Any Spins Lately??

[Ol Shy & Bashful]

If you haven't done any spins lately, why not? Have you ever gotten a
good spin checkout? Do you really understand what happens to get you
into a spin? Do you understand what is happening during a spin? Do you
know the proper technique for getting out of a spin in the airplane
you are flying?
Most importantly, do you realize a low altitude spin is virtually a
death sentence? A pilot who is properly trained in spins knows how to
avoid getting into them inadvertantly and especially below 1000'agl.
Every year pilots do a stall/spin accident and people die. Why should
this be? I'm really sick and tired of flight instructors who are
afraid of doing stalls and have NEVER done a spin because they are
afraid of them. How do you think that transfers to their students? I
see it when I do checkouts for pilots who are new to our operation or
request some training or a flight review.
Hopefully this will regenerate some discussion here and maybe save
some lives in the process?
Ol Shy & Bashful - Soaring Buzzard
World Infamous pilot/Instructor

[Vaughn Simon]

"Ol Shy & Bashful" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> I'm really sick and tired of flight instructors who are
> afraid of doing stalls

It shocks me, but I do run into these types.

> and have NEVER done a spin because they are
> afraid of them.

How do you get to be a CFI in the USA without having done spins at least
once? It is still required right?

As a student, I requested spin training before solo. It caused a bit of a
problem because they had to scare up chutes to stay legal, but they made it
happen. I ain't no stunt pilot, but I have never been afraid of an intentional
stall.

As an instructor, I felt that my required spin training was sufficient to
keep me and my student alive should an unintentional spin occur (such as a
botched stall recovery). I was perfectly happy to leave the spin training to
more experienced CFI's.

Vaughn

[[email protected]]

On Sep 3, 1:36 pm, "Vaughn Simon" >
wrote:
> "Ol Shy & Bashful" > wrote in oglegroups.com...
>
> > I'm really sick and tired of flight instructors who are
> > afraid of doing stalls
>
> It shocks me, but I do run into these types.
>
> > and have NEVER done a spin because they are
> > afraid of them.
>
> How do you get to be a CFI in the USA without having done spins at least
> once? It is still required right?
>
> As a student, I requested spin training before solo. It caused a bit of a
> problem because they had to scare up chutes to stay legal, but they made it
> happen. I ain't no stunt pilot, but I have never been afraid of an intentional
> stall.
>
> As an instructor, I felt that my required spin training was sufficient to
> keep me and my student alive should an unintentional spin occur (such as a
> botched stall recovery). I was perfectly happy to leave the spin training to
> more experienced CFI's.
>
> Vaughn


Are parachutes required for spins in the U.S.? Not here in
Canada. Spin training is required for both Private and Commercial, and
shows up on the Commercial flight test. Now here's the conundrum:
Inadvertent stall/spins kill as many in Canada as they do in the U.S.
The training doesn't seem to prevent it. As a local friend said
recently, "You can't change stupid." Learning spin entry and recovery
by rote doesn't increase awareness of the situations that can bring it
on, and Transport Canada now wants to see spin scenario training.
Things like the low-speed skidding turn, departure stall, climbing
turn stalls and accelerated stalls, all the things that lead to a
spin. The pilot who wants to be an intelligent and safe pilot will
read up on the subject (see Kerschner) and get some scenario training.
I'll bet a lot of victims utter these last words: "Hey! What
happened?"

Dan

[Jack Allison]

Not lately but a couple years back I took an introductory aerobatic
lesson and one of the things I requested was spins. Wow, what an eye
opener. I think we did four or five...basically a couple in each
direction and each one anywhere between 3-5 turns. I managed to screw
up the recovery a couple of times by not releasing opposite rudder once
the rotation stopped.

