(I wished that I didn't see that show)
I was flipping through channels the other day and I came across a show
called, Real TV. They did a story about a plane crash. They showed this
because one of passengers survived. He or she parachuted out of a spinning
aircraft. The amateur video showed the family having a barbeque at the
airport. All of sudden, the video looked into air and the plane appeared to
be in an erect spin (a six-seated Piper). The video caught the plane doing
at least 5 spins before disappearing behind the building. At one point, the
video caught a glimpse of person jumping and pulling a chute out. I didn't
pay attention to that detail. What bother me the most is the pilot inability
to recover from that spin. During training, I was told that erect and
inverted spin are recoverable. And in event of those spins, I was told that
with proper action, you can break clear in two spins with few hundred feet
to bring plane to level. I have been in an inverted spin demonstrated by an
instructor during training. I do not remember much of detail because I was
caught off-guard with the weightless moment. Now, the show prompted me to
consider taking some sort of spinning and recovering training. Am I being
overacting or paranoid?

Toks Desalu
And I wonder why they FAA removed spin training as requirement in early
years? I know the planes today are 'difficult' to get into spin but, it can
happen.

The airplane was a Cessna C-210 being used as a skydiving airplane. If you
listen to the audio, you can hear the engine running at a high power setting.
You are more than likely not going to recover from a spin with a high power
setting.


-John
*You are nothing until you have flown a Douglas, Lockheed, Grumman or North
American*

Criminey, are snuff films legal for TV now?

>Now, the show prompted me to
>consider taking some sort of spinning and recovering training.

Like you, I had a spin demonstrated to me early in training (against
airport rules, by the way) and longed to have more experience. So late
one winter I flew out to Phoenix for five days of spin training and
aerobatics. (I had other objectives. Three days would be plenty.) I
wrote a story about it which is at www.pipercubforum.com/chandler.htm

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! blog www.vivabush.org

Get the spin training!
The FAA screwed the pooch on that one when they eliminated it from the
syllabus... Having competence in recovering from a spin makes you a better
pilot and almost guarantees that you will never unintentionally enter a
spin...
Besides which, after spin training you will wear a crushed officers cap, sun
glasses even at night, a worn leather jacket, a big watch, and be
irresistible to beautiful women who will throw themselves at you... What
are you waiting for? jeeezzzz

denny

"Toks Desalu" Now, the show prompted me to
> consider taking some sort of spinning and recovering training. Am I being
> overacting or paranoid?
>

Regardless of the power setting, you are not going to recover from a spin
with 5 jumpers spin plastered against the back bulkhead, putting the CG well
aft of 30% of the wing chord...
denny

"Ditch" > wrote in message
...
> The airplane was a Cessna C-210 being used as a skydiving airplane. If you
> listen to the audio, you can hear the engine running at a high power
setting.
> You are more than likely not going to recover from a spin with a high
power
> setting.
>
>
> -John
> *You are nothing until you have flown a Douglas, Lockheed, Grumman or
North
> American*

Ditch wrote:
> The airplane was a Cessna C-210 being used as a skydiving airplane. If you
> listen to the audio, you can hear the engine running at a high power setting.
> You are more than likely not going to recover from a spin with a high power
> setting.

Well, what is to stop you cutting the power ? Or do you mean a spin entered
under power will be unrecoverable even if the power is cut ?

I have vague memory about some kind of spin mode in an aerobatic plane,
that was only recoverable by applying full power. Ring a bell, anyone ?

CV

In article >, CV
> wrote:

> Well, what is to stop you cutting the power ? Or do you mean a spin entered
> under power will be unrecoverable even if the power is cut ?
> I have vague memory about some kind of spin mode in an aerobatic plane,
> that was only recoverable by applying full power. Ring a bell, anyone ?

Power applied during a spin, in general, will flatten the spin (raise
the nose). Centrigal (sic) force will throw objects (human bodies)
outward from the CG (as Denny's post pointed out). The object is to get
the nose down and move the weight forward withing the CG envelope.

>
>Regardless of the power setting, you are not going to recover from a spin
>with 5 jumpers spin plastered against the back bulkhead, putting the CG well
>aft of 30% of the wing chord...
>denny
>
Never having jumped out of a perfectly good airplane, nor having had people
bail out of my M20J, I'm ignorant re carrying jumpers. Do they belt themselves
in place during take off and climb?

Is it likely they were all well aft, or fell back as the pilot slowed down for
their jump, or did he lose it on climbout?

