Is General Aviation Dying in the USA?

[flyingcheesehead]

I agree with the last part. I think if we could get a "Non-Commercial" exception added, that said we could use non-certified parts/products in certified planes, provided the plane will not be used in any For-Hire, passenger carrying operations, that would help a whole lot.

IMO, we should simply make the certification process less onerous. I feel as safe in an airplane certified in the 1950's as I do in an airplane certified today, and it doesn't appear that any of the additional certification requirements that have been added in the last 60 years have drastically affected the accident rate. In fact, I believe that the vise of certification has been twisted down so tight that the system is breaking itself - It's so difficult and expensive to produce certified parts that people are sneaking non-certified (and often substandard) parts into their planes, making them MORE dangerous than they would otherwise be.

But, I don't know that its a universal truth that people want the latest and greatest anymore. With the increase of mobile GPS options out there, one can get a VERY good option for navigation using a number of different platforms, and not need all the fancy new stuff.

But that IS fancy new stuff. It's just not screwed into the panel.

Part of the problem has been up until now that Garmin has, quite literally, raped the living daylights out of pilots moneywise. You could buy a new car for less than some of their products cost, and that is insane.

Yes, it is. Of course, R&D vs. sales... Well, I don't think they're making a killing by any means.

I'll be curious to see how Garmin responds to being essentially phased out of "necessity" with mobile apps.

Yeah, no kidding. I think the Aspen Connected Panel is one of the first really super-duper "neat" things that's come out in quite a while that hasn't been by Garmin - At least in terms of things you can put in a certified airplane. I'm happy to see that they'll have a little competition. Of course, having all the competition in EFB apps hasn't made Jeppesen charge any less for theirs...

If someone could come up with some sort of iPad or Android based "glass cockpit" app, one that could be just velcroed over the existing panel or something, I think we'd all be better off!

Hmmm. The iPad 2 has built-in gyroscopes and compass... That could allow it to replace the gyros (I haven't looked on the App Store recently, but last I did look there was already an EFIS app that was using the gyros, written by a Mooney owner). It's obviously easily able to do navigation. Then there's the iMonitor app that can do all of the engine gauges. Really, all we need is a way to plug the pitot-static system in and the iPad could easily be a full glass cockpit. Unfortunately, I think that would also take it out of the realm of "portable" in the eyes of the FAA. There is, however, that mini AHRS that Grant was talking about the other day, if there's one of those in the airplane you're all set. iPad PFD + iPad MFD would be pretty interesting!

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I don't know if our small sample size is any reflective of other locations but there are 31 aircraft based at our home airport and ONE has shared ownership.

Why is it that there is not more shared ownership?

You answered your own question:

I've tried to buy a plane with another guy but we just couldn't agree on which features we did and did not want and so it didn't happen.

I agree with you, though... I'm in a bit different situation, being in an equity club with 3 airplanes, but it's a GREAT way to fly - If you fly ~4 hours a month it's cheaper than renting, and we have much nicer airplanes and availability is phenomenal. It has allowed me to do a LOT of GA traveling, which in turn has made me a much better pilot.

My next step will probably be a shared-ownership situation with a plane that doesn't make sense to have in a club.

More shared ownership seems like an important piece of the future GA puzzle. I'm willing to sell shares in my Dakota today to help myself and other pilots make recreational flying more cost friendly.

Have you gotten on the AOPA partnership site?

Where are you based?

 

[flyingcheesehead]

One can make all the argument in the world using 'form follows function' as the basic tenet. But in absence of the 'joy of flight', the aerial version of a joyride, it doesn't take any argument at all to derive that the days of GA are numbered.

We fly because we can. The utility of such freedom is of secondary importance. Until that priority is realized, until that word is gotten out, the malaise which infects GA is from within.

I think the reason we describe it to "outsiders" that way is so they have something to relate to. It is, quite simply, completely impossible to communicate the joy of flight with mere words. There is nothing as beautiful, thrilling, cerebral, stimulating, and exhilarating as flying, and it's pretty much impossible to relate that to a ground pounder.

What they can relate to is the speed. When you tell them that the 3-hour drive to Grandma's will become a 1-hour flight, that's something they can relate to and immediately think, "That would be really nice."

