CFI spin training?

[staplegun]

This is actually an argument against GA spin training, as the quality control is just non-existent, and FAA is certainly not up to the task!

I have to defer to the General Aviation CFI's on this one, I lack knowledge of this world...

I debated even getting involved in this thread because of my lack of GA experience. I'm strictly military/regional 121/major 121.

I was just sort of dumbfounded that spins wouldn't be flown/trained.

It's not the first time I've been told that the GA instructing world is very different from what I experienced in the Navy. I knew it was different, I just didn't realize how poor the quality control was/is...

Again, I am not bashing civilian/GA, just making a comment based on what I've been told...


Kevin

 

[MidlifeFlyer]

I have to defer to the General Aviation CFI's on this one, I lack knowledge of this world...

I debated even getting involved in this thread because of my lack of GA experience. I'm strictly military/regional 121/major 121.

I was just sort of dumbfounded that spins wouldn't be flown/trained.

It's not the first time I've been told that the GA instructing world is very different from what I experienced in the Navy. I knew it was different, I just didn't realize how poor the quality control was/is...

Is that so very different that the general differences in degree of regimentation and control over individuals between the civilian and military world?

 

[seagull]

I have to defer to the General Aviation CFI's on this one, I lack knowledge of this world...

I debated even getting involved in this thread because of my lack of GA experience. I'm strictly military/regional 121/major 121.

I was just sort of dumbfounded that spins wouldn't be flown/trained.

It's not the first time I've been told that the GA instructing world is very different from what I experienced in the Navy. I knew it was different, I just didn't realize how poor the quality control was/is...

Again, I am not bashing civilian/GA, just making a comment based on what I've been told...

Kevin

True, but this issue highlights one of the real reasons that airlines prefer to hire military pilots, and GA pilots should take note of that fact. As I've oft said, the QA issues in GA need to be fixed, but that will only happen from the inside.

 

[Ian_J]

This is slightly off the arguments in this thread, but here it goes.

I did spin training with a PPL student yesterday and it was a blast. I enjoy doing them, and my student thought it was great. Even IF the training is pointless (I don't think it is), the student learned something AND enjoyed an aspect of being an aviator.

Whether or not they should be taught, or if they produce safer pilots, are all fine discussion topics, but at the end of the day a spin is just another maneuver, it doesn't take much time to teach, and is just a fun thing to do.

If you teach/train stall and spin awareness and prevention anyway, I don't think you should fear your students will rely on spin training to get out of a bad situation rather than preventing them in the first place. Why teach stall recoveries if they should be avoiding stalls in the first place?

Spins are just another flying skill a pilot can put in their kit-bag.

 

[nosehair]

Stall/spin training focuses on catching the horse after it's escaped, whereas I want to keep the gate closed.

Very good..analogy?..metaphor?..uh,..example?..
anyway, use that as a base from which to depart from the routine...

Stall/spin training is NOT just about preventing the stall. If that were all that it was about, I truly believe that most relatively average intelligent persons could and would keep the nose down below stall angle for an entire flight...except for the dang landing.

If we had a huge undercarrage like our car with big wheels and tires and axles and brakes, we could come cruising in to land at cruise speeds and drive that baby onto the highway and slow it down like a car.

But we can't. For weight purposes, we have little skinny landing gear and tires and tiny brakes and we have to slow it down in the air and stall it onto the runway.

This is the Primary Purpose of Stall Training. It is landing Training. The student should be able to flare, hold a landing attitude throughout a stall and power up from the stall into a go-around with no change in heading and no loss of bank control and control of pitch and power in the same precise way that should be demonstrated in the fullstall landing and goaround. That is the purpose of stall training. Along the way, stall prevention is the natural by-product, not the end goal.

With this objective in mind, if we look at your horse out of the gate metaphor and compare it to real life, the reality is that we try to keep the gate closed and we train to that objective, but we recognize that, in an imperfect world, the gate is going to be knocked open a time or two in our life-time of gate-keeping. The wind will knock it open, or the latch will rust out, or...whtever, you can (or should) be prepared for that eventuality, and have some hands-on practice at getting the gate shut again before the horse gets out, and if he does, how to get him back in.

The military teaches spins before solo. They recognize the importance of this ability.

You seem to disregard any information as important unless it is in a certified statistical scientific emperical evidence form. There ain't none.

