Spins

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Jim Logajan wrote in
:

"Ol Shy & Bashful" wrote:
It really disturbs me that the FAA is constantly dumbing down the
pilots of today and you can see it in the various publications. A
lot of material is deleted that still applies but it is as if
someone is afraid to teach it because it either scares them, or they
simply don't know how to address it except by deletion.

With all due respect...

The statistics computed for the Nall Reports and by the NTSB seem to
show that the GA per-flight-hour accident rate has been generally on
a very slow decline over the last decade or two. So if the FAA is
"dumbing down" pilots, they aren't getting dumb fast enough to stem
the decline in accident rates.

Bottom line is that the declining accident rate doesn't seem to
support the claim of "dumbing down". Or perhaps if it is true then
maybe "dumb" pilots are safer pilots.... ;-)

Well, there could be a few explanations for that. one could be that
since new recruits to the past-time are down, the experiance level is
coming up.

That's a pretty plausible explanation for the decline in accident rates.
Probably not enough raw data collected over the years to say whether that
is the reason for the decline. :-(

Dunno, just offering it as food for thought.

Michael wrote in news:4a490f0a-0e35-
:

On Jan 23, 9:10*am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Well, he student falls into the same category as the private, really.

Actually, no. If you think about it carefully, there is one important
difference between the student and private. Sure, they both had the
same limited spin recovery training - but the student had it
RECENTLY. That's why it's worth something.


Well, most haven;'t had spin training, that is the problem. Most don't
get it.

About half the good pilots I know experienced inadvertent spin entries
- and almost all experienced inadvertent approaches to stall. I know
lots of pilots who never got close to inadvertently stalling the
plane, never mind spinning it - and most of them are not worth much.

Very true.

They're mechanical, overly conservative, and generally not skilled.

Also very true.

There's a reason for this. You don't get to be good just by flying
straight and level on nice days. You get good by, among other things,
exploring the edges of the envelope. When you start doing this, you
are going to make mistakes. The only way not to make mistakes is not
to do anything. (As an aside, I think the ONLY reason we're seeing
any improvement in the fatal accident rate is that more and more
pilots are simply not doing anything other than going up to fly in
straight lines on nice days, not because the pilots are getting any
better/safer.)


Yep, agree with all of this.


It is exactly the student pilot who has the potential to develop into
a good pilot who is most at risk in the early stages. He's going to
be exploring the edges of the envelope a lot (especially the stall,
since he has a good excuse to be there, practicing for the checkride
and all) and he is the one who really needs spin recovery training -
because he is most likely to get into that mess, and because it will
most likely be at an altitude high enough for a novice to recover. He
won't really need it later, so it's no big deal if he forgets.

The arguemtn is the private should have his spin training introduced
while he's a student.

Yes, that would be great if it happened - but who will do it? Most
instructors these days have spin training inferior to what the average
private pilot got fifty years ago.


Yep, but that's case I'm making.

That should change.


Do you remember what happened when the FAA took slow flight as we knew
it (Vso +5/-0, with the stall horn blaring) out of the PTS and
replaced it with flight at 1.2 Vso?

Nope. Must have been out sick that week!

And then a few years later, they
went back to the old way? I remember how the new instructors, who had
come up after the change, screamed. There was even one who refused to
teach his student real slow flight, and instead sent him to the
checkride with a letter explaining that this sort of flying was
unsafe, and that he had told the student never to do it? Remember
that mess?


When theh hell was this? I probably wasn't teaching at the time.

Truth is, the instructor was probably right. It is unsafe - for him.


Well, yes!

Spend enough time flying just a few knots over stall in turbulent air,
and maneuvering, and eventually you will buy yourself a spin entry.
Unless you are comfortable in recovery, you probably shouldn't be
there. Odds are he wasn't comfortable - he was probably one of these
guys who gets a minimal-standards spin endorsement.

I think it's OK to send off a solo student on minimal standards spin
training. A couple of incipients, so he learns to recognize it when
it happens, maybe a one turn in case he is slow, and spend the rest of
the time on stal/spin awareness, recognition, and avoidance. That's
fine for a solo student because his exposure is low - he's only going
to be doing slow flight and stalls for a few hours, and likely never
again. Makes no sense to burden him with the full gamut of spin
training. If he decides he's going to fly that part of the envelope,
he can always get it later.


Well, with students I usually gave them some idea before solo about what
a spin was and how to avoid it. A quick demo, and the usual series of
stalls, but the more complete examples would come later in the training.

