Call to Action. Adding Spiral recovery Tasks to the Practical Test Standards (PTS).
Intentional or unintentional spiral dives have caused a number of fatalities throughout the world. Therefore, I have decided to pursue getting spiral dive recovery into the Practical Test Standards (PTS) so all new pilots and CFI's will start training for this important maneuver in the US and hopefully worldwide. Additionally, this will also emphasize the importance of this important safety concept for pilots and instructors while performing a flight review required for all pilots ever 24 months in the USA. If we are successful with this, we can make spiral training visible and available to all pilots in the US within 24 to 30 months.
I have contacted the FAA and discussed this addition to the PTS so here is my plan based on this conversation. It is more than likely we can achieve this so I am asking others for input to this important evolution in trike safety. All input is appreciated.
There are two specific topics that need to be achieved to accomplish this:.
1. Justification for addition to PTS
2. What specifically to test for in the PTS which will be the basis of training for spiral dive recovery.
Before we get to the specifics, let's look at the closest item in the PTS that would relate to this subject.
The PTS is located at www.faa.gov/ training_testing/ testing/ test_standards/ media/ FAA-S-8081-31.pdf or you can purchase a paper copy at http://www.pilot-stores.com/asa-practical-test-standards-sport-pilot/
In the PTS Power Off Stall Task, the turning stall task is made to simulate the base to final turn and specifies a maximum 20 degree banked stall to represent this base to final scenario with no more than a +/- 10 degree variation. Hopefully this maneuver is thought by instructors to cover this base to final stall/spiral avoidance as a starting point to avoid this situation altogether in the first place. Typically the inside wing falls and the recovery is the same as a spiral recovery - reduce angle of attack (AOA) while leveling the wing, EXCEPT, repeat EXCEPT, you add throttle to recover at a slow speed and bank angle below 45 degrees RATHER than let off the throttle to recover in a spiral dive when the nose is pointed down. Significantly different recovery methods based on the bank angle.
Back to the JUSTICICATION before we get to the specifics of the spiral recovery maneuver. I can easily write a paragraph describing the problem but specific instances involving pilots in accidents is important to make this happen. I will put this into another blog/article to keep it separate and on track since this may create some discussion on this topic. Here we will focus on the specifics of the PTS task here.
Where should this be in the PTS as a task? Well it can be either in the Slow Flight and Stalls Area after the whip stall and tumble awareness OR in the Emergency Operations Area. The Slow Flight and Stalls Area is similar to the tuck tumble task for WSC/trikes and similar to the Spin Awareness for the Airplane Task which is in the slow flight and stalls for airplane. The Emergency procedures is appropriate since it is an Emergency recovery procedure. Ideas and input as to where the appropriate place in the PTS are appreciated from CFI's and DPE's.
The problem is how I teach this is not easily replicated for student to practice nor testing during a checkride. I now teach this with a two step process:
1. Get into a very high 60 degree bank and recover from there. Nose falls and the recovery procedure is initiated by simultaneously decreasing angle of attack, level wings and reduce throttle. Additionally at a very high bank angle, push out to demonstrate the stall and how this will initiate a spiral as the wing drops and things get worse. Again, the recovery procedure is initiated by simultaneously decreasing angle of attack, level wings and reduce throttle.
2. Get into a steep bank angle (example 45 degree bank performance maneuver) and bumping the bar to a higher bank angle as if there was some event that put the student into a very high bank angle (example 60 degrees) unable to maintain altitude at full throttle. Nose falls and the recovery procedure is initiated by simultaneously decreasing angle of attack, leveling wings and reducing throttle.
There may be a difference of opinion of exactly the sequence among flight instructors, but I teach a simultaneous pitch/roll/throttle where a sequence 1,2,3 can also be utilized for specific wing/trike situations. The PTS tasks needs to be open enough to accomplish either method depending on the specific trike/wing.
So how do we provide a recovery technique to initiate and recognize a spiral that can be thought by CFI's and practiced by the student on their own.
Here is my first cut at this in the PTS to accomplish this task. The objective is to obtain input before I submit this to the FAA to have it incorporated into the PTS. Here is a first cut at the two tasks as a starting point:
TASK: POWER ON SPIRAL RECOVERY (WSCL and WSCS)
REFERENCES: FAA-H-8083-5; Aircraft Flight Manual(AFM)/POH/AOI, .
