I must say, I enjoyed the September 2014 issue of Flight Training more than any issue yet published (“Special Issue: Spins Focus”). Spin issues and training are far too underrated in my opinion. As a United States Army flight instructor (1960s and 1970s), spins were taught as just one more maneuver to be mastered by Army aviators. You can be sure I’ve had more than one conversation in regard to the pros and cons of spin training over the half-century since then. For the most part, I saw nothing in this issue of Flight Training I can take issue with, although I would like to express my philosophy about the value of spin training.
Philosophically, I am of the opinion that pilots should experience spins for the first time in the company of an experienced flight instructor. The worst-case scenario is for a pilot to experience a spin for the first time by himself. If a pilot is competent in spin recoveries, it could make a difference someday. We can all agree, the chances of preventing the typical traffic-pattern spin accident, once it is started, are practically zero. I would suggest that the chances of surviving a traffic-pattern spin accident, once it is started, are slim to none.
In most traffic-pattern spin accidents the airplane contacts the ground at an angle of between 45 and 90 degrees nose down. This will not be a survivable situation. However, if the pilot is able to recover enough so that the aircraft strikes the ground at less than a 45-degree angle, the energy dissipation difference may allow for survival of some or all of the people on board.
I have taught my students spins as a presolo maneuver so they will have a slim chance in the traffic pattern scenario and no problem at higher altitudes.
Steven J. Rossiter
Missoula, Montana
Final Exam
As a student pilot, I enjoy the monthly challenge of the Final Exam questions; however, unless I have misunderstood the question, I believe the answer to October's question three should be B, instead of the answer C listed. While the required groundspeed is indeed higher than 140 knots because of the headwind (I calculated the groundspeed needed was 152 knots), when converted to calibrated/indicated airspeed using the pressure altitude and temperature information,
the indicated airspeed asked for in the question is 137 (answer B).
Bruce Cotterill
California, Maryland
The writer is correct. Flight Training regrets the error—Ed.
The first question in the Final Exam in the October 2014 issue refers to VHF/DF (direction finding) equipment. That question may still be on the FAA knowledge tests, but the FAA long ago decommissioned DF equipment in the lower 48, and the last setup in Alaska was shut down in 2013.
Bruce Williams
Seattle, Washington
Related Articles
