What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Video: Avoiding Loss of Control with Expanded Envelope Exercises

Ed_Wischmeyer

Well Known Member
Matt Thurber, editor in chief of Aviation International News, flew E3 with me in the RV-9A a few months back. He was impressed with the RV-9A as we did exercises that will expand a pilot's comfort zone, making them more cognitively available to avoid loss of control.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70EMcCCpOsk

E3 is not a commercial venture, and will not be. Instead, I'm looking to partner with aviation organizations who want to adapt, use, and expand it.

My four minutes, six seconds of fame...
 
Great video Ed. I have been fortunate to be able to attend upset recovery in the airplane and sim. The E3 looks like a good tool.
 
Well done Ed.

It would be good in this day an age when many pilots believe a full stall leads to death.
 
I'm sure these exercises will be of much benefit to many pilots. It's unfortunate that all pilots can't be exposed to ten hours of aerobatic instruction...
 
I'm sure these exercises will be of much benefit to many pilots. It's unfortunate that all pilots can't be exposed to ten hours of aerobatic instruction...

Agreed, but here's the fooler... The Expanded Envelope Exercises teach things that aerobatics do not. This was confirmed by an E3 subject pilot who flies intermediate/advanced competition pilots, was an F-16 test pilot and is now a GA and bizjet test pilot/DER.
 
Ed,

Nice video. I have always thought that the dutch roll / nose on point exercise is one of the most beneficial skills there is. Especially for getting a new taildragger student up to speed about how they need to separate the yaw and roll axes for landing. Get them good at dutch rolls in the practice area and suddenly their landings (and confidence) improves greatly. I haven't seen the exercise lining up with the edges and center of the runway on final before. That looks like a great way to polish directional control and cross-wind skills more rapidly than multiple standard approaches in the pattern.

Jim
 
"The Expanded Envelope Exercises teach things that aerobatics do not"

Ed: Quite possibly so; however, I didn't see anything new in the video as shown. (I have a similar background as your E3 subject pilot although not on as new equipment (;>0) T-33, F-86, F-5, Transport Canada Flight Examiner, Corporate Aviation.)

If those exercises keep people from becoming statistics, all the better...

John
 
Agreed, but here's the fooler... The Expanded Envelope Exercises teach things that aerobatics do not. This was confirmed by an E3 subject pilot who flies intermediate/advanced competition pilots, was an F-16 test pilot and is now a GA and bizjet test pilot/DER.

What things? Besides the side step maneuver.
 
In the hopes of keeping this discussion on topic about E3 and not drifting into what aerobatics teaches you? and I?ve flown aerobatics in Citabrias, Decathlons, Great Lakes, my three short wing RVs and, with an instructor, in Pitts S-2C, Super Chipmunk, Europa, Yak52, Skybolt, and probably a few more. And I?ve taught basic aerobatics?

So what?s different about E3?
* E3 can be flown in your own, non-aerobatic airplane, so you train in what you fly every day. Granted, this is a non-issue for the short wing RVs, but even so, all of E3 is flown at less than 60? bank, 30? pitch, and 2 G. And loss of control statistics show lots of non-aerobatic airplanes;
* No parachutes, no high G maneuvers for those who are queasy, timid, less adventurous, or, like me, orthopedically limited to 2 Gs. This is another reason E3 is more accessible than aerobatics. And if you don?t have access to aerobatic instruction, you won?t learn those lessons;
* Aerobatics tend to preserve smash (airspeed) so that one maneuver can flow into the next. For example, aerobatic spins recover on the down line (vertically) to rebuild speed. E3 comprises primarily low speed exercises that aerobatics doesn?t do much;
* Some of E3 recreates accident scenarios. Not shown in the video was that the runway alignment exercise starts with a deliberate runway overshoot. For folks who have had it beaten into them that Thou Shalt Not Overshoot Centerline, this is a revelation! No more need to tighten up the turn, just because;
* Not shown in the video was the slow Dutch rolls, with a 1?/second roll rate going in and coming out. Not one person has been able to do it successfully on the first try, none! The slowest roll rates I?ve seen on the first attempt have been on the order of 3?/second. Go try it and see how you do, rolling in till you run out of rudder, then rolling back the other way at 1?/second. And this roll rate is substantially less than the super, super slow roll that used to be my specialty in Decathlons;
* E3 has variety of stalls with recoveries in turns, not shown in the video;
* E3 demonstrates low speed spirals, different from IFR high speed spirals. There is a growing groundswell in the GA safety community that realizes that stall/spin is an over-used term in light airplane accident probable causes, and E3 demonstrates why;
* The 60/90 turns, not shown all that well in the video, are at least as fun, with fast changing centers of attention, and stressful as any aerobatics I?ve flown. Everybody loves them, and they?re flown at final approach speed and less than 2 Gs.