Like there ain't no statistical evidence to show how much training it takes an individual to learn to ...solo...or play a piano...or ride a bycycle...

These are individual skills...flying is an individual skill, and some people shouldn't be flying an airplane like some people shouldn't ever put a horn to their lips.

Any instructor that has been training students through the years and has been in the mix of non-spin trained and spin trained will attest to the overall proficiency of the properly trained stall/spin pilot over the non-trained stall/spin pilot.

The proof is there; it just is not in a form of your acceptance.

 

[tgrayson]

This is the Primary Purpose of Stall Training. It is landing Training.

I agree that it is sometimes useful for landing training. It has seemed to help some students that were having a hard time with the muscle movements of holding the airplane off the runway.

<<The military teaches spins before solo. They recognize the importance of this ability.>>

Cutting the ends off the roast before cooking....

<<You seem to disregard any information as important unless it is in a certified statistical scientific emperical evidence form. >>

I do disregard information unless it's verifiable in some way. Only certain types of information require statistical data. The latter is one of the things that separates science from pseudo-science.

<<There ain't none.>>

So it seems.

<<Like there ain't no statistical evidence to show how much training it takes an individual to learn to ...solo...or play a piano...or ride a bycycle...>>

If you have statistical data for a population about the time it takes to learn these things, you can make predictions for individuals that will be correct a high percentage of the time.

<<Any instructor that has been training students through the years and has been in the mix of non-spin trained and spin trained will attest to the overall proficiency of the properly trained stall/spin pilot over the non-trained stall/spin pilot.>>

I don't buy that for a second. I've been teaching for 9 years and I certainly couldn't tell. How many years does it take? 15? 20? Any instructor who thinks he can tell such things is most likely experiencing selection bias. He sees behavior that conforms to his expectations and ignores that which doesn't. Scientists control this very real problem by using double-blind tests, where the evaluator doesn't have any knowledge of the "treatment" when evaluating outcomes.

<<The proof is there; it just is not in a form of your acceptance.>>

History is full of "proofs" that turned out to be false when rigorous science was applied, because scientists or other observers allowed their biases to affect their observations.

An honest man should be aware of this terrible power of bias and avoid forming firm conclusions unless the data warrants it.

 

[tgrayson]

No one is proposing teaching spins and nothing else. The two things are not mutually exclusive.

No, they're not, but my observation is that teaching something once has only small value. If you're going to teach spins, then you need to teach them thoroughly on more than one occasion.

My own training consisted of a two-day aerobatic course with Bill Kershner, with an additional session a few months later for the actual spin endorsement prior to the CFI. At the end of that time, I felt pretty proficient in spins. Now, of all this, perhaps 4 hours was spent spinning or preparing to spin.

In my view, that's what it takes to be fully proficient at that maneuver. For a private student, I would probably have a session devoted to it during the middle part of training, and then another prior to completion, at minimum.

But without evidence that it provides a great benefit to him, I'd rather spend the time developing his proficiency at things he's more likely to use.

 

[tgrayson]

I never thought it was a big deal, just part of showing the student what he could do with the airplane and building confidence that it wouldn't just fall out of the sky...

It's not a big deal. If someone wants to teach spins or someone wants to learn spins, fine and dandy. It seems more often, though, it's those pro-spin folks who seem most passionate about the subject, even though they don't have any convincing data.

It's not clear to me if you're arguing below that not teaching spins is poor quality control; in my view, it's the exact opposite. I believe that what is most detrimental to quality output is allowing yourself to be distracted from your primary task. I have quite a strong vision of the product that I wish to produce and feel that adding other tasks to my training program waters down the intensity of what's already there.

As I observed elsewhere, if an instructor added everything that someone else thought was important to his curriculum, then the private pilot certificate would be 200 hours long.

 

[tgrayson]

Still, you and I doing it would be a nice way to ensure a low amount of bias in the final product!

Is that an offer?

Have you gotten through the Airborne Radar book yet?

I've looked at all the pretty pictures.

 

[tgrayson]

I agree with your #1, with the caveat that the way in which spin training was conducted prior to the rule change, coupled with the change of aircraft design, in both handling qualities and warning devices, really skewed those numbers, making that comparison invalid, IMO.

