ppragman
FLIPY FLAPS!
I think +/- 50' would is legit I think that that's good on pretty much everything. +/- 5kts is good too.
Spins on primary training
- Thread starter c172captain
- Start date
I think +/- 50' would is legit I think that that's good on pretty much everything. +/- 5kts is good too.
ppragman
FLIPY FLAPS!
This is where I think we need to provide more instruction that anything else.
nosehair
Well-Known Member
No, but I think he/she should be able to land on the centerline with no sideways drift, and most can't do it and they pass anyway. Actually the PTS, as written, is OK. It is the examiners who don't require meeting the satndards. Examiners who have to make a living at the job of evaluating, so they allow, as we all humans do, a little sideload, or an overshoot, or any number of poor piloting tecniques, because it is safe.
They, like you, consider that the Private Pilot is OK if he is safe, meaning a sideloded landing that doesn't actually cause damage to the airplane.
Which is a good example of why we should do spin training:
A slightly sideloded landing (in a tricycle gear), in and of itself, is not so dangerous. But a pilot who cannot do one, who is untrained in doing non-sideloaded landings, will probably, someday, cause an accident on landing. So, the applicant must demonstrate his ability to perform this maneuver to be certified so that he will be properly trained, even though he may land his 172 sideloaded all he wants.
But he is trained to handle a sudden crosswind gust - or whatever. A pilot who is taght to grease it on everytime can handle the upsets that may occur during landing.
A pilot who is trained to spin and recover can handle extreme turbulance, or who knows. When his mind is not frozen from fear in extreme circumstances, his mind can solve problems.
If the examiner would hold the applicant to the letter in all the tasks, and properly use the objectives of each task, the PTS would be a much better taskmaster.
But it is not. Your example of 'steep turns' is a common example of how most people look at the PTS. Being able to perform maneuvers to PTS standards is not, in and of itself, a demonstration of pilot ability.
The examiner is supposed to test the applicant's overall ability, and there are thousands of words and phrases within the PTS to do this, but most examiners don't because of the political pressure to keep a job.
I am saying: Don't base your judgement of a pilot's ability or safety on his/her passing a PTS checkride. It is strictly a rote-monkey exercise, and is the government's poorly executed example of pilot certification.
Cessna414JJB
Unknown Member
Really?What the hell is this? The Simpsons? Is Homer around too?
I have personally seen two CFI applicants being signed off with Spin endorsements flying only to go poke holes in the sky with some tailwheel airplane, but the thing never even stalled. Why? Because the befriended (multiple checkrides a week) DPE would look at the endorsement, but not at the flight time spent obtaining such endorsement. I have flown with CFI trainees (as the acting student) unable to perform to safe flying standards on power off 180's, unable to demonstrate steep turns, unable to maintain airspeed, unable to use checklists. The shock came for me when a low time commerical pilot point blank refused to train on stalls. Stalls are dangerous, she was scared out of her pants.
&nbs
jrh
Well-Known Member
I think it's interesting that some of the most vocal, adamant believers in mandatory spin training here (Jhugz, Cessna414, and Ppragman) have little to no instructional experience themselves.
I don't mean to offend by bringing up this point, as I don't want to come off like the arrogant airline pilots who think you don't know jack until you hit 5000 hours TT. However, the reason I see this issue the way I do is because I've seen such a wide array of pilot backgrounds, skill levels, and reactions in my time as an instructor. I think it's hard to see where I'm coming from without having interacted with so many people in an instructional environment. It's one thing to theorize these ideas because of extensive experience as a freight or corporate pilot (no disrespect to those guys), but it's another thing to see day after day what mistakes are commonly made in real world operations by low time pilots.
Every week I see people who need remedial/recurrent training in some area. There are literally dozens of ways a lot of private pilots could kill themselves...and spinning in to the ground is actually quite low on my list of concerns. Even if they get in to a stall/spin accident, the spin is generally the last action in a long string of events that could have been prevented with better training in other areas.
Of course it matters and of course it's better to get spin training, but to have this attitude that pilots who have not undergone extensive spin training are somehow inferior...I don't buy it.
I've trained plenty of low time pilots who I would gladly load my family up with, and I've met plenty who I wouldn't let my family get within 50 feet of. The deciding factor was never their spin training, or lack thereof.