The CFI's exposure is much higher, and he
really needs to be trained to a higher standard.

Well, I would have thought so! A fairly high proficiency was expected
when I did my instructor's ticket..

But what happens if
he's not?

Well, he can't teach them, that's for sure.




Spin training ought to have no discernible fatality rate over and
above flight training as a whole. When done by competent instructors
(ie at aerobatic schools) that is indeed the case. Maybe we should
require CFI candidates to demonstrate solo aerobatics? At least at
the novice level? Surely someone who can't do a loop, roll, and spin
above 1500 ft has no business teaching anyone else to fly?

Of course the last time I suggested that in this forum I got
slammed....


Really? I see a lot of support for your position here now. I agree with
you about all of it bar a few details and definitions.


Bertie

Jim Logajan wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Jim Logajan wrote in
:

"Ol Shy & Bashful" wrote:
It really disturbs me that the FAA is constantly dumbing down the
pilots of today and you can see it in the various publications. A
lot of material is deleted that still applies but it is as if
someone is afraid to teach it because it either scares them, or
they simply don't know how to address it except by deletion.

With all due respect...

The statistics computed for the Nall Reports and by the NTSB seem to
show that the GA per-flight-hour accident rate has been generally on
a very slow decline over the last decade or two. So if the FAA is
"dumbing down" pilots, they aren't getting dumb fast enough to stem
the decline in accident rates.

Bottom line is that the declining accident rate doesn't seem to
support the claim of "dumbing down". Or perhaps if it is true then
maybe "dumb" pilots are safer pilots.... ;-)

Well, there could be a few explanations for that. one could be that
since new recruits to the past-time are down, the experiance level is
coming up.

That's a pretty plausible explanation for the decline in accident
rates. Probably not enough raw data collected over the years to say
whether that is the reason for the decline. :-(

Well, I can't see it being down to better training, because I don't see
the training for Privates as being any better than it was thirty years
ago. In some ways it's a lot worse. I thknk part of it may be down to
better equipment, especially Nav stuff. And some may be down to better
weather information and availability of same. Much of it has to be due
to better education, especially with weather related accidents.

Again, this is all just supposition.. I have no idea, really.


Bertie

On Jan 23, 2:37 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

Well, I can't see it being down to better training, because I don't see
the training for Privates as being any better than it was thirty years
ago. In some ways it's a lot worse. I thknk part of it may be down to
better equipment, especially Nav stuff. And some may be down to better
weather information and availability of same. Much of it has to be due
to better education, especially with weather related accidents.

Again, this is all just supposition.. I have no idea, really.

Bertie

My father learned to fly in '59 (J-3, TaylorCraft, etc). From his
experience I learned that the stick and rudder aspect was stressed --
and not much else. They did spins, rolls, loops -- the works. But I
doubt he could navigate or communicate in today's environment without
returning to a lengthy course of study.

While stall-spins on final add to the overall accident tally,
continued VFR into IMC, CFIT, approaches below minimums, spatial
disorientation in IMC, and fuel mismanagement result in far, far more
fatalities. Nearly every accident of this type is evidence of poor
judgment in a specific instance.

So while spin training should be on every pilot's to do list, it's not
the golden key to safer flight (the pilots that seek out such training
are a self-selecting group of exceptions).

Rather, what's needed is an increased emphasis on respectful caution,
with the corollary better judgment.

Reading NTSB reports on a regular basis can help -- and it's free.

Dan

On 22 Jan, 18:48, Jim Logajan wrote:
"Ol Shy & Bashful" wrote:

It really disturbs me that the FAA is constantly dumbing down the pilots
of today and you can see it in the various publications. A lot of
material is deleted that still applies but it is as if someone is
afraid to teach it because it either scares them, or they simply don't
know how to address it except by deletion.

With all due respect...

The statistics computed for the Nall Reports and by the NTSB seem to show
that the GA per-flight-hour accident rate has been generally on a very slow
decline over the last decade or two. So if the FAA is "dumbing down"
pilots, they aren't getting dumb fast enough to stem the decline in
accident rates.

Bottom line is that the declining accident rate doesn't seem to support the
claim of "dumbing down". Or perhaps if it is true then maybe "dumb" pilots
are safer pilots.... *;-)

They seem to think so, but in fact thinking about this a lot of it can
be put down to greater influence of outfits like EAA, greater
availability of advanced courses not related to certification ( like
well organised aerobatics, for instance) and better education and more
available information from sources like the EAA, AOPA, etc, not to
mention the massive amount of information on the net.

