CFI spin training?

[tgrayson]

They tend not to come in low, slow and uncoordinated again.

I think it's more effective to avoid frightening students into doing what I ask. Giving them a behavior to strive for rather than a behavior to avoid seems better pedagogically. Proper approach paths and airspeeds can be taught simply as good airmanship.

I can't draw direct cause/effect relationship, but many pilots start packing on airspeed once they get out of training. They're so afraid of stalling that they add a margin on top of the margin already built into published airspeeds. I've also seen pilots not touch the rudder in the pattern because they're afraid of cross-controlled stalls. As the Flight Instructor Handbook says, fear narrows the perceptual field. All they see is the thing which frightens them.

 

[MidlifeFlyer]

Having taught for a while now, I can say that being comfortable with spinning makes me a better instructor.

There comes a point in a students training when the student is practicing stalls and youve told them about coordination where you just say to yourself, "okay here we go..."

I agree with you. I think one of the best coordination/stall/spin awareness lessons a student of mine has had was when I saw a spin scenario developing during a power-on stall and decided not to correct it (The right-foot mash USMC-SGT referred to above). I recovered early from the resulting spin and a substantial part of the rest of the session was spent with him holding the nose-high stall attitude going in and out of the stall with small AoA changes and dancing on the rudder pedals to maintain coordination throughout.

Without my own CFI spin training, I would not have let it go as far as it did.

 

[moxiepilot]

I think it's more effective to avoid frightening students into doing what I ask. Giving them a behavior to strive for rather than a behavior to avoid seems better pedagogically. Proper approach paths and airspeeds can be taught simply as good airmanship.

I can't draw direct cause/effect relationship, but many pilots start packing on airspeed once they get out of training. They're so afraid of stalling that they add a margin on top of the margin already built into published airspeeds. I've also seen pilots not touch the rudder in the pattern because they're afraid of cross-controlled stalls. As the Flight Instructor Handbook says, fear narrows the perceptual field. All they see is the thing which frightens them.

I agree far is not a productive tool. However, nowhere in the post did I say that I put the student in a demo in a spin. I show them that it can lead to a spin. The demonstration is enough to make an impact without having them become fearful.

And in the case of practicing stalling, I will let the a/c nose over 30-90 degrees into the incipient stage. But, never have I let a student develop a full blown spin without first asking permission.

I respect your input, but nowhere did I post that I instill fear in a student as a method to teach.

 

[tgrayson]

nowhere did I post that I instill fear in a student as a method to teach.

What exactly does this lesson teach, if not fear? It says "you will die if you are low, slow and uncoordinated on final."

 

[seagull]

I can't draw direct cause/effect relationship, but many pilots start packing on airspeed once they get out of training. They're so afraid of stalling that they add a margin on top of the margin already built into published airspeeds. I've also seen pilots not touch the rudder in the pattern because they're afraid of cross-controlled stalls. As the Flight Instructor Handbook says, fear narrows the perceptual field. All they see is the thing which frightens them.

As someone that, literally, ALWAYS taught spins, the characteristics you describe remind me of pilots who had little, or no spin training. Those students of mine that were very comfortable, were not afraid of those things and did not add extra speed, and were not afraid to touch the rudder in the pattern.

Unless you are considering the "packing on airspeed" and lack of rudder useage a good thing?

Also, I strongly disagree with the implication here in a couple of posts that spin training won't help you out at low altitudes. Recognizing the feel of that initial part of the spin is NOT something that can be done with book knowledge, and I would personally credit it with saving me from some things students did, and from what would have been a low altitude spin during some low level aerobatics (low level due to local rules where I was doing it, not because it was my choice to be that low!).

 

[tgrayson]

Also, I strongly disagree with the implication here in a couple of posts that spin training won't help you out at low altitudes. Recognizing the feel of that initial part of the spin is NOT something that can be done with book knowledge, and I would personally credit it with saving me from some things students did,

The initial part of a spin is a stall and it doesn't require spin training to fix that.....push!

What data exists says that spin training doesn't reduce stall/spin accidents. Data trumps argument every time.

 

[seagull]

The initial part of a spin is a stall and it doesn't require spin training to fix that.....push!

What data exists says that spin training doesn't reduce stall/spin accidents. Data trumps argument every time.

Actually, it was a quick pop of opposite rudder!

On the data, the problem is that the data was collected on the impact of spin training at a time when people were doing them at 1000' agl, and most of the stats were training accidents. Also, at that time, more people were flying aircraft that wrapped up pretty tight into steady-state spins, unlike most of the current training aircraft.

IOW, the data, in this case, is somewhat meaningless!

 

[tgrayson]

Actually, it was a quick pop of opposite rudder!

Bill Kershner slapped my hand for that one. His point is that the overwhelming first task in an incipient stall/spin is reduce the angle of attack, not playing with the rudder. Turns out this is in accordance with the Airplane Flying Handbook. It doesn't talk about jabbing on the rudder to raise a falling wing. Recovery:

1) Push
2) Full Power
3) Roll wings level with coordinated controls.

