"Spins" in a Cardinal RG

[drgwentzel]

Flyers,

I am doing my final training for my CFI and my instructor and I have been and are doing the demonstrated cross-controlled stall. My checkride is Thursday April 9th. After the ride my wife and I are flying to Charleston Executive for a long weekend in cordial and genteel Charleston, SC (but I digress...back to the cross-controlled stalls):

To do this we slow to Va, clean configuration, enter a 45 degree bank,
reduce power to idle, I hold opposite aileron due to over banking tendency
and full inside rudder and full aft elevator until the plane stalls.

I hope I don't have to tell you that the stall is somewhat violent with the
inside wing dropping down aggressively and the outside wing snapping over top and the nose drops straight down spinning to the left. The plane enters a good 1/2 turn spin before I can recover. I told my instructor that my plane is not certificated for spins and he told me that the spin is not developed enough to be a spin and all but accuses me of being a sissy-man and a stall-baby.

What is the groups thoughts on this? I wouldn't think twice on this if we
were in a 172 or 152 loaded in the utility category. I will also admit that
we have done this stall three times now and the plane recovers well enough, but what would happen if the spin develops more? During certification I know they spun the Cardinal RG in at least a one turn spin in each direction, but I also no my plane is not certificated for intensional spins...sooooo....are we ok with what he's asking of me? Am I doing the cross-controlled stall wrong? Any help would be appreciated.

Gene - '71 177RG

 

[CJones]

I'm not sure about the 'proper' technique for cross-controlled stalls, but when I was out working on them last fall, I think I had an opposite experience - IIRC, the outside wing dropped well past 'wings level', and the inside wing came over the top. Also, this was in an RV-7A, so the characteristics might result in different results.

As far as spins, if the plane specifically isn't certified for spins, I wouldn't do it. If the CFI you're flying with is pushing you to do them, it's time for a new CFI. I'm not sure I would feel comfortable intentionally putting the plane in a situation in which the nose gets pointed straight down - RG's are slick enough that you could slide past Vne pretty quickly if not careful.

 

[docmirror]

Well, let me say I've never flown a Cardinal RG, so take this for what it's worth. You are almost surely in utility category with just two aboard. After that, I'd say you are right on that hairy edge of a spin/not-spin. The decision about whether to continue isn't his, it's your's. Make your decision about the maneuver and stick by it. This is a 'personal minimums' challenge, and either way you decide is going to be right for you.

 

[Trapper John]

...the outside wing dropped well past 'wings level', and the inside wing came over the top.

That's been my experience, too - and it happens very quickly.

RG's are slick enough that you could slide past Vne pretty quickly if not careful.

I wouldn't be surprised if that was the real reason for the prohibition on the RGs, combined with the more powerful than average Cessna elevator. I kind of doubt it's from any bad behavior. Straight-leg 177Bs spin just fine, pretty much just like a 172 from what I remember.


Trapper John

 

[MauleSkinner]

To do this we slow to Va, clean configuration, enter a 45 degree bank,
reduce power to idle, I hold opposite aileron due to over banking tendency
and full inside rudder and full aft elevator until the plane stalls.

I hope I don't have to tell you that the stall is somewhat violent with the
inside wing dropping down aggressively and the outside wing snapping over top and the nose drops straight down spinning to the left. The plane enters a good 1/2 turn spin before I can recover. I told my instructor that my plane is not certificated for spins and he told me that the spin is not developed enough to be a spin and all but accuses me of being a sissy-man and a stall-baby.

What is the groups thoughts on this? I wouldn't think twice on this if we
were in a 172 or 152 loaded in the utility category. I will also admit that
we have done this stall three times now and the plane recovers well enough, but what would happen if the spin develops more? During certification I know they spun the Cardinal RG in at least a one turn spin in each direction, but I also no my plane is not certificated for intensional spins...sooooo....are we ok with what he's asking of me? Am I doing the cross-controlled stall wrong? Any help would be appreciated.

