Spin training during primary?

[Jim Logajan]

What is the collective thoughts on spin training.

The FAA stopped requiring spin training because they wanted to see more pilots die.

Kidding. You know it is the opposite - they determined it was an exercise that actually killed more pilots than it saved. And that the killer spins happened most frequently at altitudes too low to recover from, so what was the point?

Not much point in them beyond having fun or aerobatics. So sayeth the statistics, or so it has been alleged.

 

[steingar]

The FAA stopped requiring spin training because they wanted to see more pilots die.

Kidding. You know it is the opposite - they determined it was an exercise that actually killed more pilots than it saved. And that the killer spins happened most frequently at altitudes too low to recover from, so what was the point?

Not much point in them beyond having fun or aerobatics. So sayeth the statistics, or so it has been alleged.

What I was going to say. Most spins are from base to final. Can't see the point in recovery training, all the recovery in the world won't save you if you don't have the altitude. FAA switched to stall awareness, since if you never get into a stall you won't spin.

If you really insist go for it. I doubt it makes anyone a better pilot, since you're more likely to get it from bad weather. Weather awareness is the best training you can get in my world. That said, careful of your airplane. Spins can play hob with some gyroscopic instruments, and they are pricey to fix and pricier to replace.

 

[MachFly]

While you have a valid point generally, 3.8 g's is the Normal limit, and I don't think there are any planes certified for intentional spins in the Normal category. I think they would all be at least in Utility category with a positive g limit of 4.4.

It's technically possible for a 4.4 limit to drop significantly with time. Granted its unlikely. But given the number of cheap aerobatic planes available these days (such as decathlon), I'd prefer to stay on the safe side and not do my spin training in an old 152.

 

[MachFly]

What I was going to say. Most spins are from base to final. Can't see the point in recovery training, all the recovery in the world won't save you if you don't have the altitude. FAA switched to stall awareness, since if you never get into a stall you won't spin.

If you really insist go for it. I doubt it makes anyone a better pilot, since you're more likely to get it from bad weather. Weather awareness is the best training you can get in my world. That said, careful of your airplane. Spins can play hob with some gyroscopic instruments, and they are pricey to fix and pricier to replace.

If you know how to spin the plane and are experienced with it, you'll be much more likely to prevent a spin and not require a recovery.

And yes, spin training makes you a MUCH better pilot.

 

[Henning]

You have to realize that during the initial flight training it's very possible for the student to pull a lot more Gs then needed, by accident or whatever. Yes it's unlikely that the student will just pull really hard and casually endure 6Gs, what is possible is for the student to keep the power in or take too much altitude to recover for you to need to pull extra Gs. What I'm saying is that you want to have some room for error, and a good wing spar is one of those things.

You can't inspect the wing spar in the preflight, so the preflight really shouldn't tell you much.

Yeah, there's a chance for anything, but if a student pulls too hard on a spin recovery they will get a secondary stall before they get to 2G unless the instructor has let everything get way out of control and then I'd expect them to recover safely.

 

[poadeleted20]

If you know how to spin the plane and are experienced with it, you'll be much more likely to prevent a spin and not require a recovery.

i have to disagree. There's nothing about the spin recovery maneuver which helps you avoid spins in the first place. At the point where those fatalities, even a stall without a spin is likely fatal, and you can't spin without first stalling. Hence, stall/spin avoidance is deemed the most effective accident prevention strategy,

 

[Henning]

The FAA stopped requiring spin training because they wanted to see more pilots die.

Kidding. You know it is the opposite - they determined it was an exercise that actually killed more pilots than it saved. And that the killer spins happened most frequently at altitudes too low to recover from, so what was the point?

Not much point in them beyond having fun or aerobatics. So sayeth the statistics, or so it has been alleged.

The point is recognition and recovery of the spin at it's inception where it can save you when low and slow. You have no chance at doing this without having spun a plane because you have to be tuned to picking up the wing with the rudder, because if you use aileron, which most people will, you'll just accelerate the drop and spin entry rate. Without training you are destined to die the first time it hits if it does it in the pattern. With spin training you stand a chance of reaction catching it, with Falling Leaf proficiency, you'll might not even notice you almost spun.

