Spin training for US pilots?

On Wednesday, June 5, 2013 9:12:56 AM UTC-4, K wrote:
On Tuesday, June 4, 2013 9:51:31 AM UTC-6, Martin Eiler wrote:



Recently we saw a pilot upgrade in performance to an ASW20.



In spite of at least 3 instructors telling him he needed to get spin



training before flying that glider. The new owner has chosen to ignore



their recommendations.



Actually, If a pilot were to blow off spin training, A 20 is a good ship to own because it does not spin readily. More likely (Depending on the CG) it will enter into a steep spiral. The thing we need to remember is that it is not necessarily spins that cause accidents, It is the lack of recognition that does. This was addressed in the video that Sean posted. The goal of training should be to recognize and avoid spins in the first place and not just on spin recovery.

I disagree with this. Depending on wing tips, rigging, sealing and CG, the 20 can be a pussycat or it can be downright feral. Even when tamed with good winglets and proper set up, enough provocation will result in a spin. Since the pilot that can't be bothered to take a lesson probably isn't any better on inspections, W&B, rigging & sealing, presuming that his '20 is of the domestic variety might be a mistake.

I'd suggest that now would be a good time for an intervention of sorts. Kidnap the offender on a Saturday morning and cart him off to an appointment with a qualified CFIG.

My $0.02.

T8 (ASW-20B)

guy wrote:
When my fellow pilots
take control and attempt a full stall or spin, the vast majority
freeze up mentally and/or physically upon entering the maneuver. They
are not used to the feelings, the control feel, the sight picture, and
the sounds, or lack there of.

My instructor took me into my first spin many years ago,
when I was a pre-solo pupil.

My feeling then, and I've had no reason to change it since,
is that I strongly doubt I would have recovered on my own,
for exactly the reasons you mention.

Personally I'm glad my club has gliders that can be used
for spin training at down to 1000ft, and that I/we practice
them annually.

"snip


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.
Far more useful is recognizing an impending spin departure and correcting it
before it gets out of hand.

end snip

....Or the uncoordinated stall at very low altitude...

Dan

On 6/4/2013 10:42 PM, Bart wrote:
On Jun 4, 6:40 am, BobW wrote:
Personally, I find the mindsets I've encountered in fellow pilots (soaring and
power) regarding spins: often worrisome; always interesting; almost
universally lacking in fundamental understanding of the aerodynamic
uncertainties inherent to "departures from controlled flight" (typically
called "spin" for short).

To make a sweeping general statement which has long colored my own approach to
PIC-ing, if Joe Pilot doesn't truly believe "departure from controlled
flight/spinning" is "uncontrolled flight" Joe Pilot is doing him or herself a
serious disservice if living to fly another flight is personally important.
True whether margins are thin or not...

I have read this post several times and I am not sure if I fully
understand what you were trying to convey. ESL.

Are you saying that "unexpected departure is uncontrolled flight"? Of
course it is, almost by definition. If my glider is doing something I
did not want it to do then I obviously lost control, at least
temporarily.

But, you may also be saying that spins in general are "uncontrolled
flight." Is this the case?


Bart, who spins gliders for fun


Intentionally painting with a broad brush here, I'd wager polling professional
general aviation test pilots for their top two areas of professional concern
in flight test would yield (in no particular order): spin and flutter testing.
(Quite possibly true for military and passenger plane test pilots too, but
those planes differ sufficiently from "Joe Average Gliderpilot's sailplane
arena to warrant separate discussion...)

I doubt any general aviation test pilot approaches these tests with a
complacent mindset. That's not to suggest "real fear" is uppermost in their
minds, rather that "healthy respect" is. My view is a similar mindset is a
good thing for "Joe Average Gliderpilot" too...for the same reasons test
pilots have. Yes, for us sport sailplane pilots - in the case of certified
sailplanes - some of the uncertainties have been investigated (removed?), but...

We still have professional test pilots in this age of digital computational
fluid dynamics anyway because uncertainties still exist...manufacturing (e.g.
human factors), structural (arguably considerably more straightforward then
aerodynamics & including material variability, analytical uncertainties &
limitations, etc.), aerodynamic (interaction of the uncoordinated plane with
generally turbulent air in general, wing-profile dings/bugs, age-based
airframe changes, etc.), etc.

By their very nature, spins are a complex mixture of (rapidly) varying
aerodynamics (entry, rotation, convective turbulence), gravity, inertias
(longitudinal, rotational), balance (CG)...

In my view, spins are the closet Joe Average Gliderpilot is likely to
intentionally get to playing Joe Real Test Pilot. Mental complacency about
spins is - in my view - misguided, overly-hopeful thinking. I've flown only 13
or 14 different types of gliders, and intentionally spun only 3 of them (1-26,
2-32, Blanik L-13), though I've "pre-spin abused" all but 2 in which I've
minimal time and done nothing more than slow-flight airspeed "calibration" for
landing patterns. Never (yet) had an "unexpected departure from controlled
flight" experience...perhaps a result of "healthy paranoia"?

The type in which I've the most spin experience is (was) my 1-26 (S/N 105)
many years ago (it's still "in the flying fleet"). Over 2+ years of ownership
I spun it enough in both directions to learn it (then) would eventually
maintain a "stable spin" up to 17 consecutive turns (the most I ever did) in
one direction, while it wouldn't remain in a spin the other direction (at my
CG) for more than 6 turns...and each of those varied considerably in pitch,
bank angle and rotation rate throughout each 360. Spins in that direction
reminded me of what I then (minimally) knew of single-seat combat planes, most
specifically the A4 Skyhawk. In any event, it was a completely different
animal depending on the direction of spin, though - as with most (all?) 1-26s
- it took considerable abuse/inattention to depart controlled flight in the
ship, and considerable/intentional control inputs to keep it in the spin. I
doubt the example(s?) tested for certification exhibited the same behavior; no
1-26 driver I've queried over the years admits to similar experiences.

