RE: Spinning on the PPL course

[HannahJane88]

Anyone know when was Spinning removed from the JAA PPL syllabus?

[Mark 1]

It was still in when I did mine in 1981.

I think it was probably taken out mid-80s.

[Lightning6]

And wrongly so in my opinion.

[Molesworth 1]

I did spinning on an advanced handling course with Highlands Flying School, though I had to call it short as I was worried my breakfast would come up! Quite an experience I can tell you!

I survived but sadly the Flying School did not.

[maxdrypower]

I did mine in 94 and was rtold it had just recently been removed::bored:
Still did it though :}:}

[Jim59]

Anyone know when was Spinning removed from the JAA PPL syllabus?


I don't think it was ever in the JAA syllabus. It was in the earlier CAA syllabus before being removed due to the fact that more pilots were being lost learning to recover from spins than were being lost due to unintentional spins.

[Lightning6]

I don't think it was ever in the JAA syllabus. It was in the earlier CAA syllabus before being removed due to the fact that more pilots were being lost learning to recover from spins than were being lost due to unintentional spins.

I've yet to find any statistics to prove this, can anyone supply any?

[gasax]

I got my licence in '85 and it was a topic of conversation at the time. It was either about to be or had just been removed.

As for statistics? I doubt they really exist (if they do from that period they will not be interweb net accessible anyhow).

There were a few incidents about that time mainly military in Bulldogs and at least one civil Chipmunk which I believe the people did not get out of. There were also a number of C150 stall / spin incidents (subject to a thread last year on the numbers?). That lead to the switch to 'awareness' rather than 'proper' spins.

Most of the younger instructors were keen on it being removed, the old g*ts not so happy - nothing much changes!

[BroomstickPilot]

Hi Guys,

My view is that if one is only to be taught spin avoidance, then at the very least every student should experience a fully developed spin, if only just once.

Otherwise how do you know what it is you are learning to avoid?

I dread a time when there will be instructors who have never experienced a spin teaching students to avoid the spin when neither has the foggiest idea what a spin is like, both are terrified of it, and neither would not know how to get out of the spin should spin avoidance training accidentally result in the real McCoy.

Broomstick.

[S-Works]

One could argue that if you are taught spin avoidance and fly the aircraft on the correct side of the envelope you will never need to see a spin as a result.

When I learnt to fly we had to demonstrate spinning and I had to spin for my Instructors course. I see no benefit in teaching spinning at basic level that is better than spin awareness.

If people want to learn to spin then they should do it post PPL with guys who are experts in the field at places like Ultimate High who do an amazing upset recovery course.

[dont overfil]

In '88 it had been recently removed from the syllabus but I chose to take recovery training anyway. Otherwise it would have remained a 'demon' lurking in my mind.
DO.

[Cows getting bigger]

I like spinning but question the validity for a student PPL. About the only time a virgin PPL will get an aircraft in a spin is in the base-final turn scenario. In all reality, if the pilot has failed to recognise all the previous warnings of impending stall/spin, it is extremely unlikely that they will recover from a spin that started at about 500ft agl. I much prefer hammering home how pilots can recognise slow flight, high AOA etc.

That said, if a student asks me to demonstrate one, I will.

[rusty sparrow]

I had done a lot of intentional spins in gliders before taking up power. My instruction was against the Australian syllabus in the 80's (I learnt in Papua New Guinea). I then converted this to a UK licence on return to the UK.

Spins were then still requried for the UK licence. These were entered by stalling and then kicking in rudder - not something you'd naturally do in a Cessna 152 so a bit artificial. My spin recovery training in PNG was by entering a spin from stalling in a turn - that was also in a C152. The sudden flip into a spin in the opposite direction of the turn was unforgettable and a vivid demonstration of how the the streched final turn can kill. It's something I won't forget so I'm sure it makes me safer.

[Pace]

Cows get bigger,

A comparison is learning to drive. People are taught to drive in normal conditions but are not taught to handle a car. All is fine until one day they get into a skid and carreer off the road out of control.
In the driving course I would add skid pan training so that drivers can be comfortable with understeer oversteer drifts locked brakes etc.

In the same way in flying a pilot needs to be comfortable with handling an aircraft in all its guises.
Not just spinning but stalls in all configurations and fully developed, spiral dives (which can be a lot more uncomfortable than spinning) Vne dives etc etc etc.

In that way the pilot has to be better and more confident in handling his aircraft and knowing what it can do than someone who has never experienced the real deal.

Pace

[Cows getting bigger]

Pace, I don't disagree. My point is that the timing of such training has to be right. I recollect maybe two exercises of stall/spin when I did my PPL in the early 80s. We now do far more slow speed awareness training and certainly provide more comprehensive training for stalls. Personally, I think the current syllabus provides a better overall grounding (in most areas). Is it good enough? I don't know.

It would be interesting to see whether the statistics back up the change in policy. After all they should be able to provide a 20 year snapshot.

[bonniejack]

I can relate to Rusty sparrows post. I learnt first time around in mid 70's and did some time with a NZ seaman who instructed between voyages. He had me descending and turning and kept pushing me turn tighter when all of a sudden over she went the other way and into a nice spin. Very powerful learning moment, especially as he hadn't warned me what we were about. Great character who once on PFL said right mags off keys out the window. Intended to imply concentrate on landing from that point. However he reached across my knees to the keys and I saw a flicker of silver being thrown out the window. Turned out to be silver paper but really focused me at the time until I realised the engine was still running.What a larf.

[bookworm]

I did my PPL in 1986-87 and spinning was not included. So mid-80s sounds right.

[nick14]

Did my PPL in 2005 and I was taught to recover from spins along with 2 hours of how to avoid them in the first place.

To be honest I think it is a valuable exercise under the appropriate supervision and conditions. I has stuck in my mind and I will never forget that lesson as both the actions to prevent and recover from a spin and as a great days flying.

I always suggest to people that are training now to take a flight with an aerobatic instructor for spin training as it could save your life.

Nick

[mrwilko]

I was in the air squadron that operated one of the Bulldogs that had a spinning mishap. The student got out but the QFI didn't. The wreckage was in the back of the hangar until the AIB came and took it away. Gave us the willies because we did full spins at least once a month.
All students should experience a full spin and I think FI's should be able to teach thus, however not every school operates a suitable aircraft. Recently I flew on an nav-ex with a student to Kemble. He then did the excellent Stall/Spin package with 'Ultimate High' and we then did another nav ex back home. It made an excellent day out but the student's performance was grossly affected on the return leg.

[A and C]

This is a first !!............ I find myself agreeing with Bose-X

[Wycombe]

Did my UK PPL in '95 and the line I was given at the time was the "you don't have to do this, but we'd recommend that you do" type approach.

Although it scared me sh!tless the first few times we did it (from about 6000' IIRC, in an Aerobat), I am glad that I did, if only to reinforce the lesson that if you ever entered a spin unintentionally from circuit height you would be leaving the scene in a coffin.

If that made me over-cautious in terms of speed discipline during the critical phases of approach/departure, so be it!....the lesson did it's job.

[englishal]

This is a first !!............ I find myself agreeing with Bose-X
Ditto !!!

I don't see much value in it until after someone is an accomplished pilot and can actually enjoy it and do it as part of exploring the envelope of the aeroplane.

Why? Well how many Twin pilots were taught to spin a Twin? How many Boeing drivers are taught spin recovery in a Boeing? None!! You could argue that you are more likely to spin a twin, with asymetric power and all that, but other than experiencing Vmc you never go near a spin....And why should you, the idea is not to spin!

Anyway with *most* single engine low performance aeroplanes there is one fool proof recovery technique, given enough height. Throttle closed and let go of everything.....

[White Otter]

I did it last year and I think it should be included just due to the sheer shock of it the first time it happens. Think in a moment of panic people could forget their recovery technices, if its happened to them before the ordeal is probably going to stick in their minds, along with what to do. I too feel that it has given me a great respect for aircraft handling at slow speeds (though perhaps I can be a little too cautious).

[mad_jock]

I did spinning on an advanced handling course with Highlands Flying School,

Good to know that they continued spinning aircraft who were not approved for spinning.

Or shall we take it you were in the C172.

But for future reference you need a 4 point harness in a G reg PA 38 before it is legal to intentionally spin it.

[Pace]

englishal

Why? Well how many Twin pilots were taught to spin a Twin? How many Boeing drivers are taught spin recovery in a Boeing? None!! You could argue that you are more likely to spin a twin, with asymetric power and all that, but other than experiencing Vmc you never go near a spin....And why should you, the idea is not to spin!

Here again is an example of how watered down our training is becoming. Even in stall training its recovery at the incipient stage for fear of asymetric power and a subsequent spin in twins.

I use an old examiner who is also part of the old school no incipient stuff for him in twins. Its climb to 8-10000 feet and the full bloodied stuff.

I dislike disecting spinning away from any "handling training" whether that is spins, spiral dives, stalls etc.

They are so important in giving a pilot an overall confidence in his machinery, what he can do and what his aircraft is capable of because one day he may need those skills no matter how much avoidance he practices. that pilot will be better equipt to survive than the avoidance trained pilot.

Pace

[rauxaman]

I remember spinning a PA28-140 during my PPL in the dangerous old 1970's :eek: I won't disclose the registration of the aeroplane as it's still in use!

There is a lot of spinning instruction with gliders including experience of a spin and recovery at circuit height (700ft) on downwind leg :eek::eek:

R

[Pilot DAR]

For a long time, spins have not been an element of FAA flying instruction, and a number of American pilots who have visitied Canada have asked me if I would demonstrate spins to them for their own awareness. I always have, as awareness is a vital part of pilot skill. It is irresponsible to send pilots off into the sky with no idea of what to expect when they encounter the conditions associated with a spin entry. It would appear that the Dash 8 Q400 pilots near Buffalo were not able to manage such conditions recently. Perhaps recent training would have been helpful. I have spun many aircraft during flight tests, where often a second pilot accompanying me had not spun "since he got his license years ago" or "ever". Carefully executed spins in C150/152/172 are generally something of a non-event if correctly and promptly recovered. Spin a Aft C of G loaded C 206, or 185 floatplane, and things are not so gentle, and easy to recover.

Spin practice is not only good for training what to do to correctly recover without prolonging things, it's also important just to re-aquaint the pilot with the unusual attitudes, and reduce the "deer in the headlights" reaction, so the pilot gets a recovery underway promptly. This is a reason why some basic aerobatic training is very helpful for newer pilots. Not to train them to do it, but to demonstrate that it can be done safely once you get past the disorienting sensations.

A remark was made earlier that turns to final are the big risk for spinning. I don't entirely agree, as departures are a very real risk point as well. Particularly in off airport flying, which could be floats or skis, where terrain avoidance, coupled with unusual winds, greatly increases the risk of a spin on climbout if the pilot does not maintain proper control and speed margins.

If new pilots are being set loose with no spin training, that's bad. If they are later going on to more demanding flying environments with no recent spin practice, that's much worse.

For those new pilots pondering spin training, yes, go and get some, even just for awareness, then go for periodic refreshers...

Pilot DAR

[englishal]

I use an old examiner who is also part of the old school no incipient stuff for him in twins. Its climb to 8-10000 feet and the full bloodied stuff.

I'm sure they are out there but as far as I'm aware there aren't any twins approved for spinning! I did meet an instructor once who had a student do a Vmc demo gone wrong and put them into a spin - took over 6000' of recovery, they were lucky!

Even in stall training its recovery at the incipient stage for fear of asymetric power and a subsequent spin in twins.

I've done full power on and power off stalls in twins - in the Seneca power on stalls can be a bit like going into orbit with the amount of nose up pitch you need! I've also done full Vmc demos - fail and engine, full power on live engine, pitch up to below red line speed and watch the nose yaw around - and how quickly it happens, then recover. It is required to be demonstrated for the FAA ME flight test.

I think it is better to practice how NOT to spin, but know how to recover if it happens. The FI's I know, on average get thrown into an unintentional spin by their students once every 500 hours, so for FI's it should be second nature...but by the time they learn how to do it they should be pretty laid back and competent pilots so spin and unusual attitude training should be required. Sure once someone has progressed and got some hours under their belt, go out and do aerobatics and include all sorts of unusual attitudes and stalls....for fun in a proper aeroplane designed for aero's (1970's C152's don't inspire confidence!).....

[Pace]

I'm sure they are out there but as far as I'm aware there aren't any twins approved for spinning! I did meet an instructor once who had a student do a Vmc demo gone wrong and put them into a spin - took over 6000' of recovery, they were lucky!

Englishal

Sorry i was not clear it was full blooded stalls in twins not spins while now the tendancy is towards incipient and avoidance in everything. But without naming names i too know of some old dogs who spin twins accidently of course :) and as for barrel rolls?:=

Soon we will have incipient takeoffs and landings at this rate :)

[dbee]

Fellas

Please do not forget that spinning is in the FI syllabus; my feeling, like many contributors, is that it should be manadory in the PPL ........dbee

[Skylark58]

It had gone out of the syllabus by 1984 when I started instructing, but as we flew Aerobats and a Pup, I always demonstrated a full spin if the student wished to try it.

I seem to recall some trial lessons involving the odd flick roll, but I couldn't possibly comment further..........;)

[rusty sparrow]

rauxaman

Re 'gliders including experience of a spin and recovery at circuit height (700ft) on downwind leg'

I've had that in a gliding check flight in the last ten years or so - I had no problem recovering from it but it struck me that the examiner was a fool to do this with such a limited margin for error. People do sometimes freeze in spin recovery - seems a silly way to die.

Or are glider pilots specially talented and fearless?

[Pugilistic Animus]

Here again is an example of how watered down our training is becoming. Even in stall training its recovery at the incipient stage for fear of asymetric power and a subsequent spin in twins.

I use an old examiner who is also part of the old school no incipient stuff for him in twins. Its climb to 8-10000 feet and the full bloodied stuff.

I dislike disecting spinning away from any "handling training" whether that is spins, spiral dives, stalls etc.

They are so important in giving a pilot an overall confidence in his machinery, what he can do and what his aircraft is capable of because one day he may need those skills no matter how much avoidance he practices. that pilot will be better equipt to survive than the avoidance trained pilot.



Pace---I'm in total agreement:D
we baking a bunch of soft gingerbread cookies instead of pilots---like the one from m the film 'Shrek' that says 'Ooh No' for everything:rolleyes:
PA

[Ultranomad]

An FI friend of mine once said that spinning is more of a psychological exercise than a technical one, and that he could predict the flying aptitude of a student by his/her attitude to spins - for the naturally talented ones, spinning is a pleasure (possibly addictive :) ).

[Lightning6]

An FI friend of mine once said that spinning is more of a psychological exercise than a technical one, and that he could predict the flying aptitude of a student by his/her attitude to spins - for the naturally talented ones, spinning is a pleasure (possibly addictive :) ).

The psychological aspect is an important point, it gives you more confidence, but the technical aspect aspect is equally important.
Incipient spin training is not enough, especially if not practised post PPL, if, at a later date, will you remember your training? Because it don't take long for an incipient spin to develop into a full spin, it won't be any good saying to yourself "Oh, what was it I was taught" it has to be an immediate reaction.
I recommend full spin training and regular practice to keep it sharp in your mind.
Also practice PFL's and EFATO's, an hour with an FI every now and then is, in my opinion, a good idea.

[Dan Winterland]

Spinning was removed from the PPL syllabus because more people were getting killed practicing it than were being saved by knowing how to recover. Also, whereas there is a standard stall recovery, there is no stanard spin recovery as there are differences in the recoveries of most aircraft. Some subtle, some large. The recovery technique on one may not work for another - or may even prevent recovery.

Spinning can give confidence in handling and is essential if a pilot is to operate in a regieme where it is more likely, such as military flying or aerobatics. But in a PPL environment in spin resistant aircraft, it's not essential.

[Ultranomad]

Lightning6, agree absolutely. I was lucky to get my ab initio training in a Yak-52, quite eager to spin and easy to recover (even from a flat spin), so I could do it to my heart's delight :ok:

[Lightning6]

Spinning was removed from the PPL syllabus because more people were getting killed practicing it than were being saved by knowing how to recover. Also, whereas there is a standard stall recovery, there is no stanard spin recovery as there are differences in the recoveries of most aircraft. Some subtle, some large. The recovery technique on one may not work for another - or may even prevent recovery.

Spinning can give confidence in handling and is essential if a pilot is to operate in a regieme where it is more likely, such as military flying or aerobatics. But in a PPL environment in spin resistant aircraft, it's not essential.

I've yet to find any evidence that spin recovery training as part of the PPL course has caused more accidents.
It will never be re-introduced into the syllabus, so I recommend spin recovery training post PPL.
I take your point about the difference in recovery from different types, but that can be covered in type conversion.

[Pilot DAR]

there is no stanard spin recovery as there are differences in the recoveries of most aircraft. Some subtle, some large. The recovery technique on one may not work for another - or may even prevent recovery.


