No More Spin Training?
 

CASA apparently has decided that there will be no more spin training after consultation:

Quote:

---

As a result, CASA will ensure clarification and further consistency with the position taken by ICAO and other national aviation authorities—to replace the phrase ‘training and testing in the induction and recovery from the incipient stage of a spin’ with ‘spin avoidance and the recovery from a stall with a wing drop.

---

This is apparently despite:

I wonder why that would be?

I also wonder what new regulations will be enacted to criminalise an accidental spin and prevent flying anywhere near the edge of the flight envelope.

Most aircraft used in the ab-initio fleet these days are not certified for spinning.
Most instructors today are not well versed in spinning and in spin training students.
There is the rub.

How do you believe this can best be rectified?

I was lucky enough to find an instructor with access to an aerobatic aircraft. She built a little course for me called “low impact aerobatics for old farts” or recovery from unusual attitudes. I don’t know if it worked because I don’t try unusual positions. We finished each lesson with a spin from about 6000 to 3000. Students I think could do worse.

DjPil I think might have some good suggestions.

It is a truism that a stall/spin on the base to final is going to be fatal whatever the training. I don’t have enough experience to comment further.

For me, spin training is not so much that a pilot can recover from a spin if they accidentally get into one but to develop muscle memory/instinct to know when they are pushing close to that mode of flight and so not accidentally get into one.

It also builds confidence.

It is hard to teach that realistically without showing how spins actually get entered, which means actually spinning.

Unfortunately this is not something suitable to do in a non spin certified aircraft.

Want to find out what being in a fully developed spin is like.... and how to recover from one ?
A visit to your nearest Gliding Club should solve yr problem.
Aeroplanes spin. You are being trained to fly one. And yr not allowed to practice recovery from a condtion that could kill you.? Bizarre. You might never do it again but at least you have experienced it and know how to recover.
Is this another CAsA '"LSD" and Insurance co. thing that if there's not a regulation prohibiting something that might /might not ever happen, CAsA may get sued. ie a CYA thing, not a safety issue.

Already done, they are very efficient! The ICAO definition is "Manoeuvres intentionally performed by an aircraft involving an abrupt change in its attitude, an abnormal attitude, or an abnormal variation in speed." Europe and USA have the same or almost identical words. Australia used to have the same definition but they slipped in a new definition along with the diabolical Part 61 - they removed the word "intentionally" and added very specific angles of pitch and bank.

So Sunfish, check out the fines that may be dished out by an FOI sitting at a desk watching YouTube videos.

(Incidentally, the USA has a further rule which specifies pitch and bank angles beyond which the occupants are required to wear a parachute - unless solo. Spin training for flight instructor ratings are also exempt.)


What they have really done is admit that they stuffed up with Part 61 by requiring a whole suite of incipient spins vs the old Day VFR Syllabus which clearly stated that the exercise was a stall with a wing drop. Part 61 means exactly what it states - a suite of incipient spin exercises - what is an incipient spin? Look at CASA's Flight Instructor Manual in the Stall and Spin Chapters and it is quite clear what Part 61 requires.

Furthermore, they did NOT decide there will be no more spin training. Flight schools are free to conduct spin training at any stage however it needs an instructor properly qualified to give instruction in spins and the aircraft must be approved for intentional spins - no change there. Importantly, the AC explains that an incipient spin is a spin per the FAA definition provided to those people who write the bit in the flight manuals about the spin recovery method and whether or not an airplane is approved to conduct intentional spins.

In that AC, CASA states "Spin recovery training is highly recommended for pilots at any level of licence or experience and is worth revision at any stage of a pilot's career." If you didn't get spin training with your licence training then you are free to go and do it - pay your money and take your choice.

You'd need to read all of the responses to CASA to see if there really is that "high level of support" for mandatory spin training for a licence.

I have lost too many friends in stall/spin accidents - the spin training that most if not all of them had taken didn't save them.

Not so long ago, as well as the logical reasons for spin training, we used to just do it for fun. And if the aeroplane/ instructor wasn’t able then we’d find one who was.