I'd highly recommend either an introductory aerobatic flight or upset
training where you can recover from spins. It will cost a chunk of
change but it very well could save your life one day. Oh, and the
introductory aerobatic lesson is a ton of fun BTW. Loops, rolls,
hammerheads, spins...oh yeah, I can see how aerobatics is addictive. :-)

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Ol Shy & Bashful wrote:
> If you haven't done any spins lately, why not? Have you ever gotten a
> good spin checkout? Do you really understand what happens to get you
> into a spin? Do you understand what is happening during a spin? Do you
> know the proper technique for getting out of a spin in the airplane
> you are flying?
> Most importantly, do you realize a low altitude spin is virtually a
> death sentence? A pilot who is properly trained in spins knows how to
> avoid getting into them inadvertantly and especially below 1000'agl.
> Every year pilots do a stall/spin accident and people die. Why should
> this be? I'm really sick and tired of flight instructors who are
> afraid of doing stalls and have NEVER done a spin because they are
> afraid of them. How do you think that transfers to their students? I
> see it when I do checkouts for pilots who are new to our operation or
> request some training or a flight review.
> Hopefully this will regenerate some discussion here and maybe save
> some lives in the process?
> Ol Shy & Bashful - Soaring Buzzard
> World Infamous pilot/Instructor
>
Hi Rocky;
I share your comment about spin training and encourage every pilot,
especially instructors to seek out and become proficient in spins.

That being said, I should add that I have been a cogent advocate of spin
training for many years and in doing so have taken on the powers that be
from the local FBO to the highest levels of the FAA.
I've found that part of the problem is a factor that I for one have to
admit, the proponents (the owners of the fleet aircraft) have a valid
position that has to be addressed when encouraging spin training at the
level of the average FBO. For the specialized operation that has
aircraft and instructors available for this express purpose it's a non
issue, but for the average flight school it's a question that for the
most part is hard to deal with.
The main gripe many FBO's have with spin training is first of all
qualified instructors to do the training, AND another gripe that has to
be addressed.
You can do spin training in the utility category and if all recoveries
are made without over stress, using these airplanes shouldn't be a
problem. You can, for example, use a Cessna 152 all day long for spin
training and have no issues, BUT, when you start extending turns and
botching recoveries, you can easily get into over g situations with
these airplanes.
For the average FBO with a plane on the line for flight instruction,
this is a legitimate beef.
What I'm saying is that I agree on the spin issue, but understand why
many FBO's are reluctant to offer this training. They just can not find
enough instructors who are competent enough to insure that a utility
category aircraft won't be overstressed due to bad recovery technique by
the instructor giving the dual.
My answer to this issue has been the same for many years now. I highly
recommend that ALL pilots seek out and obtain spin training from an
authorized training facility with both aircraft and instructors
qualified to give that training.
CFI candidates especially, should seek out and obtain not only spin
training, but some serious upset and recovery training before becomming
instructors. The difference between an instructor who can do spins and
one who is fully qualified and capable of recovering a student's botched
maneuver WITHOUT OVER STRESSING THE AIRPLANE is a world apart!!!

I honestly don't know if there IS a viable solution for training every
pilot learning to fly in the United States on how to do spins.

The problems involving access to the right aircraft at a decent price,
properly trained instructors, addressing the current FAA regulations
which are totally inadequate addressing this issue at this point in
time, and the ingrained mindset (totally inadequate as far as I'm
concerned)that being able to recover from the stall negates the spin
that serves the FAA, the FBO, and the manufacturer's position rather
than addressing the "properly trained pilot's" position, might very well
be insurmountable for general aviation.

The bottom line on this issue has for the most part already been decided
by the high spin accident rate CAUSED by improperly trained instructors
attempting spin training with students. The accident rate indicates to
the FAA that spin training in general isn't worth the cost. Based on
that logic, I'm afraid little will be done to encourage spin training at
the local level and indeed might very well end up discouraging this
training altogether.

It's a sad picture, but probably not a total loss.
New pilots coming up the ladder will have to be encouraged by those of
us who have seen the need for this training to go get it where it can be
had.
In the end, all we can change is what we CAN change. This is why I spend
as much time on these forums as I do. I assume this is your reason as
well. I just hope all that time doesn't go to waste.
Hopefully, we've managed to reach a few people and make them safer
pilots by passing on the "good word".


