Spin Endorsement???

[RoscoeT]

If you spin out of the base-final turn, all the muscle memory in the world won't save you -- there's not enough altitude below you to do it. The only thing that prevents deaths from the base-final skidded-turn stall is preventing the stall, not knowing how to recover once it happens. That's why the FAA is pushing stall/spin prevention so hard. And the fact that with practice you were able to limit altitude loss in a spin recovery in a J-3 just isn't relevant, since pretty much nobody's using J-3's as primary trainers these days and the planes that are being used won't recover with that little altitude loss.

Also, I don't think it's that instructors "won't" teach spins to those interested, but rather that fewer and fewer primary training planes are spin-approved. Even the ones that are usually have a "no spins" rule from the FBO/school because those planes are also used for instrument training and they don't want the gyros trashed. Flight schools today simply can't afford to keep one spin-approved plane on the line just for that purpose as we did 30+ years ago when we had 12 primary trainers and a hundred students and could take the gyros out of one just for that purpose.

OK Ron, subsitute J-3 for any other light trainer. So then what in your experience is the difference in altitude loss during a one turn spin in a 150/152 vs. a J-3? I doubt a helluva lot more. In your method of instruction, how high are you typically in the base-to-final turn? 700-800'?

I would suggest you go to altitude, reset your altimeter to 1000', pretend you're on downwind, and fly a normal pattern. Have your "student" attempt to spin the plane on "base to final". Since as a CFI, you should be spring loaded for problems here, as soon as it breaks, IMMEDIATELY apply opposite rudder, slight relaxation of the yoke, full power, and pull out as quickly as you can. Note your altitude when as soon as you are level. No, you did not actually do a spin, but you recovered a spin entry. OR - see what happens when you let it rotate on full turn. If you do, you'll exit much more upright than if you recovered a half-turn spin, which will put you on your back somewhat, meaning over 90 degrees of pitch change needed to get back to level.

You CAN do this at these altitudes. With experience, there's no reason a solo pilot couldn't react just as quickly. There are lots of variables asociated with loaded weight, spin characteristics, aircraft type, and pilot/CFI experience. Success may be more unlikely in some planes compared to others, but to make a blanket statement that you're just SOL at pattern altitudes is just not true. Lots of people are learning in LSA types that are so lightly loaded that I can't imagine their spin performance is much different from a J-3.

 

[RyanShort1]

If you spin out of the base-final turn, all the muscle memory in the world won't save you -- there's not enough altitude below you to do it. The only thing that prevents deaths from the base-final skidded-turn stall is preventing the stall, not knowing how to recover once it happens. That's why the FAA is pushing stall/spin prevention so hard. And the fact that with practice you were able to limit altitude loss in a spin recovery in a J-3 just isn't relevant, since pretty much nobody's using J-3's as primary trainers these days and the planes that are being used won't recover with that little altitude loss.

Ron,

In general I agree, but with some of the LSA's coming onto the market, I wonder. It seems there is a current trend of base to final accidents with the LSAs, and if it is possible that some of these birds CAN recover like a J-3 assuredly can, then maybe it would be appropriate to at least talk more about it. I've personally seen that a number of the students that I've picked up with previous experience (and for that matter, private pilot FRs) aren't very proficient with stalls and slow flight, so it may be that some of our instructors are so uncomfortable with stalls themselves, that they aren't teaching them well. Perhaps more advanced stall / spin training for instructors would be a better solution.

Ryan

 

[Fearless Tower]

They're only unrecoverable at that altitude, because most pilots who find themselves in a spin at pattern altitudes have no idea what the hell happened, or what is now happening. They don't instantly recognize the situation, and don't have the muscle memory to recover.

There is a huge difference between practicing spins at altitude and dealing with them for real on a base-final situation when you are not expecting it. Even if the stall recovery techniques are drilled to the point where they are an automatic adaptive response, it will still take more altitude to recover for real than practicing.

Dude, you need to get over your bad self....the data doesn't lie - like I said before, even if your mad skillz will recover a cub withing 300', that won't help the 40% of folks who die because they spun it in from 250'!

