I went through one of these programs and am now flying for an airline. When I instructed this maneuver, I did block the rudder pedals, as my own CFI did when I learned it. Also heavily briefed the maneuver and practiced it in the sim before we actually went out and did it. Even still, I remember at least one time when I jumped as a startle reflex because of what my student did. For those who don't know this maneuver, in a VMC demo with one engine "failed" (which the instructor typically simulates by pulling one engine throttle back and guarding it), you slow down until you judge that you have no more control authority, or you reach published VMC speed. It can take a *lot* of rudder pressure to maintain control. At that point, you're supposed to drop the nose and simultaneously *reduce* power and rudder pressure. Once airspeed is regained, you start adding throttle and rudder back in and then hold blue line speed. This is very different from a standard stall recovery that most students have experienced up to that point. I had one student who, instead of reducing power, tried to increase power instead, as well as only lowering the nose to the horizon, while still centering the rudder pedals. So we ended up at stall/VMC speed with one engine at full power and the other at idle and no rudder correction. I think this is the way this maneuver can most easily go south. No amount of blocking the pedals will prevent this. I very quickly pushed the yoke forward and grabbed the throttle from the student and pulled it back, along with adding some rudder back. We were starting to roll at that point. It stopped as soon as I took action. Again, I always heavily, heavily briefed this maneuver and how dangerous it is, as my own CFI did when I started. I tried really hard to get my students to take it seriously, chair-fly it at home repeatedly before we did it, and then we practiced it in the sim before the plane. Of course I always demoed it first too. Still, in the plane under a new and stressful situation, this maneuver can feel similar to a student to a stall recovery and they may just revert to their primacy on that. You really have to be ready as a CFI to take over before a spin can develop.
As someone looking at this well outside the pilot scene, this is really insightful. I've learned enough to understand more or less what you're describing, and how it differs from a standard stall recovery. Definitely sounds like the kind of situation that could trigger the wrong reflexes. Thank god nobody in the house got crushed by that thing when it hit.
Well said sir. The engine out at VMC is a VERY CLOSE TO THE EDGE PRACTICE. It's a different world from my days in the 1970's-80's when the CFI I knew had a ton of Military time and experience. If we are putting 1500 HR right seaters in Commercial Aircraft Ill drive.
I’m a current student pilot at Hillsboro Aero Academy and this whole thing is tragic. Thanks for all of your support in bringing awareness and your compassion as a fellow pilot.
I'm so sorry for your losses. I read Ms. Hurd is awake and on the long road to healing. I'm glad she has family and friends. Sending love and strength to all of the families invovled.
Terrifying to hear about all this, I wish her the best and hope you are doing ok. I was just reading about training in your area with the Alaska Airlines academy after my PPL.
It must be really hard to get back to training after this. I am very sorry. I am training in Seattle, so it feels close home. Take enough time to feel mentally better. The silver line of these accidents are the lessons for the rest of us.
A friend of mine knows the family of the survivor. She has a broken pelvis, several broken ribs, two broken vertebrae but the spine is intact. She has a concussion and is intubated but doctors feel she has a good shot of recovery. She was in the rear of the plane and was the second one pulled out. If you're the praying type, I'm sure Emily and her family would appreciate it.
Thank you for that additional information and some good news. I believe Emily is a pilot, right? If she has a memory of the events preceding the spin, she might have some great insight into what happened. Wishing her the best👍
The PA-44 has a pretty good safety record as far as avoiding Vmc rollover/spins, especially considering how much they are used for multiengine training. I only found three other fatal Vmc rollover/spin accidents in the NTSB database. And what's interesting is that in all three cases THERE WAS A PASSENGER IN BACK. That would move the CG aft and make a spin recovery more difficult.
That's very interesting. I wonder, with an extra person in the back, if the attitude of the aircraft in the spin is different enough to cause the dirty air coming off the stalled wings to shroud the T tail empennage, rendering it ineffective when using conventional spin recovery techniques. I hope the NTSB is able to solve this one.
Very interesting. It's hard not to conclude based on that rather remarkable fact that having a third person on board during this particular training ought to be flatly prohibited, NO exceptions. I know, correlation does not = causation. For there to be only three recorded instances, however, and EVERY ONE have that factor present? It would appear it ought to be regarded as a required element for that accident to occur, which means a total ban on it is warranted. It certainly seems irresponsible NOT to assume that third person is a crucial factor. Of course what we lack is how many of these training exercises are conducted WITH an extra person on board, and that might indicate it's simply a remarkable coincidence after all. Having read other comments about effects on CG etc, however, it still seems all training operations using these aircraft ought be made aware of this fact at the very least. If someone wants to test the hell out of the scenario in sims so as to get greater clarity on the true significance of that extra person, that seems worthwhile. Meanwhile? Were I running a training operation, I'd have a flat ban on a third person being on board. Mind you, having an extra person on board on what is an inherently more risky flight plan seems foolish even without hearing that particular piece of info. But then I'm notoriously intolerant of people doing dumb shit in a work situation such as taking risks lightly due either to "familiarity breeds contempt" or "young, brave and unknowingly stupid".
@@steeltrap3800 "Were I running a training operation," you'd have to put safety ahead of profitability. Very difficult to do in this "every man for himself" society.
@@daninraleigh Yeah, I know. But I don't see why that third person was necessary; how was it part of their training? Such a narrow set of circumstances that it's hard to believe banning them would make any difference to an operator. I suspect profitability is THE greatest factor that gets in the way of otherwise obvious things the regulatory body might ask Congress to pass in response to NTSB findings and recommendations. I imagine all sorts of lobbyists doubtless come out of the woodwork to ensure various things DON'T change, all due to profitability etc. Keeping new pilots on ridiculously low remuneration in some cases, for example. I don't WANT my pilot having to do TWO jobs and worrying whether they can juggle their bills etc on a barely liveable income. I remember reading once how some regional pilots were earning LESS than their local school bus driver. Sure, we want good drivers, too, but seriously? The 1,500 hour rule appears to exist to supply instructors and regional pilots, NOT because there's any compelling statistical evidence it makes new passenger pilots any safer than other parts of the world that do NOT have such a high requirement. Having said that, it's not as though levels of commercial pressure and reality don't exist. The question is where safety MUST overrule those other points. If you can't fly safely and survive commercially, you ought to go out of business. Doesn't help one bit that people expect absurdly low airfares. A difficult topic, no doubt about it. If it were easy we'd not be talking about it, LOL. Cheers
Here's a non-fatal one that you don't know about: I have 135 hours of Seminole time. When I saw the spin I thought "Vmc demo". When I saw the replay indicate 44 mph (which is 38 knots!) while flying straight ahead that confirmed it. In November of 2011 a Hillsboro Aviation Seminole was doing a dual night cross-country up to Boeing Field where I was an instructor. They departed BFI at night and stalled and flipped over (Vmc roll) during initial climbout from 31R VERY shortly after liftoff. They landed upside down on top of a parked Seneca owned by Airpac (cargo). The Seneca was of course destroyed, but it cushioned their impact. The former-Army head line guy at our FBO sprinted out to that airplane and pulled them out through the cargo door just before it exploded. The student and the female CFI were in shock as you'd expect. How do you vmc-roll right after you takeoff? I suppose it could be a plain-old stall while flying below Vmc... I sure hope it wasn't a simulated engine-failure at night during initial climb-out. It was literally a miracle that they survived that. katu.com/news/local/gallery/hillsboro-plane-crashes-at-boeing-field-2-injured
I am beyond flabbergasted that someone on that plane survived it, even if gravely injured. They dropped into that house like a brick! My thoughts go out to their families, and I hope the survivor can recover.
I went through a program very similar to this and have been fortunate enough to have spent close to 1000 hours in this make and model aircraft, and teach out of the supplement listed in this video daily. I’ve taught a variety of people with different backgrounds from FAA inspectors, 30 year captains, DPE’s, and of course students going through our program. After training more than 100 students in the last year in this plane, a common error I see. The vmc speed (56kias published) is 1 knot slower than published stall speed at 57 knots. Many students wait until first indication of a stall (typically the stall horn) prior to performing the recovery procedure. For this reason I do tend to rudder block 10-12 knots higher than published vmc speed. I really try and emphasize with my students in this airplane that we should recover at the first indication we can no longer control the heading, or yaw of the aircraft. The Seminole has very forgiving characteristics which makes it a great light twin for training however do to vmc speed and stall speed being so close to the same, the line can get blurred very quickly between completely in control of the aircraft, and a fully developed stall.
Spent many hours teaching multi work on Seneca's and Seminoles with a few others thrown in for good measure. Rule # 1 was always, if you are going to be doing stalls or VMCA work, nobody in the aircraft other than instructor and student. Also I would fuel up for the mission, however if extra fuel meant a more forward C of G I would seriously consider it. I once had a student spin out on me when we were in a Seneca while doing VMCA. I immediately took control and recovered. we went around almost 2 revolutions before we pulled out. Used up almost 3500 to 4000 feet in the recovery. Good thing we entered the maneuver at 5,000 ft. Also all my instructors were well versed in spin recovery well beyond the requirements. They had to demonstrate multiple spin recoveries and would get to the point that they could do multiple revolutions and come out on a basic heading. Spin training obviously in a light single certified for it. Once again Juan excellent review of this accident. Let's hope many new instructors can learn from these incidents.
Yes, I can't imagine the instructor adding a passenger to his workload during a critical training maneuver. Especially if the passenger is unbuckled with his head between the seats following the action.
Couldn't agree more. However the more someone triune in various maneuvers the more experience they have to properly deal with the unexpected. @@johndoe-el5ic
My flight school lost a Seminole with 3 aboard into the Atlantic in the late 1980s, as a result we did not allow an observer on VMC demonstrations...and as students we were scared half to death to fly them - we'd practice a few with the rudder travel limited, then do one each direction to actual VMC or stall, and you never knew which would be first in a Seminole, so our trained recovery was the same for both - chop the throttle while neutralizing the rudder and lowering the nose. An observer raises both the stall speed and VMC, and is pro-spin in reducing both the pitch down authority and the rudder authority. I briefed the heck out of my expectations as an instructor and demonstrated before I asked the students to fly it , but I still had one come pretty close to getting away from me - when we ran out of rudder and she started to yaw and roll to the left the student rolled all the right aileron in and pulled all the way back on the yoke and locked up - stayed that way when I said "My Aircraft" - I chopped the throttle and she snap rolled over the top into knife edge - that or the blow from my left elbow to his head, knocking his headset off, unlocked his brain and he let go - saying "Your airplane" If he'd have kept that everything to the right and up input up for another second or two, everyone would have wondered why we spun into the ocean. After I recovered we talked it over and he wanted to try it again that day - I was young and dumb, so we did., and he did it the way we briefed it. I think more than any other maneuver - you can watch somebody demonstrate VMC and talk about it, but the first time you have the rudder all the way over one way and the plane starts to fall over the other way it is freaky.
Surviving observer could make the difference here if post crash reconstruction demonstrates no airframe or equipment malfunction. What then is missing? Fully developed spins and recovery techniques during early training. Any fledgling aviator unfamiliar with these, becomes a wide eyed crazy person clawing for survival in the cockpit. Spins are a maneuver with which every pilot should be intimately familiar. Unfortunately, this is not the case.
I find it a very positive act on behalf of the student to basically ‘get back on the horse that kicked you off’! I would think this is the kind of mindset that hopefully leads to excellent airmanship!
Not a pilot. What is the reason for doing this VMC as it seems extremely dangerous? Why would you ever fly in normal circumstances close to this critical speed?
@@gpa39not a pilot either, but I'm imagining a scenario of a strong headwind with nothing but sea or mountain behind you with one engine dead. It's the one way or the highway. You've to know how to fly it under those conditions.
I logged 20 hrs in that plane while working on my atp . My instructor is a fellow with a long history of always emphasizing safety . Deepest condolences to their families and friends.
My DPE taught me to block the rudder during my MEI checkride, and I'm grateful. After an incident on-the-job, I then learned to block the engine controls on the stack's bottom, with my hand. A Commercial multi student, an active duty Air Force Wizzo, who showed zero sign of nerves during prior lessons, nervously pushed everything back during a simulated engine out, that actually put the engine out. We got to practice some real life CRM, an engine restart :) Especially not fun on the Seneca, with spoilerons/no airerons.
Some CFIs here in the free state of Florida carry a gun. Won't say if I do :) A gun sure works well to "have the pilot let the yoke go" if a student, or would be renter during a checkout, blows a brain fuse. @@webcucciolo
@@johndoe-el5ic Some have suggested covering the student's eyes with your hand. They will try to grab your hand and will let go of the yoke. I've never tried it. Not sure if it will work.
can't believe I found you here. fellow HAA, we did instrument EOC once and saw you around pilot lounge thousand times. You might forget me but hello! I was Sean Murray student haha, safe flight!
In November of 2011 a Hillsboro Aviation Seminole was doing a dual night cross-country up to Boeing Field where I was an instructor. They departed BFI at night and somehow flipped over (Vmc roll?) during initial climbout from 31R VERY shortly after liftoff. They landed upside down on top of a parked Seneca owned by Airpac (cargo). The Seneca was of course destroyed, but it cushioned their impact. The former-Army head line guy at our FBO sprinted out to that airplane and pulled them out through the cargo door just before it exploded. The student and the female CFI were in shock as you'd expect. How do you vmc-roll right after you takeoff? I suppose it could be a plain-old stall while flying below Vmc... I sure hope it wasn't a simulated engine-failure at night during initial climb-out. It was literally a miracle that they survived that. And, sadly, here is another Hillsboro Aviation Seminole Vmc roll with CFI on board. If you have any insight regarding Hillsboro's quality of multi-training that could perhaps save lives in the future I hope you talk to someone about it. Or maybe it was a total fluke two times...? It's just so very strange for it to happen to the same little school twice. katu.com/news/local/gallery/hillsboro-plane-crashes-at-boeing-field-2-injured
Why I quit flying 20 years ago! All I dreamed about was becoming a pilot growing up. Built countless models, all the money I made working part time in High School went to flying lessons. Was able to solo after 15 hours, got my private at 19 with a little over 50 hours. Did take some instrument classes and got about 6 hours of IFR flight training but in the early 90's the amount of time and money it took if you weren't going the military route was a lot, plus the airlines wouldn't even look at you with out a bachelors degree and several thousand hours. I did eventually get a Bachelors from Embry Riddle with my GI bill and an A&P. Decided to stick with maintenance to support the family and just fly for fun, however the older you get the less invincible you feel. After a couple scary incidents with a Grumman Yankee I owned( all my own fault) I decided to hang it up. Like Dan said sometimes it doesn't matter how much experience you have, things can go south fast in an airplane. Do I miss it, yes I do. Do I wish I was in my 30's and not 50's to take advantage of the pilot shortage now, yep. But I plan on retiring soon with a nice pension, and my son has promised to build build me a kickass flight simulator at home when I do, that's good enough for me! God bless those pilots and their grieving families.
