Near-Fatal Spin on First Solo

Spins were a required maneuver at one time, but no longer. I don't know if they were required in the 70s or not.

I had a discussion with my CFI as to whether spins were even permitted without parachutes, given the 60 degree bank, 30 degree pitch limitations in the FAR. There is an exception to this for required flight training, but spin training isn't "required" for primary. I think only CFI candidates are required to have spin training, now. Someone else may know better.


This is correct. CFI candidates are required to demonstrate spin recovery. The CAA removed spin training from the private requirements in 1949 before it became the FAA.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
When I'm King nobody will fly or even touch the stick, yoke, or joystick of any airplane until they have spun with an instructor and soloed a J-3 cub.
 
It funny, but if you get into acro, you will go up and you will try to spin and snap roll the aircraft and put it into severe stall situations without any hesitation.

It depends on the aircraft, but what I'm saying is, if you do acro all the time or at least pretty often, then the thought of spinning a 172 or 18x or anything for that matter becomes a lot less concerning. I would never get comfortable doing spins in an aircraft not rated for them, but you do get more comfortable with the thought that you can recover quickly if it happens, because it's programmed into your muscles if you have been doing spins recently.

If I were King, all students and pilots would have to log .5 hour of acro, in an aerobatic aircraft every twelve months, and they would have to be at the controls with a qualified observer, and log enough spins and maneuvers until they either cry Uncle or puke, or until they can get it down how to recover quickly, precisely, and take command of the aircraft from all attitudes. :redface:
 
It funny, but if you get into acro, you will go up and you will try to spin and snap roll the aircraft and put it into severe stall situations without any hesitation.

It depends on the aircraft, but what I'm saying is, if you do acro all the time or at least pretty often, then the thought of spinning a 172 or 18x or anything for that matter becomes a lot less concerning. I would never get comfortable doing spins in an aircraft not rated for them, but you do get more comfortable with the thought that you can recover quickly if it happens, because it's programmed into your muscles if you have been doing spins recently.

If I were King, all students and pilots would have to log .5 hour of acro, in an aerobatic aircraft every twelve months, and they would have to be at the controls with a qualified observer, and log enough spins and maneuvers until they either cry Uncle or puke, or until they can get it down how to recover quickly, precisely, and take command of the aircraft from all attitudes. :redface:

Acrobatic training is not Private Pilot training. Combat pilot training is not commercial pilot training. Each has their emphasis, each build a different set of flying skills.

I would not take acrobatic or combat jet training from a CFI. Why would anyone expect a private pilot training to provide that?

In PP training, stalls are not a skill to learn, they are a thing to recognize and understand. That's why they are introduced in PP training. For safety, not to repeat on your own, or expect to use as a flying tool. No one should stall the plane on purpose unless they are with a CFI or DPE and are doing it to demonstrate knowledge of the recognition of a stall, and then how to recover from it quickly. AT ALTITUDE (1500 feet AGL).

If you wanna do stalls and spins and rolls for fun and to add to your skill set in a Utility or Acrobatic rated aircraft, take stall/spin training from a CFI-A.
 
This is correct. CFI candidates are required to demonstrate spin recovery. The CAA removed spin training from the private requirements in 1949 before it became the FAA.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't think that is actually accurate. I'm not sure that demonstration of spins is required, just the knowledge of how.
 
You should NEVER practice stalls by yourself at any phase of your student training.

Wow. Is this what your CFI taught you? If so, are you saying the check ride flight suddenly and automatically provides one with stall skills that were not present in all the months prior? Are you saying that a licensed pilot needs to obtain additional training JUST to practice stalls safely at altitude? Flight training has become more pussified over the years, but this is a new level that I have not heard yet.
 
I don't think that is actually accurate. I'm not sure that demonstration of spins is required, just the knowledge of how.


Am I reading the CFI PTS wrong, task G3 says they must demonstrate a one turn spin?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
....The PTS requires demonstration of slow flight stalls, and slow turn stalls. But notice that is with a DPE in the plane.

