Spin Training for Student Pilots

bdhill1979

bdhill1979

Gone West
My school won't let us intentionally spin the airplanes with students.

My personal opinion is that spinning should be mandatory for PPL students.

An instructor a few airports away where I did my spin training will do it.

Not that it is a really important question, but:

Would this training, as a pre PPL count towards their CFI spin endorsement?
 
bdhill1979 said:
My personal opinion is that spinning should be mandatory for PPL students.
Click to expand...

"Mandatory" is a strong word, but yes, I wish it was more widely accepted as part of becoming a private pilot. I've only *not* done spin training with one student pilot, and I wish I had. He's a good pilot, but had trouble explaining spins during his PPL oral. All of my students who I've trained on spins have been rock solid on that knowledge later.

bdhill1979 said:
Would this training, as a pre PPL count towards their CFI spin endorsement?
Click to expand...

"Count toward" is sort of a nebulous term.

The CFI applicant spin endorsement specifies that the person demonstrates instructional competency in spins. There is no minimum number of hours of training or number of spin demos required to receive the endorsement.

I have a hard time believing a student pilot can demonstrate instructional competency in anything, let alone spins.

However, getting comfortable with spins as a student pilot will probably make them more comfortable and proficient in spins, therefore allowing them to reach "instructional competency" in the spins quicker, later, during their CFI training.

So to answer your original question, yes, the training as a student pilot "counts" towards the endorsement, but only in an indirect way, because after all, there are no minimums set for the the endorsement for the student pilot's experience to count towards.
 
i don't think that should be mandatory, but i always demonstrate spins to those students who wish to see one, and perform one after i know that they understand the maneuver, how to enter and recover. most want to see one..few ask to perform one. in all of my time flying i've never encountered a situation that i can recall where i entered a spin due to my negligence..and i know few pilots who report otherwise as well. plus, you're going to probably frighten some potential students away..before they really realize that the maneuver is not 'unsafe'..know what i mean? we worry in particular about the cross-controlled base to final stall/spin scenario. in my mind, the pilot who's technique is consistently poor enough to have this actually happen probably wasn't going to benefit from the spin training anyway. just my $.02..
 
I used to put it in the "highly reccomended" category with my students but not mandatory.

If it is done it should be done with a very competent, skilled and experienced CFI and not just the new guys who love to spin because it was "cool"
 
USMC-SGT said:
If it is done it should be done with a very competent, skilled and experienced CFI and not just the new guys who love to spin because it was "cool"
Click to expand...
That's an excellent point. Whenever I hear arguments that say that spins should be required for student pilots, most (certainly not all) of them come down to "cool", "macho", "real pilot" and crap like that.
 
Thank you...its not very often I make an excellent point, or even have a point for that matter.

Upset recovery is one of the very few things I am interested in and have knowledge about
 
USMC-SGT said:
I used to put it in the "highly reccomended" category with my students but not mandatory.

If it is done it should be done with a very competent, skilled and experienced CFI and not just the new guys who love to spin because it was "cool"
Click to expand...
I agree, maybe mandatory is a bit strong, but I think that having the experience teaches a lot that just cant be taught by talking about it. I don't want the "cool" factor, but the competence, and confidence factors.

The guy I went to, and who I am probably going to send a few students is a retired DPE with something in excess of 30000 hours. I think just being in an airplane with the guy will be good for the student.
 
USMC-SGT said:
If it is done it should be done with a very competent, skilled and experienced CFI and not just the new guys who love to spin because it was "cool"
Click to expand...

Maybe if we had better spin training across the board for CFI applicants, we wouldn't have so many new, inexperienced CFIs doing spins just because it's "cool."

It bothers me how very few CFI instructors go in-depth with the CFI spin training. It breeds CFIs who never get a solid, serious, complete understanding of spins, then when they give training to a CFI applicant some day, they just pass on the same weak, easy, "quickie" endorsement. It's like the blind leading the blind in a lot of cases.
 
jrh said:
Maybe if we had better spin training across the board for CFI applicants, we wouldn't have so many new, inexperienced CFIs doing spins just because it's "cool."