 

[psachseJr]

I don't have nearly the experience that most of you have, and there have been some great points made, I think there are 2 major contributors:

1) Anything that people don't "need" is suffering decline. For instance, motorcycles, which are still relatively cheap to own and operate are also in steep decline. Discretionary spending is hurting.

2) People are doing things more virtually now. even the "gym" is a form of this... thousands of people in spin classes with nobody outdoors on their bicycles.

In my opinion, making easier will result in more certs, but not more active pilots.

 

[psachseJr]

I think the reason we describe it to "outsiders" that way is so they have something to relate to. It is, quite simply, completely impossible to communicate the joy of flight with mere words. There is nothing as beautiful, thrilling, cerebral, stimulating, and exhilarating as flying, and it's pretty much impossible to relate that to a ground pounder.

What they can relate to is the speed. When you tell them that the 3-hour drive to Grandma's will become a 1-hour flight, that's something they can relate to and immediately think, "That would be really nice."

Terms like "ground pounder" may very well be the kind of phrasing people would consider derogatory.

 

[Henning]

Be content with having the same instrument panel and capabilities of say, a Luscomb of days old.

Not a chance in Hell. I do not restrict myself in capability when I don't need to. I like flying myself and I like having the advantages "commercial ops" guys have, actually, I like having better.

There are times I may "have to" be content, but there's no reason I "should" be.

 

[jhausch]

Does anyone have any more info on the "mature" version of Young Eagles that EAA is trying to a get off the ground? Seems like YE is good for inspiration, but that program might actually produce some paying customers if targeted properly.


---
- -Jim

 

[Everskyward]

The moral here is stop trying to emulate a more commercial type of flying. Be content with having the same instrument panel and capabilities of say, a Luscomb of days old. You can still make the same flights just don't expect the payload.

Not a chance in Hell. I do not restrict myself in capability when I don't need to. I like flying myself and I like having the advantages "commercial ops" guys have, actually, I like having better.

There are times I may "have to" be content, but there's no reason I "should" be.

I can see both sides here. But I think that in the end it depends on what type of flying you enjoy. If your goal is to have a serious traveling machine then you probably want to equip it as well as you can with avionics. If you just want to get up in the air and sightsee or put around then it isn't necessary. I agree with Richard in that you can take a minimally equipped airplane many places and fly far distances, you just need time and patience.

 

[Anthony]

I can see both sides here. But I think that in the end it depends on what type of flying you enjoy. If your goal is to have a serious traveling machine then you probably want to equip it as well as you can with avionics. If you just want to get up in the air and sightsee or put around than it isn't necessary. I agree with Richard in that you can take a minimally equipped airplane many places and fly far distances, you just need time and patience.

Excellent point Mari. Its the difference in having a time machine (well equipped GA travelling airplane) vs a VFR only plane and the time to not care if you have to divert and wait out weather.

It's all about time, money and what you want. My hangar neighbor (two hangars down) has a Mooney M20F that he just took VFR to Palm Springs, CA from Philly, and back. He was gone a total of five days, again, all VFR.

 

[dcmoser]

I've only seen a small number of pilots who think that we're better than others.

Oh, you've seen many. You just don't recognize them. I hear this often from friends as a general opinion, and if you sit back sometime, observe, and try to remain unbiased, it's out there, whether on these forums or at the airport. Not everyone, but a lot of 'em.

 

[ClimbnSink]

Oh, you've seen many. You just don't recognize them. I hear this often from friends as a general opinion, and if you sit back sometime, observe, and try to remain unbiased, it's out there, whether on these forums or at the airport. Not everyone, but a lot of 'em.

If a pilot can't see them they are probably are one.

 

[jesse]

Agree because a lot of CFIs are pretty bad about optimizing time spend learning.

Disagree because:

For a pilot to make it from point A to point B - we need to accept that building 40 hours is not necessary. This is where I usually get shouted down, but here goes:

PPL Should take about 20 hours total:
3 hours learning the 4 fundamentals
4 hours learning the basics of landing/go arounds
5 hours learning various navigational techniques (including ground maneuvers)
5 hours solo
3 hours Checkride Prep

I would absolutely love to see you become a CFI Nick. Then I'd love to see you try and accomplish those things in those hours. You may not believe me now, but you'd quickly realize it can't be done with the vast majority of students.

 

[SkyHog]

I would absolutely love to see you become a CFI Nick. Then I'd love to see you try and accomplish those things in those hours. You may not believe me now, but you'd quickly realize it can't be done with the vast majority of students.