What does the DPE being in the plane have to do with it? Try reading ALL of the PTS...If the DPE has to take the controls for a safety issue it's a bust. And likely a re-ride for the CFI for not having properly taught the student.

PP students are required to understand and be able to recover from full stalls - both power off and power on. Straight ahead or turning.

I love it when people who have obviously never spent a minute teaching flying try and tell others how to teach. :rolleyes2:

Mike
 
Just curious, you're not on the Left Coast, are you? I'd want to make sure I stay far away from any pilot who is afraid of a stall. I've found their skills and knowledge are generally lacking.

I think at some point spin experience will vanish entirely, and stalls will replace spins as this "lurking danger" that is feared and misunderstood by pilots who have no experience with them. ;)
 
This thread is kinda taking on a new life. For the record, I want to practice spins. I also will do stall while solo. But I am not yet ready to do power on or accelerated stalls solo, I will but not yet. If you think my instructor is wrong for allowing me to solo, that's up to to you. I'll trust him over some anonymous internet poster.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I think at some point spin experience will vanish entirely, and stalls will replace spins as this "lurking danger" that is feared and misunderstood by pilots who have no experience with them. ;)

I was being a little facetious about mandating J-3 spin training, but most of my PPL training was done in a J-3, and I was doing multi-turn spins before I soloed at 7.9 hours.

That wasn't because I was some sort of child prodigy. That's just the way they taught at Bird's Nest Airport in 1970.

We don't need any more rules than we already have, but I really think that a flight school that gives students a spin demo ride as part of their PPL syllabus is doing their students a huge favor, a lot bigger flavor than G1000 training!
 
I was being a little facetious about mandating J-3 spin training, but most of my PPL training was done in a J-3, and I was doing multi-turn spins before I soloed at 7.9 hours.

That wasn't because I was some sort of child prodigy. That's just the way they taught at Bird's Nest Airport in 1970.

We don't need any more rules than we already have, but I really think that a flight school that gives students a spin demo ride as part of their PPL syllabus is doing their students a huge favor, a lot bigger flavor than G1000 training!

For sure. I was being facetious too. I wish all pilots today could receive initial training like the WWII cadets did - in a Stearman, including basic spin and aerobatic training. These pilots sure didn't go through their flying careers uncomfortable with stalls and terrified of spins. I think every pilot should get spin training as early as possible from a qualifed instructor in a suitable airplane, even if it's not practical to mandate it...the latter part being the reason - too few truly qualified instructors and suitable airplanes.
 
For sure. I was being facetious too. I wish all pilots today could receive initial training like the WWII cadets did - in a Stearman, including basic spin and aerobatic training. These pilots sure didn't go through their flying careers uncomfortable with stalls and terrified of spins. I think every pilot should get spin training as early as possible from a qualifed instructor in a suitable airplane, even if it's not practical to mandate it...the latter part being the reason - too few truly qualified instructors and suitable airplanes.


I get what you are all saying. And I intend to get some spin training, I just can't do it in the airplane I am training in. But even if it was mandated, how do you think it affect the accident rate? My thinking is the vast majority of spins occur very low where the chance of recovery is slight to begin with. And the flip side of that is, how many cowboys are gonna go spinning airplanes because they "know how" and spin airplanes that shouldn't be spun killing themselves in the process? I just wonder if the accident rate would change. I don't know the answers of course, I'm just asking the question.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
But even if it was mandated, how do you think it affect the accident rate?

Who knows. The only data we have is from the 40's when spin training was mandatory and there were supposedly more fatalities associated with spin training than pilots accidentally spinning and dying on their own. Not sure if data exists that shows the rate of spin deaths between spin trained pilots and non-spin trained pilots...once they survived the spin training process. ;) I strongly feel the problem then was the same as now - lack of truly qualified instructors and suitable airplanes. These days, receiving spin training from a qualified aerobatic/spin instructor is probably safer than doing basic PPL training in a 152.

