RE: Spinning on the PPL course
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Londonish
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Say again slowly: I don't doubt your statistics (the graph), however, I would question what the sample is - as Backpacker points out, there are people that spin regularly and deliberately. I suspect they're not included in the sample. So what is? Those incidences would have to be reported at least, if not constituting an accident/incident. One might argue that as a spin is a non-event where sufficient ground clearance exists, it won't make it into the sample. I.e. If I spin at 5000, no problem. If I spin at 250, big problem, and suddenly I'm contributing to your graph. So I could suggest that the fact that the >1000agl column contains >0 proves the need for spin training 
No problem with stats per-se, but a context/reference would be useful. Or to quote: "Lies, damn lies and statistics".
Bose: Just because we did, and now don't, does not mean we should not. Change is not the definition of progress, it can be for the worse. Actually I might suggest that 'progress' in this day and age usually translates to 'meeting the lowest common denominator'.. but that would be argumentative
I do wonder why, if it is so unimportant to be able to recover from a spin, we go to all the trouble of proving the aircraft will recover during certification - even adding strakes and the like to do so. Which also leads me to the John Farley quote - I would assume he's referring to test piloting, in which case, an aircraft with unknown spin/recoverycharacteristics, which is a rather different proposition to a known, certified a/c.
However, all that said, I think bjornhall's 3 liner probably hit the nail on the head:
No problem with stats per-se, but a context/reference would be useful. Or to quote: "Lies, damn lies and statistics".
Bose: Just because we did, and now don't, does not mean we should not. Change is not the definition of progress, it can be for the worse. Actually I might suggest that 'progress' in this day and age usually translates to 'meeting the lowest common denominator'.. but that would be argumentative
I do wonder why, if it is so unimportant to be able to recover from a spin, we go to all the trouble of proving the aircraft will recover during certification - even adding strakes and the like to do so. Which also leads me to the John Farley quote - I would assume he's referring to test piloting, in which case, an aircraft with unknown spin/recoverycharacteristics, which is a rather different proposition to a known, certified a/c.
However, all that said, I think bjornhall's 3 liner probably hit the nail on the head:
I sometimes get the impression that those who are in favor of spin training during the PPL course (mandatory or otherwise) are answering the question "does spinning make a PPL student a better and safer pilot", whereas those who are against it or find it unnecessary are answering the question "how do we make best use of the 45 hours (nominal) PPL syllabus".
Moderator
I would assume he's referring to test piloting, in which case, an aircraft with unknown spin/recoverycharacteristics, which is a rather different proposition to a known, certified a/c.
In the case of one of these certified aircraft, I repeated the manuever to verify this defective handling, and confirmed it. I informed the regulatory authority and the "experienced" pilot who was to normally fly this aircraft, of the defect. Despite this, he still killed himself and another innocent in it two weeks later. Stall spin after takeoff. Agreed, spin avoidance training would have been more useful to him, than spin recovery training at that altitude, but... the insticntive spin recovery made my day better, when I flew it first. It was much later determined that this BRAND NEW aircraft had left the factory with a severe defect, as had others of the same model. Others of these aircraft could have been spun by any pilot flying them under normal low speed flight.
If pilots are issued PPL's without spin awareness, should they be allowed to fly "near the edge" or do maintenance test flying? How do you regulate what type of flying they do? What if they take their wet ink PPL, and jump into a Citabria, which will drop a wing often in a stall, and has no stall warning system.
I think pilots will be better "inspired" to avoid what they understand, than what people will not demonstrate to them.
Pilot DAR
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bose: Just because we did, and now don't, does not mean we should not. Change is not the definition of progress, it can be for the worse. Actually I might suggest that 'progress' in this day and age usually translates to 'meeting the lowest common denominator'.. but that would be argumentative
Spinning has been taken out of the BASIC PPL as a training exercise by every aviation authority world wide AFAIK based on the assessment of of the worldwide aviation experts. This decision was not taken lightly and I personally believe that it was the right one.
I do think as I have said many times before on this thread that there is a place for spinning in flight training, just not at the BASIC level. Pillots wishing to leaarn the skill have the option to gain further training with suitably experience Instructors in suitably equipped aircraft.
The BASIC PPL is just a building block on the long road to gaining experience as a pilot. It is educationally proven that progressive education has greater long term retention than cramming.
Some people enjoy spinning, others find it an uncomfortable and off putting experience, many not wanting to fly again. Spinning does not turn out a better pilot, so why should we force people to endure it?
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: taking up the hold
Age: 53
Posts: 812
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There seems to be a little confusion (my fault) as to what I was trying to say in my previous posts.
I do believe in spin training.