Which part?

1. Four Fundamentals (3 hours): Learn to fly a plane straight, turn a plane, climb a plane, and descend a plane (keeping in mind that these fundamentals are reinforced throughout the remaining time?)

2. Landings/Go Arounds (4 hours): Pattern work for 4 hours....having a student perform approximately 40 landings should get the basics down. Remember, from here on through the rest of training, these are going to be reinforced since every flight has at least one landing and one takeoff. Soft field landings/takeoffs not necessary for private students. Tower operations are a plus, but not a requirement.

3. Navigation (5 hours): Students would be required to learn how to navigate using VORs and GPS. Pilotage would also be covered enough to allow them to use dead reckoning, but not as a primary skill. No need for NDBs, as they're as good as dead. No need for turns around a point, or S-turns, or any extraneous stuff. Just "how to get from here to there."

4. Solo (5 hours): Let the student learn how to do the above on their own to see why its important. At least one cross country flight should happen here, to reinforce navigation techniques.

5. Checkride Prep (3 hours): Go over everything above. Get ready for the ride


So - seeing all of that, and realizing that not every student will be ready in 20 hours (just like they're not ready in 40 always right now), what part of that seems "impossible" for a CFI to be able to teach?

Also - note that I wouldn't have finished in 20 hours myself. It took me almost 90 with the syllabus as it was 6-7 years ago.

 

[dmac5356]

The fastest way to grow DA is for existing pilots to bring a newbie into the fold. Despite all the problems that have been mentioned in this thread, people are interested in learning how to fly. They need an introduction, and some support and encouragement.

I just had 2 students pass their Private Pilot check ride in the past week, signed off another who is waiting for his check ride appointment, and have two others that are close. I have 5 others in-process. Our two C-152's are flying 100 hours/month each... there is interest!

If every pilot got just one new person to obtain their Private pilot rating this year, the number of pilots would double.

 

[SCCutler]

Nick:

I acknowledge freely that I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I was surely motivated, and I took at least three lessons a week, with an instructor who was committed, professional and very good.

My checkride came at (I believe) 41.7 hours, and I do not believe we could have shaved more than a couple of hours off of that. Even with a reduced scope, not a lot could be excluded without what I would consider serious deficiencies.

 

[SkyHog]

Nick:

I acknowledge freely that I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I was surely motivated, and I took at least three lessons a week, with an instructor who was committed, professional and very good.

My checkride came at (I believe) 41.7 hours, and I do not believe we could have shaved more than a couple of hours off of that. Even with a reduced scope, not a lot could be excluded without what I would consider serious deficiencies.

Its not a failure of the CFI, the student, or anyone. Its just a drastic change idea. This is drastically reducing the requirements to get a license. Basically, reducing the difficulty to get the license to begin with.

 

[jesse]

Its not a failure of the CFI, the student, or anyone. Its just a drastic change idea. This is drastically reducing the requirements to get a license. Basically, reducing the difficulty to get the license to begin with.

What is the point in reducing the requirements to an unrealistic number that very very few students could possibly obtain? All you're doing is making people feel like they should be done when they're nowhere near ready.

After you've been a pilot for a few years its difficult to understand how little a 5 hour student knows about aviation, the far, and being a safe pilot.

There is just no way you'd get someone through as a SAFE pilot in 20 hours that could possibly do anything but perhaps go around the pattern.

 

[SkyHog]

What is the point in reducing the requirements to an unrealistic number that very very few students could possibly obtain? All you're doing is making people feel like they should be done when they're nowhere near ready.

After you've been a pilot for a few years its difficult to understand how little a 5 hour student knows about aviation, the far, and being a safe pilot.

There is just no way you'd get someone through as a SAFE pilot in 20 hours that could possibly do anything but perhaps go around the pattern.

That depends on what the definition of safe is. If the training is focused on "safely navigating from here to there," and not on "Here's how you make an airplane do all these cool things, like that soft field landing you'll probably never do, or the steep turns you'll probably never do, etc." then I think a safe pilot could be built in 20 hours.

But it takes the ability to recognize that we are asking too much of today's pilots. If we can't even agree that something needs to give (not saying that I'm right, but something needs to give), then we might as well just sit back and watch GA wither some more until we're another Europe.