Sure, but the fleet didn't change overnight, but the numbers did. That at least suggests there was some training problem at work. What MidlifeFlyer posted also suggested that the FAA was aware of a training problem.

Although high quality training might eliminate that problem, that simply isn't going to happen, as you know.

<<What if we could look at all the recent stall/spin accidents (last 20 years or so) and somehow determine the percentage of the pilots involved who have had spin training? Then, we could also conduct a survey and determine what percentage of the total pilots trained in that period had spin training.>>

I would expect that we'd need to take a random selection of pilots, give them training of a known quantity and quality and then track them over a decade. We'd probably need to have at least three groups: no training, spin training, and non-spin proficiency training.

I would surely like to know how the report that staplegun mentioned was conducted.

 

[staplegun]

It's not a big deal. If someone wants to teach spins or someone wants to learn spins, fine and dandy. It seems more often, though, it's those pro-spin folks who seem most passionate about the subject, even though they don't have any convincing data.

Well, we could spin :laff: round and round on this one and never really get anywhere. I'm not passionately "pro-spin." I haven't seen any convincing data from you supporting you "anti-spin" view, either...

It's not clear to me if you're arguing below that not teaching spins is poor quality control

Nope! Just commenting on what I've been told:

Seagull said:
This is actually an argument against GA spin training, as the quality control is just non-existent, and FAA is certainly not up to the task!

Originally Posted by tgrayson
I believe that what is most detrimental to quality output is allowing yourself to be distracted from your primary task. I have quite a strong vision of the product that I wish to produce and feel that adding other tasks to my training program waters down the intensity of what's already there.

Interesting comment from someone so interested in seeing hard data!

As I observed elsewhere, if an instructor added everything that someone else thought was important to his curriculum, then the private pilot certificate would be 200 hours long.

Maybe not a bad idea??? Naw, that's too long...


Again, I defer to the CFI's out in the trenches....



Kevin

 

[MidlifeFlyer]

I'm not passionately "pro-spin." I haven't seen any convincing data from you supporting you "anti-spin" view, either...

True. But who do you think should have the the burden of convincing when one group says, "things are ok now" and the other group says " no! you must change them for everyone's sake!"?

 

[staplegun]

True. But who do you think should have the the burden of convincing when one group says, "things are ok now" and the other group says " no! you must change them for everyone's sake!"?

I think that as it stands, "things are OK now," probably...

I understand tgrayson's point about spin training being unecessary at this level as well...

To reiterate; I have no experience as a GA CFI. I do take your word for what things are like in that world, I just was not aware that spins were not taught. I know better now...

Kevin

 

[USMCmech]

The main reason I see for CFI spin training, is not so you can teach how to recover from a spin. It is so you can be COMPLETELY CONFIDENT that you can recover from one when you student enters a spin.


If you are comfortable spining the airplane, and confident you can handle the worst a student throws at you, your confidence will spill over to your stuents.

If OTOH, you are nervous teaching stalls because you might have to recover from a spin, then your students will become afraid of stalls.

Show me a student who is scared to do stalls and I'll shbow a CFI who put that fear in him. Saying things like "keep the ball centered, or you'll spin and die" is poor instruction. Many CFIs who are nervous about spins transmit that fear to the studet subconciously.


I offer to demonstrate spins for my PPL students, if they choose to decline, then that's OK too. I wouldn't want to push someone past their comfort level, for a manuver that isn't required.

When the day comes for a CFI applicant, however, we WILL spin untill they become com0pletely confident that they can handle it.

 

[nosehair]

The main reason I see for CFI spin training, is not so you can teach how to recover from a spin. It is so you can be COMPLETELY CONFIDENT that you can recover from one when you student enters a spin.

Thank You, Sir.

You put it into the real words I am trying to say.

Death-Preventing Statistics be Damned - what's important is the feeling of security that comes with spin training.

An instructor must show confidence in his/her ability to control the airplane, and this 'sense of uneasiness' screams loud and clear to students. Otherwise, I don't think we would even be having this "discussion" - there would be no debate if there were not some level of 'uneasiness' in you who deter from spins.

Well, you got it from your instructor, who got it from his instructor, and so on. But you can decide to change. You don't have to be a Lemming - wait, am I going too far, here? ...just kiddin',

But seriously, folks, it seems to me that anyone who is anti-spin is also uncomfortable with it. Any degree of uncomfortablness in the airplane will degrade your ability to be on top and as sharp as a tack. Everybody OK on that point? We gotta be in tip top shape, including mental and emotional, to have the hundred eyes,hands, and feet we sometimes have to have.

