"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

However, this is meaingless. The issue isn't how many were killed by
spins during training vs. otherwise, the issue is how many people
recovered from a spin and thus weren't killed.

That is not even close to the issue. The issue is how many dead while spins
were required vs. how many dead after the requirement was dropped. The
later is a smaller number thus the logical option.

It is sort of like
looking at stats for engine failures with singles vs. twins. We know
how many singles lose an engine as they make a power-off landing, often
off airport.

We certainly do not know that number. There are hundreds if not thousands
of unreported off field landings due to engine failure every year.

We don't know, however, how many twins didn't make an
emergency or off-airport because they were able to make it to an airport
on their remaining engine.
I also don't see the logic in spin recognition vs. spin training. I
don't see how you can learn to be proficient in spin entry

Who cares if one is proficient in spin entry. For normal flight it is a
totally useless ability.

and recovery
without learning to recognize a stall and incipient spin. So this whole
concept of stall recognition vs. stall training seems pretty illogical
to me.

We are not talking about stalls. Stalls do not equal spins. But as long as
you brought it up, learning to recognize and recover from an incipent stall
(NOT SPIN) will prevent a spin. It's the old chain of events scenario.
Break the chain early on and you don't need to worry about what might
happen later. This makes spin recovery an unneeded ability. If you've
screwed the pooch bad enough to get into a spin you are probably out of
altitude anyway and all the training in the world won't do you any good.

It's all extremely logical.


Matt