Gene - '71 177RG

I'm not sure exactly what's required to demonstrate a "cross-controlled stall, but what you're doing is a no-BS spin entry. Since the word "spin" is in "spin entry", or even in "incipient spin", and your airplane isn't approved for spins, my money says you shouldn't be doing this.

If your instructor is pressuring you to do something that your airplane isn't certificated for, I'd find another instructor. Sounds to me like this guy has a good anti-authority streak going...he definitely "knows better than the FAA" on this one. The fact that they spun it during certification doesn't mean that even that same one-turn spin is safe. It simply means they were able to survive it.

FWIW, how do you know that during certification they spun the Cardinal RG in at least a one turn spin in each direction? Did your instructor tell you this, did you read it in the certification requirements for the airplane (that's the 1965 version, not the current one), or what? Given what I've been "told" about certification over the years, I'd consider that information highly suspect until you can verify it.

Fly safe!

David

 

[john smith]

Look up the control inputs for a snap roll and tell me if you aircraft is certified for that maneuver.
I can tell you that aerobatic pilots have pretty much stopped doing snap rolls in Citabrias and Decathlons fifteen years ago because the maneuver broke the seat backs.

 

[SCCutler]

Gene:

Your airplane, your call.

I have never had an instructor ask me to do what you have described and, at the very least, I'd want to figure out whether this is within the operational envelope of the plane as certified. I think it is not.

Let us know what you find out, I (for one) am curious.

 

[KennyFlys]

During my CFI training in the Cutlass, cross-controlled stalls were to a buffet and no further. A full stall is an assured spin once the wing drops. Albeit, an incipient spin but a spin. Why risk going further, particularly in an aircraft not certified for intentional spins? The purpose is recognition of the stall followed by a proper and efficient recovery before entering a spin.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I told my instructor that my plane is not certificated for spins and he told me that the spin is not developed enough to be a spin and all but accuses me of being a sissy-man and a stall-baby.

So your instructor is either a) trying to get you to assert your authority over an anti-authority "student" and tell him not to do such things (unlikely, since he actually let you go all the way through with the maneuver), or b) is asking to be fired.

I think you should comply with his wish, and drop him like a bad habit.

I will also admit that we have done this stall three times now and the plane recovers well enough, but what would happen if the spin develops more?

Well, you might die. Sounds kinda dumb now, doesn't it? And it won't look very good in the NTSB report.

my plane is not certificated for intensional spins...sooooo....are we ok with what he's asking of me?

Here's the most pertinent question: When you show up for your CFI ride and your logbook says you did spins in an airplane not certified for intentional spins, how long do you think that ride is going to last? And do you think you'll ever pass a ride with that inspector?

Reminds me of a guy up here who went on the shortest CFI ride ever:

Inspector: "Okay, now show me the paperwork and required inspections on your airplane."
Candidate: "Here's the logbook, here's the annual... Um... From 14 months ago..."
Inspector: "Did you really just show up for a CFI ride in an unairworthy airplane?"
Candidate: "Uhhhhhhh, I guess so."
Inspector: "I'll give you two options. I'll give you a pink slip on the checkride, you can hitchhike home and leave your airplane here; or you can just hand over your pilot certificate for 90 days. Take your pick."

 

[Trapper John]

Inspector: "Okay, now show me the paperwork and required inspections on your airplane."
Candidate: "Here's the logbook, here's the annual... Um... From 14 months ago..."
Inspector: "Did you really just show up for a CFI ride in an unairworthy airplane?"
Candidate: "Uhhhhhhh, I guess so."
Inspector: "I'll give you two options. I'll give you a pink slip on the checkride, you can hitchhike home and leave your airplane here; or you can just hand over your pilot certificate for 90 days. Take your pick."

Candidate: Uhh...can you write me a ferry permit?


Trapper John

 

[poadeleted20]

Candidate: Uhh...can you write me a ferry permit?

