Aerobatic/spin instruction for presolo student pilot

[Pinecone]

You're correct; I was thinking 2 years to mission ready. The rating takes about one year of full time training.

Not sure of the timing now, but when I did it, UPT was 11 months from arrival day to graduation day. Almost to the day. That did not include FSP if you needed to do that.

IIRC FSP was 4 or 5 weeks, but due to timing, there could be a break between it and UPT. Active duty USAF that did not come from ROTC or USAFA did FSP before OTS in those days. I was ANG, so we did ANG commissioning, then TSP, then UPT. I was commissioned on Sept 18, 1981, arrival date at UPT was November 25 (stupid, we arrived the day before Thanksgiving, had Thanksgiving off, then had to work on Friday, but the base was pretty much closed. So there was a two month gap that would have included FSP.

I was exempt from FSP due to having my PPL.

 

[Pinecone]

One thing often forgotten about USAF pilot training is that the students have already done a screening program roughly analogous to a PPL pre-solo curriculum before starting UPT. I see a lot of value in a curriculum that integrates basic aerobatics and spin training similar to UPT. It does require all the flying be done in an aircraft capable of such flying. A 152 aerobat probably being the cheapest option and a CFI who knows what he’s doing for this type of training. The result will be a pilot who will more readily recognize an impending departure from controlled flight and be confident of his ability to recover. The FAA’s PPL standards shoot for a pilot who stays solidly in the middle of the envelope and has an academic knowledge of why he wants to stay away from the rest of the envelope.

Dudley is entirely correct that most PPL students have neither the financial resources, regular/consistent time for training, proper aircraft, or instructor availability to pursue training like the military does. The OP would probably be best served pursuing the traditional civilian path and pursuing aerobatic flight after earning the PPL.

Agreed. But no reason the a few hours of aerobatic and spin training could not be done in something other than the same training aircraft used. So train in a C172/PA-28 and do a couple of hours along the way in a Citabria or Decathlon for that part.

And yes, as I mention in my other post, USAF does FSP (I think it is called ISP now) unless they have PPL.

USN used to start candidates in the T-34C, which included basic instrument, formation, and aerobatics. Then they split the into jets or multi engine. USAF did not do a two track system until the late 80s or early 90s.

 

[Pinecone]

The most important reason is that in order for aerobatics and spins be fully understood and performed, there is a requirement that certain "nuances" pertaining to control use vs changing airspeed and dynamic pressure in a constantly changing g environment be understood for the training to be optimized. This involves by strange circumstance EXACTLY what is being MISSED during the pre-solo dual period by a student taking this advanced training; that being the foundation formed by the student related to gaining the required "feel" for the aircraft being used for dual instruction. In other words, the basics that form the very foundation for any advanced handling of the aircraft are being neglected. The student in turn will be EXTREMELY susceptible to rote performance of these advanced maneuvers. This is NOT optimized flight instruction for a civilian student. In all to many cases it has been my experience as an aerobatic instructor that placing a student pilot into an aerobatic environment before a basic flying skill set has had time to be implanted can actually be counterproductive to the student.
A residual reason for not doing this is that it is not financially responsible as that relates to the student's time spent in dual session before solo. There will be plenty of time for the student to be acclimated into advanced maneuvers after the building of a solid foundation of the basics has been secured.
Dudley Henriques

That is exactly why the SHOULD have some aerobatic/spin training. Because it IS missed during the standard civilian training program. And why the USAF and USN teach ALL pilots basic aerobatics and spins pre-solo. Even if they will eventually be flying B-52s.

 

[Dudley Henriques]

That is exactly why the SHOULD have some aerobatic/spin training. Because it IS missed during the standard civilian training program. And why the USAF and USN teach ALL pilots basic aerobatics and spins pre-solo. Even if they will eventually be flying B-52s.

You seem to have not one but two subjects intertwined here.
If the discussion concerns every pilot gaining a benefit from aerobatic training I completely agree. In fact I have advocated for this training for many years and in fact specialized in teaching it.
The pre-solo question is quite another matter.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion on that and I see you have yours and I have mine. I will never agree to either aerobatic training or spin training before solo for the reasons I have already stated.
Instead of going on and on in endless argument on that issue I think I'm safe in dealing with it from an alternate perspective.
The bottom line on aerobatics and spin training before solo is already a moot point. Aside from the odd CFI who would implement this training on their own, in the general context, "It simply ain't gonna happen".