*That* is why I say a pilot can be "acceptably" safe without spin training. "Acceptable" means the kind of pilot I'd load my mom into the plane with. As long as they pass that test, I'm ok with them. Spin training is icing on the cake.
I don't mean to offend by bringing up this point, as I don't want to come off like the arrogant airline pilots who think you don't know jack until you hit 5000 hours TT. However, the reason I see this issue the way I do is because I've seen such a wide array of pilot backgrounds, skill levels, and reactions in my time as an instructor. I think it's hard to see where I'm coming from without having interacted with so many people in an instructional environment. It's one thing to theorize these ideas because of extensive experience as a freight or corporate pilot (no disrespect to those guys), but it's another thing to see day after day what mistakes are commonly made in real world operations by low time pilots.
Every week I see people who need remedial/recurrent training in some area. There are literally dozens of ways a lot of private pilots could kill themselves...and spinning in to the ground is actually quite low on my list of concerns. Even if they get in to a stall/spin accident, the spin is generally the last action in a long string of events that could have been prevented with better training in other areas.
Of course it matters and of course it's better to get spin training, but to have this attitude that pilots who have not undergone extensive spin training are somehow inferior...I don't buy it.
I've trained plenty of low time pilots who I would gladly load my family up with, and I've met plenty who I wouldn't let my family get within 50 feet of. The deciding factor was never their spin training, or lack thereof.
*That* is why I say a pilot can be "acceptably" safe without spin training. "Acceptable" means the kind of pilot I'd load my mom into the plane with. As long as they pass that test, I'm ok with them. Spin training is icing on the cake.
R
Roger, Roger
Guest
No crap, Sherlock. The lack of spin training seldom kills people (which I think a few of us have been saying all along). Things that kill people:
VFR into IMC. Weather and the go/no go decision is in the PTS.
Fuel exhaustion. Fuel planning and management is in the PTS.
R
Roger, Roger
Guest
I understand that. However, that is what I got from pprag's statement-tolerances are too loose.
That said, what would YOU suggest that would truly test an applicant? Would you have the examiner ride with on a cross country? How would you change the practical test?
R
Roger, Roger
Guest
Well, that's why we make sure that we hit it hard during training, right jhugz?
?
Cessna414JJB
Unknown Member
I don't know about Jhugz or Pat, in my case you are right, I am not a CFI.
My attitude or statements are the result of 20+ years in the training environment, with several years as Ground Instructor on Aerodynamics.
I take the liberty to post here, knowing full well that my statements will not go over well with everyone, but again, I like to point out that my provocative style is caused more by my desire to get explanations to certain double standards we have in our training environment.
If someone feels insulted or attacked by that - oh well.
My points are at large directed at those instructors not posting, reading or caring. I don't really believe you find too many of these guys here.
jhugz
Guppy gear swinger
Well, that's why we make sure that we hit it hard during training, right jhugz
So why shouldn't we hit spins hard in training then?
R
Roger, Roger
Guest
We do. Every time we do a stall and practice proper application of rudder. Every time we make a coordinated turn to final. Every time we practice a proper go-around procedure.
Just like we prevent VFR into IMC every time we get and pay attention to a weather briefing, or simulate diverting and landing for bad weather. And just like we prevent fuel exhaustion every time we make the student calculate how long they can fly based on fuel on board.
The time to save yourself from this stuff is not when you're looking at the ground after skidding a turn to final, or when the world goes white because you pushed the scud-running too far, or when the engine coughs and sputters because you passed up that last fuel stop-it's not getting yourself in that position in the first place.
Like I said, I'm all for spinning a student and making them spin themself to see what it looks like. I think, however, that training time can be better used for things other than teaching picture-perfect spin recoveries.
Just like we prevent VFR into IMC every time we get and pay attention to a weather briefing, or simulate diverting and landing for bad weather. And just like we prevent fuel exhaustion every time we make the student calculate how long they can fly based on fuel on board.
The time to save yourself from this stuff is not when you're looking at the ground after skidding a turn to final, or when the world goes white because you pushed the scud-running too far, or when the engine coughs and sputters because you passed up that last fuel stop-it's not getting yourself in that position in the first place.