Pilot DAR
When I said "my logbook contained eveidence of stalling, incipient & full spins with recovery demonstrated to a satisfactory level." There was lots of it as is the norm in the gliding world. The other norm is that instructors were voluntary & give up there free time to instruct. It was not possible to book a series of lessons with the same guy (not ideal I know) & I hadn't flown with this instructor for some time. But I had done lots of stall & spin training with lots of instructors very recently & all documented for him to inspect.
However my main point is that by recognising the onset of a stall or spin you can avoid inadvertant entry & save (what is for me) the joy of spinning for a safe altitude.
The majority of lowspeed manouvers occur at low altitude. Avoidance of stalling will save more lives at low altitude than recovery. Both have a place but recognition & avoidance training is vital.
I do believe in spin training.
Pilot DAR
When I said "my logbook contained eveidence of stalling, incipient & full spins with recovery demonstrated to a satisfactory level." There was lots of it as is the norm in the gliding world. The other norm is that instructors were voluntary & give up there free time to instruct. It was not possible to book a series of lessons with the same guy (not ideal I know) & I hadn't flown with this instructor for some time. But I had done lots of stall & spin training with lots of instructors very recently & all documented for him to inspect.
However my main point is that by recognising the onset of a stall or spin you can avoid inadvertant entry & save (what is for me) the joy of spinning for a safe altitude.
The majority of lowspeed manouvers occur at low altitude. Avoidance of stalling will save more lives at low altitude than recovery. Both have a place but recognition & avoidance training is vital.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exactly Bose.
If you are flying aero's or test flying in any capacity, then spin training is an absolute must.
However, there is just no need to have it in the basic PPL.
The FAA stats show that since spin training was taken out of the American training syllabus in 1949 there has been a steady reduction in the number of people killed by spinning in.
I had a good friend killed when he was teaching spinning in a certified aircraft. Forcing people to perform potentially dangerous manouevers that have a frankly limited training benefit at that stage is madness.
Flying is about managing risk, why throw that away for a bit of trainining that for the majority of pilots is unnecessary?
Spin awareness and avoidance is one thing, I don't need to be shown that poking a Grizzly Bear with a stick is a stupid idea. Just show me a picture of the bears teeth and claws and I'll work out the rest for myself.
Spin training is similar.
If you are flying aero's or test flying in any capacity, then spin training is an absolute must.
However, there is just no need to have it in the basic PPL.
The FAA stats show that since spin training was taken out of the American training syllabus in 1949 there has been a steady reduction in the number of people killed by spinning in.
I had a good friend killed when he was teaching spinning in a certified aircraft. Forcing people to perform potentially dangerous manouevers that have a frankly limited training benefit at that stage is madness.
Flying is about managing risk, why throw that away for a bit of trainining that for the majority of pilots is unnecessary?
Spin awareness and avoidance is one thing, I don't need to be shown that poking a Grizzly Bear with a stick is a stupid idea. Just show me a picture of the bears teeth and claws and I'll work out the rest for myself.
Spin training is similar.
Last edited by Say again s l o w l y; 8th May 2009 at 10:11.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mark 1234
I was much taken with a statement made by the senior police investigator at the Hatfield train crash. He said "I told all my men to adopt the ABC principle. Assume nothing, Believe nobody, Check everything." It is a principle I commend to you. John is NOT "referring to test piloting, in which case, an aircraft with unknown spin/recoverycharacteristics", had he been I would not have used the quote.
Am I against spin training? Not at all, in a suitable aircraft, with parachutes and a suitably current and experienced instructor.
Do believe it should be a mandatory part of the PPL syllabus? Definitely not.
It was a part of the syllabus when I gained by PPL and I've done my share of spinning but you absolutely would not get me to do an intentional spin now in a normal flying school hack. I'd be perfectly happy to do it wearing a parachute in a suitable aircraft or glider.
Which also leads me to the John Farley quote - I would assume he's referring to test piloting, in which case, an aircraft with unknown spin/recoverycharacteristics, which is a rather different proposition to a known, certified a/c.
Am I against spin training? Not at all, in a suitable aircraft, with parachutes and a suitably current and experienced instructor.
Do believe it should be a mandatory part of the PPL syllabus? Definitely not.
It was a part of the syllabus when I gained by PPL and I've done my share of spinning but you absolutely would not get me to do an intentional spin now in a normal flying school hack. I'd be perfectly happy to do it wearing a parachute in a suitable aircraft or glider.
Moderator
but you absolutely would not get me to do an intentional spin now in a normal flying school hack
Presupposing the referenced "flying school hack" would be a spin approved aircraft, why not? Do you suspect the aircraft is not fit for spinning? If so, it's not fit for flying, so you wouldn't be considering not spinning it, becasue you had already chosen not to fly it!