Here below is a major article I did for Airshow News that addresses the general subject of aerobatics for the everyday pilot.
I hope it serves toward a better total understanding of this very important issue.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8...ive_link&resourcekey=0-YTnnqSYDU__dXi6BrUx7ow
Dudley Henriques

 

[Dudley Henriques]

Agreed. But no reason the a few hours of aerobatic and spin training could not be done in something other than the same training aircraft used. So train in a C172/PA-28 and do a couple of hours along the way in a Citabria or Decathlon for that part.

You seem to keep coming back to a comparison between military and civilian flight training. Trust me on this one. You simply can't make that comparison work. The two student bases can't be compared unless you force the comparison. It's like sticking an F16 and a Cessna 152 on a Ps plot for comparison.
I know very few competent instructors who would advocate switching aircraft on a student during the pre-solo dual period. This is the exact period when a new student is becoming acclimated to the control pressures required to fly the aircraft that will be used to solo that student. Switching airplanes during this extremely important time is extremely counter productive for the student.........not to mention throwing the student into unusual attitudes and tasking the student to handle the airplane in an advanced manner even before the student has secured the basics.

The period of dual being received before solo is carefully designed to allow the student the time required to build basic flying skills and confidence......and yes, I fully understand your feeling that aerobatics and spin training builds confidence.....but the average student isn't ready to develop that level of confidence yet.
Comparing the civilian student pilot to the military counterpart simply doesn't work. The military pilot trainee is an extremely motivated individual who has gone through a highly competitive process to even be there to receive training. The training is provided in a highly controlled environment where time spent is regimented to a high degree. It's TOTALLY different for the civilian student who could be anything from a teenager to an engineer with Mrs. Jones the local librarian thrown in for good measure.
The civilian could be enrolled in a program ranging from a once a week 1 hour dual session at a local grass field with a local FBO running a Part 61 operation or a student enrolled in a Part 141 operation cramming to complete a PPL in a month.
The bottom line is you simply can't compare a military flight training program to a civilian flight training program. Of course you can try.......but you do so at your own peril........or I should say.....the student's peril.
Dudley Henriques

 

[Ed Haywood]

I assume there is also some deliberate attrition baked into military flight training. If someone is unable to control their fear, best to weed them out before too much money is expended training them. A little aggressive acro early in the POI is a pretty good way to see who is flying scared.

 

[Dudley Henriques]

I assume there is also some deliberate attrition baked into military flight training. If someone is unable to control their fear, best to weed them out before too much money is expended training them. A little aggressive acro early in the POI is a pretty good way to see who is flying scared.

Exactly ! And THIS is an excellent example of the major difference between the military and civilian flight training programs. From the instant a candidate enters military flight training the military demands a positive incentive openly demonstrated 24/7 by the candidate to remain in the program. There are literally a thousand ways one can lose their spot and no shortage of these ways put as obstacles in front of the candidate. It's the ultimate dichotomy where the military doesn't really want you to fail but won't do anything at all to actively prevent you from failing.
The bottom line there is that the military spends a fortune training you to fly and their bottom line is that at the end of the trail they don't want any losers on board.
I won't go so far as to suggest that aerobatics are entered into this equation early on to flush out the weak but I will say from personal experience knowing many MANY military pilots that after a few rounds of Jeremiah Weed I have heard far more specific opinion given by those in the know. )))))))
Dudley Henriques

 

[Pinecone]

Molst of the weeding out occurs before you get to UPT. Some of that is flying based in ISP, but a lot is the selection process.

I saw almost no one get weeded out in UPT due to flying ability. Some on academics. Some just decided they didn't want to do it. A few came close. Maybe some of those the quit figured they would flunk out if they continued.

The procedure in UPT (when I went through) was that you had 6 total check rides. Each one was coded as a xx87 flight. If you failed, you got a recheck, an xx88 ride. And if you failed that, you did an xx89 ride. If you failed that, you went before a Flying Evaluation Board to determine if you stayed or not. One person in my class actually failed an xx89 ride, but was retained and graduated. He had been prior enlisted as a C-130 crew chief. All he wanted to do was to fly the C-130. He failed his formation check ride (barely) and the FEB allowed him to continue and graduate and go on to fly C-130s.

I see what you are saying, but I feel the advantages are there. You are not teaching the student to take off and land the aerobatic aircraft. But obviously the best case would be the primary trainer be aerobatic.

