In article ,
Steve Hopkins k wrote:
Your point regarding 'Accidents of Omission' is interesting.
If your local drug company marketed an antibiotic that
then proceeded to kill 23 patients, I'm not sure whether
the subsequent litigants would be much impressed by
the uncertain number of lives saved. Yes we need spin
training, and preferably on an annual basis so we don’t
forget what to do if, what we spent the previous year
avoiding, accidentally happens. Surely the point at
issue is whether the Puch is a safe vehicle for these
manoeuvres. And if it isn't, then should it be airborne
at all. Certainly the number of accidents involving
the Puch as against the number produced does seem to
indicate that something is amiss. Is there a statistician
out there who could look at the numbers and make a
scientific pronouncement on this? I seem to remember
in my school days, (when Queen Victoria ruled), there
was something called the Chi-squared test which allowed
one to state whether two separate groups of occurrence
were significantly different. Could we compare, for
example, the number of K-13's et al spun in relation
to the numbers built, as against the Puch in the same
manner and pronounce with a specified degree of confidence
whether the accident rate, (spin in's), was significantly
different?

I think the whole arguments on both sides are VERY
difficult to make convincingly. I myself sometimes
wonder if my spinning students was instructive, or
simply encouraged them to do it on their own without
any more training. Does my 3 hours of IFR training
for power students just make them bolder in poor weather?

The Puch quastion has a bit of a parallel to the
Piper Tomahawk spin question in the US. Some
instructors love it, some hate it, and they
do have a lot more spin accidents than Cezzna 152s...

I doubt we will find consensus, but this has been informative...