My thinking is the vast majority of spins occur very low where the chance of recovery is slight to begin with.

You'd be surprised how little altitude light GA airplanes can recover a spin entry. You do not have to let the spin develop. Spin training and experience produces muscle memory that ingrains an immediate response to spin entry that pilots would not otherwise have. If you sit there and let a spin develop at 500' turning final, then you're likely dead. If you immediately recover what would otherwise be a spin entry for someone who had no clue what they were seeing, then you very well may live. Spin training also gives you skills that you will then likely never NEED to utilize. Those with spin skill and experience by and large are not the ones accidentally stall/spinning on base to final because their spin awareness is much more acute.

Many argue that it all goes back to stall prevention awareness. I don't fully buy it. A spin is just a possible progression of a stall. Saying you can have full spin prevention awareness by stall avoidance training is like saying that you can have full stall prevention awareness having never done a stall. Does anyone feel a pilot who has NEVER experienced an actual stall (and what it takes to get there) is more likely to avoid a stall than a pilot who HAS experienced one? I think that's baloney.

And the flip side of that is, how many cowboys are gonna go spinning airplanes because they "know how" and spin airplanes that shouldn't be spun killing themselves in the process? I just wonder if the accident rate would change. I don't know the answers of course, I'm just asking the question.

You could possibly say the same thing about aerobatic training. Does this training make it more likely that there will be someone out there who gets involved with aerobatics and happens to kill themselves, when absent this training they would have never done aerobatics and died? Maybe. But I think this type of training will provide skills that prevent more accidents than the elevated risk associated with responsibly getting involved with this activity. I disagree with the premise that additional training will end up with more dead pilots overall. For those who DO agree with this premise, then it's a slippery slope argument for ANY additional training and skills that pilots obtain. If you take the slippery slope in the reverse direction, you may as well not teach anyone to fly in the first place, because as long as there are pilots flying, there will be fatalities associated with flying.

I think there are many more accidents associated with undertrained, underskilled, and underexperienced pilots getting into situations they cannot handle than there are well-trained, skilled, and experienced pilots stupidly getting into situations they cannot handle.
 
Last edited:
I get what you are all saying. And I intend to get some spin training, I just can't do it in the airplane I am training in. But even if it was mandated, how do you think it affect the accident rate? My thinking is the vast majority of spins occur very low where the chance of recovery is slight to begin with. And the flip side of that is, how many cowboys are gonna go spinning airplanes because they "know how" and spin airplanes that shouldn't be spun killing themselves in the process? I just wonder if the accident rate would change. I don't know the answers of course, I'm just asking the question.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Why do you think spin recovery was taught in the first place? It was taught to show the student to keep their head out of their a$$ at low altitude, to keep their speed up while in a landing pattern, and to demonstrate that if they did not, they would not only not recover, but rather they would die. A spin in a proper trainer, done correctly , cannot possibly kill anyone and was instrumental in saving many many lives, including mine. " describing a spin" is a very weak substitute for doing several and being able to recover on you own. I fear that there are instructors who are afraid to do them. That is unacceptable.
 
Last edited:
Why do you think spin recovery was taught in the first place? It was taught to show the student to keep their head out of their a$$ at low altitude, to keep their speed up while in a landing pattern, and to demonstrate that if they did not, they would not only not recover, but rather they would die. A spin in a proper trainer, done correctly , cannot possibly kill anyone and was instrumental in saving many many lives, including mine. " describing a spin" is a very weak substitute for doing several and being able to recover on you own. I fear that there are instructors who are afraid to do them. That is unacceptable.

My instructor isn't scared, he in fact has encouraged me. But, the plane I fly isn't approved. We have a 172 that I "think" is approved, I need to check. How does it translate from one plane to another? Is the feeling I would get in the 172 going to compare to the Warrior? Know what I mean? I am asking because I don't know. I have also considered doing the Greg Koontz training, he isn't too far from me.
 
