Just to bring this into its real context we should think about the general all around airplane handling skills that we see coming out of FTU's today.

If a lot of PPL's struggle with a 5 knot x/wind during a landing is it reasonable to suggest they go out and do spins?

Just to bring this into its real context we should think about the general all around airplane handling skills that we see coming out of FTU's today.

If a lot of PPL's struggle with a 5 knot x/wind during a landing is it reasonable to suggest they go out and do spins?

A spin is just another manouver. Any pilot that has been trained up on it, and demonstrated that the training stuck, should be eligible to practice them solo. Any other approach just contributes to the "dumbing down" of GA that so many on here have griped about.

mcrit wrote:Any pilot that has been trained up on it

No real spin training anymore.

and demonstrated that the training stuck

No spin demonstration required for the flight test anymore.

should be eligible to practice them solo.

Right. Is it clear now why almost none of the graduates today should be practising them solo?

My instructor taught me loops, rolls, snap rolls, and spins... And I don't think i'd be here today without that training. Things can go sideways, and you'd best be prepared to save yourself when they do.

My instructor taught me loops, rolls, snap rolls, and spins... And I don't think i'd be here today without that training. Things can go sideways, and you'd best be prepared to save yourself when they do.

Unfortunately the training industry does not have enough aerobatic airplanes in their fleets nor enough flight instructors capable of teaching basic aerobatics.

None of these maneuvers are all that difficult to learn, the first spin listed does require an airplane designed to take the load factors.....the second spin listed is easier on the airframe.

I must be one real dumb Bas%$#& for learning to spin the Canuck before first solo 61 years agoi...and then teaching hundreds of students to do the same thing. And the funny thing is that none of my students even spun an aircraft into the ground.

Teaching a PP to do a one turn spin and then recover on the entry heading or a CP candidate to do a three turn spin certainly taught them the use of head, feet and hands which very few GA pilots know anything about.

And yes, I've spun the dreaded killer Traumahawk hundreds of times with no ill effects.///christ how I hate that name. But then I guess I was one of those dumb kids who learned to fly. As long as the aircraft is certified for spins, within the utility category and the W&B is within limits and the candidate is properly trained there is no reason for not doing spin training.

Barney

Old Dog Flying wrote:I must be one real dumb Bas%$#& for learning to spin the Canuck before first solo 61 years agoi...and then teaching hundreds of students to do the same thing. And the funny thing is that none of my students even spun an aircraft into the ground.

Teaching a PP to do a one turn spin and then recover on the entry heading or a CP candidate to do a three turn spin certainly taught them the use of head, feet and hands which very few GA pilots know anything about.

And yes, I've spun the dreaded killer Traumahawk hundreds of times with no ill effects.///christ how I hate that name. But then I guess I was one of those dumb kids who learned to fly. As long as the aircraft is certified for spins, within the utility category and the W&B is within limits and the candidate is properly trained there is no reason for not doing spin training.

Barney

Well put.

All sounds good, but I have had instructor candidates
come to me, that are incapable of flying a circuit with
the ball centered. They don't know how. They have
no idea of how to use the rudder pedals.

The idea of these guys teaching spins is ludicrious,
and frightening. And raises questions about in-house
DFTE's.

See the other thread, where I rant about young
instructors with product in their hair, that think
that landing on one wheel is careless and reckless.

These kids don't know how to use the rudder,
because the instructors that taught them to fly
didn't know how to use the rudder, either. Stick
and rudder skills have been almost entirely bred
out of the pilot population, which leaves us with
5k max crosswinds for CPLs.

I'm not bashing Seneca, either. I am referring to
another large flight school, who's CPL graduates
are incapable of landing with a crosswind. They
approach too fast, and touch down on the nose
gear, and then lock up the brakes and flat-spot
the tires to try to get stopped.

You want these bozos out doing solo spins? I
wouldn't let these puppy mill graduates push my
lawnmower - they'd hurt themselves.

I was taught to spin during PPL. I recall my instructor demonstrating, having me do a few, and then never doing them with me again, ('cause he did not like them) just sending me solo to practice. I must have practiced adequately, I passed the flight test, which included spins. I was later retaught spins during aerobatic training in a 150 Aerobat.

