RE: Spinning on the PPL course

[White Shadow]

Spinning and the PPL course

Just as a comparison, checking my Flying Log Book, I see that at a RAF Elementary Flying Training School (quite a while ago!) my first Spinning exercise, in a Tiger Moth, was after 6 hrs flying, then two more, last one before First Solo at 11 hrs.
Seemed sensible.
And, of course, I still clearly remember that First Solo.
WS

[tggzzz]

45 degree bank wiuth pre-stall buffet

Skylark58 wrote
There is a difference in gliding, in that gliders spend a lot of their time in a well banked turn just above the stall

Yes indeed. Typically the older wooden gliders have the best climb rate (in a thermal, natch) at just above stall speed. It is really instructive to be with an experienced pilot and be doing 45 degree bank turns while feeling the pre-stall buffet

[tggzzz]

Deliberately pinning on downwind leg

rauxaman
There is a lot of spinning instruction with gliders including experience of a spin and recovery at circuit height (700ft) on downwind leg

It is especially entertaining watching your 15yo daughter do it (yes, she did query it, before doing as instructed).

Hopefully she won't do this
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xCct8cDtyk>

[Tail-take-off]

Pace

This is part of the discussion of the tendancy towards avoidance not only are pilots not experiencing a spin but how many are not experiencing stalling either? It is important to experience the full envelope before a pilot can handle an aircraft rather than mechanically fly it.

I agree totally & my logbook contained eveidence of stalling, incipient & full spins with recovery demonstrated to a satisfactory level. There is no doubt in my mind that students should see the full envelope but I also feel that they should be taught to avoid unintentional excursions to the corners.

I've seen spins demonstrated by pulling the nose up well above the horizon & as the stick hits the back stop full rudder applied. Hey presto we're spinning but who is going to end up in a spin like that?

[Pilot DAR]

This could sound harsh and sarcastic, and I certainly don't intend it that way, but...

my logbook contained eveidence of stalling, incipient & full spins with recovery demonstrated to a satisfactory level.

I'm hoping that the demonstartion and practice of these manuevers was more memorable than having to review a log book to see if that had been done once before, a long time ago.

That is an important aspect in what I have been saying, currency! It's a good thing to be exposed, and learn, but we have to also keep our skills up over time. It can be diffcult when one does not have access to spin approved aircraft and safety pilot on a regular basis, but at least the stalls both wings level, and turning. If a pilot is worried about accidentally entering a full spin while performing a turning flight stall, that pilot really should get some more training to feel confident.

Pilot DAR

[Mike Cross]

I had the good fortune last week to be presented by John Farley with a copy of his book "A View from the Hover". He is a very experienced test pilot who I greatly respect. This is what he says about spinning:-

Spinning is a big deal and I beg to disagree with anyone who would suggest otherwise.

Since there is no law of aerodynamics (or aircraft design) that says, "If the control surfaces of an aircraft can make it enter a spin, they can also make it recover", you should wear a parachute. Sure I have sometimes spun without one but not often and never again. To spin without a chute is in the same category as flying a single engine aircraft over water, outside gliding range of a suitable field in which to force land, without wearing a life jacket.

The special spinning preparations start with an in-date parachute, properly inspected.

If you agree with his views and continue to disagree with the CAA & JAA opinion on what should be included in the syllabus then the logical conclusion is that you advocate minimum hours are extended to allow for the additional training and every FTO & RF is equipped with suitable aircraft, parachutes, and instructors who are in current practice to teach spinning.

[BeechNut]

This was in a PA-28. Getting a common garden variety Cessna 152 to spin must be well nigh impossible.

No au contraire it is much harder to get a PA28 to spin than a C152. A properly rigged C152 will nicely flick into a spin, and equally nicely recover.

I know the Pa28 is spinnable in the utility category; suspect the 172,150/2 also,
As far as I know, all those types are placarded "intentional spins prohibited" - even in the U cat. The only exception being the 150/152 Aerobat.

Doesn't mean they won't spin when mishandled, if that's what you mean though.