Likewise, a 2-32 formerly owned by my club "always" (and abruptly, if warnings
were ignored) departed left wing low for every intentional departure I/we
(instructor/co-pilot) experienced/messed with. And I don't recall it
"recovering on its own".

To the question, "Are spins uncontrolled flight?" the answer is something each
individual pilot gets to answer for themselves. Personally, I think they're
closer to "uncontrolled flight" than "controlled flight," or at the very
least, I think that having that mindset is better than complacently assuming
every certified sailplane will have "entirely predictable spin behavior if
flown within certified weight and balance conditions."

Am I fear mongering or arguing pilots should NOT spin or learn how to "safely
play around the edges of departing from controlled flight?" Heavens no! Once I
gut used to the sensations of "departing" and spinning, I too, found them
great fun. But the more I messed around with them and the more I educated
myself about "spinning," the more respect I gained for the uncertainties
inherent in "playing with a tiger."

Bob W.

I feel the real issue with spin training in the US has nothing to do with pilots or flight instructors but the views of the FAA itself, the availability of training locations, equipment, and placards.

The FAA does not allow anyone to do any aerobatic maneuver (defined as more than 30 degrees of pitch or 60 degrees of bank) without wearing a parachute. Since most pilots in the US are powered a/c pilots, the fbo's through which they rent generally do not have any parachutes. The FAA allows only pilots who are in their prep dual for the CFI checkride to do spin training without wearing one. So, in short:

Almost no one has a parachute (except some glider clubs or specialized training facilities).

A lot of GA powered a/c are placarded against it (cherokees, etc.)

The a/c have gyro instruments in them and rental companies hate it when you rattle the gyro's past their limit which they say causes unnecessary wear.

So, in order to get spin training, a person has to find a specialized school to do so, most likely not in their area. Or be training for their CFI Ticket. Or borrow/buy a couple parachutes, locate an a/c not placarded against it available for rent whose owner doesn't mind, and find a CFI willing to do it in those circumstances.

Essentially the parachute rule, combined with the lack of most flight schools possessing them puts the hammer down on the availability of training for it.

If that makes sense. I asked my cfi for spin training when I was a primary student in the 90's and he had an aeronica champ available to do it in but we couldn't find any parachutes easily so it was a wash.

I'm quite sure i'll be able to get the training in a glider fairly readily as more glider clubs have parachutes available. Then again. I already weigh 240 pounds so... well, looks like i'm not going to be able to wear the thing and make front seat of a lot of gliders anyway. lol May be screwed by my own body weight now!

Originally Posted by BrianM

I feel the real issue with spin training in the US has nothing to do with pilots or flight instructors but the views of the FAA itself, the availability of training locations, equipment, and placards.

The FAA does not allow anyone to do any aerobatic maneuver (defined as more than 30 degrees of pitch or 60 degrees of bank) without wearing a parachute. Since most pilots in the US are powered a/c pilots, the fbo's through which they rent generally do not have any parachutes. The FAA allows only pilots who are in their prep dual for the CFI checkride to do spin training without wearing one. So, in short:

Almost no one has a parachute (except some glider clubs or specialized training facilities).

A lot of GA powered a/c are placarded against it (cherokees, etc.)

The a/c have gyro instruments in them and rental companies hate it when you rattle the gyro's past their limit which they say causes unnecessary wear.

So, in order to get spin training, a person has to find a specialized school to do so, most likely not in their area. Or be training for their CFI Ticket. Or borrow/buy a couple parachutes, locate an a/c not placarded against it available for rent whose owner doesn't mind, and find a CFI willing to do it in those circumstances.

Essentially the parachute rule, combined with the lack of most flight schools possessing them puts the hammer down on the availability of training for it.

If that makes sense. I asked my cfi for spin training when I was a primary student in the 90's and he had an aeronica champ available to do it in but we couldn't find any parachutes easily so it was a wash.

I'm quite sure i'll be able to get the training in a glider fairly readily as more glider clubs have parachutes available. Then again. I already weigh 240 pounds so... well, looks like i'm not going to be able to wear the thing and make front seat of a lot of gliders anyway. lol May be screwed by my own body weight now!

The story (however accurate or inaccurate it is) about spin training in the US went something like this, as I recall:

1. It was in the PTS for the checkride 50 years ago or so.
2. The FAA and Manufacturers asked a bunch of CFI's what they wanted to see in a new training a/c back in the early 70's.

3. The CFI's said they wanted something more fuel efficient than a Cherokee and newer than the cessna 150. And they wanted something that wasn't so docile and that could be spun much easier. They felt this gave a student a training a/c that behaved more like the rest of the GA fleet in a spin.

4. Piper stepped up to the plate and created the Tomahawk

5. A bunch of people fell to their doom for various reasons.

6. The FAA just before this or after decided to pull it from the Test Standards or training requirements and replace it with 'stall/spin awareness.'

At least that's more or less the general story i've heard over the years.

I wish they'd bring it into the training requirements. I wish there were more options to rent an a/c to do it in. And I also wish it didn't require a parachute.

I do spin training and upset recovery, so we'll see and practice what happen in all the potential dangerous situations and how to get out of it.

You need to practice, because one thing is "knowing" what to do, totally different is to react promptly, having a clear vision of what is going to happen far in advance, and most of all not overreacting.

I show you how to get into a spin from many different situations and attitudes, like in thermalling, but also with skids on landings (we do that up high), you'll see how many feet you lose in a stall, and actually train your body to recognize those dangers, so you will just automatically avoid them without even thinking.

Just little part of the program...