Let's talk spins......

[UndauntedFlyer]

Let’s talk spins…….

The FAA’s current spin training, as a requirement and a qualification for the CFI practical test, is totally inadequate and dangerous……all at the same time.

The only safe way to do spins in a non-aerobatic airplane that is approved for spins (C152, C-172, etc) is by a one-turn maneuver only. Unfortunately most spins that are done in preparation for the CFI certificate in such airplanes intentionally result in more turns than just one-turn. The problem here is that the “spin instructors,” for the most part, have very little spin training themselves and may therefore be unable to recognize the approach of danger. And if the unthinkable were to happen, there is no quick release door and no parachutes to use even if there was such a door.

Therefore, if a potential CFI really wants to get proper spin training they should contact an aerobatic instructor, get training in a proper aerobatic airplane (Decathlon Pitts, Extra, etc), wear a parachute as is required for most all aerobatic training and have fun.

Proper CFI spin training should include multi-turn upright spins with both power-on and power-off, flat spins, experimental spins with both in-spin and out-spin aileron inputs, cross-over spins (upright to inverted) and inverted spins, all to proper recovers. CFI spin training should also include spin training with demonstrations and practice recoveries from improper spin entries, including recognition of and recoveries from spins that show unusual developments.

But even after an aerobatic spin training program, CFI spin training in non-aerobatic airplanes should still be done to just one-turn as a matter of how to safely demonstrate spins in such airplanes.

One-turn spins to recovery should also be taught to all Private/Commercial Pilot students.

Your comments and/or questions are welcome…….

 

[Kream926]

well...
i agree about spin recovery to private students but i have some trouble as it is breaking the fear of some about normal (power-off)stalls. i do however like you said demo a stall in a 52 but only 1 rotation. i did however go up with a guy in an extra 300 and done some real ones

 

[papanovember]

The FAA’s current spin training, as a requirement and a qualification for the CFI practical test, is totally inadequate and dangerous……all at the same time.

Yes it is. After doing my "spin training" for my CFI I didn't feel like I had the ability to properly teach stall spin awareness to my students.


Unfortunately most spins that are done in prep for the CFI certificate in such airplanes intentionally result in more turns than just one-turn. The problem here is that the “spin instructors,” for the most part, have very little spin training themselves and may therefore be unable to recognize the approach of danger.

Exactly, I know of many hot shot instructors who have done stupid things in 152's. "oh a barrel roll is perfectly safe you are only pulling one G" yeah until you botch the recovery and blow past the load limit pulling out. The first barrel roll I ever did was in a Decathlon and I pulled back too much while inverted and ended up hitting 5 g's on the way out.

Therefore, if a potential CFI really wants to get proper spin training they should contact an aerobatic instructor, get training in a proper aerobatic airplane, wear a parachute as is required for most all aerobatic training and have fun.

That's what I did and I had a blast. I did emergency recovery training in the 8KCAB and stall spin awareness training in the Extra 300.

Proper CFI spin training should include multi-turn upright spins with both power-on and power-off, flat spins, spins with in-spin and out-spin aileron inputs, cross-over spins and inverted spins, all to proper recovers. CFI spin training should also include spin training with demonstrations and recoveries from improper spin entries or spin development.

I think all commercial applicants should be required to take an aerobatics course but that is just me.


One-turn spins to recovery should also be taught to all Private Pilot students.

Yes it should

 

[midlifeflyer]

The FAA’s current spin training, as a requirement and a qualification for the CFI practical test, is totally inadequate and dangerous……all at the same time.

I tend to agree that it can be inadequate, but not necessarily for the same reason. I did my obligatory turn in a 152. My CFI was happy to sign me off, but I wasn't. These were my first live exposure to spins and I wasn't satisfied that going up once was enough to make me comfortable. So we went up again, this time in a Citabria, which was actually fun.

But I really don't think it was the Citrabira that made me feel more comfortable; it was going the second time. Our students don't "get" stalls or steep turns or lazy 8s right the first time; why should we expect CFI candidates to "get" spins right away.

