Stall Spin Awareness/Recovery [Archive]

Genghis the Engineer

18th May 2012, 22:40

standard spin recovery

Wash your mouth out with soap sir.

The Tomahawk has a reputation for scary things happening with the tail in a spin, and yet I cannot find any footage on YouTube.

The Slingsby has a reputation for unrecoverable spins. A highly qualified TP is quoted as saying that it has many untested spin modes, and only three that are tested. With an unpredictable spin, recovery isn't a dead cert.

I've never spun a Tommie, but have heard the reputation. What I can't find is much evidence of it having a real problem.

I know some very able pilots who I have a lot of respect for who swear the T67 is safe as houses. I also used to know a very able and almost obsessively safe and careful pilot, who died in one when it span into the ground. The spins I've done in the T67 it showed some characteristics, particularly pitch lightening during the last bit of deceleration towards the stall, that disturbed me. So I don't trust it.

That said, all the historic fatal spin accidents in the T67 are in the small engined models, not the big engined military models.

Personally I am happy to practice spins, and have been the first test pilot to spin a couple of aeroplane types. Whilst it's not exactly my teaching speciality, I would be content to demonstrate spins.

What I will not do is spin without a parachute and jettisonable canopy and/or doors. It's just unnecessary.

G

Runaway Gun

18th May 2012, 22:41

I suggest going somewhere that uses a Citabria, Decathlon, Extra or Cap 10 or equivalent, and combining the spin recovery training with a basic Unusual Attitude recovery course.

Sure, they're more expensive than a 152 or Tomahawk, but your bang for the buck quality will be much better. Plus you can safely mess up the recovery with enough G and speed to spare, before the instructor has to take over.

abgd

18th May 2012, 23:43

In the UK I understand the problem is that you need an aerobatics harness to do intentional spins and many aircraft simply aren't equipped.

I did PPL spins on a Super-Decathlon and thoroughly enjoyed it. Although the price per hour was high, we spent a high proportion of the time climbing to do the next spin, and had it not had such a powerful engine we'd have spent even more time in the climb.

I did wonder whether it mightn't have been falsely reassuring - having big control surfaces you could enter and exit spins as quickly as you could think about it. My understanding is that if I got a PA-38 into a spin I would have to hold the anti-spin controls for a turn or two whilst the spin tightened _before__recovery, which would take considerably more self-belief.

Big Pistons Forever

19th May 2012, 00:46

The world wide GA accident clearly shows that most inadvertent spins occur after an aircraft was mishandled in the circuit or during extremely irresponsible low level show boating type manoevers. In virtually all of the cases the spin entry was at an altitude too low to allow a recovery.

The chance you will experience a spin and then effect a recovery in the "spin" as it is typically demonstrated at a flying school, is virtually zero.

I am a fully qualified aerobatic instructor in Canada but I don't demonstrate any spin recoveries to my PPL students. What I do teach is how to recognize the situations where a departure from controlled flight is a real danger using a variety scenarios. The bottom line is I want to instill an instinctive reaction of stick forward and rudder as required to arrest any yaw for any possible inadvertent stall. If that is there is no way a student can get him or herself into an inadvertent spin.

If they want to do deliberate spins then I invite them to sign up for an introductory aerobatics course.

The500man

19th May 2012, 01:44

The bottom line is I want to instill an instinctive reaction of stick forward and rudder as required to arrest any yaw for any possible inadvertent stall. If that is there is no way a student can get him or herself into an inadvertent spin.

This is a logical approach but I don't agree with it. If you get into a spin inadvertently it really means you missed all the warning signs. If you are trained only to recover from those warning signs and you missed them because you were distracted or overloaded then you have nothing left in your armory of practical flying skills to get you out of trouble.

Your first spin in training with an instructor where you have been briefed beforehand and are expecting it, still feels very unusual and takes you by surprise. For a pilot that had never experienced that before, I doubt they would stand much chance of recovery.

Big Pistons Forever

19th May 2012, 02:29

, I doubt they would stand much chance of recovery.

They would not have much chance of recovery because it most probably happened at an altitude too low to recover as the accident record sadly demonstrates.

For a true spin to develop the aircraft has to be both stalled and allowed to yaw.

If the pilot allows sufficient uncommanded yaw to occur so that the aircraft enters a true spin I don't think he she likely will suddenly recover their skills to execute a spin recovery.

The secret to avoid inadvertent spins is to

1) Recognize when the aircraft is in the slow flight regime and do not allow the further decrease in speed (AOA).

2) If they failed to recognize the developing low speed/high AOA, recover by adding power and lowing the nose at the first sign of a stall

3) If they fail to recognize the incipient stall and allow the aircraft to get into a fully developed stall, execute a stall recovery and use the rudder to stop the aircraft from yawing which would lead into a spin entry.

Gertrude the Wombat

19th May 2012, 09:17

Your first spin in training with an instructor where you have been briefed beforehand and are expecting it, still feels very unusual and takes you by surprise
I didn't find this to be the case - the spin itself was somewhat tame compared to the spin entry, recovery from which, as incipient spin, which was part of the PPL training so I was familiar with it.

Mind you this was in a 152 which could be recovered from the spin simply by taking one's hands and feet off the controls.

I was somewhat surprised that the spin itself was a non-event.

maxred

19th May 2012, 09:31

I have always been an advocate of spin awareness/training. I understand the salient points about PPL training and the possible lack of suitably experienced instructors, however, wherever possible IMO all pilots should at least experience this. The report on another thread currently running, the Canadian Seneca Training accident, makes valued and very sobering reading. Decay of airspeed, in a climbing right turn, pretty vicious wing drop and stall.

BP is of course very accurate that if it happens at low altitude, then options are very limited, we had an entertaing EFATO thread all about that and the turn back manoeuvre at low altitude.

englishal

19th May 2012, 14:11

The OP has answered his own question in the question. You have held a PPL for 16 years and I presume that during that time you have never unintentionally spinned?

Most aeroplanes are not cleared for spinning any more than a 747 is.....and you wouldn't expect 747 spin training to be carried out.

My view is that spin training is best left as part of an aerobatics course, post PPL, done in a proper aeroplane with a proper psycho (Aeros FI ;) ) sat next to you. Also as far as a PPL candidate is concerned, then it is probably too much to take in to be really worthwhile.

Sure, FI's etc. should do spin training as they have a higher than average chance of getting chucked into a spin by a student but by the time you become an FI you have a good amount of experience.

FullWings

19th May 2012, 15:00

What I do teach is how to recognize the situations where a departure from controlled flight is a real danger using a variety (of) scenarios. The bottom line is I want to instill an instinctive reaction of stick forward and rudder as required to arrest any yaw for any possible inadvertent stall.
That pretty much sums it all up for me.

I come at this more from the gliding end than the power one but it is still just as true. There have been many long-winded treatises written about stalling/spinning and the training (or not) involved with both. Some years ago, a well-known gliding instructor and aerodynamicist wrote a seminal short article called: "Stop pulling the stick back!", which said most of what you needed to know in the title...

The500man

19th May 2012, 15:18

Stop pulling the stick back... and fly in balance. Another good one is trim for the speed you want to fly at. Also listen to your engine. Those things should keep most out of trouble. :)

foxmoth

19th May 2012, 16:14

Quote:
standard spin recovery
Wash your mouth out with soap sir.

Shan't:p

IMHO Initial spin training should be done on an aircraft that follows SSR - call it something else if you want, but this should be the starting point, then going onto Mueller/Beggs technique and - most importantly - emphasising that the aircraft manual for any particular aircraft should be read and the correct spin recovery for that aircraft used when spinning that type.:hmm:

I have spun the Pa38 and it is one of its better points, a proper spin that will enter without dramatics and stays in the spin until you want it to come out.

Armchairflyer

19th May 2012, 17:32

As spinning was not included in my JAA-PPL training, I became curious and did some spins in a Citabria with an aerobatic instructor. Since this experience, I am with BPF et al. and the powers-that-be who removed spins from the PPL syllabus concerning the potential safety gain. Intentional spinning at altitude is one (even quite fun) thing, but if one really messes up so badly as to get in an inadvertent spin at low altitude in the first place, I doubt that anyhe/she will have enough time, height and mental resources left to make a successful recovery.

IMHO, from a safety standpoint, an ounce of prevention, stall awareness and emphasis on an immediate "Stop pulling the stick/yoke back!" at the very first sign of trouble is worth more than a pound of actual spin recovery skills.

achimha

19th May 2012, 18:24

I've done spins in a C152 during PPL training but only because the instructor happened to be an aerobatics guy. There's probably not a great learning experience but it's is very impressive to get to know what a spin feels like. I agree with those who say that spins usually happen at low altitude without any chance of recovery. Having experienced spins, pilots will probably take stalls and the golden rule about proper use of flight controls during slow flight much more serious.

Ultranomad

19th May 2012, 19:18

Speaking of aircraft for advanced spin training (in the context of an aerobatics program), Alexandre Garnaev, a Russian test pilot with a lot of spin testing experience, calls Yak-52 one of the best aircraft for this purpose: it can be intentionally put into any type of spin - steep or flat, upright or inverted - and can be recovered from all of them in a consistent manner without non-standard manipulations. There are quite a few of them in the UK, so this may be a good option.
I have only done a steep upright spin in it. With a rudder input from level flight at the stall speed, it drops a wing very abruptly and loses about 600-900 feet per turn at a pitch of -60° or so; putting the stick slightly forward of centre and giving a full opposite rudder produces a recovery within less than half a turn.

sevenstrokeroll

19th May 2012, 19:33

two things about spins.

one...read "Stick and Rudder" by wolfgang langweische and you will learn much.

two...if you aren't stalled, you can't spin...so avoid a stall and you avoid the spin.

and that is why it isn't in the private pilot world anymore...we teach you to avoid stall and recover from stall....so avoid stalls and you avoid spins!

good luck

Pilot DAR

19th May 2012, 20:32

I see both sides of this, but still err to the "train and practice" rather than "avoid" approach. I really doubt that planned training spins, conducted with the appropriate cautions, in appropriate type ,airworthy aircraft are a source of great hazard. Yes, loosing control of a twin while doing single engine training can become an immense hazard - but that is not intentional spin training! The "avoid" approach seems to me to be akin to saying that if someone is taught to land really well, teaching a bouce recovery or an overshoot after touchdown skill is not really necessary. Ideally yes, though practically a miss, in my opinion.

