Spins

wrote in message
...
I went over to the student board a while back. Someone, who I believe
was not yet even a student pilot, was all on about how spins should
not be allowed because they were too dangerous to be taught.

That's a complete and total crock.

Like, DUUUhhhhhh.

...

Does anyone know why the FAA ****e-canned the spin recovery
demonstration requirement in the PTS? Was it fear of litigation (since
a spin might lead to a crash, after all)?

It was because spins are fun. The FAA doesn't want people to have fun. They
want paperwork.

Geoff

On Jan 17, 10:51 am, Dudley Henriques wrote:
wrote:
On Jan 17, 3:23 am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

I agree, but to be fair, a lot of the old guys didn't know what they were
talking about either. I've met a few.
But it's true the direction has changed and not alwasys for the better.
If I hear one more guy say "but that's how the pros do it"....

Bertie

Very true -- just because you "been there" doesn't mean you learned
much.

Regarding spins -- There's some dangerous self-delusion going on if
you think your 50 spins in a Citabria will keep you alive when you
spin a loaded C210/PA-28/A36/S35, etc on base to final.

Few pilots fly airplanes loaded in the utility category (if the
airplane is so certified at all). Many are flown in the Normal
category, with an aft (though still within limits) CG.

Spin a normal category, aft-loaded airplane not certified for spins
and all the PARE in the world won't assure your survival.

Dan

If the instructor giving spin instruction was any good at all, the pilot
flying this "aft loaded" airplane would not be flying it out of aft cg
number one, and number two, wouldn't be placing that airplane in a
position where it could spin.
Spin avoidance rather than spin recovery is the main focus of spin
instruction. Your "50 spins in a Citabria" are there to make you
completely familiar with the left side of a flight envelope and what can
happen there.
There is MUCH more to a well run spin program than learning how to
recover from the spin.

--
Dudley Henriques

Very true, but my point was that an airplane -- that may be spin-able
in the utility category -- can easily be within the certificated load
limits in the normal category and be unable to recover from a spin.

There is no doubt that familiarity in all possible flight regimes adds
to the bag of tricks. The question is -- does everyone need this
knowledge in order to safely fly an airplane?

If the pilot avoids stalls, his/her likelihood of experiencing a spin
is greatly reduced -- and in the normal flight conditions, eliminated.

The majority of spin fatalities occur in cross controlled conditions
on base to final. I'm sure these pilots were taught NOT to cross
control (except in slips and in those cases only for limited times).

Yet they spin in.

I doubt that requiring spin training will reduce the spin accident
total. The conditions that produced the accident could have been
avoided by remembering something far simpler than spin recovery --
coordinated flight.

Dan



..



..

However, making this a requirement for all PPLs seems a stretch.

wrote:
On Jan 17, 10:51 am, Dudley Henriques wrote:
wrote:
On Jan 17, 3:23 am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
I agree, but to be fair, a lot of the old guys didn't know what they were
talking about either. I've met a few.
But it's true the direction has changed and not alwasys for the better.
If I hear one more guy say "but that's how the pros do it"....
Bertie
Very true -- just because you "been there" doesn't mean you learned
much.
Regarding spins -- There's some dangerous self-delusion going on if
you think your 50 spins in a Citabria will keep you alive when you
spin a loaded C210/PA-28/A36/S35, etc on base to final.
Few pilots fly airplanes loaded in the utility category (if the
airplane is so certified at all). Many are flown in the Normal
category, with an aft (though still within limits) CG.
Spin a normal category, aft-loaded airplane not certified for spins
and all the PARE in the world won't assure your survival.
Dan
If the instructor giving spin instruction was any good at all, the pilot
flying this "aft loaded" airplane would not be flying it out of aft cg
number one, and number two, wouldn't be placing that airplane in a
position where it could spin.
Spin avoidance rather than spin recovery is the main focus of spin
instruction. Your "50 spins in a Citabria" are there to make you
completely familiar with the left side of a flight envelope and what can
happen there.
There is MUCH more to a well run spin program than learning how to
recover from the spin.

--
Dudley Henriques

Very true, but my point was that an airplane -- that may be spin-able
in the utility category -- can easily be within the certificated load
limits in the normal category and be unable to recover from a spin.

There is no doubt that familiarity in all possible flight regimes adds
to the bag of tricks. The question is -- does everyone need this
knowledge in order to safely fly an airplane?

If the pilot avoids stalls, his/her likelihood of experiencing a spin
is greatly reduced -- and in the normal flight conditions, eliminated.

The majority of spin fatalities occur in cross controlled conditions
on base to final. I'm sure these pilots were taught NOT to cross
control (except in slips and in those cases only for limited times).

Yet they spin in.

I doubt that requiring spin training will reduce the spin accident
total. The conditions that produced the accident could have been
avoided by remembering something far simpler than spin recovery --
coordinated flight.

Dan



.



.

However, making this a requirement for all PPLs seems a stretch.