An obvious joke, of course, since Ops Inspectors can't write ferry permits and a CFI applicant should know that.

 

[brcase]

It appears to me that you describe the maneuver exactly like the airplane flying handbook AFHD describes it.

Edit: I reread your post, the one difference I see is you should probably be doing these Gear Down per the AFHD, and perhaps not full deflections of the aileron and rudder.

http://www.faa.gov/library/manuals/aircraft/airplane_handbook/media/faa-h-8083-3a-3of7.pdf

In my opinion if you normally recover within 1/4 turn after the wing drop and never more than 1/2 turn then I would not be worried about it. If you are turning more than 1/2 turn then I would be seriously reevaluating how to demonstrate the maneuver or refuse to do it in this airplane.

As an interesting question, since the AFHB talks about doing this with a retractable gear aircraft, are there any readily available retractable gear aircraft that are approved for spins?

Brian

 

[gismo]

It appears to me that you describe the maneuver exactly like the airplane flying handbook AFHD describes it.

Edit: I reread your post, the one difference I see is you should probably be doing these Gear Down per the AFHD, and perhaps not full deflections of the aileron and rudder.

http://www.faa.gov/library/manuals/aircraft/airplane_handbook/media/faa-h-8083-3a-3of7.pdf

In my opinion if you normally recover within 1/4 turn after the wing drop and never more than 1/2 turn then I would not be worried about it. If you are turning more than 1/2 turn then I would be seriously reevaluating how to demonstrate the maneuver or refuse to do it in this airplane.

As an interesting question, since the AFHB talks about doing this with a retractable gear aircraft, are there any readily available retractable gear aircraft that are approved for spins?

Brian

Not sure if these qualify as "readily available" but the T34 and the aerobatic Bonanzas meet your other requirements.

 

[gismo]

During my CFI training in the Cutlass, cross-controlled stalls were to a buffet and no further. A full stall is an assured spin once the wing drops. Albeit, an incipient spin but a spin. Why risk going further, particularly in an aircraft not certified for intentional spins? The purpose is recognition of the stall followed by a proper and efficient recovery before entering a spin.

I don't believe that a stall in a skidding turn should be considered a spin even though it's certain that a spin will develop if the pro-spin controls aren't released promptly. I'm pretty certain that any certified airplane that can be stalled in this condition is required to have demonstrated that recovery from this is assured. Other than the rapidity of the resulting roll, this isn't much different in concept to a power on stall sans coordinating right rudder. I also think the key to recovery from a skid/stall (cross control stall) is applying significant top rudder (right rudder in a left skidding turn) along with a rapid reduction of AoA. The application of top rudder alone should halt the rotation about the yaw axis thereby preventing any sort of spin and the AoA reduction should restore aileron authority most quickly. Chances are the intuitive reaction would be an attempt to reduce the excessive bank first and that's not going to help at all.

 

[jesse]

I don't believe that a stall in a skidding turn should be considered a spin even though it's certain that a spin will develop if the pro-spin controls aren't released promptly. I'm pretty certain that any certified airplane that can be stalled in this condition is required to have demonstrated that recovery from this is assured. Other than the rapidity of the resulting roll, this isn't much different in concept to a power on stall sans coordinating right rudder. I also think the key to recovery from a skid/stall (cross control stall) is applying significant top rudder (right rudder in a left skidding turn) along with a rapid reduction of AoA. The application of top rudder alone should halt the rotation about the yaw axis thereby preventing any sort of spin and the AoA reduction should restore aileron authority most quickly. Chances are the intuitive reaction would be an attempt to reduce the excessive bank first and that's not going to help at all.

Agree Lance. It is amazing how much people screw up recovery--mostly becaues they've practiced the "standard stall" their instructor taught them out of some book 500 times.

Once they get into something a little weird..they generally do their standard recovery which is some ABC checklist procedure. Falling leaf type work and some spin training goes a long ways.