This is especially true for flight instructors, since our mental and emotional demeanor is very impressive to the new sponge-brain student, but is also true for pilots and passengers in general. We're all instructors, like it or not.

 

[nosehair]

I agree that it is sometimes useful for landing training. It has seemed to help some students that were having a hard time with the muscle movements of holding the airplane off the runway.

It is actually very useful, if done as landing practice, not stall practice, specifically. IF stall demonstration and practice is all about stall avoidance, the student is subtly trained to fear and avoid stalls therefore he/she adds on the airspeed when solo. As you have observed pilots who develop high speed finals after certification.

Instructors tend to train stalls for the purpose of checkrides. They just do the stalls as described in the PTS, and that is not what I mean in teaching stalls as landings. Actually, it is in the power off stall, but that is up to your personal technique, somewhat, so I just don't even address the PTS stalls in presolo training. The pre-solo power off stalls should be just like a landing: lined up on a straight line like a power line or road, keeping the airplane aligned with the road and establish a glide for a 2 to 3 hundred foot glide down to a predetermined altitude, and start a flare and hold it off, keeping the nose aligned with the road, and stalling and recovering with power as if in a go-around and keeping the nose aligned with the road at all times, and keeping the wings level and controlling pitch and trim just as you would in the power off approach and landing flare and touchdown ever focusing on rudder/heading control. Not to PTS standards; +/- 10* on heading control is not good enough for a landing. This is where the student can practice good rudder - directional, elevator - pitch, and ailerons - wings level control touch so that the foundation is laid before practicing it over the runway. But the 'upper-air' landing practice should be immediately followed by actual runway landing practice, and continued back-and-forth so that the student correlates landing control with stall control.

 

[MidlifeFlyer]

But seriously, folks, it seems to me that anyone who is anti-spin is also uncomfortable with it.

Of course, reading through the posts, I haven't noticed anyone saying that they were "anti-spin." Actually, I don't recall coming across an anti-spin post any discussions I've seen on the topic.

Glad you agree with USMCmech on the purpose of CFI spin training. So do I.

 

[jrh]

Thank You, Sir.

You put it into the real words I am trying to say.

Death-Preventing Statistics be Damned - what's important is the feeling of security that comes with spin training.

An instructor must show confidence in his/her ability to control the airplane, and this 'sense of uneasiness' screams loud and clear to students. Otherwise, I don't think we would even be having this "discussion" - there would be no debate if there were not some level of 'uneasiness' in you who deter from spins.

Well, you got it from your instructor, who got it from his instructor, and so on. But you can decide to change. You don't have to be a Lemming - wait, am I going too far, here? ...just kiddin',

But seriously, folks, it seems to me that anyone who is anti-spin is also uncomfortable with it. Any degree of uncomfortablness in the airplane will degrade your ability to be on top and as sharp as a tack. Everybody OK on that point? We gotta be in tip top shape, including mental and emotional, to have the hundred eyes,hands, and feet we sometimes have to have.

This is especially true for flight instructors, since our mental and emotional demeanor is very impressive to the new sponge-brain student, but is also true for pilots and passengers in general. We're all instructors, like it or not.

:yeahthat:

 

[tgrayson]

I haven't seen any convincing data from you supporting you "anti-spin" view, either...

I'm spin-agnostic. If a student wants to do it, then I will; otherwise, I have better plans.

<<Interesting comment from someone so interested in seeing hard data! >>

Oh, make no mistake, I see pilot training as art. My art. My painting, my sculpture. While creating my art, I have certain responsibilities, many of which I'd leave out were it up to me. Hard data would induce me to deviate from my art into practicalities. I would do so resentfully.

 

[tgrayson]

But seriously, folks, it seems to me that anyone who is anti-spin is also uncomfortable with it. Any degree of uncomfortablness in the airplane will degrade your ability to be on top and as sharp as a tack..

This is an ad hominem remark. That is, "You don't teach spins because you're scared."

The flip side of this is that the passionate spin-types have a macho attitude. Forcing students to do spins is manly and demonstrates bravery. Perhaps that's your motivation, rather than concern for the student's education?