Objective. To determine that the applicant:
1. Exhibits knowledge of the elements related to power on spiral recovery.
2. Selects an entry altitude that allows the task to be completed no lower than 1,000 feet AGL (Typically this would be at least 2000 AGL).
3. Establishes a high banked minimum 45 degree turn maintaining altitude at 1.6 Vs as specified by the examiner. Applicant simulates unintentional spiral by bumping to higher bank angle not to exceed 60 degrees and nose down attitude 30 degrees. Transitions smoothly and immediately from nose down high banked turn to level flight with 0 to 30 degrees bank angle.
4. Minimizes altitude loss, with no high pitch angle recovery, with immediate correction to new heading with no more than 180°correction in direction from simulated spiral initiated heading.
5. Recognizes and recovers promptly after the spiral is initiated by reducing the angle of attack , leveling the wing and reducing throttle to return to a straight-and-level flight attitude with a minimum loss of altitude appropriate for the specific weight-shift control aircraft.
6. Returns to the altitude, heading, and airspeed specified by the examiner.
Y. TASK: POWER OFF SPIRAL DIVE (WSCL and WSCS)
REFERENCES: FAA-H-8083-5; Aircraft Flight Manual(AFM)/POH/AOI, .
Objective. To determine that the applicant:
1. Exhibits knowledge of the elements related to power off spiral recovery.
2. Selects an entry altitude that allows the task to be completed no lower than 1,000 feet AGL.
3. Reduces throttle and establishes a high banked minimum 45 degree descending turn at 1.6 Vs as specified by the examiner. Applicant simulates unintentional spiral by bumping to higher bank angle not to exceed 60 degrees and nose down attitude 30 degrees. Transitions smoothly and immediately from nose down high banked turn to level flight with 0 to 30 degrees bank angle.
4. Minimizes altitude loss , with immediate correction to new heading with no more than 180°correction in direction from simulated spiral heading.
5. Recognizes and recovers promptly after the unintentional spiral is initiated by simultaneously reducing the angle of attack, leveling the wing and increasing throttle as appropriate to return to a straight-and-level flight attitude with a minimum loss of altitude appropriate for the weight shift control aircraft.
6. Returns to the altitude, heading, and airspeed specified by the examiner.
Comments
Thanks WE,
Especially appreciate your basic classic HG perspective. My basis.
However, I have a wife that needs attention and a sunrise flight with flights scheduled all day and thunderstorms so it will be a nip and tuck. And an annual on the airplane Sling 2 after that. Bla bla bla.
So please do not feel ignored if I do not respond immediately.
- 1 like
- Jozinko@Sajan
ULtrikepilotJozinko liked this
Paul since you have been replicating some of your posts on TPS here, I thought I would also repeat my response to your post on developing rankings from responses. Here is my earlier reply:
Paul, although I have remained mostly silent, I am following all this discussion very closely. Your last post struck me as an unfair way to "objectify" opinions expressed. In particular you have mixed in 1) justification based on belief that fatalities are or are not occurring due to uncorrected spiral dives, and 2) who deserves what because of what how they fly (ie pilots that spiral in as part of a fatal accident deserved it because of the way they were flying).
Here are my observations. I don't think any one has objected to additional training that might include spiral dive recovery. I don't ever recall seeing anybody comment that a pilot deserves to die in a spiral dive accident because ....
I believe most (if not all) acknowledge that we are seeing unacceptable fatal accident rates that involve spiral dives. Many of the recent posts contribute details on actual fatal accident incidents. I think there is plenty irrefutable evidence.
The way I see it is there is a need to make a binary decision (yes/no) on whether adding the maneuvers you defined to the PTS is the next "first step" to correct this situation. Frankly what you are getting here at TPS and other forums is opinions expressed from the vocal few.
My belief is that occasionally issues for the trike flying community come up that are so important that it really deserves the input (or the opportunity to provide input) from ALL CFIs in the US. There really is only a small fraction of the CFI population that are active on TPS. You are NOT getting input from many important CFI voices here on TPS. This spiral dive issue I think is so important that all US-based CFIs should have an opportunity to provide input on the right "next steps".
So I think you perhaps with the assistance of others should attempt to get a comprehensive distribution list (DL) that includes ALL CFI's. It certainly should be possible to do that given documentation and records out there. If needed, I would be willing to work with you to design / construct a truly objective survey to collect all CFI input.