I can say with pride that I have spun C150/2, C172, Cherokees, Tomahawk, and Citabria during "normal" flying.

Since then, during modification flight testing, I have also spun (one turn only) C180(floats), C185(wheels and amphib), C206, C207, C208, Citabria (floats), Lake Amphibian, Found Bush Hawk, and Siai Marchetti 1019. During the flight test spinning I have learned why these "normal" category aircraft are not approved for spins. The recovery technique is important to get right. When some Cessna flight manuals say to move the controls "briskly forward" they mean it!

Spinning is not the maneuver which generally causes me the most nerves while flight testing, though I do approach spins with recent refresher practice, usually the mod removed first, and great caution. And, no fooling around, exactly by the plan - in, one turn, and recover per the FM, that's all that is required to be shown.

I agree that generally pilots should never get near a spin if the aircraft is being properly flown, and spin aversion training is very important. But, people still seem to spin from time to time. Know that the single engine certified plane you're flying can recover from a one turn spin, in one additional turn, with prompt proper technique, and adequate altitude, so you may as well have the skill to make the most of the aircraft's capabilities!

during modification flight testing, I have also spun

I hope you have the parachute tube mounted on the tail?
Or an ejection seat?

Spinning modified aircraft is something to do carefully,
if you want to get any older:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_Scholl

He died during filming of Top Gun when his Pitts S-2 camera plane never recovered from a flat spin and plunged into the Pacific Ocean. Scholl had entered the spin intentionally in order to capture it on film using onboard cameras. Observers watched the plane continue to spin as it descended past the planned recovery altitude. Scholl's last words over the radio were "I have a problem — I have a real problem.", after which the plane impacted the ocean. The exact cause of the crash was never determined. Neither the aircraft, nor Scholl's body, were ever recovered.

I eagerly avoid spins which are prolonged, or even stabilized into the spin for that matter. I am happy to enter as required, and recover as required. Spins are always done forward C of G first, and often without the mod, to get used to how the plane spins. Then, expanding out from there. Only in 150's and the Citabria have I done more than one turn spins.

I do wonder how skilled pilots like Art Scholl end up in trouble, and so I keep things very by the book. Pilots are entitled to know that the plane they are flying is compliant, even after modification, so compliance must be demonstrated. I'm hoping that pilots don't feel the need to re demonstrate it, after it has been done for them!

The generally accepted explanation for Art Scholl's crash was that the camera was mounted in the tail, and was of not insignificant mass. The aft CG led to an unrecoverable spin due to the gyroscopic forces. The Colonel may have more insight on this, of course, being a Pitts guy.

I suspect the polar moment of inertia (PMI)
may have had more to do with it, than
simply the C of G, which very well may have
been within limits.

Anyone that doesn't understand the difference
between PMI and C of G, raise their hand.

Colonel Sanders wrote:I suspect the polar moment of inertia (PMI)
may have had more to do with it, than
simply the C of G, which very well may have
been within limits.

Anyone that doesn't understand the difference
between PMI and C of G, raise their hand.

I'll raise my hand (never heard if the term before) ... But also take a stab at it and see what I can learn ...

PMI is the willingness of a spinning object to continue spinning due to the inertia it has ... The longer the object, the more inertia it has, the more it will want to continue spinning. C of G is the centre of gravity of the aircraft itself ... In this case the c of g might have been fine but as the aircraft begun to spin it had a higher PMI due to the extended pole of the camera which then caused the aircraft to continue its rotation - the rudder did not have enough authority to stop the inertia caused by the camera pole.

Anywhere even close?

Close. You can have two identical-looking
aircraft, both with the same weight and C of
G, but if one has a high PMI, it may be unrecoverable
from a spin.

How is this possible?!

Easy. Take two egg cartons, and put them on
a shiny, smooth counter top. Put four eggs in
each of them.

But in one carton, put four eggs in the center.

The other carton, two eggs at each end.

Close the cartons. They look the same, they
have the same weight, the same C of G but
very different PMI.