I do not agree that this statement applies to civil aircraft in general use. It is, and has been for quite a long time, a design requirement that for any of the "western" civil types which are common to general aviation (in part):

It shall not be possible to obtain uncontrollable spins by means of any possible use of the controls.

And, more recently (in part):

It must be impossible to obtain unrecoverable spins with any use of the flight or engine power controls either at the entry into or during the spin

So, I am unwilling to believe that new pilots cannot be safely taught the basics of spin recognition and recovery.

If they cannot, why not? We were....

Pilot DAR

[421dog]

Well, it MIGHT have something to do with airplanes being certified only in the Normal as opposed to the Utility category. (Intentional Spins being a big no-no in the former). Anyway, most primary trainers in common use won't do much more than a spiral dive anyway. A Cherokee, a 172 or a 150 will essentially auto recover if you pull the power and make some rudimentary efforts to get the nose up. There are exceptions, as I'm sure we'll soon hear.

(ok, I'll start: An attempted aileron roll in a Beechcraft Sport 180 at 11000 feet and about 90kias with a really low time student pilot who'd just seen Top Gun for the first time WILL result in a stall/spin requiring rudder to stop the rotation and fairly quick action to avoid VNE)

Fortunately, we were required to do spins as an earlier part of our 141 syllabus, thus, I just felt stupid rather than dead. Since that time, I've enjoyed avoiding unintentional spins, recovering from intentional ones (in appropriate aircraft) and thwarting attempts by evil simulator instructors to kill me during recurrent training for various twins.

Why would anyone NOT want to know how to get out of a spin?

[Lightning6]

Well said 421dog...The throttle back hands and feet off everything will work in your average spam can, whilst it will recover from the spin, you will inevitably end up in a dive approaching VNE and probably wings not level, now this is a situation that could have been avoided if trained to recover in the correct way.
How many low hours PPL's would have the courage to let go of everything anyway?
How many of them would recognise, in time, that they are approaching VNE?
You would loose a lot more height in this situation.
Even this is not taught in the PPL syllabus, confidence and reaction are the key words, you can only get that trough proper training.

[S-Works]

Why would anyone NOT want to know how to get out of a spin?

I think most of your average pilots would like to know how not to get into one in the first place. A spin by it's nature is an unusual attitude. To get yourself into one in the first place requires some unusual handling. The average pilot flying the average spam can does not get themselves into unusual attitudes in this manner by accident. I can't remember in the last 3000hrs flying along straight and level and the aircraft suddenly departing into a spin. The spin related accidents we see are either aerobatics gone wrong which we don't teach at PPL either or the usual stall spin on final/departure which spin recovery training will not help with. Therefore, I think spin avoidance training should be concentrated on at basic level and those who want more advanced skills then have the option post PPL to gain further experience at places like Ultimate High.

I think sticking to the mentality of 'I had to do it and it did me no harm' is one of the reasons why GA training is so stuck in the mud.

[Skylark58]

I think there were issues about spin recovery with the PA38 when it first was introduced and possibly an accident or two. This was about the time when spin training was discontinued for the PPL. I did spinning as part of my training and remember being quite apprehensive about it and only got really comfortable when I did my FI course.

I would concur with BOSE-X and others that avoidance training is preferable, but a spin should be demonstrated to show the student what exactly they are avoiding. I was given 10 minutes of aerobatics by my instructor before I went solo and it was good to be shown that there is more to flying than straight and level.

There is a difference in gliding, in that gliders spend a lot of their time in a well banked turn just above the stall

[mary meagher]

O boy, here we go! Our gliding club requires annual refresher flights before going solo every spring. Including stalls, spins and spiral dives.

Not that glider pilots, Rusty Sparrow, are specially talented and fearless.
Rauxaman posted that the spin was demonstrated from 700' on the downwind leg. Not any more, it isn't approved by the BGA. They were just too cheap to pay for an aerotow, or not able to climb in a thermal to an appropriate height before spinning. l,800 is my personal limit before spinning a K13, that dear old reliable and trusted trainer.

When I was on the instructor course at Booker, they used to use the 700' spin to demonstrate the phenomenon called GROUND RUSH! Not nice. (You use up 300' in the recovery).

Some types of gliders can be trusted. Others have a very nasty record of killing people in spin training or biting you when least expected, eg turning on to base. A K21 is amost impossible to spin, without lead weights on the tail. A K13 will not spin if the guy in the front needs to go on a diet.
A Puchaz does exactly what it says on the tin. Watch out!

The difference between a spin and a spiral dive is well demonstrated in the K13. If the elevator does not work in the normal sense (stick back, nose DOESN'T go up) you are stalled. If the nose is pointing down at the scenery and it is turning around, you are spinning.

Power pilots, if you would like this experience, look at the British Gliding Association website, and sign up at your local club for a course.
Not nearly so scary as spinning a Chipmonk or a Aerobatic l52. And we practice it a LOT.

[mad_jock]

To be honest Mary I have always been impressed by the way The gliding fraternity setup there training .

It goes from the the initial first flights through to the method they use to progress the Instructors through the learning curve of becoming a fully developed Instructor.

[BackPacker]

Mary, I think it's dangerous comparing spinning in your average glider (with long, slender wings and very sedate spin behaviour as a result) to spinning in your average spamcan (with short, stubby wings and very aggressive and sometimes unpredictable spin behaviour).

According to your post, the BGA considers 700' the minimum for spinning a glider and you claim that spin recovery takes up 300'. That in itself shows that spinning a glider is a very leisurely affair. For comparison, I regularly spin an R2160, which is an aerobatics-capable Robin. A one turn spin and subsequent recovery results in a minimum of 1000' height loss, with each additional turn taking up about 350'. Each turn takes approximately a single second although I have to admit that I'm not concerned with timekeeping while spinning. But yes, that is approximately 360 degrees and 350' height loss per second, give or take. We don't initiate spins at less than 3500' - five times what the BGA considers a safe height.

I agree with Bose-X and others who think that spinning was rightfully removed from the PPL syllabus. You don't spin in straight and level flight, and the only time when you would have a chance of a spin is when mishandling the turn to final, where you have insufficient height to recover in any case. Stall/spin awareness is much, much more important. But I also do like Skylarks instructor, who demonstrates (not teaches) 10 minutes of aerobatics somewhere during the course.

At my club we have a special "Unusual Attitudes" day, twice a year, where PPL students and post-PPL pilots go up with an experienced instructor/coach, in an aerobatics plane, to demonstrate and experience spins, accellerated and full power stalls and a few other edge-of-the envelope things, plus some basic aerobatics manoevers. It was this day that got me hooked on aerobatics. But more importantly, it gave me a new appreciation for the dangers of the turn-to-final with too little speed.

[mary meagher]

Backpacker, just a small correction; the British Gliding Association NO LONGER REQUIRES as part of the syllabus "brief spins where the ground is noticably close"

"A very experienced instructor flying a docile two seater in ideal conditions may be prepared to initiate a brief spin from...(.less than l,000). A less docile two seater with a less experienced instructor, or less than ideal conditions, should raise the minimum height considerably."

It is therefore left to the discretion of the very experienced instructor!

You rightly remind us that spins are much more exciting in stubby wings.
Didn't we read a few months back about a Currie Wot, or some such, that did 23 spins before the pilot worked out a flat spin recovery......very very close to the ground........

And of course you all remember the old story about the first pilot who ever recovered from a stall . . . .

[rusty sparrow]

Mary

I had to do a 700' spin recovery in a K13 when returning to gliding after a break of around 20 years. I believe that I pulled out of the recovery dive at around 450' - the ground looked very close. I used to regularly spin the old Swallow at Southdown Gliding Club - once did about six sucsessive spins down from 7000'. I'm happy with spinning.

But I'm not an instructor and the guy in the K13 doing my check flight (not at Southdown, but an an inferior club some miles north) hadn't flown with me before and I think that he took a stupid risk. Don't know what he was trying to prove! .

[Mark1234]

I can't remember in the last 3000hrs flying along straight and level and the aircraft suddenly departing into a spin.Being arguamentative, how many engine failures in that time? I'd suspect not many, yet we learn about those too...

In many ways I completely agree with you, (and yes you're far more experienced than I) however, much as I think new drivers should get put on a skidpan, if only to scare themselves into a bit of common sense (I sure needed it), I think new pilots should have a similar experience.

First spin, first aerobatic manouvers, your mind is tripping out about what the view's doing outside - with a little familiarity we get over that and the thinking brain is freed to be a little more analytical - we can function as PIC again. To the average PPL a 60degree bank is an 'unusual attitude', that can't be healthy - if anything odd does happen the freak-out factor is high. Personally I recommend an aeros course to anyone who'll listen, (post PPL).

Truth is you shouldn't get into a spin accidentally. Truth is also that these things don't happen straight and level. Most likely reasons are excess testosterone (I believe you can self-teach aeros uk side?) OR distraction - high stress, head in, you may well miss the signs. Pretty sure the moment the bottom drops from your world and everything starts to rotate you'll snap back to. Yes if it happens at low level you're dead, but..

My pet beef is that in all of these avoidance exercises you know what you're expecting to avoid. How effective will you be in the real world?

[IFMU]

There is a lot of spinning instruction with gliders including experience of a spin and recovery at circuit height (700ft) on downwind leg :eek::eek:

R

Here in the states us regular mortals are supposed to do acro at 1500 AGL and higher. I prefer much higher. On my private pilot glider checkride, the examiner asked me to do a spin entry, we were about 1600 AGL. So, I started doing clearing turns, and just before doing the deed, he says "IFMU, what is the minimum height we can do this?" to which I replied 1500 feet. He asks "So you think you can complete this before we bust through 1500 feet?" The lesson there was not so much about spinning, but about not letting authority talk you into doing something stupid.

Spin on the downwind leg, recover at 700'? That's nuts!

-- IFMU

PS I did spins as part of my private pilot in power and never regretted it! The old PA12 spun nicely.

[421dog]

I'd just like to humbly point out to all of you glider jocks that "flying the box" so that I could drive the crappy old 182 tow plane 25 years ago was a heck of a lot more challenging than any spin recovery (including some VERY interesting times in S2's and Extras) I have ever needed to perform. That being said, maybe the very presence (and necessity) of the piece of yarn taped to the canopy makes you inherently better equipped to deal with these sorts of difficulties. On the other hand, we mere mortals (and no, I am not possessed of a glider rating) who require internal combustion might just benefit from the extra hand holding to keep us out of trouble.

[S-Works]

In many ways I completely agree with you, (and yes you're far more experienced than I) however, much as I think new drivers should get put on a skidpan, if only to scare themselves into a bit of common sense (I sure needed it), I think new pilots should have a similar experience.

I don't believe in using fear as an educational tool.

[Skylark58]

Whether we are talking about skid training in a car or spin training in an aircraft, it takes a amount of training before you remove the initial surprised reaction and the recovery becomes instinctive.

Is there a parallel with instrument flying, i.e rather than teach "don't go in a cloud or you will lose control and die" we teach at least how to maintain control and regain VMC?

[S-Works]

Whether we are talking about skid training in a car or spin training in an aircraft, it takes a amount of training before you remove the initial surprised reaction and the recovery becomes instinctive.

Indeed. But as many of the average spam cans are not cleared for spinning it is a bit of a moot point. I still maintain it is better to teach to avoid the spin rather than recovery from it. If you learn the signs, symptoms and causes of a spin you should never need to recover from one as you will learn to fly on the correct side of the envelope.

This then puts spinning where it should be in the realms of thrill seeking and advanced handling.

I am not anti-spinning at all. I rather like spinning and the thrill it gives me. But as an Instructor I do not think it has a place in modern basic instruction.

[Mark1234]

Ok, so that didn't read quite as it did in my head - not seriously advocating fear as a training tool. I stand by my other points however.

I know the Pa28 is spinnable in the utility category - Ok, it's not as BackPacker pointed out. Check before posting...

[BackPacker]

I know the Pa28 is spinnable in the utility category; suspect the 172,150/2 also,

As far as I know, all those types are placarded "intentional spins prohibited" - even in the U cat. The only exception being the 150/152 Aerobat.

Doesn't mean they won't spin when mishandled, if that's what you mean though.:ok:

[Mark1234]

That wasn't what I meant, no. Just checked the POH, I stand corrected. Ah well, I *still* think not training these things is dumbing down, but there we go.

[Skylark58]

As far as I know, all those types are placarded "intentional spins prohibited" - even in the U cat. The only exception being the 150/152 Aerobat.


Even the non Aerobat150/152 is cleared for spinning, so is the 172 as long as they are loaded within Utility Cat limits. All are +4/-1.76g. The Aerobat is+6/-3g

[n5296s]

I'm very happy to have had (plenty of) spin training. Maybe it's true that a fully developed spin on turn-to-final is going to kill you no matter what, but if you've got some spin experience then you will catch it long before it gets that far. If not, maybe you don't realise what's happening and don't have the instinct to kick opposite rudder, and you're a lawn dart before you even realise what has happened.

(The Pitts will do a one-turn spin and full recovery in less than 500' so at least in theory you could recover from a turn-to-final spin, though for some reason I've never tried it).

I don't think it should be part of the PPL, but I do think it should be considered more-or-less mandatory somewhere around 200 hours when a pilot has reached a certain comfort level with the normal handling of the plane.

(I'm pretty sure my aerobatics training saved my life when I hit a violent rotor system flying over mountains. MAYBE I'd have recovered without it, but I'm not at all sure).

n5296s

[S-Works]

Even the non Aerobat150/152 is cleared for spinning, so is the 172 as long as they are loaded within Utility Cat limits. All are +4/-1.76g. The Aerobat is+6/-3g

Nope, my 172 FR172K is clearly placarded and stated in the manual as not permitted for intentional spinning.

Many of the common types in the GA fleet are not cleared for spinning either.

This is the point I have been trying to make, spinning is an exercise that is pointless to teach to the general spam can flyers. Avoidance is a much better thing to teach and thankfully those who make the rules world wide seem to agree for a change.

Just because we had to do it and it 'separated the men from the boys' does not make it a good thing. Personally I think it is one of the few steps forward displayed by regulators who are normally backwards thinking.

[421dog]

This is the point I have been trying to make, spinning is an exercise that is pointless to teach to the general spam can flyers. Avoidance is a much better thing to teach and thankfully those who make the rules world wide seem to agree for a change.



Yeah... So then when something DOES happen and the poor guy finds himself in the situation his instructor inadequately prepared him to avoid or, God Forbid, he has a mechanical/weather/judgement mishap, we just chalk it up to rotten luck.

Get a grip.

This is DIRECTLY analogous to saying: "Well, if pilots want to fly in clouds (or at night, or in situations where the ground might be lost to view), they should go and get instrument rated." We, as the high priests of what is right in aviation, should dictate that they must be taught to AVOID these conditions at all costs. Training to do otherwise is unwarranted and potentially dangerous to both the student and the instructor (who probably has single-digit actual instrument time himself)

I suspect that most of this opposition is engendered by people who are terrified of spins themselves because nobody ever taught them how to deal with what is, under the correct circumstances, a fairly benign flight condition.

[S-Works]

I suspect that most of this opposition is engendered by people who are terrified of spins themselves because nobody ever taught them how to deal with what is, under the correct circumstances, a fairly benign flight condition.

I can assure you that I have no fear of spinning, was taught to spin and recover and am perfectly capable and current to teach it.

What I am saying is that in my opinion there is no place for it anymore in basic training. That teaching people to avoid the spin in the first place is a safer and more beneficial system considering the numbers of aircraft in the GA flight that are not approved for spinning.

The training indsutry as a whole worldwide reached the same conclusion so I am pretty sure there must be some merit in this thinking.

Yeah... So then when something DOES happen and the poor guy finds himself in the situation his instructor inadequately prepared him to avoid or, God Forbid, he has a mechanical/weather/judgement mishap, we just chalk it up to rotten luck.

I am very curious, please tell me how your spam can driver, flying along straight and level will suddenly depart from normal flight in to a death spin that if he had training he could have recovered from? The only other area that has a demonstrated history of accidental spins is the departure and turn to final neither of which I am sure that even the highest trained of sky gods is going to recover a bog standard spam can from.

If people do want to go and learn to spin and recover for the fun of it then there are limitless ways of going out and getting the experience. As I have mentioned before in the UK the amazing Ultimate High will put anyone who crosses their palm with silver through some of the most gruelling upset recovery drills you can imagine. That is the place to learn about advanced handling.

But thank you for resorting to the usual PPRUNE fallback of being insulting if people do not agree with you.

[Pace]

I am not anti-spinning at all. I rather like spinning and the thrill it gives me. But as an Instructor I do not think it has a place in modern basic instruction.

Bose

This really worries me. A couple of points on comments you have made. Firstly fear is the biggest teacher you can ever have.You cannot cotton wool everyone in society from fear as that poorly equips them to deal with fear when they are faced with it. Pilots will no matter how much avoidance and cotton wooling you teach will without doubt at some time be faced with extreme fear.