I love messing around with cross-controlled stuff when I can. I've never spun from a slip in any airplane I've flown. There is a lot of time to stop it if it does try to roll over...which..is tricky to get to happen in most trainers.

If you spun from a slip it was because you were slow and didn't stop the spin once you were no longer in a slip.

 

[BillTIZ]

Interesting, no where in the FAA Handbook did it mention going to the full extreme limit of rudder or aileron. Only that "execessive" control deflections were used.

For our Cross Controlled stall in gliders, we establish a 15 degree bank angle and coordinated turn and then raise the nose to an attitude we have already established will stall the aircraft. Same overbanking tendency occurs while trying to maintain 15 degrees of bank induces opposite (outside) aileron while rudder pressure to the inside of the turn is used to maintain the turn and turn coordination.

The glider stalls in a coordinated turn, but the controls are crossed, opposite rudder and aileron. Recover, Stick forward and centered, rudder to pick up the low wing.

No spin entry would normally occur unless there was too much inside rudder and the turn was uncoordinated.

Of course, to teach spin entry, recognition and recovery, we instructors will give it a little inside boot to simulate that cross controlled base to final turn overshoot scenario with the nose wanting to drop and back stick to raise the nose only tighting the turn and "spin entry".

Now as for doing that in an airplane that says "Spins are prohibited", and purposefully going through the break and wing over the top? mmmm.. I wonder what the Examiner will think when he sees your Spin Training sign off in the Cardinal.

 

[KennyFlys]

I don't believe that a stall in a skidding turn should be considered a spin even though it's certain that a spin will develop if the pro-spin controls aren't released promptly.

According to the Airplane Flying Handbook, Page 4-13:

The incipient phase is from the time the airplane stalls and rotation starts until the spin has fully developed.

I've never really considered a substantial wing drop a spin but that is what it is according to the book. In teaching, I don't refer to it as a spin but merely dropping the wing, even if the drop makes the wing vertical.

 

[poadeleted20]

Since all aircraft not spin-certified are still certified to recovery from an incipient spin of at least three seconds from entry or one full turn, whichever comes first, the maneuver initially described is neither a spin nor contrary to the aircraft's certification limits if stalls are permitted. Just make sure you initiate recovery at once and don't let it continue beyond that entry.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Since all aircraft not spin-certified are still certified to recovery from an incipient spin of at least three seconds from entry or one full turn, whichever comes first, the maneuver initially described is neither a spin nor contrary to the aircraft's certification limits if stalls are permitted. Just make sure you initiate recovery at once and don't let it continue beyond that entry.

I'd say that you shouldn't have to turn yourself in to the FSDO or send in an ASRS report if you do one accidentally, but what are you defining as the line between an "incipient spin" and a "spin"?

Neither CAR3 nor Part 23 use the term "incipient" in the paragraphs on "spinning". And since "spins" are not approved, but doesn't say that "incipient spins" ARE approved, I wouldn't say that line is as well-defined as you're saying.

Got any documentation?

David

 

[wabower]

My recollection is the same as Levy's. That's all the documentation you need. Go bother somebody else. And while we're at it, there's plenty of documentation that RG's stall/spin like all the rest of them, so that's all you need to know. Go sit on it. And this is for your horse. Buster.

I'd say that you shouldn't have to turn yourself in to the FSDO or send in an ASRS report if you do one accidentally, but what are you defining as the line between an "incipient spin" and a "spin"?

Neither CAR3 nor Part 23 use the term "incipient" in the paragraphs on "spinning". And since "spins" are not approved, but doesn't say that "incipient spins" ARE approved, I wouldn't say that line is as well-defined as you're saying.

Got any documentation?

David

 

[gismo]

I'd say that you shouldn't have to turn yourself in to the FSDO or send in an ASRS report if you do one accidentally, but what are you defining as the line between an "incipient spin" and a "spin"?

Neither CAR3 nor Part 23 use the term "incipient" in the paragraphs on "spinning". And since "spins" are not approved, but doesn't say that "incipient spins" ARE approved, I wouldn't say that line is as well-defined as you're saying.

