Spin Recovery Altitude

[PilotDAR]

In my non instructor, personal opinion, Once the candidate pilot recognizes a wing drop in an uncoordinated stall, and correctly uses lots of rudder and lots of nose down elevator to recover, the training objective has been met. Going around even half a turn does not improve the training outcome in my modest opinion.

A few weeks ago I few dozens of stalls in a broad set of configurations in a modified Grand Caravan to demonstrate what TC agreed would be "spin resistance". I did these aggravated stalls so as to not have to demonstrate spins during the testing. The difference was partly in the entry, but more in the recovery. If I have to demonstrate "spin compliance" for certification, I have to hold prop spin controls for a turn, which I have done many times in a Caravan, but would rather not - it does not contribute to a more safe modification in this case. But, a key element of the aggravated stall testing I demonstrated (I put up a video clip in the photos and videos forum) is that the airplane had adequate control available to enter, and recover at the "preventing" stage of the incipient spin entry. I went from holing full nose up elevator and full rudder for three seconds during entry, to applying full nose down elevator, and lots of opposing rudder within seconds.

In my opinion, a training objective should be to teach the candidate pilot to instinctively use the control required, as much as full controls, applied and held if necessary, to correct an unusual attitude, and prevent a spin entry. If you actually do a turn in a resulting spin, you simply prolonged the learning event for no particular benefit. When doing spin compliance testing on a Cessna 206 at full aft C of G, my first recovery was poor, and messy, that was my failure to apply the Cessna procedure. I was treating it like a 172. Next time, I did what the POH said, briskly apply full nose down elevator, and it recovered much better. That's why airplanes have all that nose down elevator available - when otherwise would you use it? Oh, except for leaving it limp when taxiing around over loose gravel - my pet peeve!

Go and train for spin awareness. Unless you're training for full aerobatics, don't be worrying about counting turns in your spin, just in and right back out - you'll loose less altitude, and take less time climbing back for the next one!

[photofly]

I think one or two full spins of a turn or two is a good idea, to demonstrate how rapidly things can get out of hand, and how much height you're going to lose in the recovery.

[photofly]

That's what I'm arguing against. It would seem from your graph that the highest rate of stall/spin accidents was immediately post-war after they returned. Too many barn burners, and then, it seems to have become safer, very quickly.

Yes - the cadre of civilian pilots trained post war are the ones *not* trained in spins, and they are the safer ones. As they dominate the pilot population, the proportion of spin accidents declines. An obvious conclusion is that pilots not trained in spins are safer, statistically speaking.

[PilotDAR]

So when we train for spin awareness, what events in "common" real world flying are we training for? I opine that there are really only three situations which are a common risk for unintended spin entry: Tightening a turn base to final, and departing where obstacle avoidance or EFATO are a factor. A pilot flying a well proportioned circuit around a suitable airport, or cruise flight, in a well running plane is unlikely to accidentally approach a spin. So, in those cases, altitude will be a factor, and as BPF correctly says, if you enter a spin, you will not have the altitude to recover. Floatplanes are at a greater risk of spin entry during departure and approach, as they are nearly never operating from an established aerodrome with dimensions and obstacles all documented well, leaving it to the pilot to maneuver at slower speeds, within a less well defined environment.

So if you approach a spin in those situations, you'll have to be instant in your prevention/recovery. Your training for recovering a spin after a turn is not going to help you much. Sure, train a one turn spin once or twice for the experience, and unusual attitude recovery practice, but the skill in recovering a one or more turn spin is a different skill then preventing a spin entry in the circuit.

[Aviatard]

I believe Canada is in the minority of countries that still require spin training, however I tried to find some statistics to back this up, but failed. Other countries have moved to more of stall awareness and prevention. Even the stall training we do is negative training since we ignore the stall horn and continue into a stall. Stall prevention would have us lowering the angle of attack at the first indication of impending stall. Surely it's time to change this in Canada, no?

[photofly]

On the one hand training people to fly at and through a warning horn is very bad teaching. Imagine training nuclear power-plant operators to ignore the "criticality" alarm ("look Ma, I've got the boron rods removed just far enough to keep the pile right on the edge of a meltdown, can you hear the alarms going off in the background?") but on the other hand, learning to fly at and through the edge of a stall and unstall an airplane is really basic stuff, without which you're not safe.

The only logical conclusion is to remove the warning horn entirely

[digits_]

The main issue with efficient spin training, is that it is mainly done in an airplane that does not want to spin. If you want to show people the danger of a spin, spin an airplane that can properly do it, or even wants to spin. The most effective "a-spin-can-be-dangerous" demonstration I've ever had was on my non-Canadian FI ride in a Robin airplane where the examiner demonstrated the base to final uncoordinated turn while pulling up. That was very effective.

The attempts at spinning a 172, which
a) didn't want to spin
b) recovered without doing anything
were ok to learn the recovery techniques, but didn't really help much practically speaking.

[photofly]

Not many planes are certified for spins any more. So we are effectively forcing everyone to learn in a Cessna, or a DA20.

