Spins in a tailwheel

Jaybird180

Jaybird180

Final Approach
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Messages
9,036
Location
Near DC
Display Name
Display name:
Jaybird180
Awhile back, I got some tail wheel time on a Citabria. During one of the hops we did some introductory spins. We did 1,2 and I think 3 turn spins.

This same CFI upon granting a TW endorsement will rent out her airplane to the pilot.

Will it be legal for me to do spins on my own? What about with a passenger?
 
What I suggest you do is go take some aerobatic instruction from Adam Cope or someone else qualified. And let them teach you all about the regs and (more importantly) the safe/best practices for performing them on your own and with passengers.

Oh, and once you get that done, you'll still need the permission of the owner to do aerobatics, at least if you want to do it more than once.

Seriously, it's fun, and a good idea... but you want to do it right. You've got some great experts in the area... go about it the right way.
 
While I agree with Bob that you should get appropriate in-type training before going out and doing spins on your own, the FAA has no rule against just going up yourself and doing spins in any airplane in which intentional spins are permitted -- consider it another one of those "legal vs smart/safe" situations. However, two rules of which you should be aware are 91.303 regarding where you can do this and 91.307 regarding the requirement for parachutes if you have a passenger aboard.
 
TMetzinger said:
What I suggest you do is go take some aerobatic instruction from Adam Cope or someone else qualified. And let them teach you all about the regs and (more importantly) the safe/best practices for performing them on your own and with passengers.

Oh, and once you get that done, you'll still need the permission of the owner to do aerobatics, at least if you want to do it more than once.

Seriously, it's fun, and a good idea... but you want to do it right. You've got some great experts in the area... go about it the right way.
Click to expand...

Haven't broached this topic with him, but I've heard he doesn't rent out his airplane afterwards. He's got a nice little one that I can't seem to recall the type.
 
He's got another one also. It's a small 2-seater. Looks fast. It's brightly colored.
 
If you ever go up to do solo spins in a Citabria, make DAMN sure you secure and verify that you secured everything in the airplane to include the rear seatbelt. I know of at least one guy who was doing spins solo and the back stick got caught in the seatbelt. Only thing he could do was bail out.....fortunately he was wearing a chute.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 
Skip the spins with passengers... You don't have enough insurance for when some histrionic sues you for PTSD, limp dickitis, and loss of consortium...
 
Citabrias are great spinning machines. Get an hour of instruction, then go have fun!
 
The Administrator said:
§ 91.307 Parachutes and parachuting.
(c) Unless each occupant of the aircraft is wearing an approved parachute, no pilot of a civil aircraft carrying any person (other than a crewmember) may execute any intentional maneuver that exceeds—
(1) A bank of 60 degrees relative to the horizon; or
(2) A nose-up or nose-down attitude of 30 degrees relative to the horizon.
(d) Paragraph (c) of this section does not apply to—
(1) Flight tests for pilot certification or rating; or
(2) Spins and other flight maneuvers required by the regulations for any certificate or rating when given by—
(i) A certificated flight instructor; or
Click to expand...

Sounds like technically we were in violation since I was not training for a certificate or rating:dunno:
 
Jaybird180 said:
Sounds like technically we were in violation since I was not training for a certificate or rating:dunno:
Click to expand...

You were training for the CFI. ;) It's accepted that spin training conducted in any CFI w/ student context is OK without chutes. But if you have any reservations about it, and someone asks, the spins were accidental. ;)
 
Understood that it's common practice, but the letter of the law says otherwise.

It would be nice if the law matched the intent and usage. I could see an onery inspector pushing this issue on someone; sadly they may win.:(
 
I hope someone has another interpretation of the FAR.
 
I've seen this discussed before and the consensus was exactly as whifferdill stated.
 
Jaybird180 said:
Understood that it's common practice, but the letter of the law says otherwise.
Click to expand...
Nope, the letter of the law says spins and other manouvers required for ratings can be done with an instructor without a chute. It specifically doesn't say you have to be working on that rating, just that the manouver is required for a rating, and further, the "other manouvers required for a rating" clause is immaterial when talking about spins because it follows the "OR".