If you aren’t getting spin training, go out and find some, somewhere. It’s good for your flying and you might enjoy it.

Sunfish
”I don’t have enough experience to comment further.”

What a rare gem to find on prune. Thank you.

Quote:

---

However, this support is balanced with the recognition that there are fewer flight instructors and a shrinking fleet of aircraft capable of delivering this outcome.

---

A situation created directly by the CASA introduction of Part 61. Australia's 'world leading' interpretation of Part 61.

To be granted a Grade 3 Training Endorsement, the candidate must have a SPIN Flight Activity. This training would usually be conducted by the Grade 1 conducting the Grade 3 Training Endorsement. At the completion of the Flight Test for the G3 TE can the G3 conduct SPIN training, ohhhh noooo. They must get the SPIN training approval in addition, costing the candidate a significant amount of money in addition to the Instructor Rating.

In my years in aviation I have come across very few Instructor candidates that have the unlimited funds to add all of the extra training approvals now mandated by Australian Part 61. They make a choice, 'well, there's limited potential for a return on this approval, so not doing it'

Australian Part 61 has added significant cost to Instructor Ratings should the candidate want to teach what they were approved to teach under CAR 5.

Ab-Initio students wear the cost of this.

Just as EASA have mandated practical UPRT for commercial students.

When I did PPL (back in the day), the #1 fatal accident vector in light aircraft was spinning in - often from what should have been a recoverable situation. So I asked my instructor, the Ancient Mariner, to spend a couple of hours showing me spin recovery from either direction, various configurations, always allowing the spin to become fully developed. I was then able to demonstrate competence in spin recovery to the extent that he gave me a special stamp and signed a spin endorsement in my log book!

This was on the venerable (and oft-maligned PA38 Tomahawk). VH-BNT (nicknamed BENT) was a vicious bugger, a sudden left spin entry (kicked in with loads of left boot) would feel like it flipped onto its back. TBH You had to be very deliberate about getting into the spin, it was hard to see how you could do it accidentally, but people did/probably still do. The last thing I spun in was a Pitts and that was docile in comparison (albeit a lot quicker).

I think a lot of holes have to line up in the cheese to get into a spin in the circuit. For one, not monitoring airspeed, attitude and control inputs. Learning to avoid the spin is one thing, knowing not to panic and how to recover fast would be a life-saver though.

Develop an effective slow flight / stall / spin training syllabus. The availability of modern technology could be used to train concepts, proper practical awareness training delivered by appropriately trained instructors. Most GA / RAA trained instructors are terrified of stalling and never really get anywhere near the stall.

How else can you get down from 8,000ft quickly in something that just wants to cheat gravity without any power? Spin it to the left, then to the right, then to the left, then to the right, then to the left, then to the right, then to the left, then to the right and pull up over the field and set yourself up on downwind.

Here in the US, spin training is only required for CFIs.

The CAAP discusses wing drop at the point of stall training requirement. But what if the aircraft is well maintained, no rigging defects and by design simply will not drop a wing at the point of stall? Most modern light singles simply squash and won't stall in the classic manner.

That is why they are so safe in that regime. Does that mean a student must deliberately fake a wing drop in order to tick the CASA box. If so, how does one fake a wing drop on such aircraft?

I second the suggestion to go visit your local glider club for spin training if you haven't had any. They will likely be happy to accommodate but call first to make arrangements. Spin training will always be mandatory in the glider training syllabus because many high performance gliders will happily spin if the controls are mistreated. The assumption is that ab initio pilots will go on to fly the higher performance, less docile aircraft.

See the blue handle on the left?
https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....cf162542cd.jpg

You are correct, it is part of the syllabus. In something like a warrior, typically what ends up being done is the wing drop is created by the instructor in a way that doesn't really represent a realistic scenario. The student is left wondering, well there is no way I would accidentally do that, why am I learning how to recover from it?

If the pilot later goes on to fly something with less benign stalling behaviour they may be totally unprepared for what can happen (and also they have never been exposed to simulated scenarios that reflect how inadvertent spins actually happen).