And I am not saying teach hard core aerobatics. But things like rolls (aileron and barrel), loops, slicebacks, pitchbacks, cloverleafs. Several of these are advanced coordination training and flying the airplane to make it do what you want it to do.

 

[Dudley Henriques]

Molst of the weeding out occurs before you get to UPT. Some of that is flying based in ISP, but a lot is the selection process.

I saw almost no one get weeded out in UPT due to flying ability. Some on academics. Some just decided they didn't want to do it. A few came close. Maybe some of those the quit figured they would flunk out if they continued.

The procedure in UPT (when I went through) was that you had 6 total check rides. Each one was coded as a xx87 flight. If you failed, you got a recheck, an xx88 ride. And if you failed that, you did an xx89 ride. If you failed that, you went before a Flying Evaluation Board to determine if you stayed or not. One person in my class actually failed an xx89 ride, but was retained and graduated. He had been prior enlisted as a C-130 crew chief. All he wanted to do was to fly the C-130. He failed his formation check ride (barely) and the FEB allowed him to continue and graduate and go on to fly C-130s.

I see what you are saying, but I feel the advantages are there. You are not teaching the student to take off and land the aerobatic aircraft. But obviously the best case would be the primary trainer be aerobatic.

And I am not saying teach hard core aerobatics. But things like rolls (aileron and barrel), loops, slicebacks, pitchbacks, cloverleafs. Several of these are advanced coordination training and flying the airplane to make it do what you want it to do.

I understand really. And I'm sure there is a viable argument to be made on the military side of the equation.
But the civilian side is filled with ruts and potholes due to the extreme variety found in the student base.
The industry has discovered over many many years of experimentation that the injection of ANY type of unusual attitudes into a pre-solo period is counter productive. I'll give you this much. As an aerobatic instructor myself I can tell you that there certainly ARE specific students out there who could take on some basic acro pre-solo and benefit from that training. But as a general rule for the student community it's simply a bad idea. You have to consider the mean average when talking about this kind of thing and how it would play in the general population. Trust me. I've been at this game for a LOT of years and not just as an instructor. I've studied the problems associated with flight instruction and training and written and lectured on the issues at the highest level. I think I know the issue fairly well.
(So much for my glorious and illustrious career. I'm sure yours has been equally productive.
Remembering back a bit I was doing research at the time the FAA was experimenting with the spin question. Spins were actually a normal inclusive maneuver before 1949. Then the powers that be decided to emphasize stall avoidance. The result has been an entire generation of instructors who have varying degrees of fear of spins. Then you have the fact that depending on the airplane being used the recovery technique can be either P.A.R.E or Beggs Mueller. Then there's the oddball FBO who worries about the gyro instruments and not to even mention the insurance companies taking a LONG look at any flight school offering spin training to student pilots.
And so it goes......on and on. I've seen it all in the 60 odd years I've been involved in flight safety.
My recommendation to the civilian pilot market is this;
Get your PPL at a competent flight school with a competent instructor. THEN, after you have cemented the basics, go seek out a competent school that offers aerobatics in certified airplanes with competent aerobatic instructors. Get that spin training and some basic aerobatics as well. If you never do another spin or another aerobatic maneuver I guarantee you you will be a better straight and level pilot than you were before you took this training.
Dudley Henriques

 

[Ryan F.]

There's absolutely, positively a great benefit to be had by receiving instruction from a competent and experienced instructor on spin recoveries at ANY time during a pilot's training arc. (For the nitpickers, no, this doesn't mean during hours one through five-ish, or on a discovery flight... obviously. But pre-solo at an appropriate time? That's certainly a GREAT time to spin a willing student.)

The answer is always "yes." While it's clear that due to various reasons, to include financial and time considerations, comprehensive spin training can't always be a part of a student pilot's curriculum, it's highly advisable to seek this training out from an instructor who has the right knowledge, experience, and equipment to offer it safely.

Once upon a time I taught a specialized spin and upset recovery course. I saw confidence and airmanship skyrocket across every single one of those students by the time they were done. The training demystifies a disconcerting portion of the flight envelope and improves stick and rudder skills across the board.

I really can't recommend it highly enough. Spin/upset and basic acro, along with tailwheel flying, are the single biggest bang-for-the-buck improvements to airmanship for your training dollar.