This is the old FAA argument and is true enough in the general sense.
You need two factors present to spin an airplane; stall and a yaw rate.
You avoid both at the same time and you avoid spins.
But this isn't the entire answer by a long shot. Spins can and do occur
for various reasons and people still die in spin accidents.
The main reason to take spin training is to become a better all around
pilot, not just to learn spin recovery. For this reason alone, spin
training is desirable.
Should spin training be mandatory? Personally I don't favor this
approach, as instructing a spin training program properly takes both an
airplane suitable for it and a flight instructor suitable to teach it.
The bottom line from me is that spin training is something I highly
recommend that every pilot take after obtaining their license. I treat
it as simple advanced training.
Pecking out the in's and out's and pro's and con's of spin training as
it applies to specific type, category, and loading of aircraft isn't the
way to deal with this issue.
Spin training is money well spent. I don't believe I've ever met a pilot
who has taken an aerobatics or spin recovery course from a qualified
instructor teaching these programs who wasn't a better pilot after
finishing that program; and this includes their basic VFR piloting skills.


--
Dudley Henriques

This is the old FAA argument and is true enough in the general sense.

Because the FAA uses the argument doesn't invalidate it.

The main reason to take spin training is to become a better all around
pilot, not just to learn spin recovery. For this reason alone, spin
training is desirable.

Agreed.

Should spin training be mandatory? Personally I don't favor this
approach, as instructing a spin training program properly takes both an
airplane suitable for it and a flight instructor suitable to teach it.
The bottom line from me is that spin training is something I highly
recommend that every pilot take after obtaining their license. I treat
it as simple advanced training.

Agreed.

Pecking out the in's and out's and pro's and con's of spin training as
it applies to specific type, category, and loading of aircraft isn't the
way to deal with this issue.

Not exactly -- it's critical to know that the 172 you practiced
spinning last weekend with Bob Grizlevators is no longer in the
utility category when you toss your FAA handbook collection in the
back seat and you may not recover from a spin -- ever.

Spin training is money well spent. I don't believe I've ever met a pilot
who has taken an aerobatics or spin recovery course from a qualified
instructor teaching these programs who wasn't a better pilot after
finishing that program; and this includes their basic VFR piloting skills.


Absolutely true for any advanced training -- IFR rating included. The
question is -- should this be mandatory (again) in the US as it is in
some other countries?

I agree that the right answer is "no."

Dan

"Jim Logajan" wrote in message
.. .
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
wrote:
Does anyone know why the FAA ****e-canned the spin recovery
demonstration requirement in the PTS? Was it fear of litigation (since
a spin might lead to a crash, after all)?


No, it was because the figured they were losing more in spin training
than they were in accidental spins.
In the late fifties, I think.

Just FYI, Rich Stowell considers that reason a likely myth, as he writes
he

http://www.apstraining.com/article10...ning_sep03.htm

Of the aerobatic schools that continue to do spin training he notes that
during the course of ~250,000 spins, there were 0 fatalities over the
period studied. In the above link he quotes the reasons given for
rescinding spin training in the 1949 CAR Amendment 20-3 and notes that
spin
training accidents were not mentioned as a reason.

Apples and Oranges? I'd say there's a major difference between aerobatic
training and regular PPL training.

wrote:

Not exactly -- it's critical to know that the 172 you practiced
spinning last weekend with Bob Grizlevators is no longer in the
utility category when you toss your FAA handbook collection in the
back seat and you may not recover from a spin -- ever.



You seem to be under the impression that a normal category airplane
being flown within it's weight and balance envelope can't be recovered
from a spin?
Am I reading you correctly here?


--
Dudley Henriques

"Matt W. Barrow" wrote in news:7NLjj.9678
:


"Jim Logajan" wrote in message
.. .
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
wrote:
Does anyone know why the FAA ****e-canned the spin recovery
demonstration requirement in the PTS? Was it fear of litigation
(since
a spin might lead to a crash, after all)?


No, it was because the figured they were losing more in spin
training
than they were in accidental spins.
In the late fifties, I think.

Just FYI, Rich Stowell considers that reason a likely myth, as he
writes
he

http://www.apstraining.com/article10...ning_sep03.htm

Of the aerobatic schools that continue to do spin training he notes
that
during the course of ~250,000 spins, there were 0 fatalities over the
period studied. In the above link he quotes the reasons given for
rescinding spin training in the 1949 CAR Amendment 20-3 and notes
that
spin
training accidents were not mentioned as a reason.

Apples and Oranges? I'd say there's a major difference between
aerobatic
training and regular PPL training.


No, if spins were more thoroughly understood by the pilot population and
instructors in particular, there's no reason why they couldn't be taught
to the same standard as in the aerobatic schools.

Bertie

On Jan 17, 11:59 am, Dudley Henriques wrote:
wrote:

Not exactly -- it's critical to know that the 172 you practiced
spinning last weekend with Bob Grizlevators is no longer in the
utility category when you toss your FAA handbook collection in the
back seat and you may not recover from a spin -- ever.

You seem to be under the impression that a normal category airplane
being flown within it's weight and balance envelope can't be recovered
from a spin?
Am I reading you correctly here?

