Stalls: Scary yet fun

[flying_ME]

Stalls didn't bother me too much. I was a little worried when I recently did them under the hood, but all went fairly well.

I second what someone else said about getting some spin training with a aerobatics instructor. I did mine in the Pitts...man that thing can roll! Anyway, I was apprehensive on the first one, but after the recovery I realized that wasn't so bad. Did a few more and then I had to call it quits since the repeated 4g recoveries from the dive were upsetting my nearly empty stomach (my fault, I know). On the way back he asked if I wanted to see some "real world" (simulated at safe altitude of course) applications, i.e. entering a spin on the base to final turn. The biggest eye opener was steep bank to the left but using right rudder to hold the nose up. Stall horn chirped, I think he added power, and wham! the plane rolled violently over to the right and entered a spin . That right there drove home the point my instructors would occasionally have to remind me of.. no more than 30deg bank and stay coordinated when in the pattern.

 

[Philip]

I have trouble with the cross controlled stall demo, my knees get in the way

 

[jawright]

It should be in the PTS for a PPL.

From what I understand, PPL candidates used to be required to actually perform spins as part of the PTS, just like stalls and steep turns. I was told by a CFI that spins were taken out of the private PTS because too many student pilots had accidents trying to practice them without the CFI aboard.
I believe that now all PPL students have to do a lesson on spin recovery in which the CFI demonstrates spins and discusses how to get out of them "just in case." The PPL student, however, is not required to perform the maneuver.

 

[BobDDuck]

I believe that now all PPL students have to do a lesson on spin recovery in which the CFI demonstrates spins and discusses how to get out of them "just in case." The PPL student, however, is not required to perform the maneuver.

I don't have a PTS with me now, but I believe that the CFI isn't required to show the student a spin. I think it is worded like "teach the procedure for spin recovery". The way it is worded makes it possible to do it as a ground lesson. It's too bad really.

 

[Philip]

I don't have a PTS with me now, but I believe that the CFI isn't required to show the student a spin. I think it is worded like "teach the procedure for spin recovery". The way it is worded makes it possible to do it as a ground lesson. It's too bad really.

"spin awareness" I believe is the key phrase.

 

[Goonie]

Would that be the Grabenator?

Yes it would be the Grabenator.

 

[Goonie]

I'm not too fond of the first two paragraphs.



.

Why?

I guess its something my flight instructor did with me so I carried it over to my students. It amazes me when a pilot gets to the CFI level and hasn't done a fricken spin in a 172.

As far as the DPE goes I cant speak for him, but I agree with him. He won't pink anybody on spins. He is just going to take his examiner hat off and put on his instuctor hat for a bit. The guy has a Napoleon complex sometimes, but hes flown just about everything under the sun and has more flying experience than anybody I know. As far as GA and the corporate world go. When aviators like this give advice or want to take you up to do a real spin, you should take in as much as they will give to you. These guys are becoming few and far between in the new world of "fast food pilots".

IMHO

 

[Lee D]

I remember getting very nervous about stalls. Especially if I was a bit uncoordinated and a wing would dip. After doing about a million of them you learn that the average Cessna high wing or Piper Archer/Warrior doesnt spin after a stall without some serious control input help from the pilot. Then they will usually leave the spin condition as soon as you neutralize the inputs that created the spin in the first place. Pretty stable aircraft, don't think you can't accidentaly do one, but it will take some negligence on your part to get there.

V-tail Bonanzas on the other hand are. . . interesting with stalls. We had an old V-Tail where I used to work. As part of the checkout you really needed to understand what it felt like before a stall. At slow speeds it was still fairly responsive in the controls and the airframe didn't buffet much or at all until the stall break was 1/2 of a second away. It had this stall light instead of a horn. So all you really had was a light to warn you of the stall. When it did stall, even when coordinated, you could expect an abrupt wing to dip and the nose to really pitch down. Not horrible, but somewhat startling if you had not stalled it before. One time I warned a student of what was to come and when it stalled (Diping a wing and nose down abruptly.) he still pulled BACK on the yoke. Yeah, the plane pitched down about 50 degrees and rolled somewhat, giving me a wonderful view of the Great Salt Lake. Needless to say I helped him out of the deep stall and after a moment he looked at me with huge beads of sweat dripping down his face and said: "That really is a B*&%$ when it stalls!" My reply was, along the lines of "You really helped aggravate things with the further increase in angle of attack."

 

[SteveC]

I'm not too fond of the first two paragraphs.

Why?

I guess its something my flight instructor did with me so I carried it over to my students. It amazes me when a pilot gets to the CFI level and hasn't done a fricken spin in a 172.

Here is your original sentence:

All my private students do a lesson on spins if they like it of not. I wont sign them off if the dont.

I don't have a problem with teaching spins or spin awareness, but I would have a problem with an instructor that told me we were going to do a full lesson on spins if I really, really didn't want to, when they are not required as part the approved training syllabus. I'd be hiring a new instructor.

