Holy Steep Approach Batman

[spoolinup22]

That's true, but alongside student pilots, ATP's are second least likely to have a stall/spin accident (10% of accidents and 22% of the pilot population) and they would have even more flight exposure to do so.

Also I'm not sure where I got the 250-1,000 hour Com/CFI thing as it's not in that article but was apparently stuck in my head from something else...the article actually shows Private Pilots have the highest stall/spin accident rate (46% of accidents while making up 40% of the pilot population), followed by Commercial pilots which seem to have a much higher average contributing 37% of stall/spin accidents while only making up 20% of the pilot population.

Maybe commercial pilots feel they need to show off to their friends what a spin is?

 

[jtrain609]

Was this something that your school management discouraged or encouraged? Or was this an individual standard of professionalism that you and those other instructors set for yourselves? Your comment suggests that it was your policy, not necessarily a school policy? I guess I'm wondering if this was a point of controversy there.
.

No controversy, just something I did. A few other people did the same, others didn't. As long as the plane came back in one piece, the school didn't care one way or another.

 

[rframe]

Maybe commercial pilots feel they need to show off to their friends what a spin is?

I think the type of flying also has to be considered. A Com/CFI is far more likely to be spending time doing performance maneuvers closer to the ground where pilot error could quickly turn into a stall/spin accident. Also many other non-carrier "commercial" activities would seem to put one at a higher risk for stall/spin accidents. Consider crop dusting, utility patrol, etc... where low altitude maneuvering is happening all the time. Whereas an ATP doing 135/121 work is going to be in a much more structured and "stabilized" type environment most of the time, it would seem far less likely. A student is also often going to be very careful to adhere to rules and such.... but once a private pilot starts to get some freedom and relaxes their standards and decides to goof around, then things start to get bad.

 

[spoolinup22]

Yeaah that makes more sense.

I think though that since I've become a Commercial Pilot, hypothetically I would take my friends up and say something like "hey watch this". I would also be at least 4 AGL...

 

[drunkenbeagle]

Was this something that your school management discouraged or encouraged? Or was this an individual standard of professionalism that you and those other instructors set for yourselves? Your comment suggests that it was your policy, not necessarily a school policy? I guess I'm wondering if this was a point of controversy there.
.

Pretty common to teach spin recovery where I instruct, then again, our last hull loss was a stall-spin accident, a PPL with minimal spin training.

I personally think it is criminal not to teach spins to all pilots in gliders - they spend almost all of their time in a steep bank, slow, and close to the ground. A spin just waiting to happen, essentially.

 

[TwoTwoLeft]

rframe pretty much summed it up. As I pointed out before the two main reasons are lack of qualified instructors and effective equipment to teach in.

Unless you plan on becoming a professional test pilot, airshow performer, flying competition aerobatics or teaching stalls & spins there is very little practical reason to learn how to intentionally spin an airplane. Just for the fun of it doesn't seem to matter... So, like the FAA, we focus on prevention. Now here's where it differs. The FAA just wants to talk about it. In reality, there are VERY few pilots who could actually recover from a spin with the FAAs PTS requirements and the procedures outlined for the specific aircraft in the AFM. Most POH/AFMs suffer from a loss in translation between the test pilots notes and the writer. Besides that, if most pilots are taught to completely avoid stalls by timid CFIs and DPEs how are they ever going to deal with the realistic distraction of the spin? Knowing what it takes to stall and spin an airplane from any attitude is what will ultimately prevent stalls and spins. If you never learned how far you can take it how will you know when you get there?

The student is only going to be as confident in the airplane as their teacher. And students can sense when the teacher has some apprehension about the task.

Typical CFI/student interaction:
CFI: Don't do stalls they're dangerous
Student: Why?
CFI: You could enter a spin
Student: Can we do spins?
CFI: No, spins are too dangerous.

Although over-simplified, there is a lot of truth to this interaction. Stalls and spins aren't inherently dangerous under the controlled circumstances. It is the CFI's duty as an educator to understand and provide the controlled environment for the student to learn in. There should not be a single CFI applicant turned CFI who has one iota of apprehension with the practical application of stalls and spins. The CFI should be able to demonstrate instructional knowledge in spin dynamics, and go out and show they understand. Concepts like: Spin axis, mass centralization, yaw/roll coupling, flat spin, blanked control surfaces, sources of yaw, sources of roll, P.A.R.E, aggravation, in-spin aileron, out-spin aileron, gyroscopic precession, application of power, cross-over spin, transition spin... should not be foreign to new CFIs. Believe it or not, once in a while I run across CFIs who still thinks AOA is synonymous with pitch attitude....

The information is out there, here are 3 books that every CFI should own:

http://www.richstowell.com/

"Emergency Maneuver Training"
"Stall/Spin Awareness"

http://www.amazon.com/Stalls-Spins-Safety-Eleanor-Friede/dp/0025816209
"Stalls Spins and Safety"

 

[Hacker15e]

The T-38 flies great sideways. Hey, if you want, I could come show you how to do it in an F-15. "The McDonnell Douglas F-15 Bush model" ! . .
.
(O.K. . Seriously: No. I didn't)
.

