Spin = Stabilized Approach to land

PittsDriver

PittsDriver

Cleared for Takeoff
Joined
Sep 11, 2007
Messages
1,004
Location
Annapolis MD
Display Name
Display name:
PittsDriver
OK, so I've been thinking a lot about the running debate that's been going on since the FAA, in it's infinite wisdom, decided that a "stabilized" approach was better to teach and safer to fly than a power off 180 to land. I personally think that it's consistent and reasonable to call a 180 power off to land a "stabilized" approach but I've been told by many self appointed experts otherwise and that it's actually contrary to FAA guidance to fly a power off approach to land.

I think that's such hoowie, that I'm going to start doing my own version of a stabilized approach and, in an act of civil disobedience, encourage everyone to follow me in their pattern entry habits. I'm combining two notions: that the safest place to be is right over the airport; and, that a spin is a stabilized mode of flight. So here's the approach to land in a nutshell:

Approach the airport at about 2000' AGL until less than a quarter mile on the final approach course. At that point, stall/spin down to the altitude you'd normally be at on quarter mile final (for me that's about 500' AGL but other aircraft will be different) and recover on the runway heading. At that point, land normally. I know that through a little practice, it's very easy to develop the skill to stop a spin within 5 degrees of your intended heading - we get graded on this all the time in aerobatic competitions. To go from 2000' AGL to your final approach altitude is going to require 2 - 3 turns in the spin. After one and a half turns, all spins tend to become stable.

I think this satisfies all the FAR/AIM guidance for a legal approach. I'm on a stabilized final by 1/4 mile. If I spin to the left, I'm making left turns in the pattern. And since I'm technically and in reality "on approach to land" the altitude mins are waived so I can spin down to as low as I want to go in my stabilized maneuver.

I'll be over at the airport this afternoon working on this to see how hard it is to nail a spot landing after coming out of the spin at 500' and I'll video and post it - all assuming the weather here clears enough to fly. If it works as well as I think it's going to I'm going to invite the FSDO guys out to watch it and bless it so that the rest of you can start doing this without the fear of all the naysayers are going to put in you about your ticket.

Stay tuned.
 
Great idea, why didn't I think of that? Doh.

But before you knock yourself out, you might want to determine the percentage of airplanes for which this approach would be possible based on GA certification limitations. And while you're at it, see if a split-S from an inverted downwind overhead is equally effective. :tongue:
PittsDriver said:
OK, so I've been thinking a lot about the running debate that's been going on since the FAA, in it's infinite wisdom, decided that a "stabilized" approach was better to teach and safer to fly than a power off 180 to land. I personally think that it's consistent and reasonable to call a 180 power off to land a "stabilized" approach but I've been told by many self appointed experts otherwise and that it's actually contrary to FAA guidance to fly a power off approach to land.

I think that's such hoowie, that I'm going to start doing my own version of a stabilized approach and, in an act of civil disobedience, encourage everyone to follow me in their pattern entry habits. I'm combining two notions: that the safest place to be is right over the airport; and, that a spin is a stabilized mode of flight. So here's the approach to land in a nutshell:

Approach the airport at about 2000' AGL until less than a quarter mile on the final approach course. At that point, stall/spin down to the altitude you'd normally be at on quarter mile final (for me that's about 500' AGL but other aircraft will be different) and recover on the runway heading. At that point, land normally. I know that through a little practice, it's very easy to develop the skill to stop a spin within 5 degrees of your intended heading - we get graded on this all the time in aerobatic competitions. To go from 2000' AGL to your final approach altitude is going to require 2 - 3 turns in the spin. After one and a half turns, all spins tend to become stable.

I think this satisfies all the FAR/AIM guidance for a legal approach. I'm on a stabilized final by 1/4 mile. If I spin to the left, I'm making left turns in the pattern. And since I'm technically and in reality "on approach to land" the altitude mins are waived so I can spin down to as low as I want to go in my stabilized maneuver.

I'll be over at the airport this afternoon working on this to see how hard it is to nail a spot landing after coming out of the spin at 500' and I'll video and post it - all assuming the weather here clears enough to fly. If it works as well as I think it's going to I'm going to invite the FSDO guys out to watch it and bless it so that the rest of you can start doing this without the fear of all the naysayers are going to put in you about your ticket.

Stay tuned.
Click to expand...
 
Isn't what you're describing a tighter version of the emergency spiral descent? Of course if you're expert aerobatic (and it appears you are) AND have an aerobatic aircraft, you can probably get away with it. But what about those of us with aircraft that are specifically placarded NO SPINS? When you're in competition, at what altitude do you perform the spin in which you stop within 5 deg. of intended heading? And more important, please remember me in your will.
 
