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

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

That is scary.
 
James331 said:
As long as I have access to a spinable plane, my guys do spin training pre solo.

If I can’t, at a minimum do real slow flight, real stalls; power on, off, accelerated and also falling leaf stalls pre solo.
Click to expand...

Your a good man.
 
steingar said:
I recall hearing that yo could get out of a spin in a 150/2 by just releasing the controls. I've read the accounts of pilots who intentionally spun my aircraft. To call the tales harrowing would be to do them a disservice. I think the IFR training does in my aircraft will be far more valuable to me than aerobatic training done in someone else's aircraft that I'm likely never to fly again.



Never said it wasn't worthwhile, just that it shouldn't be part of the standard curriculum for the reasons I outlined.
Click to expand...

I suppose I'm not necesarilly advocating mandatory spin training, but I do think it is certainly beneficial if the student decides to pursue it.
 
MauleSkinner said:
No, I did not get myself into an inadvertent spin on final. I had two instrument students who had presumably demonstrated forward slips for their Private Pilot checkride decide to try it in an Archer at about 300 feet. Their technique was full rudder, raise the nose, and then apply opposite aileron. Both stalled in that configuration. Both entered a spin. I recovered both times.
Click to expand...
If I was the CFI, I would’ve corrected their technique well before they stalled the aircraft. ;)
 
Last edited:
Ryanb said:
If I was the CFI, I would’ve corrected their technique well before they stalled the aircraft.
Click to expand...
So you're saying that you can react to stop an imminent spin much faster than you can provide inputs for spin recovery? (Given an equal element of surprise)
 
MauleSkinner said:
So you're saying that you can react to stop an imminent spin much faster than you can provide inputs for spin recovery? (Given an equal element of surprise)
Click to expand...
Just giving you a hard time, dude. Hence my addition of the ‘;)’. I know that had to have happened very quick. Glad you were able to recover.
 
Spin/acro training lessons were the most impactful few lessons I ever had when I was a student. The confidence factor soared (in a good way). It resulted in so much better handling of the aircraft in almost every other phase of flight and the fearful mindset of the "unknown" was completely erased. Experiencing the sights, sounds, and feeling of a spin first hand is something every pilot should experience if it isn't a requirement.

The downside is suddenly wanting a Pitts (or other flavor of similar capability...)!
 
Shepherd said:
Not necessarily true, the stall to spin on final part. To make a few bucks I have deliberately spun a plane on final and recovered. I did it at least once by accident in a crippled O-2 during the unpleasantness in S.E.A. They are recoverable if you learn how to do it and practice.
Click to expand...

You have some pretty big stones Shepard. One of my regrets in my initial training was I had an instructor who was willing to demonstrate and train spins in the trainer we were using a Skipper. I never took him up on it. I would say within the next year I'm going to get some spin instruction.
 
This thread has gone like most of these types of threads go...the pilots with high spin experience and proficiency profess the benefits, which I agree with. And the pilots with little to no spin experience and proficiency minimize the value of spin training and parrot "you're not gonna recover from base to final anyway." Well yes you can recover in lots of airplanes....but this requires a level of proficiency, skill, and awareness which if you actually had, would cause you to avoid accidentally stall/spinning base to final in the first place. Think about that. You don't see skilled acro pilots stall/spinning themselves into the ground on base to final.
 
RoscoeT said:
This thread has gone like most of these types of threads go...the pilots with high spin experience and proficiency profess the benefits, which I agree with. And the pilots with little to no spin experience and proficiency minimize the value of spin training and parrot "you're not gonna recover from base to final anyway." Well yes you can recover in lots of airplanes....but this requires a level of proficiency, skill, and awareness which if you actually had, would cause you to avoid accidentally stall/spinning base to final in the first place. Think about that. You don't see skilled acro pilots stall/spinning themselves into the ground on base to final.
Click to expand...

Nailed it.
 
Even very experienced pilots have made the mistake of not stepping on the high wing and using ailerons to get out of a wing drop, thankfully this was in a STOL plane with a ton of landing gear and only doing like 17kts


Notice how little correction is put into the rudder.

Law of primacy, and why making a whole lesson of stalls, spins (if able), and falling leaf stalls is a requirement for me for pre solo.