Oh, it's certainly been attempted in the '38...but as you may remember, with the gear down and at slow speed, the rudder has way more authority than the ailerons do. (Do you recall the rudder effectiveness exercise in which, at altitude and in the landing configuration, you rapidly stab one rudder pedal to the floor and then immediately put the pedals back to neutral? The airplane pauses 1/2 a second, and then snaps up on it's back!). The Talon would end up on it's back and pointed straight at the dirt in a cross-controlled slip on final.

The Eagle could probably handle it, fine, though. It has much better manners.

 

[Autothrust Blue]

Oh, it's certainly been attempted in the '38...but as you may remember, with the gear down and at slow speed, the rudder has way more authority than the ailerons do. (Do you recall the rudder effectiveness exercise in which, at altitude and in the landing configuration, you rapidly stab one rudder pedal to the floor and then immediately put the pedals back to neutral? The airplane pauses 1/2 a second, and then snaps up on it's back!). The Talon would end up on it's back and pointed straight at the dirt in a cross-controlled slip on final.

Crossover angle of attack, for great justice!

 

[Hacker15e]

Unless you plan on becoming a professional test pilot, airshow performer, flying competition aerobatics or teaching stalls & spins there is very little practical reason to learn how to intentionally spin an airplane.

Outside of the confidence boost pilots get from being exposed to an "out of control" situation, and then demonstrate they can maneuver their way out of it, which I believe is significant.

The root of the issue is that if pilots are not exposed to unusual attitudes, or aggressive maneuvering, etc, then when they first see it by accident it is a significant emotional experience that can cause them to make poor decisions, which can lead to injury, loss of life, or damage/destruction of property and equipment.

 

[Hacker15e]

When I was instructing, I wouldn't solo a student until they had done spin training. I also wouldn't sign anybody off for their private ride until they had spent some time in actual instrument conditions. I was not the only instructor at my flight school with this policy.

Bravo on both points.

 

[Hacker15e]

I believe the primary reason is because the accident rate has dropped substantially since replacing spin "training" with spin "awareness".

How do you draw that direct conclusion? How do you rule out other factors, like changes in fleet of GA aircraft and their flying characteristics, the general decline of aerobatic flight as a part of the pilot training pipeline, etc?

 

[Tommay85]

Any airplane can be manhandled like a 172, the only difference is how much vigorous manhandling it will put up with low and slow. I'm not entirely sure you can drag an MD-11 to the runway near stall speed and time the idle reduction properly to avoid smashing it up, let alone keeping the thing from getting squirrly as hell with the swept wings.. IIRC, it takes more than 5 seconds for those big old turbines to spool up from flight idle if you needed to make a correction.

Back to the current discussion, I didn't see spin training until working on my CFI cert. It was in a decathalon at least. Prior to this, I had a HUGE fear of stalls. Anytime a wing dropped on a warrior or 172, I would get antsy. When really there's so little danger there(when practicing up high at least), it was ridiculous to even get concerned. So yes, I agree that spin training, or at the very least, very very aggressive stall training should be more prevalent early in training. My instructors were big Nancys about it too which is where all the anxiety came from I'm sure.

 

[TwoTwoLeft]

Outside of the confidence boost pilots get from being exposed to an "out of control" situation, and then demonstrate they can maneuver their way out of it, which I believe is significant.

The root of the issue is that if pilots are not exposed to unusual attitudes, or aggressive maneuvering, etc, then when they first see it by accident it is a significant emotional experience that can cause them to make poor decisions, which can lead to injury, loss of life, or damage/destruction of property and equipment.

Exactly. The whole idea behind actual stall/spin training is how to deal with the departure from normal flight. Even during aerobatic training most spins rarely develop and recovered in the incipient phase. Its the more advanced maneuvers that start with lots of energy and power and usually end with a rudder fully deflected and the stick over one side against the forward stop that will catch you off guard in a spin if things go wrong (or right, depending on what you want).

Learning how aggressive you can be on the controls at any given time its what prevention is all about. Unfortunately, inadequately trained civilian pilots tend to be too aggressive or not aggressive enough at the wrong times.

 

[rframe]

How do you draw that direct conclusion? How do you rule out other factors, like changes in fleet of GA aircraft and their flying characteristics, the general decline of aerobatic flight as a part of the pilot training pipeline, etc?

Well, the numbers seem pretty self explanatory to me but the FAA, CAA, CAB, AOPA, and other groups are the ones who drew the actual conclusions.

Fact is over 80% of stall/spin accidents happen at 1,000' AGL or less. Knowing how to do a PARE recovery isn't going to do most people any good in that case anyway. Knowing how to avoid the situations that cause them is far more important.

I like spins, I think they are valuable to learn, and will demonstrate them to primary students... but I do think the FAA is correct in its change in emphasis.

How many students have you had put a training aircraft into an accidental spin from 3,000' AGL while practicing stalls where a PARE recovery saved them? My guess is none.

How many students have you seen skid onto an overshot final, where an unchecked habit could easily be fatal some day? Probably all of them at least once?

 

[drunkenbeagle]

Stall/spin accidents happen below 1000', because above that, you recover and say "oh crap," but the NTSB doesn't get involved.