 

[RyanShort1]

There is a huge difference between practicing spins at altitude and dealing with them for real on a base-final situation when you are not expecting it. Even if the stall recovery techniques are drilled to the point where they are an automatic adaptive response, it will still take more altitude to recover for real than practicing.

Dude, you need to get over your bad self....the data doesn't lie - like I said before, even if your mad skillz will recover a cub withing 300', that won't help the 40% of folks who die because they spun it in from 250'!

I'm not arguing Rosoe's point, but it doesn's really take "mad skillz" in the Cub, just practice. Of course, the Cub is really a one-off example, because all of it's mass is centerline, and it doesn't develop some of the gyroscopic spin tendencies that virtually all other nosewheel GA aircraft with wing tanks will have. It would probably apply to Champs, T-carts, etc... Besides, you teach 'em to recover from the incipient spin, and NOT let it go the full turn. You might get it out in 200'.

Ryan

 

[RoscoeT]

There is a huge difference between practicing spins at altitude and dealing with them for real on a base-final situation when you are not expecting it. Even if the stall recovery techniques are drilled to the point where they are an automatic adaptive response, it will still take more altitude to recover for real than practicing.

Dude, you need to get over your bad self....the data doesn't lie - like I said before, even if your mad skillz will recover a cub withing 300', that won't help the 40% of folks who die because they spun it in from 250'!

Sorry to say, but your perspective is informed by lack of experience and continued practice with spins, and recovering with minimal altitude loss. It really can become second nature. It's like practicing aerobatics and recovering a blown maneuver without thinking.

It is true that your average pilot will NOT be helped much by going up one time and doing a couple spins. I'm talking about people who have the drive to attempt to master their aircraft, and that means getting all the training and practice that it takes, including advanced aerobatic spin training. Just because your average pilot does not take it upon themselves to get this type of training, and maintain sharp skills, doesn't mean some pilots can't get to the point of being this capable in an airplane THROUGH training and practice. It's gotta be IN you. Even mandating spin training would only mean some pilots get dragged kicking and screaming through a few spins while scared sh*tless and then never do them again. Nope, they will NOT recover a spin entry at pattern altitudes. I hope you hear and understand what I'm saying. And it doesn't take "mad skillz". I don't claim to have those. It's just conditioned response developed through experience.

 

[Witmo]

Sorry to say, but your perspective is informed by lack of experience and continued practice with spins, and recovering with minimal altitude loss. It really can become second nature. It's like practicing aerobatics and recovering a blown maneuver without thinking.

It is true that your average pilot will NOT be helped much by going up one time and doing a couple spins. I'm talking about people who have the drive to attempt to master their aircraft, and that means getting all the training and practice that it takes, including advanced aerobatic spin training. Just because your average pilot does not take it upon themselves to get this type of training, and maintain sharp skills, doesn't mean some pilots can't get to the point of being this capable in an airplane THROUGH training and practice. It's gotta be IN you. Even mandating spin training would only mean some pilots get dragged kicking and screaming through a few spins while scared sh*tless and then never do them again. Nope, they will NOT recover a spin entry at pattern altitudes. I hope you hear and understand what I'm saying.

"I'm talking about people who have the drive to attempt to master their aircraft..." Seems to me these people are the least likely to accidentally enter a spin in the pattern. Lots of people can do a loop but very few can safely do one and consistently bottom out 50 AGL over show center. Those few that could recover from a spin resulting from a base to final turn are the least likely to ever put themselves in the position to require that skill.

 

[RyanShort1]

"I'm talking about people who have the drive to attempt to master their aircraft..." Seems to me these people are the least likely to accidentally enter a spin in the pattern. Lots of people can do a loop but very few can safely do one and consistently bottom out 50 AGL over show center. Those few that could recover from a spin resulting from a base to final turn are the least likely to ever put themselves in the position to require that skill.

How true!

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

The only thing that prevents deaths from the base-final skidded-turn stall is preventing the stall,

So, why do people do skidded turns from base to final?

 

[RoscoeT]

Seems to me these people are the least likely to accidentally enter a spin in the pattern. Lots of people can do a loop but very few can safely do one and consistently bottom out 50 AGL over show center. Those few that could recover from a spin resulting from a base to final turn are the least likely to ever put themselves in the position to require that skill.

Thanks. All my babbling didn't cut to the chase quite as well as you did.

