No spin training in the US?

Recently, Mark Morissette posted:

What's eveyrones opinion regarding the lack of spin traning for
students in the US? I see that there was a thread about this from an
instructor viewpoint a while back, but not necessarilly from the
student viewpoint.

I think the emphasis in the US has shifted toward spin-avoidance. We are
required to perform both climbing (power-on) and descending (power-off)
turning stalls.

Neil

"Mark Morissette" wrote in message
...
What's eveyrones opinion regarding the lack of spin traning for
students in the US? I see that there was a thread about this from an
instructor viewpoint a while back, but not necessarilly from the
student viewpoint.

Spin training died with the publication of "Stick and Rudder" by
Langewiesche. It took a few years, but death was inevitable. When this book
became widely accepted, with its emphasis on training in stall avoidance and
its calls for aircraft designs that would not stall, let alone spin, people
became convinced that spin training was both dangerous and unnecessary. Even
rudder pedals would become anachronisms and airplanes would no longer even
be capable of uncoordinated flight. After all, why teach pilots how to
recover from spins when airplanes of the future won't spin?

C J Campbell wrote:

After all, why teach pilots how to recover from spins when airplanes
of the future won't spin?

My perspective is one of a student pilot, so I'll happily defer to those
who know more than I do on the topic if it turns out that I'm looking at
this the wrong way. With that said, it seems counterintuitive to not to
perform spin recovery during training for the Private. We spend so much
time and effort learning, drilling, and become proficient at all sorts
of "non-optimal" flying situations (stalls, unusual attitudes, BAI,
engine out, etc etc) that not doing spins seems like a glaring omission.
Should we be trained to recognize the factors that lead to a spin?
Absolutely (we are). Should we be taught how to recover from spins?
Absolutely (we are).

Should we be required to demonstrate that knowledge during the
checkride? Well, that's a call for the FAA, but I believe we should at
least have to earn an endorsement that says we've demonstrated
proficiency during our training. After all, we have to earn a solo
endorsement. Why not a spin endorsement, too? I feel strongly enough
about this that I'll be seeking spin training post-ticket. If it'll help
me become a safer, more knowledgeable, more competent pilot, it's worth
the money. Why would *anyone* want their first experience with
*demonstrated* spin recovery to be when they *need* it? That seems to be
a dangerous gambit. Do I plan on getting into spins routinely? Heck no!!
But, we don't train exclusively for the routine. We train for the
exceptions, too.

As a related question: Does anyone know if the post-ticket fatalities
caused by spins have changed at all since the FAA removed demonstrating
them from the PTS?

Anyway, that's my $.02 on the topic. I'm quite happy to stand corrected
if it turns out I'm off-base here. I look forward to your collective
feedback.


--J

After earning my Private, I went on to take spin training (then
Aerobatic Training).

Just because it's not mandatory - doesn't mean it's not a good idea.
More new pilots should realize the value of continued education - and
find ways to get it.

One story about a Cherokee or Cessna getting tossed by turbulence or
jet blast/prop wash might get their attention.

Keep in mind.... It's really your ass up there!

What really stops spin trainnnig for pilots is instrument training.
Today, FBOs want to be able to use ALL their planes for instrument
instruction. It no longer makes sense to have different aircraft.
Spinning an instrument training aircraft is a really bad idea because
it bangs up the gyros and increases maintenance costs on the gyros. I
would love to give my students spin training in the Cherokee but the
FBO doesn't allow it because its an instrument platform too.

-Robert, CFI