Stall Spin Awareness/Recovery

[mad_jock]

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]

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]

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]

Where is Memphis_Bell when you need him

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

[mad_jock]

So true BPF

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

[The500man]

I for one did not fully appreciate what GtE wrote in post 3:

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:

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

the stall is so benign you hardly notice it approaching

I 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]

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]

Originally Posted by greeners

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]

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]

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 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]

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]

They do spiral dives in the UK at least.