When you ride a falling leaf stall from 7k down to 2k a hand full of times with the stick pegged back and held ailerons neutral it, combined with the somewhat scary for the new student pilot factor, it makes for a very well reinforced muscle memory reaction, and with the help of spins makes the student very aware of the split seconds leading up to that initial spin entry.

 
PaulS said:
You have some pretty big stones Shepard. One of my regrets in my initial training was I had an instructor who was willing to demonstrate and train spins in the trainer we were using a Skipper. I never took him up on it. I would say within the next year I'm going to get some spin instruction.
Click to expand...

You won't regret it.
 
Preventing stall - spin accidents is something we have been trying to figure out for over 100 years now.
What we have learned is there isn't a simple answer.

Part of the problem is both of the following statements are False...
Spin Training Significantly reduces the number of Stall-Spin Accidents.
that is for false for the same reason as this one...
Angle of Attack Indicators would significantly reduce the number of Stall-Spin Accidents.

While I really like Spin training and Angle of Attack indicators they really have nothing to do with reducing Stall Spin Accidents.
If we could tell every pilot that they were going to stall in the next 30 seconds there would be almost no stall spin accidents, because every pilot knows how to recover from a stall and the consequences of low altitude stalls. Oh, wait almost every airplane has a Stall Warning that does that.
So we should say if we could get every pilot to understand they could stall in the next 30 seconds, there would be almost no stall spin accidents. Unfortunately Stall Warnings have the same problem as Gear Warnings, The alarm goes off, but the pilot often doesn't hear or understand it.

I have been reviewing Stall spin Accidents for over 30 years. I have come to the conclusion almost all of them are the result of pilots either experiencing the illusion of speed (down wind turns) or distracted to the point they don't realize or think they are in a position of stalling. I have heard comments from survivors like, "I thought the Elevator Cable broke", "I thought something was jamming the elevator (there is a physiological factor here), "it felt like the leans when instrument flying, I knew I was going slow, but any attention away from the airspeed and I would slow down".

I have watched at least two pilots inadvertently put an airplane into a spin with the stick full back and full aileron as the plane descends and turns the opposite direction. It surprised them to the point they both asked me what to do about it, my response was push the stick forward. They obviously were not thinking stall or they would have applied the stall recovery procedures they have been taught, opposite rudder, stick forward. If you are not thinking "stall" when it happens it doesn't matter if you know how to recover from a spin or not, or if you have an AOA indicator, all you will be thinking is the nose is dropping, pull back to bring it back up.

Mostly we need to do what we are already doing better. Get pilots to understand that below 1000 feet there are visual illusions that can cause you to inadvertently stall. Below 1000 feet you can NOT afford to be distracted away from maintaining a safe airspeed or Angle of Attack. Use which ever instrument you have to confirm what you think you are seeing is what is really happening. Below 1000 feet you should be thinking, what is the indications of a stall and what is the immediate recovery procedure for it.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL
 
MauleSkinner said:
So you're saying that you can react to stop an imminent spin much faster than you can provide inputs for spin recovery? (Given an equal element of surprise)
Click to expand...

He's saying that he'd correct that bogus slip entry technique. Who would teach full rudder, then raise the nose, then apply opposite aileron? The full rudder and raising the nose are enough to cause the spin. Low speed with yaw...
 
The base-to-final stall/spin happens because the pilot does things that he should not be doing, and the airplane is only doing what it is being asked to do. It's sometimes a too-steep-turn , which increases AoA and therefore stall speed. (And don't believe the baloney that some folks put out about the G-loading being lower because you're descending. Not true, at least to any degree that matters.) If the speed is getting slow, a steep turn is asking for trouble.

But the more common problem is a skidding descending turn, caused by an overshooting of the runway centerline, and the pilot adds rudder but uses opposite aileron to prevent further banking. If the speed decays enough, he gets close to the stall and the inside wing, having a higher AoA than the outside wing due to the aileron deflections, stalls first and into the spin we go.

When I was an instructor that was one of the scenarios for spin entry. At plenty of altitude, a descending turn with a skid until it broke into the spin. The student never skidded a base-to-final turn again once he saw what might happen.

There just isn't enough education on this stuff. Not enough theory, not enough taking-it-seriously, never actually seeing it. It's totally abstract if it's there at all. So we see the stupid stuff like guys doing steep turns at low level while looking at something on the ground, totally unaware that their speed is falling off and the stall speed is much higher due to the acceleration of the turn. Or they buzz and pull up; same accelerated stall.
 