--
Dudley Henriques

[Vaughn Simon]

> wrote in message
ps.com...
>
> Are parachutes required for spins in the U.S.?

In the US, chutes are required for spin training that is not a specifically
required part of flight training. So a 'chute was required when I was a student
pilot taking non-required spin training, but not when I was training for my CFI
ticket. I don't really understand the thinking behind that.

> Now here's the conundrum:
> Inadvertent stall/spins kill as many in Canada as they do in the U.S.
> The training doesn't seem to prevent it. ...
> Learning spin entry and recovery by rote doesn't increase awareness of the
> situations that can bring it
> on, and Transport Canada now wants to see spin scenario training.

This sounds like a good idea. In my opinion, it should be done fairly early in
flight training: Not so early as to scare off new students, but early enough to
impress permanantly on fresh minds how much altutude is lost in a spin. You
don't want that to happen in the pattern!

> Things like the low-speed skidding turn, departure stall, climbing
> turn stalls and accelerated stalls, all the things that lead to a
> spin.

Yes!

Vaughn

[Vaughn Simon]

"Bob Moore" > wrote in message
46.128...

>
> In summary, I disagree with you assement that parachutes are required
> for spin training with a Flight Instructor.

Yes, I understand that there are some hopeful readings of 91.307 out there.
Until I see something official from the FAA, I subscribe to the plain reading of
the text.

[Viperdoc[_3_]]

Yes, I do spins and other stuff all the time- there is nothing like going
out and flying acro on a nice summer day. Never, ever gets boring. I also
think it really helps get the feel of a plane. With any practice, there
really should never be anything like an inadvertent spin- the plane should
be telling you when you aren't doing something right prior to the stall. And
once it does stall,keeping the wings level with your feet should help
prevent spin entry.

I am far from an expert acro pilot, but developing a feel for the plane and
what it's going to do are major advantages of acro training.

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 12:03:52 -0700, Ol Shy & Bashful
> wrote in
om>:

>If you haven't done any spins lately, why not?

I agree with you about the need for spin training, but there are (at
least) a couple of issues.

1. It's not possible to cage the gyros in most training aircraft.

2. Many aircraft (PA28s come to mind) are not approved for
intentional spins.

[BT]

>
> As a student, I requested spin training before solo. It caused a bit
> of a problem because they had to scare up chutes to stay legal, but they
> made it happen. I ain't no stunt pilot, but I have never been afraid of
> an intentional stall.
>

A US CFI providing Spin Training to a student does not have or provide or
wear parachutes.
91.307(d)
Some might argue that a "pre-solo" student is not required to have spin
training, and 91.307(d) only exempts "required training".
BT

[[email protected]]

On Sep 3, 5:33 pm, "Viperdoc" > wrote:
> Yes, I do spins and other stuff all the time- there is nothing like going
> out and flying acro on a nice summer day. Never, ever gets boring. I also
> think it really helps get the feel of a plane. With any practice, there
> really should never be anything like an inadvertent spin- the plane should
> be telling you when you aren't doing something right prior to the stall. And
> once it does stall,keeping the wings level with your feet should help
> prevent spin entry.

It takes more than keeping the wings level, and even in coordinated
flight spins are possible. Spins can occur, for example, in a
coordinated climbing turn stall (outside wing goes first), from a
level skidding turn (inside wing goes first), from a level steep turn
(inside first), and from an abrupt pullup (depends which way whatever
yaw there might be).
That last one is known to kill the showoff: the guy who buzzes
the runway or a friend's house, then pulls up sharply to get the G
forces and the steep climb. The G forces mean an increased load
factor, and the stall speed goes way up. If there's any
miscoordination at all and the raised stall speed meets the actual
airspeed, a wing will drop viciously and the flight ends right there.
Bam. I'm appalled at the number of pilots who don't seem to be aware
of the aerodynamics here. Ignorance is no excuse. Physics pays no
attention to excuses.

