Spin Recovery Altitude

[rookiepilot]

We will continue to see stall spin accidents on the base to final turn in VFR

But we don’t see very many stall spin accidents on base to final turns, do we?

Certainly not nearly as many as we would if we practiced spin entry and recovery at or below circuit altitude, which appears to be what you’re suggesting.

I've said absolutely nothing of the kind.

Don't put words in my mouth.

I'm raising questions of omission in the current training syllabus.

[Big Pistons Forever]

There is no common aircraft that I can think of where if immediate action to reduce AOA and stop the yaw at the first indication of loss of controlled flight; is taken the aircraft will not immediate recover back to controlled flight.

By definition to teach a student how to recover from a spin, the aircraft has to be spinning, which again by definition means immediate recovery action was not taken so that a full departure into the spin mode was allowed to progress and indeed encouraged by the application of pro spin control inputs, something that you would never do in normal flight. This IMO is negative training

I have done lots of spin training as part of a basic aerobatic course. The spin is a aerobatic maneuver and belongs in aerobatic training. There is no value in IMO teaching spins in non aerobatic flight training because the emphasis should be placed on recognizing the imminent departure form controlled flight and taking automatic instinctive recovery action so that the aircraft can never enter the spin.

[Aviatard]

Don’t want to spin? Don’t stall. Don’t want to stall? Look at the horizon (not the airspeed.)

[Squaretail]

There is no common aircraft that I can think of where if immediate action to reduce AOA and stop the yaw at the first indication of loss of controlled flight; is taken the aircraft will not immediate recover back to controlled flight.

By definition to teach a student how to recover from a spin, the aircraft has to be spinning, which again by definition means immediate recovery action was not taken so that a full departure into the spin mode was allowed to progress and indeed encouraged by the application of pro spin control inputs, something that you would never do in normal flight. This IMO is negative training

I have done lots of spin training as part of a basic aerobatic course. The spin is a aerobatic maneuver and belongs in aerobatic training. There is no value in IMO teaching spins in non aerobatic flight training because the emphasis should be placed on recognizing the imminent departure form controlled flight and taking automatic instinctive recovery action so that the aircraft can never enter the spin.

I have to differ, if only because you and I would never make those inputs in a normal flight because we know the results. Students who don’t have that knowledge, and pilots who never get that DO make those inputs, by accident or otherwise. I really can’t say that I would be a better pilot without that knowledge. Stalling is also something that should never happen in normal flight, but teaching about it without seeing what it is, makes the teaching less effective. The principal of EFFECT is in play here. To recognize the imminent departure, you have to see and feel it. I’m not arguing for full turn or multiple turn spins, but incipient spins are spins. Otherwise we would call them happy fun sudden-wing drops or something.

You are right that emphasis should be placed upon recognition and avoidance, but like fire prevention, if you haven’t seen one before, you’re going to be standing there stunned when the blaze is well underway. The parallels in lots of other training and practice of skills is there, you can tell people about skidding and counter steering theory all day long, but there will be night and day between who knows theory and who has done it - even in the controlled conditions of a driving course, like the altitude in a practice area - to those who haven’t. You can say the same thing about a thousand activities where a small risk in training is worth the larger skill it imparts.

At the end of it, I find it a hard argument to make that training I got was too much, and others shouldn’t get it.

[PilotDAR]

Don’t want to stall? Look at the horizon (not the airspeed.)

Well, sometimes, but the not times really are a big element of the problem. Let alone flying in the mountains, even taking off a lake, with rising ground around, the horizon may not be representative of the pitch attitude you're hoping (needing) to maintain. This is a real problem, as a reasonably experienced pilot hired to fly an airplane for which I was responsible, who had been sent on a "mountain course" got himself disoriented on an otherwise perfect flying day, because he flew to a place in the sky where the horizon was most certainly not where he thought it would be, and stalled and spun in as a result. He knew better, and still got it wrong....

[rookiepilot]

I could easily argue, a student learning spin training in a benign - stalling 152 up at 6000 feet, becoming comfortable with being able to recover, directly leads to the same pilot, later moving up to a SR22, much faster and less benign stall -- later stalling and spinning in the pattern.