--
Dudley Henriques

The 172 N Model I fly from time to time is only approved (and thus was
only tested) for spins when CG falls within the utility category.
Though it may be recovered from a spin when loaded within the normal
category range, it was not certificated that way. Which tells me there
is no assurance of recovery.

The Bonanzas (A36 and straight 35), though Utility category, are not
approved for spins.

Dan

" wrote in news:613bba69-a2ce-
:

On Jan 17, 11:59 am, Dudley Henriques wrote:
wrote:

Not exactly -- it's critical to know that the 172 you practiced
spinning last weekend with Bob Grizlevators is no longer in the
utility category when you toss your FAA handbook collection in the
back seat and you may not recover from a spin -- ever.

You seem to be under the impression that a normal category airplane
being flown within it's weight and balance envelope can't be
recovered
from a spin?
Am I reading you correctly here?

--
Dudley Henriques

The 172 N Model I fly from time to time is only approved (and thus was
only tested) for spins when CG falls within the utility category.

They're all like that, but it's likely it was tested with a CG much
further aft than it's certified for.

Though it may be recovered from a spin when loaded within the normal
category range, it was not certificated that way. Which tells me there
is no assurance of recovery.

The Bonanzas (A36 and straight 35), though Utility category, are not
approved for spins.


Well, it's al besides the point. Most airplanes will easily recover from
an incipient spin easily enough. That's pretty much all you need to
know about them. You're not going to do spin training in them anyway and
you're only interest in their spin capability is their ability, on the
day, to recover reasonably easy from an incipient spin. There's no
reason an incipient spin should even get to the point of dropping a wing
if the pilot is sharp (disregarding VMC rolls in twins) Airplanes that
are not cetified for spins are usually , though not always, fairly
difficult to spin anyway.
The point of spin training isn't to get you out of a Jimmy Cagney type
spinning-out-of-control-and-I-never-told-her-I-loved-her-but-the-other-
mug-is-a-decent-guy-who-will-look-after-her-anyway-and -it's-a-far-far-
better-thing and all that kind of a moment anyway. It's about
recognitionand learnign how to control the airplane better.
But to the original point, a fully developed spin in a 172 of any
vintage, with four up and a bit of baggage, should recover form a spin
easily. in fact, it;s probably recover all by itself in less than one
turn. I'm not going to go out and try it, but I'd be very surprised if
it didn't. Same with most of the small tourers like Cherokees and such,
thugh the Cherokee will stay in a spin for much longer.

On Jan 17, 1:06 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
" wrote in news:613bba69-a2ce-
:





On Jan 17, 11:59 am, Dudley Henriques wrote:
wrote:

Not exactly -- it's critical to know that the 172 you practiced
spinning last weekend with Bob Grizlevators is no longer in the
utility category when you toss your FAA handbook collection in the
back seat and you may not recover from a spin -- ever.

You seem to be under the impression that a normal category airplane
being flown within it's weight and balance envelope can't be
recovered
from a spin?
Am I reading you correctly here?

--
Dudley Henriques

The 172 N Model I fly from time to time is only approved (and thus was
only tested) for spins when CG falls within the utility category.

They're all like that, but it's likely it was tested with a CG much
further aft than it's certified for.

Though it may be recovered from a spin when loaded within the normal
category range, it was not certificated that way. Which tells me there
is no assurance of recovery.

The Bonanzas (A36 and straight 35), though Utility category, are not
approved for spins.

Well, it's al besides the point. Most airplanes will easily recover from
an incipient spin easily enough. That's pretty much all you need to
know about them. You're not going to do spin training in them anyway and
you're only interest in their spin capability is their ability, on the
day, to recover reasonably easy from an incipient spin. There's no
reason an incipient spin should even get to the point of dropping a wing
if the pilot is sharp (disregarding VMC rolls in twins) Airplanes that
are not cetified for spins are usually , though not always, fairly
difficult to spin anyway.
The point of spin training isn't to get you out of a Jimmy Cagney type
spinning-out-of-control-and-I-never-told-her-I-loved-her-but-the-other-
mug-is-a-decent-guy-who-will-look-after-her-anyway-and -it's-a-far-far-
better-thing and all that kind of a moment anyway. It's about
recognitionand learnign how to control the airplane better.
But to the original point, a fully developed spin in a 172 of any
vintage, with four up and a bit of baggage, should recover form a spin
easily. in fact, it;s probably recover all by itself in less than one
turn. I'm not going to go out and try it, but I'd be very surprised if
it didn't. Same with most of the small tourers like Cherokees and such,
thugh the Cherokee will stay in a spin for much longer.

That may be true -- but if the airplane POH states "SPINS APPROVED IN
UTILITY CATEGORY" or some such, it's likely there was some behavior
evident in flight testing that warranted such a statement.

The OP referenced the training of private pilots -- not test pilots.

Otherwise we're in complete agreement.

(Though I don't remember the flick with Cagney at the controls....must
be my youth)

Dan