So, why do people do skidded turns from base to final?

Fear of spins and thinking that a bank angle in the pattern slightly over what they were taught = death.

 

[RyanShort1]

So, why do people do skidded turns from base to final?

Memory loss, poor training, lack of proficiency.

 

[Fearless Tower]

Memory loss, poor training, lack of proficiency.

I would add head outside looking at the runway and no feel for what the plane is doing....getting sucked into adding rudder to make the runway without sufficient bank.

 

[thomascannon]

Memory loss, poor training, lack of proficiency.

Unfamiliarity with spins which leads them to not want to "overbank" and get themselves into one, cruelly enough.

Couple that with someone who drops a wing and tries to correct with aileron instead of their feet because they've never spun a plane and don't know how to recover, and 800' turns into 0' in a hurry.

I think good points have been made by everybody in this discussion. Seems like the folks that spin airplanes all agree that the training is a good thing, and the folks who don't all agree that it's not worthwhile. I've never in my life seen a lack of practical experience really be a benefit to anybody. However if the numbers are correct, CFIs don't really understand spins much better than their students so I'll concede that requiring them to go out and teach them does sound like a recipe for disaster. The lack of spin-approved airplanes is also not a big help.

 

[thomascannon]

I would add head outside looking at the runway and no feel for what the plane is doing....getting sucked into adding rudder to make the runway without sufficient bank.

... and that! Also, the inability to recognize that you've blown it and just go around and try it again. Not every approach or landing can be saved. Step on the gas and do it again.

 

[RoscoeT]

Seems like the folks that spin airplanes all agree that the training is a good thing, and the folks who don't all agree that it's not worthwhile. I've never in my life seen a lack of practical experience really be a benefit to anybody.

Funny that. +1

 

[poadeleted20]

OK Ron, subsitute J-3 for any other light trainer. So then what in your experience is the difference in altitude loss during a one turn spin in a 150/152 vs. a J-3? I doubt a helluva lot more. In your method of instruction, how high are you typically in the base-to-final turn? 700-800'?

That's pretty high for turning final 1/2-3/4 mile out -- more like 400 AGL, at which point a skidded-turn stall is pretty well fatal in just about any trainer used today, especially with any sort of reaction time thrown in. I'll stick with teaching them to mind their speed/AoA, keep the ball in the center, and know what it feels like just before the stall so they don't end up in an unrecoverable situation in the first place. Sure, if they want spin recovery training, and we have a plane in which to do it, I'll be happy to do that, but I'm not going out of my way to suggest it.

 

[denverpilot]

So, why do people do skidded turns from base to final?

Getting blown downwind and hearing that oft-repeated mantra of, "No more than 30 degrees of bank in the pattern." in their head.

 

[AEROBAT]

After reading this posting I figured I would go out and practice a few spins ect. I jury rigged a video camera behind my shoulder so the video isn't the best. It's on youtube under M-1 Mustang Rolls Loops and Spins.

I had to spend a bit of time avoiding flocks of geese on the first video, the second one was today and I did a spin a few rolls and a split S.

 

[Skylane81E]

That's pretty high for turning final 1/2-3/4 mile out -- more like 400 AGL

Yeah, I'm gonna half to agree, i don't think I'm that high othe downwind base turn

 

[PittsDriver]

I agree 100% with the notion of how important it is to teach stall and spin awareness and avoidance. What baffles me is how that value is used to suggest that spin training is not of high value and that teaching stall/spin awareness is "good enough." This is flawed thinking IMO and I wonder if it would be as pervasive as it is if all CFIs were required to be trained AND proficient in spins.

The other counter argument is usually something like "spin training will never save your bacon on base to final." That may or may not be true but again, that's not the main point of the training - a notion that is so hard for many to understand. Spin and aerobatic upset training are first and foremost mental and much less about stick and rudder training. I'll argue that the mental training that results from a full on spin/upset recovery course will translate into a safer, more confident, and enjoyable flying experience throughout the rest of your flying days. Those that have done it know exactly what I'm talking about.