BTW - you do realize how many safe flights occur each day by unlicensed Ultralight pilots, right? And moreover, an Ultralight is nothing more than an airplane with less regulations on it, right?

 

[flyingcheesehead]

That depends on what the definition of safe is. If the training is focused on "safely navigating from here to there," and not on "Here's how you make an airplane do all these cool things, like that soft field landing you'll probably never do, or the steep turns you'll probably never do, etc." then I think a safe pilot could be built in 20 hours.

What happens when your engine fails? A short and soft landing, whether you want it to happen or not, and whether you trained for it or not. Best to be trained for it and minimize serious injuries. Besides, they're really not that hard - It's learning to land at all that's hard.

And steep turns? Seriously? Those are pretty basic too, and fundamental to understanding what's going on in any turn.

But it takes the ability to recognize that we are asking too much of today's pilots.

Yeah, we clearly ask too much of today's pilots. Like not running out of gas or flying into bad weather. If those weren't asking too much, people would quit doing it all the time.

BTW - you do realize how many safe flights occur each day by unlicensed Ultralight pilots, right? And moreover, an Ultralight is nothing more than an airplane with less regulations on it, right?

Unlicensed ≠ untrained.

 

[Henning]

Its not a failure of the CFI, the student, or anyone. Its just a drastic change idea. This is drastically reducing the requirements to get a license. Basically, reducing the difficulty to get the license to begin with.

That's basically what they did with SP, and then restricted the SP operators to conditions that didn't require as much training/experience. I really don't think you can make it a bunch simpler really. Seems that lots of people are taking way more than 20 just to solo. I think the fast program can be run if you run it in 1 week, but the thing is you're gonna have to keep flying another 100hrs or more over the next year to get it all down and stuck. None of this 20 hrs training over a year and a half stuff.

 

[jesse]

or the steep turns you'll probably never do

Not sure why you're such a steep turn hater. They teach coordination and greatly improve airplane handling and they're certainly not hard. I've yet to have a student I can't get within PTS tolerance on steep turns within 3 or 4 attempts.

 

[dmccormack]

Not sure why you're such a steep turn hater. They teach coordination and greatly improve airplane handling and they're certainly not hard. I've yet to have a student I can't get within PTS tolerance on steep turns within 3 or 4 attempts.

Yep -- better than that -- they're fun!

 

[SkyHog]

Not sure why you're such a steep turn hater. They teach coordination and greatly improve airplane handling and they're certainly not hard. I've yet to have a student I can't get within PTS tolerance on steep turns within 3 or 4 attempts.

Its wasted effort. That's what needs to be eliminated to reduce total hours.

If they're so easy, they don't need to be trained, right?

Or - they're just a maneuver that can be avoided.

Either way, they don't help a pilot fly from A-B.

 

[Anthony]

Its wasted effort. That's what needs to be eliminated to reduce total hours.

If they're so easy, they don't need to be trained, right?

Or - they're just a maneuver that can be avoided.

Either way, they don't help a pilot fly from A-B.

I don't think Jesse is saying that you don't need training to do steep turns. What I think he is saying is that it takes minimal time and effort, and is worth it to learn airplane handling techniques. Plus they're fun!

How about when you need to do the 180 back to the airport after losing an engine on T.O.? You may need to do a steep turn to make it. Don't just say land straight ahead, because sometimes you can't. Well you can, but it would be certain or probable death to do so.

 

[jesse]

Its wasted effort. That's what needs to be eliminated to reduce total hours.

If they're so easy, they don't need to be trained, right?

Or - they're just a maneuver that can be avoided.

Either way, they don't help a pilot fly from A-B.

If someone can't turn an airplane at 45 degrees and maintain altitude within 100 feet they cannot control the airplane well enough for solo flight as they do not understand HOW to control the airplane.

It's not a time waster Nick. Someone doesn't learn 'basic airplane handling' without maneuvers like this. If they're not comfortable with a 45 degree bank they are NOT comfortable in the airplane. I don't solo pilots that can't control an airplane.

It's a valuable way to teach that fundamental airplane handling you're talking about.

 

[Everskyward]

Its wasted effort. That's what needs to be eliminated to reduce total hours.

If they're so easy, they don't need to be trained, right?

Or - they're just a maneuver that can be avoided.

Either way, they don't help a pilot fly from A-B.

Steep turns help you get a feel for an airplane that is new to you. It's usually the first thing I try or that people have asked me to try.

