Everyone should be taught how to do spins and spin recovery.

[azure]

Not sure what you mean there... In my experience you have hold aggressive control inputs in a 152 and 172 just to start and maintain a spin.

I suspect he meant that spam cans without a Utility category are substandard, and many airplanes are certified today without such a category and that FAA removed the requirement to allow or encourage companies to market more such airplanes.

Even my 1976 Cardinal RG has no Utility category and has a prominent warning in the POH that intentional spins are prohibited (unintentional ones, of course, are just fine ).

On whether the spin training requirement should have continued, I don't have a dog in that hunt. I'm glad I had a little spin training as a primary student in a venerable old 172 with a CFI with acro experience, but I have little desire to do it again. I do confess, though, that I have little feel for that edge of my plane's performance envelope and the prohibition against spins is a strong disincentive against exploring it, even with a good CFI. As a result I'm probably a good deal more cautious in low-level maneuvering than I need to be.

 

[bnt83]

I suspect he meant that spam cans without a Utility category are substandard, and many airplanes are certified today without such a category and that FAA removed the requirement to allow or encourage companies to market more such airplanes.

Even my 1976 Cardinal RG has no Utility category and has a prominent warning in the POH that intentional spins are prohibited (unintentional ones, of course, are just fine ).

On whether the spin training requirement should have continued, I don't have a dog in that hunt. I'm glad I had a little spin training as a primary student in a venerable old 172 with a CFI with acro experience, but I have little desire to do it again. I do confess, though, that I have little feel for that edge of my plane's performance envelope and the prohibition against spins is a strong disincentive against exploring it, even with a good CFI. As a result I'm probably a good deal more cautious in low-level maneuvering than I need to be.

The 177/177B Cardinals are.I don't think any Cessna retracts are certified for intentional spins tho.

 

[Salty]

You will never convince those of us with lots of experience and perspective in this area that allowing pilots to experience the lead up to and including the full flight envelope does not make them a better pilot, and able to have more awareness, confidence, and skill when it comes not only to spin recovery, but spin AVOIDANCE as well. Then you have the timid pilot who's never experienced anything but a stall buffet who's deathly afraid of the unknown and thinks anything more than 20 degrees of bank in the pattern is treading dangerously. Ask yourself, why do pilot want to skid the plane with rudder? It's because they're afraid of bank angle. They lack skill and fear the unknown and are making things worse for themselves.

And BTW, spin training is not an "unnecessary risk" when performed in a suitable aircraft with a suitable instructor. Plenty of options out there for this. I suggest you 'abstinence only' guys acquire some new skills and experience. It can even be fun. I don't really relate to pilots who don't have the internal motivation and curiosity about learning the full envelope and becoming the best stick and rudder pilot that they can be, even if these are skills they are never REQUIRED to use.

Not sure how you make me out to be an "abstinence only guy" just because I can see the logic in the approach. But righteous indignation is good for the soul.

I will admit that I'm not fond of even practicing stalls, let alone spins. But, it's something I'm working on. I've been forcing myself to do stalls until I get over the aversion to it.

 

[James331]

Easy when you expect it, not so easy wet it comes that quick on you. Well, maybe its that easy for you. Wife ironed your cape yet?

Wife? I’m more of a lease vs a buy kinda guy

But I disagree, it’s just muscle memory and primacy

At low speed when your bicycle starts to tilt over even young and not very well bred children will turn their handle bars into the way the bike is starting to lean, it’s really the same type of thing, only issue is many student pilots aren’t doing falling leaf stalls and what not pre solo.

 

[eetrojan]

No, I did not get myself into an inadvertent spin on final. I had two instrument students who had presumably demonstrated forward slips for their Private Pilot checkride decide to try it in an Archer at about 300 feet. Their technique was full rudder, raise the nose, and then apply opposite aileron. Both stalled in that configuration. Both entered a spin. I recovered both times.

What’s the correct technique? Ease in the rudder and opposite aileron at same time? Don’t raise the nose and maintain approach speed?

 

[RyanB]

I don't know if that means one time in a 172, or if you have real skill and proficiency here, but regardless I'm not sure why you don't understand that pilots with high spin skill and comfort level are not the ones who allow a spin to fully develop in the first place. You have to sit there like a frozen log doing nothing for quite a few moments before a spin actually develops. Anyone with high proficiency in this area will not let that happen. Those with little to no experience won't know WTF is happening and will experience brain death while the airplane develops further into a spin.

