Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Prevent loss of control in GA - NTSB most wanted list

http://www.ntsb.gov/safety/mwl/Pages/mwl7_2015.aspx

Am not sure when we went to the minimum two hour stall training regime for the PPL without spin training. Perhaps around the time Piper introduced the taper wing Warrior, which has had an excellent safety record with few (none?) stall/spin accidents, which suggests spin training was dropped from the PPL syllabus in the late 1970’s in most countries.

While this training regime has had an excellent effect on training fatalities, the post PPL record remains a stubborn problem, hence loss of control being on the NTSB MWL.

Absent us all flying taper wing Warriors designs – the highway safety and car industry would probably favour this solution, i.e. the rapid dissemination and homogenisation of safety design improvements throughout the car fleet – there is clearly something missing in the initial and recurring stall training at the PPL level. The two hours of logged stall training is not reducing the stall/low level loss of control accident rate, only the training accident rate.

Part 121 airline operations will require mandatory upset recovery training by 2019 (likely to be at least one week long, with ground school, special D level simulators and aerobatic flight training) and therefore it is likely that formal spin training will be resurrected outside the minority sports of aerobatics and the rather minimal spin training for the FI ticket. It will be interesting to see if this results in some existing crew washing out, I don’t believe they will get grandfather rights.

The argument against spin training is that if it occurs at low level you will not recover in any event. But without a real life understanding and experience (at a safe altitude) of a crossed control, base to final departure from controlled flight into an incipient spin, pilots may not sufficiently appreciate the risk. You could also demonstrate spin entry with both feet on the floor, only using ailerons, size of and geometry of the rudder being more relevant for recovery. My thesis is that prevention through stall awareness training alone may not go far enough in building a better understanding of why aircraft depart controlled flight.

AoA indicators, becoming more of a standard piece of equipment, may also help. BRS also a help, if loss of control is above 500 feet, and insurance companies are now offering zero deductibles for BRS deployment (presumably fraud exclusions apply).

Oxford (EGTK), United Kingdom

be honest with themselves about their knowledge level of stalls, and their ability to recognize and handle them.Italic

And here lies the problem. The withdrawal of spin awareness from the syllabus was a huge mistake. My perception of PPL training today, is that the stall, and if you are lucky, an incipient spin, are in a sense quickly glossed over. So, despite, forming part of the training programme, I am not sure that students even get close to experiencing what the approach to stall/spin feels like. Once done, the box is ticked, covered that sighs the instructor, and onto the the cross country. I have met many instructors who cannot do them themselves, let alone teach a student. My view, is that every pilot should go out and get themselves at least five hours of stall/spin training, and that should be repeated every two years. I appreciate that it is not everyone’s cup of tea, but it may well save your life. Most spins, and stall incidents, could, and can be, recovered, particularly if caught quickly at altitude. The issue appears to be that they are not recognised, and by the time the poor pilot wakes up, it is too late.
RobertL18C wrote:

My thesis is that prevention through stall awareness training alone may not go far enough in building a better understanding of why aircraft depart controlled flight.

Again, an understanding of the theory behind the actual physics, would go a long way. I would bet that if you wandered into a flying club tomorrow, and asked the question – who has spun an aeroplane, and tell me why it occurred, the answers may well frighten the life out of you, and the guy answering the question. It is a really big issue.

Last Edited by BeechBaby at 15 Dec 09:56
Fly safe. I want this thing to land l...
EGPF Glasgow

I think part of the problem is that many instructors are afraid of spins. It’s not something they do a lot, and since many (especially in the US) are merely trying to build hours to become airline pilots you get the issue of 10 generations worth of instructors where 300 hour new instructors have started with new students, who become 300 hour instructors themselves – with great book knowledge but not too much practical knowledge yet, they’ve just not had the chance. Therefore old wives’ tales persist rather well since no one has tried to refute them.