 

[SkyHog]

If someone can't turn an airplane at 45 degrees and maintain altitude within 100 feet they cannot control the airplane well enough for solo flight as they do not understand HOW to control the airplane.

It's not a time waster Nick. Someone doesn't learn 'basic airplane handling' without maneuvers like this. If they're not comfortable with a 45 degree bank they are NOT comfortable in the airplane. I don't solo pilots that can't control an airplane.

It's a valuable way to teach that fundamental airplane handling you're talking about.

There's a lot of things that can teach basic airplane handling that we don't currently require - for instance, flying low level over the runway to teach rudder and aileron use.

Its a tool a CFI can use if its necessary, but not something that's required. I think steep turns fall into the same category: useful, yes, but should they be required?

 

[SkyHog]

How about when you need to do the 180 back to the airport after losing an engine on T.O.? You may need to do a steep turn to make it. Don't just say land straight ahead, because sometimes you can't. Well you can, but it would be certain or probable death to do so.

What about when a propellor falls off the airplane? Should we be including massive shifts in CG/weight as a requirement for private pilot licenses?

Its a silly, over the top example, but I think we need to accept that there are some things that a pilot is unlikely to experience. We should prepare them as much as possible for those things he will probably experience: traffic avoidance, navigation, lost procedures, etc.

If we continue to teach for every possible scenario, we'll continue to see the same problems we have today.

 

[SkyHog]

That's basically what they did with SP, and then restricted the SP operators to conditions that didn't require as much training/experience. I really don't think you can make it a bunch simpler really. Seems that lots of people are taking way more than 20 just to solo. I think the fast program can be run if you run it in 1 week, but the thing is you're gonna have to keep flying another 100hrs or more over the next year to get it all down and stuck. None of this 20 hrs training over a year and a half stuff.

What difference does it really make with 1 passenger or 5 passengers in an airplane?

That is where Sp fails.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

What about when a propellor falls off the airplane? Should we be including massive shifts in CG/weight as a requirement for private pilot licenses?

Its a silly, over the top example, but I think we need to accept that there are some things that a pilot is unlikely to experience.

Like landing on a runway with no lights?

Engine failures are not THAT unlikely. I'm sure glad we train people for them. In only 900 hours, I've already had a partial engine failure with significant power loss just after takeoff. Luckily, I had another engine along on that flight... And while we got the power back, had it been in a single I likely would not have had the time to diagnose and correct it. In the twin, we were still climbing.

Steep turns are so basic, and so good at giving you a feel for several different aspects of an airplane, that they are probably the LAST maneuver I would remove from the PTS.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

What difference does it really make with 1 passenger or 5 passengers in an airplane?

That is where Sp fails.

It's all about how many people you can kill. I've said it before, ironically the last time we were discussing steep turns:

With the FAA, It's all about who you can kill. Solo student, you can kill yourself. Sport or Recreational pilot, you can kill yourself and a friend. Private, yourself and a few friends. Commercial, you can kill paying passengers. ATP, you can kill large numbers of paying passengers.

The more people you're allowed to kill, the higher standard you must be held to, and the higher level of mastery you must achieve.

 

[SkyHog]

Like landing on a runway with no lights?

Engine failures are not THAT unlikely. I'm sure glad we train people for them. In only 900 hours, I've already had a partial engine failure with significant power loss just after takeoff. Luckily, I had another engine along on that flight... And while we got the power back, had it been in a single I likely would not have had the time to diagnose and correct it. In the twin, we were still climbing.

But - you're reducing an already unlikely scenario (engine failure) by saying we want engine failures where a steep turn is necessary to land successfully. That would be a departure failure or a failure where the only safe landing spot is too close to be able to glide to it neatly. What was 1 in 1,000 hours is now 1 in 30,000 hours (not real numbers). How specific do we need to get? Should we be requiring a student be prepared for an engine failure at night, in the mountains, with a lake nearby and a military installation with SAMs off the left wing, and an irate Indian Tribe off the right?

Steep turns are so basic, and so good at giving you a feel for several different aspects of an airplane, that they are probably the LAST maneuver I would remove from the PTS.

So does pattern flying, takeoff/landings, stalls, slowflight, etc. Every maneuver we currently require teaches students how to control the plane in different attitudes and situations.