I don't necessarily agree with the rest of the post. I understand the arguments on both side of the "hot" spin issue but I'm a fence-sitter on this one. My only spin training was for my CFI. I have no problem recovering from a student-induced spin (been there done that). At the same time, there's nothing that's happened in the rest of my flying to make me feel that my pre-CFI training was inadequate without it.

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

My only spin training was for my CFI. I have no problem recovering from a student-induced spin (been there done that). At the same time, there's nothing that's happened in the rest of my flying to make me feel that my pre-CFI training was inadequate without it.

Midlifeflyer: Thanks for your reply. As a CFI part of your authority is to teach spins to other CFI's. Do you feel comfortable when teaching spins to new CFI's?

I have taught spin recoveries to CFI applicants and have had some of these students recover so abruptly with full forward elevator that the airplane crossed-over into an inverted spin. Then by that student holding rudder opposite to the upright entry rudder they were actually holding in-spin rudder while inverted, all the while thinking they were holding recovery rudder. This situation gives no clues as to what is happening or as to why the expected recovery rudder is not working. Other incorrect control inputs while spinning can also cause dangerous spin attitudes to develop and must be stopped before they can over stress a utility category airplane.


As far as spins are concerned: "Training is always your best investment in safety." And as you have so correctly pointed out, one spin demo flight is just no where near enough as CFI prep training.

 

[onthebeach]

Spin Training for Private/Commercial?

J. McClellan of Flying magazine once wrote an article in which he came out in favor of the FAA's current policy regarding required spin training for Private or Commercial applicants.

He made a good argument, something along these lines (can't remember it exactly, so I'm omitting quotes and enclosing his thoughts as I recall them in >><<):

>>If the airplane does not stall, the airplane cannot spin.
Therefore stall awareness, stall avoidance, and stall recovery is sufficient for safety.
The big objection to the FAA's policy omitting required spin training for other-than-CFI certification is that fatalities continue to result from the low-altitude stall-spin scenarios.
However, these fatalities are not evidence that spin training is required, but that the stall awareness/avoidance/recovery training of the pilots in question was insufficient, or that their currency in those areas of operation was insufficient, or both.
The clinching argument is this: How can we reasonably expect that a pilot who is so unskilful or unaware as to get into a stall-spin scenario at 500 feet AGL in a traffic pattern, will then instaneously be so skilful as to recover from a spin (or incipient spin) at less than 500 feet AGL?<<

The thought in the last sentence is what settled the argument for me.

We can go around and around on the issue, but the FAA is unlikely to change its position.

To me as a CFI, the issue is really pretty pointless, because both we CFIs and our students have a choice in the matter.

That choice is: If a CFI feels very strongly that spin training for Private and or Commercial should be required, they will no doubt be proficient and comfortable in giving said training, or know of another CFI to whom they will refer their students for this instruction.
And the student who desires spin training, even though it's not required for the certificates, has doubtless made this decision on the basis of some factor other than PTS requirements. This would likely be either a personal desire for additional proficiency, knowledge that he/she will be seeking CFI certification in future, or the recommendation of a CFI or other more experienced pilot that in his/her opinion, the training is desirable. Such students will likely seek out a CFI proficient and comfortable with giving spin training.
And so the circle is closed.

 

[Pilot_Ryan]

Let’s talk spins…….

Your comments and/or questions are welcome…….

I'll comment. Let's see; my run through this gauntlet included a stage in my life in which I was flying intermediate to advanced level aerbatics, then teaching aerobatics, then narrowing my instructional focus to spin and upset recovery/avoidance. All in the appropriate aircraft, of course.

I figure I've probably recovered from (insert a five-digit number here) spins of all kinds; accelerated, flat, inverted, flat-inverted, inadvertent, in many types of airplanes, most of them aerobatic, but C-172s as well. (Don't worry, nothing exotic in the 172.)

I strongly believe there's a great value in spin avoidance and recovery training, especially above the one-off "spin endorsement" required for CFIs. However, one thing you've got to come to grips with when you get into the spin debate is that like it or not, since the FAA has dropped the spin requirement for a pilot certificate, accidents/fatalities in spins have gone down. The remedy was worse than the cure. It's hard to argue with results. So while I wouldn't call the current regulations "dangerous," it seems to me that students who seek out a higher-level of training from an experienced spin instructor are giving themselves a big leg up.