These days, receiving spin training from a qualified aerobatic/spin instructor is probably safer than doing basic PPL training in a 152.

I think you need to pick a better example. First because it is well a (relatively) well known statistic that the accident rate during primary training is actually lower than the accident rate flying after the license has been earned.

Second, the C-152 has one of the lowest accident rates around - lower even than the C-172 which is considered to have very low accident rate:

Overall accidents per 100,000 hours:
C-152: 2.2
C-172: 5.8
GA Avg: 6.3

Fatal accidents per 100,000 hours:
C-152: 0.19
C-172: 0.6
GA Avg: 1.2

Source: http://flightdesign.com/files/Media/The Aviation Consumer - LSA Accidents.pdf
 
My instructor isn't scared, he in fact has encouraged me. But, the plane I fly isn't approved. We have a 172 that I "think" is approved, I need to check. How does it translate from one plane to another? Is the feeling I would get in the 172 going to compare to the Warrior? Know what I mean? I am asking because I don't know. I have also considered doing the Greg Koontz training, he isn't too far from me.

The 172 is approved for spins in the utility category (2200# max, no rear pax, baggage compartment empty).

Comparing the 172 to the PA-28: from a deliberate stall entry, the Cessna will break into the stall and enter a normal upright spin. The PA-28 will not break in the stall, and it will likely spin flatter (more force/technique needed). The same recovery procedure, sight picture, and sensations apply to both planes. If you want to get even closer to how your Warrior would behave, the original Hershey bar wing Cherokees are spin-approved if you can find one nearby. Or Google "PA-28 spin".
 
I get what you are all saying. And I intend to get some spin training, I just can't do it in the airplane I am training in. But even if it was mandated, how do you think it affect the accident rate?

No rush. There's a difference between not spinning because of a limitation of the plane & not spinning because you are too scared of the consequences. Same with stall training- it's perfectly understandable for a newly soloed student to not want to practice stalls alone because they are still learning; it's something else entirely for a licensed pilot or near-checkride student to be scared of flying a plane through the stall break alone.

As for what spin training would do to the accident rate: I think it'd go down. Many "spin accidents" were from the days when spinning the plane was the accepted way to descend VFR through clouds- sometimes there was room underneath & sometimes there WASN'T.
 
Scary - and well done, sir. Resourcefulness is a critical piloting skill!

All I can see from my still rookie perspective of around 300 hours - I'm lucky to be alive, but it takes real determination to kill yourself in a small plane, especially the common trainers.

There is no one thing, or two or three, that kill you. If you haven't heard of the accident chain concept, I strongly suggest reading up on it. There is a book call "the killing zone" which, while being a bit pedantic, is the most valuable education that I failed to read at the right time, that is, as early as possible. I did finally read it recently and found myself with a nicely chilled spine as having escaped a few chapters by sheer luck, or rather, failing to complete the chain after advancing nicely along it, and being within literally one last call of closing the loop.

Figure out the chain in your story. Start from the ground - the reactions here have pointed out the way. It will give you a lot more than insight on this particular incident. And go back up there soon as you can, with a CFI, and get the shakes out. You'll love it again in no time!
 
When I was taking my PP training many many moons ago, it was in a 172 and I did finally talk my instructor into showing me a spin (in utility category) but the problem was that the CFI himself was so short on spin knowledge, and so scared of spins, that he would not let a spin get fully established. The result was that the student (me) never really got to see a real full-turn spin, so I couldn't identify what a spin "really looked like" in the event it happened. When I passed my checkride I had no idea how to distinguish between a turning stall and a spin entry, because I had never actually seen a real, legit spin entry that was allowed to progress more than about 2 seconds.

About a month after I got my ticket, I found another instructor that went up with me and we burned fuel until we were both confident that I knew what a real spin entry felt and looked like, and what to do about it. Next to my mountain flying dual, that was the best CFI dollars I ever spent.
 