Like I said, I'm all for spinning a student and making them spin themself to see what it looks like. I think, however, that training time can be better used for things other than teaching picture-perfect spin recoveries.
c172captain
Well-Known Member
I love CFI's. 3 Pages and still on topic
Cessna414JJB
Unknown Member
Only because you don't understand how right I am....
I guess any sort of instructor is just so used to BEATING something into a unwilling brain, we can't do much else than stay on topic.
Fun Fact: manners between CFI's and teachers seem to be nasty only during the discussion, I have met only very few teachers of flight I could not find anything to have in common with, and enjoy a cool beer with afterwards...
Maybe that stems from doing something awesome, by helping people to learn and survive in an environment that leaves so little room for screw ups?
jhugz
Guppy gear swinger
This logic you used is flawed though.
Yes we teach about VFR to IMC through prevention by making sound decisions through weather, trends, etc...but if all else fails and for some reason unknown to all we also deal with the recognition but we also deal with the problem head on through the 3 hours of hood time which we use with VOR's BAF and Unusual ATT just in case we still do get into it.
Same goes for fuel exhaustion. Making the correct ADM's on fuel being conservative, etc...so again we practice the prevent but we also practice the final problem which is obviously dead stickin it in somewhere.
The same should go with spins...Yeah we deal with the recognition like stated above but we should also deal with the final problem which is recovery from a spin.
BTW on a side note I agree with what the above poster said about a discussion among peers. I hope that no one is offended or insulted by what I said through tone or demeanor. It is just a heated discussion amongst peers with respect for each other on both sides. Feel free to know I would buy you all a beer anytime.
Now back to the discussion, no your all wrong and idiots
R
Roger, Roger
Guest
3 hours of hood is just enough to get someone past a checkride. Do you really think that after even 3 months without hood work they'd be able to keep the greasy side down while navigating and communicating if they went IMC? Not anything against teaching it, but I think it *could* give people a false sense of security.
As for fuel exhaustion, well, if that were the main reason for deadstick practice, wouldn't we do it in twins as well? We practice deadstick in singles so it the engine asplode we can land safely.
The bottom line is that there are a lot of things that can kill your student, and your student just doesn't have enough money to learn how to extract themself from every given situation, so some things just have to be "here is how we avoid backing ourselves into this corner". If we had 200 hours to teach every private student, we could probably show them how to recover from most things that could possibly kill them. You and I just have different perspectives on what is most important and worth our time.
Speaking of realistic training. Back in the mid '80s, when I was doing my PPL, my IP would always stress on forced landing approaches "pick somewhere you fully intend to land." Mind you, this was when our practice areas were still VERY sparse. He'd pull my engine, I'd have my landing point picked out as I troubleshot (which never worked, obviously), and the spiral would be all the way down to setting up a pattern and landing. I can remember landing on canal banks, desolate roads, gravel half-ass strips that were probably closed. His idea being that "any monkey can spiral down to 500 AGL and perform a go around. The money is made or not, from the 500 AGL point to touchdown, especially depending on where you've picked."
Do you guys do this with your students? Make them use the place they picked (obviously not as extreme as my 25 year old example, but you get the picture)?
Do you guys do this with your students? Make them use the place they picked (obviously not as extreme as my 25 year old example, but you get the picture)?
jrh
Well-Known Member
No worries, you make some good points. I just think it's easy to look at it from an outside perspective and think one thing, then actually start dealing with it on a daily basis and completely change your mind. Classroom training and flight training are two entirely different ballgames. During flight training, the instructor has to deal with the student's emotions, instincts, and reflexes much more so than a ground instructor ever does. It's a higher stress environment which is why spin training is a touchy subject. It affects new pilots on a level much deeper than academics.
Even for me, this is an issue I've changed opinions on over time. Check out this thread I started from almost 4 years ago when I was a relatively new CFI:
http://forums.jetcareers.com/cfi-corner/19032-rant-about-why-we-need-mandatory-spin-training.html
I was strongly in favor of mandatory spin training at that point in time.
Now I've come to see a lot more variety in training and don't have nearly as strong of an opinion. I still think spins are a great activity, but have no desire to make them mandatory. There are bigger fish to fry in the flight training world.
jrh
Well-Known Member
Yes.
