I've talked to a couple of instructor friends about spins in a cessna and I don't know how true it is, but especially when it's harder to spin a 172 if you let go of the controls will it come out of the spin or is it a myth? Like to hear more about this if anyone has anything to add.

thanks

Good question. I checked the POHs for the 172/152/150 and there is no mention of letting go of controls as a spin recovery technique. Unless it's buried in some other section of the POH, it doesn't appear as a recommended technique although I've been told by numerous instructors that it was effective if you couldn't use the standard recovery (i.e. you're in a full-throated panic).

The 152 is a much better aircraft for spinning, it will enter a spin and stay in it as long as you continue to hold pro-spin inputs on the controls.

The 172 will spin, but never for more than a turn, at which point the aircraft ends up being in a spiral dive and you are forced to recover.

The 172 will spin, but never for more than a turn, at which point the aircraft ends up being in a spiral dive and you are forced to recover.

'Depends which 172 model, there are differences. Pre/post 1974 will be a difference in terms of spinning, but all are compliant when spun properly loaded.

To the OP's question; you're not going to find "letting go of the controls" as a POH procedure (or hopefully any competent training ), as obviously, the POH is there to tell you how to fly the plane, and "letting go" is a how not to fly, rather than a how to fly. Yes, regrettably a properly loaded and trimmed 172 will sloppily recover most anything if you let go and have the altitude. But, if letting go is your plan, or your back up plan, or your fear, spinning is very unwise. Do not allow yourself to develop a "muscle memory" reaction which is to give up flying the plane, particularly when an unusual attitude is impending.

Learn proper and correct reaction to stall and spin, so that no matter what you're flying, your recovery actions are correct.

Other Cessnas are spun occasionally too, so good recovery habits are important:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjB_q7AIvDo[/youtube]

More entertaining video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQkk0JLjEJY

I believe what it says in the POH is let go of the control but steer with rudders.

http://www.flywingsofeagles.com/wp-cont ... 52_POH.pdf

Tommy, you are thinking of the Cessna procedure for inadvertent entry into IMC (or the 180° turn).

For spins, Cessna has never in my knowledge advocated letting go of the controls. Mind you, most Cessna's are engineered to be pretty docile in spins, letting go would put you into a spiral dive or significantly nose down, but it is a piss poor technique, and not one recommended in the POH.

I'll go and check if the spin recovery in various models of 150 and 172 is different in any material way when effected using the Mueller/Beggs technique of letting go, vs the Cessna approved "full opposite rudder then brisk forward elevator" technique, which btw also puts you significantly nose down and in a spiral dive.

I suspect that for deliberate stalls with the CG in the approved range and the power idle the two amount to much the same thing as the rotation ceases pretty smartly that full into-spin rudder is released (and in fact before it's released, in the 172). If there is anywhere a significant difference I'd expect to see it in recovering from a spin entered - inadvertently, one hopes - with significant power and/or rear CG.

I'd keep "letting go" as a very handy backup plan if your mind goes blank or you can't discern what the hell's going on (may you never end up in that situation). It's really quite difficult to execute wrongly.

Quick aside ..

"letting go"

Has been studied extensively for aerobatic planes like Citabrias Pitts, Extras etc. and has been found to work very well. Surprisingly the only plane tested that did not work and only after a multitude of rotations was the C-152.

If memory serves the 150 families love to spin and enter crisply while the 172's seem to require a bit of coaxing to get them to go in nicely and they will recover almost the moment you relax the rudder or elevator. Obviously at more aft CG positions this is not the case as a recent spin accident with 4 individuals on board likely demonstrates.

Tommy, sorry, I have to highlight a theme here:

I believe what it says in the POH is let go of the control but steer with rudders.

"Believing" something about flying the plane is not good enough if your aim is to be a professional pilot. Page 4-19 of the 152 POH you linked contradicts what you have stated.

Without being too harsh, it's a good idea to post accurately, so as to be regarded seriously here.

With being harsh, there are people who flight test, analyze, report, and then write the words in a Flight Manual/POH/FMS which we provide so you the pilot know what you need to know about how to fly the plane safely. Would you please read the POH cover to cover, and understand the meaning of the contents, before you fly the plane?

Note that in item 3, it states that full down elevator may be required to assure optimum recovery. During spin testing, as the C of G is moved further aft flight to flight, the point at which full down elevator is sluggish to affect recovery is just beyond the aft C of G position to be set as a limitation for the aircraft. Have you ever wondered why the elevator will go so far nose down? In a tricycle aircraft it's not common to be holding full nose down right? It's for spin recovery. It's rather alarming to be in the midst of a spin, holding full nose down control in, waiting for something to happen, when it seems nothing is! 'Been there, done that!

It is for all these reasons that competent spin training is vital. But, that training can start any time by your reading and understanding what the manufacturer wrote as procedures for their aircraft in the Flight Manual.

During spin testing, as the C of G is moved further aft flight to flight, the point at which full down elevator is sluggish to affect recovery is just beyond the aft C of G position to be set as a limitation for the aircraft.

There are lots of limiting factors on the aft CG, and the certified aft limit has to be forward of all of them; it's not determined solely or even primarily by spin testing.

