Before I bought the Cirrus I did a search of all reported accidents in the
database. In fact, I was only able to find two spins. The rest were normal
pilot errors, normal in the sense that they happen in every type flown by
Part 91. Maybe there's another database but I used the link off the ASF
site.

I do think that the real risk factor has nothing at all to do with spin or
stall characteristics. Sydney you pointed out the certification
requirements and the recovery up to and into the incipient is normal.
Beyond that, pull the chute. And you're absolutely right....in the pattern
if you stall and flip it over you have one and only one correction available
in my opinion and experience (see Rich Stowell's site).

The real risk is all the gadgetry in the panel. That's the upshot of the
TAA study as well. So I'm off to practice!

"Snowbird" wrote in message
om...
"Tom S." wrote in message
...

An incipient or initial spin takes considerably more altitude to
recover
than a stall. In some current aircraft certified in the normal
category,
it can take *over 1000 feet* with a sharp, proficient test pilot at
the
controls. Therefore it could be problematic for *any* aircraft,
including
those certified with a recovery procedure using normal controls, to
recover
from even an incipient spin in the traffic pattern.

1000 feet does not sounds like "3 seconds/ first turn"....

Hi Tom,

The catch, if you read the Part 23 certification standards, is that
after 3 seconds or the first turn (whichever is LONGER), the plane
must recover "w/in one additional turn".

IOW, 1000-1500 ft may actually represent more than one turn of
spin, if the plane in question really snaps around quickly, PLUS
an additional turn to recover.

Hope this clarifies?

In his excellent out-of-print book "Stalls Spins and Safety", Sammy
Mason points out that a plane which takes a full turn to recover
after proper control inputs are applied has *lousy* spin characteristics.

Well, apparently there are a number of planes certified in the normal
category, which have just such *lousy* spin characteristics.

My point is don't bet the rent that a plane certified in the normal
category can recover from an incipient spin in less than 1000 ft.

Reading the NTSB accident reports, it sounds like they've had quite a
few
spin accidents (some fatal, some not...I'm looking at ALL
accidents/incidents, not just the FATAL ones)

I defer to you here. I'm not familiar with the spin accident
record of the Cirrus.

My point was to direct attention to the actual certification
requirements, and to correct any misapprehension that planes
certified in the "normal" category to recover from an incipient
spin with normal control inputs, necessarily have a realistic
chance to recover from a low-altitude spin (say, at traffic
pattern altitude)

Hopefully I've done that.

It does...but compare the apparent spin accident numbers for Cirrus vs
Bonanza (the more directly comparable bird is the F33A) and it's
amazing. I
saw about four or five for Cirrus, vs. 1 for the F33, even though the
F33
has about twenty time the number of SR-22's in the air.

The intent to make the SR-22 more spin resistant does not seem to have
been
successful.

This may prove true, I don't know. But it seems to me it might also
have to do with the relative newness of the SR-22 and pilots exploring
the envelope of their new bird more aggressively, vs. more time in the
F33A spent high-speed cruisin'. You've read the accident reports;
does this seem plausible?

Regards,
Sydney