Dan Thomas said:
He's saying that he'd correct that bogus slip entry technique. Who would teach full rudder, then raise the nose, then apply opposite aileron? The full rudder and raising the nose are enough to cause the spin. Low speed with yaw...
Click to expand...
And he's saying (albeit tongue-in-cheek, after revision ;)) that he could do it in less time than it takes to say, "what th", because that's how long it took to make the inputs and stall.

Who teaches it? I don't know if it was actually taught that way, but the flight school that both of them came from had a philosophy all the way to the management/ownership level that "you only have to be that good for the checkride". I had type-rated ATPs working for that FBO, who were trained in that flight school, that consistently flew below the level of the Private Pilot PTS, and I got in plenty of trouble for expecting otherwise. Pilots who required guidance to make a go around and VFR pattern. Pilots who made crosswind landings that bent the nose gear on a jet. It gets worse from there.

I've also had pilots who said FlightSafety/CAE/SimCom told them that the proper control input for an engine failure on takeoff was aileron, or that the proper response to a bounced landing was to stick the nose down so it hits first on the next impact. Fortunately it takes more effort to kill yourself in a Falcon than it does in an Archer.

Bottom line, there are some truly scary pilots out there...and to bring it into the context of this thread, it probably doesn't matter what you require them to demonstrate, they'll probably still be truly scary. And given the chance, they'll kill themselves and others. Just ask the hundreds of people who died in stall related accidents on airliners in the last ten years.
 
Here is an interesting read from AOPA.

https://www.aopa.org/asf/ntsb/stall_spin.html

Here is a graph from that article that really refutes the belief that removing spin training would result in more spin fatals. 1949 was when the spin requirement was removed (Arrow). Maybe there are other reasons. Better planes, better training who knows.

1.jpg
 
Required training? I don't want to train in something I don't fly regularly. My plane is placarded "Intentional Spins Prohibited".

What we need is more emergency situation training. Go fly with a CFI then have him throw a situation you're totally unprepared for. How do you handle? In emergencies you respond to how you were trained. I don't think we're training for enough of these personally.
 
James331 said:
Even very experienced pilots have made the mistake of not stepping on the high wing and using ailerons to get out of a wing drop, thankfully this was in a STOL plane with a ton of landing gear and only doing like 17kts

<video>

Notice how little correction is put into the rudder.
Click to expand...

Ah, the Talkeetna fly-in from last year. I was there, watching. Really freaked me out. The sharp intake of breaths from a line of spectators (including my own) was like nothing I've experienced...

I hadn't seen that video in slow-motion like that, though. Very illuminating.

They did *not* have a "Fast/Slow Competition" again at this year's fly-in in Talkeetna...
 
GLMS_NC said:
Required training? I don't want to train in something I don't fly regularly. My plane is placarded "Intentional Spins Prohibited".
Click to expand...
One concept that many pilots fail to grasp is that aerodynamic principles and stick and rudder skills aren't specific to one airplane. They pretty much run across the board. Last I checked, spins were prohibited in Archers, but the same recovery techniques work.

GLMS_NC said:
What we need is more emergency situation training. Go fly with a CFI then have him throw a situation you're totally unprepared for. How do you handle? In emergencies you respond to how you were trained. I don't think we're training for enough of these personally.
Click to expand...
Emergencies like, maybe, inadvertent stalls or spins? Or is that considered a normal situation?
 
Dan Thomas said:
He's saying that he'd correct that bogus slip entry technique. Who would teach full rudder, then raise the nose, then apply opposite aileron? The full rudder and raising the nose are enough to cause the spin. Low speed with yaw...
Click to expand...
Exactly my point, Dan. I gave up trying to reason with him. I have gotten the feeling that he claims to succeed in every area that I would be weak, so there’s no point in trying to justify myself.
 
Rockymountain said:
Here is an interesting read from AOPA.

https://www.aopa.org/asf/ntsb/stall_spin.html

Here is a graph from that article that really refutes the belief that removing spin training would result in more spin fatals. 1949 was when the spin requirement was removed (Arrow). Maybe there are other reasons. Better planes, better training who knows.
Click to expand...
That's the problem...nobody knows what actually caused the decline. Seems like if it was due mostly to not requiring spin training, the line would be flatter after 1949.
 
