Plane Crash Peachester QLD

[Thruster88]

3 hours ago, facthunter said:

We still can't rule out a student freezing on the controls. I'd also think a C-150 aerobat  wouldn't be a complex plane to recover in a stall for an  experienced Pilot. PS I've always recommended the specific technique in the POH.. Never been a fan of Mueller/ Beggs unless as a last resort of a person who knows little about spin recovery across a fair range of types, where it can be argued it's better than nothing and/or the wrong technique being used. . Of all the planes I've spun I consider the DHC-1 Chipmunk the most concerning. I don't think I'm alone there as there was an enquiry (in Australia) into it in the 60's IF I recall correctly. Nev

It would seem unlikely that the student froze on the controls. He had been flying for 10 years and had 250 hours (that is an hour every second weekend over those years so not nothing). He had also previously taken an aerobatic trial flight in a Decathlon. He wanted to do the aerobatic endorsement in the C150. 

 

Would the student do the first spin or would the instructor demonstrate and talk through the procedure? 

[facthunter]

Well I'm here as proof I got out of every spin but there were Differences in how it reacted in entry and recovery. You could never pull a chippie out on a heading but I've seen other planes you could. I always used Out of spin aileron for  entry and it still took a couple of turns to fully spin and sometimes it spun flatter than others if the spin was prolonged. It also has a high R o D in a spin and all I know of were Fatal except one where the engine came out after the prop threw a blade. Nev

[facthunter]

OK about the freeze  ? The way I would teach would be fully explain on the ground and have student run through and recite what he/she is doing and why then the first one would be done by me with the student also on the stick most likely but not necessarily with the better student who is paying good money and shows a good grasp of it all. My general view is have the student do the most of the flying always and don't do any basic instruction in the air where attention is divided with other tasks unless a special circumstance presents itself. Debrief thoroughly afterwards.to aid consolidation and assess understanding.   Nev

[Old Koreelah]

2 hours ago, derekliston said:

I use two little action cams, just relatively cheap, not Gopros, one out on the left wing and one centrally above and behind my head. Always said that they are my equivalent to CVR and CDR should anything go wrong…

I like it, Derek. What brand? Where to buy them? How long do batteries last?
Totally underwhelmed by my GoPro, waste too much time on it.

[djpacro]

3 hours ago, onetrack said:

This ATSB report on a Chipmunk crash in 2014 is interesting ….m

 

[bull]

18 minutes ago, Old Koreelah said:

I like it, Derek. What brand? Where to buy them? How long do batteries last?
Totally underwhelmed by my GoPro, waste too much time on it.

Just get two cheap dash cams mate

 

[APenNameAndThatA]

3 hours ago, Thruster88 said:

It would seem unlikely that the student froze on the controls. He had been flying for 10 years and had 250 hours (that is an hour every second weekend over those years so not nothing). He had also previously taken an aerobatic trial flight in a Decathlon. He wanted to do the aerobatic endorsement in the C150. 

 

Would the student do the first spin or would the instructor demonstrate and talk through the procedure? 

I froze at the controls of a 4WD once, driving down a hill for fun. A pilot of a B36 Peacemaker froze on the controls even though he had been considered above average, 

 

Also, from an animal behavioural point of view, freezing happens *before* an animal has got so scared that they have run away. The point being that people can freeze when they are less frightened than they are capable of being. 

 

We don’t know if the student did any spins in the Decathlon. In my experience spins are vastly different from other aerobatic manoeuvres because they are so visceral for so long, (and also because of the delayed control response.) 

[Old Koreelah]

3 hours ago, bull said:

Just get two cheap dash cams mate

 

’ve got a quite a collection of them; all have failed, even the $150 one.

[djpacro]

9 hours ago, APenNameAndThatA said:

We don’t know if the student did any spins in the Decathlon. 

"The student had conducted an introductory aerobatic flight in an American Champion Aircraft Corp 8KCAB with an instructor in December 2014. That flight did not include spins." 