IOW, the data, in this case, is somewhat meaningless!

Perhaps, but it still doesn't support the position that spin training is beneficial. Since there is no data, that opinion must be held with humility.

 

[tgrayson]

Here's Rich Stowell's opinion:

As an interesting side bar, every time we watch Sean D. Tucker and Patty Wagstaff perform snap rolls, lomcevaks, and other tumbling maneuvers during their airshow routines, we are witnessing experienced pilots skillfully using their quick reflexes to enter and recover from accelerated stall/spins at traffic pattern altitudes. Pilots have recovered from accidental spins in the pattern as well. Perhaps the most famous pilot to do this is former X-15 test pilot Scott Crossfield, who as an instructor, recovered from a student-induced spin departure in the pattern. These certainly are the rare exceptions, and no one should be lulled into a false sense of security about the prospect of recovering from a spin at pattern altitude. Again, the point of spin training is to give pilots the depth of experience to avoid an inadvertent spin in the first place​

He also says about the stall/spin accident rate following the cessation of spin training:

It can reasonably be concluded, therefore, that the deletion of spin training in 1949 had little if any discernible effect on the stall/spin accident rate.​

 

[MidlifeFlyer]

What exactly does this lesson teach, if not fear? It says "you will die if you are low, slow and uncoordinated on final."

I'm not so sure of that. It teaches, "don't think flying is 'safe'. It has risks that must be managed. If you don't manage them by using proper judgment and proper techniques, you may find yourself in a situation where you can no longer control the outcome."

In the right circumstances with the right instructor and with the right student, it can be an object lesson in risk recognition and management, not fear.

 

[SpiraMirabilis]

Demonstrating spins is important. I remember when I first did a spin, I was already a commercial pilot and since it was never demonstrated to me before it freaked me out. I knew the steps to recover from the spin in my head but being freaked out cost me several seconds from recognizing the spin and going 'oh wow!' to 'Oh yeah, power, ailerons, rudder...'.
For this reason I feel demonstrating spins is important. Spins are not a flight condition any pilot is normally in. Neither are stalls, but there is a reason both should be taught.

 

[tgrayson]

there is a reason both should be taught.

But you didn't give one....

 

[seagull]

Bill Kershner slapped my hand for that one. His point is that the overwhelming first task in an incipient stall/spin is reduce the angle of attack, not playing with the rudder. Turns out this is in accordance with the Airplane Flying Handbook. It doesn't talk about jabbing on the rudder to raise a falling wing. Recovery:

1) Push
2) Full Power
3) Roll wings level with coordinated control

Now that you mention it, I would have had to ease up slightly on the back pressure as well, but just a touch. In the case that's most clear in my mind, I was recovering from a loop and was just over 500' AGL (we initiated at 500' and were not allowed to exceed 1500'), and I did not want to relax too much -- just enough to break the stall and rudder to stop the rotation. That water was coming up awfully fast! Both motions were instinctive from years of doing spin recoveries.

 

[seagull]

Here's Rich Stowell's opinion:

It can reasonably be concluded, therefore, that the deletion of spin training in 1949 had little if any discernible effect on the stall/spin accident rate.​

I didn't realize that spin training was deleted so early on. This changes this debate significantly, as the type of aircraft at that time were FAR more prone to accidental spins and recovery was more challenging than any of the current modern aircraft flying, across the board.

This reminds me of a grade school in a college town that had consistently very good test scores. All seems fine if you ignore the fact that these kids were, almost entirely, comprised of the children of college professors. Further examination revealed that, when that is factored in, the question was why that school was just barely or equal to other local schools that did NOT share that "parentage".

In the same way, the fact that the spin accident rate has not DROPPED significantly is VERY significant here. With the types of aircraft involved, it SHOULD have, and in a big way.

Maybe those stats aren't quite as meaningless as I thought!​

 

[tgrayson]

I was recovering from a loop and .

Needless to say, this whole discussion goes out the window if you're doing aerobatics. Obviously, spin proficiency is an essential ingredient when departing from normal flight regimes. An acquaintance mentioned that his aerobatic instructor always told him that a spin was an "out" if he screwed up some other maneuver.

Kershner had me enter a spin from the topside of a loop to demonstrate that spin behavior was consistent, no matter what the attitude, assuming you had a positive AOA.

 

[tgrayson]

I didn't realize that spin training was deleted so early on. This changes this debate significantly, as the type of aircraft at that time were FAR more prone to accidental spins and recovery was more challenging than any of the current modern aircraft flying, across the board.

Here's the link: http://www.richstowell.com/aopa.htm#APPLES_and_ORANGES

I only skimmed the article, but I believe that Rich took into account the different aircraft types.

I would argue that Rich, being a nationally renown figure in stall/spin training, would have jumped at any opportunity to use the stats to justify his training. That he endorsed a "null hypothesis" is significiant, IMO.