Toks Desalu wrote:
>
> And I wonder why they FAA removed spin training as requirement in early
> years?

They removed it because many people were dying during spin recovery training. They
decided to teach people to avoid stalls and recover promptly from inadvertent stalls,
because an aircraft will not spin unless it stalls first. The FAA feels that the
reduced fatality rate proves they made the correct decision.

George Patterson
If you don't tell lies, you never have to remember what you said.

CV wrote:
>
> I have vague memory about some kind of spin mode in an aerobatic plane,
> that was only recoverable by applying full power. Ring a bell, anyone ?

Part of Jimmy Franklin's old routine (before he put the jet engine on his Waco) was
an inverted flat spin. When he began his recovery, you could hear the engine going
from idle to near full power several times.

George Patterson
If you don't tell lies, you never have to remember what you said.

G.R. Patterson III wrote:
>
> Toks Desalu wrote:
>
>>And I wonder why they FAA removed spin training as requirement in early
>>years?
>
>
> They removed it because many people were dying during spin recovery training. They
> decided to teach people to avoid stalls and recover promptly from inadvertent stalls,
> because an aircraft will not spin unless it stalls first. The FAA feels that the
> reduced fatality rate proves they made the correct decision.

Canada removed spin training in the late 1990's for the same reason. We
kept it for decades after the U.S. gave it up, but our stall/spin fatality
rate was actually higher than the rate in the U.S. By the time I did my PPL
in 2002, spin training was already just a memory.

Transport Canada produced a report on the issue, basically concluding that
stall/spin accidents almost always happen too low for recovery, and since
practicing spin recoveries was killing the occasional student and
instructor, it made no sense to keep it on the syllabus.

One interest artifact of all that, though, is that since spin training was
part of the Canadian PPL until the late 1990's, my unscientific observation
is that Canadian flying schools are much less likely than American schools
to own Piper Cherokees/Warriors/Archers, since most Pipers from the 1970's
on do not allow intentional spins.


All the best,


David

In article >,
(tony) wrote:


> Never having jumped out of a perfectly good airplane, nor having had people
> bail out of my M20J, I'm ignorant re carrying jumpers. Do they belt themselves
> in place during take off and climb?

They are required to be belted for takeoff and landing...and in my
airplane if you're not belted in for takeoff I'll throw you out on the
runway. <G>

> Is it likely they were all well aft, or fell back as the pilot slowed down for
> their jump, or did he lose it on climbout?

The crash the original poster described was a Cessna 205 (the small
tail, underpowered 206). The jumper that "bailed out" was a student and
was standing on the gear leg when the airplane entered the spin..she
simply let go.

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

Well, if i can have my 2 cents....

> Now, the show prompted me to
> consider taking some sort of spinning and recovering training. Am I being
> overacting or paranoid?

I am not an airplane pilot, but a glider pilot, and I have done my training
in France, even if I have flown a couple of hours in the US. In my training,
spin was mandatory, and my instructor, before my solo, asked me to do 3 full
revolutions in a spin, and exit on a pre-determined axe. Certainly, a glider
is less impressive than an heavy plane and rotate relatively slower, but,
that's not the point.

When you fly sailplane, while you spiral in a lift, you are constanly
flirting with stalling, as the goal is to fly at the maximum lift
incidence/speed, which is a couple knots above stall, and when you are busy
trying to center as well as possible that anemic thermal, your speed is not
always perfect.

All that to say that I stalled (dissymetric, being in turn) many times with
my Standard Austria ( not the SHK ), as this sailplane is known to not like
too much slow speed, but i NEVER did more than an half rotation, losing less
than a hundred feet each time, as I do believe that if you know the signs
annonciating a stall, and react immediatly, most of the time you will not
even stall. (I also did many 300 kilometers circuits with my Austria)

All the above to say that, maybe, your best training would be to fly
sailplane, as you will know how to get out of a stall as fast as possible,
and flirt with the limits a lot more than you are used to in your airplane.

Bernard

"Elwood Dowd" > wrote in message
...
> Criminey, are snuff films legal for TV now?
>

There is no such thing as a snuff film.

Some airplanes, including some trainers, will not recover from a fully
developed spin. Nearly all have had to demonstrate the ability to recover
from an incipient spin, the Cirrus being a notable exception.

Spin training is of most value to instructors, and even there the practical
benefit is that it gives the instructors enough confidence to keep most of
them from always grabbing the controls away from the students.

I think it is also valuable for students who are afraid of stalls and stall
recoveries.