It is definitely not realistic to expect you will get 100% concensus from such a survey. However, it should be possible to get agreement that when a certain percentage (70 or 80% or whatever %) of the CFI voices indicate that inclusion in the PTS is the right "first step" then that will determine the outcome of the decision. Those in the minority will have to live with the decision.
Yes there may be a bit of work to develop that comprehensive DL but it would be very useful to have not only for this current issue but for other important issues that come up in the future. We also need to realize that such a DL is an evergreen document since there will be new CFIs and some current CFIs may drop out from instruction. So clearly some periodic effort to make sure DL is up to date would be needed.
So that is what I propose. I don't believe that one person making a decision based on his interpretation of the vocal few that are represented here on TPS is the right way to go. This is an important enough issue that I think the entire CFI community should be given the opportunity to provide input. I have a strong opinion on this, but I am not a CFI so my guess is my opinion does not really count. Does this proposal sound reasonable?
OK I have tabulated 23 deaths worldwide that are most likely the result of spiral dives. Any help or input to refine is welcome and appreciated.
That else has materialized from this look at all the accident repotrs is that most of these have been in the US.
Why?
Look at Australia who since a spiral death of two people in 1995 created a requirement for spiral training. Since then they have only had 2 deaths from then since from one accident. Interesting. OK 4 for Australia.
Look at the UK who have had spiral training in their training standards all along have had no spiral deaths. Interesting. OK 0 for the UK as far as I can find.
Look at the US who has had 19 deaths from spirals with no standards for spiral training. Looking at the statistics, it appears training makes a difference.
I feel this is enough to do something and follow the UK and Australia to include spiral training in the training standards. I think 19 trike deaths is enough for me?
1) http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief.aspx?ev_id=20050302X00250&key=1 (Feb 7, 2005, Air Creation Clipper 912, wake turbulence encounter from coast guard heli and then developing spiral into the ground without structural failure, 2 died). I knew the student and his wife. Trained the student for 3 hours before he went back to NJ for further training and bought this Clipper
2) http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief.aspx?ev_id=20051026X01727&key=1 (Sept 24, 2005, Air Creation Clipper 912, spiralled (no it did not spin, witnesses can't tell the difference) into the ground in NJ again).
3) http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief2.aspx?ev_id=20061006X01480&ntsbno=NYC06LA227&akey=1
(Air Trikes Tourist, Sept 20, 2006, tight spiral into the ground from steep bank turns at low altitude)
4) http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief2.aspx?ev_id=20070904X01305&ntsbno=DEN07LA145&akey=1
(August 25, 2007, 300 foot flight into a Canyon, inadvertent stall/spin = spiral after stall - spiral being secondary)
5) Possible (no witnesses but no pre-impact structural damage evidence) http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief2.aspx?ev_id=20080208X00159&ntsbno=LAX08LA050&akey=1
6) http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief2.aspx?ev_id=20080910X01424&ntsbno=LAX08LA290&akey=1
( Sept 6, 2008 -- Airborne stall turn to left and spiral 200 feet into the ground, spiral being secondary here)
From Australia:
ASTB advice from accidents in 1994
https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/24713/ASOR199502099.pdf
A revised HGFA Weightshift Microlight Flying Instructor's Manual was issued. This included the following:
"Spiral Dive Tendency
Demonstrate the tendency for the aircraft to begin to "spiral" when excessive pitch pressure is applied with a nose down attitude in a steep turn. Demonstrate that the aircraft will recover from the spiral due to its pitch and roll stability, though height loss can be substantial if excessive pitch pressure is held until the aircraft stalls. Demonstrate that reducing pitch pressure and levelling the wings will reduce height loss.
"Demonstrate that though the aircraft's tendency to diverge in roll is slow, it will increase if the aircraft is held in this spiral mode. Demonstrate that the aircraft can be readily rolled level by easing pitch pressure and applying weightshift.
"Ensure that the student is able to recognise the onset of the spiral tendency and is familiar with the recovery techniques".
One more recent from Australia:
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/two-people-dead-in-light-plane-crash-in-nsw-northern-tablelands-20150412-1mj9eg.html
Looks like classic nose down high bank classic nose down
Some more from the US.
A)
http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief.aspx?ev_id=20140703X04646&key=1&queryId=98cbb185-74b9-4803-876d-9c742d965d3d&pgno=1&pgsize=200
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Wednesday, July 02, 2014 in Omro, WI
Aircraft: NORTHWING DESIGN APACHE SPORT, registration: N2725T
Injuries: 1 Fatal.