 

[Dudley Henriques]

There's absolutely, positively a great benefit to be had by receiving instruction from a competent and experienced instructor on spin recoveries at ANY time during a pilot's training arc. (For the nitpickers, no, this doesn't mean during hours one through five-ish, or on a discovery flight... obviously. But pre-solo at an appropriate time? That's certainly a GREAT time to spin a willing student.)

The answer is always "yes." While it's clear that due to various reasons, to include financial and time considerations, comprehensive spin training can't always be a part of a student pilot's curriculum, it's highly advisable to seek this training out from an instructor who has the right knowledge, experience, and equipment to offer it safely.

Once upon a time I taught a specialized spin and upset recovery course. I saw confidence and airmanship skyrocket across every single one of those students by the time they were done. The training demystifies a disconcerting portion of the flight envelope and improves stick and rudder skills across the board.

I really can't recommend it highly enough. Spin/upset and basic acro, along with tailwheel flying, are the single biggest bang-for-the-buck improvements to airmanship for your training dollar.

Apparently we keep coming back to the same area of confusion on this issue; that being whether aerobatic training is beneficial (it certainly is) vs the introduction to aerobatics by an instructor during the period before solo flight has been achieved by a student pilot.
I for one am ONLY addressing the question of inclusion of aerobatics and spin training into the pre-solo curriculum for civilian student pilots. My position on this is quite clear. I do NOT believe this is beneficial to the student if such training is introduced at this time on the learning curve.
I DO however HIGHLY recommend this training to every pilot if introduced into the pilot's skill set at the proper time.

On a forum such as this one you will get a wide variety of opinion on these issues. It should be noted that regardless of the experience of the pilots offering these opinions, my own included, they are simply individual opinions.
What I would appreciate viewing on this issue would be some "official" backup . I'd like to see for example, some credible reference to ANY accepted training manual that recommends aerobatic training to a student pilot before solo stating the benefit of this training to the student.
Next, I would like to see some "official" material from an accredited flight school either Part 61 or Part 141 that offers aerobatic training BEFORE SOLO and recommends it as part of the school's training curriculum.
Next I would like to see the official FAA position on why aerobatics don't appear in the ACS. (And this goes all the way through certification let alone as recommended before solo). My "opinion" on this would be that the FAA feels officially that aerobatics are fine but have no place in the pre-solo curriculum. Pre-solo dual is best spent learning what will be needed when solo has been reached. If learning aerobatics was considered beneficial at the pre-solo stage.....one might reasonably think that SOMEBODY would be officially recommending its inclusion in the pre-solo period.

So there it is people. If you want definitive answers get down to the official sources and consider opinions as simply opinions.
Dudley Henriques

 

[Ryan F.]

Hello Dudley,

I agree - it is subjective. This is a matter of opinions and experience, not official guidance. I think there are many valid and potentially divergent views on this subject.

I'm fully in favor of the current methodology on minimum required training for stall and spin awareness. Short of a CFI track, demonstrating spins aren't required, nor should they be. That "skill" has left the building for the GA training industry as a whole, and for the most part this training is now a specialty product. It should only be provided by those who place a focus on this sort of airmanship development.

I'm of the opinion that "light" encouragement towards stall/spin awareness, and yes, basic acro (a roll and a loop to be thrown in with the focal point, stall/spin and upset recovery) is appropriate for a student at any level, again with my early caveat that we may be looking pre-solo but certainly not while the learner is still absorbing how to perform straight and level flight, coordinated turns, etc.

This sort of training must be sought by the pilot; it can't be required or pushed beyond a light touch. This is an area of anxiety for many pilots as evidenced by some comments on this thread. If they don't want to spin, they shouldn't have to spin. I've seen dozens of pilots at all skill levels go through a basic stall/spin and upset recovery course and had their airmanship turbocharged as a result. That includes student pilots, some pre-solo. Never a negative outcome. That's my experience and my opinion speaking, nothing else.

 

[Dudley Henriques]

Hello Dudley,

I agree - it is subjective. This is a matter of opinions and experience, not official guidance. I think there are many valid and potentially divergent views on this subject.

I'm fully in favor of the current methodology on minimum required training for stall and spin awareness. Short of a CFI track, demonstrating spins aren't required, nor should they be. That "skill" has left the building for the GA training industry as a whole, and for the most part this training is now a specialty product. It should only be provided by those who place a focus on this sort of airmanship development.