Now, hold each carton in turn, from the top,
and twist it back and forth. Note how the
carton with the eggs in the center (low PMI)
starts and stops rotating easily.

The carton with the eggs at the ends (high PMI)
is difficult to start and stop rotating - just
like an airplane yawing during a spin.

I think Art Scholl was bitten by high PMI.

Kathy Jaffe had a similar experience - put lead
weights in the tail of her Pitts. She's dead now.

Makes perfect sense ... Wish these things were covered in groundschool ...

PilotDAR wrote: ... When some Cessna flight manuals say to move the controls "briskly forward" they mean it! ...

But only if it says that. This whole, to a non-pilot, mystique about spinning led to some tense moments back when I was taking my first flight training in the early eighties. I was a lot younger then too.

I used to read a lot. As spin training was coming up for me, I remembered a story I had read once. As I recall, the narrative involved a WWII bomber pilot over Europe struggling frantically to recover from a spin. In the story he finally went from full back yoke to full forward with all the strength he had and as suddenly as possible, and it worked. So, in my mind, I *knew* how to do it too.

Then it was my turn, for real. My instructor guided me through a few stalls first in a 172. Next, he described what I had to do for a spin. We weren't even going for a quarter turn either, just start turning and recover. Everyone makes so much fuss over the spin though and I *knew* that the spin wasn't like an ordinary stall, right? We stalled and I kicked it over to the side as the nose dropped, then I moved the yoke forward. I'm a big, strong guy and "briskly" would be an understatement. The tail came right over and we were inverted. That was the only time I ever heard that instructor swear. He recovered though and, with some discussion, we did a few more, correctly.

That wasn't why I stopped training, but soon after I did stop. Now my current instructor has had me do some spins too. I've been thinking that spins seem pretty tame and I've been nervous about whatever it is that I'm missing. However, none of my practice has yet developed much rotational inertia. Between excess PMI or aft C of G I'm starting to understand how "tame" could suddenly become deadly serious. Thanks!

Big Pistons Forever wrote:Spins IMO have no real value in the PPL syllabus. To get into a spin in your average Cessna or Piper you have to be Stupid times three.

At the risk of belabouring an already long post ...

I generally agree with you BPF ... I think there is one important thing missing from your response above though. C.S. has already hinted at it, but all aircraft have very different spin characteristics from one to the other - furthermore the spin characteristics of an aircraft (including a Cessna or Piper trainer) are vastly different in their Utility category, when compared to their NORMAL category. It may be true that to spin a 172 inadvertently in the UTILITY category you need to be stupid times 3, but in the NORMAL category it's a whole different animal (this statement is based on NASA research, not a result of me spinning a 172 in the normal category just for the record - I wish to stay alive).

What I want is to instill an instinctive, automatic reaction of stick forward, full power, straight with the rudder anytime the student see any symptom of a stall. If the student has that then the aircraft can never get into a true fully developed spin where correct anti spin controls are required.

I have experienced (during spin training) an accelerated stall that was allowed to develop into a spin where the stall horn not only didn't go off, but the spin developed so quickly that it didn't matter if it had gone off - we were in the spin and it was too late to use stall recovery inputs. In this case had I done as you suggest with stick forward, full power things would have gone from a quick spin entry, to a very very fast spin. In many cases stick forward, full power, straight with rudder is great, but if we don't train students what to do when that isn't the appropriate reaction, or more importantly train them WHEN that is not the appropriate reaction we are doing them a disservice with potentially deadly consequences.

My beef with spin training is that not only are most instructors not properly qualified to train them, but that there is a serious lack of good spin training aircraft at the vast majority of FTU's. A 172 is NOT a good spin trainer, and in my opinion leads to very negative training (like the belief that airplanes are hard to spin). There have been three stall/spin accidents at the airport I work at in the last 3 years, all three in supposedly "difficult" to spin aircraft. These pilots had likely never had spin training other than a 1 g slow deceleration stall into a forced spin in a 172 ... They probably believed it was virtually impossible to spin since they had to work so hard to make the aircraft spin during their training. Two other pilots I know of died in stall/spin accidents and they were arguably some of the better trained civilian pilots who had been specially trained to operate in extreme conditions, and use the airplane to the edge of its capability - they pushed the limits too hard, didn't understand some basics of stall speed vs. g loading and they are dead now.