UNLESS proper low speed pattern handling is taught as well -- I don't think its sufficiently covered in the PPL course.

Another example -- to Dar's Mtn flying accident referenced above:

Why aren't PPL's taught minimum radius steep turns, using 20 degrees of flap?

[PilotDAR]

... which is why it's wise to seek competent type training well into your flying career. Our industry leaves it mostly to the insurance companies to see that pilots get some type training when they're about to fly something new. Sure, we can't be conducting spin training on these more advanced types, but whenever I've done type training for a new pilot, I've always done approach to stall, with a keen focus on coordination as we slowed.

For the few times when I thought the new pilot was not approach to stall seriously, at altitude, I would stall the plane not well coordinated, and that would usually be memorable for them.

[CpnCrunch]

At the end of it, I find it a hard argument to make that training I got was too much, and others shouldn’t get it.

Well there is this accident, and the other recent one where a student pancaked into a field while having fun doing spins with passengers. I don't think either would have happened if there was no spin training. I'm not sure what a full spin teaches over and above recovery after a wing drop.

For myself, the main concern is structural failure.

[digits_]

At the end of it, I find it a hard argument to make that training I got was too much, and others shouldn’t get it.

Well there is this accident, and the other recent one where a student pancaked into a field while having fun doing spins with passengers. I don't think either would have happened if there was no spin training. I'm not sure what a full spin teaches over and above recovery after a wing drop.

For myself, the main concern is structural failure.

?

If the pilot has the personality willing to spin with an out of limit CG (likely), disregarding safety rules (not enough altitude) with pax, then what makes you think he wouldn't try this if he wasn't trained for it?

[Aviatard]

Why aren't PPL's taught minimum radius steep turns

They are. At least, the instructors I train do teach them.

[Squaretail]

Why aren't PPL's taught minimum radius steep turns, using 20 degrees of flap?

Because arguably, it’s of far less use. Even in mountain flying, which a majority of pilots aren’t going to any of to any serious amount. The lesson learned in the minimum radius turn exercise is something to help a pilot in the last ditch attempt even more steps along a path of bad piloting than the spin, and one might add is adjacent to the things learned in the spin exercise. I would contend that pilots not well versed in the airplane’s slow flying and stall regime have no hope in executing the minimum radius turn.

Suffice to say, every pilot is going to put the airplane in one or two places every flight they do that the probability of them spinning it increases directly proportionate to their lack of skill and attention, where as you will probably do your entire flying career without having to do any minimum radius turns, unless maybe you get into serious air photo, and then it’s not really required that often, that’s helicopter work.

Edit: there are other specific applications of minimum radius turn, which usually involve intersections of mountain and float flying, that I would contend are way beyond the need for the majority of PPLs, until Cubs become more popular than cirruses again.

[Squaretail]

At the end of it, I find it a hard argument to make that training I got was too much, and others shouldn’t get it.

Well there is this accident, and the other recent one where a student pancaked into a field while having fun doing spins with passengers. I don't think either would have happened if there was no spin training. I'm not sure what a full spin teaches over and above recovery after a wing drop.

For myself, the main concern is structural failure.

Structural failure is more a concern with spiral dive recovery practice, which arguably gets less attention than spins do, but is related and equally as risky. Like spins, the risk can be mitigated with proper training. When students are out doing spins with passengers it a gross failure of a whole slough of flight training management, culture and attitude. It’s not that you gave the student the tool that’s the problem, it’s that you didn’t teach them the responsibility that goes with it, and reinforce that with how training was conducted. I mean the horror story of instructors doing spins on intro flights is way too common, and such instructors should be beaten with sticks, and their CFIs tarred and feathered.

But if you are still worried, only the most corroded strutted Cessna would have a chance of failing under the worst abuse. It’s more likely to hit the ground before the structure failed. I think it’s a selling point Cessna used to brag about, that in all the hours of abuse the strutted fleet has suffered none have failed structurally solely due to the efforts of the pilot, and I imagine some people have really tried. The Cherokees are also almost equally as tough. When you hear of anyone pulling the wings off of something that may seem prone to it, like say a Bonanza or a Malibu, even then it’s some obscene g loading they pulled to make it break. The 4.4 g limit for the many trainers in utility is way more than you think. I don’t think I have even got half way there doing some less than perfect loops in a Decathlon.

