Spin training for CFIs

[shdw]

Jrh: I agree completely with the assessment of the regulation regarding spin training, it needs some kind of enforcement to spark improvement. Beyond that, we already discussed in a previous threat.

chensley: You bring up my biggest issue with those that advocate spin training for private pilots. The claim that situations can present themselves is a good one. The recognition that those situations, if allowed to reach the spin stage, will often be unrecoverable is where I see flaw in the argument. I will touch on this more in a moment.

Midlife: Really interesting article, dated, but interesting.

Blackhawk: I agree, spin training should be done with someone that is skilled to teach it. I also have

msmspilot: I haven't seen the nasa reports on it. However, I spent an hour in a 172 for my spin training trying to get it to spin. We loaded it to the aft limit (of utility) before the flight, tried idle/middle range/full power, cross controlled, regularly controlled, and I even maxed out the trim wheel. It will not develop in my experience, when loaded in the utility category.

Yes folks, my CFI training for spins was an hour and my CFI teaching me hated spins, I loved them. I had about 10 hours of aero training and heavy spins after my private and during my instrument rating though.



Back to the private pilots need spin training. I think everyone needs to read this, and I have posted it various times before but here it is again:

http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/topics/stall_spin.pdf

Those of you who are proficient, and I mean 50+ spins, think about the altitude required to recover a spin. Typically the first turn will take 5 seconds or so and you will lose about 600 feet. The freeze up time when we get scared, as humans, is 3-5 seconds. Maximize that and you just lost 600 feet without making a single recovery action, something that is likely for even a proficient pilot if they spin at 1000' AGL.

From the article: "465 fatal stall/spin accidents that occurred from 1991 through 2000 showed that at least 80 percent (and probably more) of the accidents started from an altitude of less 1000 feet agl"

Only 7.1 percent were confirmed above 1,000 feet.

Here is another: "Directorate, which included some 1,700 stall/spin accidents dating from 1973, concluded that 93 percent of such accidents started at or below pattern altitude (pattern altitude at many airports in the 1970’s was often 800 feet agl"

The point is, recovery from a spin isn't the issue that is killing most pilots. If they get there, the chances that they are at an altitude where recovery is even possible are not in their favor. Nine out of ten times they are dead if they get to a spin.

Furthermore, showing them 1, 5 or even a couple hours of spins during their private training isn't going to stick. How many times have you taken a BFR guy up and seen how bad his private maneuvers are? Do you think he/she will still be proficient in spins a year later, honestly? Proficient enough to recover from 1,000 feet? Mind you a 1,000' recovery is certainly possible, for Patty Wagstaff.

So my conclusion? Focus on stall recognition, avoidance, and prompt, coordinated, recovery, instead of wasting your time with spins with private students. If they understand basic applied dynamics, avoid stall, and are taught to habitually use the rudder to fly coordinated then they will not spin.

 

[Mike H]

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.

Beyond that, I seem to recall that one of the arguments for eliminating the requirement for demonstrated spins for PPL's was that at least as many people were being lost in demonstrated spins as were killed in accidental ones.

I agree with shdw. Time is better spent on recognition, avoidance, and prompt recovery from the condition that causes spins: uncoordinated stalls.

 

[Roger, Roger]

I think it's interesting that this has been a problem since the days of Wolfgang Langewiesche. Pilots are not very good at finding new ways to kill themselves.

 

[Blackhawk]

Jrh: I agree completely with the assessment of the regulation regarding spin training, it needs some kind of enforcement to spark improvement. Beyond that, we already discussed in a previous threat.

chensley: You bring up my biggest issue with those that advocate spin training for private pilots. The claim that situations can present themselves is a good one. The recognition that those situations, if allowed to reach the spin stage, will often be unrecoverable is where I see flaw in the argument. I will touch on this more in a moment.

Midlife: Really interesting article, dated, but interesting.

Blackhawk: I agree, spin training should be done with someone that is skilled to teach it. I also have

msmspilot: I haven't seen the nasa reports on it. However, I spent an hour in a 172 for my spin training trying to get it to spin. We loaded it to the aft limit (of utility) before the flight, tried idle/middle range/full power, cross controlled, regularly controlled, and I even maxed out the trim wheel. It will not develop in my experience, when loaded in the utility category.

Yes folks, my CFI training for spins was an hour and my CFI teaching me hated spins, I loved them. I had about 10 hours of aero training and heavy spins after my private and during my instrument rating though.



