Spin Recovery Altitude

[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.

[rookiepilot]

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.

Severe clear and 5 knot crosswind component then?

Look, we still have base to final accidents, and pilots losing control in IMC (and dark night, too). Both scenarios invariably fatal.

I' don't think it's absurd to find a way to train for those risk factors, and that means in realistic conditions, safely.

If necessary, having the instructor fly the difficult part...at least the student has some exposure.

Staring at the ASI more --- isn't the answer, either.

[photofly]

\

Severe clear and 5 knot crosswind component then?

No, not that, either.

Look, we still have base to final accidents,

Do we? Or are you just looking for an argument?

[rookiepilot]

\

Severe clear and 5 knot crosswind component then?

No, not that, either.

Look, we still have base to final accidents,

Do we? Or are you just looking for an argument?

You'll have to take my word for it. I don't spend my hours searching the CADORS.

[Squaretail]

Look, we still have base to final accidents, and pilots losing control in IMC (and dark night, too). Both scenarios invariably fatal.

I' don't think it's absurd to find a way to train for those risk factors, and that means in realistic conditions, safely.

Training for those risk factors entirely is beyond the scope of the private pilot license though, and it’s not useful to lump the problems of PPL holders flying into the dark, or clouds without appropriate training, and giving them the appropriate skill to avoid putting the airplane in an undesirable condition that they have to go near every flight.

It’s not a hard ask to tell PPLs to not fly at night. If you have trouble with how to tell time or notice how far the sun is above the horizon, and can’t organize yourself to not be airborne after it goes below said horizon, well no amount of instruction is going to help you. The same can be said of flying into the clouds. Somehow as a not very smart guy, I have managed to never get into clouds unless I did it on purpose in 20 + years of flying. Weather is not that unpredictable. The small bit of instrument training is to keep you right side up if your misjudgement takes you into the realm of instrument flying to hopefully regain a horizon soon. It’s not meant to give you any reasonable IFR capability. There is a reason they want you to have another 40 hours of experience and be tested to challenge that condition in any meaningful way.

If necessary, having the instructor fly the difficult part...at least the student has some exposure.

If something is so difficult a student can’t do it, there is no point in the exposure. As a student if you can’t get a lesson out of it where you DO stuff, then don’t pay for it. It’s your instructor building hours. As the guy who has harped on the stupidity of unlicensed students going on long cross country trips with instructors, I thought you’d have a different opinion on this matter. In that case, “getting exposure” wasn’t worth it.

[rookiepilot]

Training for those risk factors entirely is beyond the scope of the private pilot license though, and it’s not useful to lump the problems of PPL holders flying into the dark, or clouds without appropriate training, and giving them the appropriate skill to avoid putting the airplane in an undesirable condition that they have to go near every flight.

It’s not a hard ask to tell PPLs to not fly at night. If you have trouble with how to tell time or notice how far the sun is above the horizon, and can’t organize yourself to not be airborne after it goes below said horizon, well no amount of instruction is going to help you. The same can be said of flying into the clouds. Somehow as a not very smart guy, I have managed to never get into clouds unless I did it on purpose in 20 + years of flying. Weather is not that unpredictable. The small bit of instrument training is to keep you right side up if your misjudgement takes you into the realm of instrument flying to hopefully regain a horizon soon. It’s not meant to give you any reasonable IFR capability. There is a reason they want you to have another 40 hours of experience and be tested to challenge that condition in any meaningful way.

If necessary, having the instructor fly the difficult part...at least the student has some exposure.

If something is so difficult a student can’t do it, there is no point in the exposure. As a student if you can’t get a lesson out of it where you DO stuff, then don’t pay for it. It’s your instructor building hours. As the guy who has harped on the stupidity of unlicensed students going on long cross country trips with instructors, I thought you’d have a different opinion on this matter. In that case, “getting exposure” wasn’t worth it.

A brief exposure to strong winds, or very marginal VMC, is Not quite the same thing.....as those trips with a tragic outcome.

As for training for risks, that of course already happens....I'm simply questioning the value of the spin training, up at altitude, in clear weather, adequately covering that risk in flight when that's not where it happens, typically.

Perhaps simulator work during the PPL to safely address these issues that happen in the pattern, or stumbling into IMC.

Just a thought. Maybe the Sim is used a lot more now than when I did my PPL, I don't know, to be fair.

[pelmet]

Staring at the ASI more --- isn't the answer, either.

It would be better than daydreaming. Just the other day I was dreaming about my new clothing I purchased instead of monitoring the ASI properly...One could have a horrid year and crash and burn if they think too much about them......

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... l-at-69-42

[rookiepilot]

Staring at the ASI more --- isn't the answer, either.

It would be better than daydreaming. Just the other day I was dreaming about my new clothing I purchased instead of monitoring the ASI properly...