I have never accidentally spun an aircraft, other than during very abused handling testing, where a spin was very possible, and the recovery preplanned. I think however, that a mismanaged wing drop stall, which is presumed to be a spin, but is not (yet) tends to strike fear into pilots.

Apparently to me, no matter how vigourously pilots are trained to not stall, they still seem to. As long as a stall, however unintended, happens, spin recovery could rapidly become a valuable skill. Yes, unintended stalls and spins seem to be most common close to the ground, where all is lost (hence my very real resistance to the turnback after engine failure on departure - no matter how many posters say it could be attempted).

The spin training includes as a great value the approach to the stall spin, which itself is important in teaching a pilot what it's like when you're getting close.

The more training one has in the unusual corners of flying, the less alarming those corners will be, and the better natural reactions will be there to get out - or better yet, avoid!

GeeWhizz

19th May 2012, 21:20

if you aren't stalled, you can't spin...so avoid a stall and you avoid the spin.

and that is why it isn't in the private pilot world anymore...we teach you to avoid stall and recover from stall....so avoid stalls and you avoid spins!

...sums it up really. Who has ever come close to the stage that a spin may occur? If you have, you've probably been flying your aircraft to its slowest limit and will be cautious of its 'bite'. Without knowing where the limits lie and still performing manoeuvres of this kind, you'd be silly. I fail to understand how a non-emergency inadvertant spin would occur. The PPL stall/spin awareness/recovery training is enough to cover what the PPL without an aeros cert/rating will encounter.

I'm advocate pushing the limits as much as possible that one feels confident to do, an inch at a time, but we must know the max and not exceed it whilst remaining in complete control at all times.

Fly safe

GW

BroomstickPilot

19th May 2012, 21:22

I was required to learn to perform full spin recovery when I learned to fly in 1960. In 2005, when I made a return to flying, after a break of many years, I was given the new 'spin avoidance' training.

So having now experienced both, my view is that everybody ought to experience a fully developed spin, even if only once and as a passenger, purely for purposes of demonstration.

After all, if you have never actually experienced a spin, how can you form any concept of what it is you are avoiding when you have spin avoidance training?

Unless you have actually seen with your own eyes that YOUR aeroplane really will spin, and seen the potentially terrifying sight of the good earth up in front of your windscreen and spinning like a top, the spin will always remain merely a theoretical possibility.

Without this, I feel that as time passes people will gradually become inclined to tempt fate, taking the attitude 'well it just doesn't happen; and it can't really be all that bad can it'?

BP.

Ultranomad

19th May 2012, 21:46

Who has ever come close to the stage that a spin may occur? If you have, you've probably been flying your aircraft to its slowest limit and will be cautious of its 'bite'.
Intentional slow flight is the least likely way to get killed by stalling/spinning. An accelerated stall in a final turn with too much bank or a rapid airspeed drop in an unusual attitude in IMC are potentially a lot more dangerous.

everybody ought to experience a fully developed spin, even if only once and as a passenger, purely for purposes of demonstration.
...and for the purpose of fun, too! Actually, this may be a convenient way to check whether one will make a good pilot or not (wanting to do it again vs. being scared sh*tless).

Big Pistons Forever

19th May 2012, 22:02

I think there may be a bit of semantics at play here. It takes 2 turns to establish a true spin for typical GA aircraft ( i.e. non specialty aerobatic aircraft ). If you recover in the first half turn you are not executing a spin recovery you are really just recovering from a stall. The proof is that the aircraft can be recovered with just forward stick and no rudder input at all. To get to true autorotation where
a proper spin recovery is the only way to ensure a safe recovery, you have to let the aircraft go at least a full turn and for most common trainers 2 turns is required. The only time I see this happening is for deliberate spins and therefore if you get into an inadvertent spin why would anyone sit there and do nothing for a whole turn or more ?

When I want to give my students a healthy fright about what happens if you are asleep at the wheel I conduct a power on climbing turn stall slipping in a bit of top rudder at the break (i.e. rudder opposite the turn to cause a skid). The aircraft will roll off the top in fairly dramatic fashion. Even those students with a under developed imagination can figure out a really bad situation is going to develop unless early and aggressive action is taken to unstall the aircraft and control the yaw.:ok:

Another great exercise is to do a power off stall but hold the stick full back when it breaks. The idea is to use the rudder to stop the aircraft from yawing and thus starting the entry to a spin. Quite coarse use of the rudder is required but if you get on the rudder the aircraft will stay under control albeit with a big sink rate. This exercise is usually the first time any student has ever applied full rudder in flight.

Finally it is important to note that the above comments applies to common modern GA aircraft. If you are flying a vintage taildragger, home built, or warbirds then the aircraft might have very unforgiving stall characteristics and a proper checkout should include some work in the dark corners of the flight envelope.

Maoraigh1

19th May 2012, 22:30

Would it be possible for turbulence to induce a spin?

Genghis the Engineer

19th May 2012, 22:36

From slow flight, yes.

From anything much above about 1.2Vs, no.

G

thing

19th May 2012, 22:57

I found that an oddity about PPL training, the fact that you do incipient spin but not the fully developed one. I have to do spins every year as part of my glider recert, what's so different about powered? (I might add that spinning is the best way to loose height in a glider, someone I know, cough, happily span down from 11,000 to 2,000 in a very short space of time)

Edit: In case there are lunatics reading this who thing 'Der, I'll give that a go then' I will add the rider that it's the best way to loose height quickly providing you have lots and lots to start with, aren't barking enough to leave it too late to apply anti spin control, are in a glider that you are completely familiar with and that will spin in the first place

mary meagher

19th May 2012, 23:04

Quite correct that teaching avoidance of stall or approaching spin is safer, for power aircraft. I found it rather scary in a Cessna 152, as demonstrated by my instructor. By comparison, stalls and spins and the recognition of these is required before a glider pilot can go solo. This is because we typically fly in thermals, at slow speeds for best height gain, and also turbulence, or gusts in thermals, certainly CAN stall the glider, and the last thing you want to do is come spinning down through all those other gliders in the stack circling under your cloud...they wouldn't appreciate it!

Low down spins are certainly to be avoided! these used to be taught in gliding just to put respect for the ground into the hapless student.

I find it helpful to remind the beginners that without realising it, they have probably experienced stalls .....after all, a well held off landing is a stall a few inches from the ground!

The experience of the stall is given early in the training now, as people fear what they havn't experienced. Same later on, with spinning. But it took me at least 5 years to learn to enjoy it.

The K13 glider, or the Puchaz at some clubs, is used for spin training. If curious, power pilots might like to try it in a glider, it is not so scary, and leads to understanding of the symptoms and effects. Speed control in the circuit and on approach is critical for avoiding stalls or spins too near the ground for the standard full spin recovery to save the situation.

Big Pistons Forever

19th May 2012, 23:09

The "avoid" approach seems to me to be akin to saying that if someone is taught to land really well, teaching a bouce recovery or an overshoot after touchdown skill is not really necessary. Ideally yes, though practically a miss, in my opinion.

The more training one has in the unusual corners of flying, the less alarming those corners will be, and the better natural reactions will be there to get out - or better yet, avoid!

I find your bounced landing analogy unpersuasive. Teaching the recovery from a bounced landing is like teaching stalls. The manoever in this case, slow flight, has gone bad and you now need to recover; here are the skills you need.

Personally I think a landing analogy equating to the teaching of spins would be to have the student deliberately touch down at high speed nose wheel first in order to set up a case of the aircraft wheel barrowing. Yes it could happen but the solution is to not perfect the students control of the aircraft while it on the runway rolling along with the just the nosewheel touching, it is to instill an automatic reaction to recover from the situation, which in this case is obviously back stick and conduct a go around just like arresting a spin should occur at the first sign of a stall and uncommanded yaw not after the aircraft is allowed to establish itself in autorotation.

I however heartily endorse your thoughts about training in the unusual corners of flying. In a perfect world everyone would take upset training and thus develop the life saving automatic reactions you need when you find yourself in a bad place.

Ask your average private pilot what immediate action is required to save yourself if the aircraft is rolled upside down on final because of wake turbulence, and hardly anyone will know, let alone likely have the presence of mind to do it if it actually happened.

thing

19th May 2012, 23:19

The500man

20th May 2012, 01:07

Who has ever come close to the stage that a spin may occur?I think many of us have been closer than perhaps you think. I was taught the most likely place to spin inadvertently is turning final, with a low airspeed and some bank. In that scenario if you now apply out-of-bank aileron you have all the ingredients necessary.

As a novice I would probably (given the presence of mind) shove full forward yoke and full aileron/rudder. Might not be such a good idea if you don't have inverted fuel and oil! My guess is the same thing as at altitude. Unload, centralise and then roll to the nearest horizon and apply power as required, pulling or pushing to your horizon. It's very important to manage any power on yaw when recovering at a slow speed. It's gonna depend based on what your flying though. That's my opinion at least!

FullWings

20th May 2012, 06:17

Full spin training in a controlled environment: educational, worthwhile and fun.

Instilling instinctive feel of and reactions to excessive AoA, yaw and approaching loss-of-control: priceless.

Dustertoo

20th May 2012, 07:10

Hello All,

When you learn how to fly you need to understand a full stall and what a spin is....I was 15 when I stalled and later spun a 152....today at 47.... I am so thankful that I was required to accomplish this simple task. Remember the only thing that really kills... is lack of altitude.

Full left rudder and opposite airleron....followed by....well you get it....right???

Enjoy

englishal

20th May 2012, 07:34

Ask your average private pilot what immediate action is required to save yourself if the aircraft is rolled upside down on final because of wake turbulence, and hardly anyone will know, let alone likely have the presence of mind to do it if it actually happened.
I almost experienced that once. Flying practice instrument approaches (VFR) on a windless day with no seperation services provided at 1500'. Came in behind an airbus. Suddenly started experiencing loads of buffet on the airframe and then the aeroplane just started rolling quickly to the right. I had full left aileron and left rudder and we were still rolling right quickly (I was under the hood). Luckily I was with a very experienced instructor who shouted "my plane", took control, applied full throttle and pulled us up and out of the vortex. It was like time slowed down but it must have been seconds.

I think we were lucky, we had a 100kt approach speed so more effective controls, and I was with someone with a lot more experience than I had who recognised what was going on very quickly and knew a way out of it. I wouldn't like to have been inverted in a 172 at 1500' as I think the only way to recover would have been to continue the roll to wings level and recover from the dive. Don't know if there would have been enough altitude though.....

mary meagher

20th May 2012, 07:56

When you don't KNOW what to do, DO NOTHING! Even the Air France plunge into the Atlantic was caused by the pilots doing the wrong thing, same with the Colgan disaster.