Back to the private pilots need spin training. I think everyone needs to read this, and I have posted it various times before but here it is again:

http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/topics/stall_spin.pdf

Those of you who are proficient, and I mean 50+ spins, think about the altitude required to recover a spin. Typically the first turn will take 5 seconds or so and you will lose about 600 feet. The freeze up time when we get scared, as humans, is 3-5 seconds. Maximize that and you just lost 600 feet without making a single recovery action, something that is likely for even a proficient pilot if they spin at 1000' AGL.

From the article: "465 fatal stall/spin accidents that occurred from 1991 through 2000 showed that at least 80 percent (and probably more) of the accidents started from an altitude of less 1000 feet agl"

Only 7.1 percent were confirmed above 1,000 feet.

Here is another: "Directorate, which included some 1,700 stall/spin accidents dating from 1973, concluded that 93 percent of such accidents started at or below pattern altitude (pattern altitude at many airports in the 1970’s was often 800 feet agl"

The point is, recovery from a spin isn't the issue that is killing most pilots. If they get there, the chances that they are at an altitude where recovery is even possible are not in their favor. Nine out of ten times they are dead if they get to a spin.

Furthermore, showing them 1, 5 or even a couple hours of spins during their private training isn't going to stick. How many times have you taken a BFR guy up and seen how bad his private maneuvers are? Do you think he/she will still be proficient in spins a year later, honestly? Proficient enough to recover from 1,000 feet? Mind you a 1,000' recovery is certainly possible, for Patty Wagstaff.

So my conclusion? Focus on stall recognition, avoidance, and prompt, coordinated, recovery, instead of wasting your time with spins with private students. If they understand basic applied dynamics, avoid stall, and are taught to habitually use the rudder to fly coordinated then they will not spin.

When I talk about spin training I am not just talking about putting the airplane into a spin and recovering. As you point out, and as I emphasize to students, spin recovery training won't save you if you get into a spin in the pattern. What will help is the recognition of an incipient spin and proper recovery before it fully develops; teaching spins in scenarios- such as a skidding turn to final, a go around stall with lazy rudder and a turn; and a demonstration of stall in relation to angle of attack, not airspeed and not pitch attitude. One of the demonstrations I like to give pilots is a loop- I do it while they look at airspeed and pitch attitude and listen for the stall horn. As I pitch into a loop pulling 4.5 gs the stall horn is going off- I am close to a stall, pitched up going 130 MPH. Makes sense to most people. At the top of a loop we are going about 30 MPH, well below the 1 g stall speed... but no stall buffet as we are about 0 gs. Bottom 3/4 of a loop the nose is pointed down, my speed is building back through 120... but the stall horn is going off as we are pulling about 4-5 gs again. This is where the light bulb usually goes on for most pilots and they really understand angle of attack, g loading and "stall speed".
Finally a class on spins should have a discussion of aircraft categories and a discussion of different models and their ability to recover from spins. As I posted earlier there are some aircraft out there that may require a good deal of altitude if a stall turns into a spin. If you look at some CFIT crashes in GA you will see examples of possible stall/spins during training, but with only radar data and crash scene to go with this are grouped into CFIT instead of stall/spin. I try to emphasize this as the Super D recovers rather nicely from spins... as long as it properly loaded. Results in other aircraft types may well be different, especially if they are in the normal category. Heck, I've seen scenarios where CFIs did not understand that a 172 must be in the utility category for spins.
As for stall training... unfortunately it too often emphasizes the set up of the stall instead of stall scenarios, stall recognition, and proper stall recovery. Student pilots should be put into every conceivable stall scenario. I don't know how many times I have read on a web board or been told during a flight review "My CFI never had me do a power on stall with a turn." Or a power on stall with flaps. Or a power on stall with the flaps coming up.
I'm not advocating spin training for PPL. Even if I did I don't see it happening and I'm not one to normally joust with windmills. If it did return we would still have the problem of CFIs... who would teach spins to the student pilots? What airplanes would they use?
No, to me it gets back to CFI spin training.

 

[MidlifeFlyer]

Beyond that, I seem to recall that one of the arguments for eliminating the requirement for demonstrated spins for PPL's was that at least as many people were being lost in demonstrated spins as were killed in accidental ones.

If you read through the FAA's rationale for the current rule I posted, it's there.

I agree with shdw. Time is better spent on recognition, avoidance, and prompt recovery from the condition that causes spins: uncoordinated stalls.

