Spin training

[Oz_Pilot]

Is spinning and recovery a 100%, worth-the-extra thing to do? It's not in training syllabi (sp?) here, nor the States as I understand. Having done it early in my own training, the gap between theory and what actually happens is quite large...

[Charlie Foxtrot India]

The syllabus is geared more towards recovery at the incipient stage.
A few years ago in the UK spinning was replaced by "stall/spin awareness" including two hours of flogging around 5-10 knots above the stall. Gets pretty boring, and drives home the characteristics of the approaching stall to encourage recovery sooner rather than later! I think two hours was a bit excessive, but have included this exercise in our ops manual.
If this awareness is there, the chances of someone getting into a spin are very slim. How often do you fly with the nose up in the air and full rudder, after all. It would only be likely to happen as the last stage of an already bad situation, such as flying into IMC and getting disorientated, or perhaps under the stress of a forced landing that's not going so well. These are both things that are dealt with adequately in other parts of the syllabus.

The only people I've known who have got into a spin "accidentally" were the types who think things like a low pass and pull up in a small training aircraft was clever. Sadly, some of them learnt this kind of stupidity from equally "clever" yahoo flying instructors. More sadly not all of these people have lived to tell the tale.

Not all schools have aircraft that are allowed to be intentionally put into a spin. We cross-hire a 152 aerobat for anyone who wants to do it, and it is taught as part of an aerobatic sequence.

Many of us crusty old instructors who have been around for a while, and don't have the stomach for aerobatics, happily delegate spinning to others!!!

------------------

[Acker Demick]

OK, cards on the table, I'm not an instructor - I'm a lowish (300hr) PPL, but this issue worries me. I trained in the 70's when full spin recoveries were taught, but have recently revalidated after a long lay-off, and was surprised to find that full spins are now off the UK syllabus.

I accept that unintentional spins are rare, but they do happen, and are often fatal. Most of us would probably agree that one's first spin is a fairly startling experience. A PPL entering an accidental spin at a low, but recoverable, altitude must have the presence of mind to make the correct control inputs immediately. If the spin is also the first full spin they have ever experienced, what are the chances of them (i) recognising what is going on and (ii) remembering what Trevor Thom said they should do about it in time to save the day? Not good I think. For what its worth, I would like to see full spin recovery back on the PPL syllabus.

[smallwing]

Hello, I am a new beginner to flying with a little over 40 hours. I have recently heard that they will take out spin training in the US because it is unnecessary. Is that true?? Even though a person would not easily put an aircraft into spin, sometimes you can never tell the situation, like wx and aircraft problems. Please elaborate more as I would like to get a full understanding. Thank you very much.

[StrateandLevel]

Spinning was probably removed from the syllabus due to a fear of liability claims. If you practise it and get it wrong it could be claimed as unnecessary training.

The subject has been debated endlessly by the panel of examiners with opposing views. Statistically most of the spin accidents occur at an altitude where recovery action would probably not save the day. Maybe the SSA which isn't really 2 hours at VSO +5-10 (it covers two full exercises with clean stalling, stalling with power and flap and about 10 minutes exploring low speed flight)should prevent the spin accidents that do occur.

Under JAR-FCL it is only mandatory on the FI course, there is no longer a requirement on commercial pilot courses.

[Wheelon-Wheeloff.]

I am currently half way through my instuctors course so I'm sure my opinion may change in the next few months (if i get a job!!).

I do remember when I did my PPL though, I asked to do a spin. If I'd stayed with just a PPL could I expect to recover a few years later with just one hour. Don't know, BUT it did make me think " I don't wanna be doing THAT without an instructor present". Is that not part of the point?

Hoping to join the ranks soon.....

Wheelon-Wheeloff.

[BEagle]

Thanks to the jolly joys of JARs, a FI(A) choosing always to revalidate by experience and seminar might never be asked to demonstrate a fully developed spin after completing the initial FI(R) Skill Test......nice one, CAA!!

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

Well I think every instructor ought to practice fully developed spin recovery at least once a quarter. I hadn't done one for about 8 months when the other day, demo'ing a full flap partial power stall to a PPL the aircraft snapped to the left and entered a spin. Totally bit my backside.

The old Bulldog spin recovery training stepped in (unbidden) and I lost 1500' and got just to the very top end of the white arc before getting the nose above the horizon and raising the flaps.