Typical stall and spin approach scenario, ...."I pulled back on the stick, and the nose wouldn't come up! The elevator didn't seem to work, so I pulled harder....."

While being flipped on approach by wake turbulence does call for immediate and expert recovery, this doesn't happen a lot.....but if your aircraft is properly trimmed and was flying just fine a few seconds before things went pearshaped, let go of everything and pray!

History relates, in the early days, the first pilot to recover from a spin decided he was going to die anyhow, and stopped trying to bring the nose up from what he thought was a dive.....

foxmoth

20th May 2012, 08:56

someone I know, cough, happily span down from 11,000 to 2,000 in a very short space of time
I watched someone do the same in a Pa38 - they had not taken into account the lag in the altimeter that builds up over such a fast descent and were a lot lower than expected when recovery complete!:=

I find it helpful to remind the beginners that without realising it, they have probably experienced stalls .....after all, a well held off landing is a stall a few inches from the ground! a commonly held misconception!

Pitts2112

20th May 2012, 09:55

The day after I passed my flight exam, I booked an hour in a Super-Decathalon to go do a couple of spins. It was an overwhelmingly positive and confidence-building lesson because it removed the fear of the unknown for me. I'd heard a lot about how dangerous spins were so I was deathly afraid of any unusual movement of the aircraft because I thought it was going to start hurling me to the ground in some unrecoverable plummet.

Doing actual spins showed me what they really are all about, how to properly avoid them, and recover, and finally gave me real confidence in handling the airplane. I advocate doing them for at least that reason - to dispel all the myth, legend, and fear-mongering that surrounds them, and give the student more confidence. As to the rationale for taking them out of training, I can't comment. I can only say that doing them was an excellent experience for me.

mikehallam

20th May 2012, 10:16

BTW.

Much higher up this thread avoiding stalls was advocated. True, BUT.....

Every year at least, Permit renewal (UK) requires stall characteristics, hence a real stall, to be done.

Makes sense to me, regularly done every now & then as a check on what the ASI says at these critically low velocities.
Worth doing with pax & loaded too - at plenty of height.

Spin off the final two turns on landing ?
I watch the speedo like a hawk and get on one stage of flap before then, mostly slowed down to flap speed at the latter part of downwind. On my Rans that reduces stall by ~3 to 4 mph, all very useful for the last bit !

mike hallam.

Pace

20th May 2012, 10:22

For me it is vital to teach pilots being beyond the limits in all flight regimes.

As I stated before I used to race cars and as such was comfortable in a racing car on the limits and beyond at high speed.

Those skills have saved my bacon nowadays on numerous occasions.

Not so the driver who has never experienced a car beyond the limits who understeers straight into a brick wall because they know no better.

They maybe safe careful drivers until one day something happens.

Its the same with flying teaching avoidance does not teach a pilot to be comfortable with an aircraft beyond the limits and hence his chances have to be smaller of recovering.

If you dont experience spinning how do you know whether you are spinning or in a spiral dive? Both requiring very different techniques to recover? They also require an instant instinctive response gained through comfort and familiarity.

Pace

goldeneaglepilot

20th May 2012, 10:41

I totally agree with Pace, in my opinion it is a good idea for a student pilot to have experienced a spin and flown the recovery, equally teaching the student the sets of conditions that might lead to a spin are just as important.

I instructed to both the old syllabus (which included spinning) and to the current syllabus. Both have merits and a combination of the two is in my opinion perhaps the safest way of being a better pilot.

At the time of spinning being removed from the syllabus I can remember the debate about if a properly taught spin was dangerous or if it made the pilot feel ill....

With respect to the PA38 spin, that is not difficult. It does recover easily if correct technique is used. However what caught people out was the fact that the rate of spin rotation increased when anti spin technique was applied, prior to the spin stopping. Some people are thought to have panicked at this, hence giving up and spinning into the ground.

Pace is again correct, people need to be able to instinctively recognise the difference between a spin and a spiral dive and the recovery techniques.That is not from having been told about the differences but from practical first hand knowledge.

piperboy84

20th May 2012, 11:40

Stall/Spin has the P.A.R.E recovery technique as tested by NASA etc.
does a spiral dive have a similar type published generic recovery procedure?

Genghis the Engineer

20th May 2012, 12:25

There is no absolute generic stall recovery procedure, although most are extremely similar. FAA and CAA publish slightly different procedures, whilst both have been busy recently beating flight schools over the head about teaching a third they don't like - namely powering out of a stall with the stick still back.

The RAF, quite rightly in my opinion, teach a generic "initial loss of control" recovery, which is essentially "close throttle, put everything in the middle"; in virtually all aeroplanes this will recover from an incipient spin.

And then there is the recovery from a developed spin, which is not generic. The NASA / FAA drill is a starting point for flight test programmes, but it should not be used generically. The flight manual technique for a given aeroplane should be used. period.

Why?

- Some aeroplanes with very powerful rudders need a rudder central recovery otherwise they may kick into a spin in the opposite direction.
- Some swept wing aeroplanes need a back stick recovery otherwise the fin is blanked.
- Some aeroplanes need a delay between opposite rudder and forward stick, otherwise they will bunt potentially out of negative g limits.
- Some aeroplanes will not recover unless the recovery is flown from full pro-spin controls first.

Whilst most common GA aeroplanes will respond appropriately to what is commonly called the Standard Spin Recovery, or SSR, there are gotchas that can bite.

Incidentally most spin research indicates that a truly stable spin mode is achieved in about 6 turns, not 2.

G

The500man

20th May 2012, 13:11

Talking about differences in spin recovery techniques, another plus point about including spin training in the PPL is that the effects of controls in a spin can be looked at. If you read a POH that maybe just says use pro-spin aileron to effect recovery I think it would be good for the pilot to understand why, and I'm not sure that is currently the case.

I also think when it comes to stalling, instructors should make a point of demonstrating how little forward stick/ yoke is required to actually unstall an aircraft. The full-power and shove the stick/yoke forward is over-dramatising what would otherwise be a fairly gentle and underwhelming recovery. Then using power to minimise height loss.

Inverted flight and effects of controls would be another good thing to include in the PPL, but since most trainers can't do it I guess it never will be included.

Armchairflyer

20th May 2012, 13:25

Pace: For me it is vital to teach pilots being beyond the limits in all flight regimes.No provocation intended, but that wouldn't include intentionally exceeding the flight envelope limits, would it?

Concerning racing experience and road safety, most findings I am aware of do not report a better safety record for racing drivers, rather the reverse. I neither doubt your abilities nor that you averted an accident as a result of your skills, but maybe other people achieve the same result by judgment without having to revert to superior skills? (Again, no personal offense meant!)

Having said that I agree that having a bit of firsthand experience under instruction on quickly recognizing trouble and getting out of it knowing what to do is a valuable thing ... within the limits, at least for me, though.

BTW, I found it interesting to read that even (or rather: of all pilots?) a pilot with the experience, knowledge and skills of DAR claims to be somewhat leery of spins unless "necessary" and with all safety precautions (http://www.pprune.org/flying-instructors-examiners/485341-spinning-warrior-archer-2.html#post7194881).

Genghis the Engineer

20th May 2012, 14:00

I think it would be good for the pilot to understand why,

I have multiple PPLs, a CPL, a CRI, and two degrees in aerospace engineering, plus attended ETPS.

The PhD and Test Pilot School are the only courses which covered that material, and I'd venture it's a bit much for PPL. That said, in my opinion spinning should be in the JAR/EASA CPL, which it isn't.

Do bear in mind that the job of a PPL is to create safe recreational pilots, who can go an do some learning on their own, not cover everything there is to know about flying.

G

Genghis the Engineer

20th May 2012, 14:05

Reference Pace's point, I was rather incredulous to read a recent GAPAN document which firmly stated that all PPL-level flying should be about operating firmly in the middle of the envelope, and anything else about getting back there again promptly.

I think that GAPAN are, bluntly, wrong. PPLs should be happy to do steep turns, slow flight, high speed flight if they want to. And training to the corners of the envelope (but clearly, not beyond, that's test pilot territory and requires some very very specialist training) should be a normal part of PPL training.

Which doesn't detract from training concentrating upon a normal and instinctive response to high AoA conditions is to get away from it quickly, UNLESS you went there deliberately and with prior thought.

G

foxmoth

20th May 2012, 14:53

Certainly agree with those sentiments Genghis,

As far as:-

However what caught people out was the fact that the rate of spin rotation increased when anti spin technique was applied, prior to the spin stopping

This is a known characteristic of the spin in most aircraft that spin properly, and pointing this out should be part of the spin training.

Also, WRT to :-

instructors should make a point of demonstrating how little forward stick/ yoke is required to actually unstall an aircraft. The full-power and shove the stick/yoke forward is over-dramatising what would otherwise be a fairly gentle and underwhelming recovery. Then using power to minimise height loss.

Certainly I teach, and AFAIK most UK instructors move from full stall to recovery at the incipient stage with minimum height loss, and the emphasis there is very much on a small check forward to unstall the aircraft.

Genghis the Engineer

20th May 2012, 14:57

Not partial throttle however.

G

foxmoth

20th May 2012, 15:13

Not partial throttle however. ??? Not seen or made any reference to this - though I would say it is one of the more common faults seen with PPL stall recoveries.:(

Genghis the Engineer

20th May 2012, 15:20

500man referred to full power recoveries as overly dramatic in post #46.

G

foxmoth

20th May 2012, 15:37

Yes, see what you mean now - I was mainly noticing the "shove the stick forward" bit.

Pace

20th May 2012, 15:47

Concerning racing experience and road safety, most findings I am aware of do not report a better safety record for racing drivers, rather the reverse.

I do take the point that racing drivers will by their nature be racers and as such will probably be prone to driving faster but that is not the point!
On the other extreme I knew an accountant who was Mr safety in a car, ultra cautious right on the speed limit button.
He was fine till he coasted a brow of a hill to be met by a stationary broken down vehicle swerved, understeered straight into a bank which inverted the car. He and his wife were then hospitalised for months.
I would think that skid pan training for the ordinary motorist is a must and hardly equates to racing driver mentality but equips the driver with skills and an awareness of what does happen.
Do you teach students about fully developed spiral dives which can be very uncomfortable and themselves carry a certain risk.
I just feel avoidance training while excellent does not instill the instinctive reaction and identification of what the aircraft is doing as it leaves many things lodged in the unknown for the student pilot.
Avoidance maybe great but at some time you maybe faced with being unable to avoid.
While I appreciate you cannot do safe spin training in all aircraft you can in some.
Just to isolate spinning is also too narrow as the pilot should be aware of all the handling attributes of the aircraft he is flying.

