Got the Spin endorsement today

[nosehair]

Rip my hair out!!

"If it's not in the PTS why do it?" One such person said exactly that, and many others imply it. THAT kind of thinking, my fellow pilots and instructors, is the bottom line reason why we have preventable pilot-error accidents.
Is there anyone of you guys who carry that thought that believes that the Checkride PTS maneuvers is all you need to know about flying to be safe and proficient?
I was around in the early 60's when Cessna was promoting the "new 152" as the "family plane". They even had a small back seat with 2 sets of seat-belts for the kids. Non-Aviation Magazines carried full page photo ads with smiling Dads and Moms in the front seat and happy kids in the back seemed to usher in a new era of everyone owning his/her own airplane and going for the "Sunday Ride" as a family.
At the same time, certain aircraft manufacturers downplayed the importance of spin training, since that might "scare off" those "family types" who otherwise might take up flying.
Political pressure - not statistical evidence - is the reason the FAA stopped requiring actual spin training.
Besides, statistics don't tell the whole story.
Confidence, and the ability to have command and control of the airplane no matter which side is up is an absolute requirement for me and anybody who learns to fly from me. Period.

 

[Lead Sled]

Hi guys, I'm the new kid on the block here, but I definately have an opinion when it comes to spins and spin training. If I were king of the world, I would require spin training (student demonstrated entries and recoveries in both directions). I feel that it's a shame that the FAA no longer requires this for all grades of airman certificates.

This hasn't always been so. Years ago, it was a requirement for student pilots to have spin training. Back then, stall/spins were one of the leading causes of aviation fatalities. The FAA (Oops, back then it was the CAA) recognized that, in most cases, if an aircraft is capable of stalling it is also capable of spinning therefore they required spin training. Later on the enlightened FAA decided that if they just ignored the problem it would go away. Hence the requirement for spin training was removed. The results? Stall/spins continued to be one of the leading causes aviation fatalities. Finally, the FAA decided that perhaps they had over done it and reinstated the requirement for spin training, but for CFI applicants only. The results? Stall/spins still continue to be one of the leading causes of fatalities in general aviation.

The problem with the current FAA approach is that it isn't working. Stall/Spins are still a contributing factor in a large percentage of aviation deaths. You can have a extensive "book" understanding of the factors involved, but the actual experience is so disorienting to one who has never experienced it before as to make verbal explanations virtually meaningless. In my opinion, it would be much better to have the student's first spin experience with a CFI at his side than hanging from the straps at pattern altitude, watching the world starting to spin around him with his wife sitting beside him and wondering what the hell just happened.

The manufactures have done their part - they have tried to design the "spin" right out of most of their designs. That's why it's so hard to get most (but not all) of the typical general aviation aircraft that we fly to spin. The problem is that nearly any airplane will spin if it's provoked enough and those that won't spin are more than willing to enter the infamous "graveyard spiral". (Any guesses why that name?) I feel that if an airplane is capable of spinning, then the student had dang well better be trained and proficient in spin entries and "textbook" recoveries (both directions) - regardless of what the FAA requires. (And not in an airplane that only requires you to relax pressure on the controls to recover. Believe me, there are many popular airplanes out there that require "aggressive" spin recovery techniques.)

It's not the spin training per se, but the knowledge of what's involved that has the potential to save lives. After all the classic stall/spin accident occurs at low altitude while the aircraft is making the base-to-final turn. My personal opinion is that proper training demands more than simply a thorough explanation of the aerodynamics involved. While absolutely necessary, this explanation must also be accompanied by appropriate demonstrations by both the instructor and student. In my case, I set up spin entry demos with the classic "base-to-final" scenario.

I fear that if too much emphasis is placed on how difficult it is to get a ___________ (fill in the blank - Tomahawk, C152, C172, Cherokee, etc.) to spin the student might come away with the mistaken impression that it's not a big deal. Personally, I'd rather let them experience both spin and spiral recoveries because that's what they're going to be doing if it ever happens to them. It's basically a new twist on the old concept of "See and Avoid". After all, I don't care how proficient you are with spin entries, if you allow yourself to get into one at pattern altitude, you and your passengers are most likely going to die. Certainly a thorough "academic" understanding of spins is essential, but actual spin demonstrations put the exclamation point at the end of the sentence - if you know what I mean.

Lead Sled

 

[nosehair]

Awsome Post

Thank you, thank you. Thankyouverymuch.

 

[pilotman2105]

I agree with Lead Sled. When I get my CFI (which should be within a month), I think that I'll teach my students spins, or at least make sure that they are familiar with them to the point where they can identify what causes them and recover from them if they mistakenly get into one.

This brings up a question in my mind though. What are people's thoughts on teaching spings to instrument students? Obviously it's not done currently, but it is something worth looking at? A good portion of spins come from flight into IMC (perhaps moreso by non-instrument rated pilots).

I think that it would be somewhat nuts to expect someone to recover from a spin while under the hood, but that's just my thoughts and inexperience on the matter talking.

Looking for ideas...

 

[Lead Sled]

I agree - as important as I feel spin instruction is, I wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of spin instruction while wearing a hood. When you're giving spin instruction please make sure that you're competent to give it. Most CFIs aren't. A couple of spin enteries and recoveries received just prior to taking your initial CFI checkride won't cut it. Take a bit of time and find a qualified aerobatic instructor and take some aerobatic dual in a Decathelon or 2 seat Pitts. It doesn't take a lot and it doesn't cost an outrageous amount of money. It's time and money well spent - not only for spins, but for unexpected severe upset (ie wake turbulence) recoveries.