Incredibly disturbing to me is the lack of knowledge of most pilots about the spin. I certainly don't know it all (especially in the advanced/inverted/flat spin realm), but I have a much better understanding than many of my colleagues. Show many commercial pilots (including instructors) a Vg diagram and they will look at you like you have two heads. Ask them questions about the relationship of stall speed to G loading and they will likely have a very poor understanding of the subject and try to talk to you about a steep turn (likely the only place many pilots have seen anythings about G loading is in the TC flight training manual under steep turns.)

Do we need spin training for ALL pilots? I believe so, but in conjunction with a thorough understanding of slow flight (like BPF said above), and the conditions leading up to the stall/spin. BUT we need to do so in airplanes that give a better understanding of the various spin modes, and not perpetuate negative training like a 172 does. Unfortunately we can not all go to the schools C.S. mentioned to get the best spin training, but we can at least do our homework and get some qualified instruction before continuing to promote negative training to our students.

but in the NORMAL category it's a whole different animal

Different yes, but the technique for recovery is about the same, the recovery just happens differently. For certified aircraft where a spin recovery technique is stated in the flight manual, I have never seen a differing technique based upon the weight or C of G location at the time of spin entry. The same technique in the flight manual is applicable to all conditions of entry.

In the spin testing I did in the Caravan, I did forward C of G unmodified, (just to get used to it), then forward C of G modified, then aft C of G modified. The recovery technique was the same for all, but the aft C of G spin was nearly alarming in how different the recovery was. In both cases, the Caravan recovered in the required one turn with the same pilot action, but what the plane was doing was very different.

That said, with the forward C of G, there was absolutely no room for error recovering. The resulting dive was extreme. I had an accelerometer installed temporarily, and was glad I did. The recovery dive well exceeded Va, and 2G, so very gentle handling was required to recover without exceeding a limitation. The certification requirements assure that the plane can be recovered from a spin. The do not assure that you won't exceed a limitation or stretch the plane.

I agree that spin training in a 172 will result in a deceptively easy recovery. Pretty well let go, and it's on its own way out. But, it's better than no spin training whatever. I opine that a pilot who becomes a bit more confident understanding what they are seeing when the swirling ground is rushing up toward them is safer. That is the skill of orienting one's self, maintaining control and initiating a recovery with less or no visual reference to the horizon. More than one pilot has killed themselves in a completely flyable plane, simply because all they saw was swirling green, and could not figure up where "up" was, and how to get there in time. That is an important skill. You have to see the swirling world a few times to get a little used to it. For most of us, it will never be "second nature", but even modest prior experience can really help a pilot gain self confidence, and maintain control when things go wild.

Spin aversion training is good, though even with the ball pretty close to the middle, some planes can be spun. If I recall, a steep, reasonably coordinated climbing right turn in a 172 can lead to a spin entry even if the rudder is not abused. During flight testing of a Lake Amphib with a 210 HP IO-390, I was directed to enter a stall/spin with 75% power. Done with the torque, you get what seems to me to be a snap roll (though aerobatic pilots will probably correct me). In any case, I just know that I am not supposed to be upside down in a Lake, with lots of power applied. I did not continue that testing, in the interest of safety.

It is also important for a pilot to be able to quickly and correctly recognize the transition from a spin to a spiral dive. When the plane recovers itself from the spin, but continues down in a spiral dive, what the pilot must do to recover is now different. I'm not a believer that teaching pilots to not get there, will prevent a few pilots getting there anyway, one way or another...

Not exposing new pilots to these maneuvers leaves them in the "unknown". This erodes self confidence, let alone skill. It will also entice that adventurous subset of pilots to go and experiment.

avinstructor wrote:

I have experienced (during spin training) an accelerated stall that was allowed to develop into a spin where the stall horn not only didn't go off, but the spin developed so quickly that it didn't matter if it had gone off - we were in the spin and it was too late to use stall recovery inputs.
.