Pace

The500man

20th May 2012, 15:51

I was just highlighting the fact that un-stalling doesn't require an aggressive control input. If you need power then add power. If you need full power than use it.

the PhD and Test Pilot School are the only courses which covered that material, and I'd venture it's a bit much for PPL.

You make it sound so difficult. If the average PPL can learn effects of controls in the upright sense, why should they not be able to do it in the inverted sense, or when in a spin? Surely having some understanding is better than having none at all.

Armchairflyer

20th May 2012, 16:06

PPLs should be happy to do steep turns, slow flight, high speed flight if they want to. And training to the corners of the envelope (but clearly, not beyond, that's test pilot territory and requires some very very specialist training) should be a normal part of PPL training.Agreed for "happily leaving the middle of the flight envelope", the steep turns and slow flight (and stall/incipient stall), not so sure for the high speed and envelope corners part. Depending on under which circumstances and how it is presented, I somehow feel that being made to feel comfortable at the high-speed/high-g edges of the flight envelope might blur the risk of exceeding the remaining narrow margin into "test pilot territory", not only at one's one potential peril but also for the next users of the airplane (but maybe, not being an engineer, I am just overly leery of structural issues).

foxmoth

20th May 2012, 16:16

If you need power then add power. If you need full power than use it.
Normally the first training stall will be without power to demo that it is not power that recovers you from the stall - HOWEVER-
The emphasis in stall recovery training is minimum height loss, there are also aircraft where full power can cause problem with pitch up - but even here the training on type should cover this, if you are stalling at height, then there may be times as an experienced pilot you might not want to use full power, but as far as most PPLs are concerned it IS FULL power on recovery.

Pace

20th May 2012, 16:16

ArmChairFlyer

Talking of skid pan training what a shame flight dynamic modelling is so poor in simulators regardless of the simulator. (Not MSFS ;)

Pace

Big Pistons Forever

20th May 2012, 16:21

You make it sound so difficult. If the average PPL can learn effects of controls in the upright sense, why should they not be able to do it in the inverted sense, or when in a spin? Surely having some understanding is better than having none at all.

A spin is an aerobatic manoever. I heartily endorse pilots getting training to improve their ability to control the aircraft no matter what its attitude or flight condition. But the place to do this is IMO an aerobatic course after the PPL not during the PPL training. In fact that is what I am doing right now with the last PPL I completed. During his PPL training the thrust of the training was stall and spin avoidance with the goal of building instinctive reactions to reduce AOA by pitching nose down and controlling yaw. Situations that would have inevitably led to a spin were recovered in one quarter to one third of a turn.

We are now at hour 5 of a 10 hour introductory course in aerobatics. The first 2 hours consisted of a good look at aircraft handling at high AOA, high pitch and bank angles, and the spin. The spin was first presented as a stand alone aerobatic manoever and then we looked at typical scenarios where the aircraft spins out of a botched manoever. My student is loving it and IMO this is the ideal progression for a PPL.

I firmly believe that instructors who are not competent aerobatic pilots should not be out spinning with students because they will not have a true understanding of spin dynamics, effective of controls in fully developed spins, and may not be able to recover if the aircraft does something dangerous.

Armchairflyer

20th May 2012, 16:22

Yes, that's sad, especially for my wallet :).

The500man

20th May 2012, 16:42

I firmly believe that instructors who are not competent aerobatic pilots should not be out spinning with students because they will not have a true understanding of spin dynamics, effective of controls in fully developed spins, and may not be able to recover if the aircraft does something dangerous.

Actually that's something I hadn't even considered. Excellent point!

but as far as most PPLs are concerned it IS FULL power on recovery.

Foxmoth I wasn't suggesting otherwise, just that aggressive control inputs aren't required to unstall an aircraft. Adding full power is where the extra control forces come from. If a PPL doesn't understand that then they will quite likely over-control when attempting unusual attitude recoveries.

Big Pistons Forever

20th May 2012, 16:48

Speaking of skids, would anybody (BPF?) like to comment on recovery from a power off stall in a slipping turn, with excess top rudder, in comparison to a power off stall from a skidding turn with excess bottom rudder (and subsequent spin). Traditional training says one is deadly, the other relatively benign. My experience is in straightforward stalls and spin entries from wings level.

There isn't any difference. At the first indication of a stall it is full power and stick forward (together) and full rudder against the yaw, recover to the wings level climbing attitude.

foxmoth

20th May 2012, 16:54

Foxmoth I wasn't suggesting otherwise

If you need power then add power. If you need full power than use it. could certainly be taken this way. For most PPLs, if they recognise that they are getting near the stall their recovery needs to be instinctive and correct, as far as recovery from unusual attitudes goes, this is trained as a seperate lesson and any overcontrolling addressed at this stage (not often a problem in truth).

Armchairflyer

20th May 2012, 17:34

From my very limited experience of a few lessons in a Citabria, a "slipping stall" is a lot more benign than a "skidding stall", in fact it somehow felt almost more stable than a coordinated stall, and not at all spin-prone. Of course, I might just not have tried often and/or well enough (in addition to the Citabria being a very docile airplane).

Big Pistons Forever

20th May 2012, 17:39

The bottom line is simple the aircraft, must never be allowed to be in a skid especially close to the ground. No amount of spin training will save you if you stall a skidding aircraft at or below circuit height........

Genghis the Engineer

20th May 2012, 19:38

skid = slip = sideslip.

sideslip + high AoA = potential spin entry.

Spin entry = sudden and significant height loss, regardless of subsequent actions.

sudden and significant height loss close to ground = crash.

G

mary meagher

20th May 2012, 20:17

Foxmoth, a couple of pages ago you opined that my description of a fully held off landing as a stall a few inches from the ground is "a commonly held misconception!"

Please elucidate!

Prop swinger

20th May 2012, 20:19

. . . and yet it is perfectly safe to sideslip until just before touchdown. Isn't it routine for unflapped aerobatic aircraft (with no washout!) to sideslip to land?

At height, trim your aircraft to fly at your normal approach speed, in a slight descent if you like, & apply rudder. You will get plenty of yaw & a little roll as a secondary effect. Do the same at a few knots above the 1g stall speed & you will get a little yaw & lots of wing drop. The retreating wing has a slightly higher AoA than the advancing wing but for it to stall & drop the wing has to be very close to the stalling AoA in the first place.

A skidding turn, in itself, is no more dangerous than a slipping turn but it is an indicator of an overloaded pilot who is behind the aircraft. Typically they are looking down the wing at the landing area, underbank in the turn but pull back on the controls and then feed in the rudder to hurry the turn along.

If you maintain a normal airspeed & AoA it is perfectly safe to fly a slipping turn into a slipped final approach.

Pace

20th May 2012, 20:46

Maoraigh1

20th May 2012, 20:50

With a strong crosswind I sideslip to touchdown - on one wheel first. (Taildragger)

foxmoth

20th May 2012, 20:50

Foxmoth, a couple of pages ago you opined that my description of a fully held off landing as a stall a few inches from the ground is "a commonly held misconception!"

There has a lot of discussion on this over the years, I have done a lot of stalling and landed many Tailwheel aircraft, Stalling on most aircraft I first reach the light buffet as the indication that I am approaching a stall, the only times I have had light buffet on landing has been when I have got it wrong - and even this is not actually AT the stall, just incipient. You will also find in most aircraft that you can land tail first - so how can a proper 3 pointer be stalled? If you get it right though, a good three pointer will have lots of drag and you will be decelerating and running out of lift FAST as you touch down.:ok:

Big Pistons Forever

20th May 2012, 21:21

Wow!!!! That is very telling against the idea of recovery at incipient and no spins as not even the instructors are up to it or properly trained as pilots??

pace

Instructors who do not posses current Instrument ratings should not take their students flying in IMC conditions for the same reason that instructors who are not trained and proficienct in aerobatics should not perform aerobatic manoevers with their student, they are not qualified. A developed spin is an aerobatic manoever.

The entry into a spin is not an aerobatic manoever and recognizing and recovering from that entry in order to avoid the aircraft actually entering spin induced auto rotation is IMO what should be taught in the PPL, the subject of this thread.

As I said earlier the place to learn how to enter and recover from a spin is in an introductory aerobatics course where in addition to spinning you will learn a lot more about how to control an aircraft, regardless of what it happens to be doing, taught by someone who knows and can properly demonstrate this type of flying......and you will have an awfull lot of fun to boot :ok:

englishal

21st May 2012, 07:25

I think that PPL training should look at the risks v exposure, and then try and mitigate these risks through training.

I don't think I recall a single accident where someone inadvertently entered a spin when at cruise height and failed to recover, other than during aerobatics and deliberately mishandling the aeroplane...Anyone else know of any accidents like this?

The stall / Spin accidents that I do recall have all been close to the ground and not recoverable and in fact the only way these accidents could have been avoided is not to stall in the first place.

So I don't think there is much merit in spin training as part of the PPL at all. I'd say that for an FI it is vital to learn, as I know of FI's who have been put into spins during a botched stall.

It was only when I did my CPL (FAA) that we really explored the envelope, and did all different types of stall (accelerated / turning / etc..), extreme unusual attitudes, stalls under the hood, as well as advanced stuff like chandelles and lazy-8's. Very worthwhile, but not necessary for PPL training....which after all is a licence to learn.

mary meagher

21st May 2012, 08:12

Thank you for your reply Foxmoth. Most of my landings (and takeoffs, to be sure) in power have been in my trusty Supercub, used for towing gliders, and your experience of buffet as the precursor of incipient stall is something my darling GOFER never never displayed, because no matter how slowly we flew, it didn't seem to depart from controlled flight!

Perhaps the point I was trying to make applies more to gliders, particularly the training glider K13. This, as I mentioned, is the most widely used in British gliding clubs, for spin demonstration and practice.

