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.

two things about spins.

one...read "Stick and Rudder" by wolfgang langweische and you will learn much.

two...if you aren't stalled, you can't spin...so avoid a stall and you avoid the spin.

and that is why it isn't in the private pilot world anymore...we teach you to avoid stall and recover from stall....so avoid stalls and you avoid spins!

good luck

I see both sides of this, but still err to the "train and practice" rather than "avoid" approach. I really doubt that planned training spins, conducted with the appropriate cautions, in appropriate type ,airworthy aircraft are a source of great hazard. Yes, loosing control of a twin while doing single engine training can become an immense hazard - but that is not intentional spin training! The "avoid" approach seems to me to be akin to saying that if someone is taught to land really well, teaching a bouce recovery or an overshoot after touchdown skill is not really necessary. Ideally yes, though practically a miss, in my opinion.

I have never accidentally spun an aircraft, other than during very abused handling testing, where a spin was very possible, and the recovery preplanned. I think however, that a mismanaged wing drop stall, which is presumed to be a spin, but is not (yet) tends to strike fear into pilots.

Apparently to me, no matter how vigourously pilots are trained to not stall, they still seem to. As long as a stall, however unintended, happens, spin recovery could rapidly become a valuable skill. Yes, unintended stalls and spins seem to be most common close to the ground, where all is lost (hence my very real resistance to the turnback after engine failure on departure - no matter how many posters say it could be attempted).

The spin training includes as a great value the approach to the stall spin, which itself is important in teaching a pilot what it's like when you're getting close.

The more training one has in the unusual corners of flying, the less alarming those corners will be, and the better natural reactions will be there to get out - or better yet, avoid!

...sums it up really. Who has ever come close to the stage that a spin may occur? If you have, you've probably been flying your aircraft to its slowest limit and will be cautious of its 'bite'. Without knowing where the limits lie and still performing manoeuvres of this kind, you'd be silly. I fail to understand how a non-emergency inadvertant spin would occur. The PPL stall/spin awareness/recovery training is enough to cover what the PPL without an aeros cert/rating will encounter.

I'm advocate pushing the limits as much as possible that one feels confident to do, an inch at a time, but we must know the max and not exceed it whilst remaining in complete control at all times.

Fly safe

GW

Spin avoidance or recovery training
 

I was required to learn to perform full spin recovery when I learned to fly in 1960. In 2005, when I made a return to flying, after a break of many years, I was given the new 'spin avoidance' training.

So having now experienced both, my view is that everybody ought to experience a fully developed spin, even if only once and as a passenger, purely for purposes of demonstration.

After all, if you have never actually experienced a spin, how can you form any concept of what it is you are avoiding when you have spin avoidance training?

Unless you have actually seen with your own eyes that YOUR aeroplane really will spin, and seen the potentially terrifying sight of the good earth up in front of your windscreen and spinning like a top, the spin will always remain merely a theoretical possibility.

Without this, I feel that as time passes people will gradually become inclined to tempt fate, taking the attitude 'well it just doesn't happen; and it can't really be all that bad can it'?

BP.

Intentional slow flight is the least likely way to get killed by stalling/spinning. An accelerated stall in a final turn with too much bank or a rapid airspeed drop in an unusual attitude in IMC are potentially a lot more dangerous.

...and for the purpose of fun, too! Actually, this may be a convenient way to check whether one will make a good pilot or not (wanting to do it again vs. being scared sh*tless).

I think there may be a bit of semantics at play here. It takes 2 turns to establish a true spin for typical GA aircraft ( i.e. non specialty aerobatic aircraft ). If you recover in the first half turn you are not executing a spin recovery you are really just recovering from a stall. The proof is that the aircraft can be recovered with just forward stick and no rudder input at all. To get to true autorotation where
a proper spin recovery is the only way to ensure a safe recovery, you have to let the aircraft go at least a full turn and for most common trainers 2 turns is required. The only time I see this happening is for deliberate spins and therefore if you get into an inadvertent spin why would anyone sit there and do nothing for a whole turn or more ?