It means complete spin and unusual attitude training in a Decathlon and Aerobat and I do consider myself proficient in both recognition and recovery.

Thanks.

 

[eman1200]

 

[RyanB]

What’s the correct technique? Ease in the rudder and opposite aileron at same time? Don’t raise the nose and maintain approach speed?

Apply both at the same time and keep the nose at a relatively downward attitude.

 

[Art Rose]

I'm in total agreement with those who say that every pilot should be familiarized with spins before they are issued their license. In my book, at least one spin session is an absolute must. If the instructor is not capable or willing to teach the skill, he, or she, should get out of the instructing business. Spin training makes you a better and safer pilot, plain and simple.

 

[RoscoeT]

Not sure how you make me out to be an "abstinence only guy" just because I can see the logic in the approach. But righteous indignation is good for the soul.

I will admit that I'm not fond of even practicing stalls, let alone spins. But, it's something I'm working on. I've been forcing myself to do stalls until I get over the aversion to it.

You basically equated spin training with unnecessary risk. I surmised that this was based on your own fears and lack of experience in this area. I simply take issue with those with limited to no experience making assertions on the subject, and felt the need to clarify. Not trying to feed on "righteous indignation". But I'm glad you're willling to work on the stall/spin comfort level.

 

[MauleSkinner]

What’s the correct technique? Ease in the rudder and opposite aileron at same time? Don’t raise the nose and maintain approach speed?

As Ryan said, apply aileron and rudder simultaneously, and you want to end up with the rudder pointed toward the high wing, not toward the low wing.

 

[Salty]

You basically equated spin training with unnecessary risk. I surmised that this was based on your own fears and lack of experience in this area. I simply take issue with those with limited to no experience making assertions on the subject, and felt the need to clarify. Not trying to feed on "righteous indignation". But I'm glad you're willling to work on the stall/spin comfort level.

I understand your confusion. Technically it is an unnecessary risk. Flying at all could be considered an unnecessary risk. There's no legitimate reason IMO for a private pilot to be anywhere close to the flight envelope a spin occurs in. If you want to do extremely short field or bush flying, then sure. Even IR, I can see an argument for it. But a typical VFR private pilot should always be so far away from a spin, that it really shouldn't be necessary to do spin training. Again, I'm not saying spin training is a bad thing, or that it's killing people, or even that it shouldn't be done.

 

[j1b3h0]

Putting down my popcorn,...lots of thoughtful comments. I taught aerobatics, just basic stuff in Citabria, Decathlon’s, Great Lakes, etc. Done plenty of normal and inverted spins and accelerated and flat spins. Had a low level aerobatic waiver in a Pitts that I got by attending a symposium on spins by Frank Christensen, and then demonstrating an aerobatic sequence in which a two-turn inverted spin was required. So, one might gather that I am of the pro-spin camp. I’m not.

I believe flight instructors have not done a very good job of teaching students how to TURN. Most training aircraft of late have been designed to be spin resistant, turn resistant and, unfortunately, ‘learn to be a good pilot’ resistant. Airplanes now don’t require hands and feet like airplane of old do - in my Stearman, just flying it around the patch, it will make you look like a complete idiot unless you employ hands and feet properly. Citabrias and Champs, and Cubs, T-crafts and Luscombes all required hands and feet. When I teach someone to fly, at first it’s all about hands and feet - my students dutch roll and turn like crazy at every speed until their muscle memory makes those maneuvers easy and natural. I can train a person to be a fair pilot in a 150-152, but it’s a lot harder because the designers at Cessna/Piper/Beech, etc, only manufacture synthetic feeling airplanes. So many legions of CFIs have never flown an airplane that actually requires a pilot aboard that, go figure, we still stall/spin inadvertently. The only solution is to go fly a real airplane.

Don’t believe me? In a 172 or similar, find an uncontrolled field with a wide, long runway. Level off at about 3ft over the runway lights at 60mph, then make a well coordinated turn toward the centerline, then lineup over the centerline at 3ft. Repeat, and take a glance at the ball this time. How’d that work for ya? I haven’t witnessed many pilots with the skills to do that well. Practice until it’s natural. Have your student try it, it’s a riot.