We teach fully heldoff landings. This implies that rounding out (in the US, this is called the flare) a few inches above the turf, the wings will loose their lift as the angle of attack is increased slowly moving the stick back in level flight, untill the contact with ground takes place. The stick could now be moved back all the way, and the glider WILL NOT TAKE OFF AGAIN! as it is fully stalled. If the glider were not fully stalled, it may well leap into the air again, which is called a balloon, and there is nothing more embarassing or hard on the tailbone, than to drop in vertically from a ten foot altitude.

This is why it certainly appears that a well held off landing will touch down in a stalled condition. In flight at altitude, if you move the stick back all the way, and the elevator does not react in the usual sense of raising the nose, this is the only absolute symptom of the stall. Prestall buffet, sloppy controls, ASI, everything else is a precursor; the elevator not responding is a definite indication that the glider is stalled. Of course the cure is to move the stick gently forward, and the aircraft will nose down and air begin to flow over the wings again, lift restored.

I think it is comforting for beginners to be told a stall is no big deal, you've already seen a few, and in landing a K13, at least, it should be fully stalled as it touches down.

The500man

21st May 2012, 09:02

I don't think I recall a single accident where someone inadvertently entered a spin when at cruise height and failed to recoverWhat is cruise height exactly? If you mean higher than in a circuit there must be some accidents like this or there would have been no argument to remove spinning from the syllabus in the first place. Unless we assume that all spinning accidents from altitude were intentional spins.

other than during aerobatics and deliberately mishandling the aeroplaneThat's quite a bold statement. To me deliberate mishandling would only cover over-speed and over-stress or other out of envelope stuff which doesn't really apply to spinning. Lack of understanding can kill regardless of height if you are intentionally spinning... and there are always going to be those times that the aircraft does something strange and no one can explain why!

As far as what should be included in the PPL spinning is probably best left out because a student could have a 250 hour instructor that isn't competent to teach it! Even a demonstration might be a bad idea. That really sums it all up doesn't it?

foxmoth

21st May 2012, 09:36

Mary,

Thank you for your lesson on landing, as an instructor of over 30years with probably 1500+ hours on taildraggers I had not heard this before:}

I used to believe as you have said about fully stalled landings, but had a VERY experienced instructor convince me otherwise. Yes, a good landing should be approaching the stall, but if you are actually stalled then the margin for error would be such that there would probably be more heavy landings than there are. My understanding of it is that the speed is decaying so rapidly at this point that by the time you bring the stick back you will be below the stall speed, plus, moving the stick back does not actually raise the nose - it lowers the tail, and if the tail is on the ground anyway it cannot go down any further (though of course if you bounce it is no longer on the ground so CAN go down more). Personally I think the question of a taildragger being fully stalled on landing is still up for debate, but at present the arguments I have heard against it have me on the "not stalled" side of the fence.

(n.b. Some Taildraggers are definitely NOT stalled on touchdown unless you have got it wrong and I think you will find the Supercub comes into this class, I seem to remember landing one of these slightly tailwheel first a couple of times so three point attitude is certainly lower than the stalled attitude.)

Sillert,V.I.

21st May 2012, 09:48

. . . and yet it is perfectly safe to sideslip until just before touchdown. Isn't it routine for unflapped aerobatic aircraft (with no washout!) to sideslip to land?

If you maintain a normal airspeed & AoA it is perfectly safe to fly a slipping turn into a slipped final approach.

I had an instructor who showed me how to do exactly this in a PA38 from a very high approach. IIRC the trick was to nail 70kt on final with full flap, then apply full left rudder & use the ailerons to maintain directional control, regaining balanced flight just before the flare. I was never completely comfortable with the procedure as I always had a nagging concern about how it would affect the ASI. My CFI at the time wasn't that enthusiastic either & suggested it would be safer just to stuff the nose down & ignore the flap limiting speed if you ever had to make a landing area in a real emergency situation.

mad_jock

21st May 2012, 09:55

If you had been taught to fly by attitude it wouldn't matter what your ASI was reading because if you were holding the correct attitude you wouldn't stall.

PA38 is quite good for side slipping. Just have to watch that you don't jump into a PA28 and expect the same results because you will be disappointed.

Sillert,V.I.

21st May 2012, 10:08

PA38 is quite good for side slipping. Just have to watch that you don't jump into a PA28 and expect the same results because you will be disappointed.

In most of the ancient PA28's I've flown, I could get a pretty impressive ROD just by removing the power.

But to keep this on topic, if you're sending someone off to practice slipping at a safe height, would you not also want to know that they could recover from an unintentional spin? A PA38, if stalled with crossed controls, won't give much warning before it bites & although I've never spun one with the flaps down, I'd expect you'd need to get them retracted smartish to avoid overstressing in the recovery.

foxmoth

21st May 2012, 10:26

But to keep this on topic, if you're sending someone off to practice asymmetric flight at a safe height, would you not also want to know that they could recover from an unintentional spin? A PA38, if stalled with crossed contols, won't give much warning before it bites & although I've never spun one with the flaps down, I'd expect you'd need to get them retracted smartish to avoid overstressing in the recovery.

Sounds like you are getting mixed up here - Asymmetric flight is flying a twin on one engine, not flying crossed controls!

Sillert,V.I.

21st May 2012, 10:39

Sounds like you are getting mixed up here - Asymmetric flight is flying a twin on one engine, not flying crossed controls!

OOPS! Having a 'senior' moment - post edited.

mad_jock

21st May 2012, 10:40

What might be impressive and alot to you isn't really. Although to be honest if your that high you might as well do an orbit instead. There is then more chance of you making a pigs ear of adjusting for wind while your landing point is out of view.

If you don't pitch to the critical angle of attack you cant stall.

Sillert,V.I.

21st May 2012, 10:43

Although to be honest if your that high you might as well do an orbit instead.

I was thinking more about a situation in which you no longer have a functional engine.

mad_jock

21st May 2012, 11:08

Functioning engine or not if your high enough to require a side slip to get in you could get away with an orbit.

The only issue with doing an orbit is that you loose sight of your aiming point. For most instructors or your flying something such as the PA38 where you can see pretty well out the back you should be able to get back to your final track with out having to side slip. Either that or add mileage in by Sing.

Sidesliping comes into its own though if your only option is in over the top of some trees.

Go find an auld bugger instructor for your next hour with an instructor and get them to show you how to manage height/energy etc. There are many ways to skin a cat of which one of them is a slideslip.

Pull what

21st May 2012, 11:45

If you don't pitch to the critical angle of attack you cant stall.

Incorrect - You can reach the critical angle of attack without making any change in pitch at all

mary meagher

21st May 2012, 11:57

Hello again, Foxmoth!

Is it possible we are comparing apples to oranges? if you are still qualified as a gliding instructor, I would be delighted to fly with you. After 1800 hours in gliding, (which involved a lot of instructing, and probably at least 4,000 takeoffs and landings ) and another 1,200 in power, mostly tugging - (so probably another 3,000 takeoffs and landings) due to a very slight impairment in peripheral vision, they now require me to carry a qualified safety pilot! Which I must accept, because I am not as young as I used to be, and so tend to forget things, like carb heat, or flaps....what did I come in here for?

Why not PM me and we can arrange a rendezvous!

mad_jock

21st May 2012, 12:02

Incorrect - You can reach the critical angle of attack without making any change in pitch at all

Bollocks hold an AofA below the critcal and you won't stall.

Pull what

21st May 2012, 12:05

You've obviously never flown in icing then! Are you unable to express an opinion without being offensive?

thing

21st May 2012, 12:20

But then your critical angle of attack is different; the statement by MJ still holds true although if he omitted the 'don't pitch to' the pedantic among us wouldn't have had anything to leap on.

I know what he meant as I would guess everyone else did.

mad_jock

21st May 2012, 12:25

Of course I have which is why I know that the critical angle of attack reduces with the change of the wing profile due to the build up of ice. Doesn't happen alot in PPL training or for that matter in VFR flight. Shall we also include bird strikes as well and FOD or maybe even an seagull crapping on the wing, structral failure in flight?

But as we are talking about GA light aircraft for PPL's which not many of which are cleared for flying in icing conditions your point is rather miss leading and only confuses the issue for 95% of the readers. The other 5% are either instructors or IFR pilots who know the additional qualifications to that statement. So the only reason for your post is not to add any meaning full content to the majority its just to muddy the water and make yourself out as knowledgable.

And yes to patronising walter mittys, I will tell it like it is.

Pull what

21st May 2012, 12:33

In fact what MJ said was

If you don't pitch to the critical angle of attack you cant stall.

That is incorrect-the critical angle of attack can be reached without any pitch change by the pilot. Look at the Papa India accident at Staines or the BMI accident to the ATP.

The critical angle of the airfoil can be reached by a configuration change(PI) or a build up in ice (BMI).

Angle of Attack is also goverened by RAF and again that can change to bring the a/c to the critical angle without any pitch change.

In both of these incidents a total of 6 professional, pilots failed to recognise that their aircraft had stalled and thats one of the reasons why instructors need to make clear unambiguous statements about stalling

Pull what

21st May 2012, 12:41

Doesn't happen alot in PPL training or for that matter in VFR flight.

On that basis you could stop teaching most of the PPL then, couldnt you?

All of the crews involved in those incidents I mentioned were taught basic stalling on light aircraft-

Your statement is incorrect and its not one an instructor should make

thing

21st May 2012, 12:42

OK what he should have said was 'If you don't exceed the critical angle of attack, whatever the critical angle is for that aircraft in the given circumstances.'

Fuji Abound

21st May 2012, 12:46

To return to the original question I am not in favour.

The initial PPL has to be "doable". There lots of things that could be included and could be considered as important or more important (that arent). For example, more instrument time, which is probably more likely to save your life one day that knowing how to recover from a spin. So, firstly time is limited.

Add to the time limitation that for spin training to be worthwhile it should be covered reasonably well. You cant do that in one session. I am not sure demonstrating to the student a spin has much value. For most, the first time an aircraft spins they really have very little idea whats happening and are more than likely to do the wrong thing (other than as someone else said do nothing!). So, if it is to be taught, at least teach it properly.

The next issue is that these days many clubs simply dont own aircraft that can be spun, so there are the added complications of "hiring in" suitable aircraft.

Finally, I bet most instructors are not comfortable spinning these days so there is yet more "hiring in" to be done.

For these reasons all in all I dont see it should be included in the syllabus.

However, its definitely something to go and do and enjoy once you have your PPL. ;)

mad_jock

21st May 2012, 12:51

I am sure that the PPL's on this thread will remember your words of advice if they ever fly an ATP in icing conditions. With no training for flying in icing conditions.

