On Tuesday, June 4, 2013 2:36:42 PM UTC-7, Bill D wrote:

The official view (not mine) is accidental spins are rare but mandating spin training would subject everyone to them making the overall risk comparable. There have been spin training accidents in the UK though not recently in the US as far as I know.

....

A far more common "spin accident" sees the aircraft completing less than one turn before impact. These are probably an incipient spin immediately transitioning to a spiral dive. In this case, the classic spin recovery technique taught at altitude is of little use and may even be dangerous.


We should be clear to distinguish between gliders and GA more broadly. I would argue that gliders have a higher risk of accidental spins and lower risk associated with properly executed practice. Certainly it's not a good idea to practice spins at close to pattern altitude or in an aircraft with unpredictable spin characteristics, without a parachute, without proper instruction, etc.

It should go without saying that if you are going to practice spins you will benefit more from practicing the kinds of entries that are likely to catch you by surprise (low bank angle, over-ruddered turns). I disagree with the idea that being familiar with how a glider behaves in a spin entry at a safe altitude is somehow worse for a pilot than having to figure it out for the first time at 300'.

If you can find the official study, I'd love to see it. I'm wondering whether they simply assume that most CFIs are simply not competent enough pilots to be trusted not to do really dumb things should spin training be mandated or that a single fatality from mandated spin training is worse from a liability perspective than many more from accidental stall/spins.

Mandated or not I think it's a good idea to get familiar with what happens to your glider under the circumstances that kill more glider pilots than any other phase of flight.

9B