It does happen and it is scary and it can kill you. There is no real use in doing a few spins in a C152 three years ago and then being confronted with a spin in an aircraft with not ideal characteristics with no warning.

I think perhaps the average PPL does not need to learn to exit the spin but I think every instructor should by regulation have to keep current. And in different aircraft as well.

WWW

[This message has been edited by Wee Weasley Welshman (edited 03 February 2000).]

[grade_3]

I'm a min-exp Grade 3 from Oz, with basic Aerobatics in a C150SP (loops, A-rolls, Stall turns etc.).

From doing the aero's and the spinning I believe that I "know" more about how the aeroplane flies, and most importantly, about what it feels like to be in a totally unusual attitude.

I agree with WWW that it is best to keep current, but at least having seen what it looks like you know what to expect.

WWW's anecdote was an excellent example of why spin training is valuable. An experienced pilot, familiar with spins, lost 1500ft recovering from a spin. From the height lost, I'd say it was a 1-2 turn spin, probably 10secs or so? What would happen to a pilot who hadn't done any spinning? Would they have time to identify what was happening, let alone correct for it?

All up, I think that you become a better, *safer* pilot for doing spinning etc., so from my perspective it definately is worth the extra hour or so.

--------
Grade 3

[Oz_Pilot]

I'm yet to spin unintentionally, but the reason I posted initially was thinking of the potential for what happened to WWW and grade_3. It's all well and good to recognise the symptoms - a basic stalling awareness should keep you away from autorotation territory - but in some aircraft, it can happen fast.

[Acker Demick]

WWW argued that instructors need to stay current on spin recovery, but that it is probably not necessary for PPLs to learn this skill. He experienced an inadvertant spin during a full-flap partial-power stall demonstration and managed to recover. A student pilot or PPL might legitimately practice the same manoeuvre solo, and could wind up in the same situation - without spin training they will probably not survive. Lets have spin recovery training for all + encouragement from clubs to qualified PPLs to practice this (certainly no ban on solo spinning!) + a full spin recovery as part of the 1 hour dual per 24 months required under JAR.

[Checkboard]

The reason spinning was initially seen as such a problem was because in the (very) early days many turns were made with rudder. In fact the banked turn was seen as dangerous. Attempting to turn with a heap of rudder meant that spinning was much more common, as as the recovery wasn't understood, ended in the death of many pioneers. So spinning started with a bad rap, and once the recovery was understood, it was a manadtory thing to learn.

Now until the '50, almost all machines used in civil training were ex-military (Tiger Moths, Chippies etc) so the spin training continued. Also many aircraft needed quite a bit of rudder for turns, as differential and frise ailerons weren't common and the aircraft suffered from quite a bit of adverse yaw.

Enter the 60s. Piper and Cessna wanted to build their new types, but certifying them for spinning would have been very expensive, so the FAA allowed them to be certified with recovery from the incipient spin only, and spinning was placarded as not approved. Better design allowed for very little adverse yaw, and ailerons that are fully effective throughout the stall, meaning that they have very docile handling. It is almost impossible to inadvertently spin a modern civil training aircraft.

As these types became common, schools were faced with a fleet in which spinning was prohibited, and retaining an aerobatic machine purely for spin training is very expensive. This, coupled with the docile handling of the modern machine, is why spin training was dropped from the sylabus - and I think the stats show that actual spin accidents pretty rare.

I have no objection to PPLs never being in a spin - but as an (ex) aerobatic instructor I have to agree that it helps in understanding and confidence.

[Gen Ties]

I used to think that showing a spin or two and recovery to a student was a smart thing to do, showed that the pilot could still be in control and master of the machine UNTIL the day it took me 3000'+ to recover and that was from my initial planned recovery height. 600' AGL I finally got control, now that adrenaline rush is greater than any aero sequence, I can tell you.

No, I wasn't gung ho, I was both aero certified and current (very) but perhaps the Cessna Aerobat was tired and no longer up to the job.

My lesson learnt..., I now only teach aero's in a proper aerobatic aircraft leaving the C150 aerobat for basic training and leave the learning of aero's (including spins) to those who already have a licence and want the aero endorsement.

I consider that actually showing a Private Pilot student how to recover from a spin is like actually practicing ditching in the water. Kinda pointless really.

Another point, in several years of instructing I've never had a student put me into an inadvertent spin nor have I ever entered one myself.