Dan

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Ol Shy & Bashful" wrote:

What airplane does FTOM use for spin training, Rocky?

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

[Airbus]

You certainly have a proselytizing tone about the subject, yet for your
admonissions to be really valid you would have to show that the change
from spin training to spin awareness and avoidance has been accompanied
by an increase in stall/spin accidents and fatalities. In reality, the
opposite is true.



In article om>,
says...
>
>
>If you haven't done any spins lately, why not? Have you ever gotten a
>good spin checkout? Do you really understand what happens to get you
>into a spin? Do you understand what is happening during a spin? Do you
>know the proper technique for getting out of a spin in the airplane
>you are flying?
>Most importantly, do you realize a low altitude spin is virtually a
>death sentence? A pilot who is properly trained in spins knows how to
>avoid getting into them inadvertantly and especially below 1000'agl.
>Every year pilots do a stall/spin accident and people die. Why should
>this be? I'm really sick and tired of flight instructors who are
>afraid of doing stalls and have NEVER done a spin because they are
>afraid of them. How do you think that transfers to their students? I
>see it when I do checkouts for pilots who are new to our operation or
>request some training or a flight review.
>Hopefully this will regenerate some discussion here and maybe save
>some lives in the process?
>Ol Shy & Bashful - Soaring Buzzard
>World Infamous pilot/Instructor
>

[Airbus]

In a different thread here, someone made an apt allusion to a
high-performance driving course. Anyone may wish to take such a course in
the belief it will make them a more complete or more well-rounded driver,
and this uncompromising attitude toward one's self is deserving of
respect. It will not, however, make them less likely to have an accident
- probably the inverse. The secretary who gets nervous when she has to
parallel park is far less likely to have a serious accident. And if large
numbers of people started subscribing to such courses, it is likely the
roads would become more dangerous, because in *some* people this would
favor an overconfident attitude.

Compare this to single-engine recovery in light twins. All pilots have to
demonstrate proficiency when they know an engine failure is likely to
occur, and they have been practicing for it. In real-world incidents
however, we know that a large majority fail to apply their training
successfully in light twins, with marginal excess horsepower. This still
leaves some who do succeed, which makes the training pertinent - combine
this with the fact that avoidance is not practical (despite the best
measures, engine-out incidents will still occur without warning) and the
training clearly becomes indispensable.

What about partial-panel in IMC? I share your impatience with marginal
instructors when it comes to those who instruct IR, yet who are afraid in
IMC. They should be like a fish in water in hard IMC, even partial panel.
Here again, avoidance is not a satisfactory answer, as vacuum failures
will occur without warning, and only partial-panel training will bail you
out if you can't see out the window when it happens. Let's see though what
happens to IR training requirements as the vacuum systems become obsolete,
and the classic AI/DG failure becomes an anachronism.

[Frank Ch. Eigler]

Airbus > writes:

> [...] Compare this to single-engine recovery in light twins. [...]
> In real-world incidents however, we know that a large majority fail
> to apply their training successfully in light twins, with marginal
> excess horsepower. [...]

How exactly do "we" know that?

- FChE

[Ol Shy & Bashful]

On Sep 4, 6:18 am, "Dan Luke" > wrote:
> "Ol Shy & Bashful" wrote:
>
> What airplane does FTOM use for spin training, Rocky?
>
> --
> Dan
> T-182T at BFM

Dan
Mostly a C-152 but on occasion, one of our C-172's.. Stop by one of
these days!
Rocky

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Ol Shy & Bashful" wrote:

>>
>> What airplane does FTOM use for spin training, Rocky?



> Mostly a C-152 but on occasion, one of our C-172's.. Stop by one of
> these days!
> Rocky


Will do. I've been meaning to get some spin training for, oh, about 10 years
now.