Counting the variations, E3 is about 100 exercises. The background research by now is probably close to 100 pages, including an analysis of 551 NTSB reports on RV series airplanes plus another analysis of an additional year?s worth of all EAB accidents, plus? you get the idea. E3 didn?t just pop up out of nowhere.

Standing invitation: C?mon down to Savannah and fly E3 with me, then make up your own mind on how much you learned or didn?t. Bring your own plane ? Cessna, Piper, Mooney, RV, whatever. So far, E3 has been flown in a dozen kinds of airplane, almost all of them non-aerobatic.

If there are any more questions or comments, please PM me. I?m not budgeting much more time to this thread.
 
In the hopes of keeping this discussion on topic about E3 and not drifting into what aerobatics teaches you? and I?ve flown aerobatics in Citabrias, Decathlons, Great Lakes, my three short wing RVs and, with an instructor, in Pitts S-2C, Super Chipmunk, Europa, Yak52, Skybolt, and probably a few more.

Somehow I forgot the P-51 flight...
 
Matt Thurber, editor in chief of Aviation International News, flew E3 with me in the RV-9A a few months back. He was impressed with the RV-9A as we did exercises that will expand a pilot's comfort zone, making them more cognitively available to avoid loss of control.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70EMcCCpOsk

E3 is not a commercial venture, and will not be. Instead, I'm looking to partner with aviation organizations who want to adapt, use, and expand it.

My four minutes, six seconds of fame...
Expanded Envelope Exercises (E3)

Commercial Pilot Rating maneuvers will expand your flying envelope and skill. My stick and rudder skills improved noticeably training and receiving my Commercial. Instrument and ATP are also valuable, but for VFR skills, commercial maneuvers and learning Aerobatics are where my VFR skills grew the most. Pvt or Com pilots I trained in the past, dutch rolls, steep turns, slow flight, stalls, and S-turns among many other envelope expanding maneuvers were always on the syllabus.

As a CFI for about 28 years, I renew my CFI every 2 years. I can attest per my most recent renewal FAA is highly focused on LOC and having CFI's emphasis this. LOC has always been and issue and at the core of FAA pilot training, but it is currently being identified as key to reducing current accident trends. I admit to intentionally distracting students. I also have had examiners try and do that to me... Currency and proficiency is always key.
 
Last edited:
I, I think as well as the others, was only asking out of curiosity as I have not heard of E3. Sorry if I offended you.
 
Cross controlled stall in an RV9

I have heard that a cross controlled stall in an RV9 can lead to becoming quickly inverted. Kind of thing I want to stay away from. I am trying to figure out my personal limits on this in testing my almost finished plane. Doing some of thing in this video would have a really pucker factor for me being a low time pilot. Experiences and risk here?
 
Last edited:
I have heard that a cross controlled stall in an RV9 can lead to becoming quickly inverted. Kind of thing I want to stay away from. I am trying to figure out my personal limits on this in testing my almost finished plane. Doing some of thing in this video would have a really pucker factor for me being a low time pilot. Experiences and risk here?

