Holy Spin training batman...

[Mike H]

What happened? Lawyers. More accidents were happening teaching spins and unusual attitude recovery than the bean counters thought would happen if you just didn't teach it at all.

This ground has been covered numerous times. You're half-right. More pilots were being killed learning intentional spins than were lost in accidental ones. So the decision was made to teach spin prevention/awareness instead. I seem to recall that this resulted in a significant reduction in spin accidents.

CFI's legally can't teach spins for the most part,

Huh? Where do you get this from? Certainly not from the FAR's. Any CFI needs only 2 things to teach spins: an airplane certified for intentional spins, and a willingness to do so. OK, 3 things if you include the student.

so we are ending up with a generation of pilots with almost no experience at that end of the flight envelope. I think the result will unfortunately be unnecessary stall accidents at air carriers. In the past, this was at least taught at the PPL level. Now it isn't really taught at all.

Stall/spin awareness IS taught at the PPL level- or at least is supposed to be taught. If you want to make the argument that it isn't being taught adequately in a lot of cases, you won't get any disagreement from me.

As for the air carriers, anybody who gets through their training program and can't recover correctly from a stall is entirely the fault of the air carrier.

 

[Lunchbox]

Stall/spin awareness IS taught at the PPL level- or at least is supposed to be taught. If you want to make the argument that it isn't being taught adequately in a lot of cases, you won't get any disagreement from me.

I believe drunkenbeagle was referring to actually performing spins in a plane as part of training which is not required, only the knowledge of aerodynamic factors and recovery from a spin is needed for obtaining a private pilot license.

 

[Mike H]

That's mostly what stall/spin awareness is. But it's also about prevention

 

[TwoTwoLeft]

You can talk about spin awareness and recovery procedures on the ground till you're blue in the face. With most pilots, all that talk seems to go out the window once confronted with the realistic distraction of the spin.

 

[drunkenbeagle]

Huh? Where do you get this from? Certainly not from the FAR's. Any CFI needs only 2 things to teach spins: an airplane certified for intentional spins, and a willingness to do so. OK, 3 things if you include the student.

Unless it is required for a certificate or rating (it is not for a PPL/Inst/Comm), you can't exceed 30deg pitch/60deg bank without parachutes. This is 99% of the instruction that CFIs do, and it ain't common to have parachutes in almost all trainers. So it is effectively forbidden.

 

[TwoTwoLeft]

Unless it is required for a certificate or rating (it is not for a PPL/Inst/Comm), you can't exceed 30deg pitch/60deg bank without parachutes. This is 99% of the instruction that CFIs do, and it ain't common to have parachutes in almost all trainers. So it is effectively forbidden.

Check out AC61-67

 

[drunkenbeagle]

Check out AC61-67

Page 14, says the same thing I just did.

 

[msmspilot]

Page 14, says the same thing I just did.

(d) Paragraph (c) of this section does not apply to—[/COLOR]
(1) Flight tests for pilot certification or rating; or
(2) Spins and other flight maneuvers required by the regulations for any certificate or rating when given by—

(emphasis added)

Doesn't say it has to be for THAT certificate or rating.

Section 91.307(d) states, in

pertinent part, that section 91.307(c) does not apply to flight tests for a pilot certificate or rating; or
spins and other flight maneuvers required by the regulations for any certificate or rating when given
by a certified flight instructor (CFI) or an airline transport pilot (ATP) instructing in accordance
with section 61.167.

(emphasis original)

AC 61-67 even explicity says that and emphasizes the "any" part.

Part B on page 14 says:

This provision applies regardless of the certificate or rating for which the person is
receiving training and also if the person is receiving instruction that is not being provided for the
purpose of obtaining any additional certificate or rating.

​

 

[highspeed]

Page 14, says the same thing I just did.

I think that because spins are required for *a* certificate (in this case the CFI) that they can be performed by a CFI and student at any point in training for any certificate, without violating the parachute reg (91.307c).

