Stall Spin Awareness/Recovery
 

Why is spin training not included as part of qualifying for a PPL? I have had my PPL for 16 years and only recently completed 5 hours of training (both in the classroom and practising recovery from 1 and 2 turn spins) and it really opened my eyes as to how utterly unequipped I was to deal with it in a real life situation.

This should be a mandatory part of all initial flight training and not just a post PPL “optional training choice”. I had a close friend who may have still been with us had he had this type of training.

Spin Avoidance Training used to be a mandatory part of the UK CAA PPL syllabus. I believe it became optional under JAR...

Stall/spin awareness is a mandatory part of the JAR syllabus, and at-least 2 hours have to be done.

Actual spins were eliminated from the syllabus because it was perceived that more aircraft were being lost in training, than saved due to pilots having practiced spin recoveries. It's an often controversial point but, historically, the accident statistics seem to prove this to have been correct.

Any student who wants to do some spinning just needs to ask their school. Most can provide this training either pre or post PPL.

What is poorly taught is that in about 99% of cases, if the pilot puts the stick and rudder in the middle the moment the aircraft does something odd, it'll recover. Much training is about the fully developed spin, which is essentially an aerobatic maneouvre that most pilots should never get to.

G

Whilst most schools can provide this, I would be a little cautious over who you do it with, these days many schools do not have instructors who are that experienced in spin training, and many who do will be using aircraft like the C152 which, though cleared for spinning, have characteristics that are not ideal as spin trainers. Idealy you want an aircraft that can be put in a spin without a flick entry, stays in the spin whilst the instructor points out WIHIH, then recovers with standard spin recovery. If a school teaches Aeros (preferably not in a C152), or advertises spin training they should be fine, otherwise, there are plenty of schools that DO specialise in this.:ok:

I'm interested in your opinion of both the PA38 and the T67 variants as spin trainers. I've heard different things about both.

The Tomahawk has a reputation for scary things happening with the tail in a spin, and yet I cannot find any footage on YouTube.

The Slingsby has a reputation for unrecoverable spins. A highly qualified TP is quoted as saying that it has many untested spin modes, and only three that are tested. With an unpredictable spin, recovery isn't a dead cert.

Thank you!

Wash your mouth out with soap sir.


I've never spun a Tommie, but have heard the reputation. What I can't find is much evidence of it having a real problem.

I know some very able pilots who I have a lot of respect for who swear the T67 is safe as houses. I also used to know a very able and almost obsessively safe and careful pilot, who died in one when it span into the ground. The spins I've done in the T67 it showed some characteristics, particularly pitch lightening during the last bit of deceleration towards the stall, that disturbed me. So I don't trust it.

That said, all the historic fatal spin accidents in the T67 are in the small engined models, not the big engined military models.


Personally I am happy to practice spins, and have been the first test pilot to spin a couple of aeroplane types. Whilst it's not exactly my teaching speciality, I would be content to demonstrate spins.

What I will not do is spin without a parachute and jettisonable canopy and/or doors. It's just unnecessary.

G

I suggest going somewhere that uses a Citabria, Decathlon, Extra or Cap 10 or equivalent, and combining the spin recovery training with a basic Unusual Attitude recovery course.

Sure, they're more expensive than a 152 or Tomahawk, but your bang for the buck quality will be much better. Plus you can safely mess up the recovery with enough G and speed to spare, before the instructor has to take over.

In the UK I understand the problem is that you need an aerobatics harness to do intentional spins and many aircraft simply aren't equipped.

I did PPL spins on a Super-Decathlon and thoroughly enjoyed it. Although the price per hour was high, we spent a high proportion of the time climbing to do the next spin, and had it not had such a powerful engine we'd have spent even more time in the climb.

I did wonder whether it mightn't have been falsely reassuring - having big control surfaces you could enter and exit spins as quickly as you could think about it. My understanding is that if I got a PA-38 into a spin I would have to hold the anti-spin controls for a turn or two whilst the spin tightened _before__recovery, which would take considerably more self-belief.

The world wide GA accident clearly shows that most inadvertent spins occur after an aircraft was mishandled in the circuit or during extremely irresponsible low level show boating type manoevers. In virtually all of the cases the spin entry was at an altitude too low to allow a recovery.

The chance you will experience a spin and then effect a recovery in the "spin" as it is typically demonstrated at a flying school, is virtually zero.

I am a fully qualified aerobatic instructor in Canada but I don't demonstrate any spin recoveries to my PPL students. What I do teach is how to recognize the situations where a departure from controlled flight is a real danger using a variety scenarios. The bottom line is I want to instill an instinctive reaction of stick forward and rudder as required to arrest any yaw for any possible inadvertent stall. If that is there is no way a student can get him or herself into an inadvertent spin.

If they want to do deliberate spins then I invite them to sign up for an introductory aerobatics course.

This is a logical approach but I don't agree with it. If you get into a spin inadvertently it really means you missed all the warning signs. If you are trained only to recover from those warning signs and you missed them because you were distracted or overloaded then you have nothing left in your armory of practical flying skills to get you out of trouble.

