Tue Jan 06, 2009 12:58 pm
Matt-
I wasn't there, I don't do autopsies and since you "think the events show when the foot got caught" further duscussion is fruitless.
Tom-
I wasn't there, I don't do autopsies and since you "think the events show when the foot got caught" further duscussion is fruitless.
Tom-
foot
Tue Jan 06, 2009 1:15 pm
The value of accident analysis is to learn something in order to prevent it happening in the future. I think it is unfortunate that sometimes it is viewed as a process to either lay blame on the pilot or absolve the pilot of all blame. Neither seems to be a good approach in my opinion.
The idea that a pilot could not make a mistake, because: 1. He's my friend. 2. He's my Dad or Son, etc. 3. It's my plane. Just seems the wrong focus to me, but a court case may it necessary.
It seems likely that in the T-6 case the foot did impede the controls. I had it happen to me once when landing with Ray in the back seat, no harm done then.
The idea that a pilot could not make a mistake, because: 1. He's my friend. 2. He's my Dad or Son, etc. 3. It's my plane. Just seems the wrong focus to me, but a court case may it necessary.
It seems likely that in the T-6 case the foot did impede the controls. I had it happen to me once when landing with Ray in the back seat, no harm done then.
Last edited by Bill Greenwood on Tue Jan 06, 2009 6:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Tue Jan 06, 2009 2:35 pm
GilT wrote:Matt-
I wasn't there, I don't do autopsies and since you "think the events show when the foot got caught" further duscussion is fruitless.
Tom-
Events do show when the foot got caught, The pilot had control of the plane at the time of the break, and he was not able to bring the plane back to level flight due to controls being blocked by the passengers size 13 foot, which was broken and cut by the pilot trying to get the plane under control. The passenger then pulled his foot out of the controls, loosing his shoe in the process. sorry, but it can't get any clearer than that. There is no way to get a foot in there unless the stick was hard over, like during a break.
What more proof do you want ? his foot was broken, there was a impression of the castle nut on the guys foot, along with a matching cut on the other side of his foot that matched the footrails.
Tue Jan 06, 2009 2:36 pm
GilT wrote:Suggest you look more closely at the Cessna 172 and Piper Cherokee series operating limitations, many PA-28 series (fixed gear) are approved for spins when flown as two place aircraft in Utility Category within CG limits, the same applies to 172s.
Tom,
I never said that spins weren't approved, I said they weren't spin certified. In the eyes of a lawyer or an insurance agent, those are two totally different things. It's also a different series of tests required. An example of a spin certified aircraft is a Diamond Katana where the aircraft can be spun at any weight and any permissible CG position or a Cessna 152 which has very little restriction to spins again as it is certified for spins. In addition, the conditions for a spin in the 172s and PA28s is so restrictive (the book is very clear that you're not supposed to do more than one rotation) that there is little point in doing them even if you can get insurance approval to operate the aircraft for spin training since the single rotation spin typically doesn't give a pilot enough experience into what a spin is and how to deal with it. A spin in a highly controlled, low weight situation behaves totally different from a spin with a much heavier payload where the dangerous spins typically occur.
At my last two Part-141 schools, the insurance agency prohibited spins in any aircraft not Certified for spins. It was made clear that Certified meant Certified, not Approved. In addition, the Part 61 school that I used to rent planes from also had an insurance policy that prohibited spins in non-Certified aircraft. It was part of the "fine print" when you signed the waiver.
Tue Jan 06, 2009 2:46 pm
Just a point of thought... I remember when this T-6 accident happened,
and remembered reading about the foot being caught between
the rear stick / foot trays...
At the time, I was installing the foot trays into the fuselage tubular
on my SNJ and couldn't help but notice that the front cockpit
stick guard (red arrow) could easily be rotated 180 degrees and
installed in a similar manner in the rear cockpit to prevent control
intereference.
Bela P. Havasreti
and remembered reading about the foot being caught between
the rear stick / foot trays...
At the time, I was installing the foot trays into the fuselage tubular
on my SNJ and couldn't help but notice that the front cockpit
stick guard (red arrow) could easily be rotated 180 degrees and
installed in a similar manner in the rear cockpit to prevent control
intereference.
Bela P. Havasreti
Re: foot
Tue Jan 06, 2009 2:53 pm
Bill Greenwood wrote:So if the pilot did not lose control in the air on his own, rather his failure was not making sure the passenger would stay clear of the controls, what is really the difference?
Even a good pilot briefing, and explicit instructions to a passenger doesn't always mean that they will comply - or remember. You don't even have to be flying to learn that lesson. I can't tell you how many of the folks I let sit in the L-5 cockpit at Kelly last year couldn't remember my clear instructions 5 seconds after I'd given them. It's all too easy to get caught up in the moment and not realize that you are causing a hazard. Very sad. I for one hope to keep this in mind any time I have a passenger.