Spinning is just one aspect of out of the box handling. A spiral dive is far more vicious and also has an element of risk. It is a manouvre which holds a high risk of breaking the aircraft.

How can a pilot who has never spun know if he is in a spiral dive or a spin? is there a danger that he may confuse the two? How can you half train a pilot ?You are not doing them a favour but putting them at risk.

As an ex racing driver from years past in formula ford, clubmans and formula 3.The techniques I learnt back then have saved me many times on the road.

A driver who is taught to drive is not taught to handle a car.

All is well until there is ice or someone else loosing control and they are then ill equipt to to deal with the situation and crash. As the many flowers on the roadsides show they end up dead.

This is not about spins but about all manner of unusual attitudes and equiping pilots to be able to have the best chance of getting out of a nasty situation.

Believe me at some time you WILL have a situation. Half training pilots or trying to avoid situations which hold fear is not doing them a favour.

I am very curious, please tell me how your spam can driver, flying along straight and level will suddenly depart from normal flight in to a death spin that if he had training he could have recovered from? The only other area that has a demonstrated history of accidental spins is the departure and turn to final neither of which I am sure that even the highest trained of sky gods is going to recover a bog standard spam can from.

Bose you posted this after I posted my reply to an earlier post of yours.

There are many ways a pilot can get into a spin other than turning finals.
But this is not the point.
Abandon stall recovery. abandon spiral dive recovery. Abandon steep turns (why should anyone steep turn teach them avoidance by confining to rate one only?) The arguemnt is the same.

Its all about being comfortable with your ability and what the aircraft can and will do and how to handle that. The only way to handle fear is to face it, be comfortable with it and then loose it.

You never cure fear by avoidance!

Pace

[S-Works]

Believe me at some time you WILL have a situation. Half training pilots or trying to avoid situations which hold fear is not doing them a favour.

I don't disagree with you. However trying to turn out the perfect pilot from a basic PPL course is not the answer either. The PPL is the stepping stone. We teach pilots the basic skills to operate safely. We teach them how to avoid spins. As their skills increases as pilots they have the capacity to learn new things spinning, upset recovery etc is a natural progression from this.

As I said it seems that all of the regulators in the world agree with this principal. It may upset a few egos on PPRUNE but the decision pretty much worldwide was to move from teaching spinning at ab-initio level to teaching spin avoidance. As an Instructor it is something I support. If someone comes to me post PPL and wants to learn to spin them I am delighted to show them the basics. If they want to learn advanced handling and upset then I will show them where to find Instructors way more experienced than me in that field.

Like I said, I am not anti-spinning, I just think that there is a correct time and place for this type of skill development.

[Pace]

Bose

I would not issue a driving licence to someone who was not taught to handle a car in extreme situations ie by training on a skid pan especially if my kids or family or friends were relying on their skills.

I personally would drop a couple a hours off the PPL and add a couple of hours aerobatic instruction instead before issuing a PPL.

No regulators dont get everything right but DO get a lot wrong.

Pace

[S-Works]

I personally would drop a couple a hours off the PPL and add a couple of hours aerobatic instruction instead before issuing a PPL.

No regulators dont get everything right but DO get a lot wrong.

Yep, but chipping away at me trying to get me to agree with you won't work either!!

I have told you my position which by chance is the same as the regulators world wide.

I may have it wrong and they may have it wrong so if you have evidence to support a change back to the old school please feel free to present it.

Otherwise I think we have pretty much done the subject to death!!!

[Molesworth 1]

In my one and only spin recovery training session it was only the first time the instructor demonstrated a spin that it was a real shock. By the second or third time it had reduced to being just thoroughly unpleasant!

I found myself naturally recovering from the spin before it had really established. It takes some determined discipline to keep the controls in a pro-spin condition.

This was in a PA-28. Getting a common garden variety Cessna 152 to spin must be well nigh impossible.

[421dog]

Most university based 141 schools in the US employ spin training, a LOT more instrument training, and at least some aerobatics exposure as part of their primary (vfr) syllabus. Things differ a bit on this side as well. The expectation is that ppls will fly at night and people not rated to do so are the exception.

Now, on to the ad hominem portion of my screed: It REALLY comes across as grating to call pilots who may happen to fly fairly simple aircraft "spam can drivers". (I'm not one, by the way) Spend a bit of time with someone doing pipeline patrol, flying powerlines or counting ducks. Guess what, they often are not instrument rated, they may have very odd ideas about what constitutes safety from the standpoint of those of us looking down from the flight levels, but those "spam can drivers" had an instructor who taught them how to fly whatever piece of junk they were flying WELL. That's called Airmanship, and it doesn't come automatically with more seats, extra engines or bigger kerosene bills.

[mary meagher]

Certainly unusual maneuvers should be experienced during training. Slow flying, stalls, spin avoidance. Aviate, Navigate, Communicate. Practice, practice, and the GFT, and after 45 hours or so of very expensive training, you are now qualified for a Pilot's License.

But how many hours over your lifetime have you spent driving the car?

And how many hours experience is required for a PPL in the UK to be current? Five a year? Pitiful, isn't it?

[BEagle]

As an ex racing driver from years past in formula ford, clubmans and formula 3.The techniques I learnt back then have saved me many times on the road.

Well your driving must be rather inappropriate for the road. Ex-racing driving skills have NO relevance on the normal road.

Having taught spinning for quite a few years, I am convinced that there is NO NEED for it in the PPL syllabus. Few aircraft are suitable and few instructors can teach the exercise correctly. Instead concentrate on AVOIDANCE.

Yet the CAA requires instructors to take aircraft in which intentional spinning is prohibited to the point of an incipient spin, defined as a stall with yaw and roll during 6-yearly FI revalidation proficiency checks.... How they can do this in the current H&S yellow jacket era is beyond me - if intentional spinning is prohibited then it means just that! A mishandled incipient spin could soon lead to a developed spin - and then the FIE and FI are in a whole world of $hit.

One FIE announced "The only way I can get the PA28 Warrior to do that is with 10 deg flap and 2200 rpm...." Is such trick flying just to appease the CAA really a good idea? I would say not.

[Mark1234]

Well your driving must be rather inappropriate for the road. Ex-racing driving skills have NO relevance on the normal road.

I disagree, and it's where the analogy holds. It's nothing to do with speed: Faced with a potential accident the average driver plants their right foot on the middle pedal, closes both eyes and leaves two black lines leading straight to the scene of the accident. Having racing past (car handling ability) will start with the basic 'eyes open, evaluate', and include the ability to control the car, perhaps going round the problem, or through a soft spot in the hedge etc. It gets over the 'panic, suprise' reaction that's prevalent if you've never seen anything like that before.

[Pilot DAR]

I disagree, and it's where the analogy holds. It's nothing to do with speed: Faced with a potential accident the average driver plants their right foot on the middle pedal, closes both eyes and leaves two black lines leading straight to the scene of the accident. Having racing past (car handling ability) will start with the basic 'eyes open, evaluate', and include the ability to control the car, perhaps going round the problem, or through a soft spot in the hedge etc. It gets over the 'panic, suprise' reaction that's prevalent if you've never seen anything like that before.

I couldn't have said it better myself!

It is unhelpful to a student's (including new PPL's) progress to leave that person thinking that they have demonstrated adequate skill, and no more skills developement is needed. With driving skills beyond those of the "average" motorist, accidents can be both avoided and prevented - speed need not be a factor. Similarly, with calm deliberate piloting in the face of many uncommon flight circumstances, flying accidents can be prevented. The awareness of a spin is just one of many examples of how a "new" pilot must be pushed a little, if for no other reason than to make that person aware that prevention and recovery are possible, and it's something to aspire to.

I once watched an excellent demonstration of airmanship, in a Bell 206. The pilot made a perfect hovering pedal turn exactly about the tail rotor. During my helicopter training, I aspired to this. My instructor told me this was not required for the flight test. I told him it was required for my own sense of confidence in flying the helicopter with adequate precision. He agreed, and encouraged my practicing.

New pilots must have higher skill set to aspire to. Proper aircraft handling in unusual attitudes is a very good objective. Spins are a very appropriate example of unusual attitudes, with real world applicability.

Pilot DAR

[S-Works]

The problem is with all of these comments from the PPRUNE Skygods is that you are dealing with AVERAGE.

You seek to train pilots to be skygods and you train drivers to race cars and by doing so you make both the providence of the elite and talented. A great way to get cars of the road and pilots out of the air!!

New pilots must have higher skill set to aspire to.

You are absolutely right. BUT trying to teach the higher skill set to an already over loaded student rather than a safe skill set will just be one more nail in the coffin for light aviation.

I am a great believer that if we are to attract new normal people into aviation that we have to modernise and that we have to provide a clear and safe skill development path. At basic level we teach the general handling skills and the avoidance skills which includes how to make sure you don't get into a spin in the first place. By all means of the student wants to see a spin then arrange for it with a suitably qualified and experienced Instructor and appropriate aircraft.

As the student skills develop and they are more comfortable with the basic skills they can seek further training in more advanced skills such as spinning and upset recovery. This allows them to push the envelope further at their own pace.

I know many students who would have given up flying if they had been forced to learn to spin who are now multi thousand hour pilots, perfectly safe and still have no desire to spin an aircraft. It is not everyone's cup of tea and the days of the macho bull**** of using military training to weed out the weakest are behind us. Some people do not like the feelings of nausea and discomfort that spinning or other more advanced manoeuvres produce. Do we drive them out GA just because they can't do what we can?

If GA is to survive and even grow we must try and encompass more ordinary people.

It REALLY comes across as grating to call pilots who may happen to fly fairly simple aircraft "spam can drivers".

421Dog, Please accept my apologies, I think you have take offence to something lost in translation which was not there. In Europe we tend to refer to the normal trainer/rental fleet as 'Spam cans' due to the fact that 98% of them are of US manufacture. I fly a twin Turbo prop for work but my private flying is done in a Cessna (and an AUster which has no instruments!!) so I firmly consider my self to be a spam can driver. It is a term of endearment not one of insult.

[Pace]

Yep, but chipping away at me trying to get me to agree with you won't work either!!

I have told you my position which by chance is the same as the regulators world wide.

Bose

I am not chipping away at you and apologise if that is how it comes across. I do understand your arguemnt and respect what you say. We just have different views.

I have never had the confidence in regulators as having pilots or aviations best interest at heart.

Look at the existing mess we have in Europe at present and the massive costs loaded onto aviation by regulators with each sweep of the pen.

The quickest way to kill aviation is through the regulators and the huge costs to pay for it all. That is making aviation more unnatractive by the day to the ordinary guy in the street not what goes into the training.

Pace

[S-Works]

The quickest way to kill aviation is through the regulators and those costs to pay for it all which is making aviation more unnatractive by the day to the ordinary guy in the street.

Quite right. But before the ordinary guy in the street gets to see the regulation they have to learn to fly. If we make learning to fly unattractive by forcing unneeded and uncomfortable training onto people it does the same thing!!!

As I have said many time through this post I am not anti spinning, I am just saying that there is a time and place for it. It should be as it is now an elective skill for confidence building and handling enhancement at a time chosen by the pilot not a forced skill because of some romantic notion that being able to do one makes you a sky god or it separates the wheat from the chaff!!! Otherwise I do not see any genuine SAFETY case for returning it to the PPL course. However as I have said before, if someone can provide me with hard data that shows a need for it then I am open minded enough to review it.

[ShyTorque]

I'm always bemused by the angst shown by many over this subject. It reflects how fairly recent changes in our society have changed our appreciation of risk.

I was brought up to be able to drive/ride/fly to my personal limits, or the limits of the vehicle. At the age of 9, I was given an old BSA man's bike with no brakes, to big for me if I sat on the saddle. so I just leaned it over and put one leg through the cross-bar so I could reach the pedals. Rode it for years, saved up my pocket money for brakes and eventually grew legs long enough to ride it in a more conventional sense. At 11, I self learned to ride a motorcycle, on an off-road racer. No helmet, no padding, just wellies and jeans. Went through a few hedges and fell in a few ditches. Still here. Same with horse riding. Just jumped on one and got on with it. No saddle, just a bridle on an unbroken stallion pony (I admit that one hurt; it used to bite us and throw us off). Self learned to drive a four wheeler, again off-road, using a Ferguson Tractor and a discarded Morris van with bald tyres and no brakes. Later, with a provisional car licence and assistance from a pal with a Hillman Imp we used to go out in the Peak District hills every time it snowed, to further our driving skills and understanding of road conditions in the rawest sense. Still here. I was taught glider spin recoveries from a tow-launch at the age of 15, before I was sent solo. Still here. Was taught spin recoveries aged 17 on the pre-PPL syllabus, including recovery from accidental inverted one in a 150 Aerobat (where the engine stopped). More spinning taught in a JP, accidentally lost 10,500 feet one afternoon. Still here. Solo engine offs in a helicopter with a total of 40 hours rotary flying. Later taught spinning myself and maintain that the most important thing is recognising the difference between an incipient spin and a fully developed spin. Difficult to know if you never see it properly.

These days folk are more likely to be mandated to wear a hi-viz jacket and a hard hat, blindly press the button at a Pelican crossing and wait for the green light, but often don't learn to look up the road for themselves before stepping off the pavement.

:hmm:

[maxred]

Guys have just been looking over the past comments with regard to the topic of spinning. Bose x whilst I appreciate your comments, I find the premise of teaching 'average, normal :rolleyes: people' only the rudimentaries of flying, frankly horrific. With the exception of CFIT, unintentional spin/loss of control is the biggest killer within GA. Indivuduals who take up flying MUST BE AWARE of the dangers, and the ONLY way to teach and prepare is to carry out the procedure. If the club does not have the equipment, nor the staff to conduct FULL spin procedues and awareness, then the club sends the student to an organisation who can conduct that part of the PPL course. A full aggrevated spin is not a pleasant experience, however, unless you have experienced it, and understand the recovery process, then I am sorry, you are not fully trained.
It has nothing to do with 'military macho flying', it goes with the turf. That is what aeroplanes can do, sometimes with alarming regularity, and unless fully aware, the consequences will be fatal. You cannot shield potential pilots from this truth.

[S-Works]

You cannot shield potential pilots from this truth.

No you can't and I never said that we should. What I said is that our skills as pilots grow with time. Trying to cram it all into the basic PPL does not work. I find your comments about the rudiments a bit hard to understand. We teach a syllabus that has had little change in decades apart from changing spin recovery to spin avoidance. Are you saying that the whole PPL is now only rudimentary because of a change in one skill?

It is far better to take a progressive approach.

Fortunately it is a moot point as the regulators world wide reached the same conclusion years ago and their is no evidence to indicate the decision was wrong. There is no evidence to indicate that there are more spin accidents because avoidance rather than recovery is taught.

Anything beyond this is argument for arguments sake in typical PPRUNE style. As I have said a number of times to those who do want to argue, simply provide the evidence that spinning needs to be returned to the basic training and I will look at it. My mind is not closed to evidence, just to blind opinion with no supporting data.

[ShyTorque]

Bose-X,
The problem is with all of these comments from the PPRuNe Skygods is that you are dealing with AVERAGE.

There are few PPRuNe Skygods. The real problem is: we've made them below average.

We have the same "shielded" approach to the teaching of car driving in UK. Learners are not allowed to use motorways, even with an instructor. First time they venture near a motorway, they are in unknown territory - albeit legally.

Some will have the intelligence to get themselves further training - most don't, and it shows.

Having instructed for some years (fixed wing and rotary) and moved on, I still work in the flying school environment. The over-riding feeling I get is that many, if not most low-time PPLs hardly dare to mention the word "spin". They don't understand it, only fear it. In my old-school book, that's not a fully trained pilot.

It's more unlikely as time goes on that we will see spinning brought back into the syllabus, so this is all conjecture anyway. It's more unlikely because we now have a systemic tendency to avoid thinking properly about spinning. Instead we have an "avoid all dogs, they bite" mentality.

[VOD80]

I tend to only “lurk” here because of the polarised viewpoints! But, I’m again tempted to poke my head above the parapet :). I learned to fly on an Auster and did a lot of spinning. I feel that it was a good thing and certainly showed what would happen if I let it spin.

This awareness probably helped when I was told to go-around at Lasbordes (a little airport just to the east of Toulouse where I kept my plane at the time). I was offered a “short circuit” (the normal circuit is a cross-country flight at Lasbordes because of the noise sensitive neighbours) and told to turn right immediately. I was very low and must have, unconsciously done a skidding turn. Out of the corner of my eye I saw the needles of the turn and slip indicator pointing all over the place and just, as a reflex, stuffed the nose down.

I completed the rest of the circuit pretty low down!

So, perhaps there’s no “proof” in a formal sense that spin training needs to be reintroduced into the syllabus but there are suggestions that, despite “spin awareness training”, pilots still don’t understand the danger of lack of airspeed in turns.