This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed. NTSB investigators may not have traveled in support of this investigation and used data provided by various sources to prepare this aircraft accident report.
On July 2, 2014, at 1900 central daylight time, N2725T, a weight-shift-control Northwing Design Apache Sport aircraft, experienced a loss of control and collided with the terrain in Omro, Wisconsin. The student pilot was fatally injured and the aircraft was substantially damaged. The aircraft was registered to the pilot and was operated as a 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 personal flight. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed and no flight plan was filed. The flight originated from Wilke Field, a private airstrip, in Omro, Wisconsin.
A witness reported seeing the aircraft in a descending spiral prior to it impacting the terrain.
B)
http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief.aspx?ev_id=20121110X12436&key=1&queryId=98cbb185-74b9-4803-876d-9c742d965d3d&pgno=1&pgsize=200
NTSB Identification: WPR13FA036
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Thursday, November 08, 2012 in Waterville, WA
Probable Cause Approval Date: 05/08/2014
Aircraft: NORTH WING SCOUT X-C, registration: N467XW
Injuries: 2 Fatal.
NTSB investigators either traveled in support of this investigation or conducted a significant amount of investigative work without any travel, and used data obtained from various sources to prepare this aircraft accident report.
During the flight, the student pilot was seated in the forward seat of the light sport airplane, and a pilot-rated passenger was seated in the aft seat, which was not equipped with flight controls. The student pilot was maneuvering the airplane over open terrain about 300 to 400 feet above the ground. A witness reported seeing the airplane turn left and then spin. The airplane continued spinning until it impacted terrain. Examination of the recovered airframe, engine, and flight control system components revealed no evidence of preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. It is likely that the student pilot inadvertently entered a stall and subsequent spin while maneuvering from which he was unable to recover. The Pilot’s Operating Handbook for the airplane stated that “deliberate spins and severe spiral turns are prohibited.”
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:
The pilot's failure to maintain control of the airplane while maneuvering at a low altitude, which resulted in a stall and subsequent spin from which he was unable to recover.
C)
http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief.aspx?ev_id=20100823X81939&key=1&queryId=98cbb185-74b9-4803-876d-9c742d965d3d&pgno=1&pgsize=200
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Saturday, August 21, 2010 in Amherst, VA
Probable Cause Approval Date: 12/13/2011
Aircraft: North Wing Scout X-C, registration: N417JN
Injuries: 2 Fatal.
NTSB investigators either traveled in support of this investigation or conducted a significant amount of investigative work without any travel, and used data obtained from various sources to prepare this aircraft accident report.
A witness observed the weight-shift aircraft approach her location and descend toward a nearby pasture. Shortly thereafter, the engine "revved up" and the aircraft pitched up at a steep angle. The aircraft began to make a tight spiral turn and continued until the nose pitched down, consistent with entering a stall/spin, before impacting the ground and erupting into flames. A postaccident examination of the wreckage did not reveal any mechanical anomalies with the airframe or engine. The aircraft was equipped with dual flight controls, and a throttle control was located on the foot rest for the aft passenger. The pilot was seated in the front seat and the passenger was seated in the aft seat. The passenger had access to the throttle control located near his foot rest, in addition to the flight controls, and it is possible he manipulated the throttle inadvertently although the investigation was unable to definitively determine if this occurred.
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:
The pilot's loss of aircraft control for an undetermined reason.
D)
http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief.aspx?ev_id=20090626X00349&key=1&queryId=98cbb185-74b9-4803-876d-9c742d965d3d&pgno=1&pgsize=200
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Thursday, June 25, 2009 in Cedar Town, GA
Probable Cause Approval Date: 04/22/2010
Aircraft: P&M Aviation LTD Quikr, registration: N433PM
Injuries: 2 Fatal.
NTSB investigators may not have traveled in support of this investigation and used data provided by various sources to prepare this aircraft accident report.
Witnesses observed the weight-shift aircraft in a spin before it collided with trees, and reported that during the uncontrolled descent, engine noise was smooth and continuous. Examination of the airframe and power plant revealed no evidence of preimpact mechanical malfunction. Weather recorded about the time of the accident, approximately 16 miles northeast of the accident site, indicated conditions were conducive for visual flight rules operation with winds from 210 degrees at 6 knots. The pilot's logbook was not located during the course of the investigation; however, examination of Federal Aviation Administration records indicated the pilot had approximately 300 hours of total flight experience, but the pilot's experience in weight-shift aircraft could not be established.
