Spins on primary training

[BajtheJino]

???

 

[ppragman]

Low level aerobatics should be demonstrated to all Pvt. students. It is something that kills people every year and if you're teaching someone to fly this is one aspect that needs to be covered. Not doing so it gross negligence.

Engine failures due to fuel exhaustion should be demonstrated to all Pvt. students. It is something that kills people every year and if you're teaching someone to fly this is one aspect that needs to be covered. Not doing so it gross negligence

Etc., etc.



For the record, I teach many student pilots spins and believe they are a beneficial part of training. However, I completely disagree with BajtheJino's "one size fits all" attitude as well as the logic of "if it kills people, it should be taught."

Spins are not appropriate for every student all the time and there are many safe pilots who have never seen a spin before.

So wait, you don't want spins to be taught, or that you shouldn't teach that low level aerobatics are dangerous, or that fuel exhaustion isn't a problem?

 

[jhugz]

Spins are not appropriate for every student all the time and there are many safe pilots who have never seen a spin before.

Maybe in other areas but they are not going to be a safe pilot if they get themselves into a spin infact they will actually be a pretty dangerous pilot while in that "phase" of flight. I remember the first spin I was in I was in a little shock and awe. Could I have recovered myself on my own? Maybe...probally at 3000AGL, but at 1000-700AGL in the pattern I would have killed myself.

 

[Roger, Roger]

Could I have recovered myself on my own? Maybe...probally at 3000AGL, but at 1000-700AGL in the pattern I would have killed myself.

Depending on the aircraft, you might be hosed at that altitude no matter what. Hence all the emphasis on spin AVOIDANCE in training.

 

[jhugz]

Depending on the aircraft, you might be hosed at that altitude no matter what. Hence all the emphasis on spin AVOIDANCE in training.

So why teach stalls then...lets just teach stall avoidance.

Why teach about engine failures...lets just teach about how to properly manage and engine and the proper techniques to be "gentle" and put the least amount of stress on the engine.

I mean lets be honest in congested areas or engine failures close to the ground the survival rate is probally pretty low. So if we fly out of an airport that is heavly congested building wise on the ground why even practice simulated engine outs chances are we are going to die anyway. Right?

I would re-read some good FOI stuff about resignation.

Fly that airplane to the ground or the simmering hole in the cement. Don't ever settle for O...I stalled and spun at pattern altitude I am just going to die.

 

[Roger, Roger]

Read my earlier post. I spin my students. BUT I was just pointing out that 700-1000' AGL is really low, and even a snappy recovery might not be enough.

 

[jrh]

So wait, you don't want spins to be taught, or that you shouldn't teach that low level aerobatics are dangerous, or that fuel exhaustion isn't a problem?

I guess I didn't make myself as clear as I should have.

I took issue with Bajthejino's assertion that spins kill people every year and therefore if an instructor does not teach spins, that instructor is guilty of gross negligence. In my opinion, that's a ridiculous argument to make.

I was trying to say that low level aerobatics and fuel exhaustion incidents kill people every year as well, but that doesn't mean we have to go demo them as part of training. We don't have to do aileron rolls 50 feet off the ground or run our tanks dry and glide in for landing in order to prove those are dangerous situations.

So it is with spins. Do I teach spins? Yes. Do I believe they are beneficial? Yes. Do I think all pilots *have* to undergo spin training to become safe pilots? No, not at all. There are plenty of ways to make safe pilots without going out and actually spinning a plane.

 

[jrh]

Maybe in other areas but they are not going to be a safe pilot if they get themselves into a spin infact they will actually be a pretty dangerous pilot while in that "phase" of flight.

You proved my point precisely. You're assuming that everyone will unintentionally spin at some point in time. I'm assuming they won't. If they stay coordinated and/or don't stall, they won't spin. They won't get in to that phase of flight to begin with. This is the attitude the FAA has taken ever since they removed the private pilot spin training requirement and emphasized proper stall training.

I've never said spin training is a bad thing. In fact, I feel strongly that it's a good thing. However, one has to keep the big picture perspective in mind.

I don't see this as a situation where pilots who do not receive spin training are unsafe.

I see this as a situation where all pilots, spin trained or not, can be *acceptably* safe. Are they Chuck Yeager skygods? No. But they are *acceptable*. They've met what is considered a reasonable level of safety.

Spin training is "bonus" training at that point. They will probably be *safe-er* with spin training, but that's not to say they were unsafe before.

It's all relative, and lines have to get drawn somewhere.

 

[BajtheJino]

Yes, training to the bare minimum is *acceptable*.

 

[Roger, Roger]

Well, yes, that's why it is the minimum standard. Is the PTS too lenient? Well, maybe, but maybe not.

 

[jrh]

Yes, training to the bare minimum is *acceptable*.

You can take sarcastic jabs at my argument all you want, but that doesn't do much to prove why everyone must have spin training no matter what--which is basically what you originally proposed.

 

[jhugz]

Well, yes, that's why it is the minimum standard. Is the PTS too lenient? Well, maybe, but maybe not.

Trying to teach just the PTS is absolutely obsurd...I see to many pilots that can fly to pass a checkride but throw some curveballs like your wife PMSing in the right seat, a storm rolling in, a case of get there-itious where the pilot does not go around while overshooting and then his kid spills something in the back seat while turning back he pitches up stalls spins and then panics. Game Over. You may say what is the likely hood that all those things happen but if you look back at numerous accidents pull one link out of the chain and more people would be walking the earth today.