Chief Flying Instructor's post really hits the nail on the head and my two quids worth,... teach how not to get into the situation rather than the solution.

This subject has been a post before but it is good to see it come up again. It is a very important and petinent subject for all those who instruct.

[Hudson]

WWW. If an aircraft snapped and spun (without obvious ham-fisted pilot input to cause it)then it may have an airworthiness defect which should be recorded. While it is is difficult to get (say) a Cessna 150 to spin inadvertently, it is quite possible that an inmproperly rigged wing can cause a very nasty wing drop at the stall - which if mis-handled can develop into a spin.

I know, because it happened to me. From an innocuous clean stall at idle, I had a 150 snap hard left with no warning. Lost 500 ft during recovery. There was no mention of this in the aircraft tech log, yet the flying school staff were well aware of the defect. They all felt it was marvellous to have an aircraft that gave them a bit of a thrill - ignoring the fact that it was not a design characteristic of the type.

It was worse with partial power and full flap. I wrote up the defect in the maintenance release, which caused a bitter complaint from the owner who was an aircraft maintenance engineer! Investigation revealed that the rigging was way out of tolerance. The defect was rectified and the aircraft subsequently stalled normally.

Cessnas and their like are designed to have safe stalling characteristics and the max wing drop permitted during certification flight tests is 15 deg. Few pilots will write up a bad wing drop as a defect - many feel it would be considered a trifle wimpish. But for an inexperienced student inadvertently stalling during an overbanked turn at low altitude, that wing drop could be fatal - especially if he lacked spin recovery skills.

If an individual aircraft is known for a significant wing drop at point of stall, then it is un-airworthy, and should be defected. Your action may save a life.

In view of the dodgy condition of many GA aircraft such as that described above, I am convinced that spin recovery training should be mandatory before first solo.

[Diesel8]

My two cents worth:
Despite the fact that most airplanes are very docile and that the FAA has removed spintraining from the syllabus for all except instructors, I still taught my students spin recovery, my argument being it is better to have seen it and recovered from it, than not. Has this ever saved any lives, I do not know, but I wanted to make the best and safest pilots I could and felt this was part of the equation.

[Capt Homesick]

I always offered students the option to go spinning, as part of their stall/spin awareness training. Almost all accepted, and learned from it.
Incidentally, a C150 or C152 will flick inverted from a quite benign-looking stall entry. Level turn, no more than 20 degrees of bank, 20 degrees of flap, 1500 RPM, and it will give a little light buffet, a few squeaks from the stall warner, then flick. It varies from a/c to a/c- some will only go in one direction, the other way it flicks to a turn in the opposite direction. Of course, that could have been coz' the instructor was too fat.....

[climbs like a dog]

Looks like WWW had a traumahawk-type of moment.

I think that you'd end up killing more pilots by re-introducing mandatory spin training in addition to those killed low and slow. You're never 100% certain that an aircraft is going to come out of a spin. If a spin were mandatory for PPL courses, they'd soon lose currency anyway. I'd rather that continuation SSA training were mandatory, as per the flight with an instructor which most PPL's will have to do to revalidate their JAR rating. Such a pity the CAA have overplayed the flight in their recent AIC and that certain GA magazines have over-reacted..... http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/frown.gif

------------------
0 to 2000ft in 10 minutes

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

No, I don't mind spinning PA38s at all. This was a higher performance machine.

WWW

[B4ME]

Knowledge dispells fear. Personally , I feel that everyone learning to fly should experience a spin and recovery at least once. However, not all aircraft can be relied upon to recover (I have several friends who can thank parachutes for their safe spin recoveries)and escape systems are costly. Hence teaching people how to avoid the spin is probably more cost effective in the long run.
Any pilot whose aircraft is capable of aerobatics must learn how to recover from a spin before venturing off on his own. Even the most benign manoeuvre can jump up and bite you in the ass. I know of several student pilots who have departed controlled flight from simple manoeuvres such as the Cuban 8 or the 1/2 Horizontal 8. The spin recovery got them out of the spin which they were able to recognize.
I have taught spinning for some time now and have even taught inverted spinning in aircraft capable of it. I am firmly of the opinion that many of the past light aircraft crashes due to the departure from controlled flight could have possibly been avoided had the pilot recognized the spin and recovered from it.