It bothers me how very few CFI instructors go in-depth with the CFI spin training. It breeds CFIs who never get a solid, serious, complete understanding of spins, then when they give training to a CFI applicant some day, they just pass on the same weak, easy, "quickie" endorsement. It's like the blind leading the blind in a lot of cases.
Click to expand...

That's because the FAA doesn't go into detail about spins. With the exception of AC61-67 there is only a one or two paragraph explanation in most of their literature.
 
Since when has it been a good idea to ask the FAA to go into depth about something?

Teach students the crap in the FAA books, but then teach them what they really should know.
 
mhcasey said:
Teach students the crap in the FAA books, but then teach them what they really should know.
Click to expand...

Like...?

For all the complaining people do about the "FAA way" of doing things, the "FAA way" is oftentimes pretty decent.
 
The FAA position on spins is contradictory to their position on all other recoverable flight maneuvers. In my opinion they should be the same as demonstrated stalls such as cross controlled stall, elevator trim stall, etc. Stuff that is demonstrated for the benefit of the student but that the student is not expected to do by herself.

Ideally I would like to demonstrate spins in two different aircraft to show the student that the spin characteristics and recoverability vary between wing designs. For example first in a 152, demonstrate one, climb back and have the student recover from one. Next flight would be in an aircraft such as a Piper Tomahawk, same thing except this time the student will realize that this particular aircraft doesn't fly out of spins by itself.

Unfortunately I'm not allowed to do spins at my school now and we don't have a piper tomahawk. But if we did I think that would be the ideal introduction to spins and would serve the FAA's spin awareness doctrine well.
 
SpiraMirabilis said:
The FAA position on spins is contradictory to their position on all other recoverable flight maneuvers. In my opinion they should be the same as demonstrated stalls such as cross controlled stall, elevator trim stall, etc. Stuff that is demonstrated for the benefit of the student but that the student is not expected to do by herself.
Click to expand...
In all of the silly, ultimately name-calling, threads I've seen on whether spins should be required, this is the first time I have heard this suggested.

I disagree a little bit with describing these (except maybe the elevator trim stall) as "recoverable" flight maneuvers in the close-to-the-ground, inadvertent, caused by bad flying to begin with situations where they typically happen in real life.

But I =really= like the idea as a way of forcing CFI candidates to get better spin training!

The drawback to the idea may be a practical one. The demonstration stalls are ultimately optional when working with students. And, notice that the current spin training for CFIs doesn't required them to be demonstrated on the practical, unless inability to properly explain them is a reason for a pink slip. I'm guessing the political reason for that part is reluctance on the part of many Examiners to have spins on a practical test (you can always bring in Sam Spinner who loves them to do the retest). I saw a bit of that on my CFI flight - the examiner gave me my choice of the demonstration stalls. I chose my favorite, the cross-control stall, which is arguably the one most likely to result in a spin. He was very surprised by my choice and clearly a bit nervous - it being the only time during my test that he got in the "ready" position for a takeover.
 
SpiraMirabilis said:
The FAA position on spins is contradictory to their position on all other recoverable flight maneuvers. In my opinion they should be the same as demonstrated stalls such as cross controlled stall, elevator trim stall, etc. Stuff that is demonstrated for the benefit of the student but that the student is not expected to do by herself.

Ideally I would like to demonstrate spins in two different aircraft to show the student that the spin characteristics and recoverability vary between wing designs. For example first in a 152, demonstrate one, climb back and have the student recover from one. Next flight would be in an aircraft such as a Piper Tomahawk, same thing except this time the student will realize that this particular aircraft doesn't fly out of spins by itself.

Unfortunately I'm not allowed to do spins at my school now and we don't have a piper tomahawk. But if we did I think that would be the ideal introduction to spins and would serve the FAA's spin awareness doctrine well.
Click to expand...

we got your c-150 and a piper tomahawk here in north little rock. on the piper, yep, you better know to use anti-spin control inputs or it won't be a soft landing.. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top