Spin Recovery Altitude

[More-rudder!]

The TSB cited the Shearwater Flying Club accident back in 2000 to point out that Cessna requires spin recovery at not less than 4000’ AGL. What does your club or school require for this exercise?

https://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-repo ... a0110.html

[455tt]

The TSB sited the Shearwater Flying Club ...

"Cite" vs. "site" vs. "sight". They all sound the same but each means something different and are not interchangeable.

As for spin recovery, we use the recommended height in the POH or 2,000 feet AGL, whichever is higher.

[RedAndWhiteBaron]

2000' AGL for all exercises here, but we do usually give a little extra room for spins. I'm not training in a Cessna, though.

I did my spin training in the winter so recovering by 4000' AGL would have been difficult given how gray the skies can be - it was tough to find a good day for it.

[photofly]

I've never heard of an FTU approving spins to commence below 4000AGL, ideally 5000. You just have to wait for a clear day.

[More-rudder!]

455, what aircraft type are you referring to? Just curious...

[RedAndWhiteBaron]

Sorry, the title is "recovery altitude" - not at what altitude they should be commenced. I'm confused.

[waliduss]

5500’ in my school and for the cpl flight test, been postponed like 5 times due to the ceiling being too low ...

[PilotDAR]

If you're a pro aerobatic pilot, you set your own safe altitudes, 'outside the scope of this discussion. If you're training spins for PPL/CPL training, I cannot think of any reason to prolong a spin for even one turn, much less more. There is no PPL/CPL relevant training to be obtained at even one turn in a spin. I'm a strong advocate of spin training, but in, and recover promptly. So, in our common GA trainers, the enter and promptly recover spin will not consume many thousands of feet, unless you have entirely bungled flying the plane. The altitudes suggested/specified for spin entry are conservative, as they should be. They are safe, if you train spins as intended, meaning, enter, and apply the recommended procedure to recover promptly, don't abuse or prolong the spin, unless your are taking advanced aerobatic training - fr which the rules and supervision will be different.

[RedAndWhiteBaron]

My experience, not with my current flight training but with my initial training, many years ago, was very different. Spins were very much a part of basic training. This was in gliders, Grob 2-33's, for "incipient spin" training.

In a three week course, every student undertook an entire day (maybe half a day) of spin training - towed up to 4 or 5 thousand feet a few times, and for lack of a better description, spun back to the circuit. Granted, this was in an aerobatic aircraft (my spin training was done in a Grob 2-32), with an aerobatic instructor, as part of this accelerated course. They threw in some pretty intense spiral dive training in the process to mix it up, 3 or 4 Gs. It taught me as a young man that while your cheeks may be falling off your face and you may struggle to keep your head over your neck, you can still control the aircraft.

It has served me well.

What I fail to understand is why comprehensive spin training should not be taught. I can understand that it may serve no useful purpose, but I cannot see the harm in it if you have the opportunity.

[PilotDAR]

What I fail to understand is why comprehensive spin training should not be taught.

Spin recovery should be taught to all pilots. However, there is no training benefit to holding a plane in for even a whole turn. Train the entry, train the recognition, train the recovery, that's all you'll need for normal PPL/CPL stuff. It would be great if all pilots remained proficient on spin recovery, but most pilots go away from flying spin approved types, so don't get recurrent training. For the many times I have been required to fly spin tests with a "company pilot", it's been very rare that that pilot has flown spins since they got their license, unless they're working as an instructor too.

At least if you make the reactions to stall/spin recognition muscle memory, you'll keep yourself out of that situation, and have a hope if you blunder into a spin. But bear in mind that if you blunder into a spin in a non spin approved single, it won't be as easy to get out as a 172/PA-28 so give yourself even more altitude! For spin testing, I'll usually go up at least 5000 feet, though for one type went up 9000' (and used a third of it for the first few recoveries!)

[photofly]

What I fail to understand is why comprehensive spin training should not be taught. I can understand that it may serve no useful purpose, but I cannot see the harm in it if you have the opportunity.

