Out Of The Pattern

Data doesn't lie. Spin doctor Rich Stowell, author of two best sellers on spin training and veteran of more than 8,000 spins (that's 437 vertical miles of spinning, for those of you who count), has the data. Since the FAA rescinded the spin training requirements in 1949 (yes, I know some remain - I'll get to that), CFIs, indeed, two generations of flight instructors have been thrown into the world to meet their students with little if any actual experience in spin theory and application.

What's worse, FAA data shows that, when polled, most instructors think their skills are more than adequate to cope with spins that result from accidental stalls. When these same CFIs are tested, however, their ability is seriously lacking. ("Re-Examination of Stall/Spin Prevention Training," Transportation Research Record, No. 1379, Transportation Research Board, April 1993).

Who do we think we're fooling? "Ourselves," says Stowell. "We have two things, an accidental stall-to-spin rate that caused 48 percent of the accidents before the FAA eliminated spin training, and accidental stalls that result in spins, which account for approximately 12 percent of today's aircraft accidents.

"The experts say rescinding spin training must have worked, but they didn't factor in the changes in airplane technology. In 1996 Brent Silver factored today's improved technology into a statistical analysis of general aviation stall/spin accidents. His study shows that for airplanes made before 1949 and still flying (such as the Aeronca 11, Ercoupe, Cessna 140, the Piper Super Cruiser PA-12 and Super Cub PA-18, and the Stinson 108) the stall/spin accident rate is 42 percent of the fatal accidents for these aircraft. The only thing responsible for saving our collective bacon is improved aircraft design."

Stowell offers more proof of the problem's root cause when he presents this startling fact - In recent years, stall/spin accidents have accounted for roughly 12 percent of general aviation accidents, but 25 percent of fatal accidents. "What caught my attention, however," says Stowell, "was that of these fatal stall/spins, 15 to 20 percent occurred during dual instructional flights - with FAA-certificated flight instructors on board!"

A few flight schools in the U.S. (Stowell runs one of them at Southern California's Santa Paula airport) specialize in spin training. At one of these schools the average instructor has taught spins for 15 years. The total number of stall/spin accidents recorded during any phase of any instructional flight whose primary purpose was spin or aerobatic training at these schools - zero. Ask Stowell for the survey - it is enlightening.

If you need more proof of the value of more extensive spin training, just ask the FAA. In a 1976 study, the FAA tested four groups of pilots to learn about their relative "spin-ability" out of an accidental stall after these groups had received varied amounts and kinds of spin training. Of the four, "Group 3 pilots received two hours of extra ground instruction and two hours of extra flight instruction. This group's accidental spin rate improved 33 percent. Its pilots did rudder stall exercises (not required now) and incipient spin entries. Group 4 pilots had the two hours ground, two hours flight, plus an extra half-hour of one-turn spin entries. Its accidental spin entry dropped to zero."

As far as Stowell is concerned, that study was the seed for adding information about spins and stalls back into the general aviation flight training curriculum some 15 years later.

To spin students or not to spin students may feel like a tired debate, but new data shows that we're ready for change. One study that surveyed CFIs at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University indicates that they find the idea of additional spin training (more than the one turn in either direction that most have experienced) is attractive and even welcome it.

"The study's author, David Lee Bagby, showed that the CFIs - whether or not they had flown aerobatics - recognized the training's value," says Stowell. "Eighty percent believed aerobatics would improve commercial pilot training, 96 percent believed that aerobatic training would improve safety, and 82 percent believed basic aerobatic training should be required for the commercial certificate. Eighty-one percent of the CFIs didn't agree that the current spin training is adequate. Most impressive of all, 98 percent of the surveyed ERAU instructors believed aerobatics would increase their own confidence and benefit their own flying skills."

I'm a believer. In 1988 I took Stowell's Emergency Maneuvers Training course. It was 10 hours of exhilarating and enlightening airwork in a Bellanca Super Decathlon and at least as many ground school hours. Why was I so inclined? One of my students had taken me on an exciting four-turn spin with full flaps after an accidental stall in a Cessna 152.

I was a lucky CFI because during my commercial training my instructor demanded that we strap on parachutes and take a few spins in each direction. (It was his airplane and he loved spins.) The accidental spin startled me, but it didn't rattle me, and I was able to recover the airplane without bending it. That is more than most CFIs can say. Even so, I still jumped at the chance to study with Stowell. What's more, I use the skills I learned there constantly, even passing them on to my students.

Schools such as Stowell's are scattered all over the U.S. Give the data a good hard look and search your own aviator soul. The FAA doesn't require in-depth spin training to earn a CFI ticket, but there's a lot more to being a good, safe, competent CFI than meeting the FAA's minimum requirements - don't you think?