 

[MBDiagMan]

I agree 100% with the notion of how important it is to teach stall and spin awareness and avoidance. What baffles me is how that value is used to suggest that spin training is not of high value and that teaching stall/spin awareness is "good enough." This is flawed thinking IMO and I wonder if it would be as pervasive as it is if all CFIs were required to be trained AND proficient in spins.

The other counter argument is usually something like "spin training will never save your bacon on base to final." That may or may not be true but again, that's not the main point of the training - a notion that is so hard for many to understand. Spin and aerobatic upset training are first and foremost mental and much less about stick and rudder training. I'll argue that the mental training that results from a full on spin/upset recovery course will translate into a safer, more confident, and enjoyable flying experience throughout the rest of your flying days. Those that have done it know exactly what I'm talking about.

Wait a minute Pitts! I have been under the impression that spin training was required for the CFI rating. That's what I have been planning for and even if it is not required I will do it anyway. I think that not only spin training, but also spin PROFICIENCY should be mandatory for a CFI.

Doc

 

[azure]

I totally agree that I need to be aware of what an impending stall feels like, in whatever I'm flying. It would be nice to know how to recover from an incipient spin in my Cardinal too, but how would I get the training in how to do that, or for that matter, how to recognize the condition? I doubt if it's safe to even approach a spin in an airplane in which it's prohibited to actually do one (<cough> at least, intentionally). If you mess up and an actual spin develops, you're a test pilot.

 

[AEROBAT]

I could be wrong but I thought in order to be certified in the normal catagory a single engine plane had to be demonstrated to be able to recover from a spin during the FAA certification process.

Being placarded against intentional spins was due to the fact it took longer to recover than say a 150 or 172. I was led to believe the Cirrus was an exception and in order to get certified they had to go to the 'chute to pass acceptance standards.

I agree though intentionaly spinning a plane that is placarded against it would not be wise.

 

[RoscoeT]

Wait a minute Pitts! I have been under the impression that spin training was required for the CFI rating. That's what I have been planning for and even if it is not required I will do it anyway. I think that not only spin training, but also spin PROFICIENCY should be mandatory for a CFI.

Doc

It is...well a spin "endorsement" is required. That could be as simple as a single one-turn spin in a 172 and then a sign-off. I would imagine most spin endorsements leave a helluva lot to be desired in the "training" department. Forget proficiency. I would imagine many CFI's have never experienced an accelerated spin, and wouldn't know what to do if a student produced one. Proficiency is hard to define, since there is so much you can learn about spin dynamics beyond the garden-variety one turn upright spin. To do it fully would require an aerobatic airplane and a good, experienced aerobatic spin instructor.

 

[Skylane81E]

I totally agree that I need to be aware of what an impending stall feels like, in whatever I'm flying. It would be nice to know how to recover from an incipient spin in my Cardinal too, but how would I get the training in how to do that, or for that matter, how to recognize the condition? I doubt if it's safe to even approach a spin in an airplane in which it's prohibited to actually do one (<cough> at least, intentionally). If you mess up and an actual spin develops, you're a test pilot.

Cessna spun it, and recovered so it's been done. Thing is that IIRC "Normal" catagory aircraft aren't allowed to be spun, but utillity can

 

[MBDiagMan]

It is...well a spin "endorsement" is required. That could be as simple as a single one-turn spin in a 172 and then a sign-off. I would imagine most spin endorsements leave a helluva lot to be desired in the "training" department. Forget proficiency. I would imagine many CFI's have never experienced an accelerated spin, and wouldn't know what to do if a student produced one. Proficiency is hard to define, since there is so much you can learn about spin dynamics beyond the garden-variety one turn upright spin. To do it fully would require an aerobatic airplane and a good, experienced aerobatic spin instructor.

Okay, I get it! I almost got my spin endorsement years ago, but he did not sign it off, because I did not come out on the proper heading that he wanted. At the time I didn't care what direction I was headed, I just WANTED OUT OF THE SPIN!

I was convinced a few months ago, that simply getting the endorsement in the logbook was not a good approach. I plan on spin TRAINING.

Thanks,
Doc

 

[Fearless Tower]

I was convinced a few months ago, that simply getting the endorsement in the logbook was not a good approach. I plan on spin TRAINING.

Eactly - there is a big difference between completing a check in the block and being proficient.