I think you need to pick a better example. First because it is well a (relatively) well known statistic that the accident rate during primary training is actually lower than the accident rate flying after the license has been earned.

Second, the C-152 has one of the lowest accident rates around - lower even than the C-172 which is considered to have very low accident rate:

Overall accidents per 100,000 hours:
C-152: 2.2
C-172: 5.8
GA Avg: 6.3

Fatal accidents per 100,000 hours:
C-152: 0.19
C-172: 0.6
GA Avg: 1.2

Source: http://flightdesign.com/files/Media/The Aviation Consumer - LSA Accidents.pdf

Well you can't say I gave a bad example unless you have statistics that I was comparing PPL traning in a 152 with. That would be spin training with a specialized acro/spin instructor in a suitable airplane. I don't have stats on this type of training, but I can't recall a recent (past 12 years) fatality associated with this type of training. My point is that spin training with the right instructor in the right airplane is extremely safe, as flying goes.
 
I was training for a private pilot's license in a Cessna 172, and had about 35 hours flight time and 175 take-offs and landings under my belt by the time I was cleared for my first unsupervised solo. During the solo, I made a series of poor decisions and mistakes and nearly ended causing what undoubtedly would have been a fatal crash. Lesson learned: please practice stall and spin recovery so that you don't panic if it happens to you.

My flight plan, which I had worked out ahead of time with my instructor, was simply to fly out to our usual training area and practice the ground reference and air maneuvers that we had been working, and then fly straight back. The trouble started when I went into practicing the air maneuvers, which I had become accustomed to practicing in a certain sequence: steep turns, slow flight, power-off stall, power-on stall. So that's what I did. I practiced steep turns, both to the left and right, and then into slow flight (with full flaps), and power-off stall. My intention was never to actually stall the plane, but rather to practice (as I had done with my instructor) approaching the threshold, recognizing the signs, and recovering.

It was right at the point between the threshold of a stall and the point of recovery when things started to go very wrong. I can recall applying full throttle, but I had not yet begun to raise the flaps, when I felt the left wing of the plane start to drop. I instinctively reacted by turning the yoke hard to the right. I had been taught to use the rudder here, but clearly had not yet internalized that. Upon doing so, the plane stopped flying and started a slow spin. At first I didn't realize what was happening. I knew something was wrong because the nose dropped and I was looking straight ahead at the ground, but I didn't understand the reasons.

Again acting on more instinct than proper training, I first tried to just pull the nose of the plane up by pulling back on the yoke. And it worked, the nose came up to the horizon and I remember feeling relieved, but only for a moment before the nose dropped again. I pulled back again and brought the nose up a second time, and it dropped right back down. I think I tried a third time before I realized what was happening.

:hairraise: At that instant, pure and total panic hit me like a ton of bricks. I had visions of the local paper reporting on the death of a student pilot, and I could only think to myself "how in the hell did I manage to get myself into this? I am going to crash and die on my first solo!" I had never practiced spin recovery before and this was not a topic that had been address with my instructor nor one that I recalled (at the time) from ground school.

Luckily, I had just finished reading a great old book called Stick and Rudder by Wolfgang Langewiesche. I remembered the reading about the basics of spin recovery and began to apply what I remembered. First thing in my mind was apply opposite rudder to stop the spin; I wasn't sure which rudder was opposite, and I can recall feeling like I did not have time to ponder and figure it out, so I just guessed and stepped on one of them. When spin got faster, I knew I had guessed wrong. So I let up on that rudder and applied the correct opposite rudder, which did quickly stop the spin. Then release back pressure on the yoke, as I had still been trying to hold the nose up this whole time. Then I realized the plane was at full throttle and full flaps, so I reduced throttle and raised the flaps incrementally as the plane started flying again.

