No More Spin Training?
Thread Starter
No More Spin Training?
CASA apparently has decided that there will be no more spin training after consultation:
This is apparently despite:
I wonder why that would be?
I also wonder what new regulations will be enacted to criminalise an accidental spin and prevent flying anywhere near the edge of the flight envelope.
As a result, CASA will ensure clarification and further consistency with the position taken by ICAO and other national aviation authorities—to replace the phrase ‘training and testing in the induction and recovery from the incipient stage of a spin’ with ‘spin avoidance and the recovery from a stall with a wing drop.
This is apparently despite:
.......a high level of support for training and testing of spin recovery. However, this support is balanced with the recognition that there are fewer flight instructors and a shrinking fleet of aircraft capable of delivering this outcome.
I wonder why that would be?
I also wonder what new regulations will be enacted to criminalise an accidental spin and prevent flying anywhere near the edge of the flight envelope.
Most aircraft used in the ab-initio fleet these days are not certified for spinning.
Most instructors today are not well versed in spinning and in spin training students.
There is the rub.
How do you believe this can best be rectified?
Most instructors today are not well versed in spinning and in spin training students.
There is the rub.
How do you believe this can best be rectified?
Thread Starter
I was lucky enough to find an instructor with access to an aerobatic aircraft. She built a little course for me called “low impact aerobatics for old farts” or recovery from unusual attitudes. I don’t know if it worked because I don’t try unusual positions. We finished each lesson with a spin from about 6000 to 3000. Students I think could do worse.
DjPil I think might have some good suggestions.
It is a truism that a stall/spin on the base to final is going to be fatal whatever the training. I don’t have enough experience to comment further.
DjPil I think might have some good suggestions.
It is a truism that a stall/spin on the base to final is going to be fatal whatever the training. I don’t have enough experience to comment further.
For me, spin training is not so much that a pilot can recover from a spin if they accidentally get into one but to develop muscle memory/instinct to know when they are pushing close to that mode of flight and so not accidentally get into one.
It also builds confidence.
It is hard to teach that realistically without showing how spins actually get entered, which means actually spinning.
Unfortunately this is not something suitable to do in a non spin certified aircraft.
It also builds confidence.
It is hard to teach that realistically without showing how spins actually get entered, which means actually spinning.
Unfortunately this is not something suitable to do in a non spin certified aircraft.
Want to find out what being in a fully developed spin is like.... and how to recover from one ?
A visit to your nearest Gliding Club should solve yr problem.
Aeroplanes spin. You are being trained to fly one. And yr not allowed to practice recovery from a condtion that could kill you.? Bizarre. You might never do it again but at least you have experienced it and know how to recover.
Is this another CAsA '"LSD" and Insurance co. thing that if there's not a regulation prohibiting something that might /might not ever happen, CAsA may get sued. ie a CYA thing, not a safety issue.
A visit to your nearest Gliding Club should solve yr problem.
Aeroplanes spin. You are being trained to fly one. And yr not allowed to practice recovery from a condtion that could kill you.? Bizarre. You might never do it again but at least you have experienced it and know how to recover.
Is this another CAsA '"LSD" and Insurance co. thing that if there's not a regulation prohibiting something that might /might not ever happen, CAsA may get sued. ie a CYA thing, not a safety issue.
So Sunfish, check out the fines that may be dished out by an FOI sitting at a desk watching YouTube videos.
(Incidentally, the USA has a further rule which specifies pitch and bank angles beyond which the occupants are required to wear a parachute - unless solo. Spin training for flight instructor ratings are also exempt.)
Furthermore, they did NOT decide there will be no more spin training. Flight schools are free to conduct spin training at any stage however it needs an instructor properly qualified to give instruction in spins and the aircraft must be approved for intentional spins - no change there. Importantly, the AC explains that an incipient spin is a spin per the FAA definition provided to those people who write the bit in the flight manuals about the spin recovery method and whether or not an airplane is approved to conduct intentional spins.
In that AC, CASA states "Spin recovery training is highly recommended for pilots at any level of licence or experience and is worth revision at any stage of a pilot's career." If you didn't get spin training with your licence training then you are free to go and do it - pay your money and take your choice.
I have lost too many friends in stall/spin accidents - the spin training that most if not all of them had taken didn't save them.