 

[denverpilot]

I believe flight instructors have not done a very good job of teaching students how to TURN. Most training aircraft of late have been designed to be spin resistant, turn resistant and, unfortunately, ‘learn to be a good pilot’ resistant. Airplanes now don’t require hands and feet like airplane of old do - in my Stearman, just flying it around the patch, it will make you look like a complete idiot unless you employ hands and feet properly. Citabrias and Champs, and Cubs, T-crafts and Luscombes all required hands and feet.

So I agree with you, but a devils advocate question...

Why does that accident chart look so bad when these were the only aircraft available to teach in?

It would be reasonable to assume that both instructors and students should have been overall MUCH better at flying these airplanes when they were the only thing available, and therefore should have all had an average level of skill much higher than today’s pilots, back then.

But the accident rate caused by spins isn’t just a little higher back then, it’s better than ten-fold higher in real numbers and the graph isn’t corrected for any estimates of flight hours flown, I don’t think, even. It’s a hard number of accidents graph, which should have an upward hump in it as Aviation became more popular and a downward side of the same hump leading to today.

It doesn’t exhibit that, so something is weird about these numbers.

 

[LoLPilot]

So I agree with you, but a devils advocate question...

Why does that accident chart look so bad when these were the only aircraft available to teach in?

It would be reasonable to assume that both instructors and students should have been overall MUCH better at flying these airplanes when they were the only thing available, and therefore should have all had an average level of skill much higher than today’s pilots, back then.

But the accident rate caused by spins isn’t just a little higher back then, it’s better than ten-fold higher in real numbers and the graph isn’t corrected for any estimates of flight hours flown, I don’t think, even. It’s a hard number of accidents graph, which should have an upward hump in it as Aviation became more popular and a downward side of the same hump leading to today.

It doesn’t exhibit that, so something is weird about these numbers.

Ever read "Fate is the Hunter," by Ernest Gann? He talks about some of the stuff they did in airliners - taking off overloaded, flying into thunderstorms, etc. There are a lot of things they did in the 40's and 50's that we don't do today because they didn't know any better. When people learned they stopped doing them. I'll say again that my "dream plane" is a Champ or older Citabria. One of the things I've read is that those are tough to find performance charts for because people didn't really think about things like maximum gross weight when they were designed. If it flew it flew. The chart may be subject to what is called collinearity, which is a relationship between two variables that may not be causal in nature.

 

[1RTK1]

You can’t spin if you don’t stall, so I can see the logic in simply teaching how to avoid a stall rather than spins. It’s kind of like not requiring actually shutting off an engine randomly during the check ride. It’s an unnecessary risk if otherwise properly trained.

Problem is to many people inadvertently end up in that situation then screw it up and end up dead... You don't know what you don't know or how to function when it occurs.

 

[Ted]

I'm glad I'm not the only grumpy old man here.

I think spin training (and recovery from spins) is something that every pilot should do. Making it part of the curriculum again is hard at this point, but there's nothing saying that you can't go out on your own and get spin/upset recovery training. That's on my "to do" list.

 

[WannFly]

I advocate for 10 mile straight in always to avoid base to final stall-spin

 

[MooneyDriver78]

I’m going to split the baby...maybe we should teach recovery from incipient spins only, seems silly to wait for the spin to fully develop. Let’s start the recovery early and skip the spin.

 

[denverpilot]

The chart may be subject to what is called collinearity, which is a relationship between two variables that may not be causal in nature.

Probably multiple collineararities.

So why would FAA (CAA) not notice this in their original data used to determine they should stop spin training?

And why would a modern organization like AOPA even publish that graph?

You’re “on” to the answer. Agenda and statistical manipulation. Seeing that fatal spins mostly “went away” for the most part statistically, doesn’t seem to sink in much when spin training threads come up now...

And remember I’m in the camp that says we should still do them.

It because of some accident statistic, more because spins are a completely normal thing for an airplane to do. Wholistic teaching. Airplanes are three dimensional operating machines, often being taught like they’re more two dimensional than they are.

Example: Phrasing. How many times is proper application of rudder taught as an afterthought to the bank dimension... do this, THEN that... no, do both. Simultaneously.

The helicopter pilots will chuckle at this example. Try applying controls in a heli as reactions to the others and see how bad that hover gets, and how fast it gets out of hand.