Statistically speaking, fewer pilots die this way.

[RedAndWhiteBaron]

What I fail to understand is why comprehensive spin training should not be taught. I can understand that it may serve no useful purpose, but I cannot see the harm in it if you have the opportunity.

Statistically speaking, fewer pilots die this way.

Cite your sources, and I will believe you. I have only subjective experience and anecdotal evidence.

[Big Pistons Forever]

The problem is the majority of spin accidents occur when an pilot lost control at low altitude and the aircraft entered a spin. The unfortunate reality is that for most of these accidents even if the correct spin recovery actions are applied, there will not be enough altitude to recover.

That is why modern flight training methodology has moved from emphasizing spin recovery training to stall spin recognition and avoidance.

[photofly]

Cite your sources, and I will believe you. I have only subjective experience and anecdotal evidence.

I actually don't mind if you believe me or not, but this is a graph produced by AOPA:


In this article:
https://www.aopa.org/asf/ntsb/stall_spin.html

Where the author points out that spins were removed from US PPL training in 1949:

Removal of a spin requirement for private pilots created much dissent on the part of instructors and other aviation professionals, who forecast an immediate and dramatic rise in the number of spin accidents. It didn't happen. In fact, since elimination of the spin requirement for private pilots, the incidence of stall/spin accidents has actually decreased substantially.

[RedAndWhiteBaron]

That is why modern flight training methodology has moved from emphasizing spin recovery training to stall spin recognition and avoidance.

I will still argue that spin training isn't about spins. It teaches students that you can recover from a bad attitude. It gives a confidence that no other basic training can provide.

Spin training isn't about spins.

[photofly]

I think spin training is very much about spins, or at least, avoiding them. I wouldn't confuse spin training from unusual attitude recovery training. Spins can occur from very "usual" attitudes, if you mishandle, for example, the rudder. But you have to work quite hard to end up, for example, accidentally upside down in a small airplane. Accident statistics suggest an unintentional spin is quite easy, hence the emphasis on recognition and avoidance.

[RedAndWhiteBaron]

Cite your sources, and I will believe you. I have only subjective experience and anecdotal evidence.

I actually don't mind if you believe me or not, but this is a graph produced by AOPA:


In this article:
https://www.aopa.org/asf/ntsb/stall_spin.html

Where the author points out that spins were removed from US PPL training in 1949:

Removal of a spin requirement for private pilots created much dissent on the part of instructors and other aviation professionals, who forecast an immediate and dramatic rise in the number of spin accidents. It didn't happen. In fact, since elimination of the spin requirement for private pilots, the incidence of stall/spin accidents has actually decreased substantially.

Well, the rather quick drop after the war can likely be explained by the rather large influx of war trained pilots returning home. It would be interesting to compare those 1950 stats to stall/spin accidents in the war.

But - I acquiesce, at least until/unless I can provide a better counter argument.

[photofly]

If war-trained pilot expertise prevent spin accidents, then the lowest number of accidents would be 1945, when all those pilots were demobbed, followed by a gradual rise afterwards as the pilot population was augmented by new pilots with only civilian, post--war training.

[RedAndWhiteBaron]

If war-trained pilot expertise prevent spin accidents, then the lowest number of accidents would be 1945, when all those pilots were demobbed, followed by a gradual rise afterwards as the pilot population was augmented by new pilots with only civilian, post--war training.

That's what I'm arguing against. It would seem from your graph that the highest rate of stall/spin accidents was immediately post-war after they returned. Too many barn burners, and then, it seems to have become safer, very quickly.

[Aviatard]

Spin recovery should be taught to all pilots. However, there is no training benefit to holding a plane in for even a whole turn. Train the entry, train the recognition, train the recovery, that's all you'll need for normal PPL/CPL stuff.

Agreed, except recovering after 1/2 turn leaves you pulling out of the dive from slightly beyond the vertical, vs. a full turn which is slightly less than vertical. At least, that's my experience in common Cessna trainers.

