Eye of Experience #7:
To Spin or Not to Spin?

To spin or not to spin? That is the question AVweb's Howard Fried tries to answer as he reviews the pros and cons of spin training. Dropped from the training syllabus in the late Fifties, there are still many who feel it has value and would like to see all pilots exposed to this maneuver at a time other than when they are killed by it. Howard suggests that reintroducing it may be more difficult than you think, even if everyone agreed it was a good idea.

0

Eye Of Experience

To be or not to be? William Shakespeare, 1636

To spin or not to spin? Howard Fried, 1998

Ever since spin training was deleted from the primary trainingrequirements way back in 1957 there has been a raging controversyin the aviation education community over whether it was a mistake todrop spin training and whether or not to reinstate it in everypilot’s training.

There is no doubt whatsoever that a bit of aerobatic training,including spin training, would produce better airplane manipulators,if not better pilots. Pilots would certainly become more awareof their spatial orientation. And, if a pilot should find himselfor herself in a truly unusual attitude, he or she would be preparedto apply proper recovery technique. The question remains, then,why is this not done? One answer is that the flight schools andthe airplane manufacturers, concerned about the fear of spinsdriving prospective flight students (and consequently airplanebuyers) away, always bitterly object to the idea of reintroducingspin training into the primary curriculum.

Spin training proposals never make it

Prior to 1957 the Private Pilot Flight Test (what we now callthe Practical Test) included a requirement that the applicantdemonstrate spin entries and recoveries, right and left. Todaythis requirement only applies to flight instructor applicants,and even they don’t have to do it on the checkride just so longas they have an endorsement to the effect that they have had trainingin spin entries and recoveries, left and right. Ever since spintraining was dropped from the primary curriculum from time totime proposals have been advanced to reintroduce spin trainingto all pilots. Thus far, none of these proposals have progressedbeyond the proposal stage. Meanwhile, pilots are continuing todie as a result of blundering into inadvertent spins. In fact,the rate at which this happens is relatively unchanged in allthese years.

It is my understanding that the reason spin training was eliminatedfrom the primary curriculum was in an effort to encourage themanufacturers of training airplanes to build, if not spin proof,at least spin resistant trainers. And, this effort was at leastpartially successful, because at least some (but not all) moderntrainers have to be forced into a spin.

Perhaps Fred Weick hadthe right idea way back in the mid-30s when he designed theErcoupe, a delightful little airplane which was characteristicallyincapable of spinning. Other than that single model, any certificatedproduction airplane can be made to spin. We’re not referringto the homebuilt kit airplanes. Some of the composite constructionkits, particularly the Burt Rutan canard designs, are truly spinproof.Just because a production airplane is not certified for spinsdoesn’t mean it can’t or won’t spin. It simply means that it wasn’ttested for fully developed spins in the certification process.

There are, of course, two elements required for an airplane tospin. First, it must be stalled, and second, there must be a yawmoment introduced. Recovery techniques vary slightly from onemake and model of aircraft to another, but the basic recoverytechnique always involves the stopping of the autorotation byeliminating the yaw and then recovering from the stall. Worksevery time.

Both Sides of the Issue

Where do I stand on the subject, you ask? My feet are firmly plantedon both sides of the issue. Please permit me to explain. Mostof today’s flight instructors have never experienced a real, fullydeveloped spin. What happens is this: During the course of flightinstructor training, the instructor instructor will one day say,”OK, today we’ll get the spin requirement out of the way.” He and his CFI trainee then go out to the airplane, take off,and climb to a decent altitude, at which time the instructor says,”Now watch closely while I demonstrate a left entry and recovery.”At this time, he hauls back on the yoke, stands the airplane onits tail, and just as it breaks in a stall, he mashes on the leftrudder. The airplane falls off on the left wing and starts torotate. Immediately (before it has gone through a quarter of aturn), the instructor mashes on the right rudder and relaxes theback pressure. As the airplane recovers in a slight dive, he says,”There, that was a left one. Now I’ll show you one to theright,” and he repeats the process.