[djpacro]

15 hours ago, Thruster88 said:

It would seem unlikely that the student froze on the controls. He had been flying for 10 years and had 250 hours (that is an hour every second weekend over those years so not nothing). He had also previously taken an aerobatic trial flight in a Decathlon. He wanted to do the aerobatic endorsement in the C150. 

 

Would the student do the first spin or would the instructor demonstrate and talk through the procedure? 

The ATSB assessed that "Overall, none of the available evidence indicated that the student was susceptible to freezing at the controls or making other inappropriate flight control inputs." They didn't rule it out however they did speak to other instructors and trainees at that flight school in making that assessment. As the ATSB said "it may be difficult for the instructor to regain control of the aircraft." I've done a whole lot of spin training over the years and never had much difficulty in dealing with trainees who freeze or made the situation worse by incorrect actions. Same with other instructors I know.

 

That same trainee had flown aerobatics twice on the previous day. "It was reported that, during the practical flight phase on that day, the instructor demonstrated each of the manoeuvres before handing control to the student." Good practice.

 

The pre-flight briefing on the day of the accident is most telling:

"One of the students indicated that, during the pre-flight briefing, they were not instructed on what recovery method was recommended in the Aerobat Pilot’s Operating Handbook (POH), or that it closely aligned with the PARE method. Further, they were instructed on the advantages of the Mueller/Beggs method, but not on its limitations; namely, if the Mueller/Beggs method was utilised on an Aerobat, the aircraft would not recover from a spin to the left (see Aerodynamic spins).
Both students were instructed to write down the 2 spin recovery methods on a piece of paper for reference in flight when the practical component of the spin recovery was to be undertaken. One of the students indicated that they believed they were going to utilise both methods of spin recovery during their flight instruction. The first method written down on both students’ spin recovery notes was the Mueller/Beggs method."

 

Another instructor who worked with that instructor at another flight school has publicly stated that they did not teach the spin recovery method in the (non-aerobatic) Cessna 152 POH. "... just relaxation of the back pressure was taught ..".  Catherine Cavagnaro makes the point that the elevator is the primary spin recovery control in the Cessna 

 

"However, the ATSB could not identify if the instructor had sought additional information about the Aerobat’s spin characteristics." Two books by William K.Kershner are readily available and provide exhaustive information on the type in general and spinning in particular. Both should be in the reference library of any flight school teaching spins in a C150/152.

 

The investigators did a very comprehensive job. "The ATSB considered it likely that the instructor was not aware or did not recall that the Aerobat would not recover utilising the Mueller/Beggs method in a spin to the left. Further, the evidence indicates that the instructor intended to utilise both methods of recovery in 2 separate spin sequences on the accident flight. If the Mueller/Beggs method was being used for the first exercise, it would provide a viable explanation of the accident sequence."

 

Time to accept the ATSB report and go forward with the recommendations.

[derekliston]

18 hours ago, Old Koreelah said:

I like it, Derek. What brand? Where to buy them? How long do batteries last?
Totally underwhelmed by my GoPro, waste too much time on it.

ExtremeX just from JB Hifi but the brand has changed its design now, not as good.

[aro]

The report does prompt a few thoughts -

• Generally, a Pitts would be considered a more advanced aircraft than a C150. But maybe when it comes to aerobatics that isn't the case. I can see it might take more skill to fly the C150, with the less purpose built design requiring larger control movements, and slower responses requiring you to be further ahead of the aircraft. I don't see any problem teaching in it, but perhaps someone stepping out of a Pitts might underestimate the difficulty.
• Following from that, what qualifications are required to teach aerobatics? An instructor teaching a student in an aircraft that they themselves had little experience on seems sub-optimal.
• I wonder about the usefulness of unusual attitude recovery training in aircraft like the Pitts i.e. dedicated aerobatic aircraft. Certainly, it is useful to get experience so you can maintain your composure in unusual attitudes, but advanced aerobatic aircraft are probably much easier to recover than standard aircraft. If an aerobatics instructor couldn't recover a C150 Aerobat from an intentional spin, how useful is the training? There's probably a catch 22 here - you could train in aircraft that reflect the real world, but you would then have more training accidents.
• Mueller/Beggs recovery - should it be taught as a primary technique? The ATSB report says the method "has proven to be a very effective method of spin recovery in most aircraft types." Is that "most types" that are approved for spinning, within aerobatic CG etc. or is it "most types" in the spin testing conditions required for certification? Perhaps Mueller/Beggs should be an advanced technique, introduced e.g. when you start thinking about inverted spins, and make the initial focus on knowing and implementing POH procedures?