I'm of the opinion that "light" encouragement towards stall/spin awareness, and yes, basic acro (a roll and a loop to be thrown in with the focal point, stall/spin and upset recovery) is appropriate for a student at any level, again with my early caveat that we may be looking pre-solo but certainly not while the learner is still absorbing how to perform straight and level flight, coordinated turns, etc.

This sort of training must be sought by the pilot; it can't be required or pushed beyond a light touch. This is an area of anxiety for many pilots as evidenced by some comments on this thread. If they don't want to spin, they shouldn't have to spin. I've seen dozens of pilots at all skill levels go through a basic stall/spin and upset recovery course and had their airmanship turbocharged as a result. That includes student pilots, some pre-solo. Never a negative outcome. That's my experience and my opinion speaking, nothing else.

I totally understand your position.
Actually, I am one of the loudest voices for inclusion of aerobatics, spin training, and upset training for pilots on the world stage. I've worked in this area of interest now for many years and my articles on the subject have been distributed world wide.
I am a strong proponent of encouraging instructors to "teach beyond the flight test" and this philosophy is one I have championed for many years, the goal being to encourage instructors to themselves become more comfortable with stalls, especially accelerated stall where the real danger lies.
During my tenure I worked closely with Gen Des Barker of the SAAF on back engineering many of the world's serious airshow accidents with our goal being to help improve the safety issue. I believe we did good work.
On the stall issue I'd like to see more emphasis placed on stall above 1g. Although we do have some of this in play now I'd like to see the CFI community more proficient and more comfortable with advanced stalls. I have approached this directly with the instructor community and have seen some improvement in this area.
What is required now to obtain PPL certification is fine. I simply advise all pilots after certification to seek out and obtain some "advanced" training in stalls and yes, in aerobatics as well.
The bottom line I believe is that the system will never be perfect. The best we can achieve is to do the best we can using the available tools we have while at the same time providing advanced advice and training to the pilot community.
I work very hard in this area as I'm certain you do as well.
Dudley Henriques

 

[Gilbert Buettner]

Well, this thread has been a fun read. Let's turn on the "way back machine."

One thing often forgotten about USAF pilot training is that the students have already done a screening program roughly analogous to a PPL pre-solo curriculum before starting UPT.

I trained in Air Force UPT in 1968-69. I had ZERO training prior to arriving at my training base. Pre-solo curriculum? They clearly told us they did not want students who had any exposure to aviation ahead of time because they believed bad habits would be hard to break.

That is exactly why the SHOULD have some aerobatic/spin training. Because it IS missed during the standard civilian training program. And why the USAF and USN teach ALL pilots basic aerobatics and spins pre-solo.

Not in my time. We had to solo in ten hours, or we'd be invited to leave and become a missile launch officer in North Dakota, or other such assignment away from airplanes. Aerobatic maneuvers and spins were done in T-37s long after solo in the T-41A.

 

[Pinecone]

I was a bit later than Gil. But while most people had time in T-41A (centralized to Hondo TX) or had their PP, there were a number in my class that did not. Their first flight at the controls was in a T-37. Over time the USAF had some form of primary training in a piston plane, but occasionally did not. IIRC, sometime after Gil, they did away with the T-41 flying, but then reinstituted it as it was very good in weeding out those that would not make it through the whole program.

But the program was not there as a stepping stone, it was there to weed out those who could not get over airsickness or just were not going to be able to fly jets.

I had my PP, so I skipped the trip to Hondo and flying the T-41A.

 

[Gilbert Buettner]

In my day, each UPT base had their own T-41s. Ours were at Casa Grande, Arizona, about a half hour bus ride from Williams AFB.

 

[RussR]

In my day, each UPT base had their own T-41s. Ours were at Casa Grande, Arizona, about a half hour bus ride from Williams AFB.

I have been to Williams AFB three times.

- Once, in about 1991 or 1992, for some kind of a physical fitness test. It was an AFB at that time.
- Then next in 1995, I was doing a tailwheel endorsement out of FFZ. We headed over to IWA for pattern work, since it had closed by then and there was NO traffic. 3 giant runways all for our use in the Citabria. Tons of room to practice. Totally deserted. I don't think there was even a tower there at the time, but I could be wrong about that.
- The third time was just last week, stopped for fuel and lunch in the work plane. Oh man how it's changed! Lots going on. Pretty amazing what almost 30 years will do.