While you could say it was the pilot's fault not to "make sure" that the passenger would stay clear of the controls (and I think that's disputable given my previous paragraph), I for one wouldn't hold it against the pilot if I was in a jury situation. I can see that making a BIG difference in court.
Ryan
Tue Jan 06, 2009 4:40 pm
CAPFlyer wrote:GilT wrote:Suggest you look more closely at the Cessna 172 and Piper Cherokee series operating limitations, many PA-28 series (fixed gear) are approved for spins when flown as two place aircraft in Utility Category within CG limits, the same applies to 172s.
Tom,
I never said that spins weren't approved, I said they weren't spin certified. In the eyes of a lawyer or an insurance agent, those are two totally different things. It's also a different series of tests required. An example of a spin certified aircraft is a Diamond Katana where the aircraft can be spun at any weight and any permissible CG position or a Cessna 152 which has very little restriction to spins again as it is certified for spins. In addition, the conditions for a spin in the 172s and PA28s is so restrictive (the book is very clear that you're not supposed to do more than one rotation) that there is little point in doing them even if you can get insurance approval to operate the aircraft for spin training since the single rotation spin typically doesn't give a pilot enough experience into what a spin is and how to deal with it. A spin in a highly controlled, low weight situation behaves totally different from a spin with a much heavier payload where the dangerous spins typically occur.
At my last two Part-141 schools, the insurance agency prohibited spins in any aircraft not Certified for spins. It was made clear that Certified meant Certified, not Approved. In addition, the Part 61 school that I used to rent planes from also had an insurance policy that prohibited spins in non-Certified aircraft. It was part of the "fine print" when you signed the waiver.
Might you educate me on how a plane becomes "certified" for spins, I have never seen such a certification? I'm rather familiar with both CAR 3 and Part 23 spin recovery requirements and have never heard of a different requirement for certified vs. approved????????
The 150 and the 152 are certified under the same Type Certificate (Utility Category) they are both approved for spins using the same wording. A Citabria is certified in the Aerobatic Category, it is further APPROVED for only those manuvers listed, the approved manuvers will be listed in the Operations Limitations, APPROVED placards or manuals. The Cessna and Piper models noted earlier are certified in either Normal or Utility Category dependent on how many seats are occupied and CG, they are further approved for manuvers listed in approved data.
When the Cessna 150 was originally certified (1958) spins were required and were classed as an aerobatic manuver parachutes were required so the high back 150s had a lower seat pan for a seat pack chute. When the FAA changed the regs to only require spin training for CFI students they also gave us relief from the parachute requirement by stating that chutes were not required when giving spin training as part of a CFI program. Were you in a CFI program or wearing a chute when you got your Katana spin training?
I certainly concur that there are big differences in spin recovery between aircraft with light wing loadings and benign stalls and those with heavy wing loadings and sharp stall breaks but doubt that there is a significant difference between the Katana and a 150/152/172 or Cherokee, trust me they all spin fine. There is one CG limitation that is usually overlooked in a Cherokee 140, fuel can not be above the tabs to be within Utility Category CG range.
Tom-
Tue Jan 06, 2009 5:34 pm
First off..it's sad that accidents are the main catalyst for these kinds of conversations...I know they happen in training and around the hanger at times but it is like a funeral is the only family reunion you may have.
As far as the spin conversation.
It is always a good one to have.
I am amazed that there is no requirement for spin training in GenAv. It has been talked about for as long as I have been around an airplane. Why no movement towards doing the training? Too many Cadillac airplane drivers? too soft? How many doctors would have been saved in V-tailed Bonanzas? (to use a stereotype)
I was on my last flight before my Private check ride and my instructor asked me if there was anything that I wanted to learn or questions I needed answered before he turned me loose?
I said Spins! He took a second and said OK! let's go!
We talked about them for quite a while. Different situations and what to expect in the airplane.
We flew a 152 and he did the first one...
BANG! Around we went!
I was so lost I would have needed 3,000 feet to recover. I was immediately struck by how stinking dangerous that would be in the pattern.
We spent an hour setting up situations that would get me killed down low. The straight on stall/spin was really easy to recognize and rather hard to make happen by accident. A real kick on the rudder was required.
Accelerated stall/spins got my attention, easy enough to do in a benign C-152. at 7000ft we had plenty of room at 1500 it would be dicey...even when we were ready for it, they took all of that room to recover.
Scary!
As far as the spin conversation.
It is always a good one to have.
I am amazed that there is no requirement for spin training in GenAv. It has been talked about for as long as I have been around an airplane. Why no movement towards doing the training? Too many Cadillac airplane drivers? too soft? How many doctors would have been saved in V-tailed Bonanzas? (to use a stereotype)
I was on my last flight before my Private check ride and my instructor asked me if there was anything that I wanted to learn or questions I needed answered before he turned me loose?