I did not sense that PilotDar was making any claim that spin recovery was the sole determinent for aft C of g limits.

Here is the thing.
The intent of spin recovery training, as I understand it, is not to teach specifically to a model of aircraft.
TC has done a pretty darn good job of simply stating the steps for recovery.

When we look at a 172 specifically, there are several things that make the standard recovery procedure somewhat unnecessary.
Before training is done we confirm the aircraft meets the utility weight and c of g limitations.
We are training pilots to respond to situations where the c of g or weight might not be within those limits. The TC mandated procedure addresses both situations..
The " let everything go" does not.

When you look at the rudder and elevator (up) limitations on the 172, and the wing design, the need to neutralize the ailerons is not really necessary either. But dont neutralize the ailerons on some planes, or worse, try to lift the downward wing with aileron, and things might not work out to well.
So neutralize the ailerons. Dont just learn to release everything and go for a ride.

We need to teach students how to recover from a spin. And it may not be in a spin certified plane so the " we tested some". May just not apply.

The thing I dont understand is why instructors would ever even mention this to a student.
I am sure there is a reason somewhere which someone can trot out to defend the practice.

As an aside. Part of my job is to evaluate commercial pilots. When I ask them to tell what the generic spin recovery procedure it is surprising how often they cant even get close and just how often those pilots tell me that they only remembered that if things go astray to just release the controls.

And before you get snarly photo. I am not instructor bashing, just stating my experience with pilots who should be able to state a generic spin recovery procedure. It really is only a few items

PilotDAR wrote: "Believing" something about flying the plane is not good enough if your aim is to be a professional pilot. Page 4-19 of the 152 POH you linked contradicts what you have stated.

Would you please read the POH cover to cover, and understand the meaning of the contents, before you fly the plane?

Seems like neither of your points is applicable here While I fly 150 hours a year, I don't aim to be a professional pilot, and I don't fly the 152.

I used the phrase "I believe" because I was going by memory and was not sure. I was hoping someone else could verify ...

While I fly 150 hours a year, I don't aim to be a professional pilot

I was thinking more of the approach to piloting being professional, rather than getting paid to fly. In any case, the point I hope to make is that the information needed to fly the plane though its range of approved maneuvers is stated in the Flight Manual, and a good review is the best place to start when you have a question. Many times I have observed a pilot doing something contrary to the Flight Manual while flying. I'll ask, "did you read the Flight Manual?". Too often the answer is not a "yes". I would like to impress upon pilots the value in reading the Flight Manual and supplements. This was a case in point - sorry, not trying to single you out....

Many times I have observed a pilot doing something contrary to the Flight Manual while flying. I'll ask, "did you read the Flight Manual?"

Sorry PilotDAR, do you mean the POH or the TC Flight Training Manual here? Or both...

trey kule wrote:And before you get snarly photo. I am not instructor bashing, just stating my experience with pilots who should be able to state a generic spin recovery procedure. It really is only a few items

Snarly? Me? I don't know what you mean.

But there is no one "generic" spin recovery procedure. There is only the specific one in the POH for the airplane you're sitting in, tested and blessed by the manufacturer. And if we admit the existence of even one "generic" procedure, we should acknowlege the existence and efficacy of both PARE and Muller/Beggs (let go of everything). Since neither is blessed by any higher authority, we have no chapter-and-verse reason, in any generic sense, to prefer over the other.

But there is no one "generic" spin recovery procedure.

This is true, it's a bit chicken and egg. The "official" producers of training material are not going to present written guidance with conflicts with manufacturer published procedures. But, in defense of pilots, many manufacturers do not publish spin recovery procedures for their non spin approved aircraft (if the aircraft is spin approved, it is required that procedures be published in the Flight Manual.). So now you're back to what you were trained, and hope it works well enough.

In every case where I have been involved in spinning, including a lot of types for which no spin recovery procedures are published, the key elements are to reduce the angle of attack (to recover the stall), then stop rotation with the rudder, then recover the resulting dive. If in doubt, this is what I do. It was memorable during spin testing of a Cessna 206 at aft C of G that my first spin recovery was sloppy and delayed. Then (because I have failed to read the Flight Manual before my flight) I recalled the work "briskly" in describing the motion to be applied to move the control wheel forward. I applied nose down briskly, and was out of the spin promptly.

Sorry PilotDAR, do you mean the POH or the TC Flight Training Manual here?

Yes the Flight Manual which is a part of the type design of the aircraft. It is also known as a "POH" or "Owner's Manual", but the official term is "Flight Manual", and for example, for more recent Cessna Owner's Manuals, there is often a passage at the beginning which says something like "This document constitutes the Flight Manual". For aircraft manufactured prior to 1975, there is less consistency in their format. These are a wealth of important information about an aircraft, and there is no excuse for not being familiar with the contents for an aircraft you're flying.