Got any documentation?

David

No documentation per se, but given that a cross controlled (skidding) stall is a required PTS item coupled with my expectation that most complex aircraft aren't approved for spins yet are often used on such checkrides without drawing the FAA's ire, I'd say there's at least ample precedent that the FAA finds this acceptable.

 

[Ken Ibold]

Look up the control inputs for a snap roll and tell me if you aircraft is certified for that maneuver.
I can tell you that aerobatic pilots have pretty much stopped doing snap rolls in Citabrias and Decathlons fifteen years ago because the maneuver broke the seat backs.

The seatbacks were reinforced, and people began doing snap rolls again ... until they started cracking the fuel tanks at the inboard wing rib attach points. Some people still do snap rolls in Super Decathlons. They are called "renters."

 

[poadeleted20]

No documentation per se, but given that a cross controlled (skidding) stall is a required PTS item coupled with my expectation that most complex aircraft aren't approved for spins yet are often used on such checkrides without drawing the FAA's ire, I'd say there's at least ample precedent that the FAA finds this acceptable.

Exactly.

 

[MauleSkinner]

I'll have to check with our local examiner to find out how often cross-controlled stalls result in 1/2-turn spins.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

Wouldn't a Cross Controlled situation be called a Slip? Rudder input opposite aileron? Or is a Skid also considered cross controlled?

 

[john smith]

Wouldn't a Cross Controlled situation be called a Slip? Rudder input opposite aileron? Or is a Skid also considered cross controlled?

I always thought of a skid as excessive in-turn rudder (ball to the inside), nose leading the aircraft around the turn, your butt skidding to the outside of the turn.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

I always thought of a skid as excessive in-turn rudder (ball to the inside), nose leading the aircraft around the turn, your butt skidding to the outside of the turn.

Exactly. But is that considered "Cross Controlled"?

 

[john smith]

Exactly. But is that considered "Cross Controlled"?

I would say that since the ailerons and rudder are in the same direction that the controls are not "crossed".

 

[jesse]

Greg--I think it is generally accepted that a skid is "cross-controlled" ... or at least -- I know a lot of CFI's that teach it that way

 

[MauleSkinner]

Wouldn't a Cross Controlled situation be called a Slip? Rudder input opposite aileron? Or is a Skid also considered cross controlled?

According to the Airplane Flying Handbook reference that Brian posted, http://www.faa.gov/library/manuals/aircraft/airplane_handbook/media/faa-h-8083-3a-3of7.pdf, here's what a cross-controlled stall is:

CROSS-CONTROL STALL
The objective of a cross-control stall demonstration
maneuver is to show the effect of improper control
technique and to emphasize the importance of using
coordinated control pressures whenever making turns.
This type of stall occurs with the controls crossed—
aileron pressure applied in one direction and rudder
pressure in the opposite direction.
In addition, when excessive back-elevator pressure is
applied, a cross-control stall may result. This is a stall
that is most apt to occur during a poorly planned and
executed base-to-final approach turn, and often is the
result of overshooting the centerline of the runway
during that turn. Normally, the proper action to correct
for overshooting the runway is to increase the rate of
turn by using coordinated aileron and rudder. At the
relatively low altitude of a base-to-final approach turn,
improperly trained pilots may be apprehensive of
steepening the bank to increase the rate of turn, and
rather than steepening the bank, they hold the bank
constant and attempt to increase the rate of turn by
adding more rudder pressure in an effort to align it
with the runway.

Here's how it's demonstrated:

For the demonstration of the maneuver, it is important
that it be entered at a safe altitude because of the
possible extreme nosedown attitude and loss of
altitude that may result.
...
When the glide is stabilized, the airplane should be rolled into
a medium-banked turn to simulate a final approach
turn that would overshoot the centerline of the runway.
During the turn, excessive rudder pressure should be
applied in the direction of the turn but the bank held
constant by applying opposite aileron pressure. At the
same time, increased back-elevator pressure is
required to keep the nose from lowering.
All of these control pressures should be increased until
the airplane stalls. When the stall occurs, recovery is
made by releasing the control pressures and increasing
power as necessary to recover.