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:
A loss of aircraft control for an undetermined reason.
Ph i know of one other spiral dive resulting in a fatality not mentioned here .I believe it was july 2014 Polson montana.pilot was flying with improper wing for 912 .doing low level aerobatics for a sale of wing
Spiral dive into ground from 300 agl
18th July 2005, Slovakia, Gajary. After wind shear solo pilot lost his speed and fell left side down. He pushed the bar all the time. During some seconds he knew his mistake and gave full throttle. But he was too low. He was too slow and full gas caused, the gyro moment of propeller turned him left. Then he did thumbe on right side. One fatal.
Paul, not being from the US I can't comment on your training beyond saying that I think opening this discussion is highly commendable. Well done.
If we take a step away from spiral dives, which some pilots now seem to be regarding as a nasty characteristic of flex-wings that's waiting to pluck an innocent pilot, the only direct control inputs we have on trikes are throttle, pitch, and roll. Failed loops or extraordinary turbulence aside, poor pitch and throttle control alone seldom cause pilots to lose control. When roll is applied there is greater need for judgement on behalf of the pilot as pitch and throttle response need to be tailored in order to get the desired result from a bank (coordinated turn, slipping turn, climbing turn etc). Occasionally though pilots are losing control when roll is applied (deliberately or not). Given that any trouble in roll, such as Ken's lockout, can always be mitigated by removing roll, and rolling level is ALWAYS aided by removing throttle and pulling in, should that be taught as get-out-of-jail-free manoeuvre whenever rolling level is proving difficult regardless of the circumstance? Both throttle and pitch up drive the wing into the turn, and removing both always aids rolling out of the turn. If you bank to 60 degrees in a coordinated turn and want to roll level, the fastest way of doing so is exactly the same as recovering from a spiral. It seems that a number of pilots are not aware of that.
Again, I think it's great that you're giving this topic consideration.
- 1 like
- Jozinko@Sajan
Happy TrikerJozinko liked this
I'm a good sample as a pilot still alive after unintentional stall/spiral dive. Without Paul's training and Larry's video, I'll be gone to the next world. The training is very important. Demonstration and practice with a qualified CFI is "MUST". The spiral dive/stall dive (whatever they are defined, it is NOT important, how you call) can be happened to anybody, even a Pilot thinks he flies in the limitation of placard. Of coarse, it is important to know what is the limitation. But sometime it happens without any pilot intention, by weather, another pilot etc. So, experiencing the spiral/stall dive and supervised practice how to get out of it, is very important.
Absolutely correct Henry. It doesn't matter what you want to call it, we don't need to be remembering why we shouldn't have got to the point where we are augering towards the ground. We need to have had demonstrated, and practised the correct inputs to retrieve the situation if it occurs.
Henry I don't want you to think iam against spiral dive recovery training because iam glad your here and getting excited about seeing you cruze around on you bike when not flying in a few weeks. Let me make myself more clear, iam more concerned of when spiral dive training begins.I have seen student by . fferent instructors solo with very few landings and few actual hours.A new pilot should stay in fairly calm air and good meteorological conditins while gaining experience.they should also stay within modest pitch and roll bank angles.i believe that at this point a student should maybe have a mild demonstration by an instructor of the principals of getting out of a spiral dive if it happened by chance. But it should come with a warning by the cfi to stay well clear of sd while gaining exsperience.after all do we want beginners with little airtime practicing spiral dives for the spe? I have seen pilots who have very quickly passed through the system in hang gliding and triking who do not have much knowledge of metorlogical conditions such as cloud suck into a anvil head. The dynamics of thermals
wind sheer ext? we all know that your sport pilots licence is just the beggining of skills exsperiece and learning.I would be more in favor I think of a rating system such as in hang gliding has that allows pilots to fly more advanced conditions .begginer intermediate advanced trike 1 trike2 trike3 trike4 . Intermediate demonstrating a good knowledge of spiral dive recovery. Ph I commend you for your proposal but i also agree with Joe Hockman that we should have a lot of cfi s emput here as well as manufactures and wing manufacturers because it does carry some liability weight here. Just my opinion here as I see it not trying to counter anyone .Iam just trying to provoke some thought and not be vague as were just going to add this to the spe. Paul I miss the say hang gliding rating system. I think it demonstrates a better example of proficiency. What do you think about adding it on as an endorsement. Iam open to criticizem.