It's probably more a matter of semantics and the way that you worded the original statement that turned me off. Brings out the stuborn streak in me (didn't know I had one, did you? ).

As far as the DPE goes I cant speak for him, but I agree with him. He won't pink anybody on spins. He is just going to take his examiner hat off and put on his instuctor hat for a bit. The guy has a Napoleon complex sometimes, but hes flown just about everything under the sun and has more flying experience than anybody I know. As far as GA and the corporate world go. When aviators like this give advice or want to take you up to do a real spin, you should take in as much as they will give to you. These guys are becoming few and far between in the new world of "fast food pilots".

IMHO

Original statement:

We have a DPE that will do spins with a private applicant if their instuctor hasn't.

Reading comprehension problem on this end again, I guess. The first read through implied, at least the way I was reading it, that the DPE was adding things to the PTS on his own. Having a DPE doing some additional teaching during a check ride I can agree with - requiring spins before passing a PPL candidate would warrant a call to the FSDO.


.

 

[CapnJim]

I think Ryan respects his students opinion if they don't want to spin, and would understand if they didn't want to fly with him anymore. But he still won't sign them off.
It's a little extreme, yeah, but it may save a life. Again, all a judment call and personal preference. I don't think there's been a student yet that quit flying with Ryan over spins, and I don't think there's been one yet that regretted it.

 

[greaper007]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't you have to be a two year cfi in order to give a spin endorsement? So with that in mind, does the spirit of that regulation apply to training also?

 

[CapnJim]

Nope. You can do 'em, you can teach 'em, but you can't sign 'em off. I think it's more to do with training new CFI's than it is with teaching spins.

 

[Goonie]

Original statement:
Reading comprehension problem on this end again, I guess. The first read through implied, at least the way I was reading it, that the DPE was adding things to the PTS on his own. Having a DPE doing some additional teaching during a check ride I can agree with - requiring spins before passing a PPL candidate would warrant a call to the FSDO.


.

This we agree on.

As for the whole spin-a-student issue. Look at it this way if you have an instrument student and he is awesome at everthing IFR, but is deathly afraid of IMC and refuses to fly in it, what do you do? Is actual required per the FAR? Is it in the training syllubus? Would you sign him off? I sure as hell wouldn't. He could fire me, no skin off my sac.

I think a CFI responsibility should go further than a sign off and the PTS. If a student is afraid of a manuever that the plane and pilot are fully capable of, then he is not ready to be a certified pilot in my eyes.

I'm not saying a whole lesson on spins, but they do a couple, or find another instructor to sign him off.

 

[SteveC]

This we agree on.

I agree that we agree. Agreed?


I also think that we are thiiiiiiisss close <finger tips just millimeters apart> to agreeing on the other part.

As for the whole spin-a-student issue. Look at it this way if you have an instrument student and he is awesome at everthing IFR, but is deathly afraid of IMC and refuses to fly in it, what do you do?

Try to convince him to get some time with me (i.e. instructor, which I'm not BTW) in actual IMC. (pretty much in agreement so far, although I used the word "try", while you were a little *stronger* in your approach I think. )

Is actual required per the FAR? Is it in the training syllubus?

Nope (still in agreement, eh?)

Would you sign him off?

Nope. The way that you describe it he is not yet "competent" to exercise the priviledges of the rating.

I sure as hell wouldn't.

Well.....still in agreement.

He could fire me, no skin off my sac.

I'll agree with the "He could fire me," part. No opinion offered on the second half.

I think a CFI responsibility should go further than a sign off and the PTS. If a student is afraid of a manuever that the plane and pilot are fully capable of, then he is not ready to be a certified pilot in my eyes.

In general I agree with where you are going with this, but right about here is where we start to diverge on some details. I can think of a whole lot of maneuvers that a plane and pilot may be capable of (maybe we should talk about what you mean by "capable", but save that for later), but have never been trained in or in any way *need* to know prior to getting a PPL. I'm sure that you can come up with a pretty extensive list as well, so I'll refrain from naming extreme examples just to try to prove a point.

I'm not saying a whole lesson on spins...

I must say that "All my private students do a lesson on spins if they like it of (sic) not." sounds an awful lot like "a whole lesson", although I'll concede that you may not have meant that when you wrote it.

....but they do a couple, or find another instructor to sign him off.

All right, that is your perogative as CFI. It's your ticket on the line. I fully understand your viewpoint that you want all of your students to have *some* spin training, for their safety. To be truthful, I tend to agree that it is a good idea, BUT, there are reasons that it was removed from the FAA mandated training.

Thus we come to the crux of my objection to your original statement.

(Yeah, finally!)