In article >, tony
> wrote:

> Never having jumped out of a perfectly good airplane, nor having had people
> bail out of my M20J, I'm ignorant re carrying jumpers. Do they belt themselves
> in place during take off and climb?

The belts are there, but it is probably left to the individual as to
actually using them. Once airbore the jumpers can usually get rather
quickly (practice, practice, practice).
We had a bird nest in the engine compartment of our club 180 early one
Spring. As the plane was climbing to altitude with the first load of
the day, the nest began to smolder and smoke began waifting into the
cabin.
The pilot, scanning the panel and looking down towards the rudder
peddals, started to say, "Boys, I think we got a ..."
By that time, all five jumpers were out the door and gone!

On Wed, 05 May 2004 14:00:23 GMT, "G.R. Patterson III"
> wrote:

>Part of Jimmy Franklin's old routine (before he put the jet engine on his Waco) was
>an inverted flat spin. When he began his recovery, you could hear the engine going
>from idle to near full power several times.
>
>George Patterson

I think, not positive, but I think that what he was doing was
attempting to blast air across the rudder to get it enough authority
to stop the spin.

I saw him do that at the airshow at Lebanon NH a number of years ago
before he put the jet engine on his Waco, and I swear he nearly did
not make it out of his flat inverted spin.

He'd had other maneuvers that he pulled out with far more altitude to
spare but this time it really did not look good. You could see him
horsing the controls and the engine went to full power and idle a
number of times and he was really getting low. I didn't see how he
could recover from the spin and still roll upright in time to pull
out.

He did, just. He was so low that he actually dipped down into the
slight drainage swale beside the runway as he pulled out and it was
obvious to me he did not plan it that way. What I mean is he only
just got the airplane upright and horsed the stick back immediately.
He might have some within a few feet of the ground. It could just be
me, but all the maneuvers after that appeared ragged and occured at a
much higher altitude. He seemed shaken.

The airshow was already shocking in that a woman pilot in a Pitt's
collided with a jumper and both died. The Pitts disintegrated and
went down and crashed beside the river and the parachutist was
decapitated.

His body floated overhead dripping blood along the way and landed
smack in front of the crowd.

I missed the collision. I'd seen the act before and wasn't paying
attention as the jumpers left their jump plane. Just saw the
particles of the airplane hanging in the air from the collision.

The woman and two other Pitts pilots were supposed to circle the
parachutists as they came in together. Only the pilots did not know
that a third guy was added to the jumpers, or at least I heard she did
not know. They saw two dive away and turned in to begin their
circling. Then the third jumped.

Corky Scott

so much for that preflight...

BT

"EDR" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, tony
> > wrote:
>
> > Never having jumped out of a perfectly good airplane, nor having had
people
> > bail out of my M20J, I'm ignorant re carrying jumpers. Do they belt
themselves
> > in place during take off and climb?
>
> The belts are there, but it is probably left to the individual as to
> actually using them. Once airbore the jumpers can usually get rather
> quickly (practice, practice, practice).
> We had a bird nest in the engine compartment of our club 180 early one
> Spring. As the plane was climbing to altitude with the first load of
> the day, the nest began to smolder and smoke began waifting into the
> cabin.
> The pilot, scanning the panel and looking down towards the rudder
> peddals, started to say, "Boys, I think we got a ..."
> By that time, all five jumpers were out the door and gone!

>The crash the original poster described was a Cessna 205 (the small
>tail, underpowered 206).

Yup...dunno why I was thinking it was a C-210.
Here is the accident report.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001208X07972&key=1


-John
*You are nothing until you have flown a Douglas, Lockheed, Grumman or North
American*

I don't know why you think it is C-210 or 206. I am the one who saw the
segment. Believe me, I can identify the aircraft from my TV. I am pretty
sure that it is a Piper. It can't be C-210 or 206 because it is a low wing
plane.

Toks Desalu

The Cessna "205" was the predecessor of the Cessna "210". The model number
of the "205" is 210-5. If you look at it it already has the bulb on the
lower cowling for the nose gear to retract into. They removed the rear two
seats for the main gear to retract into. That is why early C-210 was a four
seat airplane.

Allen

"Ditch" > wrote in message
...
> >The crash the original poster described was a Cessna 205 (the small
> >tail, underpowered 206).
>
> Yup...dunno why I was thinking it was a C-210.
> Here is the accident report.
>
> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001208X07972&key=1
>
>
> -John
> *You are nothing until you have flown a Douglas, Lockheed, Grumman or
North
> American*

I have jumped out of a lot of perfectly good airplanes :( in every case
(with the smaller planes) there were no seats, no seatbelts and no
door. The jumpers just crouch in the back, holding on to whatever is
handy until the pilot gives the go signal.