 

[poadeleted20]

Yeah, there's a chance for anything, but if a student pulls too hard on a spin recovery they will get a secondary stall before they get to 2G unless the instructor has let everything get way out of control and then I'd expect them to recover safely.

Concur. While the aging aircraft issue has some validity, I think Henning's point overrides that as a significant concern.

 

[Shepherd]

It was mandatory when I learned to fly. And fun.
I know for a fact it saved my life a number of times.

 

[poadeleted20]

It was mandatory when I learned to fly.

I'm curious when that was. The requirement had been dropped before I started in 1969.

I know for a fact it saved my life a number of times.

If you unintentionally spun an airplane "a number times", I'd have to say there were some other holes in your training.

 

[MachFly]

Yeah, there's a chance for anything, but if a student pulls too hard on a spin recovery they will get a secondary stall before they get to 2G unless the instructor has let everything get way out of control and then I'd expect them to recover safely.

I'd say it really depends on how you recover, 2Gs is nothing too extreme when recovering from a spin. Under the right circumstances an old plane can be overloaded by pulling a small amount of Gs. Sometimes your reading an NTSB report and it talks about a wing randomly falling off due to fatigue or corrosion, so I think we can both agree that it's very much possible.
Granted it's rather unlikely that your wing will fall off, all depends on how much you want to risk. It doesn't really depend on you because you do not know the condition that the wing spar is in, so your kinda just taking a guess.
Personally I generally don't mind some extra risk, however I am not a fan of risk that I can't control, and a fatigued wing spar is something that I can't control and really can't know about.

 

[Clark1961]

i have to disagree. There's nothing about the spin recovery maneuver which helps you avoid spins in the first place. At the point where those fatalities, even a stall without a spin is likely fatal, and you can't spin without first stalling. Hence, stall/spin avoidance is deemed the most effective accident prevention strategy,

This is a naive response. A spin can be avoided/aborted at almost any point of the spin entry so the sooner a recovery is initiated the sooner the aircraft is recovered and the altitude loss is minimized. Since the altitude loss is the big problem (potentially), that is the thing to be minimized.

Of course it is better to avoid a stall or even spin entry but it is a good thing to know how to initiate recovery as soon as possible no matter what the condition is when it is recognized.

In other words, if one is inadvertently holding pro-spin controls into a stall, the sooner one recognizes it and applies recovery controls then the better off one will be.

 

[MachFly]

Concur. While the aging aircraft issue has some validity, I think Henning's point overrides that as a significant concern.

Not a very significant concern, just significant enough to spend extra $20 (for the hour) and do it in a better plane.

 

[MachFly]

i have to disagree. There's nothing about the spin recovery maneuver which helps you avoid spins in the first place. At the point where those fatalities, even a stall without a spin is likely fatal, and you can't spin without first stalling. Hence, stall/spin avoidance is deemed the most effective accident prevention strategy,

If your familiar with spins, you get a better feeling exactly at which point the aircraft enters a spin. You learn the sensation of that yaw felling right before the spin. So if you feel that yaw at low speed at normal flight, you'll initiate recovery before the full spin and probably will not even lose much altitude.
Plus you don't really need to be fully stalled to spin, you can easily enter a spin from slow flight (obviously depending on the plane).

 

[Jim Logajan]

I'm curious when that was. The requirement had been dropped before I started in 1969.

According to several sources, it was dropped from U.S. private pilot airplane requirements in June 1949; e.g.:

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

Perhaps Shepherd is thinking of instructor training?

 

[Henning]

Perhaps he's Canadian.

 

[RoscoeT]

I also feel that comfort and competence with spins causes a pilot to be more likely to avoid spinning accidentally. It's kinda like saying that you're just as likely to avoid ever stalling accidentally whether you've actually ever done a stall or not. I think pilots who have actually done stalls are more likely to avoid accidental stalls than pilots who have never done a stall. A spin is just a possible progression of a stall. If you've never done a stall you won't be very good at recognizing that it takes to get there. Same with spins. And getting comfortable with spins gives you confidence and rudder awareness.