That's why you fly E3 with an instructor who is E3 qualified, and why E3 does not include any exercises that are conducive to a spin (in most planes). E3 will expand your comfort zone so that you don't, at some point, go out and scare yourself in normal flying. After all, no sane pilot teaches themselves aerobatics or tailwheel or spins...

Come to Savannah and fly with me.
 
Good stuff---I will go out and practice some of this---especially the point, roll, yaw thing. Maybe even come down to Savannah by you, (but not til the pandemic is over--I'm in ATL.)
 
I, I think as well as the others, was only asking out of curiosity as I have not heard of E3. Sorry if I offended you.
I don't think anyone has heard of E3. This is apparently something Mr. Ed Wischmeyer coined. Ed in video is introduced as Aerospace Engineer. There is no indication of flight ratings. I'm sure he must have a CFI to teach people in airplanes. To teach without a CFI is a big no-no, even if not paid. Of course pilots can exchange information but Ed is coming off as an authority and de-facto flight instructor. If he is not an CFI he should be upfront with that.

There is no "E3" in FAA training material, standards or advisory circulars. Ed feels Dutch rolls, low-speed spirals, stalls while turning, "60/90 serpentine", vertical S’s, and runway sidestep exercises to be helpful. Almost all these flight regimes (except "60/90 serpentine") are discussed by FAA materials, not new kinds of maneuvers. Here is an article.

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-...04-08/inoculating-pilots-against-loss-control

Reading this article I find there are several things I disagree with or are a little cringe, like the title of article and this comment:

Wischmeyer’s intent, once the E3 exercises are fully developed, is to recommend that flight instructors (CFIs) either demonstrate the E3 exercises during their own checkrides or that they have limited privileges until they demonstrate E3 mastery.

Yeah, OK.

https://youtu.be/70EMcCCpOsk?t=126
Note in video regarding "60/90 serpentine" at 2:06 this maneuver is done with FULL Ailerons? I don't know about RV-9A but in a RV-3/4/6/7/8 all of which I have flown, you will roll upside down with full aileron. He must have mis-spoke.
 
Last edited:
I, I think as well as the others, was only asking out of curiosity as I have not heard of E3. Sorry if I offended you.
I don't think anyone has heard of E3. This is apparently something Mr. Ed Wischmeyer coined. Ed in video is introduced as Aerospace Engineer. There is no indication of flight ratings. I'm sure he must have a CFI to teach people in airplanes. To teach without a CFI is a big no-no, even if not paid. Of course pilots can exchange information but Ed is coming off as an authority and De-facto flight instructor. If he is not an CFI he should be upfront with that. Not against his suggested maneuvers or practice.

There is no "E3" in FAA training material, standards or advisory circulars. Ed promotes Dutch rolls, low-speed spirals, stalls while turning, "60/90 serpentine", vertical S’s, and runway sidestep exercises to be helpful in avoiding LOC (Loss Of Control). Almost all these flight regimes are discussed by FAA materials, not new unheard of maneuvers. Here is an article.

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-...04-08/inoculating-pilots-against-loss-control

Reading this article I find there are several things I disagree with or are a little cringe, like the title of article. Then there is this comment:

Wischmeyer’s intent, once the E3 exercises are fully developed, is to recommend that flight instructors (CFIs) either demonstrate the E3 exercises during their own checkrides or that they have limited privileges until they demonstrate E3 mastery.

Yeah, OK.

https://youtu.be/70EMcCCpOsk?t=126
Note in video regarding "60/90 serpentine" at 2:06 this maneuver is done with FULL Ailerons? I don't know about RV-9A but in a RV-3/4/6/7/8 all of which I have flown, you will roll upside down with full aileron. He must have mis-spoke. I think the idea is make turns and fast reversals using larger control inputs and progressively steeper banks than 45 degrees. This should be in the skill level of a Pvt pilot. In RV's this is fun. However it should be done at or below maneuvering speed in smooth area, and the area must be clear of traffic.