Before we all assume that the the "generic" procedure is always best, here's an extract from the AAIB report into the crash of G-ONCS, the Tipsy Nipper that entered a 26 turn flat spin before the pilot was able to effect a recovery and perform a fairly rough landing:

"The pilot had not encountered a flat spin before so responded initially by applying the normal spin recovery actions, i.e., neutral ailerons, left rudder and then full forward stick. This had no effect. He reported that after about three to four turns, he removed and re-applied these inputs, again wth no effect. After a further couple of turns, he applied a series of short bursts of engine power, but this too had no discernible effect, so he closed the throttle and centred the controls before reverting to normal recovery actions. After about 10 turns in total, the engne stopped and, because normal recovery actions appeared to be havng no effect, he decded to try ‘full in-turn controls’, comprising full forward stick, full right rudder, and full right aileron. He estimated that after a further six turns or so in this condition, the mode of the spn reverted to ts usual steep nose-down mode, from whch he was able to recover normally into a steep dive."

I think the above discussion misses a fundamental point. A spin is an aerobatic maneuver. Before an aircraft can enter a spin it must first stall and then it must be allowed to yaw without correction by the pilot.

In almost every case a spin is either entered because of a choice by the pilot, or because the pilot did not effectively control yaw as the airplane stalled. This is IMO invariably due to a the fact that he/she was not trained to instinctively and automatically control yaw as they reduced AOA in the event of a intentional or more importantly an inadvertent stall.

Specifically with respect to the C 172, Cessna produced a guidance document that specifically discussed spin recoveries for all the models approved for spins. Of note for the C 172 the " spin " mode does not even start until 180 degrees of rotation has occurred. After the stall but before 180 degrees of recovery the POH stall, not the spin recover should be used.

I taught spins as an essential part of a 10 hour introductory aerobatics course. When I was teaching the PPL the emphasis was spin avoidance. If a student allowed the aircraft to enter a spin they had failed. I obviously did teach the spin entry technique for the CPL because it was a flight test requirement, but again it was only after I had demonstrated how proper recognition and recovery of any stall would prevent a spin.

Accident record is clear. If a CPL is actually put in a position that they actually have to recover from a spin they are almost certainly at too low an altitude to effect that recovery even if they did everything perfectly.

Finally the certification standard for a spin certified aircraft is 6 turns. If you go pass 6 turns you are a test pilot......

Before we all assume that the the "generic" procedure is always best, here's an extract from the AAIB report into the crash of G-ONCS, the Tipsy Nipper that entered a 26 turn flat spin before the pilot was able to effect a recovery and perform a fairly rough landing:

No one is saying that at all. In fact, PilotDar is attempting to emphasize reading the AFM for your specific type.
But when we are training students, we train for more general knowledge, and as it happens , that technique works just fine in a 150 or 172. Once the student has the procedure, as outlined in the TC manual, they have knowledge for hopefully, a long time. And the wisdom to know that they should read the AFM of any aircraft they fly as all planes do not fly the same..

As to you ancedotal, one off example. That is what it is. The exception. Not the rule.

BPF wrote

Accident record is clear. If a CPL is actually put in a position that they actually have to recover from a spin they are almost certainly too low an altitude to effect that recovery even if they did everything perfectly.

That is my understanding as well. And I do believe that these situation result from pilots not understanding both stalls and slow flight. It is a particularquest of mine. But this begs the question of what we should be teaching as the required spin recovery technique. TC seems clear enough about it.
Not sure why some peoole want to change that , or maybe just defend their position.

From a purely academic discussion standpoint I'd say that it would depend greatly on how you had her trimmed at the time.

trey kule wrote: As to you ancedotal, one off example. That is what it is. The exception. Not the rule.

But there is no rule. You shouldn't be claiming there is one. If there's no rule there can be no such thing as an exception to the rule.

But this begs the question of what we should be teaching as the required spin recovery technique.

I don't see there's any doubt about the answer. Teach what's in the POH for the aircraft. If there's nothing in the POH then it's appropriate to consider both PARE and Muller/Beggs.

If there's nothing in the POH then it's appropriate to consider both PARE and Muller/Beggs.

I don't know these people, did they write valid spin recovery procedures generic to all aircraft?

If these people's procedures are being considered, what is the perspective of the person doing the considering of their applicability to an aircraft for which no POH information is presented?

Did *anyone* write valid spin recovery procedures generic to *all* aircraft? No. That's the point.


Detail on MB:
http://spirit.eaa.org/intheloop/article ... covery.asp

I think it is important to make clear that the MB method is intended for spins in the context of aerobatic maneuvering. Botched aerobatic maneuvers can result in extreme upsets with the aircraft very rapidly entering aggravated spin modes erect or inverted or transitioning from one to the other. It is effectively impossible to enter any of these spin modes in a single engine Cessna, including an inverted spin.

Most of these outcomes are a result of the design flying characteristics of purpose built aerobatic aircraft.

None of this discussion IMO has anything to do with the OP's question regarding spins in a C 172
As was pointed out by several earlier posters, the POH for this aircraft has a spin recovery procedure. That and only that should be used

But a bigger point in my mind is that there is no reason to spin a C 172 other than that what is required to demonstrate to the instructor and then the examiner (CPL) that you can effectively apply the POH required spin recover actions.

The C 172 is not an aerobatic airplane and a spin is an aerobatic maneuver.