[Weed]

I'm with Hudson and CLAD. Modern light aircraft are designed to be spin resistant, FAR 23 or something applies. All of the light singles that I have flown have had to be grossly mis handled to spin. One 152 I flew flat out refused to spin to the right from a S&L stall. A modern light aircraft that spins without serious provocation is, in my opinion, unserviceable.

I'm not sure that the argument about recognising a spin and therefore being able to recover is justified. I have never heard of a pilot in recent times who has died in a spinning accident from a recoverable height. I have however heard of plenty of spin endorsed pilots who have frightened themselves silly in aeroplanes that have refused to recover (who knows why) until a huge amount of height had been lost.

As far as I can remember, all the spin and crash accidents I have heard of have been related to trying to turn back to the field following engine failure after take off and people playing silly buggers at low level. In both of these cases, spin trained or not, there would have been no recovery, better to stress the airmanship aspects involved with both of these activities.

To sum up. I do not believe that spin training is necessary if you plan to fly modern GA aircraft. However, if you plan to do aerobatics or get checked out in something a little more antique, then you'd be silly not to. I have no problem with demonstrating or teaching spinning to anyone who is interested, but the first few spins that people do or see in an aircraft would have to be the most scary and disorientating thing. Better to teach good recognition of the symptoms of the approaching stall and recovery and try to ensure that the student never even gets close to an inadvertant spin.

[BEagle]

Weed - absolutely right in my opinion. Incidentally, the 'recommended' bi-ennial dual training flight with an FI(A) now required under JAR-FCL includes a deliberate stall with a 45 deg wing drop!! How are we supposed to do that in an aircraft in which 'intentional spinning' is prohibited. To abuse an aircraft of this type to such an extent that it exhibits this behaviour merely to satisfy the whim of some old CAA dinosaur is absurdly poor aviation practice!! But it is only a recommendation - so we shall totally ignore it!!

[2R]

Hudson got it right!

[Genghis the Engineer]

In a long and entertaining (so far) career of testing aeroplanes I'd say that virtually anything can be made to spin; I can only think of one type that genuinely was spin resistant - I've certainly seen spin several types that I was assured wouldn't.

IMHO spin training should be re-introduced. Not intensively, but enough to allow pilots to identify it and take the correct recovery. I certify mostly non-aerobatic aircraft and they usually need spin testing and we put recovery advice in the manual, BUT what chance has the pilot of doing the right thing if he's never been shown it.

(N.B. Personal record in flight testing was a 19 turn spin; recovery having been initiated at turn 6; can anybody beat that? We were evaluating different sets of recovery actions at the time, that version was shortly afterwards rejected.)

G

[Dan Winterland]

Personally, I have never voluntarily spun anything without either a parachute or a bang seat.

But getting a student to recognise that buffet with undemanded roll or yaw is a bad omen, is wise. Teaching the recovery makes sense as well!

This can safely be done on most training aircraft without endagering yourself, and it fits in with the old CAA syllabus. Not sure about the JAA though.

[2R]

Spin Training should be restricted to swival bar stools.Where the merits can be discussed adum infinitum or at least til closing time.
Without the need for parachutes or aerobatic aircraft.

[Checkboard]

EMERGENCY RECOVERY ACTIONS

If room commences to spin:
[list=1] apply full opposite eye-ball
Ease head forward slowly
Centralise glass and refill[/list=a]

[XP-72]

To me spinning is one of the 'lost arts' of aviation these days - just like the boring 'compas turn'!!

There was a recent accident in OZ where a young bloke alegedly crossed his controls at low level a dug a large hole in the ground!!(killing 3 of his mates in the process)

Had he had the correct training & appreciation maybe this wouldn't have happened!!

My first GA CFI had 8000 instructional hours in Tiger Moths!! Not much hearing left but he certainly knew how to fly an airplane!!

The only time he ever got agitated in an aircraft was on the turn onto final - he always considered it one of the most dangerous times.

As for C-150/152's it is very hard to get them to 'spin' - they will readily enter a 'spiral dive' but to make them spin with a stable airspeed requires either lots of experience or an orangutan masquarading as a human!!

I have carried out over 140 initial tests in C150/152's, had to spin each one (like a lot of girls - some would & some wouldn't) - it was always good fun.

In the old OZ sylabus a student had to demonstrate a recovery from a spin before going solo - how times have changed - we never lost one student in that period to spinning accidents.