The FAA removed spin training from the Private Pilot requirements because too many people were dying. I think that your statement implied (through the strength of your convictions) that all PPL candidates really should receive mandatory spin training, and that all CFI's should be doing the same as you. Remember that there are an awful lot of low-time, low-experienced instructors out there, and by the nature of the beast most of the low-timers are in structured programs working with young pilots that may or may not have the maturity to understand when someone is getting them in too deep. Not all of those instructors have the proper spin training themselves to be truly safe teaching spin recoveries to 20 hour newbies, and to plant the seed in their brain that they should be doing it could be a problem. It was removed from the PPL requirements because people were dying, remember?

Yeah, I know. I read a lot more into your statement then you wrote, eh?
Sorry, but I can see some (potential) unintended consequences to what you were (indirectly) preaching if people were to copy your approach without really having the proper background, you know?

Anyway, I don't have a problem with you requiring your students to spin, as long as you are O.K. that they can fire you if they don't feel it in their best interest.

 

[Chris_Ford]

I
Remember that there are an awful lot of low-time, low-experienced instructors out there, and by the nature of the beast most of the low-timers are in structured programs working with young pilots that may or may not have the maturity to understand when someone is getting them in too deep. Not all of those instructors have the proper spin training themselves to be truly safe teaching spin recoveries to 20 hour newbies, and to plant the seed in their brain that they should be doing it could be a problem.

That's the most crucial aspect of it. A lot of instructors only go through one flight of spins... the one required for the CFI checkride. Remember, sometimes spin training isn't viable for those who learned in airplanes where spins weren't permitted (most Pipers). That kinda makes it hard for some

 

[CapnJim]

You guys are hitting the nail right on the head: too many CFI's have too little experience with spins, and that's what needs to be corrected. We're training an entire generation of pilots that are scared to death of spinning, don't know how to recover, and will kill themselves.
I say more training, not less.

 

[Goonie]

You guys are hitting the nail right on the head: too many CFI's have too little experience with spins, and that's what needs to be corrected. We're training an entire generation of pilots that are scared to death of spinning, don't know how to recover, and will kill themselves.
I say more training, not less.

Maybe we should start with the Discovery flight

 

[Goonie]

SteveC,

(Let me get Jameson & Coke hold up)

I think we see eye to eye on this for the most part. I'm not a • instructor I promise I'm one of the most laid back people you'll ever meet. To be honest adn I might get some flame over this but oh' well. I have been an instructor for a few years now. I'm no Rod Machado but I have learned and observed a thing or two. I think that the pilot training/testing system is somewhat of a joke. I have met some certified pilots that had have gotten their licsense in a Cracker Jack box.

I blame instructors and DPE's for this, not the students. Maybe its instructors trying to get their magical number of hours to get to the RJ'S and not caring if they put out good pilot's or not.

I got lucky I had a great 40 somthin' career instructor that taught me alot of intangibles about flying that are not in the PTS. He died last year in a plane crash in Alaska.

(Sorry about the ramble and run-on sentences, but I quit smoking 5 days ago and for some reason I'm very hyper, and cant stay still.)

Now, lets talk about putting aileron rolls in the PTS. J/K

 

[PhotoPilot]

I may be wrong but I believe the Tomahawk or Traumahawk as it is referred to is directly responsible for the removel of the spin requirement. I always thought it was ironic how they named that plane after something that was invented to spin through the air and cause serious injury/death.

You're definitely wrong!

The Tommie is a great plane and spins well. It's not dangerous, the tail doesn't rip off, and you don't instantly burst into flame when you enter a spin. I know . . . I've done a lot of them in the PA-38.

It got it's bad rap because pilots used to spinning training airplanes like Cessna 150s and 172s are used to letting go and recovering. The Tommie requires that you actually use proper inputs to get out quickly. If you just let go, it takes a few rotations to stabilize. On the otherhand, it doesn't drop a wing as easily or quickly as a Cessna and will make the transition to an Extra 300 a whole lot easier. (Again, I know from experience.)

If you haven't flown it, don't bash it. I love what I fly now, but I miss the Tomahawk!

 

[greaper007]

I think the thing that all of us are getting at is this. The current generation of pilots (for the most part) are civilian. Go back 20 30 years and it was all military guys. They were getting jet time right from the begining, doing aerobatics right from the begining air-air, air to groud combat at the time most of us are getting our commercial license. Now I don't really want to go in the military (been there done that got a few packs of olive drab t-shirts). But I would love to get some of that training. I'm too poor to go and get aerobatic training. All I can afford is my seventy dollar cfi spin training sign off. I've never flown in formation and I've never had to push my aircraft to the edge of it's envelope in order to save my life.

I talk to my Dad and tell him that I want to do aerobatics and he says f that, I did that for years in the Navy. Is he a better pilot than I or most people on this board are because of this? Probably. Not because he's inherently better than us, but because he and other people of his generation got better training.

I think that a solution to these problems would be to create a different set of license for people intent on a professional career in aviation. Why go private, instrument commercial. Why not start a comprehensive program from day one, that has testing to represent this. We are the future of professional aviation and most of us haven't gone beyond 50 degrees of bank. We don't really need a private pilot license, most of us can't afford to fly for fun anyway.