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

[JGalban via AviationKB.com]

Larry Dighera wrote:
>
>I agree with you about the need for spin training, but there are (at
>least) a couple of issues.
>
> 1. It's not possible to cage the gyros in most training aircraft.
>
> 2. Many aircraft (PA28s come to mind) are not approved for
>intentional spins.

I spin my PA28 on a fairly regular basis. Not all of them have the spin
restriction. The short bodied, hershey bar winged 140s and 180s were
approved for spins in the Utility Category. The 140s remained spinnable
throughout the production run (ended in '77) and the 180s were good until the
fuselage was stretched in the '73 models. Caveat : some early models were
delivered with a large fresh air fan in the tail. These models were not
approved for intentional spins and are placarded as such.

As for the gyros, I've heard that spinning is bad for the gyros, but it
hasn't hurt mine. So far, I've been spinning the plane for 14 yrs. and have
yet to replace a gyro. They will usually tumble during the manuever, but
they re-erect and work normally within a few minutes.

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

--
Message posted via http://www.aviationkb.com

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 21:28:59 GMT, "JGalban via AviationKB.com"
<u32749@uwe> wrote in <77bb4cf363fa1@uwe>:

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>>
>>I agree with you about the need for spin training, but there are (at
>>least) a couple of issues.
>>
>> 1. It's not possible to cage the gyros in most training aircraft.
>>
>> 2. Many aircraft (PA28s come to mind) are not approved for
>>intentional spins.
>
> I spin my PA28 on a fairly regular basis. Not all of them have the spin
>restriction. The short bodied, hershey bar winged 140s and 180s were
>approved for spins in the Utility Category. The 140s remained spinnable
>throughout the production run (ended in '77) and the 180s were good until the
>fuselage was stretched in the '73 models. Caveat : some early models were
>delivered with a large fresh air fan in the tail. These models were not
>approved for intentional spins and are placarded as such.

Thank you for that very complete information.

> As for the gyros, I've heard that spinning is bad for the gyros, but it
>hasn't hurt mine. So far, I've been spinning the plane for 14 yrs. and have
>yet to replace a gyro. They will usually tumble during the manuever, but
>they re-erect and work normally within a few minutes.
>
>John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

What have you found to be the MTBF for your gyros?

[Vaughn Simon]

"BT" > wrote in message
...
> >
>> As a student, I requested spin training before solo. It caused a bit of
>> a problem because they had to scare up chutes to stay legal, but they made
>> it happen. I ain't no stunt pilot, but I have never been afraid of an
>> intentional stall.
>>
>
> A US CFI providing Spin Training to a student does not have or provide or wear
> parachutes.
> 91.307(d)
> Some might argue that a "pre-solo" student is not required to have spin
> training, and 91.307(d) only exempts "required training".

I respectfully disagree. AFAIK, Spin training is only "required" for the
CFI rating. Spin training for all other ratings is optional, so the exception
of 91.307 (d) does not apply. (Yes! I know that there are other opinions
around. If your FSDO goes along with some other reading of that reg, then more
power to you.) ;-)

Vaughn


> BT
>

[Vaughn Simon]

"Bob Moore" > wrote in message
46.128...
> Vaughn Simon wrote
>> I respectfully disagree. AFAIK, Spin training is only "required"
>> for the CFI rating. Spin training for all other ratings is
>> optional, so the exception of 91.307 (d) does not apply. (Yes!
>> I know that there are other opinions around. If your FSDO goes
>> along with some other reading of that reg, then more power to you.)
>
> You certainly posses no ability to read and comprehend, do you?


Actually, I do. Does an AC trump the clear reading of the CFRs? The FAA
has had several chances to clear this up if it were to so choose, yet it has
passed them up. Why?

Vaughn

[JGalban via AviationKB.com]

Larry Dighera wrote:
>
>What have you found to be the MTBF for your gyros?

