Spin training
Guest
Posts: n/a
I don't buy the argument that it is not worth teaching students spin recovery because they won't stay current. You could make the same criticism of large chunks of the PPL syllabus (the instrument training in the UK PPL is an obvious example). My view as a PPL (not an instructor) is that flying training should equip PPL's with the essential skills to stay alive - if they subsequently don't bother to practice those skills, thats their problem .
I am curious as to instructors' views on how the incipient spin should be taught. I have flown with some instructors who treat recovery from a wing drop at the stall as an incipient spin recovery. At my present club, most instructors use a dynamic spin entry (i.e. slow down, trickle of power, full up elevator and in-spin rudder), which is arested, shortly after the start of the flick, by centralising the controls, then rolling to the nearest horizon. Method A seems more like a "real life" situation that could arise from carelessness, but lacks credibility in that, if you take no remedial action, a modern light aircraft is very unlikely to spin. Method B will definitely produce a spin if left uncorrected, but is hardly a plausible mishandling scenario.
Finally, to those who are anti spin training, how do you envisage your students practising their incipient spin recoveries - dual only? If they practice solo, what guarantee is there that an incipient spin won't develop into a full spin (or are we relying on scenario A above)?
AD
------------------
If God had meant us to fly he would have given us more money
I am curious as to instructors' views on how the incipient spin should be taught. I have flown with some instructors who treat recovery from a wing drop at the stall as an incipient spin recovery. At my present club, most instructors use a dynamic spin entry (i.e. slow down, trickle of power, full up elevator and in-spin rudder), which is arested, shortly after the start of the flick, by centralising the controls, then rolling to the nearest horizon. Method A seems more like a "real life" situation that could arise from carelessness, but lacks credibility in that, if you take no remedial action, a modern light aircraft is very unlikely to spin. Method B will definitely produce a spin if left uncorrected, but is hardly a plausible mishandling scenario.
Finally, to those who are anti spin training, how do you envisage your students practising their incipient spin recoveries - dual only? If they practice solo, what guarantee is there that an incipient spin won't develop into a full spin (or are we relying on scenario A above)?
AD
------------------
If God had meant us to fly he would have given us more money
Guest
Posts: n/a
Compare it thus.....
Soon after passing my driving test I managed to get into a skid, had no idea how to 'recover' and wrecked the car. Not long after that, I had formal 'skid training'.
I don't practice skids, but should one happen 'unexpectedly' I have a fighting chance of recognising the symptoms and recover before hitting something hard.
I apply the same philosophy to flying - "don't do it, but if it all goes wrong, this is how to recover...."
Martian
Soon after passing my driving test I managed to get into a skid, had no idea how to 'recover' and wrecked the car. Not long after that, I had formal 'skid training'.
I don't practice skids, but should one happen 'unexpectedly' I have a fighting chance of recognising the symptoms and recover before hitting something hard.
I apply the same philosophy to flying - "don't do it, but if it all goes wrong, this is how to recover...."
Martian
Guest
Posts: n/a
I think it still comes down to balancing the risks. You are unlikely to get yourself into a corner if you are up in the cruise, which, let's face it, is where most flying gets done. You are most at risk between the ground and circuit height whether you are departing or returning. If you screw the pooch in either of these phases you're knacked however much of a hot-dog you are. I therefore think that it is best to thoroughly teach the stall spin awareness stuff. I would even go so far as to say that most of the recoveries should be at the early stages of the stall in order to make automatic the recovery before it gets to the point where you get into trouble. I would also make annual or bi-annual stall spin awareness training (0.5hr) mandatory for all PPLs.
It is wise and prudent for those going off to do aerobatic training to experience spins as they are more likely to put themselves into a spin.
Spin training does lead to occasional fatal accidents and by increasing the frequency of spin training you are bound to increase the frequency of these accidents. Also these accidents are very rarely survivable.
There is nothing macho about putting yourself in unneccesary danger or indeed frightening your student silly just to make a point.
------------------
0 to 2000ft in 10 minutes
It is wise and prudent for those going off to do aerobatic training to experience spins as they are more likely to put themselves into a spin.
Spin training does lead to occasional fatal accidents and by increasing the frequency of spin training you are bound to increase the frequency of these accidents. Also these accidents are very rarely survivable.
There is nothing macho about putting yourself in unneccesary danger or indeed frightening your student silly just to make a point.
------------------
0 to 2000ft in 10 minutes
Guest
Posts: n/a
It has to be a positive move to experience and learn spin recovery, I was experimenting with a my 172 and managed quite a few unpredictable excursions upside down into a spin just by gently entering a stall with low power,20deg flap and 5deg bank.
Whilst I know that it would not recover if this occurred on a base-finals turn, it would help the student to see what can occur if they are careless with the airspeed.
Whilst I know that it would not recover if this occurred on a base-finals turn, it would help the student to see what can occur if they are careless with the airspeed.
Guest
Posts: n/a
The other side of the coin is spin aerodynamics. These can fill a aerodynamics text book on their own, and are truly fascinating especially in the area of inverted spins.
Unfortunately, few pilots study aerodynamics to a level further than that once required for their licence exams, and the details of factors affecting spins are available but not well known.
