Now, the level of proficiency CFIs need to have with spins is debatable. But I don't expect anything to change until the testing requirements are changed.
The usual arguments about spin training aside, the history of training requirements has been interesting. It also suggests that even when spin training
was required, CFIs were not proficient it them.
From an early requirement for spin training for everyone, the FAA moved to no spin training for anyone. Some years after that the FAA moved to the present training requirement for CFI applicants but, as you say, no requirement for verification of the quality of that instruction in the checkride process. The last big change in this was back in 1991, when, among other things, the CFI spin training requirement was added. It's always time for another review, but here's what the FAA said then – and what those who want to change the requirements are battling. It's from the Federal Register containing the 1991 changes:
==============================
Stalls and Spins: Pilot Awareness, Training, and Testing
NPRM No. 89-14 included three proposals regarding stall/spin training for pilots and stall/spin training and testing for flight instructors of airplanes and gliders. The spin, a controlled or uncontrolled maneuver or performance in which the glider or airplane descends in a helical path while flying at an angle of attack greater than the angle of maximum lift, was a required training maneuver for pilot certification until 1949. It was deleted from the pilot certification requirements based on the high number of fatal stall and spin accidents, most of which occurred during training. The FAA has since placed greater emphasis on spin avoidance, particularly on training in the avoidance of unintentional stalls or unwanted unusual attitudes. This shift in training requirements resulted in a significant decrease in the number of stall/spin accidents since 1949. NTSB statistics indicate that stall/spin accidents fell from 48 percent of fatal general aviation accidents during the period 1945-48, to 22 percent during 1967-69, and to 12 or 13 percent in the 1970's. The stall/spin proposals in NPRM No. 89-14 constitute an effort to further reduce the already declining incidence of spin-related accidents in general aviation. The amendments contained in this rule will broaden stall and spin awareness training by emphasizing avoidance of unintentional stalls in addition to what is currently the more common procedure of practicing recovery from intentional stalls.
(a) Stall and Spin Awareness Training
The first of the three basic proposals would improve stall and spin awareness ground and flight training for airplane and glider pilots at the recreational, private, and commercial levels. As a result of the creation of the recreational pilot certificate, this final rule broadens the scope of the amendments to cover recreational pilots. This additional required training will incorporate the most effective types of training discussed in the FAA's 1976 report entitled General Aviation Pilot Stall Awareness Training Study (FAA-RD-77-26, September 1976). The study's emphasis is on training involving slow flight with realistic distractions and additional ground training in the subject of stalls and spins.
The new training will incorporate the essential elements of the General Aviation Pilot Stall Awareness Training Study in both ground and flight training for airplane and glider pilots, as recommended by the NTSB in its Recommendation A-78-43. As stated in the NPRM, the 1976 study concluded that additional ground training on stalls and spins tended to reduce the occurrence of unintentional stalls and spins. While the study concluded that "additional flight training on stall awareness and/or intentional spin training has a positive influence toward reducing inadvertent stalls and spins," it went on to state that "the most effective additional training was slow flight with realistic distractions, which exposed the subjects to situations where they are likely to experience inadvertent stalls." The study cited some examples of realistic distractions including asking the trainee to radio for weather information, getting something out of the glove compartment, picking up a dropped pencil, getting something from the rear seat, or computing true airspeed or density altitude with a flight planning computer. Indeed, the study found that spin training "might not be feasible."
General reaction to the proposal was favorable. Twenty-four commenters favored the requirement to enhance stall and spin awareness and recovery training, as proposed. All of the principal organizations commenting on the proposal, including ALPA, AOPA, and AOPA ASF favored, in varying degrees, were in favor of the expanded stall and spin awareness training. The Michigan Aeronautics Commission stated, "with additional stall awareness training, is the most germane and realistic method to teaching stalls/spins, without imposing unrealistic demands on general aviation. We believe that mandatory demonstration of spins for private and commercial pilot applicants is not in the best interest of pilots, [flight instructors], pilot examiners, and the general aviation community." SSA concurred with the revisions, but suggested a clarification in Secs. 61.105 and 61.125, "aeronautical knowledge," in which stall and spin awareness will be included.
Ten commenters opposed the stall and spin awareness training amendment. Much of this opposition was based on a preference for reinstating a requirement for actual spin training for all pilots.
SETP, in association with SAFE, was concerned that the NPRM proposal advocated ground training only. They suggested mandatory spin training in an approved utility class aerobatic trainer.
Note of Clarification: The required flight training for pilot applicants includes flight at slow airspeeds with realistic distractions and the recognition of and recovery from stalls entered from straight flight and from turns, but do not include a requirement for actual spin training for pilot applicants. However, actual spin entry, spins, and spin recovery training in flight is required for flight instructor airplane and flight instructor glider applicants.