Aileron requires simultaneous rudder, not “now look at the ball and fix the rudder input”, if you see what I mean. No delay, they’re simultaneous.

Spin training forces the recognition of this better than many other ways to show it. The “make a good coordinated turn back to centerline” technique mentioned above would also highlight it really well. (And wasn’t one that I’d thought of, but it makes sense.)

The pilot who’s behind on the rudder input is going to make a dog’s breakfast out of that little two turn sequence nice and low over a nice straight ground reference for instant feedback on their feet not being connected to their brain nor instantly and simultaneously connected to aileron movements.

The pilot who’s behind on rudder inputs can be “set up” to let the airplane start spinning.

Same root cause underpinning problem.

Toss in the “taildraggers make better pilots” argument too, while we’re focusing on what feet need to do.

Fun stuff, talking about this.

That graph, is a total mess of assumptions leading somewhere that gives a lot of wrong impressions, if not thought carefully about.

Like a lot of graphs.

 

[j1b3h0]

So I agree with you, but a devils advocate question...

Why does that accident chart look so bad when these were the only aircraft available to teach in?

It would be reasonable to assume that both instructors and students should have been overall MUCH better at flying these airplanes when they were the only thing available, and therefore should have all had an average level of skill much higher than today’s pilots, back then.

But the accident rate caused by spins isn’t just a little higher back then, it’s better than ten-fold higher in real numbers and the graph isn’t corrected for any estimates of flight hours flown, I don’t think, even. It’s a hard number of accidents graph, which should have an upward hump in it as Aviation became more popular and a downward side of the same hump leading to today.

It doesn’t exhibit that, so something is weird about these numbers.

I agree in part with LOLPilot: Back in the ‘40s and ‘50s we didn’t have the NTSB, and more importantly, the organizational will to improve the statistics that we now possess. As an example, NOBODY who currently pilots airplanes isn’t keenly aware of the FAA’s focus on runway incursions. Perhaps if (back then) there was a focused organizational campaign to reduce stall/spin accidents the results would have been different. What resulted is “pilotproof” airplanes. It’s happened many times - everyone acknowledges the statistic, but no one agrees on the solution.

Back in the ‘80s I was a Metroliner Captain at a west coast commuter airline. There was a fatal accident of a Jetstream 31 that was complete pilot error (during a non-precision instrument approach to RDU, the pilots believed they had a failed engine - it was running fine, all they had to do was advance the power lever) but with all the drama of the dive and drive approach and the imagined engineout, they all perished.

The NTSB recommendations resulting from the tragedy were for TCAS, Ground Proximity warning and cabin floor lighting to direct passengers to the emergency exits. To all the pilots who actually flew the airplanes 7 legs a day, the recommendations were hilarious - we all knew empirically that the machines would have been 10 times safer if they merely had autopilots installed.

 

[RoscoeT]

I’m going to split the baby...maybe we should teach recovery from incipient spins only, seems silly to wait for the spin to fully develop. Let’s start the recovery early and skip the spin.

That's a half measure. Why not do both? We are not going to change the PTS. What we are really talking about is seeking out additional training on your own with a suitable aircraft/instructor. In this case, I can't think of any good reason for someone not to experience the full envelope.

 

[Dan Thomas]

Easy when you expect it, not so easy wet it comes that quick on you. Well, maybe its that easy for you. Wife ironed your cape yet?

The guy was in extreme slow flight. Shouldn't he have expected a wing drop? It certainly shouldn't have been a surprise.

 

[Salty]

I’m going to split the baby...maybe we should teach recovery from incipient spins only, seems silly to wait for the spin to fully develop. Let’s start the recovery early and skip the spin.

Splitting the baby would be a solution neither side likes. Your suggestion sounds more like splitting he difference.

Splitting the baby would be requiring an unrecoverable spin to get your pp.

Seriously though, I don’t get why you guys want to force other pilots to be experts in everything to get a license. If you think it’s important, train for it. But this one is not going to kill you if another pilot doesn’t learn it.

 

[denverpilot]

Splitting the baby would be requiring an unrecoverable spin to get your pp.

Another win for Cirrus! Spin it and pop the chute, requirement complete!

LOL. Kidding.