The only fatality due to spinning in OZ in those days was in a Chipmunk that got a 'two bob' coin stuck under the control column.

My humble opinion - bring back the spin - vote for me!!

------------------
Lux Lucidum Lucidentes

[This message has been edited by XP-72 (edited 18 February 2000).]

[redsnail]

Checkers.... sound advice. In fact, I'll refill my glass now before my gyro topples. :)

[A Very Civil Pilot]

As I understood the fatality figures from the US, once spinning was taken off the training requirements, the numbers went down.

[juswonnafly]

I agree with Capt Homesick on this one

Last week on my FI course I was demo'ing an approach config stall in a C152(flap 20, 1500 rpm)and at the point of stall the right wing dropped violently thru 100 degs. I recoved O.K but but my 'patter' dried up and I felt quite shaken.

At debrief we agreed that cause was probably due to being out of balance at stall (only a bit though!).

Lesson learnt? Yup! wings level, ball in middle and yes Cessna's will bite!

JWF

[XP-72]

JWF - if you are using 20 deg of flap & 1500RPM it ain't a 'stall in the approach' configuration.

Should be 30 deg of flap & 1500RPM, or in the 150 - 40 deg of flap & 1500RPM.

I don't think it really matters whether the ball is centered or not in that sort of configuration - depending on how the aircraft it rigged - it will snap in either direction!!

That is why it is taught!! To show pilots that mishandling close to the stall will cause them to dig a big hole in the ground if they are not carefull.

The fact that your instructor was not up to speed on what would/could occur is the worrying part of your post.

As a matter of interest there is a cam type bolt in each wing that allows for 1/4 deg riggers angle of attack to be applied.

When I did all my test flying we had one of the best blokes in the business as chief of assembly - he also just happened to have flown JU-52's & Pigs later in PNG - Frank Smith RIP. He was a fanatic on this sort of thing & sometimes I had to go out & test fly one 4 or 4 times to make it work!!



------------------
Lux Lucidum Lucidentes

[2R]

The spin debate will go on forever.
The argument that you don't know how to fly until you have seen a spin could also apply to other aerobatic maneuvers.Safe flight is the final objective.Spinning an airplane that is designed to be spin resistent is not a clever thing to do .
Question How many pilots do you know that have spun a large transport aircraft,such as a 747 or a A320?I don't know one,haven't heard of one ,but that doesn't mean they don't know how to avoid the spin.
Back to the best spin training device in the world the bar stool.advi vidi tacit :)

[Checkboard]

Captain Ming Yuan Ho spun and recovered a China Ailines 747SP on 18 Feb 1985.

Captain Harvey "Hoot" Gibson recovered from a spin in a TWA 727-100 on 4 April 1979.

[PapaSmurf]

Well I'm most definitely in favour of it. I'm not going to get into the debate about the merits of spin training at PPL level, but I will say this: I think it is absolutely absurd that you can hold a commercial licence without being spin-rated. In fact, I'll go as far as saying that if it were up to me, basic aerobatic training would be mandatory for a CPL - not just spinning.

I did my aerobatic endorsement before completing my CPL, I enjoyed every bit of it, and I know without a shadow of a doubt that I'm a more capable, more confident, more professional, and safer pilot for the experience. I also know that my passengers will never have to worry about their pilot freaking out and losing the plot when unforseen turbulence tips the aeroplane beyond 60 degrees angle of bank - because I've been there done that, and actually have some idea on how to salvage the situation. I deserve to have that safety net - and so do my passengers.

[Angle of Attack]

XP-72, Some places call 1500RPM 20 Flaps an approach configuration stall and 1500RPM,30/45 Flaps a Landing configuration stall, as for not being able to spin a c150/152, any aircraft will spin but I agree you must have the controls way out of wack to make it happen. With the C150/152 that won't spin, try (for a left spin); Power idle, Pitch up approx 75 degrees, stall horn, full left rudder, then full right aileron, just for good measure as it flicks, full power for added torque effect, it will spin 1 turn before you even realise whats happening

[juswonnafly]

Angle of Attack...You beat me to a reply (I do agree with you though!)

XP-72....I am not sure how to make you out. Your statements seem rather arrogent. A C152 with 20 flap is in the approach config and with 30 flap in the landing config.

As for spinning they are very easy to spin (however they do need aggresive handling at stall)

As for your comments generally I do not think my instructor or examiner would agree with you.