Proponents of more extensive flight training that would include spin training maintained that stall and spin awareness and spin avoidance training make pilots afraid of spins and are ultimately unsafe. One commenter called spin awareness training a "failed concept." Other commenters said that many instructors are afraid of spins and pass that fear along to their students.
NATA, on the other hand, while supporting the NPRM proposal, said it was "disturbing that spins and stalls are always grouped together. In our view, a flight instructor should not demonstrate spins to student pilots, but rather, should concentrate on stall recognition and recovery. What should be stressed in training is the avoidance of conditions leading to a stall so that a spin is not entered into by the pilot."
That concept is the essence of what the NPRM proposed and of the amendment adopted in this final rule. While the FAA has no basis for discouraging qualified instructors from demonstrating spins or training pilots in spin entry and recovery under appropriate circumstances, the FAA is not requiring such demonstration or training. From a safety point of view, the critical element remains heightened awareness of recovery from stalls before a spin develops, as well as recognition of the conditions that can lead to inadvertent stalls. This was the conclusion of the General Aviation Pilot Stall Awareness Training Study.
Although the NTSB recommended in 1972 that the FAA evaluate the feasibility of requiring at least minimal spin training of all pilot applicants, the NTSB's statistics indicate that most spin accidents occur at altitudes too low for spin recovery to be effected. The 1972 NTSB Special Study, General Aviation Stall/Spin Accidents 1967-69, found that of 1,261 stall/spin accidents during that 3 year period, 60 percent occurred. during takeoff or landing. Of the remaining 40 percent, most were related to acrobatics or low-level flight from which recovery from a fully developed spin would have been unlikely. Only about 7 percent were associated with cruise flight.
Thus, based on the 1976 FAA study and accident trends, this final rule does not require spin training at any certificate level other than flight instructor. The amendments incorporate into the regulation the types of training found to be most effective by the General Aviation Pilot Stall Awareness Training Study, namely, slow flight with realistic distractions and additional ground training in the subject of stalls and spins, in addition to current training in stall recognition and recovery. In conjunction with the issuance of this rule, the FAA is preparing Advisory Circular No. 61-67B: "Stall Awareness and Spin Training" to clarify the additional stall and spin awareness training and to ensure that the contents of the General Aviation Pilot Stall Awareness Training Study, including the complete list of realistic distractions cited in that study, are made available to all pilots and pilot training schools. Additional requirements for flight instructors are discussed in the following section.
As stated in the NPRM, the rule changes affect Secs. 61.105 and 61.125, aeronautical knowledge requirements for private and commercial pilot applicants. Sections 61.107 and 61.127, "flight proficiency requirements" are also affected. The new requirements will also be incorporated into pilot certification under part 141, including appendix A, Private Pilot Certification Course (Airplanes), and appendix D, Commercial Pilot Certification Course (Airplanes). And, even though the proposed amendments in the NPRM referred to private and commercial pilot training, this final rule contains additional amendments to include recreational pilot training. Accordingly, additional amendments are contained here, affecting subpart C, Student and Recreational Pilots, Secs. 61.97 and 61.98. This is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the proposed amendments to emphasize the importance of increased stall and spin awareness and training for all airplane and glider pilots.
One such amendment includes the deletion of the word "critically" in Sec. 61.98(a)(5) as applied to slow airspeeds in recreational pilot flight proficiency requirements. This was done for purposes of consistency. Eliminating the word "critically" leaves the selection of airspeed, below cruise, to the examiner's discretion for safely testing proficiency of training in this area.
(b) Spin Training for Flight Instructors
The other 2 stall/spin proposals presented in the NPRM concerned satisfactory demonstration of spin entry, spins, and spin recovery by flight instructor-airplane and flight instructor glider candidates. NPRM No. 89-14 proposed a requirement for a logbook endorsement for flight instructor airplane and flight instructor glider candidates that states the candidates received training in spin entry, spins, and spin recovery techniques and demonstrated satisfactory proficiency in those maneuvers. At the discretion of the FAA Inspector or Designated Pilot Examiner conducting the practical test, they may accept the logbook endorsement in lieu of an actual demonstration of spin entry, spins, and spin recovery maneuver on the practical test. The FAA also proposed in Notice No. 89-14 that flight instructor airplane and flight instructor glider candidates who fail the practical test due to unsatisfactory knowledge of stall awareness, spin entry, spins, or spin recovery techniques would be required to bring an aircraft to the retest that is certificated for spins. The candidate would then be required during the retest to demonstrate satisfactory knowledge and skills on stall awareness, spin entry, spins, or spin recovery techniques.
