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