I have no problem doing spin training in a glider but would think it even better to do training in something that more reflects what can (and does) happen in powered aircraft.

In an early lesson transitioning to powered aircraft from gliding, the instructor asked me to recover from a stall. Glider pilots (especially those who've come from the wood and canvas era) will know the standard recovery - stick full forward until airspeed builds to safe flying speed - the bit of wool taped to the windshield goes taut in the slipstream.

Try that in a Cherokee and you're looking at the cows getting bigger very quickly. "So you've done some gliding?", was the laconic comment from the instructor.

Canada had this debate about 20 years ago. The flight safety data was conclusive. Almost all inadvertent spins occurred at an altitude that would likely not allow a recovery even if proper spin recovery control inputs were used. Instead the emphasis was placed on teaching stall recognition and recovery and the result has been a decrease in spin accidents.

I think Canada has hit the right balance. For the PPL a spin and spin recovery must be demonstrated to the student pre-solo. It is recommended that it be demonstrated in a scenario that starts with a botched stall recovery.

For CPL's a spin recovery must be demonstrated on the CPL flight test. However the examiner is expected to call for recovery within the first half turn after the aircraft departs. The intent is that recovery begins immediately after recognition that the aircraft will enter a spin if recovery is not immediately initiated.

The place for spin training is in a basic aerobatic course, which in a perfect world everybody would take after their PPL. For most aircraft to get to a place where the proper spin recovery technique must be applied requires pro-spin controls to held in for at least 1 full turn and often 2 full turns. This is negative training as outside of aerobatic flying there is no situation where you would want to apply and maintain pro spin controls.

If the airplane is not allowed to stall in can't spin. If you do inadvertently stall then if yaw is controlled the aircraft can't spin. THAT is the lesson you want to teach in ab initio training.

Compulsory spin recovery training was taken out of the syllabus in most ICAO countries and made optional about 30 years ago. Here is a link to the study BPF refers to above: https://www.richstowell.com/document...a_TP13748E.pdf

CASA will be changing the wording from "incipient spin" to "stall with wing drop".

If students are taught right from go to use the rudder properly to maintain balance, particularly in a go around; and the nonsense about picking up a dropping wing with full opposite rudder was taken out of the text books then we are about as safe as we can be.

So true. Even in normally benign stalling aircraft, a go-around at the flare or after a bounce or series of bounces, requires instant rudder to prevent the yaw that occurs with full power an speeds close to the stall. It seems to me instructors rarely demonstrate this manoeuvre at the flare and if they do, they tend not to accent the vital importance of countering the yaw that is inevitable. Most practice go-arounds in light training aircraft are conducted at 200 feet when there is ample speed usually in excess of flight manual threshold speed. The yaw is sometimes less noticeable

If for perceived flight safety reasons, or even under confidence of their own ability, instructors avoid demonstrating go around practice after the flare, there is no reason the manoeuvre cannot be conducted in the training area using (say) 1000 ft agl as simulated runway level. It is also important the student be taught the recommended go-around procedure found in the manufacture's POH and not an instructor's personal opinion.

It is failure to contain the yaw that occurs when high power is applied at low airspeed coupled with a nose attitude higher than optimum, that can lead to a wing drop into an incipient spin. A student needs several practices at go-arounds at the flare before he is deemed fully competent and this is why it is better done at a simulated runway altitude rather than wasting time on repetitive circuits just to get in a low go-around in crowded circuit area. It is also useful to conduct the practice under the hood (at safe altitude) in case of a night go-around at the flare or sudden onset of heavy rain obscuring the windshield

Grade 3 instructors should be required to demonstrate competency at low level go arounds on their instructor course. There is a big handling difference between a 200 ft go around and a go around off a severe bounce.

