Spins

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.

Airplanes are suspended in a 3D space, they can be in any orientation
in that space, at any speed within their envelope, at any angle of
attack. I've heard this fact called "flight situations", which is a
good term.

If I'm uncomfortable or afraid when in any of the possible flight
situations that I could be faced with while flying a typical GA
aircraft, if some of the potential attitudes and dynamics of that
aircraft make me cringe, then I need to learn how to master those
flight situations -- BEFORE I get a PPL. Not only for my safetly, but
for the safety of any and all kinds of non-participants in what I'm
doing.

Why is it that a PPL is obtainable without basic spin recovery
demonstration? What about inverted recoveries?

Spins were demonstrated to me during primary training -- twice. I have
read that even a commercial license is issued for some (maybe all)
without the pilot really demonstrating competence in recovering from a
spin. You just need to prove theoretical knowledge, which the FAA
calls "spin awareness", or similar. Inverted flight? Never.

I think this is bizarre.

The reality is that I am to date completely UNTESTED against spins and
inverted attitudes.

I can recall practicing power-on stalls (full stall breaks, not the
pre-stall variety), and being puckered because it occured to me that I
was up there with only *theory* to deal with a potential spin because
of a screwed up practice stall (power on or off).

No dual instruction, just PARE.

Well, I'll be fixing that soon, on my own initiative.

Anyway I say all of us should have to be able to save our butts (and
those of our passengers) from all unusual attitudes. Make us learn
spins and aileron rolls. Teach us how to deal with any "flight
situation" that can -- and frequently does -- occur.

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)?

wrote in news:6d564a7c-8f92-45c2-baae-
:

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.

Airplanes are suspended in a 3D space, they can be in any orientation
in that space, at any speed within their envelope, at any angle of
attack. I've heard this fact called "flight situations", which is a
good term.

If I'm uncomfortable or afraid when in any of the possible flight
situations that I could be faced with while flying a typical GA
aircraft, if some of the potential attitudes and dynamics of that
aircraft make me cringe, then I need to learn how to master those
flight situations -- BEFORE I get a PPL. Not only for my safetly, but
for the safety of any and all kinds of non-participants in what I'm
doing.

Why is it that a PPL is obtainable without basic spin recovery
demonstration? What about inverted recoveries?

Spins were demonstrated to me during primary training -- twice. I have
read that even a commercial license is issued for some (maybe all)
without the pilot really demonstrating competence in recovering from a
spin. You just need to prove theoretical knowledge, which the FAA
calls "spin awareness", or similar. Inverted flight? Never.

I think this is bizarre.

The reality is that I am to date completely UNTESTED against spins and
inverted attitudes.

I can recall practicing power-on stalls (full stall breaks, not the
pre-stall variety), and being puckered because it occured to me that I
was up there with only *theory* to deal with a potential spin because
of a screwed up practice stall (power on or off).

No dual instruction, just PARE.

Well, I'll be fixing that soon, on my own initiative.

Anyway I say all of us should have to be able to save our butts (and
those of our passengers) from all unusual attitudes. Make us learn
spins and aileron rolls. Teach us how to deal with any "flight
situation" that can -- and frequently does -- occur.

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.
Most other countries around the world have dropped them for the private
and commercial by now as well. Most still require them for instructors.

Over the years since then, airplanes got more difficult to spin
accidentally, but still the accidental spin persist.


I've never soloed anyone who hasn't had some introduction to them.
Usually.I just demonstrated them, the idea to get the mystique out of
the way, and then, if they were of a mind to try them themselves, I'd
let them try one or two. Then I'd show them how to avoid them and the
bulk of the lesson would be centered on how they develop and how to
recover from an incipient spin. For glider insturction, this became much
more of an issue and a bit more time was spent on it since most (
excliding the 2-33 ) spin very easily. Likewise when I taught in cubs,
though they're actually a bit difficult to spin.
The spins themselves are no big deal and there's not a lot to be learned
from doing precise three turn spins for a private pilot. An introduction
to show what the dragon at the edge of the earth looks like, and then
repeated and varied demos on how they develop and how to recognise one
before it even starts is the most productive way to approach instruction
in spins. Towards the end of their training, we would revisit the spin.
Few achieved what you would call dazzling proficiency in them, but they
went away better defended against an accidental spin.


Bertie

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.

Seems like I read that somewhere. Stick and Rudder? Probably some
other places too.

Most other countries around the world have dropped them for the private
and commercial by now as well. Most still require them for instructors.

Some recent AOPA pub or maybe Aviation Safety had an article in which
it was claimed some instructors were getting by with mere awareness --
ie an endorsement from some other instructor after a what amounted to
a demonstration of knowledge, not demonstration of practice.

I've never soloed anyone who hasn't had some introduction to them.
Usually.I just demonstrated them, the idea to get the mystique out of
the way, and then, if they were of a mind to try them themselves, I'd
let them try one or two. Then I'd show them how to avoid them and the
bulk of the lesson would be centered on how they develop and how to
recover from an incipient spin.

We did that before I soloed too, and if I had asked, I might have
received.

Nonetheless, the reality that I did not have to demonstrate recovery
means there is that "dragon at the edge of the earth" out there. A
great image, by the way. It will remain everytime I practice stalls
until I go get some dual training and do a couple of recoveries (that
will be soon).