Ditch wrote:
>>
> Here is the accident report.
>
> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001208X07972&key=1
>

Holy crap. "Preparing to jump from about 3500 feet?" Although I'm not
an avid sky diver, I didn't think anyone jumped from an airplane at much
less than 9000' AGL.

I did the heave-ho out of a Twin Otter at 13,000. This altitude sounds
more like BASE jumping.

Need some time to enjoy that 120 mph wind-in-the-face. :)

>>
"Preparing to jump from about 3500 feet?" Although I'm not
an avid sky diver, I didn't think anyone jumped from an airplane at much
less than 9000' AGL.
<<

I've jumped. It's not uncommon to jump from less than 9000 feet. In fact 3500
feet doesn't sound unreasonable to me.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

>I've jumped. It's not uncommon to jump from less than 9000 feet. In fact 3500
>feet doesn't sound unreasonable to me.

If I recall correctly from my days at Fort Bragg, the 82nd Airborne
jumped from 900 feet.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! blog www.vivabush.org

Teacherjh wrote:

> I've jumped. It's not uncommon to jump from less than 9000 feet. In fact 3500
> feet doesn't sound unreasonable to me.

I know a glider pilot who successfully jumped from 600 ft.

Stefan

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> >I've jumped. It's not uncommon to jump from less than 9000 feet. In
fact 3500
> >feet doesn't sound unreasonable to me.
>
> If I recall correctly from my days at Fort Bragg, the 82nd Airborne
> jumped from 900 feet.

My guess is that military jumps want to be from the lowest possible
altitude. This will minimize the time the enemy has to sight and shoot at
them, conceals the landing target and provides more accurate landing. Sport
jumpers want to maximize the free-fall time and thus, want to jump from the
max altitude they can afford.

Cub Driver wrote:
>>I've jumped. It's not uncommon to jump from less than 9000 feet. In fact 3500
>>feet doesn't sound unreasonable to me.
>
>
> If I recall correctly from my days at Fort Bragg, the 82nd Airborne
> jumped from 900 feet.
>

Don't misunderstand me. Like I said, the BASE jumpers will jump off
anything as long as their hand-deployed chutes can open in time to break
the fall. And I'm sure the special ops guys in the military practice
all possibilities.

I was thinking more about recreational sky divers who enjoy being in the
air a long time. I jumped in Eloy, AZ, where there are a lot of serious
flyers, group jumps, VW drops (:), etc so maybe that's where I got the
notion.

-Scott

"William W. Plummer" > wrote in message
news:4%Kmc.45161$Ik.3096389@attbi_s53...
>
> My guess is that military jumps want to be from the lowest possible
> altitude. This will minimize the time the enemy has to sight and shoot at
> them, conceals the landing target and provides more accurate landing.
Sport
> jumpers want to maximize the free-fall time and thus, want to jump from
the
> max altitude they can afford.

If the plane is real low then you are even easier to spot. If you want
stealth you jump from 30K+ and don't open your chute until real low. They
call it a HALO jump, high altitude, low opening.

In article >, Teacherjh wrote:
>>>
> "Preparing to jump from about 3500 feet?" Although I'm not
> an avid sky diver, I didn't think anyone jumped from an airplane at much
> less than 9000' AGL.
><<
>
> I've jumped. It's not uncommon to jump from less than 9000 feet. In
> fact 3500 feet doesn't sound unreasonable to me.

My first free-fall (after doing static line jumps from 3000' AGL) was
also done at 3000'. Granted, it was only a 3 second free fall
(launching immediately into the drill to deploy the pilot chute). I
recall a safety lecture that said if we are above 1500' and the plane
runs into problems, we all jump out deploying the reserve pilot chute as
we leave the plane - diving out with our thumb's pulling on the rip
chord by our chest.

My friend Ray was stationed in Ankara, Turkey for a year. He told me the
Turkish Special Forces were the toughest warriors in the world. One day, out
on the ramp, he overheard a US Major briefing a Turkish Captain regarding a
joint mission they were about to fly. The Major said the plan was to jump
from 800 feet. The Captain said that was "Too high. We jump from no higher
than 400 feet." "Four hundred feet! That's way too low for your chutes to
open." "Oh, you want us to jump from 800 feet with parachutes. That's fine."

