Spins before solo?

[2R]

One question you might get asked on The Oral portion of a CFI ride is : When would you recommend spinning an airplane deliberately ?
And by spinning I mean a fully established spin , tucked right in ? Slow airspeed slow rate of descent , Axis of rotation stable in the vertical .

Hint 1; Stearman mail pilots did it more than most . Vertical spins not forward spins otherwise known as snap rolls .

[Aviatard]

And by spinning I mean a fully established spin , tucked right in ? Slow airspeed slow rate of descent , Axis of rotation stable in the vertical .
.

Man what the heck are you talking about? What is this “tucked in” spin you’re going on about?

[AuxBatOn]

I have done many spins in my life, some of them aggravated (on purpose) for experimental flight testing. In an aircraft designed and certified to spin, recovering from a fully developed spin, even after being aggravated, is not particularly challenging. In fact, there are certification requirements on how easy it is to recover from a spin. Not sure what that “tucked-in” spin thing is about.

[EPR]

C-150's are easy and fun to spin, used to hold it in the spin for four or five revolutions. I remember doing my first spin solo, took a lot of nerve to do it but once I did a few, it really built up my confidence! I wouldn't feel comfortable flying a plane if I didn't know how to get out of a spin.

[tsgarp]

I must have been working off an old version of the CARS when I gave my previous citation. However, the wording is in the current version of the CARS:

Flight Training Program Requirements

405.14 Flight training that is conducted using an aeroplane or helicopter shall be conducted in accordance with the applicable flight instructor guide and flight training manual or equivalent document and the applicable training manual on human factors.

The curriculum listed in the FIG has spins before solo, the CARs say follow the FIG unless otherwise authorized.

[photofly]

I must have been working off an old version of the CARS when I gave my previous citation. However, the wording is in the current version of the CARS:

Flight Training Program Requirements

405.14 Flight training that is conducted using an aeroplane or helicopter shall be conducted in accordance with the applicable flight instructor guide and flight training manual or equivalent document and the applicable training manual on human factors.

The curriculum listed in the FIG has spins before solo, the CARs say follow the FIG unless otherwise authorized.

I don’t see anything in any CAR that says “unless otherwise authorized” - I think you Invented that.

But the FIG also says “the personal instructional techniques of an individual flight instructor may be cause for modification of this syllabus...” So modifying the syllabus is still in accordance with the applicable Flight Instructor Guide.

[PilotDAR]

For my experience, the term "tucked in" when used in the context of a spin, is not the airplane, but rather a part of one's anatomy. I have had this experience while test flying aft limit (or slightly beyond) spins in Cessna 185, 206, 207 and 208. You push the control wheel fully forward, and hold it. A part of you instinctively "tucks in" while the nose does not go below the horizon for a part of a turn - you're just hanging there, going vertically down, along for the ride, tucked in......

[the-minister31]

But the FIG also says “the personal instructional techniques of an individual flight instructor may be cause for modification of this syllabus...” So modifying the syllabus is still in accordance with the applicable Flight Instructor Guide.

It says that in regards of lesson plans, but if you go check Exercise 19 - first solo, there is one paragraph that states that you must complete ALL exercices dicted in lesson plan 1 to 10, including incipient spins, before authorizing a first solo.

And also I don't get the "tucked in" part of a spin. The spin is either incipient or stable. And to be quite honest, the only difference between the two recoveries is that one recovers faster than the other in most cases...

[Big Pistons Forever]

The CAR is an imperfect document and this question like many others is not answerable with a simple yes/no reference to a specific paragraph. However the intent of the Minister is IMO pretty clear when regulations and policy documents that refer to flight training are read together.

The 2 applicable CAR's are as follows

405.14 Flight training that is conducted using an aeroplane or helicopter shall be conducted in accordance with the applicable flight instructor guide and flight training manual or equivalent document and the applicable training manual on human factors.

405.33 (1) A person who conducts flight training for the issuance of a private pilot licence, a commercial pilot licence or a flight instructor rating — aeroplane or helicopter shall, for each trainee, maintain a pilot training record that meets the personnel licensing standards.