It might not be a big deal, but at least an endorsement from the
instructor: "This student has recovered from an incipient spin".

It sounds like you've done that with some of your students anyway. I
say that's a good idea. Why doesn't the FAA say that's a good idea,
too?

The spins themselves are no big deal and there's not a lot to be learned
from doing precise three turn spins for a private pilot.

I'm not arguing for that.

An introduction
to show what the dragon at the edge of the earth looks like, and then
repeated and varied demos on how they develop and how to recognise one
before it even starts is the most productive way to approach instruction
in spins. Towards the end of their training, we would revisit the spin.
Few achieved what you would call dazzling proficiency in them, but they
went away better defended against an accidental spin.

I think this is the right track, but as I note above, since you're
spinning anyway (thus taking on the risk the FAA is saying they want
to aviod) -- make the student recover. At least once. How about twice?
Go higher if the extra altitude is needed for safety. As you say, no
big deal. Yet it looms in the mind of the student and the PPL. I
haven't met a whole lot of people that say they feel comfortable with
stalls, let alone spins. But if they've recovered from a spin, then
the stall shouldn't bother them anymore.

Don't even talk about being upside down.

We're flying. You have to have some cajones.

wrote in news:9ae769af-dc7c-47d0-bd90-
:



Some recent AOPA pub or maybe Aviation Safety had an article in which
it was claimed some instructors were getting by with mere awareness --
ie an endorsement from some other instructor after a what amounted to
a demonstration of knowledge, not demonstration of practice.

I dunno. I had to do thenm for my private (it wasn't required, but the
examiner had me do some anyway) and it was required for my instructor
rating. They may have changed it, but if they have it was relativley
recently.

I've never soloed anyone who hasn't had some introduction to them.
Usually.I just demonstrated them, the idea to get the mystique out of
the way, and then, if they were of a mind to try them themselves, I'd
let them try one or two. Then I'd show them how to avoid them and the
bulk of the lesson would be centered on how they develop and how to
recover from an incipient spin.

We did that before I soloed too, and if I had asked, I might have
received.

Nonetheless, the reality that I did not have to demonstrate recovery
means there is that "dragon at the edge of the earth" out there. A
great image, by the way. It will remain everytime I practice stalls
until I go get some dual training and do a couple of recoveries (that
will be soon).


Yeah, it;s not a big deal, really. One lesson is enough to give you the
basics.

It might not be a big deal, but at least an endorsement from the
instructor: "This student has recovered from an incipient spin".


Well, the ideal recovery from an incipient spin would mean you hardly
dropped a wing at all!

It sounds like you've done that with some of your students anyway. I
say that's a good idea. Why doesn't the FAA say that's a good idea,
too?


Dunno. It's more than a good idea as far as I'm concerned. It's
essential for any pilot to be able to enter a spin and recover from it
and also recognise an incipient spin and stop it before it develops into
a ful spin.

The spins themselves are no big deal and there's not a lot to be
learned
from doing precise three turn spins for a private pilot.

I'm not arguing for that.


I know, I'm just ranting!


I think this is the right track, but as I note above, since you're
spinning anyway (thus taking on the risk the FAA is saying they want
to aviod) -- make the student recover. At least once. How about twice?
Go higher if the extra altitude is needed for safety. As you say, no
big deal. Yet it looms in the mind of the student and the PPL. I
haven't met a whole lot of people that say they feel comfortable with
stalls, let alone spins. But if they've recovered from a spin, then
the stall shouldn't bother them anymore.

Don't even talk about being upside down.

Well, there's a good case for that being made mandatory for Commercial
pilots.


We're flying. You have to have some cajones.


It really isn't that drastic a thing to learn. I really don't like
teaching developed spins too much. I usualy end up feeling not so great.
And as an aerobatic nmanuever, one is enough per session, You've not a
lot of control during the spin any way, unless you're getting fancy.
One reason most schools don't do them is it's very hard on gyros. you
can completely wreck a DG or AI in one session. An airplane that is spun
regularly will definitely go through some gyros unless they're designed
for it.



Bertie

An airplane that is spun
regularly will definitely go through some gyros unless they're designed
for it.

Bertie-

And you know I once wondered why my instructor had so many old gyros
sitting around on her bookshelves. There were like four or five of
them, just sitting there. And three months ago I found it racked in
the Aerobat needing repairs. I never asked ...

Heh.

wrote in news:f9312263-47db-4463-99d6-
:

An airplane that is spun
regularly will definitely go through some gyros unless they're designed
for it.

Bertie-

And you know I once wondered why my instructor had so many old gyros
sitting around on her bookshelves. There were like four or five of
them, just sitting there. And three months ago I found it racked in
the Aerobat needing repairs. I never asked ...

Well, the Aerobat should have a cageable gyro. I've got very little time in
them and I can't remember if it did or not, but it must have had.
I've wrecked many a gyro though!


Bertie

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.

Jim Logajan wrote in
:

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.


OK, first time I heard that. It might be that they were trying to make
aviation more accesable to people...


Bertie

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.

Interesting link, thanks.

I was just watching his video tonight, which in part inspired my OP,
but, it's been on my mind before I found out about Stowell & his work.

"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.