[digits_]

Not many planes are certified for spins any more. So we are effectively forcing everyone to learn in a Cessna, or a DA20.

Oh I know. I understand why it is the way it is, I just don't think it is very effective. If the regulator thinks spin training is important -which seems to be their current position-, then their should be ways to realistically provide this training. Now it's just a checkbox.

I'm wondering though, and this is probably a question PilotDAR would be ideally positioned to answer , why are we not allowed to spin planes that are not-certified for spins? Even the planes not-certified for spins, are recoverable from a spin, otherwise they wouldn't have been certified at all. There are some bits and pieces of info out there, but I haven't gotten the full picture yet.

So what's the difference for certification? Could we get an STC for example for a cherokee, to allow intentional spins on the plane? Is intentional spin certification always linked to utility category certification?

[lhalliday]

I did my PPL spins in a Cherokee. Minimum entry altitude 4000 AGL, minimum recovery altitude 3000 AGL. They spin fine, but take aggressive (abusive?) control inputs to do so.

My Musketeer is not certified for intentional spins (slow recovery plus a tendency to spiral). I got an incipient spin once over Glen Valley and spin training saved my butt. Power-on stall -> wing drop -> WHOOPS!

...laura

[Big Pistons Forever]

My Musketeer is not certified for intentional spins (slow recovery plus a tendency to spiral). I got an incipient spin once over Glen Valley and spin training saved my butt. Power-on stall -> wing drop -> WHOOPS!

...laura

I would l suggest that based on what you described you did not do a "spin" recovery. Instead you recognized the aircraft was departing controlled flight and regained control by lowering the nose to reduce AOA and controlled the developing yaw with rudder. or in other words used spin recognition and avoidance techniques to stop the aircraft from entering a spin.

Only if you had failed to effectively deal with the initial departure from controlled would you have had to use tradition spin recovery which is a highly undesirable situation

[rookiepilot]

Does the regulator honestly believe a spin entered from the base to final turn, 4-600 AGL, is recoverable?

You first.

[PilotDAR]

Even the stall training we do is negative training since we ignore the stall horn and continue into a stall.

Hopefully because an aspect of recognizing a stall is not depending upon a stall warning horn. A plane may be certified with no stall warning system, simply tactile buffet for the pilot. We discussed elsewhere training with the ASI covered, train with no stall warning system. 'Every heard of one failing? Or, you're hurtling through the sky in your 182, you have an engine fire, you run the checklist, item three, turn off the master - will your stall warning horn still work after that? Or should you be planning to do a power off landing with no stall warning system? It's a warning system for the lawyer's needs, less so for an aware pilot.

All single engine planes (maybe Cirrus excepted? I'm not sure) are required to demonstrate recovery from a one turn spin in not more than one additional turn. All spin approved planes are required to be recoverable without unusual pilot skill and attention, and the plane must be recoverable in one turn at any point during a six turn spin. Note that depending on cabin occupancy, a 172 might be in one, or the other category - for a reason. The reasons we don't intentionally spin non spin approved planes are: The type, while recoverable, may require pilot skill or attention considered "unusual" for many pilots. A specific example which comes to mind is the possibility of overspeed/over stress during a recovery. On some types I have spun, I have installed a G meter, and needed it! Yes, the plane recovered as prescribed, but there was a high G and speed during the recovery, Inattention to speed and G would have been unsafe. And, it is possible that a type may recover okay after one turn, but not so well after many turns. The fact that a pilot intends a one turn spin does not mean it works out that way. It could be possible to have a non spin certified plane in a multi turn spin, and it's really difficult to get out.

Using a 172 as an example, if you have people/mass in the back, the C of G is farther aft, in it's harder to recover. A few foolish accidents with four up are probably evidence of this. But, it's a trainer, so it needs to be spinnable, and is, as long as you keep the C of G forward. 'Similar for the C 206, easy to recover at a forward C of G (though builds up speed), alarming to recover at an aft C of G. I presume that Cessna saw no need to certify the 206 for spinning at all, so they do not define a C of G range suitable for spinning.

I've found other types very easy to recover from a one turn spin (Lake Amphib comes to mind), but again, there is no demand for spin approval for training for such a plane.

Does the regulator honestly believe a spin entered from the base to final turn, 4-600 AGL, is recoverable?

Normally, no. You can't certify for every possible problem a pilot could get into....

[rookiepilot]

[

Does the regulator honestly believe a spin entered from the base to final turn, 4-600 AGL, is recoverable?

Normally, no. You can't certify for every possible problem a pilot could get into....

Where do stall - spin accidents originate from?

The base-final turn, at 400 AGL, or in cruise at that safe 4000 AGL altitude?

[PilotDAR]

Where do stall - spin accidents originate from?

The base-final turn, at 400 AGL, or in cruise at that safe 4000 AGL altitude?

We could seek certification to prevent stall spin accidents entirely: "Flight below 500 feet AGL prohibited, that'd do it! Cessna tried a different approach to the problem: Seat belt airbags. I tried them at a Cessna symposium in Wichita once, I was not convinced - better to fly properly!