In my multi training (Piper Seneca) we only did a vmc demo in the simulator. Any single engine procedures were to be flown above VYSE (105mph). The posted VMC is 80 mph so we had a decent buffer zone to stay safe.
I am a Corporate Pilot and a Flight Instructor with about 300 hrs of dual given in the Piper Seminole. It’s a very docile aircraft but as with any light twin as the CG goes Aft, ie: the 3rd person, makes your VMC speed higher. With a Aft CG, no matter a single engine or twin engine, a spin once developed is more difficult to recover from due to the shorter arm between the CG and Rudder.
I agree. I gave a lot of dual in the Seminole. Never had a passenger in back. CG aside, there is no reason to have another passenger during training. I know students like to observe, but it’s not worth the risk.
Aft CG actually works in your favor initially, shorter moment arm for the rudder so Vmc happens at higher AS, further from stall. Also some stall margin benefit from the lower wing loading. But once you actually get to the stall... rear CG isn't helping recovery.
@@rickgesell9468 A PA44 CFI is used to getting the stall buffet before actual loss of directional control, so this advantage of the earlier loss of control may be quite unexpected.
MEI here as well. Great analysis. I always practice the Vmc demo in the sim first and work with students on engine cuts at blue line (88 knots) to make sure that they can consistently maintain heading while changing pitch and power settings to go from both engines operative to OEI and back. Then we do the Vmc demo and slow down to the stall horn or red line (56 kts) or loss of directional control, whichever comes first. The problem with always blocking the rudder and never letting the student see a full Vmc demo is that you don't want them to be on their checkride the first time they have to do it as described in the POH. Two minor points: it's 1500 (not 1600) hours for ATP, and 1981 is about 20 years too old for a G1000. It possibly has data recording from an aftermarket G5 or something like that, but unfortunately won't have G1000 data.
Good point about always blocking the rudder and first time without being on the checkride. At some point, when proficiency has been demonstrated, would it be good to then have them do it with the rudder unblocked… and the instructor on high alert and ready to take control instantly?
@@jpoconnor5744 , personally, I just teach them unblocked from the beginning, and am always on alert. I know a DPE who was flying with an applicant who had never done a full stall before, nor had he slowed all the way down on the Vmc demo. On his private add on ride, he got confused about which one he was supposed to full stall and full stalled during the Vmc demo. The DPE had to recover from the resulting Loss of Control and the applicant failed the ride.
Hey Juan, I love your videos as you always are right on the ball with your analysis of these accidents. If you don't mind, I like to show some of your videos in ground school. I've been conducting training on PA44s for about 40 years. The PA44 was intentionally designed to have a very low Vmc, I believe, with the intent that loss of control on one engine would not be an issue. All that means however, is that, since Vmc is below the clean stall speed, the concern shifts from loss of directional control to stall-spin accidents. At our flight college, we have had at least one instructor get into a spin while providing Vmc training. Fortunately, in this case, they were able to recover - with only 2 on board, the c of g is forward, making spin recovery easier. The flight manual cautions you to initiate Vmc recovery if the stall warning sounds, even if you still have adequate directional control, since a stall with one engine at full power and the other windmilling will almost guarantee entry into a spin. Instructors would be well advised to read the Vmc demonstration procedure before conducting this type of training. Spin recovery training is also a good idea - still a requirement here in Canada.
Stall recovery, which sometimes resulted in a partial spin (because: me) was an intrinsic part of my basic PPL. I don't know why this is not taught anymore. I think its essential. The rudder is such an important tool and almost belittling it's role in training is a huge oversight.
About 24 years ago, my flight school used two baron-58s for our multi-engine training. Since Barons are not training airplanes, we always blocked the rudder as to induce VMCA about 40 kts higher than VMC. We always used any unwanted yaw/roll as an indication of VMC and recovery started at this point.
@@acnorea123 If memory serves, that’s the Baron-55, but again, I’m going back 20 something years. Our DE knew a guy very well that flew out of his airport that died in a Baron-55 flat spin, so I’m guessing it was an aircraft model specific issue. Of course, if loaded incorrectly, I’m sure most light twins can be put in this category as well.
I do ME training in a Diamond DA62. For the Vmca training we go to Vmca + 10 kts and nothing less. I also plant my foot such that the student does not apply the wrong rudder during both Vmca and single engine maneuvers. I believe there have been a few DA42 accidents in Europe recently at flight schools with a back seater causing a rear C of G.
Juan, great analysis and explanation of twin A/C spin hazards. I am a former Naval aviator, flight instructor, and A-3D (all 3 dead) crash survivor. Nobody can match the US military pilot training programs. Spin recovery in every single engine or dual center line thrust A/C (F-14, F-15, F-18) hammered home. I wish all commercial airline pilots were so well trained.
I agree with the comment below, these guys were very young. When I fly commercial I always breath a sigh of relief upon seeing at least one head with a little grey going into the cockpit ❤.
Ive got 1 hour left to do on my Multi rating and im doing it in the duchess which is very similar to the Seminole (same counter rotating engines). Stall speed clean is 70knots, with flaps it's 60knots. VMCA is 65knots on the book, which means we should stall before approaching VMCA, this made it incredibly difficult to demonstrate when we were doing airwork, my instructor whos an experienced cessna citation and king air training captain would use blocking of the rudder pedals and quite frankly after all the research i done before starting the course, i didnt want us to end up in a training accident, these light twins are an absolute handful and the performance on them is very marginal single engine depending on density altitude, you could easily get yourself in to trouble quickly in these light multi engines during single engine operations.
I'm an MEI and have plenty of hours teaching the Seminole. I'd always be guarding the throttles and ready to snap the operating one back during VMc demos. The plane felt really under-powered and unless density altitude was particularly low, I'd always get a stall indication before losing rudder authority. As far as CG goes, we'd frequently have to use ballast to bring the CG aft; with full fuel and 2 adults up front we'd be outside the forward limits if we didn't. A third person made the equation work nicely.
Video analyses like this make me glad I'm retired out of flying. If you're not extremely careful in a light twin, the earth can and will rise up to smite thee.
I used to instruct in these. It's a T tail, you don't want to get into a spin, it can be dangerous doing VMC demonstrations if you end up in a spin. Also power on stalls
This makes me think of the helicopter crash from a year or two ago where the tail snapped off in a training flight because they most likely entered a vortex ring state. That was also a case of a relatively young and inexperienced instructor. Maybe these are symptoms of the pilot shortage pushing through too many pilots too quickly? It doesn't seem like these instructors are really that confident with these procedures themselves. I'm not sure if we need to change the criteria for who can instruct, or what, but I'm just afraid this is a trend that is going to continue and keep killing people.
@@dennisparks3692 t-tail configurations are more sensitive to disrupted airflows, and have less elevator authority in general, as far as I know. That's why the tu-154 aircraft has had a few crashes caused by deep stalls. Combine that with there being two props to disrupt airflow, and two engines, and the possibility of one engine being out causing a huge difference in yaw, I can imagine those at all complicate things. However I'm not an expert, that's just what I believe based on previous research but definitely don't treat anything I see as definitive.
Back in the 1970's when I got my private, I was lucky to have been able to do more spins than I can count and actually liked doing them. Through life I've found, in many things, that if you don't train the brain/muscles in something when that something does happen it takes time to 'see' what is going on and time can become your enemy.
As a Multi Engine instructor in light twins, I use the rudder pedal to induce, simulated loss of directional control well before the airplane approaches stall.
As an MEI who teaches the pa-44, I teach to stop applying more rudder once we hit about 75 kts, or I guard the rudder at 75kts which is well above stall speed. (also allows you to see how vmc starts occurring since in our seminoles vmc is below our stall speed) and extensively brief the maneuver and demonstrate it the first time. This accident is a bucket of cold water for sure, never be complacent, any flight could be your last. RIP
Another great learning video on a very sad note. Condolences to their families & a speedy complete recovery for the injured person on board. Too many too soon Juan.
My Vmc demonstrations were done with me blocking some rudder to ensure it would yaw before stalling. It's a delicate procedure and you have to be ready to cut the throttle and push the elevator aggressively to prevent a stall/spin.
Airline pilot/former MEI here. 400ish hours of dual given in Seminoles. They're very tame airplanes to fly in general. You really have to screw up to spin one, even if you do that rudder is like a giant barn door. Even then, you could even reverse the asymmetric thrust to recover a spin, although that would require some quick thinking creativity on the instructor's part. I always blocked my rudder so my students never got us into any real trouble. I have, however, had a student freak out and lock up on the controls in a fully developed spin in a 172. I had to strike him in the arm to get him to let go. He would have killed us both had he not snapped out of his panic. This leads me to believe the student in the left seat, may have freaked out on the controls and put the airplane into that unrecoverable position. Coupled with a new CFI who's never had anyone try to kill him, this result makes sense. Of course, this is just conjecture, we may never know what really happened. All I can say is, being an instructor is a dangerous job. Don't ever become relaxed or complacent, even if you think your student is solid. And if you're an MEI, block your rudder.
As I recall seminoles have a fairly small rudder in comparison to their Vertical Stabalizer and in point can make a recovery from a spin very hard especially with an aft CG. Reversing the asymmetric thrust is an idea, would that just be idle the on engine and full thrust the idled one?
@@ag9617 Yeah the rudder wasn’t all that huge, I was exaggerating a bit. I do remember it having quite a lot of travel when compared to its single engine counterparts though. My thinking was that since it’s a twin, it’s gotta have the extra rudder to fly single engine, so if you got into a spin and did your typical “PARE” or “PRAY” spin recovery, it would work out well. However since it’s a T-Tail, if the spin got fully developed as with the video, the elevator effectiveness might be blocked by turbulent flow from the stalled wings. Good point about the aft C.G. I forgot that in this case, they had someone riding in the backseat. That would make this whole event significantly harder to recover. I’ve only had back seaters in Seminoles a couple times, and we didn’t do any training maneuvers. Reversing the asymmetric thrust would be just switching the throttles. I.E, Spinning to the left, close right throttle and go full power on the left. (I’m not certain if that would help, just a thought). Could be interesting for someone to take the door off the Seminole, strap on a parachute, fly up to 10,000 feet, and spin it a few times, and post the results on TH-cam. (I’m sure the FAA would love that, lol)
@@byronhenry6518 if you watch the video you can almost tell there’s no significant airflow over the wings or rudder I believe. Yes they’re falling, but not in a manner where the aerodynamic forces are able to help. Spin training in a light twin isn’t recommended or required by the FAA and if I remember correctly spins in them are even prohibited. Two large engines, doing nothing mean you have a good 14 feet of non existent airflow over the wings. At that point you have two 500lb weights on your glider. Hopefully the NTSB is fast with this investigation.
Vmc speed is calculated by 6 parameters: #1 - no power on critical engine #2 - max power on operating engine #3 - maximum gross weight #4 - full aft CG #5 and #6 at standard temperature and pressure. When any of these parameters differ, then that will effect the Vmc speed.
Thanks for the analysis, Juan. We live near the Hillsboro airport and see these young people all the time. Virtually all of this flight was over farm country. The crash site was neae the edge of town.
Yeah I wondered about where exactly it went down. Agree that all training is/would be/should be over unpopulated land for this very reason. Almost makes me wonder if there was some other factor going on.
Thanks for covering this. I mentioned this in a comment to your last video about the multi GA crashes over the past week. These were just young kids, the CFI and the students. Absolutely horrible.
I did my multi engine training in a Seneca and we briefed the maneuvers thoroughly before each flight and even before we performed the maneuvers. My instructor would block the pedals just as a lot of the commenters here have stated. We were prohibited from carrying any passengers on training flights for this reason. I always thought a twin was safer because of the second engine and I had my eyes opened during that first VMC demo.
These videos by Juan give people such as myself who are non aviation experts a real insight into the unknown details of what it takes to be a pilot. There does seem to be a fine line between things going right and as in this case it going badly wrong.
At 7:10 the point you made about Vmc being below Vs was the reason for that crash that killed Richard Conti. If i remember correctly, it was because of the altitude at which they were doing the demo and the POH even had considerations for the maneuver above a specific altitude because of the two speeds trading places.
So very young. Decades ago it was said a twin just got you to the scene of the accident more quickly. Flying is wonderful, but sadly it can be unforgiving.
You know I live in Hillsboro and instruct here. I was actually on a flight that night at the same time this occurred and was only 5 miles from them. I didn’t learn of the crash until I landed but had I known, I literally could have seen them out my front window. When it comes to teaching Vmc demo, we have an Apache that is thankfully extremely docile and forgiving, but I’m still guarding the rudder a bit, and I guard the mixtures in case I need to cut power to the engines if things started to go bad. Extremely sad event and very close to home this time.
I was an MEI on the Duchess, back in the 2000's. The school I was with made us do spin training in an aerobatic plane, Pitts or Decathlon. Back in the UK, getting near VMCA was never a requirement of the training. Not sure the risk of losing control is worth the training benefit.