 

[jesse]

There's a lot of things that can teach basic airplane handling that we don't currently require - for instance, flying low level over the runway to teach rudder and aileron use.

Its a tool a CFI can use if its necessary, but not something that's required. I think steep turns fall into the same category: useful, yes, but should they be required?

I think you're looking at this wrong Nick. Steep turns are useful because they show if the pilot can handle the airplane.

The reason they are "required" is so that the check-ride at the end can be consistent. If you start pulling all of those things out of the training you'll have DPEs doing checkrides based on their own personal measuring metrics which is NOT going to shorten training.

 

[SkyHog]

I think you're looking at this wrong Nick. Steep turns are useful because they show if the pilot can handle the airplane.

The reason they are "required" is so that the check-ride at the end can be consistent. If you start pulling all of those things out of the training you'll have DPEs doing checkrides based on their own personal measuring metrics which is NOT going to shorten training.

Yes and no. In order to be effective, we need to redo the checkride process as well, and revise the PTS.

I think the issue is that we are focusing on specific maneuvers to remove. What we need to agree on (as a whole, in the community, not necessarily between you and me) is that we need to cut something, somewhere.

 

[jesse]

I think the issue is that we are focusing on specific maneuvers to remove. What we need to agree on (as a whole, in the community, not necessarily between you and me) is that we need to cut something, somewhere.

And that is where we disagree.. As an instructor, I can pretty confidently say, there isn't much we can cut right now.

Sport pilot is an attempt at it and its' not producing pilots much faster.

Unless you're wanting to train pilots that can't leave the airport pattern. If that's all we need to teach, yes, we could do that with a few less hours.

 

[SkyHog]

And that is where we disagree.. As an instructor, I can pretty confidently say, there isn't much we can cut right now.

Sport pilot is an attempt at it and its' not producing pilots much faster.

Unless you're wanting to train pilots that can't leave the airport pattern. If that's all we need to teach, yes, we could do that with a few less hours.

I think we would be producing pilots that could operate in the pattern, and from A-B, but may not be as prepared for going out and putzing around in the middle of nowhere without a destination in mind.

Because really, a cross country flight is nothing more than 2 patterns and navigation skills. A successful flight should consist of:

1. Taxiing
2. Taking off
3. Flying a departure pattern
4. Navigating to another airport
5. Flying an arrival pattern
6. Landing
7. Taxiing
8. Parking
9. Eating lunch or doing whatever is at the destination
10 - repeat steps 1-8

 

[denverpilot]

I think steep turns fall into the same category: useful, yes, but should they be required?

Yes. However one could argue that they should be taught power-off, not with the engine blazing away just fine.

Stall/Spin accidents in the pattern still kill way too many people.

Those people might be alive if they could see what bank-angle does to airspeed without power. It's intuitive to most that if it takes full power to do it level in the practice area, that the nose is going to have to fall to do it sans-engine power someday if the fan quits... but not all folks make that mental jump.

Actually *doing* a simulated base-to-final steep turn to simulate someone screwing up and misjuding the turn needed and seeing how much the nose has to come down to hold airspeed, and what that sight-picture looks like out the window at altitude, might make it less of a killer at low altitude.

The (perhaps bad) assumption with a power-on steep turn is that the student then understands how much power is needed to hold altitude, but I would point out that it's not always effective with every student.

Similar problem with mountain flying. When a student needs to turn around *right now* to avoid terrain, they need to know how to let the nose fall if they're already at or close to stall speed.

 

[dmccormack]

There's a lot of things that can teach basic airplane handling that we don't currently require - for instance, flying low level over the runway to teach rudder and aileron use.

Its a tool a CFI can use if its necessary, but not something that's required. I think steep turns fall into the same category: useful, yes, but should they be required?

What about slow flight? is that necessary? Stalls?

Why not just say, "Don't stall" and be done?

 

[SkyHog]

What about slow flight? is that necessary? Stalls?

Why not just say, "Don't stall" and be done?

Slow flight is probably not necessary. Stalls, on the other hand, are a very real possibility, and should probably be taught.

And yes, I am of the opinion that spins should be taught.

 

[dmccormack]

Slow flight is probably not necessary. Stalls, on the other hand, are a very real possibility, and should probably be taught.

And yes, I am of the opinion that spins should be taught.

Slow flight mastery is critical to landing -- sorry, it's one of the first things I do in a new airplane.