Take Ken for instance. He's a virtual manual of how not to do things.
He's saving lives by the dozens just posting here!

Bertie

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...
On 22 Jan, 18:48, Jim Logajan wrote:
"Ol Shy & Bashful" wrote:

It really disturbs me that the FAA is constantly dumbing down the pilots
of today and you can see it in the various publications. A lot of
material is deleted that still applies but it is as if someone is
afraid to teach it because it either scares them, or they simply don't
know how to address it except by deletion.

With all due respect...

The statistics computed for the Nall Reports and by the NTSB seem to show
that the GA per-flight-hour accident rate has been generally on a very
slow
decline over the last decade or two. So if the FAA is "dumbing down"
pilots, they aren't getting dumb fast enough to stem the decline in
accident rates.

Bottom line is that the declining accident rate doesn't seem to support
the
claim of "dumbing down". Or perhaps if it is true then maybe "dumb" pilots
are safer pilots.... ;-)

They seem to think so, but in fact thinking about this a lot of it can
be put down to greater influence of outfits like EAA, greater
availability of advanced courses not related to certification ( like
well organised aerobatics, for instance) and better education and more
available information from sources like the EAA, AOPA, etc, not to
mention the massive amount of information on the net.

Take Ken for instance. He's a virtual manual of how not to do things.
He's saving lives by the dozens just posting here!

Bertie

Thanks! :-)))))))

Peter

" wrote in news:70580dee-4cc0-
:

On Jan 23, 2:37 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

Well, I can't see it being down to better training, because I don't
see
the training for Privates as being any better than it was thirty
years
ago. In some ways it's a lot worse. I thknk part of it may be down to
better equipment, especially Nav stuff. And some may be down to
better
weather information and availability of same. Much of it has to be
due
to better education, especially with weather related accidents.

Again, this is all just supposition.. I have no idea, really.

Bertie

My father learned to fly in '59 (J-3, TaylorCraft, etc). From his
experience I learned that the stick and rudder aspect was stressed --
and not much else. They did spins, rolls, loops -- the works. But I
doubt he could navigate or communicate in today's environment without
returning to a lengthy course of study.

Yeah, well the nav part is different, but most basic nav skills are
being lost these days as well.

While stall-spins on final add to the overall accident tally,
continued VFR into IMC, CFIT, approaches below minimums, spatial
disorientation in IMC, and fuel mismanagement result in far, far more
fatalities. Nearly every accident of this type is evidence of poor
judgment in a specific instance.

Very true.

So while spin training should be on every pilot's to do list, it's not
the golden key to safer flight (the pilots that seek out such training
are a self-selecting group of exceptions).


Never suggested it was, but it is A key..

Rather, what's needed is an increased emphasis on respectful caution,
with the corollary better judgment.

Reading NTSB reports on a regular basis can help -- and it's free.


Well, al of that is very true, but the foundation of good aircraft
handling is still central in my view.

Bertie

"Peter Dohm" wrote in message
.. .
"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...
On 22 Jan, 18:48, Jim Logajan wrote:
"Ol Shy & Bashful" wrote:

It really disturbs me that the FAA is constantly dumbing down the
pilots
of today and you can see it in the various publications. A lot of
material is deleted that still applies but it is as if someone is
afraid to teach it because it either scares them, or they simply don't
know how to address it except by deletion.

With all due respect...

The statistics computed for the Nall Reports and by the NTSB seem to show
that the GA per-flight-hour accident rate has been generally on a very
slow
decline over the last decade or two. So if the FAA is "dumbing down"
pilots, they aren't getting dumb fast enough to stem the decline in
accident rates.

Bottom line is that the declining accident rate doesn't seem to support
the
claim of "dumbing down". Or perhaps if it is true then maybe "dumb"
pilots
are safer pilots.... ;-)

They seem to think so, but in fact thinking about this a lot of it can
be put down to greater influence of outfits like EAA, greater
availability of advanced courses not related to certification ( like
well organised aerobatics, for instance) and better education and more
available information from sources like the EAA, AOPA, etc, not to
mention the massive amount of information on the net.

Take Ken for instance. He's a virtual manual of how not to do things.
He's saving lives by the dozens just posting here!