JWF

[XP-72]

JWF & AoA - I worked for Rex Aviation (the Australian distributor of Cessnas)for 10 years as an instructor, amongst various other things like charter.

I also was one of the test pilots they had - I have carried out over 140 initial test flights on Cessna 150/152 type aircraft. About the same number for the rest of the fleet from 188's right though to 210's etc.

In the case of the 150/152's, part of the test regime was to spin each one - several times & note the characteristics.

As I do not hold the latest bunch of examiners in any high regard, I suggest my practical knoweldge of spinning 150/152's is far greater than most.

Add to that I have 4,500hrs instructional experience in 150/152's - can your present instructor or examiner match that sort of experience.

If I seem arogant, in regards to this topic, so be it. I have done an enormous amount of work in Cessnas during my lifetime.

I was also an ATO for many years & the standard of manipulative skills & theoretical knoweldge I see today worries me.

The arguement as to what is considered a stall in the 'approach' configuration vs 'landing' configuration is exactly the type of 'hair splitting' that takes the real debate out of aviation theses days.

I was taught that the last stage of the approach, ie with full flap, was the stall to be practiced- but I suppose after 30 odd years definitions have changed - called 'dumbing down'!!



------------------
Lux Lucidum Lucidentes

[Fission]

I teach spins primarily for aerobatics. Of the aircraft I spin most commonly - Tiger Moth, YAK-52 and a basic trainer Beechcraft Skipper, I find the spin entry in the Skipper most hairy - not something that one wants to introduce a low hours pilot to!

Of course, open up the taps and outspin aileron and the YAK bites back !

I have introduced a couple of students to the approach configuration spin - ones that were reasonable pilots but turned out of balance - their turns were much improved after the session - and they still wanted to fly with me !

[juswonnafly]

Oh dear XP-72........

I am sure you are right!

JWF :rolleyes:

[Weed]

If you're going to teach spinning, you need to do it properly. Not demonstrate one, direct one and monitor one. You'll end up at best with a frightened student who really didn't have a clue what was going on or at worst with somebody who thinks they know what is going on and really didn't have aclue what was going on. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. I have to wonder how many students did the absolute minimum as per the regulations in the old days and have never done one since.

As for spin training saving a guy who crosses the controls at low level. Forget it.

Teach good recognition of the approaching stall, good understanding of the contributing factors to a stall/spin and if a student is keen teach them spin revoveries, but don't expect to do it in one or even two or three sessions. And ultimately, is there any point in teaching spin recovery if the student is not subsequently stay current? I think not.

[juswonnafly]

Weed.....

Well said, I agree with you entirely.

Cheers

JWF

[This message has been edited by juswonnafly (edited 27 February 2000).]

[Acker Demick]

I don't buy the argument that it is not worth teaching students spin recovery because they won't stay current. You could make the same criticism of large chunks of the PPL syllabus (the instrument training in the UK PPL is an obvious example). My view as a PPL (not an instructor) is that flying training should equip PPL's with the essential skills to stay alive - if they subsequently don't bother to practice those skills, thats their problem .

I am curious as to instructors' views on how the incipient spin should be taught. I have flown with some instructors who treat recovery from a wing drop at the stall as an incipient spin recovery. At my present club, most instructors use a dynamic spin entry (i.e. slow down, trickle of power, full up elevator and in-spin rudder), which is arested, shortly after the start of the flick, by centralising the controls, then rolling to the nearest horizon. Method A seems more like a "real life" situation that could arise from carelessness, but lacks credibility in that, if you take no remedial action, a modern light aircraft is very unlikely to spin. Method B will definitely produce a spin if left uncorrected, but is hardly a plausible mishandling scenario.

Finally, to those who are anti spin training, how do you envisage your students practising their incipient spin recoveries - dual only? If they practice solo, what guarantee is there that an incipient spin won't develop into a full spin (or are we relying on scenario A above)?

AD



------------------
If God had meant us to fly he would have given us more money

[Fission]

Compare it thus.....

Soon after passing my driving test I managed to get into a skid, had no idea how to 'recover' and wrecked the car. Not long after that, I had formal 'skid training'.

I don't practice skids, but should one happen 'unexpectedly' I have a fighting chance of recognising the symptoms and recover before hitting something hard.