Perhaps John Gaquin overheard the same conversation.

Newps wrote:
>
> If the plane is real low then you are even easier to spot. If you want
> stealth you jump from 30K+ and don't open your chute until real low. They
> call it a HALO jump, high altitude, low opening.

Doesn't work well for mass drops. I think they still use the static line method at
800-900' for that.

George Patterson
If you don't tell lies, you never have to remember what you said.

Scott Lowrey > wrote in message >...
>
> I was thinking more about recreational sky divers who enjoy being in the
> air a long time. I jumped in Eloy, AZ, where there are a lot of serious
> flyers, group jumps, VW drops (:), etc so maybe that's where I got the
> notion.

If you're jumping with a static line (no freefall), 3500 AGL is
normal. My first jump was a static line jump (at Eloy, AZ no less)
at 3500 ft.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

>If the plane is real low then you are even easier to spot. If you want
>stealth you jump from 30K+ and don't open your chute until real low. They
>call it a HALO jump, high altitude, low opening.

Nobody did HALO in those years.

One night they took the 82nd out for a practice jump into a river, and
the lead pilot mistook a concrete highway for the water. The troopers
broke a lot of legs.

They asked psywar for a safety poster. I was the copywriter: DON'T
MAKE A DISABLING PLF. Ted did the artwork: a life-sized walking cast.
To make it look more convincing, we all signed it. Dunno if the
airborne ever published it.



all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! blog www.vivabush.org

>"Oh, you want us to jump from 800 feet with parachutes. That's fine."

This story was current in 1944, with the speaker being a Ghurka about
to be dropped behind Japanese lines in Burma. ("Oh, we get
parachutes!")

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! blog www.vivabush.org

So it's happened more than once! Wow.

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> >"Oh, you want us to jump from 800 feet with parachutes. That's fine."
>
> This story was current in 1944, with the speaker being a Ghurka about
> to be dropped behind Japanese lines in Burma. ("Oh, we get
> parachutes!")
>
> all the best -- Dan Ford
> email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)
>
> The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
> The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
> Viva Bush! blog www.vivabush.org

Normal "pull" altitude for sport jumping is between 2000' and 2500' (for
experienced skydivers). An exit at 3500' will give you approx 12-14 seconds
of freefall before pulling at 2000. However if you are going through 3500'
at terminal velocity, you only have about 7-8 sec. before 2000'. I've gotten
out somewhat lower than 2000' several times but deployed as soon as I
cleared the a/c. You shouldn't deploy your main canopy much lower than 1800'
or so to give yourself time to use emergency procedures if necessary. Also
I've never been in a jump a/c that didn't have restraints for all jumpers on
board. Base jumpers don't have a reserve system...There's usually no time to
use them anyway.
Military jumping is another animal altogether.

"Scott Lowrey" > wrote in message
news:HNCmc.43949$kh4.2310079@attbi_s52...
> Ditch wrote:
> >>
> > Here is the accident report.
> >
> > http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001208X07972&key=1
> >
>
> Holy crap. "Preparing to jump from about 3500 feet?" Although I'm not
> an avid sky diver, I didn't think anyone jumped from an airplane at much
> less than 9000' AGL.
>
> I did the heave-ho out of a Twin Otter at 13,000. This altitude sounds
> more like BASE jumping.
>
> Need some time to enjoy that 120 mph wind-in-the-face. :)

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message >...
> Some airplanes, including some trainers, will not recover from a fully
> developed spin. Nearly all have had to demonstrate the ability to recover
> from an incipient spin, the Cirrus being a notable exception.
>
> Spin training is of most value to instructors, and even there the practical
> benefit is that it gives the instructors enough confidence to keep most of
> them from always grabbing the controls away from the students.
>
> I think it is also valuable for students who are afraid of stalls and stall
> recoveries.