This can be seen in the various EFATO turn-back crashes and others (this, as an example http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources/Bolkow%20207,%20D-ENWA%2006-08.pdf (http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources/Bolkow%20207,%20D-ENWA%2006-08.pdf) where the pilot seems to have not understood why the aircraft wasn’t climbing but still turned while at very low airspeed – leading to an unrecoverable spin)

It’s been alluded to in a couple of posts in this thread. There’s a general “dumbing down” of life these days and I see the same thing happening in aviation.

Perhaps we need to bring back the Flying Flea? :ok:

[Pilot DAR]

Though I still hold my position that spinning should be taught, to assure that new pilots appreciate it's seriousness, and don't completely freeze at the controls when anything like that happens to them, I also see that there is a disincintive to fly ing for those who really fear it. Were I to be a regulatory sky god, the position I would take would be that new pilots cannot become PPL's until a suitable qualified instructor attests that he or she has demonstrated an incipient spin and recovery to the new pilot.

I can be brought to agree that it may not be necessary for the new pilot to demonstrate that they have the skill to affect a recovery form a spin. I cannot be brought to agree that a new pilot should be insulated from the unpleasant experience. If they come down with a queezy tummy - tough, it's part of flying.

As I think about it, the student pilot should be required at a minimum to demonstrate unusual attitude recoveries associated with spins. Meaning the instructor does a gentle wingover ans says "it's yours". If the queezy tummied student can't muster enough reserve capacity to recover an unusual attitude, and fly home, they really do not have what it takes to be a pilot.

My airplane has been tied up doing testing all winter, and I could only fly it right side up. Last night was my first opportunity to do airwork in months in it. After an hour of loops, rolls, spins and wingovers, I had an upset tummy, and was again "recent" in unusual attitude recovery, required for two flight tests next week. One spin wound itself up quite well. Some things in flying are not as much fun as they sound. It does not mean that they should not at least be required to be demonstrated!

Pilot DAR

[mary meagher]

What is emerging from this thread is a disagreement over the best time in one's training to experience and recognise a spin, and to avoid or correct as needed.

Not until five years after starting to fly could I anticipate the required spins without fear and trembling. Certainly not helped by a macho power instructor who I think wanted to actively discourage my further flying.

I still came back. But got a different instructor.

As a gliding instructor, we introduce a "confidence stall" at the very beginning, in fact, 2 or 3 gentle stalls just to get over the fear of stalling.
(And I like to demonstrate that we stall on EVERY flight, if it is a properly held off landing).

But a fully developed spin is a real freak out for a lot of people. I did make the mistake of using one to descend from 5,000' after a half hour's trial lesson with a very very bold pupil, who actually asked for a spin. He never came back. (During the flight, I asked what he did for a living, he told me he was a bomb disposal expert on a nearby base).

Even experienced pilots still dread the spin, even in the docile K13. I must say overall I agree with the current approach, because even if someone has turned back dangerously after EFATO, and added to the statistics, can this not be better avoided by emphasising correct action of landing ahead?

[Pace]

What is emerging from this thread is a disagreement over the best time in one's training to experience and recognise a spin,

Anytime one can get killed alone in an aircraft and most definately before carrying passengers especially if they are my kids.

I do not regard spinning as a single item but put it in the same box as all unusual attitude manouvres.

You may as well say no pilots need to do steep turns as you can teach avoidance by limiting them to rate one turns. Where do you stop. A spiral dive can be mistaken for a spin yet needs a different recovery. Both can be unpleasant manouvres but it is important to understand both and experience both.

I would seriously require student pilots to have 1 to 2 hours in an aerobatic plane to run through the whole regime of unusual attitudes and maybe add it as the last item before recieving a PPL and carrying passengers. Take that hour or two off the existing PPL schedule so as not to add costs.

Pilots have to be able to handle an aircraft not just fly it like ill equipt zombies.

Pace

[Captain-Random]

I never got to experiance the spin on my ppl course due to the fact that we couldn't get a pa28 to spin. Theoretically i could correct it but in a real life situation i don't know.

Is recovery easy in practice like it is, shown in the book?

[BEagle]

When I went through training, we had an excellent 16mm film called 'Spinning Modern Aircraft' which showed what both erect and inverted spins were like in the Hunter T7. Bearing in mind that we weren't cleared to stall the Hunter, let alone spin it, this was an excellent spin awareness lesson tool.

Many 'spin resistant' aircraft can only be provoked into a convincing spin with some trick flying; the type of flying which is highly unlikely to be encountered in normal flying. Who, for example, is going to pull the control column fully aft whilst applying full rudder, then hold it there - inadvertently?

A well-made training DVD showing what spinning is like should be enough to instill sufficient awareness of the fully developed spin into most student pilots. I would sooner concentrate on safe low speed handling and incipinet stall awareness than wasting time terrifying students with frankly irrelevant exercises.

After all, the recent fatal airliner crashes with at least 3 pilots on each flight deck (Perpignan A320 and the Turkish Airlines 737) were most probably due to small technical issues distracting pilots from awareness of the impending stall.

ShyTorque, dogs don't bite unless provoked. So teach people not to - they don't really need to feel the pain!

[englishal]

It is not a "queezy tummy" that would put me off, but a tired, old 1970's C152 which has been abused as a training aeroplane all of it's life.

Funnily enough in 9 years of flying I have yet to put myself into an unintentional spin. I did end up upside down once, falling with style...........with the aero's instructor sat next to me laughing at my poor attempts to recover from the upside down stall at the top of the loop. I had left full throttle on so we were hurtling earthwards rather fast so I guess he though he better help me out ;)

I agree with sentiments that "advanced flying" should be taught but I think it is something that people should do post PPL when that have built enough confidence in day to day flying that they might actually start becoming lax. I never did complete my aero's, maybe something I should continue this summer.....

[FrustratedFormerFlie]

There have been a few postings on thsi to the efect that the only inadvertent spins happen on the turn to finals when there is insufficient height to recover anyway.

I beg to differ.

For me, the most likely circumstance for an inadvertent spin is through disorientation in cloud (whether entered deliberately with an appropraiet rating or accidentally without one).

This does happen, and the ability to recognise the spin - from instruments alone if necessary (and using instruments to confirm or correct visual/physiological cues in any event) - and recover is a life saver.

I am no fan of scaring students off with early introduction of violent manouevres of any kind. But perhaps if a student isn't up to tackling the challenge of recognising and recovering from a spin before the award of his/her PPL (note, not necessarily before first solo!), perhaps another trip or two to build their confidence and understanding of flying would be a better investment than banking another stat of a 'wings award in minimum hours, saving the student's precious cash'.

There are bigger favours an instructor can do than save the stude's dosh!

[Pilot DAR]

It is not a "queezy tummy" that would put me off, but a tired, old 1970's C152 which has been abused as a training aeroplane all of it's life.

I'm older that that, and I'm still airworthy...

A plane is either airworthy, or it is not. If it is, it can safely do whatever it was approved to do. If it is not airworthy, it should not be flown.

As long as those of us within our industry refer to older aircraft as less than entirely airworthy, we are doing ourselves a terrible dis-service. If we lack confidence in our aircraft, and the people who maintain them, how could we ever impart confidence in aviation safety to those around us? My 70's 150 is older than the 70's 152, and I looped, rolled and spun it last night. I crossed the desert of Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona three weeks ago in a Cessna which is 46 years old. What a delightful OLD bird!

Pilot DAR

[Piper.Classique]

I spin my cub, and it is 56 years old. Even older than me......
Pity the cg requirements only let me do it solo, but it is pretty docile. I can just persuade it to go over the top wing, going with the prop. Once going round nicely it will stay in hands off.
A C150 will do mch the same, with care.

[421dog]

A spin isn't exactly a violent manuver. The thing that freaks people out is watching the nose come down through the vertical, and, as was pointed out earlier, the control force needed to keep the "vertical snap roll" going. There's essentially no G loading except on the recovery, and correctly done, this should be well under 2 g.
In planes that WILL spin (like Beech sundowners, Citabrias, and Stearmans, to name a few) it's disconcerting that the pilot has to DO something to "Make It Stop!". Now, that "something" is generally fairly simple, but it's not initially intuitive. If we don't teach it, MOST of the people who end up in the situation will not be able to figure it out for themselves before they end up dead.

[n5296s]

It is not a "queezy tummy" that would put me off, but a tired, old 1970's C152 which has been abused as a training aeroplane all of it's life.
Spinning is very gentle on the airframe. It's just a stall, then a yaw. After that the aerodynamics take over. Of course you *could* do it roughly, but you don't need to. The same applies to the recovery. Recovery from a spiral dive can be much tougher on the airframe. Of course you have to get into the right manouvre in the first place, I found the Decathlon hard to spin when solo, it tended to go into a spiral dive.

n5296s

[madlandrover]

As I think about it, the student pilot should be required at a minimum to demonstrate unusual attitude recoveries associated with spins. Meaning the instructor does a gentle wingover ans says "it's yours". If the queezy tummied student can't muster enough reserve capacity to recover an unusual attitude, and fly home, they really do not have what it takes to be a pilot.

I quite agree - and as an instructor it's the way I do things, starting off with very gentle manoeuvres and getting the student simply to recover back to a datum attitude using the primary flight controls, then after a couple of lessons the same exercise but to balanced and trimmed straight and level flight. Even the less confident students improve massively using this method, and gain a lot more confidence in the aircraft and their own handling capabilities.

[Wessex Boy]

I did my PPL in '86 and Spinning was included. We weren't allowed to spin solo during training, but with 5x 17 year olds on a scholarship, competition soon breaks out to see who can hold a C150 in for the most turns.

Unfortunately our CFI had a mishap practicing a low-level spin for the Norwich Air Show and entered the ground at an 80 degree angle :sad:

[Cloud Basher]

I find it amusing that spin training creates such angst amongst pilots. It is simply another maneuvre which is eminently controllable and part of the flight envelope - on approved aircraft (however even aircraft that aren't approved for intentional spins, have had to have been spun during certifcation - I think recovery from a two or three turn spin IIRC with various control inputs - someone will know...)

Anyway as has been shown here, and as was stated a couple of pages back, spinning is a pschological thing. People mentioned students get scared so we shouldn't do them. We are only scared in life because of two things, firstly we don't understand something and secondly we don't know what to do about it. Spin training rectifies these things. Some people may not like it, but at least with proper training they will know they can get out of it and recover easily.

To me it is very very simple. Can an aircraft stall? Yes. Can and aircraft spin? Yes. Therefore as pilots its behoves us and those we fly with to know what to do if it happens. The argument about base to final turns and where in the flight envelope it may or may not occur is irrelevant. If an aircraft is capable of it then we need to know how to deal with it. We learn how to deal with every other type of emergency so why not inadvertent spins?

Bose, I agree, they won't be put back into the syllabus and I do take your point about experience levels, however the school I fly at, teaches in Citabrias and includes stalls and fulls spins in their training as well as basic aerobatics / unusual attitude recovery. They have one of the best reputations in Australia for turning out pilots who can actually fly an aircraft within its full flight envelope

My point here is just because the minimum standard says level X is acceptable, does not mean instructors and schools can't teach to a higher level Y. It comes down to personal standards and not just accepting the mediocre (again a psychological thing).

My final point is that it is the initial instructors that a student has, that really defines the standards that a student will set for themselves. So if level X is acceptable and we only need to do the minimum, and this is what the school supports and does not push the student to a higher standard, then level X is all we can expect. I take exception to you stating that students can't handle the extra work of learning spins. From what I have seen and experienced at this school, that is absolute hogwash, a student will do whatever you teach them to do.

Just my two cents.

Cheers
CB

[S-Works]

Bose, I agree, they won't be put back into the syllabus and I do take your point about experience levels, however the school I fly at, teaches in Citabrias and includes stalls and fulls spins in their training as well as basic aerobatics / unusual attitude recovery. They have one of the best reputations in Australia for turning out pilots who can actually fly an aircraft within its full flight envelope

All within the basic 45hrs of the PPL? I am truly impressed. I see you are from Ozz so I guess the weather is less of a factor when teaching?

I do seem to think that a few people have their facts in a twist when responding to me. I am not against spinning at all. I am just saying that there is a time and place for it and using it to develop advanced skills post PPL is more sensible in my opinion.

[TheGorrilla]

can't be bothered to read all the posts in this thread.... But, I think everyone should spin their a"£% off!! It's good fun and builds confidence.

[Lightning6]

can't be bothered to read all the posts in this thread.... But, I think everyone should spin their a"£% off!! It's good fun and builds confidence.

TheGorrilla...I couldn't agree more, it is fun and definitely confidence building. It has been said elsewhere on this thread that turning final is the only way you are going to find yourself in a spin situation, cr@p, as has also been said here, it's possible to find yourself in a spin due to disorientation in IMC, all, in my opinion, should know instinctively how to recover.
Incipient spin training would not help you in this situation, the time scale between incipient and a full spin is in seconds, thinking back on your theory "Oh what do I do now" could well not be good enough, it has to be instinctive, which can only be achieved through training, pre or post PPL.

[Solar]

Well said Gorilla

[Lightning6]

Well said Solar :)

[Cows getting bigger]

Sorry, I'm a little confused. I thought the original question was about the basic PPL course (in Europe 45 hrs flying, UK NPPL 32 hours). So I'm left wondering:

a. Why are we talking about IMC? Students should be being taught how to avoid this and there is a specific exercise where they are taught a 180 turn out of IMC.

b. Are you saying that people should not only experience spins, but they should also been done in (simulated) IMC?

As Bose said, I'm not against spin training, I just question the level of relevance to the basic PPL course.

[IO540]

Just noticed this thread.

IMHO teaching spins is a waste of time in the PPL, because - assuming the pilot is watching his speed - the only place he might stall (and therefore the only place he might spin) is the base to final turn, and there he will be too low to recover anyway.

There is an FAA article on this, where they found that the vast majority (well over 90%, IIRC) of stall/spin accidents would not have been recoverable, due to insufficient height. This was one of the things which led to the certification of the Cirrus SR20/22.

A much more useful thing to teach, IMHO, would be how wing loading affects the stall speed, so e.g. you can pull a tighter turn if you unload the wings by losing some height (a vertical acceleration). This is a good tactic for flying tight circling approaches, etc.

[bjornhall]

IMHO teaching spins is a waste of time in the PPL, because - assuming the pilot is watching his speed - the only place he might stall (and therefore the only place he might spin) is the base to final turn, and there he will be too low to recover anyway.

Assuming he's the A-to-B type of guy, yes. If not, he could well stall, and possibly spin, during maneuvering flight! You'll find a lot of PPL holders of the somewhat more adventurous kind doing all sorts of things that are perfectly legal, might not always be terribly bright, but should not be dangerous, provided it is done at a safe altitude. Consenting adults and all that... :E

Experimenting with returning to the runway after an EFATO, checking out what happens if you stall during a cross-controlled turn, trying to self-teach chandelles, overly enthusiastic stall practice; all things that some PPL holders will experiment with, whether someone else thinks it is a good idea or not. And all can result in an aggravated stall, or even an incipient spin, if mishandled.

In addition, some will go on to fly non-certified aircraft, sometimes with less forgiving low speed and stall characteristics. Doing something in one of those that was perfectly ordinary in a PA28 could unexpectedly put them in an unusual attitude. "Ok, let's not do that again, but first, how do I recover??"

Keeping all that in mind, I think spinning during the PPL is a good thing. But only late in the PPL course, and only for those students who would benefit from it, in the instructor's opinion.

I am sure glad I got to spin during my PPL. It was a total Blast! :) :)

[englishal]

There's essentially no G loading except on the recovery, and correctly done, this should be well under 2 g.
IFFFFFFF...it is done correctly. As one pilot who was undergoing spin training for his FAA CFI rating said to me after...."I was starting to get tunnel vision during the recovery, I reckon we were pulling over 4g"....This is in a 1970's C152 - and no matter how airworthy you THINK they are, I'm not prepared to risk it. The bloke before you may have pulled 6g and got away with it and not said anything...

Experimenting with returning to the runway after an EFATO, checking out what happens if you stall during a cross-controlled turn, trying to self-teach chandelles, overly enthusiastic stall practice; all things that some PPL holders will experiment with, whether someone else thinks it is a good idea or not. And all can result in an aggravated stall, or even an incipient spin, if mishandled

This is why the FAA teach these manouvres for the CPL - all sorts of stalls, cross controlled, turning, accellerated, chandelles, lazy-8's, 8's on Pylons, and other ground refence manouvres. Unfortunately the JAA system doesn't teach anything like this.....and the PPL is not the place for them.

I reckon the best advice is for everyone post PPL to experience some aerobatics, if they want to, including spins, but in an aerobatic aircraft with an aerobatic instructor, (or someone competent in aeros) wearing a parachute!

(incidentally, Spins "to meet the requirement of the CFI aeronautical experience" are the only aerobatics allowed to be carried out without a parachute on in FAA land.....A PPL could NOT do spins without one)

[TheGorrilla]

yawwwwn...