I said Spins! He took a second and said OK! let's go!
We talked about them for quite a while. Different situations and what to expect in the airplane.
We flew a 152 and he did the first one...
BANG! Around we went!
I was so lost I would have needed 3,000 feet to recover. I was immediately struck by how stinking dangerous that would be in the pattern.
We spent an hour setting up situations that would get me killed down low. The straight on stall/spin was really easy to recognize and rather hard to make happen by accident. A real kick on the rudder was required.
Accelerated stall/spins got my attention, easy enough to do in a benign C-152. at 7000ft we had plenty of room at 1500 it would be dicey...even when we were ready for it, they took all of that room to recover.
Scary!
Tue Jan 06, 2009 5:45 pm
Zane-
The debate about universal spin training will continue forever but experience has shown that training accidents increase without a significant decrease in accidents from inadventent spins. I've done low altitude spins and will state that a low altitude planned spin has little in common with a spin at 3000", now add the element of surprise caused by a top rudder spin from an accelerated stall turning base to final at 300-500"....................... Experienced has taught us that stall avoidance, without a stall there will not be a spin, will have a much bigger effect on low altitude stall spin accidents.
Tom-
The debate about universal spin training will continue forever but experience has shown that training accidents increase without a significant decrease in accidents from inadventent spins. I've done low altitude spins and will state that a low altitude planned spin has little in common with a spin at 3000", now add the element of surprise caused by a top rudder spin from an accelerated stall turning base to final at 300-500"....................... Experienced has taught us that stall avoidance, without a stall there will not be a spin, will have a much bigger effect on low altitude stall spin accidents.
Tom-
Tue Jan 06, 2009 8:27 pm
This is another sad occasion. First of all, I would like to thank all you guys for your valuable insight and input. This is what this forum is about. The most valuable hour of flying instruction (thanks Guy!) I have ever flown has been in a T6 being shown and practising all the common types of stalls that will kill you. Doesn't necessarily have to be in a T6 (I was lucky), but I feel it should be done. If you can be shown the situations and what they look like, it may just save you and your pax's skins. Please, please try to learn from these unfortunate accidents.
Tue Jan 06, 2009 11:02 pm
Tom,
I have heard the training vs results data before. It is true that stall avoidance was a big part of my training. But if you don't know what a stall feels like and what the result looks like all the training in the world will not teach an understanding. Like telling a kid that the stove is hot...they will learn that it is hot but they will not understand what hot is and how much heat they can take until they put their hand by the stove...At least that's how my brain works...
There is no better teacher than experience. My instructor did good job simulating a 60 knot turn to final that went wrong...at 7000ft..nice and safe.
I was well served by the training.
Is it required out side the US? Would be interesting to hear.
I have heard the training vs results data before. It is true that stall avoidance was a big part of my training. But if you don't know what a stall feels like and what the result looks like all the training in the world will not teach an understanding. Like telling a kid that the stove is hot...they will learn that it is hot but they will not understand what hot is and how much heat they can take until they put their hand by the stove...At least that's how my brain works...
There is no better teacher than experience. My instructor did good job simulating a 60 knot turn to final that went wrong...at 7000ft..nice and safe.
I was well served by the training.
Is it required out side the US? Would be interesting to hear.
Tue Jan 06, 2009 11:29 pm
Zane-
I never suggested stall/spin training wasn't valuable, my point is that avoiding the stall at 300-500" turning final is critical because recovery from a spin at that altitude is a serious challenge, if not impossible. I've seen a low altitude fatal stall spin accident that should have been recoverable before the rotation began but wasn't because the pilot failed to lower the nose and unload the wings. Had he recovered from the stall there would never have been a spin, once rotation began at the low altitude all of the spin training and proficiency in the world would not have prevented the accident. Until you have had a windshield full of grass you will never fully appreciate the difficulty in lowering the nose and recovering from a fully stalled condition at a low altitude.
Not exactly sure what your disagreement is, I have clearly advocated spin training, but both logic and real world experience has shown that stall avoidance will have the greatest effect on reducing low altitude stall/spin accidents.
Tom-
I never suggested stall/spin training wasn't valuable, my point is that avoiding the stall at 300-500" turning final is critical because recovery from a spin at that altitude is a serious challenge, if not impossible. I've seen a low altitude fatal stall spin accident that should have been recoverable before the rotation began but wasn't because the pilot failed to lower the nose and unload the wings. Had he recovered from the stall there would never have been a spin, once rotation began at the low altitude all of the spin training and proficiency in the world would not have prevented the accident. Until you have had a windshield full of grass you will never fully appreciate the difficulty in lowering the nose and recovering from a fully stalled condition at a low altitude.