I suppose you train your imaginary PPL students for tail stalls as well.

And pray tell where you got RAF from, which flight sim site?

5,982 Aviation Acronyms and Aviation Abbreviations (http://www.all-acronyms.com/tag/aviation)

Doesn't have anything that would remotely affect your critical angle of attack under that TLA.

Daft thing is that you have no way of knowing what your critical angle of attack is when you do start picking up ice so therefore all your 1g stall speeds are out the window anyway.

And sideslipping while picking up ice, yep it happens every day that one.

Pull what

21st May 2012, 12:52

The whole statement is flawed-in some areas of teaching it is essential to be precise-stalling is one of them

If you had been taught to fly by attitude it wouldn't matter what your ASI was reading because if you were holding the correct attitude you wouldn't stall.

First thing you teach a student is the aircraft can stall at any attitude and any airspeed-so that statement is very misleading

mad_jock

21st May 2012, 13:02

You really haven't taught anyone how to fly have you.

And you really don't have a clue about instructonal technique and simplifying and then building on those foundations.

http://www.pprune.org/flying-instructors-examiners/418122-first-solo-de-brief-formal-informal-where-when.html

Its the same waltish behaviour you showed in this thread.

I see on another thread your telling John Farley whats important to know to fly a plane. Good luck with that one.

Pull what

21st May 2012, 13:07

No MJ, I just disagree with you but the difference is I do not need to belittle you or make libellous statements to reinforce my views.

I see on another thread your telling John Farley whats important to know to fly a plane. Good luck with that one.

Yet another misleading statement-I actually mentioned to JF that knowledge of the Bernoulli principle is helpful for passing the CAA exams-only you could misrepresent that to mean I was trying to teach him to fly a plane.

If you have finished trying to belittle me now could we get back to the original thread?

mad_jock

21st May 2012, 13:19

No MJ
I didn't think you had.

There is nothing libellous about thinking and saying that an annoymous poster is a Walter Mitty on an internet forum.

Especially one who fits the definition to a T.

*"sciolist"... Noun, archaic. "a person who pretends to be knowledgeable and well informed".

Pull what

21st May 2012, 13:38

OK Jock just to help my solicitor out, who disagrees with you, as there are people on here who know who I am:

Perhaps you would like to tell us all why you think I am a Walter Mitty who has never taught anyone to fly and is neither a flying instructor or a pilot.

So far we have:

1. Because I said a first solo student should receive some sort of briefing after first solo

2. Because I pointed out that an aircraft can be stalled at any airspeed or attitude

3 . Because i said an aircraft can stall without any pitch change due to icing or configuration change.

Are there anymore statements that you would like to share with him?

mad_jock

21st May 2012, 13:45

Yes your a clueless auld fart thinking that you can sue someone for liable for saying you are a walter mitty on a internet forum.

Who's your solicitor Weaver of Warkshire?

Pull what

21st May 2012, 14:31

No Jock that's just abuse, you really must try harder or at least try and make your abuse a bit original

Lets have these statements that prove I am not an instructor or a pilot, this is the second time I have asked you for these but you can never produce them-why is that?

You must have based your opinion on something I posted so lets see a copy of it- I mean you love copying what I post so lets have one.

Tell you what I will give you a couple to start you off-RAF-(stands for Relative Airflow). Surely that must prove I am not a pilot or instructor-you mentioned it so why not run with that one. Or theres mentioning ice as a consideration in stall training-again this must prove I am not an instructor or pilot. Come on Jock there are loads of them!

mad_jock

21st May 2012, 15:11

It really is amazing what you can get off the internet.

All my ATPL ground instructors could come out with that stuff and none of them had a license. DFC had a good line in talking rubbish in a sciolist manner as well. Actually we haven't seen his rubbish for a while maybe a link?

Come on which sim site did you get that RAF abbreviation from? Its either that or an engineering paper because that is not a term used in the industry mainly because everyone immediately thinks of the Royal Airforce. And it really is obscure if that link doesn't have it on.

But as WE between us have managed to destroy yet another thread with pedantic rubbish.

I will look forward to you starting legal action about me saying I think your are a clueless auld fart, who is a wallter mitty and sciolist.

The fact is that if your daft enough to threaten it actually confirms my views.

Big Pistons Forever

21st May 2012, 15:17

Where is Memphis_Bell when you need him :E

Seriously though, I think before anyone comments including me, we should all go back and read post 1 on this thread.......

mad_jock

21st May 2012, 15:20

So true BPF

So ignore button it is for pull what so more threads arn't side tracked with pedantic rubbish.

The500man

21st May 2012, 15:54

I for one did not fully appreciate what GtE wrote in post 3 (http://www.pprune.org/private-flying/485760-stall-spin-awareness-recovery.html#post7197899):

Actual spins were eliminated from the syllabus because it was perceived that more aircraft were being lost in training

...until BPF wrote in post 60 (http://www.pprune.org/private-flying/485760-stall-spin-awareness-recovery-3.html#post7200610):

I firmly believe that instructors who are not competent aerobatic pilots should not be out spinning with students because they will not have a true understanding of spin dynamics, effective of controls in fully developed spins, and may not be able to recover if the aircraft does something dangerous.

My argument was that if you are overloaded or distracted you might miss the initial signs of a spin to recover at the incipient stage, but as others have said you are not likely to be in this situation at an altitude you could easily recover from anyway.

I think spin and unusual attitude recovery training is a very good thing to have but perhaps it should be left to the individual to decide whether they want to go and get it. For spinning to be included in the PPL there would probably need to be changes made to the basic FI rating so that all instructors were competent and safe in teaching it.

Pace

21st May 2012, 18:56

For spinning to be included in the PPL there would probably need to be changes made to the basic FI rating so that all instructors were competent and safe in teaching it.

500Man

How can an instructor call themselves instructors if they do not have the skills to teach and get out of a spin?

The old idea of an instructor in anything not just aviation was someone who passed over their life time of experience to others.

Yet in aviation instructors can literally be novice low time pilots.

One argument is that spinning is an aerobatic manouvre. That argument does not hold with me as the same argument could be made as an excuse with any out of the box manouvre from spiral dives to stall turns to even steep turns.

Should you not teach pilots to handle aircraft and be comfortable with it?

Ok spins need a bit more care for the reasons given but I would loose some portion of the PPL in exchange for a requirement for out of the box handling of aircraft so we produce pilots not aircraft drivers and instructors who can instruct not part instruct because they dont know better!

Pace

Pilot DAR

21st May 2012, 19:25

How can an instructor call themselves instructors if they do not have the skills to teach and get out of a spin?

The old idea of an instructor in anything not just aviation was someone who passed over their life time of experience to others.

Yes, thank goodness!

Though I can see Big Piston's point, I think that throwing in the term "aerobatics" in a discussion about ONE TURN spins, in flight training aircraft approved to do them, does not lend clarity. Multi turn spins are different, and beyond the scope of this statement.

I would like to think that a "pilot" has been trained and practiced every maneuver for which the aircraft is approved (as an intentional maneuver), and the flight manual specifies a procedure. Yes, I know that some flight manuals present a spin recovery procedure for non spin approved aircraft - that's not what I'm talking about.

I think that students should be afraid if they are receiving flight training from an instructor who is not competent in entering and recovering from a one turn spin in an approved aircraft type. Recall from earlier that the spin certified aircraft has demonstrated that it will not enter an unrecoverable spin with any use of the controls. I sure hope that ANY instructor can recover that! If the instructor is allowing these maneuvers to be entered too close to the ground, that is foolishness on a whole other scale!

Big Pistons Forever

21st May 2012, 20:39

Pilot DAR

I suggest you go look at the limitations section of the POH for your Cessna 150.

Quote "No aerobatic maneuvers are approved except those listed below "

- "Spins"

Unquote

Cessna thinks a spin is an aerobatic maneuver as does pretty much everybody else involved in aerobatics, including regulatory authorities, competitions, and airshow acts.

Most of the first turn in a spin isn't "spinning" it is a "spin entry". The distinction is important because a normal stall recovery can still be used (which of course will always call for using rudder against any developing yaw). Once you start getting towards the end of the second turn the aircraft will now be settling into a true "spin" and the spin recovery technique specific to that aircraft must be used to guarantee that a recovery can be effected without aggravating the spin, entering a secondary stall/spin or over stressing the aircraft.

Any competent instructor should be able to teach students how to recognize and recover from the spin entry. I strongly believe that that should be the aim of the PPL level exercises and carrying on to a full spin has little value and starts getting into an area where instructors may not have enough knowledge and skill to effectively demonstrate a spin and/or recognize and correct a spin going bad.

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on this one. :)

Pace how many ab initio students have you trained ?

madlandrover

21st May 2012, 20:54

Instructors are taught to enter and recover from spins, and examined on this in the initial FI test. The problem is that relatively few new FIs have spun before the FI course, and there simply isn't enough time on the course to go into depth with them on spinning while also teaching the rest of the course. It's a sad reflection on the JAR PPL and CPL that such a crucial part of flight is left mainly to those who do aeros as a hobby...

piperboy84

21st May 2012, 20:56

As the OP and reading thru the responses, i have a follow up question, I have been doing some basic manoeuvres, MCA and stalls with a CFI in a similar make and model to my aircraft, one thing I noticed in both aircraft is the stall is so benign you hardly notice it approaching. When I was doing my PPL many years ago in a 152 you could feel the buffet etc in the Maule i don't As crazy as this sounds the CFI said to me "Ok your stalled" and I thought i was still at MCA, I genuinely did not know i was stalled !!
Also difference between the CFI,s Maule and mine is he has an audible stall warning (which i guess i must have missed also) where I only have a lamp which in Scotland on my 27 approach on sunny evenings could, I imagine be missed quite easily. So is there any benefit to me installing a AOA indicator. I flew with a guy in Montana who did a lot of mountain flying and he swore by it. I understand that I should be more in tune with the non instrument indicators that precede a stall such as the air noise etc. but to be honest in a high workload situations I feel they could be easily missed. Any thoughts?

(Edit to add) And would a AOA indicator not be really helpful for climbing turns as a secondary source of keeping me right?

foxmoth

21st May 2012, 21:33

the CFI said to me "Ok your stalled" and I thought i was still at MCA, I genuinely did not know i was stalled !!
Two things here, first - MCA?? I have been flying a few years and the only abbreviation like this I know is Vmca, and this applies to twins, so not sure what you are talking here.

secondly - normal (academic) stalls are done by maintaining level flight, if you start descending then you raise the nose to stop this, if you raise the nose and keep descending this normally means you are stalled.:ok:

As far as AoA indications go, yes this is good, but you need to have the indicator where you WILL see it, otherwise it is as useless as the light!