 

[poadeleted20]

It is...well a spin "endorsement" is required. That could be as simple as a single one-turn spin in a 172 and then a sign-off.

No, it can't. It will have to include fully developed spins and a whole lot more to meet the FAA's guidance on that regulation. See AC 61-67C.

 

[poadeleted20]

Okay, I get it! I almost got my spin endorsement years ago, but he did not sign it off, because I did not come out on the proper heading that he wanted.

You must have a very old instructor, because spins to a heading were dropped from the PTS a very long time ago. Personally, other than competition aerobatics, I can't see any real point in such a requirement. The important thing is that once the spin is allowed to fully develop and recovery is initiated, the recovery be completed with minimum loss of altitude and no secondary stall.

 

[TMetzinger]

No, it can't. It will have to include fully developed spins and a whole lot more to meet the FAA's guidance on that regulation. See AC 61-67C.

Agree. While the spin training required for CFIs is, I'm sure, well short of aerobatic instruction, if done right, it requires the trainee display "instructional proficiency" in both knowledge and flight tasks related to spins, including spin entries and recoveries from fully developed spins.

What that meant to my trainer was that after various demos, I had to be able to spin the aircraft in either direction, and recover, while "instructing" my way through the exercise.

We did all of this with one hour on the ground and just over one hour in an aerobatic airplane.

 

[RoscoeT]

No, it can't. It will have to include fully developed spins and a whole lot more to meet the FAA's guidance on that regulation. See AC 61-67C.

I have a question about the regs then. AC 61-67C states:

e. [FONT=CECMPL+TimesNewRoman,Times New Roman][FONT=CECMPL+TimesNewRoman,Times New Roman]Spin entry, spin, and spin recovery should be demonstrated by the instructor and repeated in both directions by the applicant. [/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=CECMPL+TimesNewRoman,Times New Roman][FONT=CECMPL+TimesNewRoman,Times New Roman](1) Apply the entry procedure for a power-off stall. As the airplane approaches a stall, smoothly apply full rudder in the direction of desired spin rotation and continue to apply back elevator to the limit of travel. The ailerons should be neutral. [/FONT][/FONT]​

[FONT=CECMPL+TimesNewRoman,Times New Roman][FONT=CECMPL+TimesNewRoman,Times New Roman](2) Allow the spin to develop, and be fully recovered no later than one full turn. Observe the airspeed indicator during the spin and subsequent recovery to ensure that it does not reach the red line (VNE). [/FONT][/FONT]​

[FONT=CECMPL+TimesNewRoman,Times New Roman][FONT=CECMPL+TimesNewRoman,Times New Roman]This is the only reference in the document as to how the spin training spin must be performed. When it says "allow the spin to develop", is this supposed to mean "fully developed"? Because they specifically define "fully developed" earlier in the document. Simply allowing the spin to "develop" seems open to interpretation. Not sure if it means DO only one turn, or simply be able to recover within one turn after it has been deemed that the spin has "developed". I would assume the latter. Some airplanes are pretty much fully developed after 1 turn. Some might take a couple turns or more. And thanks for the reference document.[/FONT][/FONT]​

You must have a very old instructor, because spins to a heading were dropped from the PTS a very long time ago. Personally, other than competition aerobatics, I can't see any real point in such a requirement. The important thing is that once the spin is allowed to fully develop and recovery is initiated, the recovery be completed with minimum loss of altitude and no secondary stall.

Not sure it should be a requirement, but stopping on heading shows calm situational awareness and skill beyond simply barely mustering up "cookbook" recovery inputs while scared stiff. I guess as long as you can recover safely, that's what really matters, but I would rather fly with a CFI who rides through spins as calmly as if on a XC cruise, while maintaining full situational awareness.​

 

[poadeleted20]

I have a question about the regs then. AC 61-67C states:

e. [FONT=CECMPL+TimesNewRoman,Times New Roman][FONT=CECMPL+TimesNewRoman,Times New Roman]Spin entry, spin, and spin recovery should be demonstrated by the instructor and repeated in both directions by the applicant. [/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=CECMPL+TimesNewRoman,Times New Roman][FONT=CECMPL+TimesNewRoman,Times New Roman](1) Apply the entry procedure for a power-off stall. As the airplane approaches a stall, smoothly apply full rudder in the direction of desired spin rotation and continue to apply back elevator to the limit of travel. The ailerons should be neutral. [/FONT][/FONT]​