As I said, the same gyros have been in the panel and working fine for 14
yrs. and I tend to average about 4 or 5 spins per month. When one of them
finally fails, I'll get back to you.

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

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200709/1

[Ol Shy & Bashful]

On Sep 4, 8:36 am, Airbus > wrote:
> You certainly have a proselytizing tone about the subject, yet for your
> admonissions to be really valid you would have to show that the change
> from spin training to spin awareness and avoidance has been accompanied
> by an increase in stall/spin accidents and fatalities. In reality, the
> opposite is true.
>
> In article om>,
> says...
>
>
>
>
>
> >If you haven't done any spins lately, why not? Have you ever gotten a
> >good spin checkout? Do you really understand what happens to get you
> >into a spin? Do you understand what is happening during a spin? Do you
> >know the proper technique for getting out of a spin in the airplane
> >you are flying?
> >Most importantly, do you realize a low altitude spin is virtually a
> >death sentence? A pilot who is properly trained in spins knows how to
> >avoid getting into them inadvertantly and especially below 1000'agl.
> >Every year pilots do a stall/spin accident and people die. Why should
> >this be? I'm really sick and tired of flight instructors who are
> >afraid of doing stalls and have NEVER done a spin because they are
> >afraid of them. How do you think that transfers to their students? I
> >see it when I do checkouts for pilots who are new to our operation or
> >request some training or a flight review.
> >Hopefully this will regenerate some discussion here and maybe save
> >some lives in the process?
> >Ol Shy & Bashful - Soaring Buzzard
> >World Infamous pilot/Instructor- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Airbus
On what do you base that statement "In reality, the opposite is
true." ? I'm basing my statement on what I've seen in 40 years as a
flight instructor.
Cheers
Ol S&B

[[email protected]]

On Sep 5, 5:52 am, Ol Shy & Bashful > wrote:
> On Sep 4, 8:36 am, Airbus > wrote:
>
>
>
> > You certainly have a proselytizing tone about the subject, yet for your
> > admonissions to be really valid you would have to show that the change
> > from spin training to spin awareness and avoidance has been accompanied
> > by an increase in stall/spin accidents and fatalities. In reality, the
> > opposite is true.
>
> > In article om>,
> > says...
>
> > >If you haven't done any spins lately, why not? Have you ever gotten a
> > >good spin checkout? Do you really understand what happens to get you
> > >into a spin? Do you understand what is happening during a spin? Do you
> > >know the proper technique for getting out of a spin in the airplane
> > >you are flying?
> > >Most importantly, do you realize a low altitude spin is virtually a
> > >death sentence? A pilot who is properly trained in spins knows how to
> > >avoid getting into them inadvertantly and especially below 1000'agl.
> > >Every year pilots do a stall/spin accident and people die. Why should
> > >this be? I'm really sick and tired of flight instructors who are
> > >afraid of doing stalls and have NEVER done a spin because they are
> > >afraid of them. How do you think that transfers to their students? I
> > >see it when I do checkouts for pilots who are new to our operation or
> > >request some training or a flight review.
> > >Hopefully this will regenerate some discussion here and maybe save
> > >some lives in the process?
> > >Ol Shy & Bashful - Soaring Buzzard
> > >World Infamous pilot/Instructor- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Airbus
> On what do you base that statement "In reality, the opposite is
> true." ? I'm basing my statement on what I've seen in 40 years as a
> flight instructor.
> Cheers
> Ol S&B


The only reasion there aren't more stall/spin accidents
than many years ago, if there ARE fewer, is because the airplanes
built now are so forgiving. They are spin-resistant. Just try getting
a 172 into a decent spin. So now we have the equivalent of tricycles
instead of bicycles, just like we have anti-skid brakes and other
idiot-proofing stuff on our cars. The overall result is a pilot or
driver who thinks he is proficient because the machine never gets away
on him, while the reality is that some engineer was given the task of
designing a machine capable of babysitting him.
I believe many stall/spin accidents come about after a guy
gets his ticket in a newer design, then goes and buys an older
airplane like a Champ or Cessna 140 and promptly gets himself into
trouble. He didn't get any spin training while he was getting the
taildragger checkout. He wasn't shown what happens in a sloppy,
skidding base-to-final turn.