[rookiepilot]

Where do stall - spin accidents originate from?

The base-final turn, at 400 AGL, or in cruise at that safe 4000 AGL altitude?

We could seek certification to prevent stall spin accidents entirely: "Flight below 500 feet AGL prohibited, that'd do it! Cessna tried a different approach to the problem: Seat belt airbags. I tried them at a Cessna symposium in Wichita once, I was not convinced - better to fly properly!

This nothing to do with certification. I'm questioning the value of training for a situation that isn't likely to happen, at the expense of training to prevent a situation much more likely to happen.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Flight training by design is broken down by exercise. One of the disadvantages of this approach is that it can lead instructors to treat each air exercise as a discrete event. Good piloting means recognizing the flight conditions as a spectrum with a constant evaluation of the aircraft's current flight path against the desired flight path and action, sometimes urgent action taken to regain the desired flight path.

For the typical tragic 600 ft stall/spin/die accident the root cause of the final irretrievable loos of control was not a lack of spin recovery training, it was the failure to see the aircraft flight path condition deteriorating into the slow flight regime, and taking corrective action, then the failure to prevent the aircraft AOA reaching the stall value and immediately recovering, and then the failure after the aircraft had stalled to control yaw to prevent the final loss of controlled flight.

The challenge for flight instructors is to instill in their students the knowledge, skill, and discipline to consistently monitor the flight path of the aircraft at all time's during the flight and take early and effective action to restore the aircraft to the desired state when it deviates from that.....and no, looking at the airspeed indicator more is not the solution

I have a reputation as being a bit of hard ass, riding my students pretty hard to sweat the small excursions from the ideal flight path even when it doesn't really matter. So for example if it is smooth air and the student is 50 ft above the desired cruise altitude I expect them to initiate a small correction to return to exactly the correct altitude. Now a 50 ft altitude excursion will almost never have a material effect on flight safety but I want to instill in the them habit of fixing the little deviations before they become big ones.

Finally and back on topic. Most POH's provide definitive direction on the minimum altitude for intentional spinning. Not following those limits, is foolish and, IMO sets a terrible example for the student.

[rookiepilot]

Got it.

A) Don't teach proper aircraft handling in the circuit, but at 6000 feet where the sight picture is completely different,

B) Don't ever teach IFR training in bumpy IMC, but only on severe clear days, where the plane practically flies itself.

See a pattern here, and I apologize for the thread drift.

We will continue to see stall spin accidents on the base to final turn in VFR, AND pilots losing control in IMC, as dominant fatal accident causes.

[Squaretail]

The conundrum lies in the fact that if someone were to be so oblivious as to get into a spin at low altitude, they probably don’t have the wherewithal to recognize what is unfolding and suddenly increase their skill level to make the recovery. Is it possible to do a life saving recovery from a spin at that low altitude? I believe so, however by the skin of your teeth, depending on circumstances.

That said, in my experience, pilots who have been exposed to proper spin training don’t get themselves into the position where they are in that danger. Almost without fail when I have been with pilots -and I have a reasonably large sample size - that have not done spin training, or also in many cases had minimal stall training as well possibly never having experienced either, will put the airplane in that dreadful condition in the aforementioned turn on final.

I don’t see a danger in properly executed spin training. The idea that the airplane is out of control in this mode isn’t true. Indeed while with PPL and CPL students there is no purpose to progressing the spin beyond a single turn, I have done more with instructor students since many come to it with the idea that any more than that is death, and the outright terror a few have exhibited toward the exercises isn’t conducive to good instructing. Not only can the manoeuvre be entered, but also executed to the point where one can specify how much of a fraction of the turn one wants.

One should also say that while the final turn is a common place to enter a spin, it’s not the only place. An overshoot with a climbing turn is probably the next most common place. Pilots “buzzing” something are frequently distracted (looking over their shoulder so see who got disturbed, or operating a camera in the process) and pitch too far up, possibly already engaged in a turn, and worse than the final turn, are at full power. The positive is that they may have already gained enough altitude to recover depending on how their energy was managed prior to.

Lastly while the probability of making a recovery from cruise flight is small, I can think of one crew who would be alive today if possibly the pilot was better acquainted with spin avoidance and recovery.

Pilots get into inadvertent spins because they don’t know what one is, and once there don’t recognize that they need to do something, never mind what to do. Not teaching the spin is like teaching swimming staying out of the water. Sure you can talk about it, and go through the motions, when you can reasonably safely get in the pool to get real knowledge and skill. The danger of drowning during the training is there and the risk is taken, though you’d have to be pretty inattentive, have a pretty incompetent trainer, or combine it with some serious stupidity to drown.

[photofly]

We will continue to see stall spin accidents on the base to final turn in VFR

But we don’t see very many stall spin accidents on base to final turns, do we?

Certainly not nearly as many as we would if we practiced spin entry and recovery at or below circuit altitude, which appears to be what you’re suggesting.