If they made Lomchevaks required for seaplane ratings tomorrow, we could all go fly them with instructors without chutes.
 
flyingron said:
Nope, the letter of the law says spins and other manouvers required for ratings can be done with an instructor without a chute. It specifically doesn't say you have to be working on that rating, just that the manouver is required for a rating, and further, the "other manouvers required for a rating" clause is immaterial when talking about spins because it follows the "OR".

If they made Lomchevaks required for seaplane ratings tomorrow, we could all go fly them with instructors without chutes.
Click to expand...
Okay, I get it now. Makes sense.
 
Jaybird180 said:
I hope someone has another interpretation of the FAR.
Click to expand...
Ask, and you shall receive:

Advisory Circular 61-67C Page 14:
b. Because spin entry, spins, and spin recovery are required for a flight instructor certificate or
rating, a person receiving instruction from a CFI (or an ATP instructing in accordance with
section 61.167) need not wear an approved parachute while instruction is being provided in these
maneuvers. This provision applies regardless of the certificate or rating for which the person is
receiving training and also if the person is receiving instruction that is not being provided for the
purpose of obtaining any additional certificate or rating. The instructor providing the training is also
not required to wear an approved parachute while providing this flight training.
Click to expand...
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_G...12342e575786256ca20061e343/$FILE/AC61-67C.pdf
 
Jaybird180 said:
Awhile back, I got some tail wheel time on a Citabria. During one of the hops we did some introductory spins. We did 1,2 and I think 3 turn spins.

This same CFI upon granting a TW endorsement will rent out her airplane to the pilot.

Will it be legal for me to do spins on my own? What about with a passenger?
Click to expand...

Why would you think there is a legal issue with doing spins? BTW, you only did one spin, the 3 turn. The first two turns are considered spin entry.
 
TMetzinger said:
What I suggest you do is go take some aerobatic instruction from Adam Cope or someone else qualified. And let them teach you all about the regs and (more importantly) the safe/best practices for performing them on your own and with passengers.

Oh, and once you get that done, you'll still need the permission of the owner to do aerobatics, at least if you want to do it more than once.

Seriously, it's fun, and a good idea... but you want to do it right. You've got some great experts in the area... go about it the right way.
Click to expand...

When did spins become 'aerobatics'?:confused:
 
Just remember that they do need to be a 2-year cfi (authorized instructor) if they do sign you off with a spin training endorsement for the purpose of meeting CFI "requirements".
 
you have to be a CFI for two years before you are allowed to endorse spins?
 
dell30rb said:
you have to be a CFI for two years before you are allowed to endorse spins?
Click to expand...

The only endorsement there is for spins is an endorsement for someone that is getting a CFI. Otherwise there is no endorsement required for someone to do spins.

In order to provide endorsements for an initial CFI applicant you must be an "authorized instructor". An "authorized instructor" is one that has:
(2) Except for an instructor who meets the requirements of paragraph (h)(3)(ii) of this section, a flight instructor who provides training to an initial applicant for a flight instructor certificate must—

(i) Meet the eligibility requirements prescribed in §61.183 of this part;

(ii) Hold the appropriate flight instructor certificate and rating;

(iii) Have held a flight instructor certificate for at least 24 months;

(iv) For training in preparation for an airplane, rotorcraft, or powered-lift rating, have given at least 200 hours of flight training as a flight instructor; and
Click to expand...

Even though I've given greater than 200 hours of dual, I have not been an instructor for two years, therefore I cannot provide a spin endorsement for an initial CFI applicant nor can I endorse an initial CFI applicant for their CFI checkride.
 
denverpilot said:
When ninnies took over. Hush. :)
Click to expand...

One of my early mentors was a UFO, QB & OX-5 since he learned in a Jenny. He said when he took his checkride with about 20 hours the first thing the examiner did was have him go up solo to 1000' and do 2 turns to a heading and come back and pick him up. Times have changed, gotta protect the incompetent from themselves you know...
 
flyingron said:
Nope, the letter of the law says spins and other manouvers required for ratings can be done with an instructor without a chute. It specifically doesn't say you have to be working on that rating, just that the manouver is required for a rating, and further, the "other manouvers required for a rating" clause is immaterial when talking about spins because it follows the "OR".