I apply the same philosophy to flying - "don't do it, but if it all goes wrong, this is how to recover...."

Martian

[climbs like a dog]

I think it still comes down to balancing the risks. You are unlikely to get yourself into a corner if you are up in the cruise, which, let's face it, is where most flying gets done. You are most at risk between the ground and circuit height whether you are departing or returning. If you screw the pooch in either of these phases you're knacked however much of a hot-dog you are. I therefore think that it is best to thoroughly teach the stall spin awareness stuff. I would even go so far as to say that most of the recoveries should be at the early stages of the stall in order to make automatic the recovery before it gets to the point where you get into trouble. I would also make annual or bi-annual stall spin awareness training (0.5hr) mandatory for all PPLs.

It is wise and prudent for those going off to do aerobatic training to experience spins as they are more likely to put themselves into a spin.

Spin training does lead to occasional fatal accidents and by increasing the frequency of spin training you are bound to increase the frequency of these accidents. Also these accidents are very rarely survivable.
There is nothing macho about putting yourself in unneccesary danger or indeed frightening your student silly just to make a point.

------------------
0 to 2000ft in 10 minutes

[pilotbear]

It has to be a positive move to experience and learn spin recovery, I was experimenting with a my 172 and managed quite a few unpredictable excursions upside down into a spin just by gently entering a stall with low power,20deg flap and 5deg bank.
Whilst I know that it would not recover if this occurred on a base-finals turn, it would help the student to see what can occur if they are careless with the airspeed.

[Vx]

The other side of the coin is spin aerodynamics. These can fill a aerodynamics text book on their own, and are truly fascinating especially in the area of inverted spins.
Unfortunately, few pilots study aerodynamics to a level further than that once required for their licence exams, and the details of factors affecting spins are available but not well known.

This, along with the “no need for spin training in modern aircraft” school of thought leads to a whole lot of people with an incomplete knowledge of their aircraft, with the attendant confidence and stress problems.

A lot of the “no need to spin” school appear to not have the solid background in spin training which would appear to be a requirement for informed comment. Spinning (and recovering..) is NOT difficult, and once mastered, the issue changes from the merits of doing spin training oneself to concern at the unpreparedness of those without it !

So, do spin training and do it properly. Use an aerobatic aircraft, do formal training with an aerobatics instructor, and wear a parachute. Don’t make a half hearted attempts at it with only incip spins and base a "do we need to" arguement on that - get a few turns going and do/understand it properly. Do inverted spin entry / recovery. (Most float planes spin inverted). Do a sufficient and regular number of spins to stay current. Include a comprehensive study of the aerodynamics involved.
All that will impart knowledge plus confidence and will not lead to deaths in training provided the pilot knows when to get out if the aircraft becomes uncontrollable.

The military have been doing it this way for decades with good results as BEagle would probably agree.
The extra “expense” involved should not be an issue. "We have nothing to fear but fear itself..."

[212man]

I would disagree with the idea of formal spin training for a PPL syllabus, but it should be part of the CPL and FI course.

Those who use expressions like "easy to recover from a spin" are deluding themselves. Some (all?) aircraft can suprise you and not respond to the correct recovery technique. Any spin should be entered at a very safe height and the occupants should have parachutes and a clearly briefed bale out height, should the a/c not respond.

I have personally met one pilot who had to bale out of a Bulldog because it wouldn't respond to recovery (it did after he jumped out, leaving the instructor circling him in his cabriolet T MK1.) Another Bulldog flying from our airfield also failed to recover leaving both crew on the end of parachutes. An instructor lost his life after he and his student bailed out of another Bulldog, and he inadvertently released his parachute harness. There are others too.

I also lost my best friend in a low flying accident (strong visual cues led to a spin in from 300 ft)and no amount of training would have saved him. He had a lot of aero and spin training on type.

Casual spinning by low hour FIs with PPL students, from lowish altitudes will almost certainly raise the training accident rates unacceptably. The nature of the resulting crash will mean higher fatalities.

It's the usual balancing act of risk vs benefit. A bit like engine out training in multis.

I'm a multi engine helicopter TRE and we never do engine off landings-it's just not worth the risk and most of the learning benefit comes from the autorotation, not the landing.

PS I have done the odd spin or 100 in my time.

[This message has been edited by 212man (edited 13 March 2000).]

[2R]

Hands up if you have ever spun at night. :) :) :)