Cirrus... is it time for certification review?

On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 05:13:40 GMT, Jose wrote:

The fact is that the pilot of a parachute-equipped aircraft has one option more
than the pilot of one that doesn't have a chute.

All things being equal, this is the case. But in the Cirrus, all things
aren't equal. You lose the option of standard spin recovery in exchange
for the chute.

Nope. Just not a spin recovery capability proven in certification. For all any
of us know, a standard recovery will work, especially if initiated early. If it
*doesn't* though, the pilot does have another option.

After all, nothing guarantees that a Cessna 182 will recover from a spin,
either. Yes, it's certified to do so *under particular conditions*. Depart
from those conditions... with a CG aft of the limits, with the airfoils coated
with ice...and there's a good probability that the Cessna won't recover.

The argument about spin certification assumes that Bonanzas, 182, Mooneys, etc.
regularly ENTER and RECOVER from undesired spins. Not just stalls, but *spins*.
I haven't heard that that is the case. Though a lot of those certified-spinning
airplanes are lost in stall/spin accidents.

Heck, I've done it...accidentally spun an airplane. Carrying my first passenger
after getting my Private, no less. But this was a Citabria, not a Centurion.

Ron Wanttaja

You lose the option of standard spin recovery in exchange
for the chute.
Nope. Just not a spin recovery capability proven in certification. For all any
of us know, a standard recovery will work, especially if initiated early. If it
*doesn't* though, the pilot does have another option.

Well, I suppose you also don't "lose" the option of doing the Tango.
The spin recovery was not proven in certification. If you get into a
spin, you have the option of becoming a test pilot, or of pulling the
chute. In a standard airplane, you have the option of standard spin
recovery (which has been proven to work), or becoming a test pilot.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

You lose the option of standard spin recovery in exchange
for the chute.
Nope. Just not a spin recovery capability proven in certification. For
all any
of us know, a standard recovery will work, especially if initiated
early. If it
*doesn't* though, the pilot does have another option.

Well, I suppose you also don't "lose" the option of doing the Tango.
The spin recovery was not proven in certification. If you get into a
spin, you have the option of becoming a test pilot, or of pulling the
chute. In a standard airplane, you have the option of standard spin
recovery (which has been proven to work), or becoming a test pilot.

Jose

All of these points are true, and I think that they narrowly miss a greater
point in both spin avoidance and spin recovery--at least in visual
conditions. That is that a pilot proficient is spins and spin recovery is
much more likely to correctly recognize the problem and immediately take
corrective action; which should be highly effective in any aircraft normally
operated with a PPL. My belief is that any single engine recip (I can't
think of an exception) can be recovered with only a modest loss of altitude
during the first 90 degrees of a spin entry; but that the required
proficiency requires practice and recurrent training which cannot be
conducted in type--in the case that intentional spins are prohibited.

Peter
Just my $.02

but that the required
proficiency requires practice and recurrent training which cannot be
conducted in type--in the case that intentional spins are prohibited.

Does the training have to be conducted in type for the pilot to maintain
proficiency? I suspect that spin training in a Citabria would do
wonders for a pilot who has just fallen into a spin in a Cirrus.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

In article ,
Jose wrote:

but that the required
proficiency requires practice and recurrent training which cannot be
conducted in type--in the case that intentional spins are prohibited.

Does the training have to be conducted in type for the pilot to maintain
proficiency? I suspect that spin training in a Citabria would do
wonders for a pilot who has just fallen into a spin in a Cirrus.

Different aircraft designs may recover differently.
ie... a long wing aircraft may require use of ailerons. Only the
manufacturers spin testing and recommended recovery technique should be
used.

Different aircraft designs may recover differently.
ie... a long wing aircraft may require use of ailerons.

Ok, fair enough. But if you practice in an aircraft whose technique is
sufficiently similar to that of the target aircraft, you should be fine.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Recently, Jose posted:

Different aircraft designs may recover differently.
ie... a long wing aircraft may require use of ailerons.

Ok, fair enough. But if you practice in an aircraft whose technique
is sufficiently similar to that of the target aircraft, you should be
fine.

But, how practical is this? Should one practice spin recovery in an SR20
so that you can feel comfortable in an SR22? ;-)

I can tell you there is little similarity between how the planes I've
flown stall or spin, though they are all basic SEL.

Neil

Different aircraft designs may recover differently.
ie... a long wing aircraft may require use of ailerons.

Ok, fair enough. But if you practice in an aircraft whose technique is
sufficiently similar to that of the target aircraft, you should be fine.

I really don't know, but believe that you are correct.

Peter