If they made Lomchevaks required for seaplane ratings tomorrow, we could all go fly them with instructors without chutes.
Click to expand...
While I agree completely with your interpretation, one has to wonder why spins without chutes are adequately safe if a CFI is on board even though that CFI may have considerably less experience with spins and/or spins in that aircraft than the owner while the experienced owner is assumed to be sufficiently less safe that chutes are required if the owner carries a non-CFI pax.
 
gismo said:
While I agree completely with your interpretation, one has to wonder why spins without chutes are adequately safe if a CFI is on board even though that CFI may have considerably less experience with spins and/or spins in that aircraft than the owner while the experienced owner is assumed to be sufficiently less safe that chutes are required if the owner carries a non-CFI pax.
Click to expand...

You clearly underestimate the vast wisdom, skill, and eperience that is automatically bestowed upon the newly-minted CFI upon completion of the rating. ;)
 
I'm still wondering where y'all got the idea that chutes are EVER required for spins?
 
Henning said:
I'm still wondering where y'all got the idea that chutes are EVER required for spins?
Click to expand...

Sec. 91.307 — Parachutes and parachuting.

(c) Unless each occupant of the aircraft is wearing an approved parachute, no pilot of a civil aircraft carrying any person (other than a crewmember) may execute any intentional maneuver that exceeds—

(1) A bank of 60 degrees relative to the horizon; or
(2) A nose-up or nose-down attitude of 30 degrees relative to the horizon.

It's not a matter of whether spins are aerobatics or not, because the regs say nothing about parachutes being required for aerobatics, or whether spins are aerobatics. The regs specifically define aerobatic flight, but the chute requirement simply has to do with max. pitch and roll attitudes as described above. Spins certainly exceed both. Lots of folks seem to think that "aerobatic flight" starts when an airplane exceeds 60 degrees of bank or 30 degrees of pitch. It doesn't, and it's not part of the Feds' definition of aerobatics - it's simpy the criteria for when chutes must be worn. No chute requirement when solo, regardless of how you're flying the airplane.

Per FAR 91.303, aerobatic flight is simply: an intentional maneuver involving an abrupt change in an aircraft's attitude, an abnormal attitude, or abnormal acceleration, not necessary for normal flight. And we all know that can be pretty much anything. Is an intentional spin necessary for normal flight? Does it involve an abrubt change in attitude? I'd say so. And who defines what's "abnormal"? That's latitude for the Feds to bust your ass if they really want. ;) But again, whether or not spins are technically "aerobatics" makes no difference when it comes to the parachute issue.
 
Last edited:
whifferdill said:
Sec. 91.307 — Parachutes and parachuting.

(c) Unless each occupant of the aircraft is wearing an approved parachute, no pilot of a civil aircraft carrying any person (other than a crewmember) may execute any intentional maneuver that exceeds—

(1) A bank of 60 degrees relative to the horizon; or
(2) A nose-up or nose-down attitude of 30 degrees relative to the horizon.

It's not a matter of whether spins are aerobatics or not, because the regs say nothing about parachutes being required for aerobatics, or whether spins are aerobatics. The regs specifically define aerobatic flight, but the chute requirement simply has to do with max. pitch and roll attitudes as described above. Spins certainly exceed both. Lots of folks seem to think that "aerobatic flight" starts when an airplane exceeds 60 degrees of bank or 30 degrees of pitch. It doesn't, and it's not part of the Feds' definition of aerobatics - it's simpy the criteria for when chutes must be worn. No chute requirement when solo, regardless of how you're flying the airplane.

Per FAR 91.303, aerobatic flight is simply: an intentional maneuver involving an abrupt change in an aircraft's attitude, an abnormal attitude, or abnormal acceleration, not necessary for normal flight. And we all know that can be pretty much anything. Is an intentional spin necessary for normal flight? Does it involve an abrubt change in attitude? I'd say so. And who defines what's "abnormal"? That's latitude for the Feds to bust your ass if they really want. ;) But again, whether or not spins are technically "aerobatics" makes no difference when it comes to the parachute issue.
Click to expand...

Did I miss something? Isn't the pilot an occupant?
 
Do it under the hood with a safety pilot, thenn you are both required crew members...
 
Jaybird180 said:
Did I miss something? Isn't the pilot an occupant?
Click to expand...

Yeah, but it's further clarified: "no pilot of a civil aircraft carrying any person (other than a crewmember). I guarantee you that chutes not being required when solo is a correct reading of this FAR. Any FSDO will confirm.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top