Here is another article saying the same or similar things Ed is for the same reasons with out the "E3" moniker or tag. The intent is to get pilots who are timid, don't know how or when to exercise large or quick control deflections to "wake up" their hands and feet. I am not against this idea. However I would encourage people to keep getting ratings, Instrument, Commercial. The end result will be a better pilot.
http://ww2.safepilots.org/extend-your-skills-60-90-turns-triple-a-stalls/
 
Last edited:
I hadn't heard of it and was keeping an open mind. I have a bit of training over the years, both academic and in airplanes. I find most all of it fascinating. I am always open to something new, again why I asked. I don't care about credentials, except of course keeping everything legal. One of the smartest, most knowledgeable talented teacher/instructors I know I am not even sure if he finished high school. If I can learn something new great. I am a fan of expanding your envelope and learning your airplane to make you a better pilot, that flying ACM/BFM makes for a better attack pilot as does aerobatics makes for a better GA pilot.

I started reading the article, I'll get back to it.
 
I don't think anyone has heard of E3. This is apparently something Mr. Ed Wischmeyer coined. Ed in video is introduced as Aerospace Engineer. There is no indication of flight ratings. I'm sure he must have a CFI to teach people in airplanes. To teach without a CFI is a big no-no, even if not paid. Of course pilots can exchange information but Ed is coming off as an authority and De-facto flight instructor. If he is not an CFI he should be upfront with that. Not against his suggested maneuvers or practice. ]

My signature on VAF.com indicates ATP/CFII (includes gliders and both single and multi-engine sea) but doesn’t mention that my Ph.D. is from MIT, nor that the logbook shows 200 makes and models flown, nor that I’ve published more than 100 pilot reports, nor that I’ve presented original research at three international aviation safety conferences, nor that I taught aviation safety in grad school for two years.

There is no "E3" in FAA training material, standards or advisory circulars. Ed promotes Dutch rolls, low-speed spirals, stalls while turning, "60/90 serpentine", vertical S’s, and runway sidestep exercises to be helpful in avoiding LOC (Loss Of Control). Almost all these flight regimes are discussed by FAA materials, not new unheard of maneuvers. Here is an article.

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-...04-08/inoculating-pilots-against-loss-control

That article is of course, about E3. There’s also an AINonline video that just came out: https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-...-loss-control-expanded-envelope-exercises-ain

[ https://youtu.be/70EMcCCpOsk?t=126
Note in video regarding "60/90 serpentine" at 2:06 this maneuver is done with FULL Ailerons? I don't know about RV-9A but in a RV-3/4/6/7/8 all of which I have flown, you will roll upside down with full aileron.

I’ve flown all RVs except the -3, and never had any problems stopping a full aileron deflection bank at 60°. I flew 350 hours in my RV-4 and 100 hours in my RV-8.

Here is another article saying the same or similar things Ed is for the same reasons with out the "E3" moniker or tag. The intent is to get pilots who are timid, don't know how or when to exercise large or quick control deflections to "wake up" their hands and feet. I am not against this idea. However I would encourage people to keep getting ratings, Instrument, Commercial. The end result will be a better pilot.
http://ww2.safepilots.org/extend-your-skills-60-90-turns-triple-a-stalls/

David St. George and I frequently communicate on these kinds of topics, and I have several times given him latest and greatest copies of E3. I don’t know what the source of his material is – from me, from somebody else, from some uncredited historical source, or that he thought up himself – but my objective is to get this material out there to help keep our friends alive. At this point, I don’t really care who gets the credit.

It's also the case that E3 teaches things that are not in any existing syllabus, and are not taught in aerobatics.

Remember -- don't try E3 without an E3 qualified instructor. I've been surprised once or twice teaching E3, and the material presented does not mention the requisite risk management.

The invitations stands to come fly E3 with me in Savannah.
 
Last edited:
CFI

FARs do not require a current CFI for aerobatic instruction or instruction required under part 135 or 121.FAA in the past has allowed a pilot without a current medical to provide aerobatic instruction as long as the trainee is qualified to perform as pilot in command.
 