White Eagle said: ".I would be more in favor I think of a rating system such as in hang gliding has that allows pilots to fly more advanced conditions .begginer intermediate advanced trike 1 trike2 trike3 trike4 "
I bet several trike instructors just read that and started salivating at the prospect of being required to teach triking with a rating program similar to HG. Having progressed through the hang rating program from hang 1,2,3,4,5, and then back to 0, with all the different sign offs for different methods of launching and landing such as cliff launch, slope launch, flat slope launch, airtow launch, winch launch, truck launch, tandem, etc.etc. etc. It is to the point that it is probably easier to get an ATP in an airplane than an advanced hang rating in a hang glider. Every hang rating and special skill sign off is just an opportunity for an instructor to dip their hands into the pockets of pilots. No, I say stick with the current FAA method. I.e. teach them to fly and then let them use their own judgement of when and where and how to fly.
I have never dealt with any faa instructors when flying trikes and don't have any sort of rating in trikes so I may be way off base here, but I have never considered a spiral dive some sort of strange dangerous maneuver. I have always thought that it was a normal part of flying and how you went about losing altitude rapidly. If instructors aren't teaching pilots how to recover from something that isn't really even an aerobatic maneuver then it might be a good idea to put in the PTS and teach it.
To me it seems that:
1. The proper technique to level out of any but the most gentle turns in any aircraft is reduce power/lower nose/roll level.
2. Trikes, being rudderless and having swept wings with high washout are so forgiving of not applying the proper technique that pilots get away with a degree of sloppiness that would put a 3 axis or rotary aircraft way out of shape.
3. It's possible though uncommon for a pilot of any aircraft including trikes to find themselves in a situation (call it a spiral dive) that requires that proper technique in order to roll out of a turn.
4. Either they know and apply the proper technique and it's no drama at all, or they don't and crash.
The 'spiral dive' requires no special skills of a trike pilot, just the normal, time honoured way of levelling wings developed by Wilbur and Orville Wright.
Well said Tussock. Thanks for simplifying this basic technique.
This is what just went to the FAA now.
There has been intense activity from beginner to super expert Trike pilots all over the world and I am just about ready to wrap this up.
First will be the justification which is presented here.
Second will be the specific Task recommendation.
And third will be the concerns and suggestions from everyone on this subject obtained from many on social media.
This is the justification for adding Spiral recovery to the PTS.
With help from others I have tabulated 23 deaths worldwide that are most likely the result of spiral dives. There have been a few more but no direct link so I feel that I have here is sufficient.
That else has materialized from a look at all the spirals into the ground is that most of these have been in the US.
Why?
Look at Australia who since a spiral death of two people in 1995 created a requirement for spiral training have only had 2 deaths from then since which is very recent.
Look at the UK who have had spiral training in their training standards all along have had no spiral deaths.
Look at the US who has had 19 deaths from spirals with no standards for spiral training. It appears this makes a difference.
I feel this is enough to do something and follow the UK and Australia to include spiral training in the training standards.
Here is a summary list of the spiral accident with the raw data links below that.
1) 2 2005-02-07 NJ
2) 2 2005-09-24 NJ
3) 2 2006-09-20 Vermont
4) 2 2007-08-25 NM
5) 2 2008-01-19 Arizona
6) 2 2008-09-06 Washington
7) 2 1995-07-09 Australia - resulted in spiral training in Australia required for all pilots
http://www.atsb.com.au/publications/investigation_reports/1995/aair/aair199502099.aspx
A) 1 student 2014-07-02 WI
B) 2 2012-10-08 Washington State
C) 2 2011-12-13 Virginia
D) 2 2009-09-25 Georgia
Most recent
2 2015-04-12 Australia
23 total
1) http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief.aspx?ev_id=20050302X00250&key=1 (Feb 7, 2005, Air Creation Clipper 912, wake turbulence encounter from coast guard heli and then developing spiral into the ground without structural failure, 2 died).
2) http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief.aspx?ev_id=20051026X01727&key=1 (Sept 24, 2005, Air Creation Clipper 912, spiralled (no it did not spin, witnesses can't tell the difference) into the ground in NJ again).