[PilotDAR]

In my non instructor, personal opinion, Once the candidate pilot recognizes a wing drop in an uncoordinated stall, and correctly uses lots of rudder and lots of nose down elevator to recover, the training objective has been met. Going around even half a turn does not improve the training outcome in my modest opinion.

A few weeks ago I few dozens of stalls in a broad set of configurations in a modified Grand Caravan to demonstrate what TC agreed would be "spin resistance". I did these aggravated stalls so as to not have to demonstrate spins during the testing. The difference was partly in the entry, but more in the recovery. If I have to demonstrate "spin compliance" for certification, I have to hold prop spin controls for a turn, which I have done many times in a Caravan, but would rather not - it does not contribute to a more safe modification in this case. But, a key element of the aggravated stall testing I demonstrated (I put up a video clip in the photos and videos forum) is that the airplane had adequate control available to enter, and recover at the "preventing" stage of the incipient spin entry. I went from holing full nose up elevator and full rudder for three seconds during entry, to applying full nose down elevator, and lots of opposing rudder within seconds.

In my opinion, a training objective should be to teach the candidate pilot to instinctively use the control required, as much as full controls, applied and held if necessary, to correct an unusual attitude, and prevent a spin entry. If you actually do a turn in a resulting spin, you simply prolonged the learning event for no particular benefit. When doing spin compliance testing on a Cessna 206 at full aft C of G, my first recovery was poor, and messy, that was my failure to apply the Cessna procedure. I was treating it like a 172. Next time, I did what the POH said, briskly apply full nose down elevator, and it recovered much better. That's why airplanes have all that nose down elevator available - when otherwise would you use it? Oh, except for leaving it limp when taxiing around over loose gravel - my pet peeve!

Go and train for spin awareness. Unless you're training for full aerobatics, don't be worrying about counting turns in your spin, just in and right back out - you'll loose less altitude, and take less time climbing back for the next one!

[photofly]

I think one or two full spins of a turn or two is a good idea, to demonstrate how rapidly things can get out of hand, and how much height you're going to lose in the recovery.

[photofly]

That's what I'm arguing against. It would seem from your graph that the highest rate of stall/spin accidents was immediately post-war after they returned. Too many barn burners, and then, it seems to have become safer, very quickly.

Yes - the cadre of civilian pilots trained post war are the ones *not* trained in spins, and they are the safer ones. As they dominate the pilot population, the proportion of spin accidents declines. An obvious conclusion is that pilots not trained in spins are safer, statistically speaking.

[PilotDAR]

So when we train for spin awareness, what events in "common" real world flying are we training for? I opine that there are really only three situations which are a common risk for unintended spin entry: Tightening a turn base to final, and departing where obstacle avoidance or EFATO are a factor. A pilot flying a well proportioned circuit around a suitable airport, or cruise flight, in a well running plane is unlikely to accidentally approach a spin. So, in those cases, altitude will be a factor, and as BPF correctly says, if you enter a spin, you will not have the altitude to recover. Floatplanes are at a greater risk of spin entry during departure and approach, as they are nearly never operating from an established aerodrome with dimensions and obstacles all documented well, leaving it to the pilot to maneuver at slower speeds, within a less well defined environment.

So if you approach a spin in those situations, you'll have to be instant in your prevention/recovery. Your training for recovering a spin after a turn is not going to help you much. Sure, train a one turn spin once or twice for the experience, and unusual attitude recovery practice, but the skill in recovering a one or more turn spin is a different skill then preventing a spin entry in the circuit.

[Aviatard]

I believe Canada is in the minority of countries that still require spin training, however I tried to find some statistics to back this up, but failed. Other countries have moved to more of stall awareness and prevention. Even the stall training we do is negative training since we ignore the stall horn and continue into a stall. Stall prevention would have us lowering the angle of attack at the first indication of impending stall. Surely it's time to change this in Canada, no?