CFI Spin Requirements

On Feb 20, 4:28 pm, "Allen" wrote:

Bill O'Reily - The "No Spin Zone"
--


Oh man, do I feel dumb.

On Feb 20, 1:32*pm, kontiki wrote:
Allen wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Feb 20, 3:09 pm, "Bob F." wrote:
He took the Bill O'Reilly course.
BobF. CFII/ATP
I don't pretend to know what that means...

Dan

Bill O'Reily - The "No Spin Zone"

mxsmanic even spun his sim a few times.

I tried to spin a Mooney in MSFS X. I could never get it to stay in a
spin. I assume the logic of the game was faulty but I certainly don't
have the guts to try to spin my Mooney.

-Robert

On Feb 20, 10:26*am, " wrote:
In preparing for the CFI I was surprised to learn that many CFIs have
never done a spin. I wondered how this could be, until I carefully
reviewed the Section 61.105-107

There's no *requirement* to actually spin -- only that the applicant
exhibits knowledge of "(11) Stall awareness, spin entry, spins, and
spin recovery techniques for the airplane and glider category
ratings;"

and has "(1) Receive a logbook endorsement from an authorized
instructor indicating that the applicant is competent and possesses
instructional proficiency in stall awareness, spin entry, spins, and
spin recovery procedures after providing the applicant with flight
training in those training areas in an airplane or glider, as
appropriate, that is certificated for spins; and

(2) Demonstrate instructional proficiency in stall awareness, spin
entry, spins, and spin recovery procedures. However, upon presentation
of the endorsement specified in paragraph (i)(1) of this section an
examiner may accept that endorsement as satisfactory evidence of
instructional proficiency in stall awareness, spin entry, spins, and
spin recovery procedures for the practical test, provided that the
practical test is not a retest as a result of the applicant failing
the previous test for deficiencies in the knowledge or skill of stall
awareness, spin entry, spins, or spin recovery instructional
procedures. If the retest is a result of deficiencies in the ability
of an applicant to demonstrate knowledge or skill of stall awareness,
spin entry, spins, or spin recovery instructional procedures, the
examiner must test the person on stall awareness, spin entry, spins,
and spin recovery instructional procedures in an airplane or glider,
as appropriate, that is certificated for spins;"

So technically .. if one found a complicit CFI, one could be a
Certified Flight Instructor with absolutely no real experience
actually entering or recovering from a spin.

This squares with some (scary) things I've heard regarding "90 day
wonder" CFI/IIs who have never been in IMC, never fully stalled, and
never used an E-6B (electronic or manual).

Dan

Dan
I delayed responding as I have addressed this in the past. Like
several of the old timers here who learned to fly in the 40's/50's,
spins were a simple fact and were done without a lot of thought. As I
recall, in the 60's, there was a big push for new inspectors in the
FAA, new blood, "Equal Opportunity" etc ad naseum, and they hired a
lot of people who had no clue about the real world of aviation. I know
for a personal fact, several people who were hired because they were
either black or female and barely had their certificates. Now they
have risen to the higest ranks and are making policy and stil have no
clue about what flying is all about. That was the reason for the
tailwheel hysteria and endorsements, the spin training (or lack
thereof) and the general dumbing down of the requirements. Things have
not changed and there are damned few in the FSDO anymore who are worth
a damn or know what they6 are talking about. One of my favorites was
the FSDO inspector who asked me where the carb heat lever was on a
turbine helicopter....
As a senior instructor, I fly with new CFI's on standards checks and
am appalled at their general lack of basic proficiency or knowledge.
Spins? Stalls? Terrible if not outright felonious. I have done nearly
6000 hours of dual now.
Ol S&B

On 2008-02-20 08:26:19 -0800, " said:



So technically .. if one found a complicit CFI, one could be a
Certified Flight Instructor with absolutely no real experience
actually entering or recovering from a spin.

I think that interpreting the requirements as not requiring spin
training would be a poor defense against a charge of falsifying a
logbook entry.


This squares with some (scary) things I've heard regarding "90 day
wonder" CFI/IIs who have never been in IMC, never fully stalled, and
never used an E-6B (electronic or manual).

Dan

I have never met such a "90 day wonder," but if you say they are out there...

Never having been in IMC I can partly understand. After all, some
places never get IMC.

Perhaps you could name a school that is actually not doing spins,
stalls, or teaching flight planning.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

On Feb 21, 3:52 pm, C J Campbell
wrote:

I have never met such a "90 day wonder," but if you say they are out there...

Never having been in IMC I can partly understand. After all, some
places never get IMC.

Perhaps you could name a school that is actually not doing spins,
stalls, or teaching flight planning.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

I'm not that stupid to "name names" on usenet.

That said -- I know a CFII from a dedicated, go-full-time, CFI/Flight
Training program that doesn't know what an E-6B is, has never been in
IMC, and has never recovered from a spin.

And I stand by my assertion that there's a hole in the regulatory
language that you can drive a truck through -- there is no
*requirement* that the CFI candidate actually --Spin an airplane--
only that he/ she demonstrate "instructional proficiency."

While most reasonable people know what the intent of this paragraph of
the CFRs is, the intentional ambiguity is there -- and there are
people taking advantage of this fact.

Dan

" wrote
And I stand by my assertion that there's a hole in the regulatory
language that you can drive a truck through -- there is no
*requirement* that the CFI candidate actually --Spin an airplane--
only that he/ she demonstrate "instructional proficiency."

I thought that there was a requirement for CFI candidates to be able
to (b) Be able to read, speak, write, and UNDERSTAND the English
language.

What is there not to understand about the following regulation?