 

[CC268]

This thread has gone like most of these types of threads go...the pilots with high spin experience and proficiency profess the benefits, which I agree with. And the pilots with little to no spin experience and proficiency minimize the value of spin training and parrot "you're not gonna recover from base to final anyway." Well yes you can recover in lots of airplanes....but this requires a level of proficiency, skill, and awareness which if you actually had, would cause you to avoid accidentally stall/spinning base to final in the first place. Think about that. You don't see skilled acro pilots stall/spinning themselves into the ground on base to final.

Lol again. Spot on. Wish you could highlight this answer in bright yellow.

 

[Ted]

The NTSB recommendations resulting from the tragedy were for TCAS, Ground Proximity warning and cabin floor lighting to direct passengers to the emergency exits. To all the pilots who actually flew the airplanes 7 legs a day, the recommendations were hilarious - we all knew empirically that the machines would have been 10 times safer if they merely had autopilots installed.

Of course, then we have the "children of the magenta line" who are unable to fly without an autopilot.

Not saying autopilots aren't great tools - they are - but balance must exist in all things.

 

[MooneyDriver78]

That's a half measure. Why not do both? We are not going to change the PTS. What we are really talking about is seeking out additional training on your own with a suitable aircraft/instructor. In this case, I can't think of any good reason for someone not to experience the full envelope.

Because I thought we are trying to teach them useful flying skills, not acrobatics. And since many spins are at low altitude where you hit the ground by the time a spin is fully developed, seems to me recovery before it develops and you plow into the ground is more useful.

 

[j1b3h0]

@Ted DuPuis - A stormy day in those airplanes was a hell of a lot of work - IMC all the time, ice, sometimes 5 or more instrument approaches in high density traffic areas at 270kt. cruise and and can’t let go: one of us had to be focused and at the controls, always. Often the nonflying pilot was so task-saturated he or she was unaware of what the other pilot was doing. Twin Beech was busy, too, but then you you were only loafing along at 150kts.

 

[RoscoeT]

Because I thought we are trying to teach them useful flying skills, not acrobatics. And since many spins are at low altitude where you hit the ground by the time a spin is fully developed, seems to me recovery before it develops and you plow into the ground is more useful.

Since a spin is simply a possible development of a stall, your argument is a slippery slope to teaching nothing but stall avoidance. By this logic, why even show a student an actual stall w/ nose drop and recover? Why not just take them to the point of the buffet and stall avoidance only? I don't advocate for this. This produces pilots how don't know what actually lurks at the end of the envelope and how to handle it best, therefore flying in fear and ignorance, with less skill and experience than they could otherwise easily have. I don't know why mastery over the entire flight envelope an aircraft can safely traverse is not something all self respecting pilots would strive for.

 

[denverpilot]

Since a spin is simply a possible development of a stall, your argument is a slippery slope to teaching nothing but stall avoidance.

What do we call a slippery slope we already slid down?

See: Private ACS. LOL.

This thread is basically discussing whether or not we can push stuff back up the slope. I don’t see it happening.

We just slid down the other autopilot slope also with the TAA Commercial ACS thing, too.

And no guidance yet on just how WELL objectively the pilot needs to really know the TAA toys.

 

[Shepherd]

Early in the thread someone posted a video of a professional pilots stalling and spinning during a competition.
I get it, extreme case, but think about the circumstances. On final, into a stiff headwind, and suddenly the wind stops. Down he went. Half a turn into a spin.
So will your plane. It's going to stall and fall. I see it almost every day. We've all seen it, we've probably all experienced it.
The guy in the video was lucky, he was only a few feet off the deck. You might not be so lucky.
Fly your plane into a booming thermal/updraft. Your airspeed can go to zero in those conditions. Your plane is going to stall, and if you try to turn out, it's probably going to try to spin.
A booming down draft can do the same thing.
You don't ever have 100% control over your airspeed. A stall is always imminent, and sometimes there is nothing you can do to prevent it, if you have never flown into those conditions before.

 

[denverpilot]

Fly your plane into a booming thermal/updraft.

Have seen it in my own airplane on a day when winds aloft in the mountains were pushing the safety limits a tad.

Fat dumb and happy one minute being rocked by occasional moderate turbulence, to zero airspeed, stall horn screaming, and a need to push the nose down, keep the wings level with rudder, and then immediately accepting the already planned escape route away from the rotor or whatever other terrain-induced stupidity the wind was doing.