Dan

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Airbus wrote:
> You certainly have a proselytizing tone about the subject, yet for your
> admonissions to be really valid you would have to show that the change
> from spin training to spin awareness and avoidance has been accompanied
> by an increase in stall/spin accidents and fatalities. In reality, the
> opposite is true.
>
>
>
> In article om>,
> says...
>>
>> If you haven't done any spins lately, why not? Have you ever gotten a
>> good spin checkout? Do you really understand what happens to get you
>> into a spin? Do you understand what is happening during a spin? Do you
>> know the proper technique for getting out of a spin in the airplane
>> you are flying?
>> Most importantly, do you realize a low altitude spin is virtually a
>> death sentence? A pilot who is properly trained in spins knows how to
>> avoid getting into them inadvertantly and especially below 1000'agl.
>> Every year pilots do a stall/spin accident and people die. Why should
>> this be? I'm really sick and tired of flight instructors who are
>> afraid of doing stalls and have NEVER done a spin because they are
>> afraid of them. How do you think that transfers to their students? I
>> see it when I do checkouts for pilots who are new to our operation or
>> request some training or a flight review.
>> Hopefully this will regenerate some discussion here and maybe save
>> some lives in the process?
>> Ol Shy & Bashful - Soaring Buzzard
>> World Infamous pilot/Instructor
>>
>
I would respectfully disagree with this line of reasoning.
There are various factors involved with the stall/spin issue, and the
present accident stats whatever they are and whatever they show are only
the tip of this iceberg.

If there are negatives showing in the accident statistics, they are not
caused by the base root factor that spin training will make you a better
and a safer pilot. I've been involved directly with aerobatic training
for over 50 years and I will tell you without hesitation that spin
training and/or aerobatic training will absolutely make you a better
everyday or eben weekend pilot.

If anything, negative statistics would indicate that there are serious
problems with the training end of the equation, which there are to be
sure. If the training end is flawed, the end statistics will show that
flaw and the final product (the pilot) will be reflect those flaws, most
likely showing up as a less than desired result in the accident stats.

There have been enough training accidents caused by improperly trained
instructors attempting to give spin instruction to students to have
become a serious safety issue causing much concern about the use of spin
training as a deterrent. This would have to be changed to reflect a more
positive result.

What's needed is a better understanding and acceptance of the basic
premise that spin training is beneficial followed by much better
expertise levels in the instructor community.
Unfortunately I don't see this happening due to FAA reluctance based on
the training safety issue and the combined reluctance of the GA aircraft
manufacturer and the local FBO to have general aviation projected to a
potential customer base as an environment involving spinning the airplane.

I believe spin training will remain as it is for the foreseeable future.
I also believe that spin training is so beneficial to a new pilot that
it should be sought out and accomplished regardless of present
restrictions and mindset.

--
Dudley Henriques

[[email protected]]

On Sep 5, 10:30 pm, Airbus > wrote:


> An interesting twist that has come to light from recent AOPA discussions
> and rebuttals is that most spin training undertaken by private, commercial
> and ATP candidates is done with the ambition of recognizing and avoiding
> spins - in other words, virtually no one today really subscribes any
> longer to the belief that spin recovery is useful or practicable in the
> low-altitude "turn-to-final" scenario, and those students who do practice
> spins are mostly interested in avoidance more than recovery.