RIP Aviators. Fundamentally agree Juan, twin engines are often more dangerous than singles. We see this all the time with routine engine failures that are often lost, sadly. I did my M/E in a PA44 like this one and have always found that airplane to be very stable, predictable and safe. I've probably done 20 Vmc's in that airplane and always found the airplane speaks to you clearly well before something bad can happen. I suspect you are right that the weight and balance is a key factor here. The procedure is to carefully add back pressure at about 1 deg per second, max rudder to maintain coordination/direction, gradually riding up toward the stall, where the horn typically comes on at about 62-64 kts and Vmc is 57 if memory serves. Since you only have to bring the airplane to first indication (loss of rudder, stalll horn, loss of dir ctrl), usually that horn chimes early and you can recover therein without bringing in the stall consideration. I've never thought of this as dangerous but it is very delicate and challenging because the rudder deflection component and stall speed. As with many maneuvers though, care must be taken to managing the steps deliberately but delicately.
I agree. I took mulit-engine training in the PA-44, as well. Nice stable ship. I can hardly imagine what it took for them to depart normal flight. Strange.
THAT's the thing about it all, though... Finesse... A delicate touch is SOOOOooo easily lost, even in just a second or so of lacking attention. A little distraction or just a touch more enthusiasm for "having fun with it" and there's just such a fine difference between a "steady gradual push in a hurry" and a "jerk on the control" that it gets a LOT of actually more experienced operators into trouble. It's not just aircraft, either. I'm into Experimentals (aka Ultralights) mostly... BUT I've been over 30 years through more than a dozen countries on a motorcycle. That's a place where there's NO ROOM for panic OR jerking and kicking and yanking any of the controls. The noob's are actively paying attention, mostly because they HAVE to take the time to think about every little thing they do with it. It's usually the guys and gals with around 3 to 5 years actual riding experience under their belts, just enough to be out and about in normal conditions without a lot of thought. They "know what they're doing" enough not to look down to find the blinker or horn, and they no longer spend significant time staring at their speedo' to determine exact speed or their comfort with whatever zone they're in... preferring to just match traffic around them "give or take". THEY get into trouble because of that sensation when cornering that "the bike just screams that she can do it quicker"... AND it's probably THE hardest thing in the world to "rope it in and hold her back". Similar seems to be in aviation... You get the first dose of adrenaline throwing a plane into a high altitude spin when it's relatively safe to do so. It just doesn't feel right... AND after a few of those, you're a little more used to "flirting with disaster" in training and still having time enough to recover. Then you just get a little "too used to it" and about the time you're giggling like a school girl at a Taylor Swift concert, the least little thing goes sideways and you're completely out of control... and then... splat. ;o)
I think you mean there is no such thing as Critical Engine, which is why they are installed, but Vmc remains a key controllability speed with reference to single engine operations.@@MrSuzuki1187
@@MrSuzuki1187- I’ve got about 3500 hours in light aircraft and I think the counter-rotation eliminates the critical engine, not Vmc. It’s been a long time since I flew any Piper aircraft but with the counter-rotation, losing either engine has the similar impact on aerodynamics, but I think there’s still a specific speed at which the operating engine in combination with rudder and AoA could cause a loss of directional control. But as I said, it’s been 15 years since I’ve been flying…so I could certainly be mistaken. It’s cool reading about all the young guys still instructing. Great times.
@@MrSuzuki1187 No... No it does not. EVERY SINGLE AIRCRAFT has a VMC, period. It's the nature of a Velocity Minimum for Control. Below that velocity, you have NO control over the plane, no lift, not rudder control, and in full stall, you're only going around and down and you can't even choose which way around... end of discussion. Counter Rotating Prop's eliminate some of the harmonic issues AND counter-act the gyroscopic effects of the rotating power required to push enough air to get several thousand pounds of aircraft off the ground at all. When multiple prop's rotate the same direction, there's so much torque generated in that one direction that during acceleration, the plane WILL roll and then turn as the "lift" imparted on the wings then pulls more sideways than upward. It's also damnably hazardous, because too far rolled on one side and you have no lift pulling up at all... and down you go. Look up the Sopwith Camel, a rather famous old British Biplane (WWI) that was designed with the whole engine block rotating around a stationary crankshaft and pistons. This imparted enough gyroscopic and flywheel effect to drive the propeller fast enough to push the air required to get off the ground. A marvel of its day, and doubly incredible as cheaply made as it could be... BUT the torque imparted another quirk... They'd ROLL HARD when trying to take off, a dubious distinction among aircraft that was such a strong effect, not only did new pilots have to get used to using the throttle/mixture controls sparingly in take-off (or even shut down cylinders, which is another weird quirk of the beast) but ALSO be prepared to counteract that torque-induced roll even before they were off the ground, only to have it seemingly double as soon as the bitch was in the air. It takes a LOT of getting used to... AND is a famous quirk among the many, that some of us prize in the replicas still being sold today, BUT you have to get a class SPECIFIC to the thing if you get the "full replica", unless of course you join a flying club and get introduced by private owner... In it's early years the Sopwith Camel killed more student pilots in training than got killed in actual combat... Think about that. SO they engaged the counter-rotating props on multi-engine prop-driven craft early on, having seen that issue with anything that sported more than the usual torque to weight ratio... It would be the British Mosquito of WWII fame that actually was successful with both prop's rotating the same direction, though they also had a tendency to roll on take-offs or aggressive accelerations and climbs. Vibrations happen because both prop's compress the air and cause turbulence, not terribly different from the way wings work. Only with both (or multiple) prop's rotating the same way, more of these compression and turbulent waves become additive as they cross each other's paths... and this induces buffetting... which can be pretty destructive to aircraft and large boats or ships. Several ships have been misfitted thus, and had to return to shipyards to be retrofitted once the engineers were cognizant of the problems... AND even with counter rotating prop's (or screws because "boats") there is a chance of additive turbulent waves, though it's VERY much reduced... BUT not a single bit of this has ANYTHING to do with even how high or low the VMC is. That exists for every aircraft ever, INCLUDING the famous AN-2's, though their VMC and Stall Speeds are so low they just don't register on the ASI, so there wasn't much point in publishing them... at least according to Antonov. Interestingly enough, Jets DO NOT counter-rotate. They don't have huge great propellers acting like gyroscopic flywheels nor taxing the engines for torque enough to twist the plane to pieces or threaten to roll it over on leaving the ground and trying to climb out. It's just easier to design everything to rotate the same way, eliminates the need for repetitive mass production of Left AND Right Handed parts to accommodate all that, and that makes it CHEAPER... SO any multi-engine jet aircraft in the sky today has engines that ALL rotate the same direction... ;o)
Juan, as always, great content. I learned a few things from this one, especially the bit about how the CG position changes the moment arm for the rudder. Totally makes sense, but had never occurred to me before.
One of the key components of the Vmca is the CG and extra weight in the rear will definitely increase the Vmca and cause the aircraft hard to pitch down during spin. Prayers for the souls lost and people injured from the accident🙏🙏🙏
Yep, so sad. Juan I just saw the clip of the FedEx B757 that had to make an emergency landing with total gear failure. I hope you will post something for us about that this incident and I saw that Victor also has not yet posted anything.
I recently earned my MEI and on one flight our Director of Operations and I had an observer in the back. I was flabbergasted by how much higher our Vmc was. For someone used to a two people on board, the aft C.G. could very well surprise them in a Vmc demo, even if the CG was within limits.
@@igclapp usually in the DA42 the stall horn comes on before you begin to lose control at around 76 knots, so most students don’t actually experience the beginning of the Vmc roll. However, on this flight we started to run out of rudder around 80 knots, well before the stall warning. It was eye-opening.
@@joelleerickson2642 Assuming you were within CG limits, it's really surprising that you ran out of rudder that far above Vmca (68KIAS for the DA42 TDI or 71KIAS for the DA42 NG). Maybe something else was going on? I'm working on my MEL rating in a DA 42 TDI and sometimes we do Vmca demos with my son sitting in the back and I don't recall running out of rudder above 68 KIAS.
Great video. We have a Baron BE55 that our MEIs use to train. I sent this to them, albeit redundant, it's important to reinforce. Especially, considering the DPE crash some months ago.
Hi Juan, might also consider that they could have done an improper stall recovery instead of the Vmc demo. Private pilots going for their multi have to do stalls to a full break, commercial pilots going for their multi only have to do stalls to the first indication. I don’t know the training program at this school but at ATP when I was there VMC demo was always done to first indication of stall or loss of directional control and the instructor would have to let it go pretty far to get to the spin. Conversely if the student performed an uncoordinated full stall then the risk of spin is a lot higher. Just a thought
I am about to do my check ride and everything we were taught is "First indication" in sport pilot. I read somewhere that pushing to full stall was optional. I need to check the PTS as I plan to continue to PPL. I own my light sport hence why I just went that route first
I went through training at the former Delta Connections Academy back in 2008. We flew the PA-44 with only one engine providing thrust about 90% of the time. I was also fortunate at the time to take URBAP training for learning update recovery and dealing with spins. I did so many in the Extra 200 they used that I don’t think I did much anything else on that plane other than doing a lot of upside down flying.
I've flown this maneuver as a part of several flight tests and generally the best thing you can do is keep the aircraft as light as possible to give yourself extra margin between VMCA and stall. Generally we will fly a check stall prior to verify the stall speed and then set a KIO speed a few knots above.
For Vmca demos we centre the heading bug and if at any point the yaw brings us out of the bug we execute the recovery. We also do them at around 2000' amsl being natually aspirated engines.
A couple of thoughts. 1. Though we often assume these accidents are Vmc demos the closest I came to getting into a spin in a MEL airplane was with a student doing power off stalls. We were in a Piper Seneca. The student did a power off stall, but added power before fully lowering the nose. Because of this we were below Vmc and… one of the engines “coughed”. In a split second, with one engine operating at full power and the other one idle, we immediately rolled past 90 degrees. In addition, the student tried to raise the falling wing with aileron exacerbating the roll. I was able to yank the throttles to idle and shove the nose forward before a full spin developed. This all happened in the blink of an eye. This was NOT a docile Vmc roll. 2. Spin training for CFIs should include incipient spin recognition and recovery. A fully developed spin in a twin is often unrecoverable. In addition, many spins happen at traffic pattern altitude. Even many single engine airplanes need more than 1000’ to recover from a fully developed spin. 3. As mentioned, having someone in the back while doing Vmc and slow flight/stall training may put you in a position where you can’t recover from a spin. Even some single engine airplanes that can be legally spun such as the Cessna 172 prohibit the aft seats from being occupied while doing spins.
Good point Juan about the aft CG with the rear seat pax. As a long time CFII, I don't even do stalls in a single engine aircraft with someone in the back seat. When I instructed at HAA, I don't think their SOP prohibited it however, and back seating can be helpful in general, but not during stall practice. I'd be curious what ERAU's or ND's policy is.
As usual, great job explaining the events start to unfortunate ending. I am glad one survived, hopefully with a detailed narrative of the whole situation. We all can learn. I am only a simulator pilot with about 300 hours helicopter and about 150 small airplane. It would make sense with your great explanation of events that the spin maneuver should start at a higher elevation in the rule book, along with an even # of people on board for balance and hopefully some age/experienced people on the aircraft. Thanks again.
Interesting Juan, I didn’t know you attended ATP. My son is attending ATP right now in Ogden, UT; and he’s in this multi-engine segment of the program, flying Seminoles. His DPE flight is scheduled for Wednesday, and then he’s done with ATP. Seminoles are tricky little pigs to fly. 🙁
Same type I'm training in. Looks like they were doing basics. Slow flight, stalls. I wonder if that was a Vmc demo. At least in this airplane the Vmc (88) is above stall speed in steady level flight. But in any case, Vmc demo is recovered at the first sign of loss of directional control or stall warning or buffet. Edit: I had written this before finishing the video, looks like I had the same thought as Juan, which I'm proud of 😅
Back in the Biplane Sterman days of flying, pilots flying ontop of an overcast would intentionally put their plane into a spin and descend thru the clouds. Obviously hoping or knowing there was VFR Conditions below during recovery. I did my Commercial and Insturment add on in a Piper Pa-44 Seminole. Its an excellent trainer for two people. A forward CG helps. In the VMC Demo, the nose is quite high. The key is to slowly apply inputs. Rudder authority alone wont stop a rollover. The quickest recovery method is to lower the nose, reduce power and ailerons netural. Aft CG or any incorrect actions can develope into a uncommanded rollover. My instructor blocked the rudder pedal and reduced power on good engine to help onset of VMC . Blueline was exactly where you needed to be for safe single engine operation. Doing spins in a Citribra we would lose 1000 feet each full revolution. This is why doing VMC Demos its critical to start 5000 AGL for safety margins.
When I used to give multi engine instruction I would limit the rudder travel as you described Juan. I also kept my hands on the mixtures in case the person receiving instruction wasn’t fast enough recognizing the airplane approaching a stall during the Vmc demo. Fortunately I never had to pull the mixture but was ready to do so. The twin I used to give instruction in had a prohibition against power on stalls in the POH. I also used to do this approximately 6000’ AGL. I wanted the extra altitude, however, there is also a risk with this because a naturally aspirated engine produces less power the higher you go bringing Vmc speed closer to the critical angle of attack for a stall.
I got my ATP license in a Seminole with ATP in Dallas, Texas in 1987.....although I had about 1,000 or so hours of multi engine time back then, (mostly hauling cancelled checks and air freight), I had only flown a Seminole once or twice before showing up at the school to get my ATP. I remember during the checkride, the examiner gave me an engine out at the very beginning of the recovery from a power off stall, we hadn't practiced that during the training, but nothing to do but lower the nose and get some airspeed back, and slowly bring up the power on the good engine. I guess I did okay because I left that day with a new license in my pocket. My thoughts and prayers for the speedy recovery of the injured person and with the families of those who perished. Great video Juan.
Dang! I watched this plane on Saturday afternoon 10/1 doing touch & go's at the Scappoose airport. We were out for a walk nearby and I noticed it circling around. I made note it was a good looking plane with its graphics. I have no idea if the same people were flying as were on the accident day. FWIW, they seemed to be doing well - stable landings, etc.
On this airplane does the fact that it is a T tail make spin recovery, once it has started, much more difficult (or almost impossible)? If so, maybe this isn't the best type of aircraft to teach Vmc maneuvering.