So doing stall exercises with students where the plane might spin are avoided because it makes the instructor as nervous as the student. Add to this to the advice “don’t bank more than X degrees in the circuit” (without continuing that with what you should do) and people end up trying to “help” turns with excess rudder when they’ve overshot.

Straight ahead stalls don’t really prepare someone for the situation of a descending skidded turn and the set of feedback loops that make this so much more likely to result in a stall that comes on a lot quicker than out in the practise area, and can happen with very little warning and seemingly well above stall speed.

Glider training would often help, spin training certainly in these parts is still a big thing in gliders, and instructors will try to set up realistic scenarios for inadvertent spins.

Andreas IOM

It looks as if EASA is trying to go in the same direction. During our instructor meeting of last week we were informed that an “Upset recovery training” might be included into the PPL training syllabus within the next few years:

https://easa.europa.eu/document-library/notices-of-proposed-amendment/npa-2015-13

For the FTO’s this might be a bit tricky to implement. Not many training aircraft commonly in use are approved for aerobatics, many of the not even for intentional spinning. Our FTO recently sold one of the two aerobatics approved aircraft due to lack of usage… The same applies to the instructors: It turned out that of our 30+ instructors only one has a (lapsed) aerobatic instructor rating that most probably will be a requirement for this kind of training.

EDDS - Stuttgart

RobertL18C wrote:

Am not sure when we went to the minimum two hour stall training regime for the PPL without spin training. Perhaps around the time Piper introduced the taper wing Warrior, which has had an excellent safety record with few (none?) stall/spin accidents, which suggests spin training was dropped from the PPL syllabus in the late 1970’s in most countries.

That sounds about right. I got my license first time in 1984 and by then the (US/UK) aviation mags still had raging debates about whether dropping spin training was a good idea.

IIRC, the rationale for dropping spin training was that more people were killed in spin training accidents than in accidental stall/spin crashes.

The first time I spun an aircraft was in a Cub during my tailwheel training.

Last Edited by Airborne_Again at 15 Dec 13:21
ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

I did my PPL in Norway in 1995 on a Piper Tomahawk PA38-112. At that time Norway had their own national aviation regulations, like most other countries in Europe I suppose. JAR came soon after I completed my PPL.

At that time spin training was no longer required, and even recommended against. Therefore I never did a fully developed spin, but we did entered the spin and immediately recovered. In the Piper Tomahawk that was quite spectacular.

My instructor at that time did however tell me he had spun the Tomahawk hundreds of times back when it was part of the practical syllabus. Tomahawk started production in 1978… but I do not know when they stopped spin training, and my instructor may well have continued to demonstrate spins even after it was no longer required. He never offered to do one with me.

LFPT, LFPN

FAA deleted the spin training requirement in 1949. However there is no prohibition on spin training. As with all FAA training for the private certificate, you do what you and your instructor think is appropriate for your situation and operation of your aircraft. There is no fixed syllabus. As long as training includes developing the skill required to meet the published Practical Test Standards, plus some mandatory stuff like the cross countries and night flying, you will pass your check ride.

Last Edited by Silvaire at 15 Dec 15:13

He never offered to do one with me.

That’s maybe what saved you… I quote from Wikipedia: “The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) estimated that the Tomahawk’s stall/spin accident rate was three to five times that of the Cessna 150/152.

Last Edited by what_next at 15 Dec 15:10
EDDS - Stuttgart

Silvaire wrote:

you do what you and your instructor think is appropriate for your situation and operation of your aircraft

Correct. The standard PPL training and checkride verification (PTS) is slow and high speed stalls, turning stalls, but not spins. High altitude spins are not the problem, low altitude spin entry is the problem. And those are non recoverable.

IMHO it was a mistake to remove the spins from the syllabus. On the contrary I would add 3 hours of basic aerobatics to every PPL. I say that, because I remember how my confidence and understanding of flight changed after I had done the complete aerobatic course in the Czech Republic – three years after I did the PPL.

61 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top