The turn-to-final stall spin is probably unrecoverable, but
the spin-trained pilot might recognize what's beginning to happen in
time to avert the accident. If nothing else, with spin training he'll
have experienced what Transport Canada calls "intensity," or an eye-
opener, a bit of a scare, that makes a believer out of him. He won't
be so sloppy in that turn to final anymore because he'll be aware of
the cost. When I instructed on Citabrias we did all the scenarios, and
you'd better believe the student had much more respect for the
airplane after that. He knew a lot more than before. And that was the
point.
I watched a guy stall and spin out of a steep turn at low
level and low speed about ten years ago at Arlington. He had been
doing this for some time, and it finally bit him. He might not have
known the danger, and once things began to go wrong he may have done
all the wrong things: pull back to try to raise the nose, and use
opposite aileron to raise that wing. Both are exactly wrong but are
reflexive actions for the non-spin experienced pilot. His first
mistake was to be doing his maneuvers at such low altitude, but he'd
still have spun if he did it up high and might not have recovered
there either. In any case, the crash was non-survivable.
Spins are plenty safe if done properly. They're not hard on
the airplane. We do them in Canada and accidents are rare. The more
dangerous times, IMHO, are the takeoff and landing phases. Not much
room for error.

Dan

[Airbus]

In article om>,
says...

>
>Airbus
>On what do you base that statement "In reality, the opposite is
>true." ? I'm basing my statement on what I've seen in 40 years as a
>flight instructor.
>Cheers
>Ol S&B
>


On the demonstrable fact that stall/spin accidents have declined at the
same time more emphasis has been placed on avoidance, rather than recovery.
Mind you, I do not say "because" of the change in emphasis in training -
or at least not "exclusively beause of" - there are many factors, including
an improved safety conciousness in a very general sense, and some (as yet
incomplete) impetus from manufacturers - but at least we can state that
the fact that students since 1949 are no longer required to demonstrate
spin recovery proficiency has not led to an increase in stall/spin
accidents, and has to some degree reduced the number of such accidents in
instructional settings (though the NTSB still points out that 90% of
stall/spin fatalities occur with an instructor on board).

An interesting twist that has come to light from recent AOPA discussions
and rebuttals is that most spin training undertaken by private, commercial
and ATP candidates is done with the ambition of recognizing and avoiding
spins - in other words, virtually no one today really subscribes any
longer to the belief that spin recovery is useful or practicable in the
low-altitude "turn-to-final" scenario, and those students who do practice
spins are mostly interested in avoidance more than recovery.

[Cubdriver]

On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 13:01:04 -0700, wrote:

>Are parachutes required for spins in the U.S.? Not here in
>Canada.

It's not easy to get spin training. My first instructor put the Cub
into a spin to demonstrate what it looked/felt like, but I wasn't
allowed to recover myself. And come to find out, spins are forbidden
by the airport that owns the Cubs. They are, after all, sixty-year-old
airplanes.

So I went out to Chandler AZ to take a course in "unusual attitude"
flying. The plane in that case was a Great Lakes, and I was required
to wear a parachute, but I think that was just an FBO requirement. And
in any event we soon transitioned to some mild aerobatics, for which
the chute was of course required.


Blue skies! -- Dan Ford

Claire Chennault and His American Volunteers, 1941-1942
new from HarperCollins www.FlyingTigersBook.com

[Cubdriver]

On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 01:24:01 GMT, "Vaughn Simon"
> wrote:

> Actually, I do. Does an AC trump the clear reading of the CFRs? The FAA
>has had several chances to clear this up if it were to so choose, yet it has
>passed them up. Why?

I think that Catch 22 applies here. As my instructor noted with
respect to solo propping an airplane: "Dan, there are a whole lot of
reasons why you wouldn't want this to become an issue."

As with the 1950s-era French rules of the road (the car on the right
has the right of way; and you must be in control of your vehicle at
all times), I get the impression that with the FAA you are okay as
long as nothing goes wrong. But if something does go wrong, then you
are in trouble.

Having read the discussion here, I would insist on a parachute if I
were to do any more spin training, or if I were a CFI about to
introduce a student to spins.


Blue skies! -- Dan Ford

Claire Chennault and His American Volunteers, 1941-1942
new from HarperCollins www.FlyingTigersBook.com