"Student pilot was learning aerodynamic spins when plane crashed"

[ryoder 1,590]

http://www.broomfieldenterprise.com/news/ci_30848644/student-pilot-was-learning-aerodynamic-spins-when-plane

This happened a couple weeks ago, but the NTSB prelim just came out yesterday:
https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/ReportGeneratorFile.ashx?EventID=20170227X30016&AKey=1&RType=Prelim&IType=FA

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[quade 4]

Current guidance is to teach spin recognition and avoidance to student pilots. It's generally considered reasonable for a person to get instruction in fully developed spins for their commercial certificate. And spin training is mandatory for flight instructor candidates.

Considering the student here already had a commercial certificate, it's not unreasonable to assume this flight may have been in preparation for his CFI certificate.

Generally three turns is considered the incipient phase and anything after that can be considered fully developed. Depending on the specific C-172 letter model, spins may not be approved beyond that.

This particular plane was approved for spins as long as weight and balance were within certain limits and it appears as if they were.

Generally speaking spins are pretty damn safe in a C-172; reduce throttle, shove the nose down to break the stall, recover by leveling the wings and returning to level flight. Hell, if the plane was reasonably trimmed before entry, 90 percent of the time in a C-172 or C-152 a person could just let go of the control wheel and the plane would recover itself (assuming there's reasonable altitude remaining).

All of the above said, weird shit happens. All it takes is a loose bolt jiggling around and getting wedged into control cables or whatnot. A loose bolt rattling around normally isn't a big deal in 1g. Go inverted (which is pretty much what happens at the entry to the spin) and have stuff floating around and well, that's killed more than a few famous stunt pilots.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[riggerrob 643]

Quade,
May I suggest applying opposite rudder to stop the yaw?

[quade 4]

riggerrob

Quade,
May I suggest applying opposite rudder to stop the yaw?

Yes. Sorry about that.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Phil1111 1,149]

Its not like they started the maneuver at an altitude insufficient to normally recover. Or in a AC that has dangerous tendencies in that flight regime.

Sometimes ____ happens.

[headoverheels 333]

riggerrob

Quade,
May I suggest applying opposite rudder to stop the yaw?

Of course, but shouldn't be necessary in a 172.

[Phil1111 1,149]

headoverheels

***Quade,
May I suggest applying opposite rudder to stop the yaw?

Of course, but shouldn't be necessary in a 172.

I don't know if a C-172 will recover from a full spin by removing all pilot inputs.

[quade 4]

Phil1111

******Quade,
May I suggest applying opposite rudder to stop the yaw?

Of course, but shouldn't be necessary in a 172.

I don't know if a C-172 will recover from a full spin by removing all pilot inputs.

Generally they will given enough altitude as long as nothing else goofy has happened like a weight shift or something.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Phil1111 1,149]

Well I've heard that but I don't know of anyone who has actually induced a full developed spin and without control inputs. Waited until the AC recovered on its own.

I think flight instructors tell students that when they first spin a C-172, C-150, PA-28, or one of the more common flight training aircraft. I was told that but i don't know anyone who actually tried it. The AC in question had the rear seats removed and two pilots but was within CG limits. They entered the spins at 5000' and 5500' AGL. The accident report was unable to identify or determine mechanical malfunctions.

It is possible for Normal and Utility certified AC to enter unrecoverable spins, according to FAA. The AC was G-1000 equipped and they should have had 30-40 seconds of time while in the spin from that altitude.

-G-1000 distraction?
- both pilots seemed experienced.

[Phil1111 1,149]

A good read:

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20170302-the-plane-so-good-its-still-in-production-after-60-years

And for $20K(perhaps)

http://www.controller.com/listings/aircraft/for-sale/1442631/1956-cessna-172-skyhawk

Or 400K new

http://www.controller.com/listings/aircraft/for-sale/17460455/2017-cessna-172s-skyhawk-sp

[ryoder 1,590]

Phil1111

A good read:

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20170302-the-plane-so-good-its-still-in-production-after-60-years

The article would have one believing it has been in continuous production for 60 years.
Not true.
Production stopped in 1986, then resumed in 1996.

And reading about mid-air refueling of a 172 was news to me!

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[Phil1111 1,149]

ryoder

***A good read:

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20170302-the-plane-so-good-its-still-in-production-after-60-years

The article would have one believing it has been in continuous production for 60 years.
Not true.
Production stopped in 1986, then resumed in 1996.

And reading about mid-air refueling of a 172 was news to me!

It sort of references that "The only time its production ceased for an extended time was in the late 1980s, when stricter US laws restricted the manufacture of all light aircraft."

But it is a great design. manual flaps, "omni-vision" and a swept tail were the only changes. The swept tail does look better and the omni-vision is nicer. Other than it heats the cabin up quicker in the summer. The electric flaps are not a improvement.

The Flight Design would be an improvement IMO.
http://flightdesign.com/wordpress/?page_id=36

...............C-172.....................C4...................c-182
Engine,..........145.................180....................230 hp
Useful load.....918 lb................1320..................1142
Stall.............50kn....................48....................49
cruise...........124kn..................160kn...............145
range...........640nm.................1200.................915
seats.............4........................4.....................4
Fuel GPH........8.4.....................8.4..................13.8
Construction...Al......................Carbon............... Al

http://cessna.txtav.com/en/piston/cessna-skyhawk#_model-specs
http://cessna.txtav.com/en/piston/cessna-skylane#_model-specs

Flight Design has built 1700 two place carbon, certified aircraft.

[billvon 2,998]

>The article would have one believing it has been in continuous production for 60 years.

"The only time its production ceased for an extended time was in the late 1980s, when stricter US laws restricted the manufacture of all light aircraft."