Ryanb said:
Exactly my point, Dan. I gave up trying to reason with him. I gathered the feeling that he claims to succeed in every area that I would be weak, so there’s no point in trying to justify myself.
Click to expand...
You seem to assume that everyone should be weak in the same areas that you are.
 
MauleSkinner said:
You seem to assume that everyone should be weak in the same areas that you are.
Click to expand...
No, I just know that recovering from spins at a low altitude is improbable and statistics agree with me. The scenario that you mentioned, from the way you described it, wasn’t a spin, as you corrected it before anything developed, hence the whole idea of receiving spin training in the first place.

Preventing something before it fully develops and actually recovering from something that already has especially while at a low altitude are two different things, and I am discussing the latter in this thread.
 
Ryanb said:
No, I just know that recovering from spins at a low altitude is improbable and statistics agree with me. The scenario that you mentioned, from the way you described it, wasn’t a spin, as you corrected it before anything developed, hence the whole idea of receiving spin training in the first place.

Preventing something before it fully develops and actually recovering from something that already has especially while at a low altitude are two different things, and I am discussing the latter in this thread.
Click to expand...
i agree...a two or three turn spin on final is probably not survivable unless you're John Mohr. I guess I don't see why that's relevant to the discussion if correcting something before it fully develops is "the whole idea of receiving spin training in the first place".

But this is POA, I guess. ;)
 
I was told that on a ppl check ride when demonstrating slow flight the stall horn better never come on..
Theory is, if you train that way you will never put yourself in a stall/spin situation.
My take is, if you train that way and some day you find yourself beyond that point you might do something wrong or not know what to do.
I feel the same way on spins, it should be taught.
I would rather experience the edges of the envelope with an experienced pilot (cfi, etc) than discover them by accident on my own one day.
 
MauleSkinner said:
If you look down the road at the effect a lack of spin training has, look at how many fatal Vmc events there are...the entry looks the same, and the recover is the same, but most pilots I've seen demonstrate inadvertent Vmc rolls can't come up with the recovery inputs to save their life. Basic spin proficiency would probably improve those statistics dramatically as well.
Click to expand...

A local DPE has mentioned that he’s been put fully inverted by more than one multi-engine applicant during their checkrides. That just floors me how much aerodynamic knowledge has to not be fully grasped to let a Vmc demo get that far out of control when a person is supposedly “at their peak performance” for a checkride.

Clearly they failed, but one has to wonder how many CFIs they had prior to that ride and how much bad or unlearned/not retained/not correlated information has to have just somehow passed them completely by in lots of hours of training all the way from their first flights, to get a typical trainer twin that crossed up after some MEI signed them off as “ready”.

Insanity. Totally insanity.

Ryanb said:
Easier said than done. I have my doubts that even the most competent fighter pilot would be able to recover from a base to final stall/spin.
Click to expand...

As others have mentioned, it recognition and proper recovery of the incipient part of the spin that’s critical at low altitude.

James called it “step on the high side”. @jesse calls it “step on the sky”. Quite a few trainers with docile behaviors simply wont go over if you’re pressing the outside rudder pedal to the floor. They’ll try mightily but they won’t go over. They’ll fall into a massive slip to the side and mostly recover their own stalled state until you release the massive back pressure you’re holding on the elevator to keep them there.

What spin training does is give you those visual, audible, and other cues that the airplane is about to break and go. Only some airplanes really do that so violently that you can’t react and stop the beginning of autorotation.

Rockymountain said:
Here is an interesting read from AOPA.

https://www.aopa.org/asf/ntsb/stall_spin.html

Here is a graph from that article that really refutes the belief that removing spin training would result in more spin fatals. 1949 was when the spin requirement was removed (Arrow). Maybe there are other reasons. Better planes, better training who knows.

View attachment 65118
Click to expand...

Lots of changes in what the “typical” trainer aircraft were over that timeframe and how well behaved they were when induced into a spin. The beginning of that graph you’re talking Stearmans were the trainer of choice, really. Middle, the spam cans with docile behaviors came along.

The other obvious problem with that graph that would have been nice to know is this: How many of those accidents were training accidents vs post-training. Another line for that number on that graph would have been nice.