[Lightning6]

IFFFFFFF...it is done correctly. As one pilot who was undergoing spin training for his FAA CFI rating said to me after...."I was starting to get tunnel vision during the recovery, I reckon we were pulling over 4g"....This is in a 1970's C152 - and no matter how airworthy you THINK they are, I'm not prepared to risk it. The bloke before you may have pulled 6g and got away with it and not said anything...If he was under training why did the FI allow this to happen? 4g? blimey, well OTT.

Perhaps a good reason to practice certain unusual attitude recoveries in an A/C with a G-meter.

[FrustratedFormerFlie]

Quote:
"IMHO teaching spins is a waste of time in the PPL, because - assuming the pilot is watching his speed - the only place he might stall (and therefore the only place he might spin) is the base to final turn, and there he will be too low to recover anyway."

Another handy place for that unrecoverably-low spin for a low-hours PPL is that fly-around by Mum and Dad's cottage. Nice'n'low, nice'n'slow, lot's of eyes on the ground rather than the horizon or panel, oops.

Please don't tell me it can't happen.

I remain convinced that maximising the student's familiarity with the more obscure corners of the envelope, and building confidence in their ability to recognise and recover at incipience or, if push comes to shove, at full development, is 'a good thing'.

[S-Works]

Another handy place for that unrecoverably-low spin for a low-hours PPL is that fly-around by Mum and Dad's cottage. Nice'n'low, nice'n'slow, lot's of eyes on the ground rather than the horizon or panel, oops.

Which is not done at heights that the average spamcan will recover from. So why not teach avoidance rather than leading people to thing that they can recover from a spin so it will be OK......

Oh hang, that's what we do these days........

[Mark1234]

What's with the whole either or business? Nobody's suggesting dropping the awareness / avoidance part.

I can only base my opinions on my own experience, however I find it hard to believe anyone having experienced a spin will think it'll be fine at low level just because they know the recovery. - in my opinion it's far more likely to imprint on their mind the danger.

Far more danger (in my opinion) just being told 'spins are bad, mkay?' If you don't know where the limits are, it's easier to accidentally cross them. Knowing in a real, visceral sense what the consequences are is more deterrent than 'because my instructor said so' Certainly what I experienced during my SEP/PPL training didn't meet what I would consider adequate demonstration, more what I'd call 'stall with a wing drop'.

I grant you it's not an early ppl exercise, and I admit I'm thinking more about handling/unusual attitudes in general than spins in particular. Again, it's only my experience, but I'm generally appalled by the lack of comprehension of several of my cohorts as goes aircraft handling appreciation, and what will/won't kill you / is / is not dangerous.

P.S. I think this thread may be in an unrecoverable spin.. we all have our viewpoints and aren't budging :E

[Lightning6]

My first spin recovery lesson was 30Hrs into my PPL course, which I think is reasonable, I did quite a few after that.

As I've said before, leaving the safety side of it, (reluctantly), it gave me a lot more confidence, so much so that I went on to do an aerobatics course post PPL, in fact my first introduction to aerobatics was on the same day I passed my GFT.

I know spin recovery will never be re-introduced to the PPL syllabus, but I recommend post PPL training, preferably with an FI that has experience in training you, not an hour builder that has had limited experience.

But, as you say Mark, I think the subject is done to death.

[Lightning6]

My last comment on this thread (I think), there was a poll on another forum on this subject, results:-

64% for.
36% against.

[gpn01]

IMHO teaching spins is a waste of time in the PPL, because - assuming the pilot is watching his speed - the only place he might stall (and therefore the only place he might spin) is the base to final turn, and there he will be too low to recover anyway.


....Or climbing out too steeply and doesn't notice the airspeed decay away
....Or in gusty conditions
....Or if there's airframe icing
....Or if the ASI isn't working properly
....Or if they've miscalculated their weight (or got the CofG wrong)
....Or they're pulling more than 1G
....Or the prop has stopped and is causing more drag than expected (and is increasing the pilot's workload)


A much more useful thing to teach, IMHO, would be how wing loading affects the stall speed, so e.g. you can pull a tighter turn if you unload the wings by losing some height (a vertical acceleration). This is a good tactic for flying tight circling approaches, etc.

Am curious.....how can you do 'tight' circling without pulling back on the stick and so increasing the wing loading (and so increasing the risk of a stall)?

[Piper.Classique]

Am curious.....how can you do 'tight' circling without pulling back on the stick and so increasing the wing loading (and so increasing the risk of a stall)?

by going downhill

However, on the original point of "should we do full spins" I suspect we are in violent agreement that, yes, we should at some point teach spinning. The disagreement is not if, but when, yes?

[S-Works]

The disagreement is not if, but when, yes?

Yes. In a nutshell.

[jonburf]

In my opinion it is a valuable piece of flying that should be in the PPL course. I did in mine only a phew years ago and feel much safer knowing that I can deal with it now.

[Cpt Joshua]

Anyone heard that FSS out of control.mp3 ? Where that guy is screaming may-day as he's in a roll/spin and doesn't know how to get out of it then the ATC guy tells him to release the column and he gets straight and level again. A very chilling audio clip. From memory I think it's in the liveatc forums in audio clips.

I'm almost done my PPL, and I have done how to avoid the spin, doing incipient spins, but after watching hundreds of videos on youtubes, I actually want to learn how to recover from spins whilst being in a full spin. For my own saftey for the future.

[BackPacker]

I actually want to learn how to recover from spins whilst being in a full spin.

In all fairness, if you do spin training, then you will do this in an aerobatics-capable aircraft, or at least an aircraft cleared for intentional spinning.

The aircraft you fly regularly will most likely NOT be the same aircraft and as such it will have different spin characteristics and recovery techniques. Even though your regular mount may not be approved for intentional spinning, a test pilot will have spun (or at least, attempted to spin) the aircraft, and the approved recovery technique resulting of those tests will be written in the POH.

So it's a lame answer but if you want to know how to recover from a spin, read the POH. (Preferably beforehand.)

Having said that, spin recovery, in most cases, will happen with the stick/yoke neutral (in pitch and roll) or slightly forward, and full rudder against the spin. But every aircraft is different and the POH, at the end of the day, has the final answer.

I went to one of our clubs Unusual Attitudes days, particularly because I wanted to see what a spin would look like and how I would cope. I was very surprised to see that all the things I'd read about the spin, and seen in various videos, were all true, and that I managed to recover from the spin almost instinctively. Of course, with unusual attitude training you are fully aware of what's going to happen, and you initiate the spin yourself so you know what direction it's in.

But even if you've never spun an aircraft before and you get into a spin, trust your reflexes. Assuming you've had good ground and flight training, that is.

(And to complete, and as others have said before, the most likely situation where you'll spin is so close to the ground that you don't have time to recover anyway.)

[bjornhall]

And to complete, and as others have said before, the most likely situation where you'll spin is so close to the ground that you don't have time to recover anyway.

This is one of those cases where being extra pedantic with words actually reveals an otherwise obscure meaning. The most common circumstances for a stall/spin accident is when a spin is entered too low for recovery to be possible. "The most likely situation where you'll spin" may or may not be the same thing as "the most common circumstances for a stall/spin accident"; it depends on what flying you do.

That is what I was alluding to in my previous post. More than a few pilots occasionally do things where they might end up in an incipient spin at altitude, while not being engaged in aerobatics. Sure, it's not all that common, and accidents resulting from such flying is rare.

But in my view, our job as pilots is not to reduce accident statistics (although we're obviously interested in those as well). Rather, our job is to ensure the safety of each and every flight we make. If you have an accident, or even a dangerous incident, because your training was insufficient for that particular flight, then it is no excuse that the accident was an extraordinary event that would not be statistically interesting.

I'm glad I got spin training during my PPL, because I feel it makes me a better pilot. Expanding my capability limits means my flying is done further away from those limits (even when, for instance, doing stall practice or EFATO training on my own).

However, if I was a flight instructor facing the prospect of routinely doing spin training in non-aerobatic aircraft without parachutes, I'd probably not be all that eager...

[mary meagher]

Just for fun, have you ever heard the story about the very first pilot who managed to recover from a spin in a Wright Flyer?

Tell you anyway. The Wright Brothers were aware of the tendency of their prototype to drop a wing and nose into the sand at Kitty Hawk. They called it "well digging". Could be avoided by careful handling.

But every now and then an early aircraft would enter into the fatal descent, despite the pilots best efforts, trying to raise the nose by hauling back on the stick.

So one chap, realising he was heading for a terminal arrival, decided to get it over with quickly and pushed the stick forward instead . . . . . .

[what next]

Hello!

However, if I was a flight instructor facing the prospect of routinely doing spin training in non-aerobatic aircraft without parachutes, I'd probably not be all that eager...

End even less so, if it is not required by the training syllabus and most training aircraft are not cleared for intentional spinning asnyway. Or haven't been been spun at all during their certification process, as is the case with everything from light twin upward (including the light twin itself!).

Am I a bad pilot, because I have not spun a single turn during my own training? Am I a bad instructor, because I have not spun a single turn with any of my students (from PPL to ATPL/ME)? I don't know. I don't care, to be honest. I hope I can consider myself a good pilot when, reaching the age of retirement, I still have not spun a single turn :-)

Greetings, Max

[Mike Cross]

In my opinion it is a valuable piece of flying that should be in the PPL course. I did in mine only a phew years ago and feel much safer knowing that I can deal with it now.

That unfortunately is why you are possibly less safe through over-confidence.

I too have done quite a bit of spinning in training, both in SEP and gliders. It would be a mistake to assume that you "know you can deal with it now". The spin characteristics of every type are different, and they are greatly affected by the C of G position so crew weight and fuel loading make a big difference.

In my case I was in a Beagle Pup 150, nearly 25 years ago. This is the airframe from which the RAF's Bulldog was developed. I was with an instructor and had done plenty of spins before. She wanted a fully developed power-on spin. My initial enties did not result in anything that met her requirements so she took over and with a very firm entry we were into a spin. She held it for about a turn and then gave it to me and told me to recover. During the attempted recovery the nose rose so we were in a very flat attitude. "Stick fully forward" she said "It is" said I, banging it against the forward stop to emphasise the point. Normal recovery technique was not working and we were rapidly losing height. Eventually she gave a big blast of power, the propwash lifted the tail and we started to pick up some airspeed, the controls once more started to become effective and I got a normal recovery, by which time the ground was uncomfortably close.

There are big differences between an incipient spin, a fully developed spin, and one that has gone flat. A lot of people who assume they "can recover from a spin" have never experienced a really fully developed one.

It is IMHO far more important to drum into students an automatic recognition and recovery from the incipient stage. No-one should ever get anywhere near a fully developed spin in normal flight.

Once you've learnt to fly then by all means get into a suitable aircraft with a suitably experienced instructor and practice falling out of the sky from a safe height, if you get into aerobatics then it's an essential skill (I always seem to come out of stall turns upside down).

[BackPacker]

(I always seem to come out of stall turns upside down)

Slightly off topic, but me too, until I learned the proper lookout technique for a stall turn. You then instinctively correct the pitch and exit with a 90 degree downline.

The trick is to look over your (left) wing on the way up to see if you obtained 90 degrees and once you yaw the aircraft (left again) at the top of the stall turn, follow that point on the horizon with your gaze, and instinctively correct, until the nose is pointing to that same point. Then follow the nose down, keeping the stick position the same, or slightly pitch back.

[Mike Cross]

Ah if I had a quid for every time my body has not done what my brain knows it ought to do!:}

[BEagle]

The spin characteristics of every type are different, and they are greatly affected by the C of G position so crew weight and fuel loading make a big difference.

Quite so, Mike.

In the RAF Bulldog, it was mandatory to have less than a 3 gallon imbalance between tanks before intentional spinning.

One fine Summer's day, on the second of 2 trips following an 'engine running change' of students, up we went to go spinning. All normal, fuel balance OK - and a spin to the right.

Student's recovery looked absolutely fine, but the spin continued. So I took control, re-applied full pro-spin, then took spin recovery action. Eventually, after some delay, it recovered.

Initial suspicion was that the student hadn't maintained full pro-spin during the spin. But I didn't really accept that, as he was a pretty competent chap.

Not long after, one of the fuel gauges in that same aeroplane stuck at 'FULL' throughout a flight. I put the aircraft u/s (much to the annoyance of the CFI, but that's another story); when the sender unit was changed it was found to be totally knackered and miles out of limits. So my guess is that, through diligently keeping within the 3 gall balance limit as indicated, we were probably well outside the limit. I went back to the student's record and made it quite clear that the delayed spin recovery was 99% certain to have been due to technical failure and that no criticism should be attached to his performance.

That was in a supposedly well-maintained service aeroplane. Consider the tired old heaps maintained at minimum cost by many RFs and ask yourselves whether they should really be spun?

Nowadays I'm firmly in the camp of teaching AVOIDANCE unless it's deliberate spinning in an aerobatic aeroplane.

[ShyTorque]

Before you pass your car driving test you should never skid your car, only be told what can cause one. Leave skidding practice and recovery well alone until you can afford a more sporty and expensive car.

If in the meantime there's some ice on the road, or some spilt diesel fuel and you can't recover from it, tough.

Doesn't seem correct to me. :\

[S-Works]

If in the meantime there's some ice on the road, or some spilt diesel fuel and you can't recover from it, tough.

Doesn't seem correct to me.

You know I have been driving for more than 20 years and never spun of the road or ended up in one of these skids from ice or spilt fuel, neither has my wife. I wonder if perhaps that is because I operate the car inside the 'normal' driving envelope rather than trying to pretend I am Damon Hill?

The same can be said for flying, I have managed a bit over three thousand hours and have yet to accidentally end up in a spin or even a spiral dive. In fact I have never accidentally diverged from normal flight.

[ShyTorque]

Aha! So perhaps neither Bose-X or I can be considered "Joe Average". Horses for courses, I guess.

On the other hand, I learned to drive off-road, on mud, 40 years ago on cross-ply tyres, when skidding was considered something quite ordinary. One of my cars still gets used off-road, and still uses cross-ply tyres.

I was taught spin recoveries in my first week of aviation in 1971, aged 15, just before I was sent solo in a glider. The powered syllabus I later taught included spinning, seen again as something quite routine. We were required to practice high rotational spin recoveries every month.

I guess in Bose's book that makes me a worse pilot and driver than himself.

I maintain my view that today's average PPL sees spinning as something to be feared, but with little understanding of it (and very little chance of successful recovery if one was accidentally entered).

[421dog]

So there you go, BFeagle, had you not known how to stop a real, live spin, rather than the watered-down version you were teaching (really just a spiral dive held actively into a stall) then you'd be dead now and I'd be deprived of the pleasure of flaming you.

[Lightning6]

What on earth is the problem with spin recovery training? It should be compulsory in my opinion.
There are people on here that think getting into a spin can only occur on turning final, WRONG, think about flying, inadvertently, in IMC conditions and getting disorientated, it's no good thinking 'What was I trained to do for incipient spins' Too late, it don't take long to turn in to a full spin from an incipient spin. GET TRAINED.

[Lightning6]

Is there anyone on here that has regretted spin recovery training? I guess there are more that have gained from the experience.

[BEagle]

Too late, it don't take long to turn in to a full spin from an incipient spin.

Exactly the reason why the CAA shouldn't be requiring FI revalidations to include the demonstration of incipient spins in aeroplanes with 'intentional spinning is prohibited' in their POH.

421dog, you clearly have no idea of RAF Bulldog spinning instruction. The reason why we did so much was that the aircraft was flown to its limits and students had to be adequately competent at both spinning and recoveries from the vertical before being cleared to fly aerobatics solo. Whereas the average PPL holder has neither need nor wish to get anywhere close to any such limits and needs more to be taught how to recognise and recover from getting anywhere close to an incipient spin.

Lightning6, 'spin recovery' training in the Cessna 150 and PA28 Cherokee 140 was a nonsense. The C150 was better, but both required what was basically a low speed flick entry to depart from controlled flight. The most difficult part in the PA28 was recovering without overspeeding the engine and/or overstressing. Totally pointless - who is ever going to pull the control column fully aft and apply full rudder other than deliberately?

However, mishandle a T67A at the stall (particularly a dynamic stall) and it would easily enter an incipient spin.... Lousy aeroplane for most aerobatics, but very good indeed for stall / spin training.

[vihai]

really just a spiral dive held actively into a stall

Stall and spiral dive are not compatibile.

If you are stalled and rotating you are spinning, and viceversa.

[421dog]

Please.

As has been hashed out here ad-nauseum, most of the planes people "spin" will recover spontaneously if you stop the control input which was required to get the plane into the condition in the first place (that is, let go of the yoke, relax on the rudder and pull the power)

As my esteemed colleague BEagle pointed out in his post though, a "real spin" is a condition which will continue in a metastable fashion unless active control inputs are made to recover. This recovery is not really intuitive, and is the reason why (IMHO) it's absolutely necessary that this training be included as part of basic pilot training. Several posters in this thread(myself included) have related stories about how they would be dead now (instead of just irritating to the rest of you who know obviously know everything) had we not been taught to recover from a fully developed spin.