"Section 91.307(d) states, in pertinent part, that section 91.307(c) does not apply to flight tests for a pilot certificate or rating; or spins and other flight maneuvers required by the regulations for any certificate or rating when given by a certified flight instructor (CFI) or an airline transport pilot (ATP) instructing in accordance with section 61.167." The emphasis being placed on "any" by FAA.

 

[Ajax]

Page 14, says the same thing I just did.

Sec. 91.307 — Parachutes and parachuting.

...

(c) Unless each occupant of the aircraft is wearing an approved parachute, no pilot of a civil aircraft carrying any person (other than a crewmember) may execute any intentional maneuver that exceeds—

(1) A bank of 60 degrees relative to the horizon; or

(2) A nose-up or nose-down attitude of 30 degrees relative to the horizon.

(d) Paragraph (c) of this section does not apply to—

(1) Flight tests for pilot certification or rating; or

(2) Spins and other flight maneuvers required by the regulations for any certificate or rating when given by—

(i) A certificated flight instructor; or

(ii) An airline transport pilot instructing in accordance with §61.67 of this chapter.

(e) For the purposes of this section, approved parachute means—

(1) A parachute manufactured under a type certificate or a technical standard order (C–23 series); or

(2) A personnel-carrying military parachute identified by an NAF, AAF, or AN drawing number, an AAF order number, or any other military designation or specification number.

Maybe I'm reading between the lines, but I think the use of the word "any" allows it to be taught since 61.183 mentions it as required for the CFI.

Edit: highspeed and msmspilot beat me to it, thats what I get for taking a coffee break before hitting reply

 

[drunkenbeagle]

I think that because spins are required for *a* certificate (in this case the CFI) that they can be performed by a CFI and student at any point in training for any certificate, without violating the parachute reg (91.307c).

This interpretation is not consistent with what the local FSDO has told DPE's here, or more specifically, what the examiners have told me.

 

[drunkenbeagle]

Maybe I'm reading between the lines, but I think the use of the word "any" allows it to be taught since 61.183 mentions it as required for the CFI.

Edit: highspeed and msmspilot beat me to it, thats what I get for taking a coffee break before hitting reply

I think the confusion comes from "required by the regulations for any certificate or rating" could either be interpereted to mean "glider CFI," "airplane CFI", i.e., any rating that requires it.

I hope I am wrong about this (won't change anything here, unfortunately).

 

[MidlifeFlyer]

This interpretation is not consistent with what the local FSDO has told DPE's here, or more specifically, what the examiners have told me.

Ah, once again a FSDO that makes up its own rules since it doesn't like the FAA's.

The FAA Chief Counsel's opinions on the subject have changed with respect to the result as the regs about spin training have changed. When the FAA first removed spin training, it removed it for everything - even CFIs weren't required to have it. So, the Chief Counsel opinions from that period say that a parachute is required. But the one consistency all along the way comes from a 1977 opinion:

==============================
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.
==============================

(There is a potential problem with my analysis - can you locate it?)

 

[nosehair]

The spin demonstration for my PPL was 3 complete turns (was still required back in the stone age then). For my CFI spin endorsement, we never did more than a quarter turn.

I am so so sorry to hear that your CFI certificate is invalid. You do know that you are supposed to demonstrate "instructional proficiency"
according to FAR 61.183(i). "Spin entry, spins, and spin recovery". A quarter of a turn isn't even a spin entry. What's your point?

 

[nosehair]

Sullenberger landed an airliner in a New York river without injuring anyone. The young pilots flying the New York commuter pulled back on the stick during a stall and killed everybody. I don't understand. What happened to training philosophy between my father and grandfather's era and mine? Does anybody here know the history of that? What am I missing?

Back in the 50s, spin training was as routine as stall training; matter of fact, they were hand-in-hand: Stall & Spin. Recover. It was a natural and obviously required training routine.
In the late 50s, early 60s, the Cessna 150 & 172 entered the market. Nosewheels. Easier to land than the 140s and 170s. Cessna developed an advertising campaign: pictures of a family taking the Sunday Drive (another old tradition that has disappeared) in a Cessna 150 with a kids back seat. Can you imagine?
Anyway, Cessna, and Piper, all of 'em, probably lobbied congress to get the spin training taken out of the requirement since the "new breed" of General Aviation airplanes were so "spin resistant" that the training for spins was unnecessary, and even a financial burden to the aspiring Private Pilot.