I agree with you in a certain way. If you enter a normal spin in a T-tail airplane, it behaves mostly as another airplane and recovery should be the same… BUT T-tails are especially more prone to enter a FLAT spin. The reason for a flat spin is that the wing can masks the airflow on the empennage (which is not the case in a regular spin), therefore you are not able to pitch down because the empennage is totally ineffective. In a glider, if you enter a flat spin, the only device which can save you is the parachute and jumping out, inside the spin. If you jump outside the spin you may be hit by the outside wing while free falling (because of the rotation), and don’t open your parachute close to your airplane (glider)! With engines and no parachute required/present on powered airplanes (beside aerobatic and military airplanes), your only chance is to use your engines/propeller to try to “break” the flat spin, to bring it to a “normal” spin (by changing the power accordingly on each engines if it was just a demonstration and on the only engine if it was a real engine failure), therefore changing the attitude and rotation of the twin powered airplane (in a single engine, the torque of the propeller should be considered). Then, once the empennage recovers its effectiveness, you can proceed to a regular spin recovery by finally being able to pitching down to decrease your angle of attack, and then stopping the rotation with the rudder followed by a smooth pitch up recovery once you gain speed and lift (out of the stall in short, and smooth because you don’t want a secondary stall or exceed the positive G force that your airplane is limited to)… but you will need a lot of altitude to do so! A flat spin is generally deadly, unfortunately, and T-tails are more prone to it. Therefore spin training in a T-tail is only risky because of the possibility of entering a flat spin. So, I agree with your opinion. No spin training or Vmc demonstrations should be made in a T-tail, because of this possible risk.
@@Speedbird61 T-tails might be susceptible to blanking in a deep stall, but I don't think that's what happened here. You can see in the video that the plane has a pretty steep nose-down attitude. It's not a flat spin. Barons, on the other hand, are susceptible to flat spins and they do not have a T-tail.
@@igclapp You may be right that it is not what happened in this case, but you cannot tell if it was a flat spin or not by just watching a video. A flat spin doesn’t mean the airplane has to be “flat” in its attitude (looking at the video that I checked too). A flat spin, as I tried to describe, happened when the empennage doesn’t get any airflow because of the stalled wing masking the airflow to the empennage, at a certain relative airflow angle between the two. The plane can still be in a pitch down attitude and still be in a flat spin situation. By looking at the video, it seems that the airplane, as you said, has a pretty nose down attitude, but it doesn’t mean that a flat spin couldn’t have occurred. When you are in a regular established spin (more than one turn), any pilot should be able to recover from it by using the rudder to stop the rotation, unless the rudder got stuck for any mechanical reason or rendered useless due to aerodynamic reason. In a flat spin, the rudder can also have its airflow masked by the stalled wing. That’s why a flat spin is not a spin that you want to “experience”, because you can have the all tail section controls useless. That’s why I thought immediately about a flat spin situation, where only the propellers effects could save you (not the same in a jet because of the cavitation of your jet engines, which gives you a weird and non classical spin if you still have some power: up and down attitude cycle, and irregular spin rotation while still being in a spin or a flat spin. I watched a video of this happening in a military jet, with a cockpit POV, during my military pilot training a while ago; not what you expect to see while being in a spin). But again, it may not be a flat spin case in this accident. It was just an “idea” for why the pilots (especially the instructor) couldn’t at least stop the rotation while being in this established spin. Any spin is recoverable, but not a flat spin (or at least not that easy in powered airplanes, and mostly impossible in a glider). Hopefully, the NTSB will be able to explain this unfortunate accident.
My instructor (40 years ago) was one that insisted on spin training. The most we could get out of the 152 with our big selves was about half, maybe 3/4 of a turn. Still learned the signs of departure but we'd milked that thing up high and I wanted a turn or two. A lot tamer than a Seminole I guess. Very educational.
I've flown in and out of Hillsboro a lot during flight training because it's the closest controlled runway that's not super busy. Most of the traffic there is actually training aircraft. Super saddening to see something like this always, but worse when it's so close to home
I grew up in Hillsboro and did my first few lessons at Twin Oaks. Trying to figure out why they were doing manuevers so close to Newberg. It seems like going down towards St Paul and the practice area would have been better. Hits very close to home as I’m in flight school in Central Oregon currently. 😔
@@corey97140 Twin Oaks is also where I started, been on a hiatus due to an ankle injury but can't wait to return! We would usually fly to Hillsboro or Aurora for ATC practice as well, most of the in flight related stuff was over Newberg/McMinnville area
I refuse to intentionally fly there. The ATC is always comparable to someone in training also. Dangerous. We call it Hillsburito for a reason. This would be a good one for Probable cause to investigate. First impression at flight school. Where's the adults!
@@corey97140 Im doing my training down in Southern Oregon ... about to take my check ride in my light sport then Gyro cert. Only been to Cave Junction 3S4, Roseburg RBG, GP 3S8, MFR , Siskiyou SIY , Scott Valley A30. People ask how I watch this vids and still climb in the cockpit.
@@michaelpilot1000 Oregon in general is kinda if you talk with a deep voice your a good guy! Sorry Juan (I'm from Central Oregon) Maybe I just described most of the USA lol. Now I'm living in a much more rule happy area so that's just a hot take.
Spins are required in Canada for the PPL, and I am thankful to have received the training, without which pilots succumb to the instinctual behavior of using opposite aileron.
So sad this crash. When I was doing my VFR solo practice in a 150, power-off stall recovery, I climbed to 7000 ft AGL for an extra margin of safety. Did drop into 1 1/2 turns of spin by accident but did not sweat it. Just folowed my training instantly by the book. . Green fields spinning was quite a sight. Thank you for your excellent channel.
My instructor put me under the hood and then initiated a 'death' spiral. He then asked me how I felt the plane was flying and I replied: Feels straight and normal--then I lifted the hood and saw we were nose down looking at the ground going in circles! My senses lied to me! A lesson I will never forget.
Yep, that is a standard part of training. We put you into a "graveyard spiral" to make sure that you understand how your vestibular and kinesthetic system can lie to you. If you are in a coordinated steady turn for a while the fluid in your inner ear (vestibular system) eventually stops moving which makes it so that your brain stops getting the message that your orientation is changing. You were definitely NOT in a spin.
Currently doing my Multi engine training in a Seminole. My instructor allows full rudder deflection during Vmc demo. We promptly recover at either first indication of a stall or when directional control is lost and the yaw is uncontrollable, which ever occurs first. It’s about 50/50 on which occurs first. We recover by pitching down and pulling power to idle simultaneously.
I'm a student at the same school. That aircraft was not in good condition with consistent engine problems. It was the one PA-44 you never wanted to get scheduled in.
If I understand you correctly, there is a minimum altitude at which to perform this type of training. With that in mind, I would certainly look to go quite a bit higher to add as much safety factor as possible.
As you get higher in altitude the speed at which you stall also increases. It’s about a happy medium. 6000-5000 feet should’ve been plenty of room to recover but when the plane in VMCA yaws in a PA44 while fairly benign if it does go into a snap spin which is the characteristic of a VCMA roll. Once the spin is induced the PA44 has a very large vertical stabilizer and a very small rudder in comparison. Recovery from a fully developed spin with low rudder authority in a PA44 can be difficult as it stands. Remember that the rudder is still essentially a wing, it has a critical angle of attack.
At ERAU in the late 80s we used to call this thing "brick with wings", flying pig, seaman (mis-spelled) hole, etc. I never felt safe flying this thing during Vmc demos or any other phase of flight, and much prefer single engine aircraft.
The VMC demo in a light twin is a very demanding maneuver for both the pilot trainee and the flight instructor. The PA-44 does give lots of warning before loss of control, but immediate corrective control inputs are required regain full control. When I was training in a Piper Navajo PA-31, the VMC demo was down-right scary! So, the moral of the story in a light twin doing VMC demo, watch your airspeed, watch your airspeed, and watch your airspeed some more. That little red line on the airspeed indicator really means something………
Doesn't the PA-44 stall before it reaches Vmca in the clean configuration? In fact one of the perhaps negative points about the PA-44 is that a student does not get to experience the warning signs of a lack of directional control before the plane stalls.
@@igclapp Hey igclapp, the PA-44 is very close to a stall, depending on the CG, when doing a VMC demo. This is probably what happen with the crash in Newberg Oregon. But this is just a guess on my part! My question is, how much actual spin recovery training did the flight instructor have during his initial CFI training? Spin and spin recoveries training is a requirement for the CFI rating. I went through extensive spin and spin recovery training during my initial CFI training. And yes, I did have students put the aircraft in a spin during flight training. It’s not a requirement to have spin training for the private or commercial pilot license, but I always taught spin recoveries to my students. This way my students could recognize what a spin was and how to recover from them during stall training. Thanks for your great comments.
We used to half block the rudder. (BE-95 bad Vmc Stall spin record as is PA-30s) Also note low temperature changes the power available scenario where a stall could happen first
Would weight in the back (pax) in a twin make it harder to pull out from a spin ? In Canada we are required to spin (learn to get out of one) for PPL but a demonstration is not required to the TC examiner. When ever a spin lesson is scheduled instruction are to have no weight in the back of the Cessna 172.
2016 in Sweden, a DA42 entered a flat spin and crashed into trees without recovery. All 3 onboard survived with serious injuries(report in comment below). Early this year in Norway a similar scenario on a da42 with 2-3 onboard but none survived. Also crashed into a wooded area, but possibly some variables were different.
As an MEI I have done EXACTLY what you mentioned. BLOCK THE RUDDER to avoid getting too close to stall speed! Additionally I’d be concerned about CG as well. From my time instructing in the pa44 I vaguely remember it being typically forward in the envelope but time will tell for this accident.
I note that all three occupants were very young, with not many flight hours. That may be a factor in this loss of control, and failure to recover. Not much experience on board here.
Man it sure does feel like we've had a huge glut of fatal GA accidents recently. Anyone know if there has actually been a noticeable spike? Or does it just feel that way because Juan has been doing such a great job reporting on them?
No data to back this up, but the rush of airline hiring (and high starting salaries) seems to be pushing through a lot of folks who are into aviation as a job, not a passion. (Not long ago, a path down commercial pilot route wasn't glamorous and attracted those who genuinely loved he profession.) And then add to that the absolute min experience at every step of the process, and it's a recipe for disaster.
I think people are simply flying a lot more hours these days than they were a couple years ago. So even if the accident rate is the same, the number of accidents is higher.
Is there any effect on a pilot-in-training Juan, when practicing recoveries of this sort, IF that's what turns out to have caused this accident, when practicing in a regular twin-engine craft, and a counter-rotating prop craft? And could an initial, wrong rudder input, or any other for that matter, maybe cause a spin such as this to happen much faster that expected? Or is there really no difference at all?
Counter-rotating props mean no critical engine. The only difference is that you don't need to worry about which engine you're working with, allowing you to practice with both. But it actually makes the plane a little safer (especially if you have a real engine failure), at the expense of higher maintenance costs since you need parts for two different engines instead of just one.
I had the chance to fly a Twin Comanche while working on my Commercial ticket back in the '80's. When I saw VMC listed as 90mph, but a recommended speed of 97 during training, and did some quick math on the performance chart, I passed. The flight school had a Champion Lancer twin as well. If you lost an engine on it, you had to look for a soft spot to go through the trees.
I went through one of these programs and am now flying for an airline. When I instructed this maneuver, I did block the rudder pedals, as my own CFI did when I learned it. Also heavily briefed the maneuver and practiced it in the sim before we actually went out and did it. Even still, I remember at least one time when I jumped as a startle reflex because of what my student did. For those who don't know this maneuver, in a VMC demo with one engine "failed" (which the instructor typically simulates by pulling one engine throttle back and guarding it), you slow down until you judge that you have no more control authority, or you reach published VMC speed. It can take a *lot* of rudder pressure to maintain control. At that point, you're supposed to drop the nose and simultaneously *reduce* power and rudder pressure. Once airspeed is regained, you start adding throttle and rudder back in and then hold blue line speed. This is very different from a standard stall recovery that most students have experienced up to that point. I had one student who, instead of reducing power, tried to increase power instead, as well as only lowering the nose to the horizon, while still centering the rudder pedals. So we ended up at stall/VMC speed with one engine at full power and the other at idle and no rudder correction. I think this is the way this maneuver can most easily go south. No amount of blocking the pedals will prevent this.
I very quickly pushed the yoke forward and grabbed the throttle from the student and pulled it back, along with adding some rudder back. We were starting to roll at that point. It stopped as soon as I took action.
Again, I always heavily, heavily briefed this maneuver and how dangerous it is, as my own CFI did when I started. I tried really hard to get my students to take it seriously, chair-fly it at home repeatedly before we did it, and then we practiced it in the sim before the plane. Of course I always demoed it first too. Still, in the plane under a new and stressful situation, this maneuver can feel similar to a student to a stall recovery and they may just revert to their primacy on that. You really have to be ready as a CFI to take over before a spin can develop.
Thanks for the insightful details as its not clear in the video.
As someone looking at this well outside the pilot scene, this is really insightful. I've learned enough to understand more or less what you're describing, and how it differs from a standard stall recovery. Definitely sounds like the kind of situation that could trigger the wrong reflexes.
Thank god nobody in the house got crushed by that thing when it hit.
Thanks for the details. I have read about quite a few VMC scenario fatalities during ME training. Scary stuff.
Well said sir. The engine out at VMC is a VERY CLOSE TO THE EDGE PRACTICE. It's a different world from my days in the 1970's-80's when the CFI I knew had a ton of Military time and experience. If we are putting 1500 HR right seaters in Commercial Aircraft Ill drive.
yeah. I would Not want to be an instructor
I’m a current student pilot at Hillsboro Aero Academy and this whole thing is tragic. Thanks for all of your support in bringing awareness and your compassion as a fellow pilot.
I'm so sorry for your losses. I read Ms. Hurd is awake and on the long road to healing. I'm glad she has family and friends. Sending love and strength to all of the families invovled.
@@appleiiee thank you. Yes, she is awake and making progress.