In addition there is further information in the non regulatory guidance document TP13747 Stall Spin Training Guidance Notes, but it does not specify when the training should be provided

The reality is that it would be difficult if not impossible, for TC to sanction an instructor for sending a student solo without any exposure to the spin entry and recovery. However I think there is a expectation on the part of TC that instructors will follow the guidance in the FIG and honestly complete the pre-solo checklist in the PTR, which includes a sign off for spins.

[tsgarp]

I must have been working off an old version of the CARS when I gave my previous citation. However, the wording is in the current version of the CARS:

Flight Training Program Requirements

405.14 Flight training that is conducted using an aeroplane or helicopter shall be conducted in accordance with the applicable flight instructor guide and flight training manual or equivalent document and the applicable training manual on human factors.

The curriculum listed in the FIG has spins before solo, the CARs say follow the FIG unless otherwise authorized.

I don’t see anything in any CAR that says “unless otherwise authorized” - I think you Invented that.

But the FIG also says “the personal instructional techniques of an individual flight instructor may be cause for modification of this syllabus...” So modifying the syllabus is still in accordance with the applicable Flight Instructor Guide.

The “unless otherwise authorized” comment was in reference to the integrated pilot training programs. I don’t have any first hand experience with them, but my understanding is that they are not governed strictly by the FIG but are instead delivered using a syllabus developed by the school and approved by TC.

If your personal instructional techniques involve sending students solo with no spin training, and you can sell it to TC as a good idea, you should a lawyer.

[photofly]

Student pilots in the US and UK never perform spins at any stage; and data from the US shows that student pilots are the least likely to have spin accidents. Why is spin training pre-solo such a fetish?

[455tt]

The precept of the initial question seems ridiculous.

If you follow the line of reasoning to the end, and come to the conclusion that there is nothing definitive in CARs mandating stall-spin training, does that mean you should throw it out the window?

Stall-spin awareness and recovery training is so entrenched in pilot training in Canada and is so fundamental to safety that to send off a student pilot to first solo without any understanding or training in how spins can develop from stalls and how to prevent them and safely recover if necessary would surely be legal negligence, whether you can find the specific "rule" that training standards formally mandate it or not.

And if you think "spins" are totally different from "stalls" please read https://tc.canada.ca/en/aviation/public ... g-tp-13747

[photofly]

The sign-off letter for a PPl flight test refers explicitly to exercise 13 having been completed, probably because it’s not an exercise explicitly tested in the flight test. And it seems unremarkable that all the exercises required have to be taught. I’m just questioning the order of training. Asking questions is always a good idea. Canada is *way* an outlier In terms of what is taught, and when, internationally speaking.

The precept of the initial question seems ridiculous.

I’m glad you think so.

I am loving all this harrumphing and muttering about negilgence. Burning brands and pitchforks next. Keep it up.

[Aviatard]

[...] to send off a student pilot to first solo without any understanding or training in how spins can develop from stalls and how to prevent them [...]

If you don’t want to spin then don’t stall. This is the crux of stall/spin awareness in other countries.

[digits_]

Stall-spin awareness and recovery training is so entrenched in pilot training in Canada and is so fundamental to safety that to send off a student pilot to first solo without any understanding or training in how spins can develop from stalls and how to prevent them and safely recover if necessary would surely be legal negligence, whether you can find the specific "rule" that training standards formally mandate it or not.

Who says that an instructor who doesn't want to fly spins pre solo for whatever reason, doesn't tell his students how they can develop? Or that he doesn't teach the danger?

Now, imagine a student on his first solo. He's followed the FIG, he did the stall and spin training. If it gets to a stall and a spin scenario in your typical 172, what are the odds a student will recover at that point from below 1000 ft agl? I'd say pretty slim...

If a student is training in a cherokee, will he really benefit from an hour in another airplane just to see a spin? I highly doubt it. It's all so new at that point, that a completely different airplane type will only be detrimental for his progress.

[trey kule]

That is the way I was taught as an instructor when we still did spin training. Pre solo a demo , fam , and a bit of practice on aggravated stalls ( in Canada speak..... incipient spin) .
One...just a single simple demo of a full spin. That is enough pre solo. The student will not be flying solo above 1000 agl until they have more dual, are more comfortable, and confident, and can build on the pre solo work.(As you mentioned Digit)

To many times I have seen not only this, but pre solo students getting dual in short, and soft field take offs and landings...working out of 5000’ of asphalt.