I tend to agree as well. At least I haven't seen anything to suggest that the FAA was so wrong in its analysis that a reversal is required and that pilots who don't have access to spinnable aircraft locally should be required to travel to get this training or not be licensed.

But that's spin training in general. The CFI issue is different and jrh has a very good point. CFI competence has something to do with "spin awareness" training. My one inadvertent spin involved a student who failed to release heavy right rudder when the full stall occurred on a power on stall. I could see it coming a mile away and I allowed the student to continue until the first quarter turn of the spin, confident in the ability to recover. It ended up a very valuable lesson on stall recognition, coordination and recovery. I can see CFIs not as comfortable stopping the student much, much earlier, which I don't think is as effective a lesson for the student.

 

[Mike H]

If you read through the FAA's rationale for the current rule I posted, it's there..

not to be contentious, but it was way too many words for a message board

 

[Douglas]

I think it's interesting that this has been a problem since the days of Wolfgang Langewiesche. Pilots are not very good at finding new ways to kill themselves.

I see your Wolfgang Langewiesche, and raise you an Otto Lilenthal. irate:

 

[shdw]

Ok, I have said I teach based on statistics. Basically, what is the most likely way my student will kill themselves in an aircraft? Then try to teach to avoid that.

Let me give you some numbers for stall/spin accidents:

Stall/spin accidents: 10%
Recoverable altitude: 20% (Assuming recoverable is >1,000
Stall/spin accidents for private pilots: 40% out of the 10 % above
Stall/spin accidents for commercial pilot: 37% out of the 10% above


Probability that a pilot involved in an accident will be in a stall/spin related accident at a non recoverable altitude:

Private: 0.8%
Commercial: 0.7%

Consider the average to get a private is 60 hours, not perfect, but just for this discussion it will suffice. Take 60 * 0.008 and you get 0.5 or 5/10 of an hour should be spent on spin training.

**NOTE** I was unable to find specific statistics for just spin related accidents. As stall/spin are coupled together that 0.5 is a padded figure. The actual time to spend should be under 0.5 hours.


Of all stall/spin accidents, 13% are fatal. Applying this to our probabilities above we have the probability that a pilot involved in an accident will be in a fatal stall/spin accident at a recoverable altitude:

Private: 0.11%
Commercial: 0.1%

The statistics don't lie and this is why AOPA, NTSB, FAA, and any other reputable agency that discusses stall/spin argues against the need for spin training.



Just for argument, assume the discussion above is just a stall (arguably recoverable at any altitude).

Probability a pilot involved in an accident will be in a stall accident:

Private: 4% Fatal: 0.55% Hours to train stalls: 2.4 hours
Commercial: 3.7% Fatal: 0.51%


Statistics were used from: http://www.aopa.org/asf/ntsb/stall_spin.html & http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/topics/stall_spin.pdf

What will help is the recognition of an incipient spin and proper recovery before it fully develops

You seem to be ignoring the "oh...." factor often discussed as fight or flight with the 'freeze' factor. This factor that will freeze even most with excessive spin training in their tracks if they entered an incipient spin at pattern altitude. Remember, it will likely be an accidental entry or so we hope they aren't dumb enough to do it purposely.

 

[shdw]

But that's spin training in general. The CFI issue is different and jrh has a very good point. CFI competence has something to do with "spin awareness" training. My one inadvertent spin involved a student who failed to release heavy right rudder when the full stall occurred on a power on stall. I could see it coming a mile away and I allowed the student to continue until the first quarter turn of the spin, confident in the ability to recover. It ended up a very valuable lesson on stall recognition, coordination and recovery. I can see CFIs not as comfortable stopping the student much, much earlier, which I don't think is as effective a lesson for the student.

:clap: This is exactly why I agree with more stringent, regulated, spin training for instructors. So they can recover when their student screws up and are comfortable enough to give the student a chance to see where a bad stall can end up. Instructors need to be comfortable with that and be able to promptly recover without so much as an increase in heart rate.

Pilots are not very good at finding new ways to kill themselves

We like to stick with what we know works........

 

[drunkenbeagle]

Just for argument, assume the discussion above is just a stall (arguably recoverable at any altitude).

Almost all spin accidents are fatal below pattern altitude. With immediate recovery (1/4 turn or less), the odds much better that the crash will be survivable.

I think spin training should be required for glider pilots though - they are far more likely to enter a spin.

 

[Blackhawk]

Ok, I have said I teach based on statistics. Basically, what is the most likely way my student will kill themselves in an aircraft? Then try to teach to avoid that.