1RTK1 said:
I was told that on a ppl check ride when demonstrating slow flight the stall horn better never come on..
Theory is, if you train that way you will never put yourself in a stall/spin situation.
My take is, if you train that way and some day you find yourself beyond that point you might do something wrong or not know what to do.
I feel the same way on spins, it should be taught.
I would rather experience the edges of the envelope with an experienced pilot (cfi, etc) than discover them by accident on my own one day.
Click to expand...

That’s the modern way now. Recover at first sign of anything. For the Private checkride anyway.

They removed that from the updated Commercial ACS now, though and the examiner can ask to go into the warning.

I can’t think of any good instructor who isn’t teaching both the real deal all the way into the warnings and also the “FAA checkride way” so students will pass without upsetting the new and improved apple cart.

I think your reasoning to continue past the warnings and see what really happens with an instructor and airplane who can demonstrate it properly and even let you induce it, is sound. You can’t have a deep respect for something you’ve never seen. You literally just don’t know why.

I have not met a CFI yet who hasn’t had at least one student (usually way more) put the aircraft into an inadvertent spin in aircraft that are spinnable. The CFI usually has to catch it and usually does in something that shouldn’t be spun, but many have those stories too ...

It has to be the biggest lesson that isn’t in the books for all new CFIs that starts being passed to you completely unsolicited by every CFI you know the second you tell them you’ve earned the certificate. You’ll get private messages, phone calls, texts, all saying the same essential thing:

“Welcome to the club. Every pilot you meet from now on will probably try to kill you in one way or another. Never ever let your guard down. Even for the good pilots. Their mistakes are usually the scariest ones.” :)
 
I never did spins during training, I would have liked too, but there wasn’t an airplane available that we could spin. I have asked my wife and kids to pool up their gift money and send me to Greg Koontz. What I did do during training was fly a bunch slow flight with the horn blaring. I did a bunch of stepping on the high wing to catch the airplane when I goobered it up. The two things I remember, just how the airplane felt like it wanted to roll over like it was balanced on a pin. Second, just how much rudder it took to get anything to happen. I don’t have an opinion on this debate, but I want to go spin.
 
You can’t spin if you don’t stall, so I can see the logic in simply teaching how to avoid a stall rather than spins. It’s kind of like not requiring actually shutting off an engine randomly during the check ride. It’s an unnecessary risk if otherwise properly trained.
 
Shepherd said:
I'm convinced that spin training was removed from the curriculum so Cessna, Piper, Mooney, etc, etc could sell substandard spam cans. !
Click to expand...
Not sure what you mean there... In my experience you have hold aggressive control inputs in a 152 and 172 just to start and maintain a spin.

Since my training (40 years ago), and now with my BFRs (where I use the same instructor each time) slow flight is not slow enough unless the stall horn is screaming throughout the maneuver.
 
Ryanb said:
Preventing something before it fully develops and actually recovering from something that already has especially while at a low altitude are two different things, and I am discussing the latter in this thread.
Click to expand...

If you had more (or some) spin experience, you would understand the connection between these two concepts and the value in training and maintaining proficiency in this area.
 
James331 said:
Even very experienced pilots have made the mistake of not stepping on the high wing and using ailerons to get out of a wing drop, thankfully this was in a STOL plane with a ton of landing gear and only doing like 17kts
Click to expand...
And probably didn't realize what was going on until he was sitting on the ground backwards. Take a second or two for humans to process things.
 
steingar said:
And probably didn't realize what was going on until he was sitting on the ground backwards. Take a second or two for humans to process things.
Click to expand...

Not really.

I’ve had comments from DPEs and other instructors that during normal stalls or slow flight the second a wing dipped a little my guys were instantly hitting the rudder. It’s not a quadratic equation you need to solve, it’s a reaction to wing drop.
 
James331 said:
Not really.

I’ve had comments from DPEs and other instructors that during normal stalls or slow flight the second a wing dipped a little my guys were instantly hitting the rudder. It’s not a quadratic equation you need to solve, it’s a reaction to wing drop.
Click to expand...
Easy when you expect it, not so easy wet it comes that quick on you. Well, maybe its that easy for you. Wife ironed your cape yet?
 
RoscoeT said:
If you had more (or some) spin experience, you would understand the connection between these two concepts and the value in training and maintaining proficiency in this area.
Click to expand...
Fortunately I have experience in both and do understand the connection.

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

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

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

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