I liked all the E3 maneuvers presented, and think they have positive merit, especially for pilots who haven't within their own mind arisen to enlightenmemt in all things aeronautical (which has more to do with Type A leanings than hours and experience). I saw one of Ed's ideas aimed at safe flying on the Federal Register last year and he has a lot of instruction and teaching experience. I respect his efforts. Notwithstanding that, personally I would like to see spins returned to the required maneuvers for CFI and even the Private Pilot rating. There is a reason why spins were required in the past and there have been many reasons why LOC accidents have increased over time; the removal of spin training *might* contribute to the statistics. Spins, in a controlled environment with proper equipment, are benign and fun. Steady-state muti-turn spins in many ways more instructive than "eminent recovery". So maybe we also need to step it up a bit. E3 maneuvers in standard/utility category aircraft followed by spins in aerobatic category aircraft. Or their experimental equivalents as determined by EAB design and experience.
 
My signature on VAF.com indicates ATP/CFII (includes gliders and both single and multi-engine sea) but doesn’t mention that my Ph.D. is from MIT, nor that the logbook shows 200 makes and models flown, nor that I’ve published more than 100 pilot reports, nor that I’ve presented original research at three international aviation safety conferences, nor that I taught aviation safety in grad school for two years.
You have gone full non sequitur "appeal to authority". No pee-pee match, I have Grad degree in Mechanical engineering, published reports and trained 100's of pilots and flown a wide range of planes from small to large jets. All that is irrelevant to the topic. I missed your signature.

I’ve flown all RVs except the -3, and never had any problems stopping a full aileron deflection bank at 60°. I flew 350 hours in my RV-4 and 100 hours in my RV-8.
Yep 900 hours in RV's of all types. Oh I see you roll to 60 degree with full aileron and stop at 60 degrees bank. Right I do this when doing aerobatics, 8 point hesitation roll. Got it. The part about stopping at 60 degree bank got glossed over.

David St. George and I frequently communicate on these kinds of topics, and I have several times given him latest and greatest copies of E3. I don’t know what the source of his material is – from me, from somebody else, from some uncredited historical source, or that he thought up himself – but my objective is to get this material out there to help keep our friends alive. At this point, I don’t really care who gets the credit.
I have no problem with training and good ideas. I have stole great ideas from many pilots and instructors. There is nothing proprietary about any of it.

It's also the case that E3 teaches things that are not in any existing syllabus, and are not taught in aerobatics.
With respect disagree. All your maneuvers are well known, Your 90/60 Serpentine as you teach it is slightly different than FAA Step Turns. All this is defined in FAA guidance, FAA-H-8083-3B, Chap 9, "Performance maneuvers". Consider adding Turns on and aournd a point, Lazy 8's, Chandelle.
https://www.faa.gov/regulations_pol...iation/airplane_handbook/media/11_afh_ch9.pdf

Remember -- don't try E3 without an E3 qualified instructor. I've been surprised once or twice teaching E3, and the material presented does not mention the requisite risk management.
:D I'm a 14,000 hour ATP, +2000 hours GA dual given including Inst, ME, aerobatics. So are you saying I should not practice with our one of your approved E3 instructors which there is really no such "official" qualification. Risk management and teaching is part of all CFI tools. I gather you think your maneuvers are dangerous or beyond a competent Private pilots abilities. Again all of the maneuvers are well inside Private and commercial pilot maneuvers. With that said I am for people getting duel instruction.

There is nothing really unique or risky about these maneuvers as long as the pilot does not exceed aircraft limitations and does it at a safe altitude. RV pilots go up and "teach" their-self aerobatics all the time, which I don't recommend and has high risks. Dual with a good instructor is always worthwhile.

The invitations stands to come fly E3 with me in Savannah.
Thanks for the invite, I'm good. Please keep teaching aviation safety. My take is "E3" is a not unique or a quantum leap in flight training, but I wish you luck. When FAA puts "E3" into the PTS (now superseded by Airplane Airman Certification Standards) I'll follow that. As I recommend people who want to improve progress, get instrument and commercial ratings, and take some aerobatic lessons. It will make you a safer more competent pilot.
 