[bull]

22 hours ago, Old Koreelah said:

’ve got a quite a collection of them; all have failed, even the $150 one.

Must be the altitude  ah,???     my old 50 buck camera is still rolling along brought in 2017

[djpacro]

1 hour ago, aro said:

... The ATSB report says the method "has proven to be a very effective method of spin recovery in most aircraft types." Is that "most types" that are approved for spinning, within aerobatic CG etc. or is it "most types" in the spin testing conditions required for certification?

Here is the list from Gene Beggs, October 1985 magazine article, which he claims to have thoroughly tested.

 

Of these, he states that it doesn't work (at least for some spin modes) for the Beech T-34C, North American AT-6 and that Cessna 150. Bill Kershner confirmed that every Cessna Aerobat behaves the same when trying to recover using Beggs-Mueller - even the 152 will not recover.

 

They weren't certification standard tests, for example, he did not rig the control surfaces to the extremes of the tolerances most adverse for spin recovery. What CG range did he test for each aircraft? How can he guarantee it? 

 

His book, Spins in the Pitts Special, was published later and it had another statement: "Another aircraft that will not always recover is the 180 Decathlon. This occurs in the inverted left rudder spin. I have not flown the 180 Decathlon extensively. I do not know if the 150 Decathlon also exhibits the same behaviour." Hang on, in that earlier magazine article he stated that he had thoroughly tested it? He goes on "If we could spin-test every aircraft, I am sure we would find others that will lock-in and continue spinning on their own."

 

An instructor and student were conducting inverted spins in a Decathlon and the Beggs-Mueller technique was being demonstrated. The student was told to bail out and survived. The instructor was killed as he didn't have enough time to get out.

 

Eric Mueller is quite vague - I have only seen him state that it works for all those aircraft which have a conventional (according to Eric) tail design like that of the Pitts Special. Tell that to Paul Bennet - it doesn't work for his Wolf Pitts.

Edited August 17, 2022 by djpacro

[djpacro]

10 hours ago, aro said:

The report does prompt a few thoughts -

• I wonder about the usefulness of unusual attitude recovery training in aircraft like the Pitts i.e. dedicated aerobatic aircraft. Certainly, it is useful to get experience so you can maintain your composure in unusual attitudes, but advanced aerobatic aircraft are probably much easier to recover than standard aircraft. .... There's probably a catch 22 here - you could train in aircraft that reflect the real world, but you would then have more training accidents.

Unusual attitudes - a good point for more discussion at that other thread on UPRT, perhaps.

 

When I do a spin endorsement for someone there is classroom work which includes:

• all the aggravated spin modes and how to avoid them
• some characteristics of other types so the recovery method is likely to be different than the type we are using
• the limitations of Beggs-Mueller
• what to do if you apply the correct (or you think it was correct) recovery method and it doesn't work - what do you do?
• especially for flight instructors, what aircraft will they be instructing in, as if not approved for spins they must know the control actions specified in the POH - probably totally different than what I've taught them - and apply them as soon as it starts to spin - certainly before one turn. eg this Diamond
• 

Quote

If an aerobatics instructor couldn't recover a C150 Aerobat from an intentional spin, how useful is the training?

Indeed. I expect (hope) there will be changes to the spin training MOS and instructor training.