If you tried to keep it upright with aileron, it would have flipped over and the escape route would have been MUCH more, um... dynamic!

Happens in an instant. The critical thing is not to attempt any recovery with aileron when it happens fast like that. When it happens slower, people tend to start with aileron and then recognize it’s getting too slow too quickly, and lock the aileron where it is and start feeding rudder.

They need to also get the aileron back to neutral.

That’s the hardest one to simulate in training, and all we can do is catch someone doing it and bark “aileron neutral, use rudder” loud enough they never forget it.

It just has to happen to them in a clean configuration when they’re not “ready” mentally for slow flight, and someone has to be there to remind them not to move those ailerons from center and put them back to center if they’re not.

I don’t recommend going out and finding mountain wave to practice it in, though. Haha. Just a little too much risk there.

Airspeed losses in the mountains and how fast they can happen is eye popping on the “wrong” day.

 

[j1b3h0]

What do we call a slippery slope we already slid down?

See: Private ACS. LOL.

This thread is basically discussing whether or not we can push stuff back up the slope. I don’t see it happening.

We just slid down the other autopilot slope also with the TAA Commercial ACS thing, too.

And no guidance yet on just how WELL objectively the pilot needs to really know the TAA toys.

I agree, I don’t see it happening, That said, what if the only two choices are A, pilotless airplanes, or B, pilots who know what the hell they’re doing? That seems to be where we’re going. I don’t like it, nor do I like the prospect of driverless cars. My thoughts are cars would be safer if cellphone were disabled while driving.

 

[Dan Thomas]

Spin training is mandatory in Canada, for both PPL and CPL. And we don't kill people doing it.

 

[Sundancer]

Push, power, rudder, roll, courtesy LTCOL Coleman, USAF (ret), 1973.

I like spins; great fun. But not worth making mandatory in training. Go for it, if it interests you. But you can have a long flyng career without them too.

 

[Salty]

You basically equated spin training with unnecessary risk. I surmised that this was based on your own fears and lack of experience in this area. I simply take issue with those with limited to no experience making assertions on the subject, and felt the need to clarify. Not trying to feed on "righteous indignation". But I'm glad you're willling to work on the stall/spin comfort level.

I’m doing stalls in my mooney now, which my transition instructor didn’t even want to do. It’s actually more docile than a 172 IMO, but I am careful to keep coordinated, as I hear nothing good about spinning a mooney.

 

[MooneyDriver78]

I’m doing stalls in my mooney now, which my transition instructor didn’t even want to do. It’s actually more docile than a 172 IMO, but I am careful to keep coordinated, as I hear nothing good about spinning a mooney.

It depends...
Short bodies are pretty docile but when they extended the tail, and moved the battery to the rear, made them less nose heavy, J is the worst. Then they started using heavier engines and they got better. If you aggressively stall a J you will drop a wing, most Mooney instructors won’t let you do a full stall, instead slowly slow the plane and first sign of stalling, recover.

 

[Salty]

It depends...
Short bodies are pretty docile but when they extended the tail, and moved the battery to the rear, made them less nose heavy, J is the worst. Then they started using heavier engines and they got better. If you aggressively stall a J you will drop a wing, most Mooney instructors won’t let you do a full stall, instead slowly slow the plane and first sign of stalling, recover.

Mine's a short body C.

 

[Ryan F.]

I've done a lot of spins, and spins of all kinds, too -- normal, accelerated, flat, inverted, and combinations thereof. And I've introduced a lot of people to spins. I owned a Pitts Special for awhile, and taught in a Citabria and Decathlon - my own syllabi, including stall/spin, upset recovery, and basic aerobatics.

Everyone left that experience a measurably better pilot for it. I always felt that was one of the best things I did as an instructor.

However, I don't agree it should be mandatory. There aren't enough experienced instructors out there to teach spins safely were they required for all. I also believe that if we did make it mandatory, the fatal accident rate in training would increase.

I do feel any good pilot interested in broadening his/her horizons and increasing his/her comfort and confidence level in the aircraft ought to seek out this sort of specialized training, if at all possible. But we shouldn't force anyone to do so, and we as instructors must teach to the limits of what "stall spin awareness" gives us in the private and commercial pilot ACS.