When I want to give my students a healthy fright about what happens if you are asleep at the wheel I conduct a power on climbing turn stall slipping in a bit of top rudder at the break (i.e. rudder opposite the turn to cause a skid). The aircraft will roll off the top in fairly dramatic fashion. Even those students with a under developed imagination can figure out a really bad situation is going to develop unless early and aggressive action is taken to unstall the aircraft and control the yaw.:ok:

Another great exercise is to do a power off stall but hold the stick full back when it breaks. The idea is to use the rudder to stop the aircraft from yawing and thus starting the entry to a spin. Quite coarse use of the rudder is required but if you get on the rudder the aircraft will stay under control albeit with a big sink rate. This exercise is usually the first time any student has ever applied full rudder in flight.

Finally it is important to note that the above comments applies to common modern GA aircraft. If you are flying a vintage taildragger, home built, or warbirds then the aircraft might have very unforgiving stall characteristics and a proper checkout should include some work in the dark corners of the flight envelope.

Would it be possible for turbulence to induce a spin?

From slow flight, yes.

From anything much above about 1.2Vs, no.

G

I found that an oddity about PPL training, the fact that you do incipient spin but not the fully developed one. I have to do spins every year as part of my glider recert, what's so different about powered? (I might add that spinning is the best way to loose height in a glider, someone I know, cough, happily span down from 11,000 to 2,000 in a very short space of time)

Edit: In case there are lunatics reading this who thing 'Der, I'll give that a go then' I will add the rider that it's the best way to loose height quickly providing you have lots and lots to start with, aren't barking enough to leave it too late to apply anti spin control, are in a glider that you are completely familiar with and that will spin in the first place

Quite correct that teaching avoidance of stall or approaching spin is safer, for power aircraft. I found it rather scary in a Cessna 152, as demonstrated by my instructor. By comparison, stalls and spins and the recognition of these is required before a glider pilot can go solo. This is because we typically fly in thermals, at slow speeds for best height gain, and also turbulence, or gusts in thermals, certainly CAN stall the glider, and the last thing you want to do is come spinning down through all those other gliders in the stack circling under your cloud...they wouldn't appreciate it!

Low down spins are certainly to be avoided! these used to be taught in gliding just to put respect for the ground into the hapless student.

I find it helpful to remind the beginners that without realising it, they have probably experienced stalls .....after all, a well held off landing is a stall a few inches from the ground!

The experience of the stall is given early in the training now, as people fear what they havn't experienced. Same later on, with spinning. But it took me at least 5 years to learn to enjoy it.

The K13 glider, or the Puchaz at some clubs, is used for spin training. If curious, power pilots might like to try it in a glider, it is not so scary, and leads to understanding of the symptoms and effects. Speed control in the circuit and on approach is critical for avoiding stalls or spins too near the ground for the standard full spin recovery to save the situation.

I find your bounced landing analogy unpersuasive. Teaching the recovery from a bounced landing is like teaching stalls. The manoever in this case, slow flight, has gone bad and you now need to recover; here are the skills you need.

Personally I think a landing analogy equating to the teaching of spins would be to have the student deliberately touch down at high speed nose wheel first in order to set up a case of the aircraft wheel barrowing. Yes it could happen but the solution is to not perfect the students control of the aircraft while it on the runway rolling along with the just the nosewheel touching, it is to instill an automatic reaction to recover from the situation, which in this case is obviously back stick and conduct a go around just like arresting a spin should occur at the first sign of a stall and uncommanded yaw not after the aircraft is allowed to establish itself in autorotation.

I however heartily endorse your thoughts about training in the unusual corners of flying. In a perfect world everyone would take upset training and thus develop the life saving automatic reactions you need when you find yourself in a bad place.

Ask your average private pilot what immediate action is required to save yourself if the aircraft is rolled upside down on final because of wake turbulence, and hardly anyone will know, let alone likely have the presence of mind to do it if it actually happened.

Never thought of that one, never mind experienced it. As a novice I would probably (given the presence of mind) shove full forward yoke and full aileron/rudder.