Let me give you some numbers for stall/spin accidents:

Stall/spin accidents: 10%
Recoverable altitude: 20% (Assuming recoverable is >1,000
Stall/spin accidents for private pilots: 40% out of the 10 % above
Stall/spin accidents for commercial pilot: 37% out of the 10% above


Probability that a pilot involved in an accident will be in a stall/spin related accident at a non recoverable altitude:

Private: 0.8%
Commercial: 0.7%

Consider the average to get a private is 60 hours, not perfect, but just for this discussion it will suffice. Take 60 * 0.008 and you get 0.5 or 5/10 of an hour should be spent on spin training.

**NOTE** I was unable to find specific statistics for just spin related accidents. As stall/spin are coupled together that 0.5 is a padded figure. The actual time to spend should be under 0.5 hours.


Of all stall/spin accidents, 13% are fatal. Applying this to our probabilities above we have the probability that a pilot involved in an accident will be in a fatal stall/spin accident at a recoverable altitude:

Private: 0.11%
Commercial: 0.1%

The statistics don't lie and this is why AOPA, NTSB, FAA, and any other reputable agency that discusses stall/spin argues against the need for spin training.



Just for argument, assume the discussion above is just a stall (arguably recoverable at any altitude).

Probability a pilot involved in an accident will be in a stall accident:

Private: 4% Fatal: 0.55% Hours to train stalls: 2.4 hours
Commercial: 3.7% Fatal: 0.51%


Statistics were used from: http://www.aopa.org/asf/ntsb/stall_spin.html & http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/topics/stall_spin.pdf




You seem to be ignoring the "oh...." factor often discussed as fight or flight with the 'freeze' factor. This factor that will freeze even most with excessive spin training in their tracks if they entered an incipient spin at pattern altitude. Remember, it will likely be an accidental entry or so we hope they aren't dumb enough to do it purposely.

Latest number for percent of fatal crashes that are stall/spin is about 18% and it is probably higher than this as some other accidents such as CFIT were actually stall/spin accidents. So probably makes up about 1/4 of fatal accidents.

 

[Mike H]

I'm not sure what you're arguing then.

If you're going to include a high percentage of CFIT accidents into stall/spin accidents (which doesn't seem unreasonable) that doesn't favor the proposition that CFI spin training should be more stringent since it's already pretty well established that low-level stalls & spins aren't very recoverable, or survivable, and hardly any stalls or spins from 2000' AGL or higher result in accidents anyway.

 

[shdw]

Latest number for percent of fatal crashes that are stall/spin is about 18% and it is probably higher than this as some other accidents such as CFIT were actually stall/spin accidents. So probably makes up about 1/4 of fatal accidents.

Provide a source and I will redo the analysis in a short version. I was unable to find more specific data that covered a range of dates, not just a specific year. I would love to see data on say, 91-2009 or something in a range like that.

Keep in mind that statistics from a single year would give inaccurate numbers. Probabilities are more accurate with more information. Just like you can't say, "3 planes spun in today out of 100 that flew so we have a 3% chance to die if we fly." Multiple data points are necessary from a chunk of years, 10 or more preferably, to be relatively accurate.

 

[drunkenbeagle]

If you're going to include a high percentage of CFIT accidents into stall/spin accidents (which doesn't seem unreasonable) that doesn't favor the proposition that CFI spin training should be more stringent since it's already pretty well established that low-level stalls & spins aren't very recoverable, or survivable, and hardly any stalls or spins from 2000' AGL or higher result in accidents anyway.

Well, if recovered immediately, they are much more survivable. So, I think at least incipient spin recovery is something that should be taught to all pilots. Which kind of happens anyway when they screw up a power off stall.

 

[Blackhawk]

I'm not sure what you're arguing then.

If you're going to include a high percentage of CFIT accidents into stall/spin accidents (which doesn't seem unreasonable) that doesn't favor the proposition that CFI spin training should be more stringent since it's already pretty well established that low-level stalls & spins aren't very recoverable, or survivable, and hardly any stalls or spins from 2000' AGL or higher result in accidents anyway.

Again, I think you are missing the point. The point of spin training is not just to recover from spins, but to recognize and avoid them before they develop. Different from stall recognition. Almost 40% of spin accidents involve commercial pilots... and of these, most are CFIs conducting training. The accident that prompted my post was such an accident. The pilot on the controls initiated an abrubt and hard input of right rudder to raise the left wing in a stall which resulted in a snap roll into the ground. Obviously someone did not understand what happens when you stomp on rudder during a stall. My theory (and the theory of some others who have looked at this accident), is that the CFI (who had zero Cirrus time), was on the controls and was startled by the dramatic drop of the left wing as it stalled and tried to correct with right rudder while keeping a stalled AOA.