Of course, the popular word is that the spin training was causing more accidents than actual accidental spins, but I have not seen the actual study, nor by whom it was conducted.
My current trust of government studies and recommendations does not give me a warm feeling.

But, in any case, the result of discontinuing spin training has deteriorated the over-all proficiency of any pilot.

Current airplanes are "spin resistant", meaning they won't go into an actual spin, but they will turn upside down from an uncoordinated stall or a sudden violent turbulant upheaval. The resulting fear causes the unexperienced pilot to disconnect his brain from reality...and who knows what will happen?

The current requirement for the PP in TASK D: Spin Awareness lists 3 areas:
1. Aerodynamic factors related to spins
2. Flight situations where unintentional spins may occur
3. Procedures for recovery from unintentional spins.

These days, most instructors have gotten instructor certificates without attaining "instructional proficiency" in spin entry, spins, and spin recovery, as required by 61.183(i). They got a "quickie" sign-off like a lot of our world has become. (I want it all, and I want it now)

So, instructors are not using the above spin training requirement for the PP to actually do spins.
It has become acceptable to just talk about it.

Did you ever have an instructor just talk you through a landing, and then sign you off for solo based on your theoretical understanding of the maneuver?

I didn't think so.

 

[TwoTwoLeft]

Originally Posted by PugetSoundMan

Sullenberger landed an airliner in a New York river without injuring anyone. The young pilots flying the New York commuter pulled back on the stick during a stall and killed everybody. I don't understand. What happened to training philosophy between my father and grandfather's era and mine? Does anybody here know the history of that? What am I missing?

:yup:

C172--->Seminole---->RJ







300hrs...

 

[drunkenbeagle]

(There is a potential problem with my analysis - can you locate it?)

That decision predates the removal from spin demonstrations by 25 years...

 

[msmspilot]

This interpretation is not consistent with what the local FSDO has told DPE's here, or more specifically, what the examiners have told me.

I posted this before, but everyone has ignored it. AC 61-67, on page 14, in paragraph b, specifically says that spin training does not require a parachute. The FSDO is telling people to behave differently than the FAA is. Not surprising, but the FSDO is wrong.

Quote from page 14: section 91.307(c) does not apply to flight tests for a pilot certificate or rating; or
spins and other flight maneuvers required by the regulations for any certificate or rating when given
by a certified flight instructor (CFI) or an airline transport pilot (ATP) instructing in accordance
with section 61.167. (emphasis original)


then in paragraph b: This provision applies regardless of the certificate or rating for which the person is
receiving training and also if the person is receiving instruction that is not being provided for the
purpose of obtaining any additional certificate or rating.

 

[TOGA9]

==============================
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.
==============================

During my CFI training, my instructor showed me a Chief Counsel opinion written to the famous Bill Kershner. It was consistent with what you said and allowed any applicant to practice spin training with a flight instructor. Is this what you're referencing? I'll have to see if I can dig up a copy of the letter.

 

[at1024]

I posted this before, but everyone has ignored it. AC 61-67, on page 14, in paragraph b, specifically says that spin training does not require a parachute. The FSDO is telling people to behave differently than the FAA is. Not surprising, but the FSDO is wrong.

Quote from page 14: section 91.307(c) does not apply to flight tests for a pilot certificate or rating; or
spins and other flight maneuvers required by the regulations for any certificate or rating when given
by a certified flight instructor (CFI) or an airline transport pilot (ATP) instructing in accordance
with section 61.167. (emphasis original)


then in paragraph b: This provision applies regardless of the certificate or rating for which the person is
receiving training and also if the person is receiving instruction that is not being provided for the
purpose of obtaining any additional certificate or rating.

Seems pretty clear to me, although one of my fellow coworkers swears on his life that this is not true. But he is also one of those types who thinks that the FAA is hiding behind every corner trying to take his certificates away.