Not quite true. Some versions of the PA28 are cleared for spins, certainly the -140. I had one and it was cleared for spins. If it was equipped with a ventilation blower in the tail or air conditioning, it was prohibited but mine did not have those "features" (thank God, the power drain of the air con would suck the remaining life out of that bird). The 172 I last flew a long, long time ago was also cleared for spins. And definitely all the C150s and 152s, not just the Aerobats, are cleared for spins but there is an AD out on them about a rudder stop bolt defect; unless the AD is complied with, spins are prohibited. Result of a accident near Montreal during spin training when the rudder jammed past the stop bolt and the aircraft was unable to recover.

In fact I have spun every aircraft I have ever owned once I got comfortable with it: C150, PA28-140, Be77 (Skipper) and my present machine, Beech C23 Sundowner (note to Sundowner owners: don't try this at home, I have a rare aerobatic model with the spin kit and cleared to +6/-3 gs, and unless yours is so equipped don't try it).

The PA28 was hard to get into a spin. The C23 is as well, it tends to unstall and migrate into a spiral dive which is very dangerous, speed builds up real fast. But if you follow the entry procedure correctly it will spin and come out easily. The only one that really scared me was the Skipper. It snapped into a spin real quick, rotated really real fast, and on recovery, dropped a wing in the opposite direction.

The C150 though was a treat to spin. Easy to spin, easy to recover.

I did my PPL back in 1980-81. Spin training (Canada) was mandatory back then. I am in favour of spin training for the PPL. I remember reading about a novel technique used when some poor non-IR sap was caught on top of a cloud layer low on fuel. Don't know if it's urban legend or not, but he put it into a spin, held it there, and recovered under the cloud deck. Takes more b@lls than I have! But knowing what a spin is, is very useful IMHO, and it's fun!

Beech

[Lightning6]

TTO...First of all thanks for your help in you know what.

To quote you :-

I've seen spins demonstrated by pulling the nose up well above the horizon & as the stick hits the back stop full rudder applied. Hey presto we're spinning but who is going to end up in a spin like that?

It's not the entry that's important, a development of a stall with a bung of full rudder is a good way of putting yourself in a spin for training purposes, but it's the recovery that is important.

[S-Works]

It is little wonder that GA is stuck in the dark ages and as a result is in decline.

Just because we had to do it does not make it right. Theory and teaching methods should be open to adaptation in aviation, just as they are in other fields.

It is only aviation that has this stuck in the mud resistance to change.

[Say again s l o w l y]

Exactly Bose. The simple fact is that since spin training was taken out of the syllabus both here and the US there has been a steady drop in the number of spin related accidents and fatalities.

Not spinning in the first place is the key, not how well you get out of it once you are in one. If you spin turning from base to final below 1000ft, you are dead, no matter how good your spin recovery is.

Here's a graph from the FAA about when stall/spin events occur.

[IMG][/IMG]

[shortstripper]

What does the chart refer to SAS? Fatal spins? Just says Height ast which the spin occurred, so I'm not sure what it relates to?

SS

[Say again s l o w l y]

What it shows is where the majority of spins occur. The main thing it points to is the fact that the majority of occurances happen at a time where learning how to recover a spin is irrelevant. You don't have time.

Spin avoidance is far more important.

You could be an amalgamation of John Farley, Eric Brown and Luke Skywalker but if you enter a spin at 5-600ft AGL you are stuffed.

Very few spins happen in the cruise or at altitude that aren't done on purpose.

Training needs to be fit for purpose and teaching actual spinning does not help you to be a safer a pilot. The stats prove that.

All it does is to put the poor old FI at increasing amounts of risk as BEagle proved in his post about the imbalanced fuel tanks.

If you are going to be flying aero's and will be pushing aircraft to the limits, then of course spin recovery is vital, but for basic training........Nope, not necessary.

[RansS9]

Interesting topic with interesting views.
Here's my grain of sand to the Mite Mound for what it's worth.

I fall somewhere in the middle..but then I would I am a wishy washy liberal.

Do I think it should be mandatory to climb to 5,000' and see and then replicate recovery from a conventional 2-3 turn spin....NO. Why because it's not what is going to kill us as has been eloquently pointed out already.

Do I think a student should be taken up to a safe height and SHOWN a spin develop from a botched low speed turn (as terrifingly descibed in "Stick and Rudder")....OH YES. Why...because that is what will kill us.