I believe that spin training is a must for all,students, private pilot
BFR's, and even in checkrides.
I am an aerobatic pilot and a CFI giving spin training and aerobatic
intro / courses,and think that
its a shame that my students for the private pilot are not required to
demonstrate spin recovery,
many time I feel that although the student met the FAA requirement
he/she are not 100% comfortable at the
stall spin flight regime.
It also seems ( from questioning students and reviewing training
records )that some instructors are happy to pass the stage where the
'power on stalls' are to be practiced,and in many cases finding always
good excuse not to go back and practice them again until its time for
the
final review prior to the student's check ride. and even then they
sometime compromise on the approach to stall only,
and intervene with the flight controls when the aircraft is finally
fully stalled.
As far as I know in the military you will spin aircrafts ,and be very
comfy at the departures if you ever going to fill up that left spot in
the cockpit,
even if you destine to deliver mail in a high wing single.
About the decision to remove spins from the curriculum some years
ago,they could change the minimum altitude for recovery from 1500' AGL
to 3000' and cut down on the majority of accidents occurring in spin
training.
In the end I think that the FAA is out there trying to help the
AVIATION INDUSTRY by making it a little easy on the flight
schools,examiners,and present
certificate holders,and by not 'scaring' potential students a way
after tasting a fully developed spin early in the course which I
believe could be introduced toward the end of the private pilot
course, or just mandate a spin endorsement (that is required prior the
CFI initial ride) to all aviators,and can include that in the BFRs to.

On 8 May 2004 21:24:58 -0700, (Mike) wrote:

>About the decision to remove spins from the curriculum some years
>ago,they could change the minimum altitude for recovery from 1500' AGL
>to 3000' and cut down on the majority of accidents occurring in spin
>training.

When I did a spin course, these were the precautions we took:

I wore a parachute and had a seat belt in addition to the integrated
seat beat / shoulder harness.

The altimeter was set to field altitude.

Flight altitude was 4,000 feet (agl of course).

(I wasn't entirely sure that I could have exited the front seat of the
Great Lakes in a spin with two seat belts to undo, but it was nice to
know they had my well-being in mind.)


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! blog www.vivabush.org

Mike

I wonder why the airlines now require 'upset' training for their
pilots after they had several high visibility accidents?

Big John

On 8 May 2004 21:24:58 -0700, (Mike) wrote:

>"C J Campbell" > wrote in message >...
>> Some airplanes, including some trainers, will not recover from a fully
>> developed spin. Nearly all have had to demonstrate the ability to recover
>> from an incipient spin, the Cirrus being a notable exception.
>>
>> Spin training is of most value to instructors, and even there the practical
>> benefit is that it gives the instructors enough confidence to keep most of
>> them from always grabbing the controls away from the students.
>>
>> I think it is also valuable for students who are afraid of stalls and stall
>> recoveries.
>
>
>
>
>I believe that spin training is a must for all,students, private pilot
>BFR's, and even in checkrides.
>I am an aerobatic pilot and a CFI giving spin training and aerobatic
>intro / courses,and think that
>its a shame that my students for the private pilot are not required to
>demonstrate spin recovery,
>many time I feel that although the student met the FAA requirement
>he/she are not 100% comfortable at the
>stall spin flight regime.
>It also seems ( from questioning students and reviewing training
>records )that some instructors are happy to pass the stage where the
>'power on stalls' are to be practiced,and in many cases finding always
>good excuse not to go back and practice them again until its time for
>the
>final review prior to the student's check ride. and even then they
>sometime compromise on the approach to stall only,
>and intervene with the flight controls when the aircraft is finally
>fully stalled.
>As far as I know in the military you will spin aircrafts ,and be very
>comfy at the departures if you ever going to fill up that left spot in
>the cockpit,
>even if you destine to deliver mail in a high wing single.
>About the decision to remove spins from the curriculum some years
>ago,they could change the minimum altitude for recovery from 1500' AGL
>to 3000' and cut down on the majority of accidents occurring in spin
>training.
>In the end I think that the FAA is out there trying to help the
>AVIATION INDUSTRY by making it a little easy on the flight
>schools,examiners,and present
>certificate holders,and by not 'scaring' potential students a way
>after tasting a fully developed spin early in the course which I
>believe could be introduced toward the end of the private pilot
>course, or just mandate a spin endorsement (that is required prior the
>CFI initial ride) to all aviators,and can include that in the BFRs to.

Big John > wrote

> I wonder why the airlines now require 'upset' training for their
> pilots after they had several high visibility accidents?

Because they started hiring whimpy civilian pilots who have never
been upside-down in an aircraft.

Bob Moore

Bob Moore wrote:
>
> Because they started hiring whimpy civilian pilots who have never
> been upside-down in an aircraft.

And, as we all know, military pilots spend hours upside-down in airliners.

George Patterson
If you don't tell lies, you never have to remember what you said.

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote

> And, as we all know, military pilots spend hours upside-down in
> airliners.

But, if we had found ourselves in that predicament, we would have
been far better prepared to deal with the situation because of our
far more comprehensive and intensive military flight training.

Bob Moore