[englishal]

The list below is just 3 pages of 17 of Stall / Spin accidents from the AOPA US website, derived from the NTSB since 1992. They all have two things in common:

1) They are all fatal
2) They all happened within 1000' of the ground*

* EXCEPT the instructional spin training fatalities.....

They are more or less all along the lines of:

The airplane's recorded airspeed indicated that the airplane slowed on final approach and subsequently encountered a recorded stall/spin condition during go-around from runway 12

Not sure how any spin training would have helped in any of these cases. I haven't read every one but the samples I have indicate the above.

AOPA Online - Accident Analysis Search Results (http://www.aopa.org/asf/ntsb/searchResults.cfm?displayRows=25&startRow=51&tss=1&start_date=01/01/1992&date_type=all&end_date=05/01/2009)


SEA08LA178 08/14/2008 N18EX Kolb MK III Richland WA Fatal Personal
DFW08LA161 06/07/2008 N3266V Cessna 150 Forrest City AR Fatal Personal
DEN08LA098 06/02/2008 N40120 Skystar KITFOX La Porte TX Fatal Personal
SEA08LA145 05/30/2008 N109DC Lancair LEGACY FG Murrieta CA Fatal Personal
SEA08LA138 05/25/2008 N49KK Kolb MK III Jordan Valley OR Fatal Personal
MIA08FA091 04/18/2008 N14037 Lake LA-4-250 Skaneateles NY Fatal Instructional
DEN08GA076 04/15/2008 N602AA Air Tractor AT-602 Fort Carson CO Fatal Public Use
MIA08FA081 03/20/2008 N615WM Cirrus Design SR-22 Waxhaw NC Fatal Personal
LAX08LA078 03/18/2008 N742MJ Vans RV-7A Winslow AZ Fatal Personal
NYC08FA133 03/13/2008 N284SP Cessna 172 Indiantown FL Fatal Aerial Observation
ANC08FA037 02/27/2008 N8458D Cessna 172 Tyonek AK Fatal Personal
MIA08FA038 01/12/2008 N7100Q Cessna 172 Clearwater FL Fatal Personal
CHI08FA061 01/12/2008 N2637Y Cessna 335/340 Port Clinton OH Fatal Personal
MIA08FA026 12/07/2007 N2643C Cessna 182RG Woodland AL Fatal Instructional
DFW08FA040 11/28/2007 N6555D Cessna 172 Marlow OK Fatal Personal
CHI08LA041 11/27/2007 N2159M Quad City Acft CHALLENGER Apple River IL Fatal Personal
CHI08FA039 11/25/2007 N482SR Cirrus Design SR-22 Faribault MN Fatal Personal
DFW08FA036 11/23/2007 N8301M Cessna 150 Mesquite TX Fatal Personal
SEA08FA036 11/22/2007 N3459T Cessna 177 Auburn CA Fatal Personal
CHI08FA033 11/03/2007 N8353L Cessna 172 Gladwin MI Fatal Personal
DEN07FA165 09/24/2007 N732XE Cessna 210 Moriarty NM Fatal Instructional
ATL07LA129 09/22/2007 N43046 Kolb TWINSTAR Sweetwater TN Fatal Personal
CHI07LA288 09/02/2007 N1502V Cessna 172 Union Star MO Fatal Personal
NYC07LA210 09/02/2007 N60867 Cessna 150 Hazleton PA Fatal Personal
SEA07FA247 08/31/2007 N2520P Columbia 350/400 Kernville CA Fatal Personal
DEN07LA145 08/25/2007 N7068U Undetermined UNKNOWN Taos NM Fatal Personal
CHI07LA272 08/16/2007 N39YP Titan TORNADO Henning MN Fatal Personal
NYC07FA193 08/16/2007 N738JE Cessna 172 Rochester NY Fatal Personal
DFW07LA183 08/15/2007 N557SX Sonex, Ltd SONEX Bonham TX Fatal Personal
DEN07FA136 08/15/2007 N808GS Moravan ZLIN Z-50 Mosquero NM Fatal Personal
ANC07FA082 08/13/2007 N5660F Maule M-4/5/6/7 Arctic Village AK Fatal Personal
SEA07FA218 07/28/2007 N9302M Mooney MK 20 Tonasket WA Fatal Personal
CHI07LA238 07/28/2007 N914JS Arnet Pereyra AVENTURA Lakewood WI Fatal Personal
NYC07FA176 07/26/2007 N1299Y Cessna 150 Campbellton FL Fatal Personal
DEN07LA108 06/25/2007 N94KA Vans RV-6A Greeley CO Fatal Personal
NYC07LA147 06/22/2007 N139SG Amer Champion 7ECA/GCAA/GCBC Sanford FL Fatal Banner Towing
NYC07FA130 06/04/2007 N4126H Mooney MK 20 Canton MA Fatal Personal
SEA07GA142 06/01/2007 N9602R Aviat/Christen A-1 Loa UT Fatal Public Use - Federal
DFW07LA124 05/30/2007 N39AJ Vans RV-6A Boerne TX Fatal Personal
CHI07LA157 05/27/2007 N743RP Rans Company S-6 Newark IL Fatal Personal
NYC07FA126 05/26/2007 N2537A Columbia 350/400 Burnsville NC Fatal Personal
LAX07LA167 05/12/2007 N6641K Rans Company S-12 Pinetop AZ Fatal Personal
LAX07LA163 05/12/2007 N7739Z Piper PA 25 Delta UT Fatal Aerial Application
LAX07LA156 05/10/2007 N220GT Rans Company S-6 Nyssa OR Fatal Personal
MIA07LA091 05/05/2007 NONE Sorrell SNS-2 Stewartstown PA Fatal Personal
SEA07GA112 04/25/2007 N6277E Cessna 182 Rachal TX Fatal Public Use - Federal
NYC07FA100 04/22/2007 N5651Y Piper PA 23 Windham CT Fatal Personal
NYC07FA096 04/18/2007 N868ST Beech BE 95 Saranac Lake NY Fatal Personal
MIA07LA077 04/16/2007 N456TS Express EXPRESS Lakeland FL Fatal Personal
CHI07LA098 04/09/2007 N351DW Lancair 200/235 Scottsbluff NE Fatal Personal
MIA07FA056 03/04/2007 N100FG Beech BE 55/56 Port Orange FL Fatal Personal
LAX07MA069 01/12/2007 N77215 Cessna 500/525 Van Nuys CA Fatal Positioning
LAX07LA067 12/31/2006 N50814 Cessna 150 San Diego CA Fatal Banner Towing
CHI07FA048 12/27/2006 N9596M Mooney MK 20 Mt. Gilead OH Fatal Instructional
ATL07FA029 12/22/2006 N808RA Cessna 335/340 Charleston SC Fatal Personal
DFW07FA036 12/10/2006 N69677 Cessna 310/U3A Waco TX Fatal Business
ATL07LA025 12/10/2006 N949S Rans Company S-6 Taylorsville NC Fatal Personal
DFW07LA032 12/02/2006 N216RV Vans RV-7A Norman OK Fatal Personal
DFW07LA026 11/23/2006 N115SE Aero Designs PULSAR Alvarado TX Fatal Personal
LAX07LA032 11/13/2006 N2031S Kolb MK III Paulden AZ Fatal Personal
DEN07LA020 11/06/2006 N1541T Air Tractor AT-501/2 Deming NM Fatal Aerial Application
NYC07LA011 10/22/2006 N91BK Bakeng Aircraft DUCE South Boston VA Fatal Personal
NYC07LA008 10/15/2006 N640F Pazmany PL-2/4A Fredricksburg VA Fatal Personal
DEN07FA003 10/04/2006 N300BB Extra-Flugzeug. EA-300 Tucumcari NM Fatal Air Race/Show
NYC06LA227 09/20/2006 NONE Taylorcraft TCRAFT 15A Middlebury VT Fatal Personal
MIA06LA135 09/03/2006 N71927 Luscombe 8A Ocala FL Fatal Personal
DFW06FA205 09/02/2006 N181Y Beech BE 55/56 Mcgregor TX Fatal Personal
CHI06FA245 08/28/2006 N91MB Cirrus Design SR-22 Indianapolis IN Fatal Personal
SEA06LA169 08/27/2006 N6298 Curtiss Wright 4000 Elmira OR Fatal Personal
LAX06LA264 08/17/2006 N577JS Breezy Aircraft BREEZY Ramona CA Fatal Personal
DFW06LA195 08/04/2006 N86188 Cessna 188 Sumrall MS Fatal Aerial Application
ATL06LA115 08/03/2006 N93TR Mcwhorter SKYSTAR VIXEN Peachtree City GA Fatal Personal
NYC06LA187 07/30/2006 N4293S North American T-6 Ringoes NJ Fatal Personal
DEN06FA107 07/30/2006 N5232X Amer Champion 8KCAB Winter Park CO Fatal Personal
CHI06FA196 07/23/2006 N229WC Europa Aircraft EUROPA XS Oshkosh WI Fatal Personal

[421dog]

I would posit that the way spin training would have avoided MOST of the accidents is by teaching pilots what happens when you:

1) Start a tight turn at a low airspeed

2) Add a bit of rudder to speed up the turn

3) Notice that you are banking a bit more than you'd like to and add some opposite aileron to "flatten the turn"

4) Notice that the nose seems to be falling and add elevator.

[S-Works]

would posit that the way spin training would have avoided MOST of the accidents is by teaching pilots what happens when you:

1) Start a tight turn at a low airspeed

2) Add a bit of rudder to speed up the turn

3) Notice that you are banking a bit more than you'd like to and add some opposite aileron to "flatten the turn"

4) Notice that the nose seems to be falling and add elevator.

All of which are taught in spin avoidance..........

[Pilot DAR]

Quote:
would posit that the way spin training would have avoided MOST of the accidents is by teaching pilots what happens when you:

1) Start a tight turn at a low airspeed

2) Add a bit of rudder to speed up the turn

3) Notice that you are banking a bit more than you'd like to and add some opposite aileron to "flatten the turn"

4) Notice that the nose seems to be falling and add elevator.
All of which are taught in spin avoidance..........

There's a very important difference between "are taught in spin avaoidance" and "teaching pilots what happens when you [spin]".

I do not at all agree that teaching avoidance of a manuever, is as effective as demonstrating the manuever to be avoided, when such a demonstartion can be safely accomplished.

Pilot DAR

[421dog]

Gee, Bose-x, d'ya think that maybe those things "all of which are taught..." might have something in common? MAYBE, it would be important for a pilot to understand WHY doing all of that stuff TOGETHER is likely to get him killed. Furthermore, it helps to drive home the point that the condition of flight in question can be achieved in a number of ways, but that the recovery procedure is generally the same. (And NOT as has been suggested earlier, intuitive)

[Mike Cross]

As my esteemed colleague BEagle pointed out in his post though, a "real spin" is a condition which will continue in a metastable fashion unless active control inputs are made to recover. This recovery is not really intuitive, and is the reason why (IMHO) it's absolutely necessary that this training be included as part of basic pilot training. Several posters in this thread(myself included) have related stories about how they would be dead now (instead of just irritating to the rest of you who know obviously know everything) had we not been taught to recover from a fully developed spin.

I'd take issue with you a bit there. In the phrase "Basic Pilot Training" the important word is the first one. It is no more "absolutely necessary" that a student is taught in basic training how to recover from a fully developed spin than it is for him to be taught to recover from an inverted high speed dive by rolling rather than pulling through. What is important is for him to recognise the incipient stages and instinctively recover. Fully developed spins don't need to be part of basic training any more than drifting a car round a corner needs to be part of learning to pass the driving test.

I'd exempt glider pilots from that because they are as a matter of course flying at far more extreme attitudes than a spamcan driver.

Spin training is IMHO best left until after basic training has been completed. Having done it in a Tomahawk and been too scared to look over my shoulder for the source of the terrible creaking noises I'd prefer it to be done in a more robust aircraft, with parachutes.

[Pace]

Mike

I would go with a lot of what you are saying.

I wonder sometimes whether this discussion is not more to do with a trend in training towards AVOIDANCE rather than exploring an aircraft in extreme attitudes?

Stalls too are recovered at the incipient stage and you could go the same route with dives, spiral dives avoiding steep turns etc.

You mention car driving.

Personally I would add skid pan training to learning to drive. There is a big difference between driving a car and handling a car and the same goes with aircraft.
There is flying an aircraft and handling an aircraft. We are teaching pilots to fly aircraft not to handle them.

The car is a good example. The student driver is taught to drive a car and all is well until one day the car goes too quickly into a corner or touches a slippery patch and the driver is not equipt to deal with the understeer oversteer or slide and ends up in the wall.

I would recommend a new PPL investing in a couple of hours aerobatic training post PPL so he can explore aircraft handling. Not only is it fun but it will pick up his flying confidence no end.

Pace

[BackPacker]

There's another thing which I've missed in the discussion. If you want spins in the basic syllabus, you have to have the infrastructure, both physically and rules-wise, for it as well. That means that schools need to have aircraft that are suitable for spinning, instructors need to be able to teach them, but most importantly you need to teach the students spins to a certain standard, so that they can practice them on their own, and demonstrate them on the skills test. Just like PFLs, stalls and steep turns.

Students going off to practice spins on their own, on one of their flights after first solo? I don't think so.

What I do like is the suggestion that an instructor takes a student out in an aerobatics-capable plane, somewhere during his/her PPL lessons, and demonstrates spin entry and recovery. Not with the aim of making the student a fully trained aerobatics pilot, but just to reinforce the point why spin avoidance is so crucial.

The problem is, as the PPL syllabus goes, this is totally unenforceable. Because at the end of such a sortie there's nothing that the student can demonstrate on his skills test. It would be no more than a logbook entry.

[englishal]

Without wishing to prolong the life of this thread beyond it's Use By date ;)....But a spin is just ONE thing that can "go wrong" if it is done unintentionally. What about recovering from inverted? I was almost inverted by wake turbulence once - at 1500', but have never come close to an unintentional spin.

There isn't time or a need on a PPL course to go through all of this "advanced" stuff, so best left until post PPL in a capable aircraft with a capable instructor...when the "student" can start to appreciate what is going on and even enjoy it. I know I'd feel happy doing just about anything in a +6/-3g aeroplane with parachute on and capable, professional aero's instructor beside me, rather than Psycho Dave and his 152 !

I'm not sure what you mean by stalls only being taught to the incipient stage Pace? - Is this true nowadays? I've always fully stalled, power on, power off, clean, landing configs, accellerated, turning etc....Even the "falling leaf" where you hold it stalled for 20-30 seconds.

[Pilot DAR]

There is mention that spins should be taught after the PPL is earned. How would that work! Once you issue the PPL, what is the incentive for the poorly financed new pilot to spend the money on that training? There's no dangling carrot anymore! I have met many Canadian pilots who have told me that the last time they spun was during pilot training X years ago. Well, at least they've done it....

As a new solo pilot, with about 18 hours, I was up practicing spins - by myself.

There seems to be a thought that aircraft will only spin, if mishandled into a spin. I don't agree. One of the many ways to get an aircraft to begin a spin is to stall a slightly misrigged plane. Surprisinly easy to do with a plane with no stall warning system. Every one of the dozen or so Citabrias and Champs I have flown, dropped a wing during stalls, and could not be prevented from doing so. It would seem that in those days of aircraft desing, the dropping of one wing was the stall indication! I'm not picking on those type, they're wonderful, but they do have slightly more challengine stall characteristics. Certainly all other types can be misrigged, and have a failed stall waring system. Just one of the ways for the unwary pilot to get into a spin.

New pilots might not need to demostrate recovery skills during a flight test, but yes, it sould be an entry in a logbook during flight training, which is checked at the time of PPL issue.

Pilot DAR

[Pace]

I'm not sure what you mean by stalls only being taught to the incipient stage Pace? - Is this true nowadays? I've always fully stalled, power on, power off, clean, landing configs, accellerated, turning etc....Even the "falling leaf" where you hold it stalled for 20-30 seconds.

Many instructors like recovery before the stall is fully developed and many students are only too keen to recover at the first sign of a stall.

Go into twins and even more so as there is always the fear of unequal power being applied on recovery through either an engine or pilot application problem with a resultant spin from the stall.

Pace

[Lister Noble]

I'm sure that teaching full stall and recovery is part of the standard PPL course.
I did a lot of stall practice as part of my tuition,surely it's essential,as you stall everytime you land.
Hopefully a few inches above ground;)
Lister:)

[bjornhall]

Once you issue the PPL, what is the incentive for the poorly financed new pilot to spend the money on that training?