Last edited:
Cool video, thanks for sharing. These mostly look like fun exercises, but they don't really look like they need special instruction before attempting, if you're proficient anyway. Good practice but a little oversold, the marketing disclaimers don't help.

Requiring instructors to demonstrate "E3 proficiency"? Yeah, no.
 
Cool video, thanks for sharing. These mostly look like fun exercises, but they don't really look like they need special instruction before attempting, if you're proficient anyway. Good practice but a little oversold, the marketing disclaimers don't help.

Requiring instructors to demonstrate "E3 proficiency"? Yeah, no.

The video only showed a small portion of the 100 or so E3 exercises. There's lots more to E3, even in the basic set of 10, so don't draw conclusions from just the video.

Subject pilots can really surprise you when attempting E3. I have been. And there's lots of instructors for whom E3 is way outside their comfort zones. Omitting the disclaimers would be irresponsible, especially for planes with frisky stalls and spin susceptibility.

No reflection on you as I don't know you, but lotsa folks have egos beyond their skills... check the accident records.

C'mon down to Savannah and fly E3 with me. I expect your opinions would evolve...

Ed
 
personally I would like to see spins returned to the required maneuvers for CFI and .

Spins are a required maneuver for a cfi certificate. The examiner may accept a logbook endorsement of ?spin training given...? in lieu of an actual demonstration.

Although spins are not required for private students, I?ve always suggested to my primary students that we do a few (dual) prior to solo stall practice. No one has ever said no.
 
E3 + Other Approaches

First, thanks to @Ed_Wischmeyer for working this angle. There is little downside to broadening the attention played on ensuring pilots have operating skills in larger envelopes. In similar vain, we have the safepilots.org program which gmcjetpilot referenced. We also have the Pilot Exercise Program from the well established Pilot Workshops team.

All three approaches purport to achieve similar ends. Clearly the safepilots program is targeted at CFI's and broadening the knowledge and aptitude of the CFI community.

In contrast, PilotWorkshop's program is tailored to the GA pilot with 15 exercise groups, with fairly detailed descriptions, videos, and supporting materials (which makes the program a fairly low hurdle for low-time GA pilots such as myself).

If the goal is to address in a more specific way the curse of LOC-I events, then both the safepilots and the PilotWorkshop approaches are necessary. We need CFIs with the advanced knowledge of the maneuvers and intended results, as well as the common sense and guided approach that comes with the PilotWorkshop program.

What I have not seen from Ed, and perhaps it's my ignorance, is the list of the recommended procedures under the "E3" umbrella. Outside of the video, I have only seen a short article in one of the Twin Commander magazines.

Perhaps, if I can be so bold, expanding the exercises in both the safepilots and the PilotWorkshop programs would be far more beneficial to the GA community than another early-stage framework. Perhaps Ed would consider a partnership with Mark Robidoux at PilotWorkshops, and David St. George at safepilots?

In any case, if the objective is pilot safety, then I would suggest it's time to publish the recommended maneuvers in a forum allowing for some reasoned debate, allowing for the honing of the program to a final state.
 
Sorry, I didn't see anything in that video that doesn't take place, in some sort or fashion, practically every time I fly my RV. Actually, pretty boring.

We must think there's a whole bunch of seriously crappy pilots out there if the newly coined regular old flying stuff shown in that video is considered so valuable.

I don't get it?
 
Art Rose, yes, there are lots of crappy pilots out there, including CFIs. Those pilots are the target audience, the ones who will benefit most from E3. And there are also a fair number of RV loss of control fatalities. In fact, one of the best-witnessed low speed spiral fatalities was an RV.

There’s lots more to E3 than can be presented in a short webinar – including a study of 551 RV-series NTSB reports, each of which was carefully read and re-read to generate meaningful statistics. No surprise, those statistics did not follow the party line. As for the webinar, if you don’t get it, no problem. E3 material could easily fill a full year grad school course. When the pandemic cools off, come fly with me in Savannah, your RV-6A or my RV-9A. Free.