The fuel exaustion example doesn't really work because we practice "dead sticking" it all the time in emergency landings. The low level acro is decision making where the environment and surroundings really play no factor into it. Thats like saying why don't we cut the critical engine right at the point of break on a power on stall in a twin then to recover jump out of the airplane hand crank the engine while in a tight spin then hoping back in and recovering. What does low level acro have to do with teaching private pilot's to be safe pilots?

 

[Cessna414JJB]

Trying to teach just the PTS is absolutely obsurd...I see to many pilots that can fly to pass a checkride but throw some curveballs like your wife PMSing in the right seat, a storm rolling in, a case of get there-itious where the pilot does not go around while overshooting and then his kid spills something in the back seat while turning back he pitches up stalls spins and then panics. Game Over. You may say what is the likely hood that all those things happen but if you look back at numerous accidents pull one link out of the chain and more people would be walking the earth today.

The fuel exaustion example doesn't really work because we practice "dead sticking" it all the time in emergency landings. The low level acro is decision making where the environment and surroundings really play no factor into it. Thats like saying why don't we cut the critical engine right at the point of break on a power on stall in a twin then to recover jump out of the airplane hand crank the engine while in a tight spin then hoping back in and recovering. What does low level acro have to do with teaching private pilot's to be safe pilots?

Complete a 10 hour aerobatic program in different airplanes ranging from Zlins to Extra's and see what it does to you. It helps a lot with becoming a safer pilot and you can benefit from it (wait a second...) 13+ years after you did it.

 

[Douglas]

Trying to teach just the PTS is absolutely obsurd...I see to many pilots that can fly to pass a checkride but throw some curveballs like your wife PMSing in the right seat, a storm rolling in,

I am all for new ideas but I will not play dress-up.



--------

I think everybody should remember that if you fly with a student past meeting PTS, it is called milking* and frowned upon.

*I can't stand that term.

 

[ppragman]

Yes, training to the bare minimum is *acceptable*.

That is the name of the game. Its a shame, but that's how its done, you know this. These guys don't last long at work though.

Well, yes, that's why it is the minimum standard. Is the PTS too lenient? Well, maybe, but maybe not.

Yes, the PTS is way to lenient. I think the requirements for currency are too lenient too. But, to each his own.

You can take sarcastic jabs at my argument all you want, but that doesn't do much to prove why everyone must have spin training no matter what--which is basically what you originally proposed.

We demand everyone has stall training, no matter what. What's the real difference. There are things we teach, and we teach them for a reason. They got out of teaching spins because too many people got killed teaching them, which, frankly I think is moronic. Noone ever said this was going to be safe. If you want to teach people to fly, you (not you necessarily, but in general) should teach them what is safe and unsafe, and how to save their ass if they get in trouble.

 

[MidlifeFlyer]

There is FAA chief consul opinion that states if a manuver required for ANY certificate or rating, then a parachute is not required. Since spins are required for the CFI, then the parachute is not required for normal spins.

Sort of. The problem is that the few Chief Counsel opinions on the subject followed the FAR changes in spin instruction requirements. So, for example, there's an opinion from 1986 (when spins were not required for any certificate or rating, including the CFI) that says that parachutes =are= needed. That's been part of the problem - focusing on the "answer" rather than on the analysis.

Bottom line is you are correct. In an interpretation that goes back to 1977, the Chief Counsel's office give the =analysis= to be used:

==============================
Regardless of what certificate or rating the applicant is seeking, an acrobatic maneuver required for any pilot certificate or rating (even one not presently sought by the applicant) may be performed without parachutes when done by, or at the direction of, a certificated flight instructor.
==============================

That piece hasn't changed.

(btw, Mike, sorry - I guess I misunderstood your post).

 

[jhugz]

I think everybody should remember that if you fly with a student past meeting PTS, it is called milking* and frowned upon.

*I can't stand that term.

Negative...it is called not just teaching someone to pass a checkride. I can teach any monkey to pass a checkride according to PTS standards but ADM, CRM, and all that other good stuff takes a little while.

 

[MikeD]

Sort of. The problem is that the few Chief Counsel opinions on the subject followed the FAR changes in spin instruction requirements. So, for example, there's an opinion from 1986 (when spins were not required for any certificate or rating, including the CFI) that says that parachutes =are= needed. That's been part of the problem - focusing on the "answer" rather than on the analysis.

Bottom line is you are correct. In an interpretation that goes back to 1977, the Chief Counsel's office give the =analysis= to be used:

==============================
Regardless of what certificate or rating the applicant is seeking, an acrobatic maneuver required for any pilot certificate or rating (even one not presently sought by the applicant) may be performed without parachutes when done by, or at the direction of, a certificated flight instructor.
==============================

That piece hasn't changed.

(btw, Mike, sorry - I guess I misunderstood your post).

Agree Mark. And no biggie on the misunderstanding.....as the person writing it, its my bad for not making it clear!

 

[Roger, Roger]

Yes, the PTS is way to lenient. I think the requirements for currency are too lenient too. But, to each his own.

So you think a private pilot should be able to perform steep turns how precisely? +/- 5 knots? 20 feet? Heck, I can't even do that unless it's smooth.

 

[Roger, Roger]

Negative...it is called not just teaching someone to pass a checkride. I can teach any monkey to pass a checkride according to PTS standards but ADM, CRM, and all that other good stuff takes a little while.

If your monkey can pass a checkride while exhibiting poor ADM and flight management, CRM, SRM, or whatever the heck you choose to call it, then your examiner is ignoring some very important parts of the PTS. For example...your family distraction scenario. Is there not something in the PTS about use of distractions?