 

[nosehair]

It is an error in logic to discontinue training in a skill because that skill training causes accidents. The logical step is to increase the training.

It is possible for all pilots to learn to control a spinable airplane in a spin.

I think everyone in the room knows this as a fact, and that the high spin rate in training, cited by the NTSB statistics, was caused by the same poor training we see today.

The elimination of spin training is a 'bean-counter's' way of fixing the problem. It is cheaper, or more popular, or more politically correct, easier to administer, etc, etc, etc. Not to mention the possibility that someone may have been in the pockets of the popular up-and-coming General Aviation aircraft manufacturer's that are "as easy to fly as driving a car".

That's the mindset that has driven this whole debate.

Yes, reeeealy good training in slow flight and stalls would be sufficient without specific spin training in today's aircraft. If you personally want to take that chance.

But the majority of pilots never receive slow flight/stall training beyond the minimum PTS exercise, and most don't even do turning stalls. The DPE's are a joke. The training is a joke. Being able to do sterile "clear the area, set the power, check this, check that, pull here, push that stalls" does not make a pilot able to respond to an unplanned upset.

If instructors set the students up in scenarios where the dreaded stall/spin will occur and examiners create unscripted scenarios and test the pilot's ability to 'handle the airplane' instead of just being able to dance a practiced scripted show which is not realistic at all, yes, spin avoidance would be happening, and we wouldn't be having this debate.

But that kind of training isn't happening. Otherwise, the accidents wouldn't be happening. Because it is possible that all pilots could be well trained in spin avoidance, and, if necessary, spin recovery.

I find it necessary, in my mind, to have the peace of mind, when flying, that if some big airwave turned me over, I would instinctively respond.

You know, instinctively, with no thought or hesitation. My hands and feet are righting the airplane, even as my mind is saying.."WTF!"

 

[Hacker15e]

You seem to be ignoring the "oh...." factor often discussed as fight or flight with the 'freeze' factor. This factor that will freeze even most with excessive spin training in their tracks if they entered an incipient spin at pattern altitude. Remember, it will likely be an accidental entry or so we hope they aren't dumb enough to do it purposely.

I don't deny that when confronted with a strange, sudden emergency, that pilots can and will fail to take the proper action.

The answer, however, IS to train to it. The answer is not, "oh, well, they still freeze up even if they've been trained, so why bother."

 

[Mike H]

Again, I think you are missing the point. The point of spin training is not just to recover from spins, but to recognize and avoid them before they develop. Different from stall recognition. Almost 40% of spin accidents involve commercial pilots...

Since you can't have a spin without a stall, 100% of the accidents also involved stalls. Recognize and prevent the stall and you also prevent the spin- but that wasn't the point I was making. My point is that more rigorous spin training isn't likely to make a low-altitude spin more recoverable.

 

[shdw]

Being able to do sterile "clear the area, set the power, check this, check that, pull here, push that stalls" does not make a pilot able to respond to an unplanned upset.

Agree with this completely. This training set teaches a procedure to recognize one stall with power on and one type with power off. However, when the stall occurs, or is about to occur, I suspect that very few times those stalls are in this step by step procedure.

The answer is not, "oh, well, they still freeze up even if they've been trained, so why bother."

I respectfully disagree. We only have limited training time. Spending time, greater than 30 minutes by my probability analysis, on items with a low probability isn't wise. There are plenty of far more deadly situations that need that attention that is wasted on something with a low probability of occurrence.

Let me add this, I completely agree with emergency maneuver training. Even including spins. I do not agree with it during private pilot training. I believe it is something that should be pushed/encouraged on the students as a follow up to their private pilot training. Finally, and most importantly IMO, it should be taught by people that specialize in that sort of training, not by the "typical" CFI and in aerobatic aircraft, not a Cessna. Note: IMO "typical" equals about 95% of the CFI population.

For those that continue beyond private, there should be refresher courses and/or more advanced EMT training. Again, however, it shouldn't be during their instrument/commercial it should be an additive to it.

 

[Roger, Roger]

We like to stick with what we know works........

Seriously though...look at what the big killers are:
1. VFR into IMC
2. Running out of gas
3. Stall/spin (sometimes combined with one of the first 2)