[FONT=CECMPL+TimesNewRoman,Times New Roman][FONT=CECMPL+TimesNewRoman,Times New Roman](2) Allow the spin to develop, and be fully recovered no later than one full turn. Observe the airspeed indicator during the spin and subsequent recovery to ensure that it does not reach the red line (VNE). [/FONT][/FONT]​

[FONT=CECMPL+TimesNewRoman,Times New Roman][FONT=CECMPL+TimesNewRoman,Times New Roman]This is the only reference in the document as to how the spin training spin must be performed. When it says "allow the spin to develop", is this supposed to mean "fully developed"?[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=CECMPL+TimesNewRoman,Times New Roman][FONT=CECMPL+TimesNewRoman,Times New Roman]That's how I read it.[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=CECMPL+TimesNewRoman,Times New Roman][FONT=CECMPL+TimesNewRoman,Times New Roman]

[FONT=CECMPL+TimesNewRoman,Times New Roman][FONT=CECMPL+TimesNewRoman,Times New Roman]Because they specifically define "fully developed" earlier in the document.

[/FONT]

...and they don't define "developed" in that context in any other way -- no "partially developed" in there.[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]​

[FONT=CECMPL+TimesNewRoman,Times New Roman][FONT=CECMPL+TimesNewRoman,Times New Roman]

[FONT=CECMPL+TimesNewRoman,Times New Roman][FONT=CECMPL+TimesNewRoman,Times New Roman]Simply allowing the spin to "develop" seems open to interpretation. Not sure if it means DO only one turn, or simply be able to recover within one turn after it has been deemed that the spin has "developed". I would assume the latter.

[/FONT]

Me, too.[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]​

[FONT=CECMPL+TimesNewRoman,Times New Roman][FONT=CECMPL+TimesNewRoman,Times New Roman]

[FONT=CECMPL+TimesNewRoman,Times New Roman][FONT=CECMPL+TimesNewRoman,Times New Roman]Some airplanes are pretty much fully developed after 1 turn. Some might take a couple turns or more.

[/FONT]

[FONT=CECMPL+TimesNewRoman,Times New Roman][FONT=CECMPL+TimesNewRoman,Times New Roman]Exactly[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]​

[FONT=CECMPL+TimesNewRoman,Times New Roman][FONT=CECMPL+TimesNewRoman,Times New Roman][FONT=CECMPL+TimesNewRoman,Times New Roman][FONT=CECMPL+TimesNewRoman,Times New Roman]

[FONT=CECMPL+TimesNewRoman,Times New Roman][FONT=CECMPL+TimesNewRoman,Times New Roman][FONT=CECMPL+TimesNewRoman,Times New Roman][FONT=CECMPL+TimesNewRoman,Times New Roman]And thanks for the reference document.

[/FONT][/FONT]

De nada.[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]​

Not sure it should be a requirement, but stopping on heading shows calm situational awareness and skill beyond simply barely mustering up "cookbook" recovery inputs while scared stiff. I guess as long as you can recover safely, that's what really matters,

That seems to be the FAA's current position.

And BTW, I got my CFI back when a 3-turn spin with recovery on heading was required on the practical test -- in each direction. You got no idea how hard it is to keep a 140 Cherokee in a spin to the right for three full turns.​

 

[TMetzinger]

I have a question about the regs then. AC 61-67C states:

e. [FONT=CECMPL+TimesNewRoman,Times New Roman][FONT=CECMPL+TimesNewRoman,Times New Roman]Spin entry, spin, and spin recovery should be demonstrated by the instructor and repeated in both directions by the applicant. [/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=CECMPL+TimesNewRoman,Times New Roman][FONT=CECMPL+TimesNewRoman,Times New Roman](1) Apply the entry procedure for a power-off stall. As the airplane approaches a stall, smoothly apply full rudder in the direction of desired spin rotation and continue to apply back elevator to the limit of travel. The ailerons should be neutral. [/FONT][/FONT]​