Now I was drenched in sweat, like I had just stepped out of the shower, but the plane was flying again. I'm not certain how long it took or how much altitude I lost, but I started at around 3,500 and my perception was certainly that I had narrowly avoided a fatal accident. I went straight back to the airport and have been terrified to get back in the cockpit since. The feeling of that wing dropping out from under me will forever be associated with an intense visceral terror that I felt during those moments.
Stick & Rudder helped me fiqure out how to flare now I will read the chapter on Spin recovery So what were you doing all this on your first Solo ? I never practice steep turns and stalls alone without my instructor , but than thats me ! Glad you made it !
 
Who knows. The only data we have is from the 40's when spin training was mandatory and there were supposedly more fatalities associated with spin training than pilots accidentally spinning and dying on their own. Not sure if data exists that shows the rate of spin deaths between spin trained pilots and non-spin trained pilots...once they survived the spin training process. ;) I strongly feel the problem then was the same as now - lack of truly qualified instructors and suitable airplanes. These days, receiving spin training from a qualified aerobatic/spin instructor is probably safer than doing basic PPL training in a 152.



You'd be surprised how little altitude light GA airplanes can recover a spin entry. You do not have to let the spin develop. Spin training and experience produces muscle memory that ingrains an immediate response to spin entry that pilots would not otherwise have. If you sit there and let a spin develop at 500' turning final, then you're likely dead. If you immediately recover what would otherwise be a spin entry for someone who had no clue what they were seeing, then you very well may live. Spin training also gives you skills that you will then likely never NEED to utilize. Those with spin skill and experience by and large are not the ones accidentally stall/spinning on base to final because their spin awareness is much more acute.

Many argue that it all goes back to stall prevention awareness. I don't fully buy it. A spin is just a possible progression of a stall. Saying you can have full spin prevention awareness by stall avoidance training is like saying that you can have full stall prevention awareness having never done a stall. Does anyone feel a pilot who has NEVER experienced an actual stall (and what it takes to get there) is more likely to avoid a stall than a pilot who HAS experienced one? I think that's baloney.



You could possibly say the same thing about aerobatic training. Does this training make it more likely that there will be someone out there who gets involved with aerobatics and happens to kill themselves, when absent this training they would have never done aerobatics and died? Maybe. But I think this type of training will provide skills that prevent more accidents than the elevated risk associated with responsibly getting involved with this activity. I disagree with the premise that additional training will end up with more dead pilots overall. For those who DO agree with this premise, then it's a slippery slope argument for ANY additional training and skills that pilots obtain. If you take the slippery slope in the reverse direction, you may as well not teach anyone to fly in the first place, because as long as there are pilots flying, there will be fatalities associated with flying.

I think there are many more accidents associated with undertrained, underskilled, and underexperienced pilots getting into situations they cannot handle than there are well-trained, skilled, and experienced pilots stupidly getting into situations they cannot handle.
I would like to see the "Data" showing that pilots lost their lives in spin training in the 40s ....( or any other time for that matter) the airplanes used thru the 50s were very docile aircraft, ie: champ , cub, t craft, Luscombe, etc. and of course the Stearman which was -is also a very docile aircraft although underpowered. Doing stall- spin training was simply something you were taught, no big deal and in civilian training one didn't even wear a chute. ( it was required you bring it out on a pre determined point.)
 
I would like to see the "Data" showing that pilots lost their lives in spin training in the 40s ....( or any other time for that matter) the airplanes used thru the 50s were very docile aircraft, ie: champ , cub, t craft, Luscombe, etc. and of course the Stearman which was -is also a very docile aircraft although underpowered. Doing stall- spin training was simply something you were taught, no big deal and in civilian training one didn't even wear a chute. ( it was required you bring it out on a pre determined point.)

So would I. All I've ever heard and read is that spin training accidents were the main contributing facto to the removal of mandatory spin training. I don't know where statistics such as this from the 40's can be found.