The world's simplest question... Because it's fun, of course! :ok:

Isn't that why we're flying to begin with? :)

[BackPacker]

Once you issue the PPL, what is the incentive for the poorly financed new pilot to spend the money on that training?

Been thinking about that. Maybe AOPA and similar organizations could come up with an incentive program like the glider world has with Bronze/Silver/Diamond. No formal rating or qualification and no now privileges, but just some sort of award or awards system you can work towards as a private pilot after obtaining your PPL.

Some elements/requirements of such an award could be:
- A certain number of PIC hours
- Unusual attitudes training including spinning
- Basic aerobatics
- Basic formation flying
- Long-distance x-country flights / channel crossing
- High altitude flight / oxygen
- Mountain flying
- Short field landing/take-off, farmstrip flying, precision landing

Such a system may give PPLs just that extra push to keep on training beyond their PPL and flying beyond their 100-euro sunday lunch. Who knows, it might even give the "achiever" types a new goal after obtaining their PPL, instead of dropping out of flying altogether.

[421dog]

Those aren't the guys I'm worried about. It's the fella flying my family into some podunk strip in a Caravan or a Navajo who is hell-bent on an airline job, got his current job by instructing in a katana for 400 hrs, putting in the minimum amout of time obtaining his ratings in a stepwise fashion, and has no idea how to find his A@# with his hands when the chips are down because we've rationalized away teaching people how to actually FLY. Do any of you really think that either of those idiots who killed 48 other people in Buffalo a few months ago were anything more than TERRIFIED of stalls? Their airplane apparently reacted normally and they behaved completely inappropriately (I would posit, because they were taught by people who believed that "teaching avoidance, and demonstrating things to an incipient point" is the best way to go).
Once you have a basic understanding of what an aircraft actually does when you fly it stupidly, you are at least equipped to recognize and correct your mistakes before you kill someone else.
Wags have often noted that aviation is years of boredom punctuated by seconds of terror. Well, damnit, our job as pilots and instructors is to be ready for those seconds by knowing EXACTLY what to do.

Anything else is sophistry...

[Pilot DAR]

Well 421 dog,

I wouldn't have the nerve to phrase it the way you did, but I agree with you 100%. It's the pilots who are just trying to get away with the minimum, to advance to the next phase, who really scare me. As I previously asserted, any pilot who is unwilling to demonstrate the composure under pressure, to execute at least a reasonably skilled spin recovery in anything they fly, should not have a license. Sure, it might be a bid scary, but it's one of those things we either meet head on, or get out of the business entirely.

Pilot DAR

[Lightning6]

Well 421 dog,

I wouldn't have the nerve to phrase it the way you did, but I agree with you 100%. It's the pilots who are just trying to get away with the minimum, to advance to the next phase, who really scare me. As I previously asserted, any pilot who is unwilling to demonstrate the composure under pressure, to execute at least a reasonably skilled spin recovery in anything they fly, should not have a license. Sure, it might be a bid scary, but it's one of those things we either meet head on, or get out of the business entirely.

Pilot DAR

It's not scary at all, when trained properly, and I don't mean just a demonstration, spin recovery should be a reaction rather than something you have to think about.

Once one has done a few spin recoveries, the fear of the unknown will go, and will give you more confidence in the handling of your aircraft.

Edit to say, if you are unable to do it pre PPL, then do it as soon as you can post PPL...With an FI that is competent and not an hour builder that has had little spin recovery training themselves.

[shortstripper]

I used to be of the opinion that spinning should be part of the PPL, but I've changed my mind as the aurguments against do make a lot of sense. Also, it's now a bit academic, as a good portion of the training fleet are not cleared for intentional spinning anyway. However, I do believe that as a pilot, you owe it to yourself to experience spinning as soon as you feel you can (be that during PPL training, or shortly after).

I started out as a glider pilot, and as such, spinning really HAD to be learnt! After all, you spend a fair bit of time scratching for lift low down in tight turns, often nibbling at the edge of the stall. Whilst it's rare to actually get into a full spin here (normally a quick push re-establishes the airflow) it is possible! Of course gliders are very different beasties to SEP's, but they can bite just the same, so their pilots practice stalls and spins a lot!

The driving analogy is good, and whilst I agree a lot of what Bose-X says, I don't agree with him on this. If you fly or drive I think you really should know how to control that vehicle in any possible occurance. Skid pan training might be impractical but would certainly introduce some real fun into the whole thing and be very educational. I can't believe how many misconceptions about skidding are held by even experienced drivers!!! For example, ABS will stop you skidding and 4WD will always give you grip! :rolleyes: (Range Rovers are one of the worst cars to stop on black ice).

I'd rather not fly with somebody who fears stalls and spinning, but then I'd also rather not fly with someone who wants to spin at every opportunity or in an inappropriate aeroplane!

Oh, and can we stop mentioning stall speed! You can fly an aircraft at pretty much zero speed and not be stalled!

SS

(edited as it's been pointed out to me that I might have been unfair to the good old Range Rover. Actually I love them and consider them one of the best off roaders ever! However, like most big 4WD's they have big tyres and a lot of momentum ..... but more importantly, they are often driven by t@ssers!)

[BackPacker]

Oh, and can we stop mentioning stall speed! You can fly an aircraft at pretty much zero speed and not be stalled!

You can fly an aircraft backwards and not be stalled. (Well, not me personally, but in general.)

Nevertheless, "stall speed" is a very common term denoting the 1g MTOW stall speed and is a very useful number to know, if only to calculate whether you can do a 4g/75 degrees competition turn with a certain speed or whether you need to limit yourself to 2g/60 degrees.

And of course the turn to final is normally flown at 1g so the stall speed in that situation is indeed the speed at which the aircraft will stall. Unless the aircraft is significantly below MTOW, in which case you have a buffer.

[biscuit74]

"1) Start a tight turn at a low airspeed

2) Add a bit of rudder to speed up the turn

3) Notice that you are banking a bit more than you'd like to and add some opposite aileron to "flatten the turn"

4) Notice that the nose seems to be falling and add elevator.
All of which are taught in spin avoidance.......... "


That is what we used to do as the best spin demo (IMO) in glider pilot training. To help pupils understand the most likely mechanism for that inadvertent spin entry. And to get them to immediately apply recovery action. Essentially avoidance, by helping pupils to recognise the symptoms as things start to bite.
Suince that once saved my bacon, while foolishly distracted, I think it was worthwhile.

Of course we also typically do full spin training and recovery in gliders/sailplanes because we spend so much more time at relatively slow speed, high AoA, turning, compared to most power operations.

Incidentally, when we trained our kids to drive, all were given skid pan training and rally / race car training, so that they understood a little better the limitations of their vehicles and what happens at or near that limit. They are all still alive, and have had a fairly good record driving sio far. In Finland, this sort of thing is mandatory for all drivers. I think it is a darn good thing. And the UK's motorway no learners rule is lunacy.

No, the authorities won't change back from the cotton wool approach for flying training, because they believe in tick boxes and are scared of legal action. Nowt to do with real safety, I feel.
Personally I don't see any great need to scare folk with excessive spinning, but I'd like to see a deal more emphasis on slow flight and recovery from incipients.

What happened to showing the pupils the various 'edges of the envelope' ? Is it still done?
Do we take pupils to Vne, or near it, once at least to show the sensitivity of controls? I'm sure that was demonstrated to me when I was training long ago?
(I'm not asking this to stir things up on here, just curious - if spinning is relevant, presumably so is this. If spinning is not now viewed as relevant, then this presumably also is not?)

[Tail-take-off]

Biscuit74

As I recall when I did my PPL training 21 years ago there was a minimum ammount of "stall/spin awareness & avoidance" required for PPL issue. I think it was 5 hours of slow flight & stalling (clean, with flaps, in the turn & both of the above).

Spinning was not actually required but incipient spins were difficult to avoid when stalling during a turn in a Tomahawk.

As you may recall from our flights together I do very much enjoy spinning (think half flicks in a puchacz) but not everyone is as masochistic as you an I. The point you make about slow flight is spot on. Emphasis should be on recognition of the on set of the stall.

[englishal]

There is mention that spins should be taught after the PPL is earned. How would that work! Once you issue the PPL, what is the incentive for the poorly financed new pilot to spend the money on that training? There's no dangling carrot anymore! I have met many Canadian pilots who have told me that the last time they spun was during pilot training X years ago. Well, at least they've done it....
Umm...well post PPL, as well as all the experience I gained in general flying, I did an IR, a ME rating, a CPL (2 actually, one in ME) and aerobatics. None of this I HAD to do, I did it because it was fun, all of it, and made me a better and safer pilot. You don't always need to FORCE people to do stuff, most PPLs will realise that a while after getting the PPL it is time for more training and to broaden the horizons.

[biscuit74]

Tail-Take-off ;

Masochistic? Nous?

Thanks I hadn't realised so much time was devoted to slow flying in the standard PPL syllabus - old style at least.

[Pilot DAR]

most PPLs will realise that a while after getting the PPL it is time for more training and to broaden the horizons

Things must be different in the UK! I would estimate that less than a quarter of the pilots (not just PPL's) I encounter seek out any more training or mentoring other than the minimum required. Sad as it is, I've had chief pilots and flying instructors who were my passengers, ask me to demonstrate unusual manuevers for their benefit (including spins), when they were supposed to be checking me out!

Considering the importance of spin training, I cannot be comfortable that those PPL's who most need the extra exposure, would seek it out, once set free with a PPL. Sure, the "keeners" will, and they will steadily gain proficiency, but those are not the typical pilots who really need this kind of training.

If we are going to just trust that pilots will always assure for themselves that their skills are up as they should be, and the seek out any additional training that they need, we might as well let them issue their own PPL or recurrency checks when they feel ready! No skills demonstration required!

We don't know what we don't know....

Pilot DAR

[1800ed]

Many instructors like recovery before the stall is fully developed and many students are only too keen to recover at the first sign of a stall.

I've felt a bit disappointed when an instructor I flew with once or twice would ask me to recover from the stall really early. Where's the fun in that!?

[Tail-take-off]

I've felt a bit disappointed when an instructor I flew with once or twice would ask me to recover from the stall really early. Where's the fun in that!?


During a training flight in a glider my instructor asked me to stall the aircraft, & recover with minimum height loss, while talking him through the symptoms. So as we approached the stall I a ran through low airspeed, high nose attitude, reduced noise level, lighter less effective controls & the start of buffett. At which point he called recover which I duly did.

I felt a little short changed too but clearly he was satisfied that I could recognise the onset of the stall & new the recovery technique. Disappointment didn't last long. I was sent straight off on my first solo.

[Pace]

I felt a little short changed too but clearly he was satisfied that I could recognise the onset of the stall & new the recovery technique. Disappointment didn't last long. I was sent straight off on my first solo.

This is part of the discussion of the tendancy towards avoidance not only are pilots not experiencing a spin but how many are not experiencing stalling either? It is important to experience the full envelope before a pilot can handle an aircraft rather than mechanically fly it.

Pace

[shortstripper]

I wasn't allowed to solo a glider until I'd done cable breaks and full spin recovery ... I thought that was standard practice? It was when I was gliding in the 80's

SS

[White Shadow]

Just as a comparison, checking my Flying Log Book, I see that at a RAF Elementary Flying Training School (quite a while ago!) my first Spinning exercise, in a Tiger Moth, was after 6 hrs flying, then two more, last one before First Solo at 11 hrs.
Seemed sensible.
And, of course, I still clearly remember that First Solo.
WS

[tggzzz]

Skylark58 (http://www.pprune.org/members/188572-skylark58) wrote
There is a difference in gliding, in that gliders spend a lot of their time in a well banked turn just above the stall
Yes indeed. Typically the older wooden gliders have the best climb rate (in a thermal, natch) at just above stall speed. It is really instructive to be with an experienced pilot and be doing 45 degree bank turns while feeling the pre-stall buffet :)

[tggzzz]

rauxaman (http://www.pprune.org/members/68331-rauxaman)
There is a lot of spinning instruction with gliders including experience of a spin and recovery at circuit height (700ft) on downwind leg
It is especially entertaining watching your 15yo daughter do it (yes, she did query it, before doing as instructed).

Hopefully she won't do this
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xCct8cDtyk>

[Tail-take-off]

Pace


This is part of the discussion of the tendancy towards avoidance not only are pilots not experiencing a spin but how many are not experiencing stalling either? It is important to experience the full envelope before a pilot can handle an aircraft rather than mechanically fly it.



I agree totally & my logbook contained eveidence of stalling, incipient & full spins with recovery demonstrated to a satisfactory level. There is no doubt in my mind that students should see the full envelope but I also feel that they should be taught to avoid unintentional excursions to the corners.

I've seen spins demonstrated by pulling the nose up well above the horizon & as the stick hits the back stop full rudder applied. Hey presto we're spinning but who is going to end up in a spin like that?

[Pilot DAR]

This could sound harsh and sarcastic, and I certainly don't intend it that way, but...

my logbook contained eveidence of stalling, incipient & full spins with recovery demonstrated to a satisfactory level.

I'm hoping that the demonstartion and practice of these manuevers was more memorable than having to review a log book to see if that had been done once before, a long time ago.

That is an important aspect in what I have been saying, currency! It's a good thing to be exposed, and learn, but we have to also keep our skills up over time. It can be diffcult when one does not have access to spin approved aircraft and safety pilot on a regular basis, but at least the stalls both wings level, and turning. If a pilot is worried about accidentally entering a full spin while performing a turning flight stall, that pilot really should get some more training to feel confident.

Pilot DAR

[Mike Cross]

I had the good fortune last week to be presented by John Farley with a copy of his book "A View from the Hover". He is a very experienced test pilot who I greatly respect. This is what he says about spinning:-
Spinning is a big deal and I beg to disagree with anyone who would suggest otherwise.
Since there is no law of aerodynamics (or aircraft design) that says, "If the control surfaces of an aircraft can make it enter a spin, they can also make it recover", you should wear a parachute. Sure I have sometimes spun without one but not often and never again. To spin without a chute is in the same category as flying a single engine aircraft over water, outside gliding range of a suitable field in which to force land, without wearing a life jacket.
The special spinning preparations start with an in-date parachute, properly inspected.

If you agree with his views and continue to disagree with the CAA & JAA opinion on what should be included in the syllabus then the logical conclusion is that you advocate minimum hours are extended to allow for the additional training and every FTO & RF is equipped with suitable aircraft, parachutes, and instructors who are in current practice to teach spinning.

[BeechNut]

This was in a PA-28. Getting a common garden variety Cessna 152 to spin must be well nigh impossible.

No au contraire it is much harder to get a PA28 to spin than a C152. A properly rigged C152 will nicely flick into a spin, and equally nicely recover.

I know the Pa28 is spinnable in the utility category; suspect the 172,150/2 also,
As far as I know, all those types are placarded "intentional spins prohibited" - even in the U cat. The only exception being the 150/152 Aerobat.

Doesn't mean they won't spin when mishandled, if that's what you mean though.

Not quite true. Some versions of the PA28 are cleared for spins, certainly the -140. I had one and it was cleared for spins. If it was equipped with a ventilation blower in the tail or air conditioning, it was prohibited but mine did not have those "features" (thank God, the power drain of the air con would suck the remaining life out of that bird). The 172 I last flew a long, long time ago was also cleared for spins. And definitely all the C150s and 152s, not just the Aerobats, are cleared for spins but there is an AD out on them about a rudder stop bolt defect; unless the AD is complied with, spins are prohibited. Result of a accident near Montreal during spin training when the rudder jammed past the stop bolt and the aircraft was unable to recover.

In fact I have spun every aircraft I have ever owned once I got comfortable with it: C150, PA28-140, Be77 (Skipper) and my present machine, Beech C23 Sundowner (note to Sundowner owners: don't try this at home, I have a rare aerobatic model with the spin kit and cleared to +6/-3 gs, and unless yours is so equipped don't try it).

The PA28 was hard to get into a spin. The C23 is as well, it tends to unstall and migrate into a spiral dive which is very dangerous, speed builds up real fast. But if you follow the entry procedure correctly it will spin and come out easily. The only one that really scared me was the Skipper. It snapped into a spin real quick, rotated really real fast, and on recovery, dropped a wing in the opposite direction.

The C150 though was a treat to spin. Easy to spin, easy to recover.

I did my PPL back in 1980-81. Spin training (Canada) was mandatory back then. I am in favour of spin training for the PPL. I remember reading about a novel technique used when some poor non-IR sap was caught on top of a cloud layer low on fuel. Don't know if it's urban legend or not, but he put it into a spin, held it there, and recovered under the cloud deck. Takes more b@lls than I have! But knowing what a spin is, is very useful IMHO, and it's fun!

Beech

[Lightning6]

TTO...First of all thanks for your help in you know what.

To quote you :-

I've seen spins demonstrated by pulling the nose up well above the horizon & as the stick hits the back stop full rudder applied. Hey presto we're spinning but who is going to end up in a spin like that?