I would bet many of the "classic" skidded base-to-fnal stall/spin accidents were caused by pilots being too timid and NOT wanting to allow the airplane to bank for fear of stalling or spinning. They skidded because they had no awarness and understanding of what may happen if they did that. If many of these pilots had spin training, they would not be so timid and would be less likely to attemp to avoid a stall/spin by doing just the thing that is more likely to cause one. Spin training DOES make you a better pilot. Don't know how you can argue othewise.

 

[poadeleted20]

This is a naive response. A spin can be avoided/aborted at almost any point of the spin entry so the sooner a recovery is initiated the sooner the aircraft is recovered and the altitude loss is minimized.

However, the FAA's point (with which I agree) is if you never enter it, there's nothing from which to recover, and you don't lose any altitude at all, so there's no issue of having to little altitude in which to recover.
.

Since the altitude loss is the big problem (potentially), that is the thing to be minimized.

Right -- which you do by not stalling in the first place, and spin recovery training doesn't help a bit in teaching how to avoid stalling, only how to deal with the potential consequences of failing to avoid a stall.

Of course it is better to avoid a stall or even spin entry

Thank you for agreeing with both the FAA and me.

but it is a good thing to know how to initiate recovery as soon as possible no matter what the condition is when it is recognized.

I won't argue with that, but if you learn to avoid the stall, spin recovery training is meaningless, and if you stall down where the fatal accidents always seem to occur, all the spin recovery training in the world won't save you. Hence, the FAA's focus on stall prevention rather than spin recovery.

In other words, if one is inadvertently holding pro-spin controls into a stall, the sooner one recognizes it and applies recovery controls then the better off one will be.

I can't argue with that, but my point is that we need to be teaching people not to be holding pro-spin controls into a stall in the first place, because if they do that at the altitudes where the stall/spin accidents occur, they're dead already no matter how much spin recovery training they've had.

 

[poadeleted20]

According to several sources, it was dropped from U.S. private pilot airplane requirements in June 1949; e.g.:

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

Perhaps Shepherd is thinking of instructor training?

Or maybe he's a lot older than my 63 years and got his PP on the post-WWII GI Bill? But thanks for the reference -- I'll try to remember that date.

 

[Mike Smith]

This is a fascination discussion. I want to thank everyone for their input. My goal is to be the best/safest pilot that I can be. This has given me much to think about. Like I said in a previous post, the plane I am training in is NOT approved for spins, so I will have to find a different plane if I pursue this. What got me thinking about it was the fact that I hate power on stalls, they scare the hell out of me to be honest. I am ok with my instructor beside me. I know that my best chance of an unintentional spin is power on stalls. At some point I will need to practice those solo and I figured that spin awareness may help my anxiety about them.

 

[Mickthepic]

If power on stalls are scary right now, you might want to wait to do the spins until you're comfortable, otherwise you might not really enjoy the spins. I think it's normal to have anxiety with a lot of the maneuvers early on it training. I held my breath during steep turns.

Just looking at a spin video was fearful to me early in training. Then my instructor offered to show me them around hour 20 or so, and it was just enjoyable. I definitely want to do more of them.

 

[Everskyward]

However, the FAA's point (with which I agree) is if you never enter it, there's nothing from which to recover, and you don't lose any altitude at all, so there's no issue of having to little altitude in which to recover.

Of course if you never enter a spin you won't need to recover, but if you start to enter one accidentally perhaps you will recognize the way it feels to have the nose drop and the yaw begin while you are still pulling back.

I had spin training before I got my private. I don't think it is a necessary requirement but there's nothing wrong with it for those who are interested.

 

[poadeleted20]

Of course if you never enter a spin you won't need to recover, but if you start to enter one accidentally perhaps you will recognize the way it feels to have the nose drop and the yaw begin while you are still pulling back.

I had spin training before I got my private. I don't think it is a necessary requirement but there's nothing wrong with it for those who are interested.

I'll buy all of that, especially the last sentence. However, I generally don't like anything that unnecessarily extends PP training, which is long enough and expensive enough as it is.

 

[MachFly]

If power on stalls are scary right now, you might want to wait to do the spins until you're comfortable, otherwise you might not really enjoy the spins. I think it's normal to have anxiety with a lot of the maneuvers early on it training. I held my breath during steep turns.