But you might be surprised how some airplanes with "docile" spin characteristics can have these characteristics dramatically changed with unusual stick and aileron inputs. Students are very creative in finding ways to screw up. I can easily see spin accidents happening with instructors who have only done a few plain old standard spins and then thinking they can teach them, or quickly understand and correct any possible f-up by a student.
 
So would I. All I've ever heard and read is that spin training accidents were the main contributing facto to the removal of mandatory spin training. I don't know where statistics such as this from the 40's can be found.

But you might be surprised how some airplanes with "docile" spin characteristics can have these characteristics dramatically changed with unusual stick and aileron inputs. Students are very creative in finding ways to screw up. I can easily see spin accidents happening with instructors who have only done a few plain old standard spins and then thinking they can teach them, or quickly understand and correct any possible f-up by a student.
As I understand it, it wasn't so much about instructors with insufficient spin experience killing themselves and students, it was more about students practicing spins on their own and messing up the recovery. Back when spins were required virtually all trainers were spinnable with adequate recovery performance and I'd be surprised if most of the CFIs of those days weren't pretty well versed in getting in and out of a spin in the planes they regularly flew.

And FWIW, given that many aircraft that get used for primary training these days are not certified for spins, requiring them would be like requiring IR training to be in IMC in parts of the country where it rarely exists.
 
I read through pages 1 and 4 of this thread. First thought is wholly foxtrot, OP needs a better instructor. I did 3 full stop taxi-backs on my first solo with the instructor available via handheld radio. I didn't get cleared to the practice area until later. Jeeesus H. Baby steps.

When I was training, I think our 152 had a no intentional spins placard or something (it was 18 years ago). He told me we couldn't legally do intentional spins... so we were going to go do an unintentional spin. :D Seriously. So we went and did an insipient spin which included a) not being able to spin the damn thing for the longest time -- they are STABLE, b) dropping the left wing, seeing cotton fields with center pivots for a sec, then c) pulling out of the dive at ~1.5 to 2g.

I was very impressed by the speed with which the wing dropped and the nose fell off the horizon and we went past vertical for a second. He had the rotation stopped and was recovering before I even knew WTF had happened.

My primary instructor made old school look like new school. Not a cowboy at all, he just didn't foxtrot around. And he always had a big fat cigar in his mouth. Great instructor.
 
Last edited:
Question about practicing stalls (power on). My instructor told me as I approach the stall to keep the nose straight with the rudder. He said not to necessarily try to keep the ball centered in the turn coordinator but to visually (and with the DG) keep the nose straight on the same heading. I read in this thread a few posts indicating to keep the airplane coordinated when approaching the stall. Does anyone have thoughts about which is the preferred method to approach this maneuver so a spin is not incurred?
 
Question about practicing stalls (power on). My instructor told me as I approach the stall to keep the nose straight with the rudder. He said not to necessarily try to keep the ball centered in the turn coordinator but to visually (and with the DG) keep the nose straight on the same heading. I read in this thread a few posts indicating to keep the airplane coordinated when approaching the stall. Does anyone have thoughts about which is the preferred method to approach this maneuver so a spin is not incurred?

As long as the airplane is coordinated, it doesn't matter- you can look at the TC or you can look at the nose relative to your direction of flight.
 
Question about practicing stalls (power on). My instructor told me as I approach the stall to keep the nose straight with the rudder. He said not to necessarily try to keep the ball centered in the turn coordinator but to visually (and with the DG) keep the nose straight on the same heading. I read in this thread a few posts indicating to keep the airplane coordinated when approaching the stall. Does anyone have thoughts about which is the preferred method to approach this maneuver so a spin is not incurred?

I kept having my right wing dip when I kept the ball in the center. I came across this just before my last practice before check ride and it worked for me. He doesn't mention which type of airplane but his description of wind tunnel tests makes sense. I used it on my check ride in a C172 and it worked like a charm.

http://www.mountainflying.com/Pages/mountain-flying/stalls_revisited.html
 
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 365 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant.
Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread instead.
Back
Top