I spun my student pilots. That was just the way I did things. It wasn't required, and if they wanted to beg off I'd settle for 'spin avoidance training.' These people are adults and can make decisions for themselves. Out of all my private pilot students, only one turned down the chance to spin the airplane.

Was never much interested in the parachute issue. They're not required for teaching spins at any level of pilot training (per FAA Chief Counsel, after Bill Kershner wrote them about the mis-worded 14 CFR 91.307 in the nineties) and for most spin accidents they wouldn't have made any difference. Parachutes are useful for aerobatics, when a stuck flight control or structural failure offers little choice but to bail out. Most spin fatalities occur after the pilot forces the airplane into a stall/spin at low altitude; the parachute is just a bulky feel-good measure in that instance. Proper spin training conducted at altitude will offer ample time to recover, and this instructor dunna believe in the "rogue" spin. They're all recoverable, at least in the airplanes we fly. That said, if you want to wear a chute, go ahead. (And when I taught upset recovery, we did wear them.)

While I agree that CFI spin training should be more comprehensive, I don't think we'll ever see a requirement for exotic spin recoveries, nor should we. (Besides, it would take an advanced or unlimited category aerobatic airplane to safely practice inverted and flat inverted spin recovery; and the lower-end of the aerobatic spectrum, e.g. Citabria, Decathlon, etc., won't really flatten out convincingly.) Comprehensive training in my opinion should include recoveries from fully-developed spins, and most instructors and pilots have never seen one of those, even if they think otherwise. Part of my spin recovery course included recovery from an inadvertent (self-induced) spin at the conclusion of the course. I planned the event so the entry was self-induced by the pilot, but they were not aware until the last second that they were about to enter a spin. They were then expected to recover the aircraft without any input from me. (Note, this was with full-power application in the airplane which is how many inadvertent spins are actually entered, instead of power-off which is very benign.) In my view, a number of recoveries from incipient and fully-developed spins, both with power and without, to the left and to the right, as well as recovery from a simulated ham-fisted student making the pro-spin inputs, are what we should expect from flight instructor candidates.

By the way, there is nothing unsafe about a multi-turn spin in an approved airplane like a C-172 in the utility category. The C-172 is a lousy spin trainer, not because it's dangerous in a fully-developed spin, but because it's built in such a way that it doesn't want to spin. It must be forced. Pilots can use the wrong technique and still recover, which is no good, because those techniques won't transfer to other airplanes.

I won't ever support a spin training requirement for private/commercial pilots. That means a lot of instructors who have no business teaching spins will be offering that kind of training, and safety will be adversely affected.

It's not a simple issue, and while requiring a higher level of training seems to be the simple answer, it's not. The way to derive a higher level of safety for individual pilots is to seek out advanced training from instructors experienced in that type of training.

Best regards!

 

[OrionFE]

I did spin awareness training years ago when it was required for a Private Pilot lic. Back then it scared the "bajeezes" out of me! But, what I learned from that even to this day, I am always aware of stall speed and keeping the ball centered at all times. My instructer use to always say when I was doing stalls and the ball would be out, "good, I like doing spins", so that is always etched in my mind.

 

[CopilotDoug]

Will little Johnny Flysalot be instructing in a 152 or an Extra 300? How will a 152 behave in a spin when unbeknownst to the 2 BIG instructors up front, the aircraft is over gross and has a CG exceeding the back of the envelope? In my opinion, the training should be done in the aircaft the person will spend most of their time in.

 

[MauleSkinner]

I have taught spin recoveries to CFI applicants and have had some of these students recover so abruptly with full forward elevator that the airplane crossed-over into an inverted spin....

Sounds like they needed some training in basic stall recovery BEFORE getting into the spin training.

Kinda like teaching tailwheel...everybody wants to learn to takeoff and land, but if you can't fly the darn airplane, you're not going to be able to takeoff and land.

Fly safe!

David