3) http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief2.aspx?ev_id=20061006X01480&ntsbno=NYC06LA227&akey=1
(Air Trikes Tourist, Sept 20, 2006, tight spiral into the ground from steep bank turns at low altitude)
4) http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief2.aspx?ev_id=20070904X01305&ntsbno=DEN07LA145&akey=1
(August 25, 2007, 300 foot flight into a Canyon, inadvertent stall/spin = spiral after stall - spiral being secondary)
5) Possible (no witnesses but no pre-impact structural damage evidence) http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief2.aspx?ev_id=20080208X00159&ntsbno=LAX08LA050&akey=1
6) http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief2.aspx?ev_id=20080910X01424&ntsbno=LAX08LA290&akey=1
( Sept 6, 2008 -- Airborne stall turn to left and spiral 200 feet into the ground, spiral being secondary here)
From Australia:
ASTB advice from accidents in 1994
https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/24713/ASOR199502099.pdf
A revised HGFA Weightshift Microlight Flying Instructor's Manual was issued. This included the following:
"Spiral Dive Tendency
Demonstrate the tendency for the aircraft to begin to "spiral" when excessive pitch pressure is applied with a nose down attitude in a steep turn. Demonstrate that the aircraft will recover from the spiral due to its pitch and roll stability, though height loss can be substantial if excessive pitch pressure is held until the aircraft stalls. Demonstrate that reducing pitch pressure and levelling the wings will reduce height loss.
"Demonstrate that though the aircraft's tendency to diverge in roll is slow, it will increase if the aircraft is held in this spiral mode. Demonstrate that the aircraft can be readily rolled level by easing pitch pressure and applying weightshift.
"Ensure that the student is able to recognise the onset of the spiral tendency and is familiar with the recovery techniques".
One more recent from Australia:
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/two-people-dead-in-light-plane-crash-in-nsw-northern-tablelands-20150412-1mj9eg.html
Looks like classic nose down high bank classic nose down
Some more from the US.
A)
http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief.aspx?ev_id=20140703X04646&key=1&queryId=98cbb185-74b9-4803-876d-9c742d965d3d&pgno=1&pgsize=200
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Wednesday, July 02, 2014 in Omro, WI
Aircraft: NORTHWING DESIGN APACHE SPORT, registration: N2725T
Injuries: 1 Fatal.
This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed. NTSB investigators may not have traveled in support of this investigation and used data provided by various sources to prepare this aircraft accident report.
On July 2, 2014, at 1900 central daylight time, N2725T, a weight-shift-control Northwing Design Apache Sport aircraft, experienced a loss of control and collided with the terrain in Omro, Wisconsin. The student pilot was fatally injured and the aircraft was substantially damaged. The aircraft was registered to the pilot and was operated as a 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 personal flight. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed and no flight plan was filed. The flight originated from Wilke Field, a private airstrip, in Omro, Wisconsin.
A witness reported seeing the aircraft in a descending spiral prior to it impacting the terrain.
B)
http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief.aspx?ev_id=20121110X12436&key=1&queryId=98cbb185-74b9-4803-876d-9c742d965d3d&pgno=1&pgsize=200
NTSB Identification: WPR13FA036
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Thursday, November 08, 2012 in Waterville, WA
Probable Cause Approval Date: 05/08/2014
Aircraft: NORTH WING SCOUT X-C, registration: N467XW
Injuries: 2 Fatal.
NTSB investigators either traveled in support of this investigation or conducted a significant amount of investigative work without any travel, and used data obtained from various sources to prepare this aircraft accident report.
During the flight, the student pilot was seated in the forward seat of the light sport airplane, and a pilot-rated passenger was seated in the aft seat, which was not equipped with flight controls. The student pilot was maneuvering the airplane over open terrain about 300 to 400 feet above the ground. A witness reported seeing the airplane turn left and then spin. The airplane continued spinning until it impacted terrain. Examination of the recovered airframe, engine, and flight control system components revealed no evidence of preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. It is likely that the student pilot inadvertently entered a stall and subsequent spin while maneuvering from which he was unable to recover. The Pilot’s Operating Handbook for the airplane stated that “deliberate spins and severe spiral turns are prohibited.”
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:
The pilot's failure to maintain control of the airplane while maneuvering at a low altitude, which resulted in a stall and subsequent spin from which he was unable to recover.
C)
http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief.aspx?ev_id=20100823X81939&key=1&queryId=98cbb185-74b9-4803-876d-9c742d965d3d&pgno=1&pgsize=200
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Saturday, August 21, 2010 in Amherst, VA
Probable Cause Approval Date: 12/13/2011
Aircraft: North Wing Scout X-C, registration: N417JN
Injuries: 2 Fatal.