In the forty years since spin training was dropped, we are nowinto the forth generation of CFIs who got their spin traininglike that, and that kind of so-called spin training is actuallyworse than useless. It is a detriment. The instructor traineehas not seen a real spin and would be incapable of recognizingone if he were to experience it. If this is how it is to be done,I would strongly oppose putting spin training back in every pilot’slearning experience.

Good Spin Training

On the other hand, if spin training were to be conducted properly,I would even more strongly favor its reintroduction into the primaryflight curriculum. By “conducted properly,” I mean ifspins were to be introduced from normally anticipated flight situationsand permitted to develop into a genuine spin rather than onlyan incipient spin. This would provide a valuable learning experienceand would truly equip the student to recover not only from aninadvertent spin, but almost any unusual attitude into which hemight blunder.

When I say “normally anticipated flight situations”here’s what I mean: In a steep turn (50-55 degrees of bank) tothe left, P-factor is attempting to yaw the nose of the airplanefarther to the left. Meanwhile, the pilot is holding right rudderto keep the nose level and a bit of right aileron to counteractthe overbanking tendency. The airplane is pulling almost two Gs,raising the stall speed drastically. Just a slight nudge on theelevator will result in a stall. The left (bottom) wing will comeup and over as the nose drops and the airplane starts to spinto the right. The picture from the cockpit is quite alarming. If the power is not instantly reduced to idle, the spin willrapidly tighten and altitude will be lost at a rapid rate. Ina steep right turn, the yaw to the right is aggravated by holdingleft aileron to offset the overbanking tendency and right rudderto help prevent the airplane from unbanking.

Realistic Scenarios

Using an airplane certified for spins, the student is taken toa good, safe altitude, say five thousand five hundred feet AGL,and the runway is set up at an even five thousand feet. We thenovershoot the turn from base to final, steepen the bank, and pullthe nose up in an effort to get lined up with the hypotheticalrunway. They would quickly learn what happened to all those airplanesthat spin in on final.

Another good spin training scenario is to again hypothesize alanding approach. This time we’re on final. The airplane is inlanding configuration with a substantial amount of up elevatortrim. At the last moment we attempt a go-around. As we apply fullpower, with less than perfect rudder usage, P-factor yaws theairplane to the left, the nose pitches up drastically, the airplanestalls and starts to spin. Again, the student sees a realisticsituation from which spins occur.

Using scenarios such as these for spin training, I would stronglyfavor the reintroduction of spin training into the primary curriculum.Do you agree? Do you disagree? Let me know how you feel aboutthis. The aviation community seems to be almost equally dividedon the subject.

Some Disagree

There are those who maintain that the spin recovery characteristicsof different make and model airplanes are so different that spintraining in primary training airplanes would be useless, but Ibelieve that since the two elements necessary for spins–a yawmoment and the fact that the airplane must be stalled–are the same in all aircraft, the recoverytechnique always requires that the rotation be stopped by removingthe yaw with opposite rudder and recovering from the stall withnormal stall recovery technique. It has been conclusively shownthat all normal category GA aircraft will recover from a spinif the power is retarded and the controls let go. Proper recoverytechnique is necessary, however, for a prompt recovery with minimumloss of altitude.

If stall training were done right…

Of course, if stall training were to be done properly, there wouldbe no need for spin training. Flight instructors and flight schoolsare doing it all wrong. They are teaching their students in atotally unnatural way how to make an airplane stall and then howto recover. What they should be doing is teaching students howto recognize an incipient stall and prevent it from happening.No stall, no spin. It is as simple as that.

Even more fundamental is the necessity to instill in the studenta complete understanding of the concept of angle of attack. Thisseems to be a particularly difficult concept for many studentsto grasp, and quite a few pilots out there are unaware of therelationship between power and angle of attack–how adding orreducing power changes the direction of the relative wind, andthus the angle of attack. Perhaps this is because the idea ofrelative wind is hard to visualize. We will be discussing thisin more detail and greater depth in future Eye of Experience columns.

LEAVE A REPLY