Last edited by djpil; 30th Apr 2020 at 00:30. Reason: added note about lost friends
Not so long ago, as well as the logical reasons for spin training, we used to just do it for fun. And if the aeroplane/ instructor wasn’t able then we’d find one who was.
If you aren’t getting spin training, go out and find some, somewhere. It’s good for your flying and you might enjoy it.
Sunfish
”I don’t have enough experience to comment further.”
What a rare gem to find on prune. Thank you.
If you aren’t getting spin training, go out and find some, somewhere. It’s good for your flying and you might enjoy it.
Sunfish
”I don’t have enough experience to comment further.”
What a rare gem to find on prune. Thank you.
Last edited by pithblot; 30th Apr 2020 at 00:43.
However, this support is balanced with the recognition that there are fewer flight instructors and a shrinking fleet of aircraft capable of delivering this outcome.
To be granted a Grade 3 Training Endorsement, the candidate must have a SPIN Flight Activity. This training would usually be conducted by the Grade 1 conducting the Grade 3 Training Endorsement. At the completion of the Flight Test for the G3 TE can the G3 conduct SPIN training, ohhhh noooo. They must get the SPIN training approval in addition, costing the candidate a significant amount of money in addition to the Instructor Rating.
In my years in aviation I have come across very few Instructor candidates that have the unlimited funds to add all of the extra training approvals now mandated by Australian Part 61. They make a choice, 'well, there's limited potential for a return on this approval, so not doing it'
Australian Part 61 has added significant cost to Instructor Ratings should the candidate want to teach what they were approved to teach under CAR 5.
Ab-Initio students wear the cost of this.
I was lucky enough to find an instructor with access to an aerobatic aircraft. She built a little course for me called “low impact aerobatics for old farts” or recovery from unusual attitudes. I don’t know if it worked because I don’t try unusual positions. We finished each lesson with a spin from about 6000 to 3000. Students I think could do worse.
DjPil I think might have some good suggestions.
It is a truism that a stall/spin on the base to final is going to be fatal whatever the training. I don’t have enough experience to comment further.
DjPil I think might have some good suggestions.
It is a truism that a stall/spin on the base to final is going to be fatal whatever the training. I don’t have enough experience to comment further.
This was on the venerable (and oft-maligned PA38 Tomahawk). VH-BNT (nicknamed BENT) was a vicious bugger, a sudden left spin entry (kicked in with loads of left boot) would feel like it flipped onto its back. TBH You had to be very deliberate about getting into the spin, it was hard to see how you could do it accidentally, but people did/probably still do. The last thing I spun in was a Pitts and that was docile in comparison (albeit a lot quicker).
I think a lot of holes have to line up in the cheese to get into a spin in the circuit. For one, not monitoring airspeed, attitude and control inputs. Learning to avoid the spin is one thing, knowing not to panic and how to recover fast would be a life-saver though.
Join Date: Apr 1998
Location: Mesopotamos
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A visit to your nearest Gliding Club should solve yr problem.
The CAAP discusses wing drop at the point of stall training requirement. But what if the aircraft is well maintained, no rigging defects and by design simply will not drop a wing at the point of stall? Most modern light singles simply squash and won't stall in the classic manner.
That is why they are so safe in that regime. Does that mean a student must deliberately fake a wing drop in order to tick the CASA box. If so, how does one fake a wing drop on such aircraft?
That is why they are so safe in that regime. Does that mean a student must deliberately fake a wing drop in order to tick the CASA box. If so, how does one fake a wing drop on such aircraft?
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Nanaimo, B.C.
Age: 66
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I second the suggestion to go visit your local glider club for spin training if you haven't had any. They will likely be happy to accommodate but call first to make arrangements. Spin training will always be mandatory in the glider training syllabus because many high performance gliders will happily spin if the controls are mistreated. The assumption is that ab initio pilots will go on to fly the higher performance, less docile aircraft.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Nanaimo, B.C.
Age: 66
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How else can you get down from 8,000ft quickly in something that just wants to cheat gravity without any power? Spin it to the left, then to the right, then to the left, then to the right, then to the left, then to the right, then to the left, then to the right and pull up over the field and set yourself up on downwind.