[djpacro]

10 hours ago, aro said:

The report does prompt a few thoughts -

• Generally, a Pitts would be considered a more advanced aircraft than a C150. But maybe when it comes to aerobatics that isn't the case. I can see it might take more skill to fly the C150, with the less purpose built design requiring larger control movements, and slower responses requiring you to be further ahead of the aircraft. I don't see any problem teaching in it, but perhaps someone stepping out of a Pitts might underestimate the difficulty.
• Following from that, what qualifications are required to teach aerobatics? An instructor teaching a student in an aircraft that they themselves had little experience on seems sub-optimal.

My opinion is that the Cessna Aerobat is a great little aerobatic trainer. I've done quite a bit of instruction in them. Yep, so easy to do a roll in a Pitts or Extra. Students in a Cessna, with its much lower roll rate, must learn more skills in rolling it as well as energy management overall. The Decathlon is an excellent aerobatic trainer. Very few in Australia learn basic aerobatics in a Pitts or Extra - they could learn those correct basic skills to do a roll at low roll rates but won't iniitially. Techniques for hammerheads are quite a bit different in high performance aircraft.

I don't see a problem with teaching aerobatics on different types in general as almost any instructor would've started on a low performance type. Courses for an instructor doing an aerobatic training endorsement should include some little classroom techniques in different types per the MOS. Manuals give good guidance on how to do stuff and most of the skills are transferable. I do enjoy seeing a Pitts pilot try to do a hammerhead (stall turn) in an Airtourer though!

 

The real issue is spinning. The MOS only requires knowledge of the type which is being used for training.

[aro]

52 minutes ago, djpacro said:

almost any instructor would've started on a low performance type

According to the report,

"The instructor’s initial and ongoing aerobatics training was conducted in the Pitts Special aircraft. Apart from the instruction flights in VH-CYO during the week prior to the accident, the ATSB was unable to identify any previous aerobatic experience in the Cessna A150 Aerobat or any other similar Cessna variants"

"the instructor provided information to the Sunshine Coast Aero Club that they had about 100 hours experience in the Cessna 152. However, there was no mention of experience in the Cessna A150 Aerobat"

"The instructor had their own aviation company that predominantly conducted aerobatic joy flights and instructional flights in the company’s 2 Pitts Special aircraft"

"logbooks indicated that the instructor had about 100 hours of flight experience in a Cessna 152 (a similar, non-aerobatic variant of the Aerobat), but none of that recorded experience was aerobatic in nature"

"the aero club’s chief flying instructor (CFI) conducted a check flight with the instructor in the Aerobat to assess the instructor’s ability. The CFI was not rated in aerobatics, and the check flight was limited to an assessment of the instructor’s general handling and area knowledge"

 

I would have no problem doing aerobatics training in a 150, BUT I would want the instructor to have extensive aerobatics experience in that type. To me, it sounds like the instructor underestimated the skills required for the 150 compared to the Pitts.

 

[djpacro]

36 minutes ago, aro said:

According to the report,

"The instructor’s initial and ongoing aerobatics training was conducted in the Pitts Special aircraft. ...."

 

I would have no problem doing aerobatics training in a 150, BUT I would want the instructor to have extensive aerobatics experience in that type. To me, it sounds like the instructor underestimated the skills required for the 150 compared to the Pitts.

 

Yep, I did state "almost any instructor". Aerobatic customers often consider different schools and sometimes specific instructors before deciding but often don't bother asking about the instructor's experience. I think an instructor like that would've been fine for the general aerobatic training - I would expect some solo aerobatic practice (normal with others I know who transition to other types) rather than pick it up with a student on board paying for it as the report indicates.

[facthunter]

Both learning at the same time doesn't work. The art of being on top of autorotating aeroplanes as never completed.  When the first technique failed you can start another IF you have the HEIGHT to spare. Planes can spin forever without building up loads on the airframe TILL they hit the  ground.  I'd use full forward stick only with great caution and in any case neutralise each control as soon as the result (in that axis) has been achieved. Nev