[FONT=CECMPL+TimesNewRoman,Times New Roman][FONT=CECMPL+TimesNewRoman,Times New Roman](2) Allow the spin to develop, and be fully recovered no later than one full turn. Observe the airspeed indicator during the spin and subsequent recovery to ensure that it does not reach the red line (VNE). [/FONT][/FONT]​

[FONT=CECMPL+TimesNewRoman,Times New Roman][FONT=CECMPL+TimesNewRoman,Times New Roman]This is the only reference in the document as to how the spin training spin must be performed. When it says "allow the spin to develop", is this supposed to mean "fully developed"? Because they specifically define "fully developed" earlier in the document. Simply allowing the spin to "develop" seems open to interpretation. Not sure if it means DO only one turn, or simply be able to recover within one turn after it has been deemed that the spin has "developed". I would assume the latter. Some airplanes are pretty much fully developed after 1 turn. Some might take a couple turns or more. And thanks for the reference document.[/FONT][/FONT]​

Not sure it should be a requirement, but stopping on heading shows calm situational awareness and skill beyond simply barely mustering up "cookbook" recovery inputs while scared stiff. I guess as long as you can recover safely, that's what really matters, but I would rather fly with a CFI who rides through spins as calmly as if on a XC cruise, while maintaining full situational awareness.​

I recall letting the spin stabilize (more than one turn), and then initiate recovery and complete it within one turn, without losing "too much" altitude, gaining too much speed, or inducing a secondary stall.

The Super Decathalon pretty much stopped as soon as you initiated recovery, the only thing that took extra effort on my part was getting the pitch attitude up quickly - but not too quickly.

I feel confident in my ability to stop a spin in all the airplanes I fly and teach in. I wouldn't go out and practice them solo in an aerobatic airplane without a little more dual, though.

 

[poadeleted20]

BTW, someone above said something about all planes being tested for spin recovery as part of certification. Utility category aircraft must meet the same rule as aerobatic (at least three turns, and up to six turns unless the spin stabililizes after at least three but less than six) or be placarded against intentional spins. Normal category only have to go to three seconds or one full turn before recovery may be initiated, and must also be placarded against intentional spins unless they're demonstrated spin-proof. See 14 CFR 23.221 for details (which are essentially the same as the old CAR 3 requirements for planes certified before Part 23).

 

[RyanShort1]

b. Because spin entry, spins, and spin recovery are required for a flight instructor certificate or rating, a person receiving instruction from a CFI (or an ATP instructing in accordance with section 61.167) need not wear an approved parachute while instruction is being provided in these maneuvers. This provision applies regardless of the certificate or rating for which the person is receiving training and also if the person is receiving instruction that is not being provided for the purpose of obtaining any additional certificate or rating. The instructor providing the training is also not required to wear an approved parachute while providing this flight training.

Ok, so does that mean that the interpretation around here that you have to have a parachute on to demonstrate a spin to a non CFI student is wrong?

Ryan

 

[poadeleted20]

Ok, so does that mean that the interpretation around here that you have to have a parachute on to demonstrate a spin to a non CFI student is wrong?

Yes, it is wrong, as the FAA (more or less) clearly stated in the quoted AC.

 

[Witmo]

Ok, so does that mean that the interpretation around here that you have to have a parachute on to demonstrate a spin to a non CFI student is wrong?

Ryan

I'm not sure what interpretation you're referring to but I always thought that no parachute was required for spin training from a CFI. Now, if I (non-CFI) wanted to demo spins to a passenger, we'd both need to be wearing chutes. If it's just me by myself, no chute required.

 

[poadeleted20]

I'm not sure what interpretation you're referring to but I always thought that no parachute was required for spin training from a CFI. Now, if I (non-CFI) wanted to demo spins to a passenger, we'd both need to be wearing chutes. If it's just me by myself, no chute required.

I believe Ryan is speaking from the perspective of an instructor giving spin training to a trainee for something other than CFI-A/G, not a non-instructor giving a ride to a passenger. Since spins are required for a certificate/rating (specifically, CFI-Airplane and CFI-Glider), then the exception in 14 CFR 91.303(d)(20 applies across the board, and parachutes are not required for either occupant when a CFI is giving spin training to any trainee at any time, period, without regard to the purpose for which the spin training is being given. So, your understanding is the same as his, but his perspective as an instructor was not the same as yours as a non-CFI.