BDFLYER (Christopher Kelley), thanks for your kind words. Meaningfully getting the word out about E3 is a challenge. David St. George and I talk regularly, I have sent him copies of my work, and his target audience is the SAFE membership, CFIs. I’m addressing the rest of the world. I have not met Mark Robidoux, but E3 is in-flight experience, not ground school.

I agree that “honing of the program to a final state” is highly desirable, but I would suggest going a step beyond – there are many styles of flying, plus many airplanes have quirks. E3 will save the most lives if it is not constrained to one set of maneuvers flown in exactly one way. In fact, E3 is exercises, not maneuvers, and deliberately does not have completion standards. E3 will be most effective if it is initially distributed to those who want to actively partner in its development, rather than just put out there for everybody to take pot shots at it.

Thanks to both of you for your comments!!
 
Last edited:
Not trying to stir, but would say you and I have some differing opinion.

One thing I feel very strongly about though, and something I've always promoted. Spin training.

It should be required before a student is issued a license. If a CFI is not proficient in spins, he should get out of the teaching business. A whole lot of the accidents we see would never have happened if the pilot had been through a spin training program.
 
...It should be required before a student is issued a license. If a CFI is not proficient in spins, he should get out of the teaching business. A whole lot of the accidents we see would never have happened if the pilot had been through a spin training program.
Lots of debate about that one. Here's a nice article from 2003.

https://www.airspacemag.com/flight-today/the-spin-debate-3571421/?all

There are dozens more. Pretty easy to argue both sides of this one.

I think it comes down to something that's pretty common, both inside and outside the flying world:

Anonymous ancient greek philosopher and RV-8 builder said:
"If you are going to do it, you've got to do it right. If you are not going to do it right, don't do it."
 
First, let me say..... There are absolutely much better and more proficient pilots than me. Especially, right here on this forum. That said.... Here's my take on the spin training issue.

The argument against spin training used to always center on a simple risk vs gain scenario. It's too dangerous, therefore we won't make it a requirement. Today, those who oppose are simply spewing a higher volume of statistical information to justify their position.

They can throw out as many statistical arguments as they wish, no matter. The tipping point for me came long ago from general hangar talk. The other reason I'm so pro spin is from my personal experience.

Simple unusual attitude maneuvers, where standard training tends to end, is not enough, even with a good instructor. I didn't realize this until I finally run into a seriously good instructor, and a guy who eventually became a close friend. He taught me how much I really didn't know, and was never taught.

Today, I know of an instructor or two, that, in my opinion, have no business teaching students. I've flown with them in the past. A few years back, one of them couldn't fly his way out of a wet paper sack. He scared the bejesus out of me once. I'm thankful the old Maule had big tires and beefy gear. Never again. Maybe he's more proficient today?

I've come to the conclusion that it's mostly the pilots who are afraid that they can't successfully complete the training, the ones afraid of the training, or the ones that might have had a bad experience, are the ones who so vehemently oppose spin training.

I had been a pilot for nearly ten years before I run into someone who really knew about airplanes, and wanted to share. It immediately made me a better pilot.

Spin training will make you a better pilot, hands down. No discussion. It's similar to the first time you're taught how to properly perform a roll, or any other potentially disorienting maneuver. You simply don't know what to expect, and you can't know how you'll react, until you have the experience.
 
Agreed

Apologies in advance for taking your quotes out of order.

... Spin training will make you a better pilot, hands down. No discussion. ...
I think everyone agrees with this - I know I do.

Today, I know of an instructor or two, that, in my opinion, have no business teaching students. I've flown with them in the past. A few years back, one of them couldn't fly his way out of a wet paper sack. He scared the bejesus out of me once.
Would you like to get spin training with one of these bad CFIs? Or send one of your children to get spin training from them? This I think is the problem, and the catch-22. We need good CFIs to give spin training, but we can't get CFIs to learn spins if they are not taught.
 
Back
Top