 

[staplegun]

What data exists says that spin training doesn't reduce stall/spin accidents. Data trumps argument every time.

Perhaps, but it still doesn't support the position that spin training is beneficial. Since there is no data, that opinion must be held with humility.

I would argue that Rich, being a nationally renown figure in stall/spin training, would have jumped at any opportunity to use the stats to justify his training.

Actually, he does:


Those pushing the anti spin training agenda always attempt to measure the benefits of spin training against an unreasonable hypothesis, namely: “Even a spin trained pilot cannot recover a spin entered while in the pattern.” To prove their case, opponents of spin training ask us to imagine an airplane in a spin a couple hundred feet above the ground. Next, a so-called spin trained pilot is miraculously transported into the cockpit to see if he/she can recover in time. This litmus test is disingenuous at best. Pilots don’t suddenly wake up to find themselves spinning in the pattern. Stall/spin accidents do not occur in a vacuum. It is the pilot who, through an incomplete understanding of stall/spin dynamics and improper manipulation of the flight controls, actively participates to cause an airplane to stall and spin. Hence, the true test of the value of spin training should be, “how likely is a stall/spin aware and properly spin trained pilot to encounter an inadvertent spin departure in the traffic pattern?”

The FAA attempted to address this issue during their 1976 General Aviation Pilot Stall Awareness Training Study, Report No. FAA-RD-77-26. The bottom line: pilots who received better stall/spin awareness training--without hands-on spin training--were 1/3 less likely to progress into a spin after encountering an inadvertent stall. On the other hand, pilots who received better stall/spin awareness training AND exposure to intentional spins prevented spin departure following an inadvertent stall every single time. This FAA study, by the way, has driven all of the changes made to the training requirements regarding stall/spin awareness since 1976. Those who oppose spin training, or at least oppose further research into the possible benefits of such training, steer well clear of any reference to this FAA study.

That he endorsed a "null hypothesis" is significiant, IMO.

Not quite:


genuine spin training should improve a pilot’s ability to thwart spinning tendencies following an encounter with an accidental stall. Hands-on spin training, properly conducted, will leave no doubt in the pilot’s mind that spin prevention is crucial when in the pattern. But equally important is the practical knowledge gained regarding the mechanisms behind spinning, the importance of adhering to published operating limitations, and the role misapplied control inputs play in inadvertent stall/spin departures.



Kevin

 

[SpiraMirabilis]

But you didn't give one....

I gave an anecdote that served as my experiences for one. Staplegun was nice enough to give some nice statistics as well. But you haven't really gotten into why spins should not be taught aside from this:

You will not eliminate fear for many pilots during PPL training; you might make some of them more afraid.

I don't think you can demonstrate that assertation any more conclusively than my anecdotes.

 

[MidlifeFlyer]

The bottom line: pilots who received better stall/spin awareness training--without hands-on spin training--were 1/3 less likely to progress into a spin after encountering an inadvertent stall. On the other hand, pilots who received better stall/spin awareness training AND exposure to intentional spins prevented spin departure following an inadvertent stall every single time. [/I]

Stowell, who of course is a proponent of and has a vested interest in spin training at least has the intellectual honesty to show both sides of the coin.

It would be interesting to read the actual study and look at the numbers. The description of the numbers themselves raises some questions about what the study looked at and how the events were created. What is the statistical sample and how was it generated?

I'm not supporting a side with this comment. I don't know how any of those numbers were generated. Did they spend a day at an airport watching takeoffs and landings and querying every pilot who appeared to stall? Did they go through NTSB reports, which would of course only contain inadvertent stalls that resulted in a reportable accident or incident?

If a spin awareness trained pilot stalled in the pattern and recovered, how would anyone know?

Without knowing the parameters of the studies used, all we are really left with is the old saying, "there are lies, damn lies, and statistics."

 

[seagull]

Stowell, who of course is a proponent of and has a vested interest in spin training at least has the intellectual honesty to show both sides of the coin.

It would be interesting to read the actual study and look at the numbers. The description of the numbers themselves raises some questions about what the study looked at and how the events were created. What is the statistical sample and how was it generated?

I'm not supporting a side with this comment. I don't know how any of those numbers were generated. Did they spend a day at an airport watching takeoffs and landings and querying every pilot who appeared to stall? Did they go through NTSB reports, which would of course only contain inadvertent stalls that resulted in a reportable accident or incident?

If a spin awareness trained pilot stalled in the pattern and recovered, how would anyone know?

Without knowing the parameters of the studies used, all we are really left with is the old saying, "there are lies, damn lies, and statistics."

Well, I guess we can assume that those pilots trained PRIOR to suspending spin training, did have that training, so one thing someone with a lot of time on their hands could do, would be to separate the accidents that occurred after that time based on the time period when those pilots were trained.

Thinking about it more, you'd want to go several years after the rule change, as it is very probable that it took a couple of generations of CFIs before they stopped training the majority of their students for spins.

OK, now we have a good Master's project for someone!