Not exactly sure what your disagreement is, I have clearly advocated spin training, but both logic and real world experience has shown that stall avoidance will have the greatest effect on reducing low altitude stall/spin accidents.
Tom-
Wed Jan 07, 2009 12:39 am
Tom,
No disagreement...just clarification that I think that it is valuable training and that I think that it worked well for me.
There is much to learn here. My meager 250 hours accounts for very little experience and when I step back into the cockpit one day I hope all of this will come to mind...
Cheers
Zane
No disagreement...just clarification that I think that it is valuable training and that I think that it worked well for me.
There is much to learn here. My meager 250 hours accounts for very little experience and when I step back into the cockpit one day I hope all of this will come to mind...
Cheers
Zane
Thu Jan 08, 2009 1:56 am
Tom/Zane,
Spin training is mandatory in Canada. The Private Pilot License curriculum has spin training in it, but spinning the aircraft is not on the flight test. The Commercial pilot license also has spinning in the curriculum, and is tested during the flight test. Transport Canada (and my instructors) have stressed the importance of stall recognition.
The instructor I had for my private license introduced power off spins from a straigh/level attitued...we went no further. I found this acceptable as it would have been too overwhelming to add different attitudes and control deflections to aggrevate the spin...I think it would have been pointless.
I did, however, go out with a seasoned pilot to do spins after I received my license to find out what the aircraft would do in different circumstances. I think this effort was valuable to understand what this airplane did.
I did my commercial license in my Harvard and, or course, the spin was quite different than my Fleet Canuck. This gives a new perspective to spin recovery...it won't happen within 1000 feet...period.
My opinion is that both the spin and the stall recognition are of equal importance. I just wish that Transport Canada would mandate flight instructors to get proper spin training before they show us.
Now, thanks to this thread, I need to modify my ground briefing to ensure feet are kept away from controls.
Drew
Spin training is mandatory in Canada. The Private Pilot License curriculum has spin training in it, but spinning the aircraft is not on the flight test. The Commercial pilot license also has spinning in the curriculum, and is tested during the flight test. Transport Canada (and my instructors) have stressed the importance of stall recognition.
The instructor I had for my private license introduced power off spins from a straigh/level attitued...we went no further. I found this acceptable as it would have been too overwhelming to add different attitudes and control deflections to aggrevate the spin...I think it would have been pointless.
I did, however, go out with a seasoned pilot to do spins after I received my license to find out what the aircraft would do in different circumstances. I think this effort was valuable to understand what this airplane did.
I did my commercial license in my Harvard and, or course, the spin was quite different than my Fleet Canuck. This gives a new perspective to spin recovery...it won't happen within 1000 feet...period.
My opinion is that both the spin and the stall recognition are of equal importance. I just wish that Transport Canada would mandate flight instructors to get proper spin training before they show us.
Now, thanks to this thread, I need to modify my ground briefing to ensure feet are kept away from controls.
Drew
Thu Jan 08, 2009 9:42 am
I've taught spin training in a Pitts and a Decathlon, and my view is that someone is not going to gain "life-saving" recovery skills until they reach a point where they are completely comfortable in the cockpit regardless of the attitude the aircraft is in.
That is, you are able to think logically and calmly no matter what the aircraft is doing. You absolutely must be able to correctly determine the direction of yaw in order to effect a proper spin recovery (or, more importantly, stop it before it develops). That is much harder to do in an inadvertant spin than most people think. You have very little time to determine what to do in a low-altitude spin.
I found it takes most people at least 10 to 15 hours of solid aerobatics instruction before they begin to reach this point. And honestly, some people never get there. It also seems to take this amount of time for certain actions to become instinctive (e.g., push THEN roll if you find yourself accidentally inverted by wake turbulence while on final).
So, while a one hour spin introduction is a great step, and very well may instill something that could save your life, there is no comparison between someone who has 1 hour of spin training and someone who has 10 hours of spin/aerobatic training, along with yearly recurrent training, preferably in a different type of plane every year.
That is, you are able to think logically and calmly no matter what the aircraft is doing. You absolutely must be able to correctly determine the direction of yaw in order to effect a proper spin recovery (or, more importantly, stop it before it develops). That is much harder to do in an inadvertant spin than most people think. You have very little time to determine what to do in a low-altitude spin.
I found it takes most people at least 10 to 15 hours of solid aerobatics instruction before they begin to reach this point. And honestly, some people never get there. It also seems to take this amount of time for certain actions to become instinctive (e.g., push THEN roll if you find yourself accidentally inverted by wake turbulence while on final).
So, while a one hour spin introduction is a great step, and very well may instill something that could save your life, there is no comparison between someone who has 1 hour of spin training and someone who has 10 hours of spin/aerobatic training, along with yearly recurrent training, preferably in a different type of plane every year.