What's the solution?

I think many of us have been closer than perhaps you think. I was taught the most likely place to spin inadvertently is turning final, with a low airspeed and some bank. In that scenario if you now apply out-of-bank aileron you have all the ingredients necessary.

Might not be such a good idea if you don't have inverted fuel and oil! My guess is the same thing as at altitude. Unload, centralise and then roll to the nearest horizon and apply power as required, pulling or pushing to your horizon. It's very important to manage any power on yaw when recovering at a slow speed. It's gonna depend based on what your flying though. That's my opinion at least!

Full spin training in a controlled environment: educational, worthwhile and fun.

Instilling instinctive feel of and reactions to excessive AoA, yaw and approaching loss-of-control: priceless.

Hello All,

When you learn how to fly you need to understand a full stall and what a spin is....I was 15 when I stalled and later spun a 152....today at 47.... I am so thankful that I was required to accomplish this simple task. Remember the only thing that really kills... is lack of altitude.

Full left rudder and opposite airleron....followed by....well you get it....right???

Enjoy

I almost experienced that once. Flying practice instrument approaches (VFR) on a windless day with no seperation services provided at 1500'. Came in behind an airbus. Suddenly started experiencing loads of buffet on the airframe and then the aeroplane just started rolling quickly to the right. I had full left aileron and left rudder and we were still rolling right quickly (I was under the hood). Luckily I was with a very experienced instructor who shouted "my plane", took control, applied full throttle and pulled us up and out of the vortex. It was like time slowed down but it must have been seconds.

I think we were lucky, we had a 100kt approach speed so more effective controls, and I was with someone with a lot more experience than I had who recognised what was going on very quickly and knew a way out of it. I wouldn't like to have been inverted in a 172 at 1500' as I think the only way to recover would have been to continue the roll to wings level and recover from the dive. Don't know if there would have been enough altitude though.....

When you don't KNOW what to do, DO NOTHING! Even the Air France plunge into the Atlantic was caused by the pilots doing the wrong thing, same with the Colgan disaster.

Typical stall and spin approach scenario, ...."I pulled back on the stick, and the nose wouldn't come up! The elevator didn't seem to work, so I pulled harder....."

While being flipped on approach by wake turbulence does call for immediate and expert recovery, this doesn't happen a lot.....but if your aircraft is properly trimmed and was flying just fine a few seconds before things went pearshaped, let go of everything and pray!

History relates, in the early days, the first pilot to recover from a spin decided he was going to die anyhow, and stopped trying to bring the nose up from what he thought was a dive.....

I watched someone do the same in a Pa38 - they had not taken into account the lag in the altimeter that builds up over such a fast descent and were a lot lower than expected when recovery complete!:=

a commonly held misconception!

The day after I passed my flight exam, I booked an hour in a Super-Decathalon to go do a couple of spins. It was an overwhelmingly positive and confidence-building lesson because it removed the fear of the unknown for me. I'd heard a lot about how dangerous spins were so I was deathly afraid of any unusual movement of the aircraft because I thought it was going to start hurling me to the ground in some unrecoverable plummet.

Doing actual spins showed me what they really are all about, how to properly avoid them, and recover, and finally gave me real confidence in handling the airplane. I advocate doing them for at least that reason - to dispel all the myth, legend, and fear-mongering that surrounds them, and give the student more confidence. As to the rationale for taking them out of training, I can't comment. I can only say that doing them was an excellent experience for me.

BTW.

Much higher up this thread avoiding stalls was advocated. True, BUT.....

Every year at least, Permit renewal (UK) requires stall characteristics, hence a real stall, to be done.

Makes sense to me, regularly done every now & then as a check on what the ASI says at these critically low velocities.
Worth doing with pax & loaded too - at plenty of height.

Spin off the final two turns on landing ?
I watch the speedo like a hawk and get on one stage of flap before then, mostly slowed down to flap speed at the latter part of downwind. On my Rans that reduces stall by ~3 to 4 mph, all very useful for the last bit !

mike hallam.