I would say, for the purposes of most maneuvers, a 45-degree bank is more than "a medium-banked turn", particularly since the object is to demonstrate what can happen if a pilot is trying NOT to increase bank on the turn to final.

It DOES go on to say that the cross-controlled stall CAN result in a spin:

In a cross-control stall, the airplane often stalls with
little warning. The nose may pitch down, the inside
wing may suddenly drop, and the airplane may
continue to roll to an inverted position. This is usually
the beginning of a spin. It is obvious that close to the
ground is no place to allow this to happen.
Recovery must be made before the airplane enters an
abnormal attitude (vertical spiral or spin); it is a simple
matter to return to straight-and-level flight by
coordinated use of the controls. The pilot must be able
to recognize when this stall is imminent and must take
immediate action to prevent a completely stalled
condition. It is imperative that this type of stall not
occur during an actual approach to a landing, since
recovery may be impossible prior to ground contact
due to the low altitude.
The flight instructor should be aware that during traffic
pattern operations, any conditions that result in
overshooting the turn from base leg to final approach,
dramatically increases the possibility of an
unintentional accelerated stall while the airplane is in a
cross-control condition.

My issue is simply that, if the same set of inputs for a maneuver, required or not, results in a spin, how many times do you have to do it before you can't say "Oh, crap! I didn't expect that!" and it becomes an "intentional spin" in an airplane for which spins are not approved?

 

[gismo]

According to the Airplane Flying Handbook reference that Brian posted, http://www.faa.gov/library/manuals/aircraft/airplane_handbook/media/faa-h-8083-3a-3of7.pdf, here's what a cross-controlled stall is:

Here's how it's demonstrated:
I would say, for the purposes of most maneuvers, a 45-degree bank is more than "a medium-banked turn", particularly since the object is to demonstrate what can happen if a pilot is trying NOT to increase bank on the turn to final.

It DOES go on to say that the cross-controlled stall CAN result in a spin:
My issue is simply that, if the same set of inputs for a maneuver, required or not, results in a spin, how many times do you have to do it before you can't say "Oh, crap! I didn't expect that!" and it becomes an "intentional spin" in an airplane for which spins are not approved?

I think the distinction is that the pilot performing a "cross controlled stall" should be able to prevent any significant rotation by proper application of the controls once the departure occurs. Your thought taken to the extreme would also preclude practicing coordinated stalls because there's always a chance that an improper recovery will be made leading to at least a incipient spin. I'm pretty comfortable with the idea that as long as your goal in any stall is to prevent a spin you don't need an aircraft approved for spins to perform it. That said, if the particular airplane you are using has shown a strong tendency to spin out of a cross controlled stall (and here I mean enter a fully developed spin quickly, not just a wing drop with rotation that's easily stopped within 180 degrees) then I think it would be wise to find a different airplane for that maneuver. There's nothing in the FARs to prevent practicing stalls in a twin with one engine windmilling (in fact at one time this was SOP for multi training) yet the chances of not only a spin, but even an unrecoverable spin are significant. I'd hope that no one is foolish enough to do so just because it's legal.

 

[brcase]

I tried some cross controlled stalls in a Cherokee 180 today. We only used about 20 degrees of bank and a little more than a 1/2 deflection of the ball. It required a lot of opposite aileron to maintain the bank angle. As we stalled it would give a little bit of buffet and then drop the inside wing. Opposite rudder and forward yoke it would easily come out with less than 45 degrees of rotation. I don't have access to a Cardinal any more to try it in.

Brian

 

[MauleSkinner]

Your thought taken to the extreme would also preclude practicing coordinated stalls because there's always a chance that an improper recovery will be made leading to at least a incipient spin.