A bit off topic but while I agree in principal with Centaurs re the need to be able to safely fly the go around from anywhere including close to the ground and in a low energy state, I think the broader issues is what I see on a daily basis. Too fast unstable approaches that should have been thrown away at 200 ft AGL but are pushed to the flare with the inevitable PIO and hard nose wheel first touchdown. I make my students call "stable" at 200ft AGL. If the aircraft is not on a steady flight path to the chosen touchdown point and within - 2 kts/+5 kts on the speed I want them to go around.

This is like the spin issue. Don't treat the symptom, you have let the aircraft get into a spin so now you have to recover,treat the cause. You failed to fly the aircraft effectively because you let it stall and then did not correct the yaw. That is what we want to teach students to recognize and avoid. Similarly lets concentrate on getting students to fly on speed stable approaches and insist that they don't push bad ones. AFAIK none of my students have ever had to go around at very low speeds and close to the ground after a massive bounce.

https://www.avweb.com/features/pelic...ed-approaches/

Big Pistons Forever. The above link by John Deakin was written many years ago and contains practical advice for light aircraft final approach skills. Deakin makes the valid point that stabilised approaches have an entirely different meaning between a light trainer like a Cessna or Piper and an airliner type. Seems to me having your student call "Stable" at 200 feet is using an airline pilot technique that simply does not make sense when flying a light aircraft that has less inertia and thus more affected by wind changes. A normal approach in a Cessna or Piper single is in the region of six degrees whereas in an airliner it is more like three degrees

Keep in mind the Cessna 172 POH states under Normal Procedures: "Normal landing approaches can be made with power-on or power-off with any flap setting desired. Surface winds and air turbulence are usually the primary factors in determining the most comfortable approach speeds."

sheppey, you are of course correct in that what approach flight path a light aircraft flies can vary significantly and be perfectly safe, unlike larger transport category aircraft where what constitutes a safe approach path is much more constrained. However the concept is fundamentally the same. If the aircraft is not doing what you want it to be doing at 200 ft than it is usually better to go around then try to force it back to where you want to be in the little time you have between 200 ft and the flare.

Also understand this is for student pilots. A high time pilot can make almost anything work on an approach, a low PPL not so much. However even then high timers sometimes have to throw a bad approach away. Last fall I was going to a small airport to do a flight test in my Grumman AA1 that I had not seen before with a shortish runway. Trees at the end and the way the ground sloped gave the illusion the runway was farther away then it was so when I turned my usual tightish base it left me high and fast on final. Even a full slip was setting me up for a mid field touchdown instead of the planned 300 ft from the numbers. I could have made it work but the approach was unstable because the aircraft was not on a flight path I wanted and fixing it would have involved some excessive maneuvering, so I went around, adjusted the circuit and the next time the approach was setting me up to touchdown exactly where I wanted.

As it happened the next day I was No 3 in a 4 ship formation of Nanchangs. After the break, flaps down at the perch and continuous curving approach with 40 deg of bank ( there was a strong crosswind) with the wings rolling level at 200 ft. The flight path and airspeed was at all times exactly what I wanted and resulted in a perfect line up to the runway with almost no variation in the bank angle. It was IMO a good example of a stable approach from the moment I rolled in off the downwind. The mental stable call at 200 ft was a foregone conclusion.

Bottom line the approach could be a power on approach tracking the glideslope of a power off full flap with side slip or anything in between, but at 200 feet either the aircraft will be on the predetermined flight path and speed or not. If it is significantly away from what you have decided you want to see then I think instructors should teach new pilots that it is time to go around. The easiest way IMO, is to get them to do this is to make a point of using the 200 AGL mark as decision point. Calling stable tells me they are thinking about where the aircraft is relative to where they want it to be.

If you don't like the word "stable" pick another one, but to the word describes exactly what you want to see, there is going to stability in the flight path and airspeed from 200 ft to the flare.

Deakin is a legend. And an awfully nice bloke. A voice of reason and experience, no ego considering his extensive experience. His guidance forms a great part of my instructing.

Here is the AIC Sunfish.

Can you tell me where it says "Casa have decided there will be no more spin training"

https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/defaul...y-training.pdf

Quote:

---

Here is the AIC Sunfish.

---

He ain't here, he's done the bolt.