Terrifying to hear about all this, I wish her the best and hope you are doing ok. I was just reading about training in your area with the Alaska Airlines academy after my PPL.
It must be really hard to get back to training after this. I am very sorry. I am training in Seattle, so it feels close home.
Take enough time to feel mentally better. The silver line of these accidents are the lessons for the rest of us.
I'm sorry for the loss of your comrades.
A friend of mine knows the family of the survivor. She has a broken pelvis, several broken ribs, two broken vertebrae but the spine is intact. She has a concussion and is intubated but doctors feel she has a good shot of recovery. She was in the rear of the plane and was the second one pulled out.
If you're the praying type, I'm sure Emily and her family would appreciate it.
Amen.
Thank you for that additional information and some good news. I believe Emily is a pilot, right? If she has a memory of the events preceding the spin, she might have some great insight into what happened. Wishing her the best👍
Praying for Emily, for a full and speedy recovery. And, that she is protected from survivor's guilt.
We're all wishing you well Emily, fingers crossed hoping for a speedy recovery 😍❤
Prayers going out to you and your family, Emily. Praying for a speedy and complete recovery in Jesus’ name. Amen.
The PA-44 has a pretty good safety record as far as avoiding Vmc rollover/spins, especially considering how much they are used for multiengine training. I only found three other fatal Vmc rollover/spin accidents in the NTSB database. And what's interesting is that in all three cases THERE WAS A PASSENGER IN BACK. That would move the CG aft and make a spin recovery more difficult.
That's very interesting. I wonder, with an extra person in the back, if the attitude of the aircraft in the spin is different enough to cause the dirty air coming off the stalled wings to shroud the T tail empennage, rendering it ineffective when using conventional spin recovery techniques. I hope the NTSB is able to solve this one.
Very interesting.
It's hard not to conclude based on that rather remarkable fact that having a third person on board during this particular training ought to be flatly prohibited, NO exceptions.
I know, correlation does not = causation.
For there to be only three recorded instances, however, and EVERY ONE have that factor present? It would appear it ought to be regarded as a required element for that accident to occur, which means a total ban on it is warranted. It certainly seems irresponsible NOT to assume that third person is a crucial factor.
Of course what we lack is how many of these training exercises are conducted WITH an extra person on board, and that might indicate it's simply a remarkable coincidence after all.
Having read other comments about effects on CG etc, however, it still seems all training operations using these aircraft ought be made aware of this fact at the very least.
If someone wants to test the hell out of the scenario in sims so as to get greater clarity on the true significance of that extra person, that seems worthwhile.
Meanwhile? Were I running a training operation, I'd have a flat ban on a third person being on board.
Mind you, having an extra person on board on what is an inherently more risky flight plan seems foolish even without hearing that particular piece of info. But then I'm notoriously intolerant of people doing dumb shit in a work situation such as taking risks lightly due either to "familiarity breeds contempt" or "young, brave and unknowingly stupid".
@@steeltrap3800 "Were I running a training operation," you'd have to put safety ahead of profitability. Very difficult to do in this "every man for himself" society.
@@daninraleigh Yeah, I know. But I don't see why that third person was necessary; how was it part of their training? Such a narrow set of circumstances that it's hard to believe banning them would make any difference to an operator.
I suspect profitability is THE greatest factor that gets in the way of otherwise obvious things the regulatory body might ask Congress to pass in response to NTSB findings and recommendations.
I imagine all sorts of lobbyists doubtless come out of the woodwork to ensure various things DON'T change, all due to profitability etc.
Keeping new pilots on ridiculously low remuneration in some cases, for example. I don't WANT my pilot having to do TWO jobs and worrying whether they can juggle their bills etc on a barely liveable income. I remember reading once how some regional pilots were earning LESS than their local school bus driver. Sure, we want good drivers, too, but seriously?
The 1,500 hour rule appears to exist to supply instructors and regional pilots, NOT because there's any compelling statistical evidence it makes new passenger pilots any safer than other parts of the world that do NOT have such a high requirement.
Having said that, it's not as though levels of commercial pressure and reality don't exist. The question is where safety MUST overrule those other points. If you can't fly safely and survive commercially, you ought to go out of business.
Doesn't help one bit that people expect absurdly low airfares.
A difficult topic, no doubt about it. If it were easy we'd not be talking about it, LOL.
Cheers
Here's a non-fatal one that you don't know about:
I have 135 hours of Seminole time. When I saw the spin I thought "Vmc demo".
When I saw the replay indicate 44 mph (which is 38 knots!) while flying straight ahead that confirmed it.
In November of 2011 a Hillsboro Aviation Seminole was doing a dual night cross-country up to Boeing Field where I was an instructor. They departed BFI at night and stalled and flipped over (Vmc roll) during initial climbout from 31R VERY shortly after liftoff. They landed upside down on top of a parked Seneca owned by Airpac (cargo).
The Seneca was of course destroyed, but it cushioned their impact.
The former-Army head line guy at our FBO sprinted out to that airplane and pulled them out through the cargo door just before it exploded.
The student and the female CFI were in shock as you'd expect.
How do you vmc-roll right after you takeoff? I suppose it could be a plain-old stall while flying below Vmc... I sure hope it wasn't a simulated engine-failure at night during initial climb-out.
It was literally a miracle that they survived that.
katu.com/news/local/gallery/hillsboro-plane-crashes-at-boeing-field-2-injured
I am beyond flabbergasted that someone on that plane survived it, even if gravely injured. They dropped into that house like a brick! My thoughts go out to their families, and I hope the survivor can recover.
Spins are survivable, probably not heavy planes like the Seminole but smaller planes. I’ve heard it’s about an 8G impact
@@PilotBossify It's much more than 8.
Same. I saw the video yesterday, and was simply stunned that anyone had survived.
It probably helps that it WAS an impact with a house, spreads the stopping force over greater time and distance.
@chrisschack9716 yeah that was my conclusion as well, but even so...
I went through a program very similar to this and have been fortunate enough to have spent close to 1000 hours in this make and model aircraft, and teach out of the supplement listed in this video daily. I’ve taught a variety of people with different backgrounds from FAA inspectors, 30 year captains, DPE’s, and of course students going through our program. After training more than 100 students in the last year in this plane, a common error I see. The vmc speed (56kias published) is 1 knot slower than published stall speed at 57 knots. Many students wait until first indication of a stall (typically the stall horn) prior to performing the recovery procedure. For this reason I do tend to rudder block 10-12 knots higher than published vmc speed. I really try and emphasize with my students in this airplane that we should recover at the first indication we can no longer control the heading, or yaw of the aircraft. The Seminole has very forgiving characteristics which makes it a great light twin for training however do to vmc speed and stall speed being so close to the same, the line can get blurred very quickly between completely in control of the aircraft, and a fully developed stall.
Spent many hours teaching multi work on Seneca's and Seminoles with a few others thrown in for good measure. Rule # 1 was always, if you are going to be doing stalls or VMCA work, nobody in the aircraft other than instructor and student. Also I would fuel up for the mission, however if extra fuel meant a more forward C of G I would seriously consider it. I once had a student spin out on me when we were in a Seneca while doing VMCA. I immediately took control and recovered. we went around almost 2 revolutions before we pulled out. Used up almost 3500 to 4000 feet in the recovery. Good thing we entered the maneuver at 5,000 ft. Also all my instructors were well versed in spin recovery well beyond the requirements. They had to demonstrate multiple spin recoveries and would get to the point that they could do multiple revolutions and come out on a basic heading. Spin training obviously in a light single certified for it. Once again Juan excellent review of this accident. Let's hope many new instructors can learn from these incidents.
Yes, I can't imagine the instructor adding a passenger to his workload during a critical training maneuver. Especially if the passenger is unbuckled with his head between the seats following the action.
3,500 feet for recovery? Wow. My sphincter would be chewing on that seat cushion.
Couldn't agree more. However the more someone triune in various maneuvers the more experience they have to properly deal with the unexpected. @@johndoe-el5ic
It did!!! 😂@@grayrabbit2211
Do *any* light twins exist (for GA) that are certified for spins?
My flight school lost a Seminole with 3 aboard into the Atlantic in the late 1980s, as a result we did not allow an observer on VMC demonstrations...and as students we were scared half to death to fly them - we'd practice a few with the rudder travel limited, then do one each direction to actual VMC or stall, and you never knew which would be first in a Seminole, so our trained recovery was the same for both - chop the throttle while neutralizing the rudder and lowering the nose.
An observer raises both the stall speed and VMC, and is pro-spin in reducing both the pitch down authority and the rudder authority.
I briefed the heck out of my expectations as an instructor and demonstrated before I asked the students to fly it , but I still had one come pretty close to getting away from me - when we ran out of rudder and she started to yaw and roll to the left the student rolled all the right aileron in and pulled all the way back on the yoke and locked up - stayed that way when I said "My Aircraft" - I chopped the throttle and she snap rolled over the top into knife edge - that or the blow from my left elbow to his head, knocking his headset off, unlocked his brain and he let go - saying "Your airplane" If he'd have kept that everything to the right and up input up for another second or two, everyone would have wondered why we spun into the ocean. After I recovered we talked it over and he wanted to try it again that day - I was young and dumb, so we did., and he did it the way we briefed it. I think more than any other maneuver - you can watch somebody demonstrate VMC and talk about it, but the first time you have the rudder all the way over one way and the plane starts to fall over the other way it is freaky.
I don't see any advantage in taking a VMCA demo to a fully developed stall. adding temporary rudder limits should be sufficient to demo the exercise.
Surviving observer could make the difference here if post crash reconstruction demonstrates no airframe or equipment malfunction. What then is missing? Fully developed spins and recovery techniques during early training. Any fledgling aviator unfamiliar with these, becomes a wide eyed crazy person clawing for survival in the cockpit. Spins are a maneuver with which every pilot should be intimately familiar. Unfortunately, this is not the case.
I find it a very positive act on behalf of the student to basically ‘get back on the horse that kicked you off’!
I would think this is the kind of mindset that hopefully leads to excellent airmanship!
Not a pilot. What is the reason for doing this VMC as it seems extremely dangerous? Why would you ever fly in normal circumstances close to this critical speed?
@@gpa39not a pilot either, but I'm imagining a scenario of a strong headwind with nothing but sea or mountain behind you with one engine dead. It's the one way or the highway. You've to know how to fly it under those conditions.
I logged 20 hrs in that plane while working on my atp . My instructor is a fellow with a long history of always emphasizing safety . Deepest condolences to their families and friends.
My DPE taught me to block the rudder during my MEI checkride, and I'm grateful.
After an incident on-the-job, I then learned to block the engine controls on the stack's bottom, with my hand.
A Commercial multi student, an active duty Air Force Wizzo, who showed zero sign of nerves during prior lessons,
nervously pushed everything back during a simulated engine out, that actually put the engine out.
We got to practice some real life CRM, an engine restart :)
Especially not fun on the Seneca, with spoilerons/no airerons.
Yep, in CFI ground school I learned techniques to have the pilot let the yoke go even if they are stronger than me
Some CFIs here in the free state of Florida carry a gun. Won't say if I do :)
A gun sure works well to "have the pilot let the yoke go" if a student, or would be renter during a checkout, blows a brain fuse.
@@webcucciolo
@@baaa4698 Robertson STOL kit... full span flaps and spoilers for roll control.
Robertson STOL.
@@johndoe-el5ic Some have suggested covering the student's eyes with your hand. They will try to grab your hand and will let go of the yoke. I've never tried it. Not sure if it will work.
I was a flight instructor at that school. I have 39 hours in that tail. Very sad, devastated the school. I hope Emily pulls through her injuries.
can't believe I found you here. fellow HAA, we did instrument EOC once and saw you around pilot lounge thousand times. You might forget me but hello! I was Sean Murray student haha, safe flight!
@@maxmillianleonardo5957 I think I remember, you passed correct? I know I did not pass many people first time...
In November of 2011 a Hillsboro Aviation Seminole was doing a dual night cross-country up to Boeing Field where I was an instructor.
They departed BFI at night and somehow flipped over (Vmc roll?) during initial climbout from 31R VERY shortly after liftoff.
They landed upside down on top of a parked Seneca owned by Airpac (cargo).
The Seneca was of course destroyed, but it cushioned their impact.
The former-Army head line guy at our FBO sprinted out to that airplane and pulled them out through the cargo door just before it exploded.
The student and the female CFI were in shock as you'd expect.
How do you vmc-roll right after you takeoff? I suppose it could be a plain-old stall while flying below Vmc... I sure hope it wasn't a simulated engine-failure at night during initial climb-out.
It was literally a miracle that they survived that.
And, sadly, here is another Hillsboro Aviation Seminole Vmc roll with CFI on board.
If you have any insight regarding Hillsboro's quality of multi-training that could perhaps save lives in the future I hope you talk to someone about it. Or maybe it was a total fluke two times...? It's just so very strange for it to happen to the same little school twice.
katu.com/news/local/gallery/hillsboro-plane-crashes-at-boeing-field-2-injured
Why I quit flying 20 years ago! All I dreamed about was becoming a pilot growing up. Built countless models, all the money I made working part time in High School went to flying lessons. Was able to solo after 15 hours, got my private at 19 with a little over 50 hours. Did take some instrument classes and got about 6 hours of IFR flight training but in the early 90's the amount of time and money it took if you weren't going the military route was a lot, plus the airlines wouldn't even look at you with out a bachelors degree and several thousand hours. I did eventually get a Bachelors from Embry Riddle with my GI bill and an A&P. Decided to stick with maintenance to support the family and just fly for fun, however the older you get the less invincible you feel. After a couple scary incidents with a Grumman Yankee I owned( all my own fault) I decided to hang it up. Like Dan said sometimes it doesn't matter how much experience you have, things can go south fast in an airplane. Do I miss it, yes I do. Do I wish I was in my 30's and not 50's to take advantage of the pilot shortage now, yep. But I plan on retiring soon with a nice pension, and my son has promised to build build me a kickass flight simulator at home when I do, that's good enough for me! God bless those pilots and their grieving families.