Just looking at a spin video was fearful to me early in training. Then my instructor offered to show me them around hour 20 or so, and it was just enjoyable. I definitely want to do more of them.

A lot of people are afraid of stalls because they aren't comfortable with spins. Once you show them that spins aren't that difficult, it can make stalls a lot less scary.

 

[MachFly]

I'll buy all of that, especially the last sentence. However, I generally don't like anything that unnecessarily extends PP training, which is long enough and expensive enough as it is.

Why? Do you think people should be allowed to fly with application of minimum money or once they because good and safe? I think at least showing a student a real spin is necessary, even better would be to teach them to recover (in the real world).

 

[MachFly]

Perhaps he's Canadian.

lol


.

 

[Mike Smith]

So, The Warrior I fly isn't approved for spins. Would it be worthwhile to go up in the 172 they have which is approved for spins? Would I really get the feel in a completely different airplane? And I am not advocating this but, what if I asked my instructor, "hey, what are the control inputs to make this thing spin"?:wink2::wink2:

 

[MachFly]

So, The Warrior I fly isn't approved for spins. Would it be worthwhile to go up in the 172 they have which is approved for spins? Would I really get the feel in a completely different airplane? And I am not advocating this but, what if I asked my instructor, "hey, what are the control inputs to make this thing spin"?:wink2::wink2:

If you have a proficient instructor (which most instructors are not), then anything would be better then nothing.
I recommend you just go to a local acro school and take a spin course, it will be a lot more effective and safer.

 

[poadeleted20]

Why? Do you think people should be allowed to fly with application of minimum money or once they because good and safe? I think at least showing a student a real spin is necessary, even better would be to teach them to recover (in the real world).

Where would you stop that additional training above and beyond what the FAA requires? How about VOR, ILS and GPS approaches -- maybe even partial panel? How about flying 300 miles to experience a real Class B airspace? How about flying 1500 miles from Maryland to Colorado to get real mountain flying experience? Where does it all end? For me, it ends with 61.107:

(1) For an airplane category rating with a single-engine class rating:
(i) Preflight preparation;
(ii) Preflight procedures;
(iii) Airport and seaplane base operations;
(iv) Takeoffs, landings, and go-arounds;
(v) Performance maneuvers;
(vi) Ground reference maneuvers;
(vii) Navigation;
(viii) Slow flight and stalls;
(ix) Basic instrument maneuvers;
(x) Emergency operations;
(xi) Night operations, except as provided in Sec. 61.110 of this part; and
(xii) Postflight procedures.

Beyond that we can take it as necessary after they get their ticket.

 

[poadeleted20]

So, The Warrior I fly isn't approved for spins. Would it be worthwhile to go up in the 172 they have which is approved for spins? Would I really get the feel in a completely different airplane? And I am not advocating this but, what if I asked my instructor, "hey, what are the control inputs to make this thing spin"?:wink2::wink2:

Nothing wrong with doing that as long as it does not interfere with and remains compatible with your main goal of getting your PPL so you can fly that Warrior safely on your own, and if you know how to avoid stalls, you don't need spin recovery training to fly that Warrior safely .

 

[MachFly]

Where would you stop that additional training above and beyond what the FAA requires? How about VOR, ILS and GPS approaches -- maybe even partial panel? How about flying 300 miles to experience a real Class B airspace? How about flying 1500 miles from Maryland to Colorado to get real mountain flying experience? Where does it all end? For me, it ends with 61.107:
Beyond that we can take it as necessary after they get their ticket.

Honestly I think basic spin training is the only thing missing from the current PPL curriculum.

There already is basic IFR training, so you won't be completely and entirely screwed if you get into IMC. You learn to talk to ATC in some way, so flying through bravo is just a little bit harder. Mountain flying is very localized, if you life in Florida it really isn't needed. But you can enter a spin regardless of your location or weather. I'm not saying students should go through a long aerobatic spin training course, I'm talking about just one lesson dedicated to spins, 1.0-1.5hrs, that's all. It would make pilots significantly better and wouldn't require a lot of money.

 

[Henning]

Teaching abstinence against spins is appearing about as effective as teaching abstinence against pregnancy.