It's not the entry that's important, a development of a stall with a bung of full rudder is a good way of putting yourself in a spin for training purposes, but it's the recovery that is important.

[S-Works]

It is little wonder that GA is stuck in the dark ages and as a result is in decline.

Just because we had to do it does not make it right. Theory and teaching methods should be open to adaptation in aviation, just as they are in other fields.

It is only aviation that has this stuck in the mud resistance to change.

[Say again s l o w l y]

Exactly Bose. The simple fact is that since spin training was taken out of the syllabus both here and the US there has been a steady drop in the number of spin related accidents and fatalities.

Not spinning in the first place is the key, not how well you get out of it once you are in one. If you spin turning from base to final below 1000ft, you are dead, no matter how good your spin recovery is.

Here's a graph from the FAA about when stall/spin events occur.

http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc9/iforb/spin_5.gif

[shortstripper]

What does the chart refer to SAS? Fatal spins? Just says Height ast which the spin occurred, so I'm not sure what it relates to?

SS

[Say again s l o w l y]

What it shows is where the majority of spins occur. The main thing it points to is the fact that the majority of occurances happen at a time where learning how to recover a spin is irrelevant. You don't have time.

Spin avoidance is far more important.

You could be an amalgamation of John Farley, Eric Brown and Luke Skywalker but if you enter a spin at 5-600ft AGL you are stuffed.

Very few spins happen in the cruise or at altitude that aren't done on purpose.

Training needs to be fit for purpose and teaching actual spinning does not help you to be a safer a pilot. The stats prove that.

All it does is to put the poor old FI at increasing amounts of risk as BEagle proved in his post about the imbalanced fuel tanks.

If you are going to be flying aero's and will be pushing aircraft to the limits, then of course spin recovery is vital, but for basic training........Nope, not necessary.

[RansS9]

Interesting topic with interesting views.
Here's my grain of sand to the Mite Mound for what it's worth.

I fall somewhere in the middle..but then I would I am a wishy washy liberal.

Do I think it should be mandatory to climb to 5,000' and see and then replicate recovery from a conventional 2-3 turn spin....NO. Why because it's not what is going to kill us as has been eloquently pointed out already.

Do I think a student should be taken up to a safe height and SHOWN a spin develop from a botched low speed turn (as terrifingly descibed in "Stick and Rudder")....OH YES. Why...because that is what will kill us.

Why show why not descibe, brief, watch the youtube clips ? For the same reason the gentleman above could so well remember his first solo.....he was stressed and had adrenaline squirting out of his ears. In the correct quantities nothing sears information into long term memory as well. See it hear it feel it understand it; the early warning signs, the developed spin, the disorientation, the tremendous height loss (and therefore the extreme danger at low level) the strong natural urge to make control inputs that will actually worsen the situation;....HOW TO STOP IT AT IT'S INCIPIENT STAGE. Infact why restrict this to students why not make it a part of the biannual check.

If this requires (and it will) Flying Schools to have;

Aircraft certifiable for the above manoevures
Instructors capable and current to demonstrate
Parachutes

GOOD!!

Thanks for your time have a nice day,.....TIM

[BackPacker]

What it shows is where the majority of spins occur.

I certainly hope not. Because that would indicate that for each and every spin I deliberately enter as part of my aerobatic sequence (initiated at 3500', recovered at 2500'), at least four spins take place below 250' and are most likely fatal.

I would hope that the chart shows "unintentional spins in general" or "unintentional spins leading to an accident/incident" or maybe even "unintentional spins leading to at least fatality". And even then there's a distinct difference between the three possibilities wrt. this discussion.

So could anyone provide a link to the original article from the FAA so that the graph can be interpreted properly?

[Say again s l o w l y]

Well since I used that graph of part of a presentation I gave on spin training, then I'll add the hundreds of other graphs and stats that there are about this subject.

10% of all accidents are stall/spin related. 13.7% of all fatalities are Stall/Spin related.

Only 3.23% of Stall/Spin accidents occur in cruise.
27.96% in the take off phase.
41% in Manouevering flight.
18.49% on Approach.
6.45% on go-arounds.

The NTSB defines manoeuvering flight to include all of the following: aerobatics, low passes, buzzing, pull ups, aerial application manoeuvers, turns to reverse direction, or engine failures after takeoff with the pilot trying to return to the runway.

These figures are from the NTSB and are based on all accidents between 1993 and 2001.

Here's the link to the study. I think it says it all.

AOPA Online: Stall/Spin (http://www.aopa.org/asf/ntsb/stall_spin.html)

[RansS9]

13.7% of fatalites are stall spin related.

I am surprised I thought it was much much higher.
There can't be too many ways to kill yourself in an aeroplane;

Aircraft not fine malfunctions/disintegrates in flight (inherent / overstressed)

Aircraft fine and in control hits something (ground/other aeroplane).

Aircraft fine (with or without functioning engine) and control is lost...in essence stall spin predominately manouevering low speed low altitude.

I always presumed the last was by far and away the major cause with CFIT next.

TIM

[Say again s l o w l y]

I tend to rely on people like the NTSB, they do know a bit more about the figures than we do!

There are plenty of ways to kill yourself in an aircraft that don't involve stalling or spinning. From sticking your head inside a prop arc to many other wierd and wonderful ways to shuffle off this mortal coil, don't let a lack of imagination get in the way of your own risk assessment!

[bjornhall]

I sometimes get the impression that those who are in favor of spin training during the PPL course (mandatory or otherwise) are answering the question "does spinning make a PPL student a better and safer pilot", whereas those who are against it or find it unnecessary are answering the question "how do we make best use of the 45 hours (nominal) PPL syllabus". I think both are correct answers to two different questions.

[RansS9]

The AAIB report listed causes of the 140 deaths 85-94 in GA;

LOC VMC--28%
Low/Aero-- 19% (2/3rds loss of control. I am presuming in the final analysis stall/spin as opposed to CFIT due to mistake in for example looping manoeuvre)

That's alot of fatal accidents due to loss of control of what I assume was an otherwise functioning aeroplane.


PS for the slow of hearing---- I rely on the AAIB but I'm sure the NTSB are equally competent. Yes I am sure there are a multitude of ways of killing yourself in aviation but surprisingly few big killers. Oh and for your interest a lowly 3% were due to propeller injuries...however not much consolation if you were one of them.

TIM

[Say again s l o w l y]

I tend to listen more to American stats than our own, simply because their sample size is so much bigger. Of course there are differences, but as ane fule kno the more data you have, the more meaningful the results.

The biggest killer in aviation is stupidity and unfortunately even with the best training in the world, you can't change some people's attitude or ability sometimes.

The interesting thing about these stats is that inadvertant IMC is a bigger killer than spinning, but people are more scared of spinning than they are of going into cloud.

Nuts really.

Spin recovery training doesn't really help with IMC issues. IMC training helps with IMC issues.

[Mark1234]

Say again slowly: I don't doubt your statistics (the graph), however, I would question what the sample is - as Backpacker points out, there are people that spin regularly and deliberately. I suspect they're not included in the sample. So what is? Those incidences would have to be reported at least, if not constituting an accident/incident. One might argue that as a spin is a non-event where sufficient ground clearance exists, it won't make it into the sample. I.e. If I spin at 5000, no problem. If I spin at 250, big problem, and suddenly I'm contributing to your graph. So I could suggest that the fact that the >1000agl column contains >0 proves the need for spin training :E

No problem with stats per-se, but a context/reference would be useful. Or to quote: "Lies, damn lies and statistics".

Bose: Just because we did, and now don't, does not mean we should not. Change is not the definition of progress, it can be for the worse. Actually I might suggest that 'progress' in this day and age usually translates to 'meeting the lowest common denominator'.. but that would be argumentative :)

I do wonder why, if it is so unimportant to be able to recover from a spin, we go to all the trouble of proving the aircraft will recover during certification - even adding strakes and the like to do so. Which also leads me to the John Farley quote - I would assume he's referring to test piloting, in which case, an aircraft with unknown spin/recoverycharacteristics, which is a rather different proposition to a known, certified a/c.

However, all that said, I think bjornhall's 3 liner probably hit the nail on the head:
I sometimes get the impression that those who are in favor of spin training during the PPL course (mandatory or otherwise) are answering the question "does spinning make a PPL student a better and safer pilot", whereas those who are against it or find it unnecessary are answering the question "how do we make best use of the 45 hours (nominal) PPL syllabus".

[Pilot DAR]

I would assume he's referring to test piloting, in which case, an aircraft with unknown spin/recoverycharacteristics, which is a rather different proposition to a known, certified a/c.


I cannot address the what the other person is quoting, but I can say that twice while flying "known" certified aircraft very carefully for the purpose of confirming the stall warning speed, and stall speed itself were as per the requirements, they entered a spin, which I recovered imediately (instinct). Neither aircraft was spin approved.

In the case of one of these certified aircraft, I repeated the manuever to verify this defective handling, and confirmed it. I informed the regulatory authority and the "experienced" pilot who was to normally fly this aircraft, of the defect. Despite this, he still killed himself and another innocent in it two weeks later. Stall spin after takeoff. Agreed, spin avoidance training would have been more useful to him, than spin recovery training at that altitude, but... the insticntive spin recovery made my day better, when I flew it first. It was much later determined that this BRAND NEW aircraft had left the factory with a severe defect, as had others of the same model. Others of these aircraft could have been spun by any pilot flying them under normal low speed flight.

If pilots are issued PPL's without spin awareness, should they be allowed to fly "near the edge" or do maintenance test flying? How do you regulate what type of flying they do? What if they take their wet ink PPL, and jump into a Citabria, which will drop a wing often in a stall, and has no stall warning system.

I think pilots will be better "inspired" to avoid what they understand, than what people will not demonstrate to them.

Pilot DAR

[S-Works]

Bose: Just because we did, and now don't, does not mean we should not. Change is not the definition of progress, it can be for the worse. Actually I might suggest that 'progress' in this day and age usually translates to 'meeting the lowest common denominator'.. but that would be argumentative

You are indeed quite correct. I do find it amusing how the PPRUNE armchairs experts think that they know more than the combined world wide aviation authorities though?

Spinning has been taken out of the BASIC PPL as a training exercise by every aviation authority world wide AFAIK based on the assessment of of the worldwide aviation experts. This decision was not taken lightly and I personally believe that it was the right one.

I do think as I have said many times before on this thread that there is a place for spinning in flight training, just not at the BASIC level. Pillots wishing to leaarn the skill have the option to gain further training with suitably experience Instructors in suitably equipped aircraft.

The BASIC PPL is just a building block on the long road to gaining experience as a pilot. It is educationally proven that progressive education has greater long term retention than cramming.

Some people enjoy spinning, others find it an uncomfortable and off putting experience, many not wanting to fly again. Spinning does not turn out a better pilot, so why should we force people to endure it?

[Tail-take-off]

There seems to be a little confusion (my fault) as to what I was trying to say in my previous posts.

I do believe in spin training.

Pilot DAR
When I said "my logbook contained eveidence of stalling, incipient & full spins with recovery demonstrated to a satisfactory level." There was lots of it as is the norm in the gliding world. The other norm is that instructors were voluntary & give up there free time to instruct. It was not possible to book a series of lessons with the same guy (not ideal I know) & I hadn't flown with this instructor for some time. But I had done lots of stall & spin training with lots of instructors very recently & all documented for him to inspect.

However my main point is that by recognising the onset of a stall or spin you can avoid inadvertant entry & save (what is for me) the joy of spinning for a safe altitude.

The majority of lowspeed manouvers occur at low altitude. Avoidance of stalling will save more lives at low altitude than recovery. Both have a place but recognition & avoidance training is vital.

[Say again s l o w l y]

Exactly Bose.

If you are flying aero's or test flying in any capacity, then spin training is an absolute must.

However, there is just no need to have it in the basic PPL.

The FAA stats show that since spin training was taken out of the American training syllabus in 1949 there has been a steady reduction in the number of people killed by spinning in.

I had a good friend killed when he was teaching spinning in a certified aircraft. Forcing people to perform potentially dangerous manouevers that have a frankly limited training benefit at that stage is madness.

Flying is about managing risk, why throw that away for a bit of trainining that for the majority of pilots is unnecessary?

Spin awareness and avoidance is one thing, I don't need to be shown that poking a Grizzly Bear with a stick is a stupid idea. Just show me a picture of the bears teeth and claws and I'll work out the rest for myself.

Spin training is similar.

[Mike Cross]

Mark 1234

Which also leads me to the John Farley quote - I would assume he's referring to test piloting, in which case, an aircraft with unknown spin/recoverycharacteristics, which is a rather different proposition to a known, certified a/c.

I was much taken with a statement made by the senior police investigator at the Hatfield train crash. He said "I told all my men to adopt the ABC principle. Assume nothing, Believe nobody, Check everything." It is a principle I commend to you. John is NOT "referring to test piloting, in which case, an aircraft with unknown spin/recoverycharacteristics", had he been I would not have used the quote.

Am I against spin training? Not at all, in a suitable aircraft, with parachutes and a suitably current and experienced instructor.

Do believe it should be a mandatory part of the PPL syllabus? Definitely not.

It was a part of the syllabus when I gained by PPL and I've done my share of spinning but you absolutely would not get me to do an intentional spin now in a normal flying school hack. I'd be perfectly happy to do it wearing a parachute in a suitable aircraft or glider.

[Pilot DAR]

but you absolutely would not get me to do an intentional spin now in a normal flying school hack

I see a recurring theme here...

Presupposing the referenced "flying school hack" would be a spin approved aircraft, why not? Do you suspect the aircraft is not fit for spinning? If so, it's not fit for flying, so you wouldn't be considering not spinning it, becasue you had already chosen not to fly it!

Aircraft at this size range are either airworthy or not. with the possible exception of ignoring a failed light for day only flying, everything else about the aircraft either is safe, or you do not fly it.

Another thread here refers to nudging libel when referring to flying school's finacial condition. I think that generalizations about the assumed substandard condition of their aircraft is about the same. What would prospective student pilots reading this think? All the armchair experts think that the flight training fleet in general is unfit for flight training?

If one prospective student here were to read your post, and say to themself, "well there are references to unsafe aircraft, I guess I won't start" the writers of those post just shot our own industry in the foot (or wing) We're here to support each other, right?

Pilot DAR

[Say again s l o w l y]

Unfortunately DAR flying schools in the UK do often have some pretty shocking aircraft. I get what you are saying about it being fit for use or not, but here the line gets blurred by a huge number of schools.

It's appalling frankly.

[Mike Cross]

Perhaps I could have phrased it better. If the hack happens to be a suitable aircraft that is cleared for spinning and is equipped with parachutes then I would do it. However the majority of the club fleet don't fall into that category, hence my reference to "a normal flying school hack".

As I have not done intentional spins for some time I'd also want to do it with an instructor who is in current spin practice. That is a matter of personal preference. The fact that something is legal does not in my book mean that it is automatically something that you ought to do. If I'm not happy I don't fly, I don't say, "OK I'm not at all happy about this but its perfectly legal so let's go for it."

Another thread here refers to nudging libel when referring to flying school's finacial condition. I think that generalizations about the assumed substandard condition of their aircraft is about the same. What would prospective student pilots reading this think? All the armchair experts think that the flight training fleet in general is unfit for flight training?


Having got out of my armchair and into a pilot's seat some 38 years ago I'll take umbrage at the "armchair" bit, though I by no means claim to be an expert.

the flight training fleet in general is unfit for flight training Those are your words not mine. The fleet is perfectly fit for the task of training from ab-initio to PPL in accordance with the current syllabus, which does not include spinning. I have not suggested otherwise.

[Fly-by-Wife]

hack - a saddle horse used for transportation rather than sport etc.
hack - a horse kept for hire
hack - a worn-out horse for hire (derogatory).

Some definitions of "Hack" - it suggests something that is for hire, not of the highest standard, but still capable of the (limited) tasks set.

I would be quite happy for my sons to learn to drive in and then use a "hack" small city car around town.

I would NOT be at all happy for them to take it to the Nurburgring and thrash it around. Legal? Perfectly. Sensible? Not even with crash helmets!

FBW

[Mike Cross]

"Station Hack" was used in the RAF to refer to an aircraft kept at a station for pooled use. Probably originates from hackney as in hackney-cab, i.e. a carriage available for hire, which is generally what a club aircraft is.

[Pilot DAR]

Clarification of the definition of "hack" accepted.

As was recently pointed out to me during a delightful dinner with another PPRuNer: English think 100 miles is a "long way", Canadians think a 100 year old building is "old".

There are obviously language differences too. Here, were I to hear an aircraft be described as a "hack" I would difinately think that an insult had been intended!

I completely agree that a pilot should only do solo, what that pilot feels comfortable doing, and in an appropriate aircraft in all senses. If that pilot chooses to not practice certain manuevers solo, I believe that there could be a moral obligation to occasionally practice in a appropriate dual environment. To me, spins are close to this list of things to practice.

Pilot DAR