(1) Receive a logbook endorsement from an authorized instructor
indicating that the APPLICANT IS COMPETENT "and" possesses instructional
proficiency IN stall awareness, SPIN ENTRY, SPINS, and SPIN RECOVERY
procedures after providing the applicant with FLIGHT TRAINING IN THOSE
TRAINING AREAS in an airplane or glider, as appropriate, that is
certificated for spins.

How can one be deemed to be competent in a procedure without having
demonstrated that procedure.

Note that in the regulation, there are two requirements, first to be
competent in the maneuvers and second, to possess instuctional
proficiency in the maneuvers. Your "only that he/ she demonstrate
"instructional proficiency." is not a true statement.

Now.... when I was training for my Flight Instructor Certificate back
in 1970 at a Part 141 Flight Training Center, I was flying for PanAm
and was fairly recently out of the Navy and about 35 years old. My
20 year old instructor was obviously uncomfortable at the thought of
doing spins with me in the school's C-150, so we worked up a deal, He
would stand on the ground and just observe me doing a couple of spins.
If I lived, I would get the endorsement. :-) True story.

Bob Moore
CFI ASEL/IA AGI/IGI
ATP ASMEL B-727 B-707 L-188
Naval Aviator S-2 P-2 P-3
PanAm (retired)

On Feb 21, 7:13 pm, Robert Moore wrote:
" wrote

And I stand by my assertion that there's a hole in the regulatory
language that you can drive a truck through -- there is no
*requirement* that the CFI candidate actually --Spin an airplane--
only that he/ she demonstrate "instructional proficiency."

I thought that there was a requirement for CFI candidates to be able
to (b) Be able to read, speak, write, and UNDERSTAND the English
language.

What is there not to understand about the following regulation?

(1) Receive a logbook endorsement from an authorized instructor
indicating that the APPLICANT IS COMPETENT "and" possesses instructional
proficiency IN stall awareness, SPIN ENTRY, SPINS, and SPIN RECOVERY
procedures after providing the applicant with FLIGHT TRAINING IN THOSE
TRAINING AREAS in an airplane or glider, as appropriate, that is
certificated for spins.

How can one be deemed to be competent in a procedure without having
demonstrated that procedure.

Note that in the regulation, there are two requirements, first to be
competent in the maneuvers and second, to possess instuctional
proficiency in the maneuvers. Your "only that he/ she demonstrate
"instructional proficiency." is not a true statement.

Now.... when I was training for my Flight Instructor Certificate back
in 1970 at a Part 141 Flight Training Center, I was flying for PanAm
and was fairly recently out of the Navy and about 35 years old. My
20 year old instructor was obviously uncomfortable at the thought of
doing spins with me in the school's C-150, so we worked up a deal, He
would stand on the ground and just observe me doing a couple of spins.
If I lived, I would get the endorsement. :-) True story.

Bob Moore
CFI ASEL/IA AGI/IGI
ATP ASMEL B-727 B-707 L-188
Naval Aviator S-2 P-2 P-3
PanAm (retired)

I agree with you -- a reasonable person understands what that
paragraph means.

BUT -- someone who wants to weasel out of it can and some have. I
think the wording is ambiguous compared to other paragraphs that are
intentionally specific -- x many hours, y many approaches.

Dan

On Feb 21, 7:13 pm, Robert Moore wrote:

How can one be deemed to be competent in a procedure without having
demonstrated that procedure.

Note that in the regulation, there are two requirements, first to be
competent in the maneuvers and second, to possess instuctional
proficiency in the maneuvers. Your "only that he/ she demonstrate
"instructional proficiency." is not a true statement.


Bob Moore
CFI ASEL/IA AGI/IGI
ATP ASMEL B-727 B-707 L-188
Naval Aviator S-2 P-2 P-3
PanAm (retired)

Bob,

Let me rephrase the problem -- Why would the CFRs be so specific in
some paragraphs and not as specific in this case?

Dan

I've seen a "pencil annuals".. what makes you think some CFI would not do
the same thing.

B

"Robert Moore" wrote in message
46.128...
" wrote
And I stand by my assertion that there's a hole in the regulatory
language that you can drive a truck through -- there is no
*requirement* that the CFI candidate actually --Spin an airplane--
only that he/ she demonstrate "instructional proficiency."

I thought that there was a requirement for CFI candidates to be able
to (b) Be able to read, speak, write, and UNDERSTAND the English
language.

What is there not to understand about the following regulation?

(1) Receive a logbook endorsement from an authorized instructor
indicating that the APPLICANT IS COMPETENT "and" possesses instructional
proficiency IN stall awareness, SPIN ENTRY, SPINS, and SPIN RECOVERY
procedures after providing the applicant with FLIGHT TRAINING IN THOSE
TRAINING AREAS in an airplane or glider, as appropriate, that is
certificated for spins.

How can one be deemed to be competent in a procedure without having
demonstrated that procedure.

Note that in the regulation, there are two requirements, first to be
competent in the maneuvers and second, to possess instuctional
proficiency in the maneuvers. Your "only that he/ she demonstrate
"instructional proficiency." is not a true statement.

Now.... when I was training for my Flight Instructor Certificate back
in 1970 at a Part 141 Flight Training Center, I was flying for PanAm
and was fairly recently out of the Navy and about 35 years old. My
20 year old instructor was obviously uncomfortable at the thought of
doing spins with me in the school's C-150, so we worked up a deal, He
would stand on the ground and just observe me doing a couple of spins.
If I lived, I would get the endorsement. :-) True story.

Bob Moore
CFI ASEL/IA AGI/IGI
ATP ASMEL B-727 B-707 L-188
Naval Aviator S-2 P-2 P-3
PanAm (retired)