Well, that might work for you, but :1) most pilots are not trained in aerobatics to the point where a spin recovery within 5 degrees is feasible, and certainly not with the added pressure of effecting that recovery at 500' AGL, and 2) if one were to pull that stunt at a towered airport, the tower would go ape.
I can see where there is a really important place for practicing 180 power off landings, but entering short final from a spin seems to me like unvarnished flathatting.
Then again, maybe I'm just jealous because I couldn't do it with any degree of confidence.
Either way, if I saw someone doing that, I'd think that they were barking mad. This is clearly not a technique that would be wise for the vast majority of pilots.
 
wabower said:
Great idea, why didn't I think of that? Doh.

But before you knock yourself out, you might want to determine the percentage of airplanes for which this approach would be possible based on GA certification limitations. And while you're at it, see if a split-S from an inverted downwind overhead is equally effective. :tongue:
Click to expand...

I anticipated this response to which I'll say - why in the world would you want to fly an airplane that can't be spun and recovered from with well understood and predictable manners? Get rid of all of those, says I.

A split-S doesn't meet the criteria for stabilized since your airspeed and acceleration is constantly changing - not to mention how dangerous it is to pull your energy toward the ground at low altitude.

But I may be wrong about that and there's room in the "creative pattern entry" sandbox for all fresh new ideas.
 
I've heard a spin is also the best way to get down through a cloud layer if you get stuck on top.

Can you please test that out, too? :wink2:
 
In aerobatic competitions, we have aircraft recovering from spins as low as 328' AGL for unlimited pilots. Us mere mortal pilots have floors that are more up in the 800 - 1200' range but only because we're not landing out of the maneuver.
 
I know someone who did this. At a towered airport, even. He spun into the pattern, not final though. Tower seemed to enjoy it. :D
 
rpadula said:
I've heard a spin is also the best way to get down through a cloud layer if you get stuck on top.

Can you please test that out, too? :wink2:
Click to expand...

I can confirm that it's a freaky feeling to be spinning and have the world outside go white but that it works quite well.
 
rpadula said:
I've heard a spin is also the best way to get down through a cloud layer if you get stuck on top.

Can you please test that out, too? :wink2:
Click to expand...

But what kind of spin? Regular, inverted, or flat? :)
 
PittsDriver said:
I anticipated this response to which I'll say - why in the world would you want to fly an airplane that can't be spun and recovered from with well understood and predictable manners? Get rid of all of those, says I.
Click to expand...

Well, that is a problem for me. My typical CG falls aft of the "no spin" line. I've looked into things like moving the battery up in front of the firewall, but that does not get me enough. I may have to take more drastic action.
 

Attachments

  • W_B.jpg
    W_B.jpg
    36.5 KB · Views: 6
Last edited:
PittsDriver: I think your process is extremely well-defined and practical. So much so, that before the snow was to arrive I went out and tried it with the Skyhawk. That placard on the panel, "Intentional Spins Prohibited" shouldn't be a problem because if the plan doesn't work I can later testify that the "spin wasn't intentional." And who would doubt the word of any aviator, anywhere, whose tales of experiences are never disbelieved?

The whole process was going very well on the way to touchdown until those two damn trees got in the way of the wings during the beautiful and graceful flat spin. If I hadn't been texting to Alton Marsh about the wonderful new technique I would probably have done a better success of it. And those guys sitting in the taxiway chairs while rating landings were obviously excited because they were waving wildly at me. I was so excited about their encouragement I had to put down my iPhone and beer so I had two hands to raise my side window and crack the door slightly; you know, in case anything should go wrong. Well, luckily it all worked out, though the sunny side became confused in the process. The Skyhawk will need a little buffing -- shouldn't be a problem; and I hope that foam those nice guys in the yellow suits were spraying around won't have any deleterious effect on the paint. I'm partial to good housekeeping, of course. And I walked away from the landing, so you know "what they say---."

The pictures are still downloading, so I'll only be able to include them as an afterthought, probably following this post. But thank you, again, for such thoughtful
advice. I was intending to fly into the new BXM airport in Maine tomorrow but I guess there'll be a delay in that plan, partially brought about by the new snowfall.

HR
 
Last edited:
Pictures are slow to download; still looking for the one with the two shortened tree tops.
 

Attachments

  • N7872G on March 14.jpg
    N7872G on March 14.jpg
    154 KB · Views: 15
Wes, don't you have to take the floats off first?

I'm thinkin' that you probably have to roll right side up too.

(Long-time fan here)
 
Re: Wes, don't you have to take the floats off first?

Stevel said:
I'm thinkin' that you probably have to roll right side up too.

(Long-time fan here)
Click to expand...

My favorite holidays are the ones that Hallmark doesn't own...

Thanks Steve :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top