Public Message Forum
Yes, we can do more in the stall arena while steering clear of spins. My students have read enough about spins that they believe a spin lies just on the other side of every stall. For those who ask, sure, I spin with them. For the others, the answer is the falling leaf exercise. One can fly a stall down a thousand feet or two by doing the faling leaf. If this exercise doesn't get the student on the rudder, nothing will.
How does this translate to the FAA? It means that the PTS must include a falling leaf demonstration. Otherwise, if it isn't on the test, no one will teach it.
I volunteer to write a sample TASK. You all can criticise it. Then we can propose it.
If we are to be an effective training organization, we need to offer concrete suggestions, not just grouse about NAFI and the sub-optimal training provided by the regional airlines.
Robert
While I think the falling leaf stall is a useful exercise I'm not convinced that it is a PTS type item. I have actually seen incorrect teaching of it (or incorrect understanding... which means learning did not take place), almost lead to a spin in a 182.
I have mixed feelings about the teaching of spins in the airplanes. If it is done correctly in a proper airplane, I'm all for it. I offer (and encourage), my students to go through a spin module during their training. I've also seen some scary and disappointing things with CFI applicants. I've had some tell me a stall is when you fly too slow; a spin is when you slip the airplane; I've had CFI applicants complain that I want them to teach me about stalls/spins- they only need the endorsement, "Why should I have to teach you about spins?"; I've had CFI applicants balk at doing more than one flight for their spin endorsement- their friend will take them up and do it in one flight.
Spin training for student pilots by CFIs who don't know what they are teaching and in airplanes that should not be spun will do little to improve the stall/spin accident rate. I guess my gut feeling is that the problem lies with the first line of defense- the CFIs teaching spin awareness to student pilots. A good start might be to increase the recurrent training requirement for CFIs, much like what doctors must do. Actually, I should write "make" a recurrent training requirement for CFIs... there really is not one unless you count the CFI renewal courses. I encourage my clients to get some kind of training event at least once a year that counts as a flight review, and never do the same thing two years in a row. Spin training, mountain training, tail wheel training, an additional rating, etc. I would like to see CFIs do the same. It could easily be worked into the renewal requirement for CFIs. Heck, I know CFIs who have been teaching for years yet only have the one or two spins they did for the intial CFI.
Hello Sam --
If you don't like the falling leaf as a PTS task, then what do you suggest in the alternative? New airplanes like the Cirrus and Columbia are certificated with different spin standards than other airplanes. Don't you think that that requires a different approach to the Spin Awareness task?
I understand you to suggest that instructors be go through a flight review process, rather than one of the existing recurrency paths.
This is will require some new thinking at the FAA. Only pilots are required flight reviews. Other airmen can fufill by classroom education or demonstration that they have exercised the priveleges of their certificates. A&Ps must practice. IAs must do annual inspections or go to a seminar. Do your think that the other members of SAFE will support a biennial instruction review for themselves?
You bring up a good point: We could demand review and testing on any of the areas of specialty we advertise. My certificate says I am a seaplane instructor, but I am no more qualified to teach than fly to the moon. I am current in tailwheel instruction, in spins and unusual attitudes, on the Hudson River, and in international operations.
Let's apply the groundrule of brainstorming to theis thread: if you want to criticize, first you have to offer an new alternative.
Robert
Robert
I did provide an alternative, and I hardly slammed you for the falling leaf exercise suggestion.
Some CFIs may not like the idea of going for flight reviews, but do we want CFIs around who are still teaching the way they learned 40 years ago, with no updates to his/her sills? Do you want a surgeon operating on you who has not updated his skills in 40 years? As an airline captain I had simulator events every 6 months and ground school once a year. Being a CFI is more demanding and hazardous, but the currency requirements are lower.
If we want to improve safety I think we should begin by not looking at others and their training, but by looking in the mirror and at our training.
Hello Sam --
My post came specifically from the FAA preoposed revision of Part 23 and the possibility it will change stall training.
I added a couple of comments as a result of the Colgan accident. That crew either forgot their primary training in stalls, or were distracted by the recurrent training they get that emphasizes tailplane stalls.
Our private candidates should not see tailplane ice.
Robert