This, along with the “no need for spin training in modern aircraft” school of thought leads to a whole lot of people with an incomplete knowledge of their aircraft, with the attendant confidence and stress problems.
A lot of the “no need to spin” school appear to not have the solid background in spin training which would appear to be a requirement for informed comment. Spinning (and recovering..) is NOT difficult, and once mastered, the issue changes from the merits of doing spin training oneself to concern at the unpreparedness of those without it !
So, do spin training and do it properly. Use an aerobatic aircraft, do formal training with an aerobatics instructor, and wear a parachute. Don’t make a half hearted attempts at it with only incip spins and base a "do we need to" arguement on that - get a few turns going and do/understand it properly. Do inverted spin entry / recovery. (Most float planes spin inverted). Do a sufficient and regular number of spins to stay current. Include a comprehensive study of the aerodynamics involved.
All that will impart knowledge plus confidence and will not lead to deaths in training provided the pilot knows when to get out if the aircraft becomes uncontrollable.
The military have been doing it this way for decades with good results as BEagle would probably agree.
The extra “expense” involved should not be an issue. "We have nothing to fear but fear itself..."
Unfortunately, few pilots study aerodynamics to a level further than that once required for their licence exams, and the details of factors affecting spins are available but not well known.
This, along with the “no need for spin training in modern aircraft” school of thought leads to a whole lot of people with an incomplete knowledge of their aircraft, with the attendant confidence and stress problems.
A lot of the “no need to spin” school appear to not have the solid background in spin training which would appear to be a requirement for informed comment. Spinning (and recovering..) is NOT difficult, and once mastered, the issue changes from the merits of doing spin training oneself to concern at the unpreparedness of those without it !
So, do spin training and do it properly. Use an aerobatic aircraft, do formal training with an aerobatics instructor, and wear a parachute. Don’t make a half hearted attempts at it with only incip spins and base a "do we need to" arguement on that - get a few turns going and do/understand it properly. Do inverted spin entry / recovery. (Most float planes spin inverted). Do a sufficient and regular number of spins to stay current. Include a comprehensive study of the aerodynamics involved.
All that will impart knowledge plus confidence and will not lead to deaths in training provided the pilot knows when to get out if the aircraft becomes uncontrollable.
The military have been doing it this way for decades with good results as BEagle would probably agree.
The extra “expense” involved should not be an issue. "We have nothing to fear but fear itself..."
Guest
Posts: n/a
I would disagree with the idea of formal spin training for a PPL syllabus, but it should be part of the CPL and FI course.
Those who use expressions like "easy to recover from a spin" are deluding themselves. Some (all?) aircraft can suprise you and not respond to the correct recovery technique. Any spin should be entered at a very safe height and the occupants should have parachutes and a clearly briefed bale out height, should the a/c not respond.
I have personally met one pilot who had to bale out of a Bulldog because it wouldn't respond to recovery (it did after he jumped out, leaving the instructor circling him in his cabriolet T MK1.) Another Bulldog flying from our airfield also failed to recover leaving both crew on the end of parachutes. An instructor lost his life after he and his student bailed out of another Bulldog, and he inadvertently released his parachute harness. There are others too.
I also lost my best friend in a low flying accident (strong visual cues led to a spin in from 300 ft)and no amount of training would have saved him. He had a lot of aero and spin training on type.
Casual spinning by low hour FIs with PPL students, from lowish altitudes will almost certainly raise the training accident rates unacceptably. The nature of the resulting crash will mean higher fatalities.
It's the usual balancing act of risk vs benefit. A bit like engine out training in multis.
I'm a multi engine helicopter TRE and we never do engine off landings-it's just not worth the risk and most of the learning benefit comes from the autorotation, not the landing.
PS I have done the odd spin or 100 in my time.
[This message has been edited by 212man (edited 13 March 2000).]
Those who use expressions like "easy to recover from a spin" are deluding themselves. Some (all?) aircraft can suprise you and not respond to the correct recovery technique. Any spin should be entered at a very safe height and the occupants should have parachutes and a clearly briefed bale out height, should the a/c not respond.
I have personally met one pilot who had to bale out of a Bulldog because it wouldn't respond to recovery (it did after he jumped out, leaving the instructor circling him in his cabriolet T MK1.) Another Bulldog flying from our airfield also failed to recover leaving both crew on the end of parachutes. An instructor lost his life after he and his student bailed out of another Bulldog, and he inadvertently released his parachute harness. There are others too.
I also lost my best friend in a low flying accident (strong visual cues led to a spin in from 300 ft)and no amount of training would have saved him. He had a lot of aero and spin training on type.
Casual spinning by low hour FIs with PPL students, from lowish altitudes will almost certainly raise the training accident rates unacceptably. The nature of the resulting crash will mean higher fatalities.
It's the usual balancing act of risk vs benefit. A bit like engine out training in multis.
I'm a multi engine helicopter TRE and we never do engine off landings-it's just not worth the risk and most of the learning benefit comes from the autorotation, not the landing.
PS I have done the odd spin or 100 in my time.
[This message has been edited by 212man (edited 13 March 2000).]