[CpnCrunch]

If the pilot has the personality willing to spin with an out of limit CG (likely), disregarding safety rules (not enough altitude) with pax, then what makes you think he wouldn't try this if he wasn't trained for it?

Because most pilots are afraid of spins before doing them. This guy discovered they are fun.

[CpnCrunch]

Structural failure is more a concern with spiral dive recovery practice, which arguably gets less attention than spins do, but is related and equally as risky. Like spins, the risk can be mitigated with proper training. When students are out doing spins with passengers it a gross failure of a whole slough of flight training management, culture and attitude. It’s not that you gave the student the tool that’s the problem, it’s that you didn’t teach them the responsibility that goes with it, and reinforce that with how training was conducted. I mean the horror story of instructors doing spins on intro flights is way too common, and such instructors should be beaten with sticks, and their CFIs tarred and feathered.

But if you are still worried, only the most corroded strutted Cessna would have a chance of failing under the worst abuse. It’s more likely to hit the ground before the structure failed. I think it’s a selling point Cessna used to brag about, that in all the hours of abuse the strutted fleet has suffered none have failed structurally solely due to the efforts of the pilot, and I imagine some people have really tried. The Cherokees are also almost equally as tough. When you hear of anyone pulling the wings off of something that may seem prone to it, like say a Bonanza or a Malibu, even then it’s some obscene g loading they pulled to make it break. The 4.4 g limit for the many trainers in utility is way more than you think. I don’t think I have even got half way there doing some less than perfect loops in a Decathlon.

Well, after my rear spar failure (a few weeks) after doing spiral dives and spins I'm somewhat skeptical of their cost/benefit. As for "proper training": against my better judgement, the instructor told me to pull hard out of spiral dives. Anyway, I'm still alive thanks to Cessna's over-design, and not really interested in testing the limits of old planes any more.

[digits_]

If the pilot has the personality willing to spin with an out of limit CG (likely), disregarding safety rules (not enough altitude) with pax, then what makes you think he wouldn't try this if he wasn't trained for it?

Because most pilots are afraid of spins before doing them. This guy discovered they are fun.

Most pilots don't do spins with passengers on board either. Pretty sure this guy would have found another way to kill himself. I don't think it's fair to blame spin training for that.

[Squaretail]

Was going to reply, but digits_ said it in less words, so +1.

[RedAndWhiteBaron]

fewer words

[photofly]

UNLESS proper low speed pattern handling is taught as well -- I don't think its sufficiently covered in the PPL course.

I have to ask, how many PPL courses have you audited recently, to know what is taught in them?

[rookiepilot]

UNLESS proper low speed pattern handling is taught as well -- I don't think its sufficiently covered in the PPL course.

I have to ask, how many PPL courses have you audited recently, to know what is taught in them?

Now quote me in context..please.

I'm suggesting realistic training scenarios--- add value.....

Students would be better prepared if they'd at least seen 30 knot tailwinds on base....and actually flown in IMC once or twice.

My understanding is that training is often not allowed in such conditions.

Do you disagree, as I'm not aware most FTU's train in either of these scenarios, routinely.

[photofly]

To fly in IMC you need an instructor with an instrument rating, an aircraft equipped for IMC, which these days means an IFR approved GPS installation, no icing conditions, no convective conditions, weather that meets alternate minima, an approach that you can realistically expect to fly, according to the weather, and to file an instrument flight plan. Icing conditions prevail in southern Ontario from October to March, and convective conditions apply May to September. It's not realistic to require PPL students training in a C150 to have to fulfil these conditions, so no, I don't think actually flying in real IMC is a realistic burden for PPL training.

A 30 knot tailwind on base is likely to mean a 20 knot crosswind on landing, which is outside the demonstrated crosswind for a C172. So I think you're being absurd, if you think this is an appropriate training environment.