NTSB investigators either traveled in support of this investigation or conducted a significant amount of investigative work without any travel, and used data obtained from various sources to prepare this aircraft accident report.
A witness observed the weight-shift aircraft approach her location and descend toward a nearby pasture. Shortly thereafter, the engine "revved up" and the aircraft pitched up at a steep angle. The aircraft began to make a tight spiral turn and continued until the nose pitched down, consistent with entering a stall/spin, before impacting the ground and erupting into flames. A postaccident examination of the wreckage did not reveal any mechanical anomalies with the airframe or engine. The aircraft was equipped with dual flight controls, and a throttle control was located on the foot rest for the aft passenger. The pilot was seated in the front seat and the passenger was seated in the aft seat. The passenger had access to the throttle control located near his foot rest, in addition to the flight controls, and it is possible he manipulated the throttle inadvertently although the investigation was unable to definitively determine if this occurred.
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:
The pilot's loss of aircraft control for an undetermined reason.
D)
http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief.aspx?ev_id=20090626X00349&key=1&queryId=98cbb185-74b9-4803-876d-9c742d965d3d&pgno=1&pgsize=200
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Thursday, June 25, 2009 in Cedar Town, GA
Probable Cause Approval Date: 04/22/2010
Aircraft: P&M Aviation LTD Quikr, registration: N433PM
Injuries: 2 Fatal.
NTSB investigators may not have traveled in support of this investigation and used data provided by various sources to prepare this aircraft accident report.
Witnesses observed the weight-shift aircraft in a spin before it collided with trees, and reported that during the uncontrolled descent, engine noise was smooth and continuous. Examination of the airframe and power plant revealed no evidence of preimpact mechanical malfunction. Weather recorded about the time of the accident, approximately 16 miles northeast of the accident site, indicated conditions were conducive for visual flight rules operation with winds from 210 degrees at 6 knots. The pilot's logbook was not located during the course of the investigation; however, examination of Federal Aviation Administration records indicated the pilot had approximately 300 hours of total flight experience, but the pilot's experience in weight-shift aircraft could not be established.
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:
A loss of aircraft control for an undetermined reason.
Charlie I hear and understand what you are saying. And agree with some of your points. I was involved in the manufacturing of hang gliders and Ultralights in 1980 and on. In the mid 80s fatalitys were incredible common and were hurting the sport and manufacturers. Most were do to low alt stalls and spirals into the ground. Hang gliding was forced to make changes in training and regulation and good sites were being shut down on a regular basis.because of changes and regulation aero towing truck towing and hang gliding have progressed from one of the most dangerous sports to relatively very safe. Yes spirals are a relative easy manuver with the proper technic. I recall you are flying a dragonfly soaring trike. Most of the accidents in spirals have been heavier trikes with bigger engines and smaller wings.As far as i know charlie you are a very advanced flyer and pesuit in Canada for rating may be more difficult I really don't know.But what i do know is you are still here.that has to do with per suit of knowledge skills and training. I am not really sure that I would say the faa has been innocent in the regulation dept.1.trike instructors had to go purchase some very expensive machines .2.someone such as yourself flying a far 103 machine has to train in a fast racing car.to be fair to you Charlie and myself I really don't care how we fix the current rate of spiral deaths via rateing system or incorporation into the sport pilots test.for far 103 pilots it do sent even matter because it's not even on the agenda. My main concern is that newbie pilots don't get pushed into spiral dive training to early. I have always and still do respect your opinion charlie.
Tusocks by the way my dad was a pby pilot ww11 from Dayton Ohio lived close to and was good friends as a boy with the latter Wright brother.
Everyone. I don't mean to be so opinionated.I guess I stuck my foot in my mouth. And sometimes post to much. Iam trying very hard to promote triking in montana. Personally I love far 103 ,I think soaring trike are about the safest way to fly depending on the pilot. Do what you want to prevent spiral dive fatallitys.Flying is sometimes dangerous , people die. Some live. I know how to be safe and still I could get it. I really didnt realize for basicly saying that i liked the way hang gliding cleaned up its act and reduced the death rate in the 80s would spark that all those greedy cfis out there would now be salivating because of my comment
I guess there is no greed in the faa regs. Seems if i just open my mouth i spark controversy here and on the dark side.i just wanted to participate in triking after working late for minimum wage tending to drunks and kids who have it all telling me iam a good boy at 59 and raising 5kids .one reason i like to get up to cloudbase.having some mental issues friends. See you all on another shore