 

[poadeleted20]

Honestly I think basic spin training is the only thing missing from the current PPL curriculum.

There already is basic IFR training, so you won't be completely and entirely screwed if you get into IMC. You learn to talk to ATC in some way, so flying through bravo is just a little bit harder. Mountain flying is very localized, if you life in Florida it really isn't needed. But you can enter a spin regardless of your location or weather.

I hear you, but after 65 years of PP training without a spin recovery training requirement, it appears the FAA has not seen anything in the accident data to give them reason to change their position. The main thing killing pilots is bad decisions with regard to weather and aircraft performance, and the main thing bending airplanes is poor basic stick-and-rudder skills on landing. So, I'd say working on those issues in PPL training is a higher priority than trying to add spin recovery training (and no, I don't think spin recovery training is a solution to poor basic stick and rudder skills on landing). You may feel otherwise, but I think that's a philosophical difference we're not likely to span.

I'm not saying students should go through a long aerobatic spin training course, I'm talking about just one lesson dedicated to spins, 1.0-1.5hrs, that's all. It would make pilots significantly better and wouldn't require a lot of money.

That depends on the availability of a spin-legal plane at their training facility -- many of which don't have one.

 

[poadeleted20]

Teaching abstinence against spins is appearing about as effective as teaching abstinence against pregnancy.

The accident record suggests otherwise. As noted above, we were killing more people in spin recovery training than were being killed operationally, and the incidence of stall/spin accidents apparently has not gone up since that change in 1949. That does not argue well to going back to the pre-1949 scheme of things in this regard.

 

[Shepherd]

I'm curious when that was. The requirement had been dropped before I started in 1969.


If you unintentionally spun an airplane "a number times", I'd have to say there were some other holes in your training.

I started flying in 1963. My first spins were in in a PA-11 on floats.
Then a PA-18 on floats.
Then a PA-18 with tires.
Those were the good old days.
I have had a number of "unintentional" spins if you define "unintentional" as not deliberately planning to spin while stepping way outside the envelope just to see what happens. Some of the older float planes, (the Fairchild 24, and PT19 on floats come to mind) would reach right around and bite you on the a## in an instant and without warning if you got careless.

 

[poadeleted20]

I started flying in 1963.

Then it wasn't a legal requirement when you learned to fly even if your instructor may have insisted on it anyway.

I have had a number of "unintentional" spins if you define "unintentional" as not deliberately planning to spin while stepping way outside the envelope just to see what happens.

I call that "test piloting", and there you can't rule out anything up to and including structural failure.

 

[Shepherd]

Then it wasn't a legal requirement when you learned to fly even if your instructor may have insisted on it anyway.
I call that "test piloting", and there you can't rule out anything up to and including structural failure.

My instructor was old school. Navy fighter pilot/instructor during WWII. He didn't care what the FAA said. You did it his way or you went somewhere else.
He knew that some of his planes were latent killers, and he wanted everyone who flew them to have the best possible chance of surviving.
He did a good job. I'm still here.

 

[Henning]

The accident record suggests otherwise. As noted above, we were killing more people in spin recovery training than were being killed operationally, and the incidence of stall/spin accidents apparently has not gone up since that change in 1949. That does not argue well to going back to the pre-1949 scheme of things in this regard.

We were killing more because planes wouldn't recover themselves back then, they are now more spin resistant. Even with spin resistant self recovering planes, every year we still lose people due to low level spin events that can be avoided through awareness.

 

[N3368K]

We were killing more because planes wouldn't recover themselves back then, they are now more spin resistant. Even with spin resistant self recovering planes, every year we still lose people due to low level spin events that can be avoided through awareness.

Most folks were learning in Cubs back then. Cubs self recover if you'll just let go, remove full rudder deflection, or putting the stick slight forward. You have to hold it in a spin. Probably the easiest spin recovery of any airplane.

 

[LDJones]

A lot of people are afraid of stalls because they aren't comfortable with spins. Once you show them that spins aren't that difficult, it can make stalls a lot less scary.

Bingo! The value I see in it is defanging a big hairy monster that often builds up in the minds of pilots who've read all about them but have never experienced one. Fear of the unknown can be crippling for some.