I have flown around 65 different types of aircraft, including some pretty high performance warbirds and large T prop airliners. Every airplane I have flown will give you some warning when you pull too hard. Pushing forward on the stick will always make things better when you are getting close to the edge. That is what students need to learn. In your example the aircraft didn't suddenly depart into a spin, you didn't listen when it was telling you " don't be doing that ".

If you look at the actual stall spin accident record, most fatal spin accidents occurred at such a low altitude that even the best "spin recovery inputs" would not have stopped the aircraft from hitting the ground. The pilot was doomed when the aircraft was allowed to stall and then an uncommanded yaw was allowed to develop. The ability to recognize and recover from a developing risk of stall/spin is what I believe is vital to teach new pilots.

The ability to recognize and recover from a developing risk of stall/spin is what I believe is vital to teach new pilots.

+1

Doing one and two-turn spins with most pilots is useless,
because the only time they're going to spin is when they
are at slow airspeed, and the only time they are at slow
airspeed is when they are at low altitude, either right
before landing or just after takeoff.

You aren't going to spin from cruise flight unless you
accidentally pull +6G's (see Vg diagram) which doesn't
happen to most of us.

Most people have no clue that they are in a developing
spin - all they know is that a wing is dropping, so they
try to pick it up with aileron This of course makes
the yaw worse, and guarantees that they are doing to
die.

A master will recognize a developing spin very early on,
and take the correct actions to stop it before it winds up.

Many, many, many times I will be sitting there, watching
someone do aerobatics, and they will fall out of a maneuver,
and I will say, "We are now in an inverted spin", which is
a newsflash for them.

If I could teach people ONE thing about spins, is that the
stick (ailerons and elevators) takes a docile, gentle spin
and winds it up into something quite awesome. Lots of
people have died because they refuse to learn this simple
lesson.

You can easily recognize a developing spin because of
the high rate of yaw, and the low airspeed. You stop it
instantly with full opposite rudder to the yaw, and power
off.

Opposite rudder should be an instinctive reaction to the
yaw, but in the Brave New World (tm) that we inhabit
of plastic nosewheel trainers and CPL's that can't land
with more than 5k of crosswind, that isn't the case any
more.

Power off because at slow speeds, the prop causes
more trouble than it is worth - slipstream, torque,
asymmetric thrust, etc. All it does is screw up the
airplane and tempt you to use the stick to oppose it.

Unfortunately we can not all go to the schools C.S. mentioned

I suppose. But without good training, I cannot recommend
that people go out and try to teach themselves something
that may very well kill them.

We see this problem in the aerobatic community. Every
year, people die because they ride in completely recoverable
spinning airplanes.

Keep in mind that Sean Tucker, who runs one of the schools
I mentioned, has jumped out of THREE Pitts that I know of.

Anyways. You want your students to be able to better handle
accidental spin entries at low altitude? Spend more time on
slow flight and stalls. All the four-bar types (current and future)
hate slow flight and stalls, but the more time you spend on them,
the better. Get used to dropping a wing. It's not the end of
the world. Don't panic. Deal with it. Those are the skills that
people need to learn, not the 2-turn spin joyrides which are of
absolutely no use.

I need to communicate this simple message a bit
more clearly:

Every year, people whom are supposed to know
better - aerobatic contest pilots (eg Dave Schwartz)
and licensed low-altitude aerobatic airshow pilots
(Bryan Jensen) crash during spins. These guys are
comfortable being upside down, and have seen
plenty of spins before, but something went wrong,
and they couldn't recover.

Oh yeah, I knew a really good pilot called Paul Lopez -
airshow pilot in an MX2. Really good airplane. And
he's dead now. Guess how? Unrecovered spin. His
pax died, too:



So, we have these aerobatic pilots - whom should
know better - crashing and killing themselves doing
spins.

And you donkeys want to send students out to do
solo spins? They don't know how to use the rudder.
They can't land in a crosswind. I'm horrified at that
idea.