Until TC and DFEs start using common sense to test class 4s, this confusion is not going to end.

But back to the OP. Do what you think is best for your student. Do they really need to know how to spin a plane presolo. Maybe chat with someone at TC who has common sense.

[Squaretail]

I’m just questioning the order of training. Asking questions is always a good idea.

I tend to agree. Personally, as a point of discussion its a part of the CARs that is somewhat lacking. While the CARs govern the end product of a license holder, It feels like there's a lot of gotchas that the regulator can hit you over, which may be implied in the CARs but not directly stated. Given that the regulator can interpret many of the rules, and different regulators can interpret them differently makes compliance unwieldly and adversarial in nature.

Canada is *way* an outlier In terms of what is taught, and when, internationally speaking.

I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing. I have enough experience with pilots who have trained in systems different than ours, and have yet to find one that demonstrated uniformly superior results. Stall/spin training is an area of particular note. Its soon obvious when training in this regard has been lacking, If there has been any at all.

[tsgarp]

Student pilots in the US and UK never perform spins at any stage; and data from the US shows that student pilots are the least likely to have spin accidents. Why is spin training pre-solo such a fetish?

Short answer is that the FAA and JAA looked at the cost/benefit analysis of pre-CPL spin training and decided to go the way they did.

Venturing into the realm of personal opinion, I think the FAA and JAA got it wrong for the following reasons:
1. Spins are a safe and effective way to introduce students to unusual attitudes and acclimatize them to the sensations found beyond 45 degrees of bank and 1.5g. This is important because those sensations can be overwhelming at first and impair students’ ability to process the situation. Repeated exposure to that environment improves students’ ability to process the inputs and maintain situational awareness. This leads to a greater chance of survival in the event students ever encounter an unusual attitude in their operational flying.

2. Spins are a great confidence builder. Nothing saps confidence like the unknown; nothing builds confidence like walking up to unknown, looking it in the eye and watching it blink first.

3. Spins are not dangerous when done in aircraft certified for them.

4. Spins entries from practical situations, (climbing and descending turns, i.e. a simulated circuit), teach students exactly what it looks like when the situation is getting dangerous.

[2R]

Have a read of AC- 61-67C from the people who certify the aircraft . It will open your eyes .Might not change your mind .

[Big Pistons Forever]

Personally teaching "spins" should only be done in the context of an introductory aerobatic course. Teaching "spin avoidance" should he done pre-solo and reviewed throughout flight training using scenario based examples.

Teaching spins and teaching spin avoidance are two completely different exercises

When I teach spins as part of my aerobatic introductory course I teach it as an aerobatic exercise. That is how to get a clean entry, control the spin and recover to a downline. I will also cover inadvertent spin entries from botched maneuvers but the spin recovery is going to be the same.

When taught spin avoidance as part of PPL training the aim was to recognize a deteriorating situation and avoid departure from controlled flight. Part of the instruction was to establish scenarios that would result in departure from controlled flight such as the killer base to final turn and demonstrate and practice recovery back to controlled flight. This will recovery will be initiated immediately after departure. There will never be more than 1/2 turn and rotation should be arrested earlier. From a hands and feet perspective this is primarily a control of yaw exercise. From a TEM perspective this learning to recognize situations where the threat of loss of control is high.

For the airplane to continue past 1/2 turn pro spin controls must be applied. In the context of PPL or CPL training this is I strongly believe Negative Training because there is no circumstance in any normal flight regime that anyone would apply into spin control inputs.

The accident record is pretty clear. Most stall spin accidents are at such a low altitude that even properly applied spin recovery techniques would not have avoided hitting the ground, thus the importance of effectively teaching stall/spin avoidance so pilots recognize the deteriorating situation in time to prevent the loss of controlled flight

Bottom line is if instructors teaching PPL or CPL are allowing more than 1/2 turn rotation after loss of controlled flight, they are IMHO doing it wrong