zaitcev.mee.nu

For a good part of his diatribe, Mr. Collins is building an argument about the deficient Cirrus pilot stereotype, when suddenly... this:

Normally a single-engine airplane has to be spun as part of the certification process. The Cirrus wasn’t. The FAA waived this requirement and accepted the airframe parachute as an alternate means of compliance. I kid you not, the spin recovery in a Cirrus is based on deploying the chute. That is the only way a pilot can recover from a spin in a Cirrus.

Two things:

#1 It's a lie. Cirrus recovers from a spin just fine, and it was spin-tested for certification in Europe.

#2 Let's assume that that SR-22 were not recoverable. What then? The answer is: absolutely nothing. The reason FAA removed spin training from the Private Pilot curriculum is very simple: spins almost exclusively happen at base-to-final turns, and there is almost never enough altitude to recover in such case. Therefore, pilots should be taught to avoid spins instead. And so they were, for decades now. It does not matter one iota if their airplanes can recover.

That whole paragraph is utterly bogus and had no place in the post. To paraphrase, I knew Richard L. Collins, he was a friend of mine, and this is no Richard L. Collins.

Posted by: Pete Zaitcev at 01:28 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 221 words, total size 1 kb.