 

[RyanShort1]

I'm pretty sure that some in our FSDO don't read it that way. 'Tis interesting to say the least. It's not going to make me go out and do them more often, but at least I can legally save some weight in the Cub that probably wouldn't do me much good anyway. It doesn't climb well at max gross weight.

Ryan

 

[nosehair]

AC 61-67C states:

e. [FONT=CECMPL+TimesNewRoman,Times New Roman][FONT=CECMPL+TimesNewRoman,Times New Roman]Spin entry, spin, and spin recovery should be demonstrated by the instructor and repeated in both directions by the applicant. [/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=CECMPL+TimesNewRoman,Times New Roman][FONT=CECMPL+TimesNewRoman,Times New Roman](1) Apply the entry procedure for a power-offstall. As the airplane approaches a stall, smoothly apply full rudder in the direction of desired spin rotation and continue to apply back elevator to the limit of travel. The ailerons should be neutral. [/FONT][/FONT]​

OK, this part of this AC may be one source of why some folks have such a problem getting a 172 to enter a spin - the power offpart.

I find using power, full power and partial power, during the entry helps get the airplane kicked into the spin entry.

To develop spin proficiency to the CFI level, spins must be mastered from any power condition, and most student accidental spin entries are from the power on stall- with not enough right rudder.

The 172, or 152 won't actually enter into a developed spin without forcing and holding inside rudder, but the upside down spin entry roll is what any 172 will do with full power and no right rudder.

So, to make it interesting and mix up the conditions and situations a student might do when practicing stalls, start a stall entry with about 1500 rpm and as you forcefully stomp the left rudder into the floor, and yank hard to try to pull the yoke into your guts, rapidly apply full throttle to enter into a spin.

Notice that the AC says to apply rudder before the stall. If you wait until the stall, it may not enter into the spin, but into a spiral.

Forcefully applying full rudder, and holding it hard, is what causes the left wing to rapidly retreat, and the right wing to rapidly advance, while the blast of slipstream from the suddenly applied power gives the rudder the authority to do this more demonstrably.

Also, the student who does not learn spin recovery from power on stalls will not have the "throttle off" automatic response built-in during the spin training.

Most modern (under 50 years old) airplanes are designed to resist true spins, but what happens from a badly coordinated stall is to roll upside down into a spiral, and if you don't automatically get the throttle back when you're upside down, the throttle just gets you to the ground faster.

 

[jesse]

I believe Ryan is speaking from the perspective of an instructor giving spin training to a trainee for something other than CFI-A/G, not a non-instructor giving a ride to a passenger. Since spins are required for a certificate/rating (specifically, CFI-Airplane and CFI-Glider), then the exception in 14 CFR 91.303(d)(20 applies across the board, and parachutes are not required for either occupant when a CFI is giving spin training to any trainee at any time, period, without regard to the purpose for which the spin training is being given. So, your understanding is the same as his, but his perspective as an instructor was not the same as yours as a non-CFI.

I'm pretty sure that some in our FSDO don't read it that way. 'Tis interesting to say the least. It's not going to make me go out and do them more often, but at least I can legally save some weight in the Cub that probably wouldn't do me much good anyway. It doesn't climb well at max gross weight.

Ryan

This is quite clear in AC 61-67C. I'd *REALLY* like to know how one of your FSDO inspectors decides he can disagree with this:
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_G...12342e575786256ca20061e343/$FILE/AC61-67C.pdf
Page 14:

a. Section 61.183(i) requires an applicant for a flight instructor certificate or rating to receive flight training in stall awareness, spin entry, spins, and spin recovery procedures. The applicant must also possess and demonstrate instructional proficiency in these areas to receive the certificate or rating.
b. Because spin entry, spins, and spin recovery are required for a flight instructor certificate or rating, a person receiving instruction from a CFI (or an ATP instructing in accordance with
section 61.167) need not wear an approved parachute while instruction is being provided in these maneuvers. This provision applies regardless of the certificate or rating for which the person is receiving training and also if the person is receiving instruction that is not being provided for the purpose of obtaining any additional certificate or rating. The instructor providing the training is also not required to wear an approved parachute while providing this flight training.