No, my thought taken to the extreme would be to define what constitutes a spin. Pretty extreme.

I'm pretty comfortable with the idea that as long as your goal in any stall is to prevent a spin you don't need an aircraft approved for spins to perform it. That said, if the particular airplane you are using has shown a strong tendency to spin out of a cross controlled stall (and here I mean enter a fully developed spin quickly, not just a wing drop with rotation that's easily stopped within 180 degrees) then I think it would be wise to find a different airplane for that maneuver.

I'd consider 180 degrees to be well within the definition of a spin...As I said earlier, I'm not exactly sure where the line would be, but 180 degrees of turn seems to me to be well beyond the "wing drop in a stall" phase.

 

[gismo]

No, my thought taken to the extreme would be to define what constitutes a spin. Pretty extreme.

Define a term used in the FARs? Impossible.

I'd consider 180 degrees to be well within the definition of a spin...As I said earlier, I'm not exactly sure where the line would be, but 180 degrees of turn seems to me to be well beyond the "wing drop in a stall" phase.

Heck, I've managed an inadvertent 180 degree heading change without a stall or spin practicing engine failures in a twin.

 

[Dan Thomas]

I'd consider 180 degrees to be well within the definition of a spin...As I said earlier, I'm not exactly sure where the line would be, but 180 degrees of turn seems to me to be well beyond the "wing drop in a stall" phase.

It's an incipient spin at that point; a fully-developed spin has stabilized with respect to attitude and vertical path. At 180 degrees the airplane is pointed at least straight down and often somewhat inverted, and recovery there usually means a lot of speed buildup. It looks like a split-S. Anytime I taught spins we recovered either as soon as the wing dropped, or we went a full turn, starting the recovery at about the 3/4 turn point. The nose has come up a lot by that time and the speed remains manageable. Once the airplane gets beyond the wing-drop stage, altitude loss is big and the student quickly gets the idea that skidding a turn at 400 feet would not be wise at all.

It's not just skidding turns, either. Most of these stall-spin accidents occur because the pilot was ignorant of the various dangers or because they happened so unexpectedly, or both. When I see some guy buzz the runway and then yank the nose up hard, I wonder just how many more times he'll get away with that before it kills him. The tendency is to pull just a bit harder each time, for a little more impressive zoom and some bigger G forces, and he is destined to die this way and doesn't know it.

Dan

 

[MauleSkinner]

Heck, I've managed an inadvertent 180 degree heading change without a stall or spin practicing engine failures in a twin.

And how many times did you repeat the exercise with the exact same results?

It's an incipient spin at that point...

So it's definitely a "spin" in your opinion?

 

[Henning]

Flyers,

I am doing my final training for my CFI and my instructor and I have been and are doing the demonstrated cross-controlled stall. My checkride is Thursday April 9th. After the ride my wife and I are flying to Charleston Executive for a long weekend in cordial and genteel Charleston, SC (but I digress...back to the cross-controlled stalls):

To do this we slow to Va, clean configuration, enter a 45 degree bank,
reduce power to idle, I hold opposite aileron due to over banking tendency
and full inside rudder and full aft elevator until the plane stalls.

I hope I don't have to tell you that the stall is somewhat violent with the
inside wing dropping down aggressively and the outside wing snapping over top and the nose drops straight down spinning to the left. The plane enters a good 1/2 turn spin before I can recover. I told my instructor that my plane is not certificated for spins and he told me that the spin is not developed enough to be a spin and all but accuses me of being a sissy-man and a stall-baby.

What is the groups thoughts on this? I wouldn't think twice on this if we
were in a 172 or 152 loaded in the utility category. I will also admit that
we have done this stall three times now and the plane recovers well enough, but what would happen if the spin develops more? During certification I know they spun the Cardinal RG in at least a one turn spin in each direction, but I also no my plane is not certificated for intensional spins...sooooo....are we ok with what he's asking of me? Am I doing the cross-controlled stall wrong? Any help would be appreciated.