Your first spin in training with an instructor where you have been briefed beforehand and are expecting it, still feels very unusual and takes you by surprise. For a pilot that had never experienced that before, I doubt they would stand much chance of recovery.

They would not have much chance of recovery because it most probably happened at an altitude too low to recover as the accident record sadly demonstrates.

For a true spin to develop the aircraft has to be both stalled and allowed to yaw.

If the pilot allows sufficient uncommanded yaw to occur so that the aircraft enters a true spin I don't think he she likely will suddenly recover their skills to execute a spin recovery.

The secret to avoid inadvertent spins is to

1) Recognize when the aircraft is in the slow flight regime and do not allow the further decrease in speed (AOA).

2) If they failed to recognize the developing low speed/high AOA, recover by adding power and lowing the nose at the first sign of a stall

3) If they fail to recognize the incipient stall and allow the aircraft to get into a fully developed stall, execute a stall recovery and use the rudder to stop the aircraft from yawing which would lead into a spin entry.

I didn't find this to be the case - the spin itself was somewhat tame compared to the spin entry, recovery from which, as incipient spin, which was part of the PPL training so I was familiar with it.

Mind you this was in a 152 which could be recovered from the spin simply by taking one's hands and feet off the controls.

I was somewhat surprised that the spin itself was a non-event.

I have always been an advocate of spin awareness/training. I understand the salient points about PPL training and the possible lack of suitably experienced instructors, however, wherever possible IMO all pilots should at least experience this. The report on another thread currently running, the Canadian Seneca Training accident, makes valued and very sobering reading. Decay of airspeed, in a climbing right turn, pretty vicious wing drop and stall.

BP is of course very accurate that if it happens at low altitude, then options are very limited, we had an entertaing EFATO thread all about that and the turn back manoeuvre at low altitude.

The OP has answered his own question in the question. You have held a PPL for 16 years and I presume that during that time you have never unintentionally spinned?

Most aeroplanes are not cleared for spinning any more than a 747 is.....and you wouldn't expect 747 spin training to be carried out.

My view is that spin training is best left as part of an aerobatics course, post PPL, done in a proper aeroplane with a proper psycho (Aeros FI ;) ) sat next to you. Also as far as a PPL candidate is concerned, then it is probably too much to take in to be really worthwhile.

Sure, FI's etc. should do spin training as they have a higher than average chance of getting chucked into a spin by a student but by the time you become an FI you have a good amount of experience.

That pretty much sums it all up for me.

I come at this more from the gliding end than the power one but it is still just as true. There have been many long-winded treatises written about stalling/spinning and the training (or not) involved with both. Some years ago, a well-known gliding instructor and aerodynamicist wrote a seminal short article called: "Stop pulling the stick back!", which said most of what you needed to know in the title...

Stop pulling the stick back... and fly in balance. Another good one is trim for the speed you want to fly at. Also listen to your engine. Those things should keep most out of trouble. :)

Shan't:p

IMHO Initial spin training should be done on an aircraft that follows SSR - call it something else if you want, but this should be the starting point, then going onto Mueller/Beggs technique and - most importantly - emphasising that the aircraft manual for any particular aircraft should be read and the correct spin recovery for that aircraft used when spinning that type.:hmm:

I have spun the Pa38 and it is one of its better points, a proper spin that will enter without dramatics and stays in the spin until you want it to come out.

As spinning was not included in my JAA-PPL training, I became curious and did some spins in a Citabria with an aerobatic instructor. Since this experience, I am with BPF et al. and the powers-that-be who removed spins from the PPL syllabus concerning the potential safety gain. Intentional spinning at altitude is one (even quite fun) thing, but if one really messes up so badly as to get in an inadvertent spin at low altitude in the first place, I doubt that anyhe/she will have enough time, height and mental resources left to make a successful recovery.

IMHO, from a safety standpoint, an ounce of prevention, stall awareness and emphasis on an immediate "Stop pulling the stick/yoke back!" at the very first sign of trouble is worth more than a pound of actual spin recovery skills.

I've done spins in a C152 during PPL training but only because the instructor happened to be an aerobatics guy. There's probably not a great learning experience but it's is very impressive to get to know what a spin feels like. I agree with those who say that spins usually happen at low altitude without any chance of recovery. Having experienced spins, pilots will probably take stalls and the golden rule about proper use of flight controls during slow flight much more serious.

Speaking of aircraft for advanced spin training (in the context of an aerobatics program), Alexandre Garnaev, a Russian test pilot with a lot of spin testing experience, calls Yak-52 one of the best aircraft for this purpose: it can be intentionally put into any type of spin - steep or flat, upright or inverted - and can be recovered from all of them in a consistent manner without non-standard manipulations. There are quite a few of them in the UK, so this may be a good option.
I have only done a steep upright spin in it. With a rudder input from level flight at the stall speed, it drops a wing very abruptly and loses about 600-900 feet per turn at a pitch of -60° or so; putting the stick slightly forward of centre and giving a full opposite rudder produces a recovery within less than half a turn.