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... l-at-69-42

Don't follow the logic. Want to clarify it for me?

[pelmet]

Staring at the ASI more --- isn't the answer, either.

It would be better than daydreaming. Just the other day I was dreaming about my new clothing I purchased instead of monitoring the ASI properly...

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... l-at-69-42

Don't follow the logic. Want to clarify it for me?

Don't daydream.

[rookiepilot]

It would be better than daydreaming. Just the other day I was dreaming about my new clothing I purchased instead of monitoring the ASI properly...

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... l-at-69-42

Don't follow the logic. Want to clarify it for me?

Don't daydream.

Have no idea what you're talking about. Whatever......

[Squaretail]

If necessary, having the instructor fly the difficult part...at least the student has some exposure.

If something is so difficult a student can’t do it, there is no point in the exposure. As a student if you can’t get a lesson out of it where you DO stuff, then don’t pay for it. It’s your instructor building hours. As the guy who has harped on the stupidity of unlicensed students going on long cross country trips with instructors, I thought you’d have a different opinion on this matter. In that case, “getting exposure” wasn’t worth it.

Not the same thing, and I think you fully know that.

It’s exactly the same thing. Those trips were beyond the scope of those students’ skill base for them to contribute meaningfully to other than be “exposed to”. You’re proposing it would be useful for students to get “exposed to” training as being helpful to their post PPL survival toolbox. I get where you are coming from, but your wording suggests you haven’t thought through the argument very well. You can stick to your guns and I will continue to disagree with you on that point, or you may wish to reword your argument to make it more compelling.

[photofly]

As for training for risks, that of course already happens....I'm simply questioning the value of the spin training, up at altitude, in clear weather, adequately covering that risk in flight when that's not where it happens, typically.

Can you clarify what you mean by this? It reads like you're advocating spin training at circuit altitude and/or in poor weather. You said that's not what you want, so can you elaborate? Where would you consider it safe to conduct spin training if not at higher altitudes and in clear weather?

[rookiepilot]

Squaretail, I respect your viewpoint, and I've clarified my post. Maybe more Sim time, is the answer.

Respectfully, those specific trips I'm thinking of, were well beyond the capabilities of the weather for a small single engine piston, at night, beyond the aircraft's and the instructor's capabilities too.

[rookiepilot]

As for training for risks, that of course already happens....I'm simply questioning the value of the spin training, up at altitude, in clear weather, adequately covering that risk in flight when that's not where it happens, typically.

Can you clarify what you mean by this? It reads like you're advocating spin training at circuit altitude and/or in poor weather. You said that's not what you want, so can you elaborate? Where would you consider it safe to conduct spin training if not at higher altitudes and in clear weather?

No, certainly not. Of course not. I don't say I have the answers.

Maybe more awareness training on common scenarios where spins happen, more of a focus on spin recognition and prevention, and certainly illusions / distractions caused by a strong tailwind on base, which I think is among the most tricky scenarios...especially for a right hand circuit.

Maybe you guys do all this very well at YTZ. It's a general comment, that targeted training in more difficult conditions of visability and wind when possible, in the later stages of the PPl. Distraction training, really.

Maybe everyone does that now.

I suppose I harp on that and stumbling into IMC, because they are 2 of the real killers.....

[photofly]

Requiring anything that needs specific conditions is very hit-and-miss: you have to take the winds you're given, obviously. If there existed really good motion simulators for single engine trainers, that might be different, but...

certainly illusions / distractions caused by a strong tailwind on base,

There is a specific air exercise on this: "Illusions caused by drift". Maybe you want to direct some attention/critique to the way that one is taught.

I suppose I harp on that and stumbling into IMC, because they are 2 of the real killers.....

Stumbling into IMC is a flight planning and weather forecasting issue. Preventing it is not something you train for in the air, it's something you train for on the ground. To be honest, the little instrument training seems to me to be falsely advertising that accidental IMC isn't a big deal.

[rookiepilot]

Requiring anything that needs specific conditions is very hit-and-miss: you have to take the winds you're given, obviously. If there existed really good motion simulators for single engine trainers, that might be different, but...

certainly illusions / distractions caused by a strong tailwind on base,

There is a specific air exercise on this: "Illusions caused by drift". Maybe you want to direct some attention/critique to the way that one is taught.

I suppose I harp on that and stumbling into IMC, because they are 2 of the real killers.....

Stumbling into IMC is a flight planning and weather forecasting issue. Preventing it is not something you train for in the air, it's something you train for on the ground. To be honest, the little instrument training seems to me to be falsely advertising that accidental IMC isn't a big deal.

Agree, on the IMC. And there's a clear Toronto night -- lovely -- and Algonquin under an overcast, night, with some summer haze -- not so enjoyable at all. Rather different, as some pilots discover the hard way.