The500man

21st May 2012, 21:37

How can an instructor call themselves instructors if they do not have the skills to teach and get out of a spin?Well a PPL instructor only needs to be able to teach the syllabus. They don't need to teach you how to use a GPS or even what aileron to use to turn left when upside down. Instructors aren't permitted to teach aerobatics without undertaking further training. They are still instructors though. I agree ideally instructors should be able to teach everything but that isn't exactly practical, so you have to go and find the one's that teach what you want, and hopefully teach it well.

The easy answer: it's printed on their license! :)

EDIT: I've seen it written somewhere that you can only learn from someone with a bigger personal flight envelope than you, so while a students' is very small an instructor with a marginally bigger personal flight envelope can still teach them to what is considered to be a generally safe standard.

If you want all instructors to be highly experienced and highly capable you will ultimately come upon the same problem that is evident in other industries which is that experience is king, and no one can get any because experience is king.

abgd

21st May 2012, 21:43

the stall is so benign you hardly notice it approachingI have a hang-glider like that - so much washout that you still have good control way into the stall. You can only really tell that you're stalled because the sink rate increases.

greeners

22nd May 2012, 02:11

WOW.

Have belatedly come to this thread and - aside from some poster niggling which IMHO adds nothing to the debate - am surprised at quite a few of the views posted.

I don't claim to be an expert here and am very much open to learning. I have taught spin/upset recovery for ten years now and confess that I do have some strong views.

1. It is absolutely correct to state that many FIs - especially the last two generations, who have probably only experienced spinning for the first and only time on their FI course - are extremely uncomfortable with spinning. This makes them very poor instructors on the subject - I would say even from the perspective of teaching incipient spin recovery.

2. LOADS of blah on here about various 'facts'. It is obviously true that you cannot spin unless you have stall and yaw. What has not been developed properly as a theme is FEEL for what is happening with the aircraft. Yes I know that aerobatic and display pilots will develop this as a critical additional input, and the standard wisdom is that in the extremely limited amount of time that we have to teach students the entire PPL syllabus we cannot possibly get them to appreciate 'feel' as well - that time when the controls start going light and the aeroplane starts to burble, which should generate the immediate rudders neutral-stick forward-power on response? Sequence? Lots of contrasting theories - I'll let Ghengis debate the 'perfect' sequence - but the bottom line is that if you do all three close to the same time in a GA aeroplane you won't stall and you won't spin and you won't die. I strongly believe that we should be teaching this sense of 'feel' from the outset, and that it is in fact a critical part of flying and operating an aeroplane. Whilst primarily an aeros and upset recovery organisation, we teach this from the outset. And put out better pilots as a result.

3. Completely disagree that the average PPL should not be shown, and safely practice with a good FI, the edges of the flight envelope. The stude should ideally see them all - how are they rally going to recognise approaching the limits if they haven't ever been there?

4. So many stories are spouted about the spin accident stats, yet whenever I have pressed any claimants they have been unable to deliver facts. Spin taken off the PPL syllabus because more accidents in practice than through accidents? Show me the proof - nobody has to date. When I went through Valley there was a push to desist teaching PFLs on the Hawk - at the time, it could clearly be shown that far more accidents happened as a result of training incidents than people losing engines - the stats proved it. A conscious decision IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTS was taken.

5. Notwithstanding the previous point, far too many aircraft have spun in whilst an FI has been demonstrating slow flight or spinning. I don't have the facts or stats so can't put forward a reasoned conclusion, safe for saying that you would really hope that the people demonstrating this stuff are actually pretty good at it. Do the FIs need to be more expert at this part of their skill set? If you can't demo a steep turn without varying more than +/- 20' from datum, the downside is - well - nothing much. If you cock up a stall or incipient spin demo, or your stude is dumb/unhelpful and insists on making dangerous control inputs then you can get put into all sorts of problems which you really do need to be polished and expert on in order to resolve safely.

6. Minor point - can people who know little or nothing about the PA38 or the T67 please STOP repeating garbage about their spin behaviours! The Tommy is actually a great non-aerobatic spin teaching platform and demonstrates really well the incipient and fully developed spin. Scare stories abound about 'how scary it is to look back and see the tail wobbling'. The fact is that is all works very well, and I used to love getting studes to do a steep turn to the left, squeeze back on the stick and some moments later find that they were in a spin to the RIGHT - that's correct, an academic spin exercise where the direction of turn is different to the direction of subsequent spin! Very valuable. And I had heard the scuttlebutt about the T67 as well before I researched an article for one of the GA mags - hadn't the US scrapped their entire fleet because they were SO dangerous? Well, the 3 US accidents - all of them the bigger variant, the 260 version (for those that claimed earlier it was only small engined variants) were caused by poor piloting. Only one of them was a spin accident - no parachutes I seem to recall - and there was strong evidence that it had been mishandled. The other two incidents had nothing to do with spinning; interestingly the T67s were operated out of two bases in the US, and the base that had formerFJ FIs had no problems at all. I have only spun the aeroplane on three trips so know very little (although it all seemed very calm and easy), but people on my team who instructed on them with JEFTS are unanimous in declaring them absolutely predictable spin platforms.

I absolutely accept that I have somewhat of a biased perspective, but it is my opinion that I would not let anybody I care about fly with a newly won PPL without them first getting spin/upset training from people who understand it in detail - and can teach it well.

Big Pistons Forever

22nd May 2012, 03:17

I absolutely accept that I have somewhat of a biased perspective, but it is my opinion that I would not let anybody I care about fly with a newly won PPL without them first getting spin/upset training from people who understand it in detail - and can teach it well.

Exactly, and that won't be your average PPL instructor pretty much ever.

The civilian flying training organizations simply do not have the time, money or knowledge to develop your level of skills. While it would be wonderful if that were the case, it simply will never happen.

However there is nothing stopping a PPL from going out and furthering his/her training by taking a course at a specialist training establishment like yours, a course of action I highly recommend. But to say his school has failed the student because they did not get a full round of training to the edge of the flight element is I feel an unfair criticism of modern flight training.

abgd

22nd May 2012, 04:21

Spin taken off the PPL syllabus because more accidents in practice than through accidents? Show me the proof - nobody has to date.

According to Dunstan Hadley's 'Only seconds to live' the proportion of stall/spin accidents as a proportion of fatal accidents fell from 49% to less than 13% in the 31 year period following 1949 when spins were removed from the US syllabus. (page 153)... but it's a somewhat indirect way of answering the question, and covers a period where aircraft spin resistance improved greatly. All the academic sources I can find online seem to discuss this as a possible cause for the improvement and complain that prior to the 1960s, accident statistics are nearly unavailable even in the states.

On page 198, IKAC Wilson, representing the CAA, is quoted as saying specifically that CAA stopped requiring stalls because 'The statistics indicated that more accidents resulted from intentional rather than unintentional spinning' but doesn't provide those statistics. Perhaps they were never made public

There's also circumstantial evidence looking at training in different countries: 'In 1981, Canada's stall/spin accidents associated with training amounted to twice the total stall/spin accident rate in the US' (Collins, October 1987, Flying, pp 60-62).

Personally I did my few spins with an instructor because I wanted to experience a spin, rather than because I thought it would make me a safer pilot - though it may have done.

Pace

22nd May 2012, 07:49

Pace how many ab initio students have you trained ?

Big Pistons

I am not an instructor but I think I have enough "hard" experience to give an opinion.
I have flown with a number of very experienced old time instructors who are what I call "handling" pilots.
A check ride with them involved taking a twin up to 12K and putting it through every stall config imaginable (not spins :E Shutting down engines for real etc.
This is not so much about spinning but about putting the emphasis back to creating HANDLING PILOTS rather than aircraft drivers.
Nowadays we have every type of gizmo fitted to aircraft and right through the airliners its becoming more and more the case of on goes the autopilot.
Even on jets when I flew as a first officer one Captain insisted we hand flew on positioning flights for maintenance. Out of RVSM airspace it kept you on your toes. Good for the soul!
So while I agree spinning should have much greater guidlines on the altitude they are practiced and even the aircraft which are approved they should be done as equally so should spiral dives.
Am I in a Spiral dive or a spin?
Not so stupid when you have lost it in cloud or poor visibilty.They dont all happen near the ground.
The idea that modern instructors are not up to teaching spin training beggers belief! They are instructors ???

Addendum

As a last thought the modern trend is for recovery at incipient stage and flying within the box!
My own concern with that is most accidents occur when the pilot is distracted or confused or in a situation which is more than he can handle.
While its all very good training to incipient and recognition that doesnt square up with reality.
before you blink your in a full blooded stall which you have never really experienced or even a spiral dive or spin etc.

Pace

Pilot DAR

22nd May 2012, 13:06

Cessna thinks a spin is an aerobatic maneuver as does pretty much everybody else involved in aerobatics, including regulatory authorities, competitions, and airshow acts.

Yes, I agree with you on that Big Pistons...

I suppose with my broadened perspective, I would like to include spiral dives in my "aerobatic" category too for this purpose. Thus, I think that PPL's should receive basic training in specific limited aerobatics (spins and spiral dives)!

mad_jock

22nd May 2012, 13:12

They do spiral dives in the UK at least.

Genghis the Engineer

22nd May 2012, 14:02

I understand from a mutual friend that you're off microlighting sometime soon Jock.

Get somebody to demonstrate for you a spiral dive and recovery in a flexwing. I think you'll find it quite entertaining.

G

mad_jock

22nd May 2012, 16:42

You will be telling me they spin the things as well.

Genghis the Engineer

22nd May 2012, 16:46

You can't spin a flexwing - too much directional stability and no separate yaw control, but you can have fun with spiral dives. 60 degree bank turns are reasonably entertaining as well.

All microlights in the UK with an MTOW above 390kg will have been spin tested, and possibly one or two under that. I don't think any are cleared for deliberate spinning at present. The spin recovery is generally throttle closed / stick central / rudder central (all at the same time).

G

mad_jock

22nd May 2012, 16:48

The spin recovery is generally throttle closed / stick central / rudder central (all at the same time).

You forgot "****e yourself".