There are other techniques that can taught your students that will help them in the event of inadvertent IFR. Depending upon the airplane, one can simply roll in full nose up trim, pull off the power, and let go (as in do not touch) of the yoke. This technique will put the airplane in a series of "swoops" that will be much more survivable than the normally unsurvivable spins and "graveyard" spirals.

Lead Sled

 

[labbats]

Don't go spin crazy pilotman. I was a young, eager private pilot with a fill-in instructor one day, he decided to do spins with me. We had only just met that day. I didn't know him enough to trust him, and suddenly he's showing me a spin that I had read about once. Naturally I freaked out, but tried to play it off as no big deal. But it was, and it really bothered me.

If you are going to do spins, please talk to your students all about them. Then build a rapport with them and get their trust in you.

As far as IMC stalls, teach basic attitude flying. You can't spin something you don't screw up to begin with.

 

[Lead Sled]

"...a fill-in instructor one day, he decided to do spins with me. We had only just met that day. I didn't know him enough to trust him, and suddenly he's showing me a spin that I had read about once. Naturally I freaked out, but tried to play it off as no big deal. But it was, and it really bothered me..." "...If you are going to do spins, please talk to your students all about them. Then build a rapport with them and get their trust in you..."

That is absolutely correct, but don't let that develop into an excuse not to receive the training. Proper instruction must include a thorough pre-flight briefing, not just a "Hey, let me show you something."

"As far as IMC stalls, teach basic attitude flying. You can't spin something you don't screw up to begin with."

That's also very true, but...
You have to remember that the average life expectany of a VFR pilot (and his/her passengers) that encounters and remains in IFR conditions is measured in minutes. "Continued VFR" is one of the leading causes of death in the "VFR only" pilot community. (The classic stall/spin scenario is also part of a large number of fatal accidents.) Unfortunately, this type of accident doesn't discriminate - it kills students and ATPs. Over the years I've known a couple of HIGHLY qualified ATPs (one was an ATP Designated Examiner) that got disoriented while flying in IMC and weren't able to recover. We are all susceptible to it. The only way to overcome it is with proper training and discipline. There are times when it can become an issue - for example, what if ATC accidentally vectors you too close behind a "heavy" while you're IMC. It's happend to me and it wasn't pretty. Proper training is a must.

Lead Sled

 

[pilotman2105]

Obviously the second lesson isn't going to be spins. But as an instructor, I think that I would owe it to my students to teach them what will keep them safe. Not just the mere basics...

 

[bobbysamd]

Spin training and unusual attitudes trai

If I were king of the world, I would require spin training (student demonstrated entries and recoveries in both directions). I feel that it's a shame that the FAA no longer requires this for all grades of airman certificates.

You probably would like the FlightSafety Academy syllabus. FSI students receive spin training, unusual attitudes and elementary acro as part of their course:

4.0 Unusual Attitude/Spin Recovery – Zlin 242L
4.0 Spatial Disorientation Training

When I worked there in 1991-'92 it used 152 Aerobats and a Decathlon. I know of no other major commercial flight school that includes such training in its course.

 

[LJDRVR]

I used to require all my primary students to strap on the chutes, and go do spin training in the Aerobat. Every single one of them had a great experience. Having spent almost 3 years teaching people to fly in old rag and tube taildraggers, I can say with absolute conviction that spin training should be required.

Those folks who are of the recognition and avoidance arguement, I would ask why spend any time teaching hood work? If recognition and avoidance are the way to go with dangerous flight situations, then let's spend some extra time on pilot descision-making in regards to avoiding any IMC. Sound lame? It is. So is expecting pilots to simply avoid spins by never stalling. The stall spin scenario that kills pilots starts with stalls that are unlike what the average instructor is teaching anyway.

Teach spins! (Properly)

 

[pilotman2105]

Spins

Just went and did spins today. Still not sure which way is up.

I used to require all my primary students to strap on the chutes, and go do spin training in the Aerobat.

Didn't think that parachutes are required if the spins are being done "for training purposes."

Why the parachutes? Just as a safety measure? (which is completely understandable)

 

[Lead Sled]

OK LJDRDR, I'll take this "King of the World" thing up to the next level...

Years ago, when I flew for a major airline, the 727 Chief Pilot told me that he could tell by the way a pilot flew the 727 if he had taildragger time or not. His inference was that pilots with taildragger experience did a noticeably better job. In the 20 years since he told me that, I've found no reason to disagree with that statement.

I'll even take it one step further. If I were king of the world I would make it a requirement for all beginning pilots to have glider experience as well. The "feel" that you develop as you learn to fly the glider will help you in all of the fixed-wing flying that you do from then on. The confidence that you develop in the ability to handle the inevitable engine failure will be invaluable.

When it comes to this type of training, I am a fan of anything that forces you to learn skills that will make you a more proficient airman - besides, they're a heck of a lot of fun.

Lead Sled

 

[bobbysamd]

Airmanship

If I were king of the world I would make it a requirement for all beginning pilots to have glider experience as well. The "feel" that you develop as you learn to fly the glider will help you in all of the fixed-wing flying that you do from then on.

Enterprise Aviation Academy, nka Global Alliance Academy of Flight, a school at Centennial Airport in Denver in the 1990s, required its students to earn Private Glider for the reasons you stated.

This school had an interesting program. All flight training, including solos, was done in Barons. Grads, at 250 hours, supposedly got interviews at Great Lakes Airlines up the road in Cheyenne.

You probably would like reading Redefining Airmanship by Tony Kern. This excellent book is about building airmanship from the ground up (sorry) and maintaining it. Thanks to our member, Rvrrat, for recommending this book to me.