Old thread. but nevertheless, maybe this will benefit a young CFI applicant.
I have been teaching CFI spin training for 7 or so years. I cringe when I hear about the 2 turn endorsements, in fact I think the FAA should give regulatory guidance similar to the tailwheel endorsement in 61.31(i), outlining specifics. But we know the FAR's are the minimums anyways so we can accept that we ourselves are responsible for acquiring adequate training.
The regulation requires two things:
1. Competency
2. Instructional Proficiency
These are two separate things and oftentimes competency takes the majority of the first flight to obtain.
Instructional Proficiency can be aided by an extensive briefing and debriefing on the ground.
14 CFR 61.183(i)(1) "(1) Receive a logbook endorsement from an authorized instructor indicating that the applicant is competent and possesses instructional proficiency in stall awareness, spin entry, spins, and spin recovery procedures"
AC 61-67 has some additional suggestions:
1. Approved airplane
2. Power on and off stalls
3. Recovery above 3,500' AGL
4. Stalls and slow flight utilizing realistic distractions. The performance is unsatisfactory if the CFI has to take controls to avoid a developed spin.
5. Incipient spins from power on and off approaches in both directions with the applicant teaching through the recovery.
6. Fully developed recovery within one full rotation.
Finally, I take additional guidance from a 141 spin training program I taught. The FAA approved it so it must be reasonably in-line with what they want.
This particular 141 program approved a syllabus requiring 6 total spins for commercial applicants, not CFI applicants. So we can conclude a CFI applicant should have more training than a commercial applicant.
What I do for the ground:
Extensive conversation about stall/spin aerodynamics, effects on coefficient of lift/drag in a stall, load factor and stall speed, AC 61-67, spin ingredients, phases, and recovery until I am satisfied they could teach it.
What I do for the flight:
Note: I do not move on from a maneuver until competency and instructional proficiency is demonstrated.
- Slow flight with significant distractions (biggest training potential to reduce accidental stall/spin.. see
- Power on/off stalls with distractions
- Accelerated stalls with different bank angles, noting the stall speed.
- Falling leaf
- I demonstrate one incipient spin and recovery.
- Incipient, power-off spins. (simplest recovery to start)
- Incipient, power-on spins.
- Fully developed and spirals both directions until they can recover safely with zero intervention, even verbal.
- Precision spins (attempt to stop on a heading, makes their recovery much more efficient, will cut down the lag time of thinking what to do by 0.5-2.0 seconds in my experience)
- Foggles recovery of a spin(like unusual attitudes sorta)(use turn coordinator to determine direction of spin)
- Finally I pretend to be a student and botch a stall and freeze on the controls and make them push my hand off the controls and recover
- On the way back we talk about the goal of a CFI to create a safe environment for students to fail until they start succeeding and escalation of intervention in various situations.
In conclusion, there are three things that we can do to mitigate stall/spin accidents:
1. Warn the pilot (stall horn is probably on your TCDS)
2. Design stall resistant aircraft (localized flow separation, etc)
3. Train the pilot - one within our control!
Keep training your knowledge and skill no matter if you are a student pilot or Bob Hoover.