Genghis the Engineer

22nd May 2012, 16:54

Actually all the microlights I've spun (in flight test programmes) have been as benign, or more, than a C150. BUT in my opinion the rudder central recovery is important, to avoid occassional attempts to kick into a spin the other way - there has always been more than enough rudder power to recover in half a turn with central rudder.

Doing it without doors mind you, once or twice, I'm in no great hurry to repeat - but required in programmes for aeroplanes with removeable doors.

G

Big Pistons Forever

22nd May 2012, 17:50

Pilot DAR

Spiral dives are a flight test item for the Canadian PPL. Recovery from an incipient spin is also tested. Personally I think this represents a sensible balance between flight training safety and the assurance that essential stall/spin recognition and recovery skills exist in students.

Pace

I asked the question about whether or not you had experience with ab initio training, not to be jerk but because this thread is about spins in the context of the PPL, or ab initio training.

The fundemental difference that ab initio training has over every other kind of training is that it represents the transition from No knowledge or skills to safe flying skills and knowledge. All subsequent training will take existing skills and either expand them or apply them in another way.

Norms and expectations for advanced training are often just not applicable or relevant to ab initio training.........

As I have said repeatedly I am not against spin training, in fact I encourage it in all my PPL graduates, as part a post PPL aerobatics course, just Not during ab initio training.

How would you feel if a Cessna 150 driver told you were flying your Citation all wrong. I bet you would think " he doesn't know anything about flying jets so why does he think he can comment on how I should fly my jet"

Well with respect to comments on how to do ab initio training that is
sometimes how I feel.......

In any case the true problem with PPL training is not a lack of emphasis on advanced flying skills it is a lack of emphasis on basic flying skills !
It is very discouraging to fly with recent PPL graduates and observe that they can not fly at a stable pitch attitude, that the airplane is not properly trimmed, that the aircraft is not balanced, that there are continual significant airspeed and altitude excursions etc etc. That is where flying instruction needs to improve. Instructors IMO are not demanding enough of their students.

Sillert,V.I.

22nd May 2012, 18:01

It is very discouraging to fly with recent PPL graduates and observe that they can not fly at a stable pitch attitude, that the airplane is not properly trimmed, that the aircraft is not balanced, that there are continual significant airspeed and altitude excursions etc etc. That is where flying instruction needs to improve. Instructors IMO are not demanding enough of their students.

I'd agree. In a couple of words, that's sloppy flying & I'd say the longer such habits continue, the harder they are to unlearn - so better by far to demand stricter standards from the word go.

Transitioning from the PA38/28 to the Chippy made me very aware of the 'bad habits' I'd been allowed to get away with during initial training & my spamcan flying improved noticeably afterwards.

mad_jock

22nd May 2012, 18:09

I am sorry to say they can not only get through the PPL not being able to do as BPF says but also one of the first lessons as a line trainer is quite often the same thing with the commercial pilots who hold cpl/IR and a type rating.

Its this whole rushing ex 1-14 that does it. There is no foundations to build a solid skill base on.

Cows getting bigger

22nd May 2012, 18:28

MJ, I would say Ex 1-9 and not as far as 14. The first thing I find myself teaching when doing IMC/IR is how to trim to S&L. :{

It ain't the student's fault.

mad_jock

22nd May 2012, 18:38

Its all part and parcel to be honest.

Stick them in the circuit going round and round until they can hang it together just with no spare capacity.

Pace

22nd May 2012, 19:09

I asked the question about whether or not you had experience with ab initio training, not to be jerk but because this thread is about spins in the context of the PPL, or ab initio training.

Big Pistons ;)

Many moons ago when I did my PPL training we had to spin. Ok a 152 but spins are fun stable and far more pleasant than the spiral dive which itself is aerobatic and in my opinion also carries a risk of breaking the aeroplane.

That is not my point!!! It is a change of emphasis from handling pilots to training to recovery to incipient in numerous areas.

That worrries me as we are not training pilots to experience and deal with situations they may get into which are beyond incipient.

Forget spinning for a moment as this goes further than the spin but looks at training which is becoming more and more avoidance and hence a dangerous principal to follow.

Sadly avoidance is short sighted as avoidance is often missed leading to full blown in reality

Pace

foxmoth

22nd May 2012, 19:33

The problem I saw with spin training when it was in the syllabus was that often it was done in an aircraft that, whilst cleared for spinning, actually did it very badly, often not remaining in a spin even with full pro spin controls, the result was that this training was often rushed, leading to bad training and the feeling in students that spinning was a frightening process. Whilst I would certainly strongly encourage PPL students to do spinning I would hate to see us return to that situation.

thing

22nd May 2012, 19:52

Talking about altitude excursions et al; doing the IMC rating really tightened my flying up. Mind you, it's easy to fly accurately when you are staring at the instruments. Having said that, if I never have to do an instrument approach in anger, the IMC was worth it because what I learned about accurate flying has crossed over into my VFR flying, I don't like being more than 50' either side of my chosen altitude or more than a couple of degrees off chosen heading. Not that it matters so much I suppose, it's just a question of having some pride in your flying.

Pilot DAR

29th May 2012, 09:54

Thing has mentioned IMC. This mention, in conjunction with another newer thread (where this comment does not belong), in which there has been speculation about a loss of control after entering IMC, seems to be a parallel situation to spins in some ways.

It seems normal and appropriate that all pilots should be taught some basic instrument flying skills, so they have a chance of extracting themselves upright from careless entry into IMC. Is teaching avoidance of IMC not working? If not, teaching managing those conditions just enough to get back out safely is obviously vital.

How would careless spin entry be any different? If teaching avoidance of IMC is not working, how would teaching avoidance of spins work?

maxred

29th May 2012, 10:16

It is totally apparent that whilst training, pupils must be given actual awareness of the events they may encounter. If the drive is to avoid all elements of flight that would get you into trouble, and the pupil has not been shown/experienced these events, then that is only going to end in tears. Foxmouth quoted that some clubs did not even have the correct equipment to show the pupil stall/spin/dive, then frankly, the club should not exist.

Back to basic flying skills are the bedrock. Without that then we will continue to have CFIT/Uncontrolled flight into terrian (stall/spin).

Whether we like it or not, it is a part of flying that, to the un initiated, can kill you, quickly.

The500man

29th May 2012, 10:26

Teaching avoidance works in the same way. You could compare basic instrument flying skills to incipient spin recovery skills. They will help you get out of trouble but at some point are going to be insufficient. They are both included in the PPL at the moment.

A problem for the IMC scenario is that not all aircraft have the instruments you ideally want to get out of IMC, i.e. no attitude indicator (like mine).

To compound the problem you could enter a spin inadvertently after inadvertently entering IMC, and then you probably will be screwed! I think you'll need a turn and slip indicator for that one?

thing

29th May 2012, 14:23

It seems normal and appropriate that all pilots should be taught some basic instrument flying skills, so they have a chance of extracting themselves upright from careless entry into IMC.

I get the impression though that a lot of scary IMC moments for non IMC pilots are not of the 'Crikey I was just swanning along in the blue, looked at the map for a couple of seconds and now I'm in a cloud, better do my 180' but more of the 'I reckon I can just about squeeze between that high ground and that lowering cloudbase'.

In other words I think a lot of 'inadvertent' IMC excursions aren't inadvertent at all. I think it's poor judgement that leads a lot of pilot's into IMC misery and perhaps that's what FTO's should be working on.

Denti

29th May 2012, 15:08

As I have said repeatedly I am not against spin training, in fact I encourage it in all my PPL graduates, as part a post PPL aerobatics course, just Not during ab initio training.

Interesting. I took part in one of the longest running abinitio program (running since the 1950s and still going strong), and spin awareness training was an integral part of that program. Back in my days it was done on a T34 Mentor, mainly because it had similar flight characteristics compared with the basic trainer (beech bonanza F33), nowadays it's done on a Grob G120.

Big Pistons Forever

29th May 2012, 18:28

Denti

Could you elaborate on what you mean when you say "spin awareness training"?

Also was the ab initio training you were talking about part of Military flight training or an Airline college program ?

Pace

29th May 2012, 19:02

How can you teach spin awareness without at least entering the early parts of a spin?
I have a big problem getting my head around any incipient training for one reason.
The time you are likely to enter any of these situations are more likely to be when you are not aware.
Distracted in a panic? your full attention somewhere else? Ie the first you are likely to know is when your in the full blooded thing!!!
Loss of control in cloud is easy and hence a further arguement for traing pilots to handle aircraft properly and not to incipient.
Often a VFR pilot will get in cloud because they are forced to by lowering cloud reducing visibility and rising ground.
It is not only then that visual reference can be lost. Crossing water VFR in poor vis can disorientate the VFR pilot and that is VFR out of cloud!
Incipient is just not good enough

Pace

Gertrude the Wombat

29th May 2012, 20:50

'Crikey I was just swanning along in the blue, looked at the map for a couple of seconds and now I'm in a cloud
Has been known :O

Fortunately I could just about see out of the bottom of the cloud so pulling the throttle was all that was necessary.

Denti

30th May 2012, 06:07

Big Pistons Forever

30th May 2012, 15:00

The mission title was spin awareness training. It was just a mission of spinning and getting out of spins. At first very early, later on fully developed spins after several turns, inverted spins and so on. At the end one should be able to get out of a spin at any time on a predefined heading. A few years earlier it was a full aerobatic training thereafter, but that was cut for cost reasons.

Oh, and it was and is a civilian airline program, although the training aircraft for spin training are shared with a military initial selection program. Come to think of it, the military used the bonanzas as well, don't know if they still do.

Since this is the "Private Flying" forum I do not think the experiences of a Military/Civilian professional flying training program is relevant to flying club PPL training.

In a perfect world everyone would get the level of training that these types of programs deliver, although it should be noted that it is preceded by an extensive aptitude testing program and that the students are invariably young and have the luxury of being able to concentrate full time on their training with minimal distractions.

For the average person learning to fly part time later in life with a full plate of responsibilities and with probably a low houred and inexperienced instructor, I believe a concentration on basic flying skills, including stall and incipient spin recognition and recovery is a better appraoch.

I firmly believe if a PPL student is being taught spinning, that is where the airplane passes through the most of first turn of the spin and instead of recovering into spin controls are being maintained allowing the aircraft to enter a true spin, an aerobatic manoever with little relevance to PPL flying is being taught and IMO should not be.

However again after the PPL I highly encourage students take an introductory aerobatics course with a fully trained aerobatic instructor where spins and other upsets will be thoughly explored.