In my multi training (Piper Seneca) we only did a vmc demo in the simulator. Any single engine procedures were to be flown above VYSE (105mph). The posted VMC is 80 mph so we had a decent buffer zone to stay safe.
😅
I am a Corporate Pilot and a Flight Instructor with about 300 hrs of dual given in the Piper Seminole. It’s a very docile aircraft but as with any light twin as the CG goes Aft, ie: the 3rd person, makes your VMC speed higher. With a Aft CG, no matter a single engine or twin engine, a spin once developed is more difficult to recover from due to the shorter arm between the CG and Rudder.
I agree. I gave a lot of dual in the Seminole. Never had a passenger in back. CG aside, there is no reason to have another passenger during training. I know students like to observe, but it’s not worth the risk.
Aft CG actually works in your favor initially, shorter moment arm for the rudder so Vmc happens at higher AS, further from stall. Also some stall margin benefit from the lower wing loading. But once you actually get to the stall... rear CG isn't helping recovery.
@@rickgesell9468 A PA44 CFI is used to getting the stall buffet before actual loss of directional control, so this advantage of the earlier loss of control may be quite unexpected.
MEI here as well. Great analysis.
I always practice the Vmc demo in the sim first and work with students on engine cuts at blue line (88 knots) to make sure that they can consistently maintain heading while changing pitch and power settings to go from both engines operative to OEI and back.
Then we do the Vmc demo and slow down to the stall horn or red line (56 kts) or loss of directional control, whichever comes first.
The problem with always blocking the rudder and never letting the student see a full Vmc demo is that you don't want them to be on their checkride the first time they have to do it as described in the POH.
Two minor points: it's 1500 (not 1600) hours for ATP, and 1981 is about 20 years too old for a G1000. It possibly has data recording from an aftermarket G5 or something like that, but unfortunately won't have G1000 data.
The red line limitation is in the newer (g1000) PA-44 guidance but I can't remember off the top of my head if it was in there on the older Seminoles.
Good point about always blocking the rudder and first time without being on the checkride. At some point, when proficiency has been demonstrated, would it be good to then have them do it with the rudder unblocked… and the instructor on high alert and ready to take control instantly?
@@jpoconnor5744 , personally, I just teach them unblocked from the beginning, and am always on alert.
I know a DPE who was flying with an applicant who had never done a full stall before, nor had he slowed all the way down on the Vmc demo. On his private add on ride, he got confused about which one he was supposed to full stall and full stalled during the Vmc demo. The DPE had to recover from the resulting Loss of Control and the applicant failed the ride.
Hey Juan, I love your videos as you always are right on the ball with your analysis of these accidents. If you don't mind, I like to show some of your videos in ground school. I've been conducting training on PA44s for about 40 years. The PA44 was intentionally designed to have a very low Vmc, I believe, with the intent that loss of control on one engine would not be an issue. All that means however, is that, since Vmc is below the clean stall speed, the concern shifts from loss of directional control to stall-spin accidents. At our flight college, we have had at least one instructor get into a spin while providing Vmc training. Fortunately, in this case, they were able to recover - with only 2 on board, the c of g is forward, making spin recovery easier. The flight manual cautions you to initiate Vmc recovery if the stall warning sounds, even if you still have adequate directional control, since a stall with one engine at full power and the other windmilling will almost guarantee entry into a spin. Instructors would be well advised to read the Vmc demonstration procedure before conducting this type of training. Spin recovery training is also a good idea - still a requirement here in Canada.
Stall recovery, which sometimes resulted in a partial spin (because: me) was an intrinsic part of my basic PPL. I don't know why this is not taught anymore. I think its essential. The rudder is such an important tool and almost belittling it's role in training is a huge oversight.
About 24 years ago, my flight school used two baron-58s for our multi-engine training. Since Barons are not training airplanes, we always blocked the rudder as to induce VMCA about 40 kts higher than VMC. We always used any unwanted yaw/roll as an indication of VMC and recovery started at this point.
I read somewhere that baron 58s tend to develop unrecoverable flat spins. Is that the case?
Yes. Maybe not "flat" but it wasn't designed to be recoverable. Same reasons why that Juan explains. @@acnorea123
@@acnorea123 If memory serves, that’s the Baron-55, but again, I’m going back 20 something years. Our DE knew a guy very well that flew out of his airport that died in a Baron-55 flat spin, so I’m guessing it was an aircraft model specific issue. Of course, if loaded incorrectly, I’m sure most light twins can be put in this category as well.
I do ME training in a Diamond DA62. For the Vmca training we go to Vmca + 10 kts and nothing less. I also plant my foot such that the student does not apply the wrong rudder during both Vmca and single engine maneuvers.
I believe there have been a few DA42 accidents in Europe recently at flight schools with a back seater causing a rear C of G.
Juan, great analysis and explanation of twin A/C spin hazards. I am a former Naval aviator, flight instructor, and A-3D (all 3 dead) crash survivor. Nobody can match the US military pilot training programs. Spin recovery in every single engine or dual center line thrust A/C (F-14, F-15, F-18) hammered home. I wish all commercial airline pilots were so well trained.
I agree with the comment below, these guys were very young. When I fly commercial I always breath a sigh of relief upon seeing at least one head with a little grey going into the cockpit ❤.
Thanks for covering this! Pilot out of KTTD (Troutdale, OR) and was wondering what happened since there wasn’t too much video released.
Ive got 1 hour left to do on my Multi rating and im doing it in the duchess which is very similar to the Seminole (same counter rotating engines). Stall speed clean is 70knots, with flaps it's 60knots. VMCA is 65knots on the book, which means we should stall before approaching VMCA, this made it incredibly difficult to demonstrate when we were doing airwork, my instructor whos an experienced cessna citation and king air training captain would use blocking of the rudder pedals and quite frankly after all the research i done before starting the course, i didnt want us to end up in a training accident, these light twins are an absolute handful and the performance on them is very marginal single engine depending on density altitude, you could easily get yourself in to trouble quickly in these light multi engines during single engine operations.
I'm an MEI and have plenty of hours teaching the Seminole. I'd always be guarding the throttles and ready to snap the operating one back during VMc demos. The plane felt really under-powered and unless density altitude was particularly low, I'd always get a stall indication before losing rudder authority. As far as CG goes, we'd frequently have to use ballast to bring the CG aft; with full fuel and 2 adults up front we'd be outside the forward limits if we didn't. A third person made the equation work nicely.
Video analyses like this make me glad I'm retired out of flying. If you're not extremely careful in a light twin, the earth can and will rise up to smite thee.
I used to instruct in these. It's a T tail, you don't want to get into a spin, it can be dangerous doing VMC demonstrations if you end up in a spin. Also power on stalls
passed my multi in one last month..great plane to fly though
This makes me think of the helicopter crash from a year or two ago where the tail snapped off in a training flight because they most likely entered a vortex ring state. That was also a case of a relatively young and inexperienced instructor.
Maybe these are symptoms of the pilot shortage pushing through too many pilots too quickly? It doesn't seem like these instructors are really that confident with these procedures themselves. I'm not sure if we need to change the criteria for who can instruct, or what, but I'm just afraid this is a trend that is going to continue and keep killing people.
my first real spin training was in a tomahawk T-tail.. it recovered nicely. Is it the combination of T-tail and twin that's tricky?
@@dennisparks3692 t-tail configurations are more sensitive to disrupted airflows, and have less elevator authority in general, as far as I know. That's why the tu-154 aircraft has had a few crashes caused by deep stalls. Combine that with there being two props to disrupt airflow, and two engines, and the possibility of one engine being out causing a huge difference in yaw, I can imagine those at all complicate things. However I'm not an expert, that's just what I believe based on previous research but definitely don't treat anything I see as definitive.
@@R2Bl3nd I do remember when landing, the tomahawk (T-tail) had less authority as there wasn't any prop wind blowing by it
Looks like that roof provided a bit more compressive fodder to ease impact
Back in the 1970's when I got my private, I was lucky to have been able to do more spins than I can count and actually liked doing them. Through life I've found, in many things, that if you don't train the brain/muscles in something when that something does happen it takes time to 'see' what is going on and time can become your enemy.
I taught myself spins in a C150.
As a Multi Engine instructor in light twins, I use the rudder pedal to induce, simulated loss of directional control well before the airplane approaches stall.
As an MEI who teaches the pa-44, I teach to stop applying more rudder once we hit about 75 kts, or I guard the rudder at 75kts which is well above stall speed. (also allows you to see how vmc starts occurring since in our seminoles vmc is below our stall speed) and extensively brief the maneuver and demonstrate it the first time. This accident is a bucket of cold water for sure, never be complacent, any flight could be your last. RIP
Another great learning video on a very sad note. Condolences to their families & a speedy complete recovery for the injured person on board. Too many too soon Juan.
My Vmc demonstrations were done with me blocking some rudder to ensure it would yaw before stalling. It's a delicate procedure and you have to be ready to cut the throttle and push the elevator aggressively to prevent a stall/spin.
Airline pilot/former MEI here. 400ish hours of dual given in Seminoles. They're very tame airplanes to fly in general. You really have to screw up to spin one, even if you do that rudder is like a giant barn door. Even then, you could even reverse the asymmetric thrust to recover a spin, although that would require some quick thinking creativity on the instructor's part. I always blocked my rudder so my students never got us into any real trouble.
I have, however, had a student freak out and lock up on the controls in a fully developed spin in a 172. I had to strike him in the arm to get him to let go. He would have killed us both had he not snapped out of his panic.
This leads me to believe the student in the left seat, may have freaked out on the controls and put the airplane into that unrecoverable position. Coupled with a new CFI who's never had anyone try to kill him, this result makes sense.
Of course, this is just conjecture, we may never know what really happened. All I can say is, being an instructor is a dangerous job. Don't ever become relaxed or complacent, even if you think your student is solid. And if you're an MEI, block your rudder.
As I recall seminoles have a fairly small rudder in comparison to their Vertical Stabalizer and in point can make a recovery from a spin very hard especially with an aft CG. Reversing the asymmetric thrust is an idea, would that just be idle the on engine and full thrust the idled one?
@@ag9617 Yeah the rudder wasn’t all that huge, I was exaggerating a bit. I do remember it having quite a lot of travel when compared to its single engine counterparts though.
My thinking was that since it’s a twin, it’s gotta have the extra rudder to fly single engine, so if you got into a spin and did your typical “PARE” or “PRAY” spin recovery, it would work out well.
However since it’s a T-Tail, if the spin got fully developed as with the video, the elevator effectiveness might be blocked by turbulent flow from the stalled wings.
Good point about the aft C.G. I forgot that in this case, they had someone riding in the backseat. That would make this whole event significantly harder to recover. I’ve only had back seaters in Seminoles a couple times, and we didn’t do any training maneuvers.
Reversing the asymmetric thrust would be just switching the throttles. I.E, Spinning to the left, close right throttle and go full power on the left. (I’m not certain if that would help, just a thought).
Could be interesting for someone to take the door off the Seminole, strap on a parachute, fly up to 10,000 feet, and spin it a few times, and post the results on TH-cam. (I’m sure the FAA would love that, lol)
@@byronhenry6518 if you watch the video you can almost tell there’s no significant airflow over the wings or rudder I believe. Yes they’re falling, but not in a manner where the aerodynamic forces are able to help. Spin training in a light twin isn’t recommended or required by the FAA and if I remember correctly spins in them are even prohibited. Two large engines, doing nothing mean you have a good 14 feet of non existent airflow over the wings. At that point you have two 500lb weights on your glider. Hopefully the NTSB is fast with this investigation.
This accident happened about 45 minutes from where I live. I heard about it on our local news in the Portland, Oregon Metro Area.
Vmc speed is calculated by 6 parameters: #1 - no power on critical engine #2 - max power on operating engine #3 - maximum gross weight #4 - full aft CG #5 and #6 at standard temperature and pressure. When any of these parameters differ, then that will effect the Vmc speed.
This happened right down the road from me. Thank you for the report, Juan.
My nephew and football team watched it happen during practice, shook them up pretty good.
@@HairHelmet So sad.
Thanks for the analysis, Juan. We live near the Hillsboro airport and see these young people all the time. Virtually all of this flight was over farm country. The crash site was neae the edge of town.
Yeah I wondered about where exactly it went down. Agree that all training is/would be/should be over unpopulated land for this very reason. Almost makes me wonder if there was some other factor going on.
Thanks for covering this. I mentioned this in a comment to your last video about the multi GA crashes over the past week. These were just young kids, the CFI and the students. Absolutely horrible.
Knowing there are people like Juan flying in our skies makes me feel much better.
Excellent training Juan!....I will read the Training supplement shown.
I did my multi engine training in a Seneca and we briefed the maneuvers thoroughly before each flight and even before we performed the maneuvers. My instructor would block the pedals just as a lot of the commenters here have stated. We were prohibited from carrying any passengers on training flights for this reason. I always thought a twin was safer because of the second engine and I had my eyes opened during that first VMC demo.
These videos by Juan give people such as myself who are non aviation experts a real insight into the unknown details of what it takes to be a pilot. There does seem to be a fine line between things going right and as in this case it going badly wrong.
At 7:10 the point you made about Vmc being below Vs was the reason for that crash that killed Richard Conti. If i remember correctly, it was because of the altitude at which they were doing the demo and the POH even had considerations for the maneuver above a specific altitude because of the two speeds trading places.
For a true demonstration of VMCA at least for certification purposes you need to be an altitude such that the engine produces full rated power.
Thanks again for the thorough explanation. Condolences to the famlies and friends and wishing the best recovery for the injured.
So very young. Decades ago it was said a twin just got you to the scene of the accident more quickly. Flying is wonderful, but sadly it can be unforgiving.
Hillsboro Aero is super busy. Both singles and twins fly all the time!
You know I live in Hillsboro and instruct here. I was actually on a flight that night at the same time this occurred and was only 5 miles from them. I didn’t learn of the crash until I landed but had I known, I literally could have seen them out my front window. When it comes to teaching Vmc demo, we have an Apache that is thankfully extremely docile and forgiving, but I’m still guarding the rudder a bit, and I guard the mixtures in case I need to cut power to the engines if things started to go bad. Extremely sad event and very close to home this time.