The CAAP discusses wing drop at the point of stall training requirement. But what if the aircraft is well maintained, no rigging defects and by design simply will not drop a wing at the point of stall? Most modern light singles simply squash and won't stall in the classic manner.
That is why they are so safe in that regime. Does that mean a student must deliberately fake a wing drop in order to tick the CASA box. If so, how does one fake a wing drop on such aircraft?
That is why they are so safe in that regime. Does that mean a student must deliberately fake a wing drop in order to tick the CASA box. If so, how does one fake a wing drop on such aircraft?
If the pilot later goes on to fly something with less benign stalling behaviour they may be totally unprepared for what can happen (and also they have never been exposed to simulated scenarios that reflect how inadvertent spins actually happen).
I have no problem doing spin training in a glider but would think it even better to do training in something that more reflects what can (and does) happen in powered aircraft.
In an early lesson transitioning to powered aircraft from gliding, the instructor asked me to recover from a stall. Glider pilots (especially those who've come from the wood and canvas era) will know the standard recovery - stick full forward until airspeed builds to safe flying speed - the bit of wool taped to the windshield goes taut in the slipstream.
Try that in a Cherokee and you're looking at the cows getting bigger very quickly. "So you've done some gliding?", was the laconic comment from the instructor.
Try that in a Cherokee and you're looking at the cows getting bigger very quickly. "So you've done some gliding?", was the laconic comment from the instructor.
Canada had this debate about 20 years ago. The flight safety data was conclusive. Almost all inadvertent spins occurred at an altitude that would likely not allow a recovery even if proper spin recovery control inputs were used. Instead the emphasis was placed on teaching stall recognition and recovery and the result has been a decrease in spin accidents.
I think Canada has hit the right balance. For the PPL a spin and spin recovery must be demonstrated to the student pre-solo. It is recommended that it be demonstrated in a scenario that starts with a botched stall recovery.
For CPL's a spin recovery must be demonstrated on the CPL flight test. However the examiner is expected to call for recovery within the first half turn after the aircraft departs. The intent is that recovery begins immediately after recognition that the aircraft will enter a spin if recovery is not immediately initiated.
The place for spin training is in a basic aerobatic course, which in a perfect world everybody would take after their PPL. For most aircraft to get to a place where the proper spin recovery technique must be applied requires pro-spin controls to held in for at least 1 full turn and often 2 full turns. This is negative training as outside of aerobatic flying there is no situation where you would want to apply and maintain pro spin controls.
If the airplane is not allowed to stall in can't spin. If you do inadvertently stall then if yaw is controlled the aircraft can't spin. THAT is the lesson you want to teach in ab initio training.
I think Canada has hit the right balance. For the PPL a spin and spin recovery must be demonstrated to the student pre-solo. It is recommended that it be demonstrated in a scenario that starts with a botched stall recovery.
For CPL's a spin recovery must be demonstrated on the CPL flight test. However the examiner is expected to call for recovery within the first half turn after the aircraft departs. The intent is that recovery begins immediately after recognition that the aircraft will enter a spin if recovery is not immediately initiated.
The place for spin training is in a basic aerobatic course, which in a perfect world everybody would take after their PPL. For most aircraft to get to a place where the proper spin recovery technique must be applied requires pro-spin controls to held in for at least 1 full turn and often 2 full turns. This is negative training as outside of aerobatic flying there is no situation where you would want to apply and maintain pro spin controls.
If the airplane is not allowed to stall in can't spin. If you do inadvertently stall then if yaw is controlled the aircraft can't spin. THAT is the lesson you want to teach in ab initio training.
Compulsory spin recovery training was taken out of the syllabus in most ICAO countries and made optional about 30 years ago. Here is a link to the study BPF refers to above: https://www.richstowell.com/document...a_TP13748E.pdf
CASA will be changing the wording from "incipient spin" to "stall with wing drop".
If students are taught right from go to use the rudder properly to maintain balance, particularly in a go around; and the nonsense about picking up a dropping wing with full opposite rudder was taken out of the text books then we are about as safe as we can be.
CASA will be changing the wording from "incipient spin" to "stall with wing drop".
If students are taught right from go to use the rudder properly to maintain balance, particularly in a go around; and the nonsense about picking up a dropping wing with full opposite rudder was taken out of the text books then we are about as safe as we can be.