Eighteen comments were received on the issue of spin training for flight instructors. All favored the requirement for a logbook endorsement showing that flight instructor candidates have received spin entry and recovery training. AOPA also favored continued discretion for inspectors conducting examinations, an FAA policy that will be maintained.
The FAA agrees with SSA's comment that any applicant seeking flight instructor certification in any airplane or glider class should be required to receive spin training. However, SSA also noted that proposed Sec. 61.183(e) did not require spin training to be performed in the aircraft category in which the applicant seeks flight instructor certification. This would have allowed a flight instructor glider applicant to receive required spin training in airplanes without holding an airplane category rating, as long as the flight instructor providing the training was appropriately certificated and rated in gliders as well as in airplanes. SSA also commented on the reference in Sec. 61.183(e) to "an applicant for a flight instructor-airplane single-engine land." SSA said it noted no provision in Sec. 61.5(c)(2) for the inclusion of "land" or "sea" on the flight instructor certificate, and stated that any applicant seeking flight instructor certification in any airplane class or in gliders should be required to receive spin training.
Twenty-three comments were received on the issue of flight instructor candidates demonstrating spins on the retest if the candidate failed the practical test due to deficiencies of knowledge or skills relating to stall and spin awareness. Seventeen commenters favored this amendment and 6 opposed it. ERAU stated that additional instruction and practice in spins with properly logged documentation of the instruction would be more appropriate than requiring a spin demonstration on the retest for flight instructor certification. Other commenters opposed to the amendment cited the limited number of spinable aircraft available and the additional burden of requiring more than one aircraft on the practical test in some cases. The FAA believes that the additional burden of locating a spinable aircraft and requiring more than one aircraft on the practical test in some cases, will be justified by improved safety and assurance that all flight instructors are competent and knowledgeable in the subject of spin entry and recovery. Most commenters appeared to recognize the importance of flight instructor skill and knowledge in the area of stalls and spins.
This rule amends Secs. 61.49, 61.183, and 61.187 to require that applicants for flight instructor certificates, airplane and glider, present a logbook endorsement of spin training, and to require a mandatory demonstration of spins on a retest for flight instructor certification if a candidate for the aforementioned certificates failed either the oral or flight portion of the practical test due to deficiencies in stall/spin awareness and associated procedures and techniques. The examiner has the option of requiring spins on the initial flight test and retains discretion to require a spinable aircraft for that test. Thus, while the FAA intends that spin demonstration still may be required on the initial flight instructor test, airplane or glider, a demonstration of spin entry and recovery will be required on the flight instructor retest if the candidate failed because of deficiencies in knowledge or skill related to stalls or spins.
It is the intent of the FAA to ensure that all glider and airplane flight instructors can safely recognize and recover from spins. This will require the applicant to initiate the entry into the spin maneuver, complete at least one full turn (360 degrees of rotation), and recover using acceptable FAA standards.
This final rule includes several minor changes to Secs. 61.183(e) and 61.187 as proposed in the NPRM that clarify the intent of the rule. The rule specifically requires flight instructor applicants, airplane and glider, to have accomplished spin training in an aircraft of the appropriate category that is certificated for spins. Multiengine airplanes may be used for this required spin training by multiengine flight instructor-airplane applicants, only if the airplane is spin-certificated. Such airplanes exist, but are not common.
Therefore, the FAA has not included a class requirement for spin training, thus allowing multiengine flight instructor-airplane candidates to receive their spin training in single-engine, spin-certificated airplanes. The original proposal in NPRM No. 89-14 would have required only applicants for a flight instructor-airplane single-engine land or flight instructor glider certificate to present the logbook endorsement from an appropriately certificated and rated flight instructor. Under that proposal, an applicant for a flight instructor certificate intending to take the practical test in a multiengine airplane, having never accomplished a previous flight instructor practical test in a single-engine airplane, conceivably might have by-passed this requirement. This final rule is, therefore, clarified to reflect the FAA's intention that the required logbook endorsement reflect spin training in the category in which the applicant seeks certification. These modifications respond to the comments and queries from SSA cited earlier. "Single-engine land" has been eliminated from Secs. 61.49(b) and 61.183(e) and replaced with "in an aircraft of the appropriate category that is certificated for spins." This clause was also added to proposed Sec. 61.187. The endorsement must certify that the flight instructor has given the applicant training in spin entry, spin, and spin recovery in an aircraft of the appropriate category that is certificated for spins and has found the applicant competent and proficient in those training areas.
In Sec. 61.183(e) the word "those" was changed to "all" in describing the items in which instruction is required by Sec. 61.187. This modification eliminates any ambiguity about which items are required for flight instructor training. For certification purposes, however, it is the FAA's intention to maintain the current policy of allowing examiner discretion on the practical test with regard to spin demonstration. Section 61.183 has been amended to make this policy clear in the regulation.
==============================
