![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Thomas Borchert" wrote:
AvWeb and a few others? Show me. Just one quote. I am quite sure you won't find it. And that's because tada!: The statement is just wrong! The aircraft doesn't "lack spin recovery", whatever that's supposed to mean. Correct. No one knows if more conventional recovery methods work, Actually, Cirrus does know that, because their pilots have used conventional methods to recover the aircraft from spins. It's not that Cirrus tried those, they didn't work and then they went for the chute - as the OP implies. Rather, they went for the chute directly and got the FAA to accept that as the certified spin recovery method. And then they didn't ever test other methods - why would they, with one certifiable method proven? Possibly because they discovered that the aircraft could be forced into an unrecoverable flat spin and the 'chute was the only way out. But as you pointed out, why demonstrate spin recovery to the FAA beyond what is needed for certification? Volunteering more than is asked for is always dangerous with the feds. -- Dan C172RG at BFM |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Dan,
Volunteering more than is asked for is always dangerous with the feds. and it makes aircraft more expensive,too. -- Thomas Borchert (EDDH) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|