behind the rear pilot position. These are all from snap rolls. This is the same reason no one recommends snapping an RV at speed. I have a video showing the tail section of my RV-4 during a spin. It ain't pretty. That shaking you feel in the stall is coming from the tail moving.
Since this thread and the "impossible turn" thread won't end I'll try to bring them together. I once heard of a Pitts pilot who wanted to know how high he had to be to make the impossible turn. He found his best chance for success was to pitch up after the engine cut and kick it in to a 1/2 turn spin. He only lost 2 hundred feet and was lined back up with the runway when recovered.
I mentioned the 1/2 turn spin before, since I did it out of curiosity. To recover 200' below where you simulated the engine failure is not a realistic number in an emergency. If indeed he succeeded at turning around in 200', then it was only because he pulled up the instant he pulled the power off. Not a realistic response in a true emergency.
I tried the 1/2 turn spin in the Pitts, and waited a few second after pulling the power in the climb before doing anything in order to simulate the few seconds of indecisiveness that will typically take place for any pilot under these circumstances. Doing the test in this manner with a 1/2 turn spin used 400' from the point of pulling power to the point of leveling out...the same amount of altitude it took to do a turn. I doubt you were advocating a 1/2 spin turnaround because a normal turn will guarantee you can hit the ground at a shallow angle, even if you don't quite make it all the way around. If you don't quite make it using the spin method, well you can imagine the results. I think if this Pitts pilot started a normal turnaround the instant after pulling power, it could have been close to 200' as well....considering he was probably climbing at 100 mph and ~3,000 fpm. But again, not realistic in an emergency situation, not to mention zero margin.