Aircraft at this size range are either airworthy or not. with the possible exception of ignoring a failed light for day only flying, everything else about the aircraft either is safe, or you do not fly it.
Another thread here refers to nudging libel when referring to flying school's finacial condition. I think that generalizations about the assumed substandard condition of their aircraft is about the same. What would prospective student pilots reading this think? All the armchair experts think that the flight training fleet in general is unfit for flight training?
If one prospective student here were to read your post, and say to themself, "well there are references to unsafe aircraft, I guess I won't start" the writers of those post just shot our own industry in the foot (or wing) We're here to support each other, right?
Pilot DAR
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unfortunately DAR flying schools in the UK do often have some pretty shocking aircraft. I get what you are saying about it being fit for use or not, but here the line gets blurred by a huge number of schools.
It's appalling frankly.
It's appalling frankly.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps I could have phrased it better. If the hack happens to be a suitable aircraft that is cleared for spinning and is equipped with parachutes then I would do it. However the majority of the club fleet don't fall into that category, hence my reference to "a normal flying school hack".
As I have not done intentional spins for some time I'd also want to do it with an instructor who is in current spin practice. That is a matter of personal preference. The fact that something is legal does not in my book mean that it is automatically something that you ought to do. If I'm not happy I don't fly, I don't say, "OK I'm not at all happy about this but its perfectly legal so let's go for it."
Having got out of my armchair and into a pilot's seat some 38 years ago I'll take umbrage at the "armchair" bit, though I by no means claim to be an expert.
Those are your words not mine. The fleet is perfectly fit for the task of training from ab-initio to PPL in accordance with the current syllabus, which does not include spinning. I have not suggested otherwise.
As I have not done intentional spins for some time I'd also want to do it with an instructor who is in current spin practice. That is a matter of personal preference. The fact that something is legal does not in my book mean that it is automatically something that you ought to do. If I'm not happy I don't fly, I don't say, "OK I'm not at all happy about this but its perfectly legal so let's go for it."
Another thread here refers to nudging libel when referring to flying school's finacial condition. I think that generalizations about the assumed substandard condition of their aircraft is about the same. What would prospective student pilots reading this think? All the armchair experts think that the flight training fleet in general is unfit for flight training?
the flight training fleet in general is unfit for flight training
hack - a saddle horse used for transportation rather than sport etc.
hack - a horse kept for hire
hack - a worn-out horse for hire (derogatory).
Some definitions of "Hack" - it suggests something that is for hire, not of the highest standard, but still capable of the (limited) tasks set.
I would be quite happy for my sons to learn to drive in and then use a "hack" small city car around town.
I would NOT be at all happy for them to take it to the Nurburgring and thrash it around. Legal? Perfectly. Sensible? Not even with crash helmets!
FBW
hack - a horse kept for hire
hack - a worn-out horse for hire (derogatory).
Some definitions of "Hack" - it suggests something that is for hire, not of the highest standard, but still capable of the (limited) tasks set.
I would be quite happy for my sons to learn to drive in and then use a "hack" small city car around town.
I would NOT be at all happy for them to take it to the Nurburgring and thrash it around. Legal? Perfectly. Sensible? Not even with crash helmets!
FBW
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Station Hack" was used in the RAF to refer to an aircraft kept at a station for pooled use. Probably originates from hackney as in hackney-cab, i.e. a carriage available for hire, which is generally what a club aircraft is.
Moderator
Clarification of the definition of "hack" accepted.
As was recently pointed out to me during a delightful dinner with another PPRuNer: English think 100 miles is a "long way", Canadians think a 100 year old building is "old".
There are obviously language differences too. Here, were I to hear an aircraft be described as a "hack" I would difinately think that an insult had been intended!
I completely agree that a pilot should only do solo, what that pilot feels comfortable doing, and in an appropriate aircraft in all senses. If that pilot chooses to not practice certain manuevers solo, I believe that there could be a moral obligation to occasionally practice in a appropriate dual environment. To me, spins are close to this list of things to practice.
Pilot DAR
As was recently pointed out to me during a delightful dinner with another PPRuNer: English think 100 miles is a "long way", Canadians think a 100 year old building is "old".
There are obviously language differences too. Here, were I to hear an aircraft be described as a "hack" I would difinately think that an insult had been intended!
I completely agree that a pilot should only do solo, what that pilot feels comfortable doing, and in an appropriate aircraft in all senses. If that pilot chooses to not practice certain manuevers solo, I believe that there could be a moral obligation to occasionally practice in a appropriate dual environment. To me, spins are close to this list of things to practice.
Pilot DAR