Gene - '71 177RG

That is not a cross controlled stall, that is a skidding stall. A cross controlled slipping stall will take the low wing up and over.

 

[brcase]

<snip>

It's not just skidding turns, either. Most of these stall-spin accidents occur because the pilot was ignorant of the various dangers or because they happened so unexpectedly, or both. When I see some guy buzz the runway and then yank the nose up hard, I wonder just how many more times he'll get away with that before it kills him. The tendency is to pull just a bit harder each time, for a little more impressive zoom and some bigger G forces, and he is destined to die this way and doesn't know it.

Dan

I think the following accident report shows the mindset involved when an inadvertent stall spin occurs...

Accident occurred Monday, December 20, 2004 in Terreton, ID
Probable Cause Approval Date: 3/30/2005
Aircraft: Christen Industries A-1, registration: N2898D
Injuries: 2 Serious.
The purpose of the public use flight was to hunt coyotes. The pilot reported that the airplane was at an altitude of 50 to 100 feet agl. After the gunner shot one of a group of three coyotes and wounded another, he circled the airplane left to line up for another shot at the wounded coyote. The turn was made at 60 knots with three notches of flaps. After completing the left turn, the "aircraft seemed to lose elevator control," the tail pitched up, and the nose went down. The pilot added full power and had just enough time to raise the nose before the airplane hit the ground. The forward section of the lower fuselage was crushed upward. The main landing gear separated, and the right wing separated at the wing root and rotated forward.


.... the point being that when inadvertant stall spins occur the pilot is not thinking "stall/spin" as in this case where the pilot may have been thinking "did the gunner just shoot the elevator cable" or "What happened to the elevator" Shortly after I started flight instructing I developed the pet theory that most inadvertant stall spins occur as the result of the illusion of attitide and or speed. Since that time I have researched many Stall Spin Accidents and have talked with some of the few survivors and every time I am even more convinced that illusions are a signficnant factor in nearly every case. Most happen while traveling downwind near the ground where you will appear to have much more speed than you may have actual airspeed.

As for the pilot you have observed doing the high speed passes. I have yet to see anyone do an accelerated stall on the pull up for these. I have seen accelerated stalls on the pull out from a dive/loop. I have also seen where pilots spin out of the top of the pull up as they fail to push over enough to recover. A Soaring magazine artical several years ago addressed this issue and made the observation that there is a illusion of attitude when pushing over from from a steep pull up. The illusion is that you appear much more nose down than you really are, making it easy to stall/spin from this situation.

Brian

 

[Dan Thomas]

As for the pilot you have observed doing the high speed passes. I have yet to see anyone do an accelerated stall on the pull up for these.

Brian

Local guy killed himself in a 172 years ago, buzzing friend on a tractor or something and pulling up hard. The airplane rolled over and dove into the ground in the pull-up. I have read numerous accident reports that went something like this:
"The airplane made a low pass and then pulled up; the right wing suddenly went down and then the nose dropped and the airplane dove very steeply into the ground."
There isn't anything else I can think of that would explain such a scenario.

Dan

 

[Henning]

Local guy killed himself in a 172 years ago, buzzing friend on a tractor or something and pulling up hard. The airplane rolled over and dove into the ground in the pull-up. I have read numerous accident reports that went something like this:
"The airplane made a low pass and then pulled up; the right wing suddenly went down and then the nose dropped and the airplane dove very steeply into the ground."
There isn't anything else I can think of that would explain such a scenario.

Dan

I have yanked 3gs hundreds of times a day from an altitude of 3'AGL to clear the trees instantly rolling into a leeward turn while still pulling, then swapping rudder and aileron while still pulling, pushing the turn so at the top I'll be coming though the top of the turn at levels of energy that would take me below stall if I were pulling 1 G then diving back at the trees to pull out at 3-4 gs 3' off the ground. I have ocasonally come back with branches in the gear, but never was near a stall/spin even when skidding at the top of the turn.