This channel has improved so much over the years I have watched while keeping a balance of professionalism and respect.
I was an MEI on the Duchess, back in the 2000's. The school I was with made us do spin training in an aerobatic plane, Pitts or Decathlon. Back in the UK, getting near VMCA was never a requirement of the training. Not sure the risk of losing control is worth the training benefit.
another great video. This crash happened 15 miles from my home in McMinnville!
RIP Aviators. Fundamentally agree Juan, twin engines are often more dangerous than singles. We see this all the time with routine engine failures that are often lost, sadly. I did my M/E in a PA44 like this one and have always found that airplane to be very stable, predictable and safe. I've probably done 20 Vmc's in that airplane and always found the airplane speaks to you clearly well before something bad can happen. I suspect you are right that the weight and balance is a key factor here. The procedure is to carefully add back pressure at about 1 deg per second, max rudder to maintain coordination/direction, gradually riding up toward the stall, where the horn typically comes on at about 62-64 kts and Vmc is 57 if memory serves. Since you only have to bring the airplane to first indication (loss of rudder, stalll horn, loss of dir ctrl), usually that horn chimes early and you can recover therein without bringing in the stall consideration. I've never thought of this as dangerous but it is very delicate and challenging because the rudder deflection component and stall speed. As with many maneuvers though, care must be taken to managing the steps deliberately but delicately.
I agree. I took mulit-engine training in the PA-44, as well. Nice stable ship. I can hardly imagine what it took for them to depart normal flight. Strange.
THAT's the thing about it all, though... Finesse... A delicate touch is SOOOOooo easily lost, even in just a second or so of lacking attention. A little distraction or just a touch more enthusiasm for "having fun with it" and there's just such a fine difference between a "steady gradual push in a hurry" and a "jerk on the control" that it gets a LOT of actually more experienced operators into trouble.
It's not just aircraft, either. I'm into Experimentals (aka Ultralights) mostly... BUT I've been over 30 years through more than a dozen countries on a motorcycle. That's a place where there's NO ROOM for panic OR jerking and kicking and yanking any of the controls. The noob's are actively paying attention, mostly because they HAVE to take the time to think about every little thing they do with it. It's usually the guys and gals with around 3 to 5 years actual riding experience under their belts, just enough to be out and about in normal conditions without a lot of thought. They "know what they're doing" enough not to look down to find the blinker or horn, and they no longer spend significant time staring at their speedo' to determine exact speed or their comfort with whatever zone they're in... preferring to just match traffic around them "give or take". THEY get into trouble because of that sensation when cornering that "the bike just screams that she can do it quicker"... AND it's probably THE hardest thing in the world to "rope it in and hold her back".
Similar seems to be in aviation... You get the first dose of adrenaline throwing a plane into a high altitude spin when it's relatively safe to do so. It just doesn't feel right... AND after a few of those, you're a little more used to "flirting with disaster" in training and still having time enough to recover. Then you just get a little "too used to it" and about the time you're giggling like a school girl at a Taylor Swift concert, the least little thing goes sideways and you're completely out of control... and then... splat. ;o)
I think you mean there is no such thing as Critical Engine, which is why they are installed, but Vmc remains a key controllability speed with reference to single engine operations.@@MrSuzuki1187
@@MrSuzuki1187- I’ve got about 3500 hours in light aircraft and I think the counter-rotation eliminates the critical engine, not Vmc. It’s been a long time since I flew any Piper aircraft but with the counter-rotation, losing either engine has the similar impact on aerodynamics, but I think there’s still a specific speed at which the operating engine in combination with rudder and AoA could cause a loss of directional control. But as I said, it’s been 15 years since I’ve been flying…so I could certainly be mistaken. It’s cool reading about all the young guys still instructing. Great times.
@@MrSuzuki1187 No... No it does not. EVERY SINGLE AIRCRAFT has a VMC, period. It's the nature of a Velocity Minimum for Control. Below that velocity, you have NO control over the plane, no lift, not rudder control, and in full stall, you're only going around and down and you can't even choose which way around... end of discussion.
Counter Rotating Prop's eliminate some of the harmonic issues AND counter-act the gyroscopic effects of the rotating power required to push enough air to get several thousand pounds of aircraft off the ground at all. When multiple prop's rotate the same direction, there's so much torque generated in that one direction that during acceleration, the plane WILL roll and then turn as the "lift" imparted on the wings then pulls more sideways than upward. It's also damnably hazardous, because too far rolled on one side and you have no lift pulling up at all... and down you go.
Look up the Sopwith Camel, a rather famous old British Biplane (WWI) that was designed with the whole engine block rotating around a stationary crankshaft and pistons. This imparted enough gyroscopic and flywheel effect to drive the propeller fast enough to push the air required to get off the ground. A marvel of its day, and doubly incredible as cheaply made as it could be... BUT the torque imparted another quirk... They'd ROLL HARD when trying to take off, a dubious distinction among aircraft that was such a strong effect, not only did new pilots have to get used to using the throttle/mixture controls sparingly in take-off (or even shut down cylinders, which is another weird quirk of the beast) but ALSO be prepared to counteract that torque-induced roll even before they were off the ground, only to have it seemingly double as soon as the bitch was in the air. It takes a LOT of getting used to... AND is a famous quirk among the many, that some of us prize in the replicas still being sold today, BUT you have to get a class SPECIFIC to the thing if you get the "full replica", unless of course you join a flying club and get introduced by private owner...
In it's early years the Sopwith Camel killed more student pilots in training than got killed in actual combat... Think about that.
SO they engaged the counter-rotating props on multi-engine prop-driven craft early on, having seen that issue with anything that sported more than the usual torque to weight ratio... It would be the British Mosquito of WWII fame that actually was successful with both prop's rotating the same direction, though they also had a tendency to roll on take-offs or aggressive accelerations and climbs.
Vibrations happen because both prop's compress the air and cause turbulence, not terribly different from the way wings work. Only with both (or multiple) prop's rotating the same way, more of these compression and turbulent waves become additive as they cross each other's paths... and this induces buffetting... which can be pretty destructive to aircraft and large boats or ships. Several ships have been misfitted thus, and had to return to shipyards to be retrofitted once the engineers were cognizant of the problems... AND even with counter rotating prop's (or screws because "boats") there is a chance of additive turbulent waves, though it's VERY much reduced...
BUT not a single bit of this has ANYTHING to do with even how high or low the VMC is. That exists for every aircraft ever, INCLUDING the famous AN-2's, though their VMC and Stall Speeds are so low they just don't register on the ASI, so there wasn't much point in publishing them... at least according to Antonov.
Interestingly enough, Jets DO NOT counter-rotate. They don't have huge great propellers acting like gyroscopic flywheels nor taxing the engines for torque enough to twist the plane to pieces or threaten to roll it over on leaving the ground and trying to climb out. It's just easier to design everything to rotate the same way, eliminates the need for repetitive mass production of Left AND Right Handed parts to accommodate all that, and that makes it CHEAPER... SO any multi-engine jet aircraft in the sky today has engines that ALL rotate the same direction... ;o)
Juan, as always, great content. I learned a few things from this one, especially the bit about how the CG position changes the moment arm for the rudder. Totally makes sense, but had never occurred to me before.
One of the key components of the Vmca is the CG and extra weight in the rear will definitely increase the Vmca and cause the aircraft hard to pitch down during spin. Prayers for the souls lost and people injured from the accident🙏🙏🙏
Yep, so sad. Juan I just saw the clip of the FedEx B757 that had to make an emergency landing with total gear failure. I hope you will post something for us about that this incident and I saw that Victor also has not yet posted anything.
holy crap its been a rough week. 5 crashes now ?
the end of the republic is coming
Thanks Juan for this detailed report.
I recently earned my MEI and on one flight our Director of Operations and I had an observer in the back. I was flabbergasted by how much higher our Vmc was. For someone used to a two people on board, the aft C.G. could very well surprise them in a Vmc demo, even if the CG was within limits.
Do you recall how many knots higher it was?
@@igclapp usually in the DA42 the stall horn comes on before you begin to lose control at around 76 knots, so most students don’t actually experience the beginning of the Vmc roll. However, on this flight we started to run out of rudder around 80 knots, well before the stall warning. It was eye-opening.
@@joelleerickson2642 Assuming you were within CG limits, it's really surprising that you ran out of rudder that far above Vmca (68KIAS for the DA42 TDI or 71KIAS for the DA42 NG). Maybe something else was going on? I'm working on my MEL rating in a DA 42 TDI and sometimes we do Vmca demos with my son sitting in the back and I don't recall running out of rudder above 68 KIAS.
Great video. We have a Baron BE55 that our MEIs use to train. I sent this to them, albeit redundant, it's important to reinforce. Especially, considering the DPE crash some months ago.
Hi Juan, might also consider that they could have done an improper stall recovery instead of the Vmc demo. Private pilots going for their multi have to do stalls to a full break, commercial pilots going for their multi only have to do stalls to the first indication. I don’t know the training program at this school but at ATP when I was there VMC demo was always done to first indication of stall or loss of directional control and the instructor would have to let it go pretty far to get to the spin. Conversely if the student performed an uncoordinated full stall then the risk of spin is a lot higher. Just a thought
they shouldn't be practicing stalls/spins over Newberg. Just north and west of there 5 to 10 miles where it's more unpopulated
Good point. I took multi training in the PA-44 in Long Beach and don't remember doing full stall breaks, either.
@@johndoe-el5ic Be interesting to find out if the passenger was buckled-up.
I am about to do my check ride and everything we were taught is "First indication" in sport pilot. I read somewhere that pushing to full stall was optional. I need to check the PTS as I plan to continue to PPL. I own my light sport hence why I just went that route first
@@Parkhill57If the passenger was not buckled, would they roll/float toward the tail, and would that reduce the leverage of the rudder even more?
I went through training at the former Delta Connections Academy back in 2008. We flew the PA-44 with only one engine providing thrust about 90% of the time. I was also fortunate at the time to take URBAP training for learning update recovery and dealing with spins. I did so many in the Extra 200 they used that I don’t think I did much anything else on that plane other than doing a lot of upside down flying.
I've flown this maneuver as a part of several flight tests and generally the best thing you can do is keep the aircraft as light as possible to give yourself extra margin between VMCA and stall. Generally we will fly a check stall prior to verify the stall speed and then set a KIO speed a few knots above.
For Vmca demos we centre the heading bug and if at any point the yaw brings us out of the bug we execute the recovery. We also do them at around 2000' amsl being natually aspirated engines.
A couple of thoughts.
1. Though we often assume these accidents are Vmc demos the closest I came to getting into a spin in a MEL airplane was with a student doing power off stalls. We were in a Piper Seneca. The student did a power off stall, but added power before fully lowering the nose. Because of this we were below Vmc and… one of the engines “coughed”. In a split second, with one engine operating at full power and the other one idle, we immediately rolled past 90 degrees. In addition, the student tried to raise the falling wing with aileron exacerbating the roll. I was able to yank the throttles to idle and shove the nose forward before a full spin developed. This all happened in the blink of an eye. This was NOT a docile Vmc roll.
2. Spin training for CFIs should include incipient spin recognition and recovery. A fully developed spin in a twin is often unrecoverable. In addition, many spins happen at traffic pattern altitude. Even many single engine airplanes need more than 1000’ to recover from a fully developed spin.
3. As mentioned, having someone in the back while doing Vmc and slow flight/stall training may put you in a position where you can’t recover from a spin. Even some single engine airplanes that can be legally spun such as the Cessna 172 prohibit the aft seats from being occupied while doing spins.
Agree, it's possible it was a power-off stall with a wrong recovery or one engine lagging.
Good post
The Skyhawk indeed specifies Utility cat only for spins..😊
Good point Juan about the aft CG with the rear seat pax. As a long time CFII, I don't even do stalls in a single engine aircraft with someone in the back seat. When I instructed at HAA, I don't think their SOP prohibited it however, and back seating can be helpful in general, but not during stall practice. I'd be curious what ERAU's or ND's policy is.
As usual, great job explaining the events start to unfortunate ending. I am glad one survived, hopefully with a detailed narrative of the whole situation. We all can learn. I am only a simulator pilot with about 300 hours helicopter and about 150 small airplane. It would make sense with your great explanation of events that the spin maneuver should start at a higher elevation in the rule book, along with an even # of people on board for balance and hopefully some age/experienced people on the aircraft. Thanks again.
Interesting Juan,
I didn’t know you attended ATP.
My son is attending ATP right now in Ogden, UT; and he’s in this multi-engine segment of the program, flying Seminoles. His DPE flight is scheduled for Wednesday, and then he’s done with ATP.
Seminoles are tricky little pigs to fly. 🙁
Same type I'm training in. Looks like they were doing basics. Slow flight, stalls.
I wonder if that was a Vmc demo. At least in this airplane the Vmc (88) is above stall speed in steady level flight. But in any case, Vmc demo is recovered at the first sign of loss of directional control or stall warning or buffet.
Edit: I had written this before finishing the video, looks like I had the same thought as Juan, which I'm proud of 😅
Back in the Biplane Sterman days of flying, pilots flying ontop of an overcast would intentionally put their plane into a spin and descend thru the clouds. Obviously hoping or knowing there was VFR Conditions below during recovery.
I did my Commercial and Insturment add on in a Piper Pa-44 Seminole. Its an excellent trainer for two people. A forward CG helps.
In the VMC Demo, the nose is quite high. The key is to slowly apply inputs. Rudder authority alone wont stop a rollover. The quickest recovery method is to lower the nose, reduce power and ailerons netural. Aft CG or any incorrect actions can develope into a uncommanded rollover.
My instructor blocked the rudder pedal and reduced power on good engine to help onset of VMC . Blueline was exactly where you needed to be for safe single engine operation.
Doing spins in a Citribra we would lose 1000 feet each full revolution. This is why doing VMC Demos its critical to start 5000 AGL for safety margins.