Why not let small children out, to play on highway
401? Similarly, it serves no useful purpose, and can
only harm them, like this fatal spin crash:

I know there are people here who are just dying to
send low-time students/PPL/CPL out to do solo spin
training.

Here's a simple suggestion. Until the student can
effortlessly land his light trainer with the windsock
straight out across the runway (15+ knot direct
crosswind), don't send him out to do solo spins.

I know of very few pilots with less than 500TT
(unless I personally trained them) that are skilled
enough with the rudder, to do that.

A spin is all about the rudder. Until the use of the
rudder is instinctive, smooth and precise at slow
speeds - as in during a crosswind - don't send him
out to do solo spins.

And you donkeys want to send students out to do
solo spins? They don't know how to use the rudder.
They can't land in a crosswind. I'm horrified at that.

I take it that you restrict your son to 30 degrees of bank when he is solo?

All kidding aside, there is no reason a CPL student or instructor candidate should not be able to practice solo spins in a typical light trainer (Subject to the caveats I listed earlier). I would go so far as to say that any CPL student or instructor candidate who can't be trained to this level of confidence and proficiency should not be sent on to the flight test. We are not going to arrest the dumbing down trend if we just bypass all the scary manoeuvres. (I was going to say "difficult manoeuvres" but decided against it because there is nothing difficult about spinning or recovering a properly configured light trainer).

any CPL student or instructor candidate who can't be trained to this level of confidence and proficiency should not be sent on to the flight test

I would strongly agree, but that's simply not the
case any more. I see CPL's that cannot land in
a gentle crosswind. I see instructor candidates
that cannot fly with the ball centered.

This is the reality of flight training in Canada, today -
people with very poor stick & rudder skills are
becoming the next generation of CPL's and
instructors and they simply aren't competent
to perform (or God help us, teach) spins.

I think you are pointing out a problem with
domesticated (in-house) DFTE's.

you restrict your son to 30 degrees of bank

Special case. I taught him. Pilots that I teach
to fly, are taught skills to a much, much higher
standard than what passes for civilian flight training
in Canada. This is his helmet cam view of him flying
wing on me, at age 19, with 350TT:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVXWiIrTZlg

Here's another student pilot of mine, flying wing
on me: http://i.imgur.com/oDFxH.jpg

It's important to not confuse what I do, with what
the pretty boys with the hair product do in the big city
FTU's.

I teach people to fly. The pretty boys teach you
to get a piece of paper.

Terrible things happen, when people confuse being
able to fly, with a piece of paper.

After flying more than one third of my 6600 hours in my 150, I realized that I was becoming a bit complacent. There is not really much, within the limitations of that aircraft which challenged me too much. (This was in a time before intense test flying, and Teal) I did have other planes around to fly, but they did not challenge me much more. So, I went and earned my helicopter PPL, just to remind me that there are things in the sky, which I'm really new at. It worked. All the helicopters are still alive and well, and I humbled myself a few times.

So, could these well practiced aerobatic pilots, who met their fate in an unrecovered spin, simply have become complacent about spinning, and let things go too far? Complacency in spins is NOT something new pilots are going to have to worry about any time soon!

This is the reality of flight training in Canada, today -
people with very poor stick & rudder skills are
becoming the next generation of CPL's and
instructors and they simply aren't competent
to perform (or God help us, teach) spins

I fear that this is very true. So we, the experienced pilots, fight back against it by mentoring and encouraging handling skills development for all pilots, not caving in to a self sustaining reality and letting the new pilots off the skills hook.

New pilots FIGHT to get the skills that you really should have. Just because your instructor recommended you, and you passed, does NOT mean you have the skill. You just met the minimum requirement. You will be shocked to see what a well experienced pilot can do safely with the trainer you thing you know so well.

I am reminded that a long time ago a very self important was ring seat in my 150, while I brought him back from somewhere. I decided to orbit near the airport, and so informed him. I orbited in very slow flight. Upon landing, he reported to his CFI that I was an idiot, because I was flying my plane around below stall speed. The CFI said to me that he asked the instructor: "Did he stall?", "Um, no...", "Then how was he flying below stall speed?". That instructor did not last there....

Let's raise the bar back up shall we....