And I suspect the numbers are skewed by "loss of control" accidents that should have been classified "stall/spin". But I have no evidence of that, other than "loss of control" being a rare cause 30+ years ago...

 

[Qutch]

......The numbers and culture say you're safer to avoid spins and stalls altogether. Further, there's a lot of spooky stories and misinformation circulated about different airplanes spin characteristics and such. .....

Thanks for supplying that data rframe. I went through all of it. Interesting arguments and explanations. From now on I'm going to modify how I explain and go about encouraging newer pilots to get more stall/spin/upset training. I may have been lucky, getting all of my training and supervision from the right people (mostly strict military and ex-military pilots/programs). But the data you posted suggests that, for those who did not, the results may not have been worth the risk in all cases.

.

....Besides that, if most pilots are taught to completely avoid stalls by timid CFIs and DPEs how are they ever going to deal with the realistic distraction of the spin? Knowing what it takes to stall and spin an airplane from any attitude is what will ultimately prevent stalls and spins. If you never learned how far you can take it how will you know when you get there?......

And for that reason (plus the fun) I can't personally imagine doing it all over again without that training. But based upon the stats supplied by rframe, it appears that the decision was made to eliminate the training for civilian tickets. That, rather than beefing up the standards and subjecting everyone to the added expense of a more intensive and tightly regulated specialty training program. Cost/Benefit analysis I guess. Too bad. I hate to see the fear I detect in some CFI's when I discuss stall/spin/upset training. The skill and confidence a pilot gets from quality training and supervision (if he can afford it) is golden.

.

Pretty common to teach spin recovery where I instruct....... I personally think it is criminal not to teach spins to all pilots in gliders - they spend almost all of their time in a steep bank, slow, and close to the ground. A spin just waiting to happen, essentially.

I had not considered that, plus the amount of time we spent "maneuvering" to catch thermals. According to rframe's data the "maneuvering" phase of flight is the largest danger pie slice. So statistically, that would put sailplane pilots into the stall/spin danger phase zone a greater percentage of the time than most other GA. That would explain why my sailplane CFI pushed slow-flight/stall/spin training so relentlessly. He wanted me to recognize the tell-tale signs of impending stalls/spins, have no fear of them if they occurred, and recover instinctively if they did. He did a good job. I looked forward to spinning on every solo flight, just for the pleasure of the experience.

.
Thanks for the analysis. This has been puzzling me for a long time, but I've never been able to get such a coherent explanation as to what created the industry shift in attitude over the last few decades, and why it is so different than my own early training. Not sure that I'm quite ready to embrace the new "spins not taught here" philosophy. But at least I have a better understanding regarding what brought about the de-emphasis on stall/spin training.

.

 

[Rocketman99]

I'll tell you exactly why we don't teach spins now. It's so we can continue creating minimum experience clueless systems automations managers instead of pilots. Pilots who are afraid to get anywhere near the normal limits of the operating envelope of their plane. Pilots and flight schools who think spinning a plane certified for it is too dangerous and if you need to get a spin sign off you should go visit the aerobatics school over at xyz airport (true story).

That's what the FAA and the airlines seem to want. Sit here and don't touch anything. Then when you crash because you can't do something incredibly simple like not recover from a stall properly when the computers kick off the autopilot and kill a bunch of people everyone can sit scratching their heads wondering why. I was like John when it came to instructing. You knew about spins before you had any chance of soloing a plane with me.

 

[dasleben]

Any airplane can be manhandled like a 172, the only difference is how much vigorous manhandling it will put up with low and slow. I'm not entirely sure you can drag an MD-11 to the runway near stall speed and time the idle reduction properly to avoid smashing it up, let alone keeping the thing from getting squirrly as hell with the swept wings.. IIRC, it takes more than 5 seconds for those big old turbines to spool up from flight idle if you needed to make a correction.

I sometimes joke that flying a 767 is easier than flying a 172. 95% of the time, it flies just like a 172. Of course, 5% of the time, it flies just like a heavy jet. Disrespect of that 5% may be hazardous to one's health.

 

[Stomp16]

Back in 2001 when I did my PPL training, I remember being uneasy about stalls. We did the first one and it was no big deal after that. Fast forward to CFI training and the spin lesson came up. I was apprehensive about doing them as I was not sure what to fully expect. We did the first one and I was all like...


Did a bunch more spins over multiple lessons (more than required) due to them being a hell of a lot of fun! However, I think that spins should have been introduced during stall training/awareness in PPL training. The school where I trained no longer conducts ANY kind of spin training due to it not being required. This is the wrong way to go and IMHO the FAA went backwards on this.

 

[z987k]

I realize there has been a drop in spin accident rates in training since the removal of the requirement, but spins in an airplane certified for them are no more dangerous than turns in an airplane certified to turn. The only difference is the person behind the yoke, and if you're scared/don't know how/I don't care of spins, well then time to spend some more time with a competent CFI to fix that. There are very few piston single GA airplanes that should ever spin into the ground from 1000 AGL. That is a crap ton of altitude to recover considering 95% of what people fly in GA are some of the most docile stable airplanes ever created.