When I used to give multi engine instruction I would limit the rudder travel as you described Juan. I also kept my hands on the mixtures in case the person receiving instruction wasn’t fast enough recognizing the airplane approaching a stall during the Vmc demo. Fortunately I never had to pull the mixture but was ready to do so. The twin I used to give instruction in had a prohibition against power on stalls in the POH. I also used to do this approximately 6000’ AGL. I wanted the extra altitude, however, there is also a risk with this because a naturally aspirated engine produces less power the higher you go bringing Vmc speed closer to the critical angle of attack for a stall.
I got my ATP license in a Seminole with ATP in Dallas, Texas in 1987.....although I had about 1,000 or so hours of multi engine time back then, (mostly hauling cancelled checks and air freight), I had only flown a Seminole once or twice before showing up at the school to get my ATP. I remember during the checkride, the examiner gave me an engine out at the very beginning of the recovery from a power off stall, we hadn't practiced that during the training, but nothing to do but lower the nose and get some airspeed back, and slowly bring up the power on the good engine. I guess I did okay because I left that day with a new license in my pocket.
My thoughts and prayers for the speedy recovery of the injured person and with the families of those who perished.
Great video Juan.
Excellent report Juan.
RIP.
Thanks Juan, Flying light twins is always changeling.
I’ve been waiting for your video on this one. I was surprised at the lack of apparent, based on the short video, attempt to arrest the spin.
Thought that myself.
Dang! I watched this plane on Saturday afternoon 10/1 doing touch & go's at the Scappoose airport. We were out for a walk nearby and I noticed it circling around. I made note it was a good looking plane with its graphics. I have no idea if the same people were flying as were on the accident day. FWIW, they seemed to be doing well - stable landings, etc.
On this airplane does the fact that it is a T tail make spin recovery, once it has started, much more difficult (or almost impossible)? If so, maybe this isn't the best type of aircraft to teach Vmc maneuvering.
I agree with you in a certain way. If you enter a normal spin in a T-tail airplane, it behaves mostly as another airplane and recovery should be the same… BUT T-tails are especially more prone to enter a FLAT spin. The reason for a flat spin is that the wing can masks the airflow on the empennage (which is not the case in a regular spin), therefore you are not able to pitch down because the empennage is totally ineffective. In a glider, if you enter a flat spin, the only device which can save you is the parachute and jumping out, inside the spin. If you jump outside the spin you may be hit by the outside wing while free falling (because of the rotation), and don’t open your parachute close to your airplane (glider)! With engines and no parachute required/present on powered airplanes (beside aerobatic and military airplanes), your only chance is to use your engines/propeller to try to “break” the flat spin, to bring it to a “normal” spin (by changing the power accordingly on each engines if it was just a demonstration and on the only engine if it was a real engine failure), therefore changing the attitude and rotation of the twin powered airplane (in a single engine, the torque of the propeller should be considered). Then, once the empennage recovers its effectiveness, you can proceed to a regular spin recovery by finally being able to pitching down to decrease your angle of attack, and then stopping the rotation with the rudder followed by a smooth pitch up recovery once you gain speed and lift (out of the stall in short, and smooth because you don’t want a secondary stall or exceed the positive G force that your airplane is limited to)… but you will need a lot of altitude to do so! A flat spin is generally deadly, unfortunately, and T-tails are more prone to it. Therefore spin training in a T-tail is only risky because of the possibility of entering a flat spin.
So, I agree with your opinion. No spin training or Vmc demonstrations should be made in a T-tail, because of this possible risk.
@@Speedbird61 T-tails might be susceptible to blanking in a deep stall, but I don't think that's what happened here. You can see in the video that the plane has a pretty steep nose-down attitude. It's not a flat spin. Barons, on the other hand, are susceptible to flat spins and they do not have a T-tail.
@@igclapp You may be right that it is not what happened in this case, but you cannot tell if it was a flat spin or not by just watching a video. A flat spin doesn’t mean the airplane has to be “flat” in its attitude (looking at the video that I checked too). A flat spin, as I tried to describe, happened when the empennage doesn’t get any airflow because of the stalled wing masking the airflow to the empennage, at a certain relative airflow angle between the two. The plane can still be in a pitch down attitude and still be in a flat spin situation. By looking at the video, it seems that the airplane, as you said, has a pretty nose down attitude, but it doesn’t mean that a flat spin couldn’t have occurred. When you are in a regular established spin (more than one turn), any pilot should be able to recover from it by using the rudder to stop the rotation, unless the rudder got stuck for any mechanical reason or rendered useless due to aerodynamic reason. In a flat spin, the rudder can also have its airflow masked by the stalled wing. That’s why a flat spin is not a spin that you want to “experience”, because you can have the all tail section controls useless. That’s why I thought immediately about a flat spin situation, where only the propellers effects could save you (not the same in a jet because of the cavitation of your jet engines, which gives you a weird and non classical spin if you still have some power: up and down attitude cycle, and irregular spin rotation while still being in a spin or a flat spin. I watched a video of this happening in a military jet, with a cockpit POV, during my military pilot training a while ago; not what you expect to see while being in a spin).
But again, it may not be a flat spin case in this accident. It was just an “idea” for why the pilots (especially the instructor) couldn’t at least stop the rotation while being in this established spin. Any spin is recoverable, but not a flat spin (or at least not that easy in powered airplanes, and mostly impossible in a glider).
Hopefully, the NTSB will be able to explain this unfortunate accident.
My instructor (40 years ago) was one that insisted on spin training. The most we could get out of the 152 with our big selves was about half, maybe 3/4 of a turn. Still learned the signs of departure but we'd milked that thing up high and I wanted a turn or two.
A lot tamer than a Seminole I guess. Very educational.
Closed my eyes and listened to you repeating the single spin recovery in the T-37. Brings back memories of UPT EP standup. Vance 78-04.
I've flown in and out of Hillsboro a lot during flight training because it's the closest controlled runway that's not super busy. Most of the traffic there is actually training aircraft. Super saddening to see something like this always, but worse when it's so close to home
I grew up in Hillsboro and did my first few lessons at Twin Oaks. Trying to figure out why they were doing manuevers so close to Newberg. It seems like going down towards St Paul and the practice area would have been better. Hits very close to home as I’m in flight school in Central Oregon currently. 😔
@@corey97140 Twin Oaks is also where I started, been on a hiatus due to an ankle injury but can't wait to return! We would usually fly to Hillsboro or Aurora for ATC practice as well, most of the in flight related stuff was over Newberg/McMinnville area
I refuse to intentionally fly there. The ATC is always comparable to someone in training also.
Dangerous.
We call it Hillsburito for a reason.
This would be a good one for Probable cause to investigate.
First impression at flight school.
Where's the adults!
@@corey97140 Im doing my training down in Southern Oregon ... about to take my check ride in my light sport then Gyro cert. Only been to Cave Junction 3S4, Roseburg RBG, GP 3S8, MFR , Siskiyou SIY , Scott Valley A30. People ask how I watch this vids and still climb in the cockpit.
@@michaelpilot1000 Oregon in general is kinda if you talk with a deep voice your a good guy! Sorry Juan (I'm from Central Oregon) Maybe I just described most of the USA lol. Now I'm living in a much more rule happy area so that's just a hot take.
Spins are required in Canada for the PPL, and I am thankful to have received the training, without which pilots succumb to the instinctual behavior of using opposite aileron.
He didn't say that!@@johndoe-el5ic
@@johndoe-el5icHe said PPL, not MEL.
So sad this crash. When I was doing my VFR solo practice in a 150, power-off stall recovery, I climbed to 7000 ft AGL for an extra margin of safety. Did drop into 1 1/2 turns of spin by accident but did not sweat it. Just folowed my training instantly by the book. . Green fields spinning was quite a sight.
Thank you for your excellent channel.
The plane falling from the sky like that is so sad. :-(
Very sad to hear that two of the people on the plane lost their lives. At least one survived and also nobody in the house was injured.
My instructor put me under the hood and then initiated a 'death' spiral. He then asked me how I felt the plane was flying and I replied: Feels straight and normal--then I lifted the hood and saw we were nose down looking at the ground going in circles! My senses lied to me! A lesson I will never forget.
WOW
Yep, that is a standard part of training. We put you into a "graveyard spiral" to make sure that you understand how your vestibular and kinesthetic system can lie to you. If you are in a coordinated steady turn for a while the fluid in your inner ear (vestibular system) eventually stops moving which makes it so that your brain stops getting the message that your orientation is changing.
You were definitely NOT in a spin.
Currently doing my Multi engine training in a Seminole. My instructor allows full rudder deflection during Vmc demo. We promptly recover at either first indication of a stall or when directional control is lost and the yaw is uncontrollable, which ever occurs first. It’s about 50/50 on which occurs first. We recover by pitching down and pulling power to idle simultaneously.
I'm a student at the same school. That aircraft was not in good condition with consistent engine problems. It was the one PA-44 you never wanted to get scheduled in.
If you really believe that, you should tell it to the NTSB, not TH-cam.
Thanks Juan! Really appreciate these videos and your insight!
If I understand you correctly, there is a minimum altitude at which to perform this type of training. With that in mind, I would certainly look to go quite a bit higher to add as much safety factor as possible.
As you get higher in altitude the speed at which you stall also increases. It’s about a happy medium. 6000-5000 feet should’ve been plenty of room to recover but when the plane in VMCA yaws in a PA44 while fairly benign if it does go into a snap spin which is the characteristic of a VCMA roll. Once the spin is induced the PA44 has a very large vertical stabilizer and a very small rudder in comparison. Recovery from a fully developed spin with low rudder authority in a PA44 can be difficult as it stands. Remember that the rudder is still essentially a wing, it has a critical angle of attack.
At ERAU in the late 80s we used to call this thing "brick with wings", flying pig, seaman (mis-spelled) hole, etc. I never felt safe flying this thing during Vmc demos or any other phase of flight, and much prefer single engine aircraft.
The VMC demo in a light twin is a very demanding maneuver for both the pilot trainee and the flight instructor. The PA-44 does give lots of warning before loss of control, but immediate corrective control inputs are required regain full control. When I was training in a Piper Navajo PA-31, the VMC demo was down-right scary! So, the moral of the story in a light twin doing VMC demo, watch your airspeed, watch your airspeed, and watch your airspeed some more. That little red line on the airspeed indicator really means something………
Doesn't the PA-44 stall before it reaches Vmca in the clean configuration? In fact one of the perhaps negative points about the PA-44 is that a student does not get to experience the warning signs of a lack of directional control before the plane stalls.
@@igclapp Hey igclapp, the PA-44 is very close to a stall, depending on the CG, when doing a VMC demo. This is probably what happen with the crash in Newberg Oregon. But this is just a guess on my part!
My question is, how much actual spin recovery training did the flight instructor have during his initial CFI training? Spin and spin recoveries training is a requirement for the CFI rating. I went through extensive spin and spin recovery training during my initial CFI training. And yes, I did have students put the aircraft in a spin during flight training. It’s not a requirement to have spin training for the private or commercial pilot license, but I always taught spin recoveries to my students. This way my students could recognize what a spin was and how to recover from them during stall training. Thanks for your great comments.
We used to half block the rudder. (BE-95 bad Vmc Stall spin record as is PA-30s) Also note low temperature changes the power available scenario where a stall could happen first
The roof of that house seemed to break the impact somewhat, and has to be the only reason anyone was able to survive it.
Would weight in the back (pax) in a twin make it harder to pull out from a spin ?
In Canada we are required to spin (learn to get out of one) for PPL but a demonstration is not required to the TC examiner. When ever a spin lesson is scheduled instruction are to have no weight in the back of the Cessna 172.
2016 in Sweden, a DA42 entered a flat spin and crashed into trees without recovery. All 3 onboard survived with serious injuries(report in comment below). Early this year in Norway a similar scenario on a da42 with 2-3 onboard but none survived. Also crashed into a wooded area, but possibly some variables were different.
The common factor in all these accidents is three people aboard. That shifts the CG aft, making spin recovery more difficult.
As an MEI I have done EXACTLY what you mentioned. BLOCK THE RUDDER to avoid getting too close to stall speed! Additionally I’d be concerned about CG as well. From my time instructing in the pa44 I vaguely remember it being typically forward in the envelope but time will tell for this accident.
I note that all three occupants were very young, with not many flight hours.
That may be a factor in this loss of control, and failure to recover.
Not much experience on board here.
They also have training schools in Redmond, OR, and Medford OR. They probably have close to 30 aircraft working and in the sky on any given day.
Man it sure does feel like we've had a huge glut of fatal GA accidents recently.
Anyone know if there has actually been a noticeable spike? Or does it just feel that way because Juan has been doing such a great job reporting on them?
No data to back this up, but the rush of airline hiring (and high starting salaries) seems to be pushing through a lot of folks who are into aviation as a job, not a passion. (Not long ago, a path down commercial pilot route wasn't glamorous and attracted those who genuinely loved he profession.) And then add to that the absolute min experience at every step of the process, and it's a recipe for disaster.
I think people are simply flying a lot more hours these days than they were a couple years ago. So even if the accident rate is the same, the number of accidents is higher.
Whoa! That's less than half an hour from me. I fly in and out of that airport all the time in flight sim😮 Spruce Goose just a few miles from there.
Is there any effect on a pilot-in-training Juan, when practicing recoveries of this sort, IF that's what turns out to have caused this accident, when practicing in a regular twin-engine craft, and a counter-rotating prop craft? And could an initial, wrong rudder input, or any other for that matter, maybe cause a spin such as this to happen much faster that expected?
Or is there really no difference at all?
Counter-rotating props mean no critical engine. The only difference is that you don't need to worry about which engine you're working with, allowing you to practice with both. But it actually makes the plane a little safer (especially if you have a real engine failure), at the expense of higher maintenance costs since you need parts for two different engines instead of just one.
I hated working on our flight school's Beech Duchess right engine, I had to think twice about everything.@@ModernClassic
I had the chance to fly a Twin Comanche while working on my Commercial ticket back in the '80's. When I saw VMC listed as 90mph, but a recommended speed of 97 during training, and did some quick math on the performance chart, I passed.
The flight school had a Champion Lancer twin as well. If you lost an engine on it, you had to look for a soft spot to go through the trees.