Bertie

-------------------------------------------------

Thanks! :-)))))))

Peter


There was supposed to be a logical separation; but, occasionally and on some
messages, my newsreader fails to highlight the prior message. There is
clearly a pattern and cause, since a screen test continues to produce the
same result from some messages; but the pattern is not yet clear. My
appologies, as I continue to watch for it.

Peter

On Jan 24, 8:16 am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

Well, al of that is very true, but the foundation of good aircraft
handling is still central in my view.

Bertie

While it may be true that aircraft handling is foundational, lack of
handling skills accounts for a small proportion of fatalities. This
seems to indicate that training and practice is deficient in
inculcating judgment.

The IMSAFE cutsie deal ain't cuttin' it.

Dan

On Jan 23, 2:34*pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Actually, no. *If you think about it carefully, there is one important
difference between the student and private. *Sure, they both had the
same limited spin recovery training - but the student had it
RECENTLY. *That's why it's worth something.

Well, most haven;'t had spin training, that is the problem. Most don't
get it.

True enough. But presolo spin recovery training was never much. I
got a couple of spin entries and one that went past that (a turn or
two, I think - this was back in the '90's so I don't exactly remember)
and that was all as far as spins went. We did do lots of full stalls,
of course. How much of that spin recovery training would I have
remembered years later if I hadn't done it post-private? Probably not
much. But that's OK - the primary exposure is during the solo stage,
not years later.

But you are right that these days most students don't get that much
either. One disturbing tendency I've noticed is that instructors are
now telling their solo students not to practice power-on stalls solo,
and some ask them not to practice slow flight solo either. I suppose
it reduces the exposure, but it also creates a mystique around that
part ot the flight envelope that shouldn't be there. I even know a
commercial pilot who won't practice stalls solo (ie without an
instructor). I find that downright disturbing.

Yes, that would be great if it happened - but who will do it? *Most
instructors these days have spin training inferior to what the average
private pilot got fifty years ago.

Yep, but that's case I'm making.
That should change.

Well, I agree - but good luck changing it. Most instructors these
days come from programs which are very structured - with the goal
being all the ratings in minimum hours. They graduate at 250-300
total hours as CFI/CFII/MEI. If you think about it, that's a minimum
of 7 checkrides:
Private, Instrument, Commercial Single, Commercial Multi, CFI, CFII,
MEI
In many of the programs it's more - this is a maximally streamlined
approach. That means an average of maybe 40 hours between checkrides
(maybe less). Thus there is really no time to go out and play with
the airplane, get a feel for the edges of the envelope - there's
really no time to do anything but learn checkride maneuvers, prep for
checkrides, take checkrides, lather, rinse, repeat. Those programs
don't include anything that isn't required. Since spins are not
tested on the CFI checkride, they get minimal spin training. You can
forget about aerobatics.

Do you remember what happened when the FAA took slow flight as we knew
it (Vso +5/-0, with the stall horn blaring) out of the PTS and
replaced it with flight at 1.2 Vso?
When theh hell was this? I probably wasn't teaching at the time.

I'm thinking it all happened between '97 and '01. I know that when I
took my private ride in '94, slow flight was at stall speed +5/-0. I
also know that it went back to being that way when I took my CFI ride
in '01. But I remember that I knew some CFI's who had never done slow
flight as we know it, and had to teach themselves with students on
board when the rules changed.

Well, I would have thought so! A fairly high proficiency was expected
when I did my instructor's ticket..

Not when I did mine. I did my spin endorsement with an instructor who
was a fairly serious aerobatic pilot, but most of the CFI candidates I
knew got their spin endorsements in an hour, tops, and at best it
would consist of a couple of incipients, maybe a one turn spin to the
right and a one turn to the left, and then maybe a three turn. No
particular performance standard. And that was a best case. I know a
few who did one incipient to the left, one to the right, the
instructor demonstrated a one turn spin, and that was it!

I told a few of them about my spin training, and they were shocked by
the idea that I was expected to spin to a heading and recover back to
a normal glide with no more than 400 ft lost (this was in a Blanik
L-23, and anyone familiar with the type should know that 400 ft is NOT
challenging - a skilled pilot can do it in 200).

But what happens if he's not?
Well, he can't teach them, that's for sure.

But that's my point - start requiring spin training at the private
level, and the CFI who got this minimal spin training will be teaching
it - even though he is not capable. And any safety advantage of
having spin training will be erased by the increased risk of this
'teaching.'

Michael