Why show why not descibe, brief, watch the youtube clips ? For the same reason the gentleman above could so well remember his first solo.....he was stressed and had adrenaline squirting out of his ears. In the correct quantities nothing sears information into long term memory as well. See it hear it feel it understand it; the early warning signs, the developed spin, the disorientation, the tremendous height loss (and therefore the extreme danger at low level) the strong natural urge to make control inputs that will actually worsen the situation;....HOW TO STOP IT AT IT'S INCIPIENT STAGE. Infact why restrict this to students why not make it a part of the biannual check.

If this requires (and it will) Flying Schools to have;

Aircraft certifiable for the above manoevures
Instructors capable and current to demonstrate
Parachutes

GOOD!!

Thanks for your time have a nice day,.....TIM

[BackPacker]

What it shows is where the majority of spins occur.

I certainly hope not. Because that would indicate that for each and every spin I deliberately enter as part of my aerobatic sequence (initiated at 3500', recovered at 2500'), at least four spins take place below 250' and are most likely fatal.

I would hope that the chart shows "unintentional spins in general" or "unintentional spins leading to an accident/incident" or maybe even "unintentional spins leading to at least fatality". And even then there's a distinct difference between the three possibilities wrt. this discussion.

So could anyone provide a link to the original article from the FAA so that the graph can be interpreted properly?

[Say again s l o w l y]

Well since I used that graph of part of a presentation I gave on spin training, then I'll add the hundreds of other graphs and stats that there are about this subject.

10% of all accidents are stall/spin related. 13.7% of all fatalities are Stall/Spin related.

Only 3.23% of Stall/Spin accidents occur in cruise.
27.96% in the take off phase.
41% in Manouevering flight.
18.49% on Approach.
6.45% on go-arounds.

The NTSB defines manoeuvering flight to include all of the following: aerobatics, low passes, buzzing, pull ups, aerial application manoeuvers, turns to reverse direction, or engine failures after takeoff with the pilot trying to return to the runway.

These figures are from the NTSB and are based on all accidents between 1993 and 2001.

Here's the link to the study. I think it says it all.

AOPA Online: Stall/Spin

[RansS9]

13.7% of fatalites are stall spin related.

I am surprised I thought it was much much higher.
There can't be too many ways to kill yourself in an aeroplane;

Aircraft not fine malfunctions/disintegrates in flight (inherent / overstressed)

Aircraft fine and in control hits something (ground/other aeroplane).

Aircraft fine (with or without functioning engine) and control is lost...in essence stall spin predominately manouevering low speed low altitude.

I always presumed the last was by far and away the major cause with CFIT next.

TIM

[Say again s l o w l y]

I tend to rely on people like the NTSB, they do know a bit more about the figures than we do!

There are plenty of ways to kill yourself in an aircraft that don't involve stalling or spinning. From sticking your head inside a prop arc to many other wierd and wonderful ways to shuffle off this mortal coil, don't let a lack of imagination get in the way of your own risk assessment!

[bjornhall]

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". I think both are correct answers to two different questions.

[RansS9]

The AAIB report listed causes of the 140 deaths 85-94 in GA;

LOC VMC--28%
Low/Aero-- 19% (2/3rds loss of control. I am presuming in the final analysis stall/spin as opposed to CFIT due to mistake in for example looping manoeuvre)

That's alot of fatal accidents due to loss of control of what I assume was an otherwise functioning aeroplane.


PS for the slow of hearing---- I rely on the AAIB but I'm sure the NTSB are equally competent. Yes I am sure there are a multitude of ways of killing yourself in aviation but surprisingly few big killers. Oh and for your interest a lowly 3% were due to propeller injuries...however not much consolation if you were one of them.

TIM

[Say again s l o w l y]

I tend to listen more to American stats than our own, simply because their sample size is so much bigger. Of course there are differences, but as ane fule kno the more data you have, the more meaningful the results.

The biggest killer in aviation is stupidity and unfortunately even with the best training in the world, you can't change some people's attitude or ability sometimes.

The interesting thing about these stats is that inadvertant IMC is a bigger killer than spinning, but people are more scared of spinning than they are of going into cloud.

Nuts really.

Spin recovery training doesn't really help with IMC issues. IMC training helps with IMC issues.