Um ...broken_slinky wrote: ↑Thu May 19, 2022 8:36 am Although, maybe the owner previously experienced an airframe failure that was only recoverable with a chute?
Well there are a few spar AD's around for a good reason!
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, Right Seat Captain, lilfssister, North Shore
Um ...broken_slinky wrote: ↑Thu May 19, 2022 8:36 am Although, maybe the owner previously experienced an airframe failure that was only recoverable with a chute?
Well there are a few spar AD's around for a good reason!
Absolutely. Now I'm of the "just fly the damn plane" camp but if I had a failure that was impossible to pilot safely back to terraferma, I think I'd be happy to have the option of pulling that lovely red handle.
Indeed...Well there are a few spar AD's around for a good reason!
As my instructor taught me, having trained out of YTZ in winter... there's nothing down there but drowning.
All of PPL and CPL training should be oriented around stall recognition and recovery. There is no reason why an ordinary Cessna or Piper should ever be in a spin. If it is than either you grossly mishandled the airplane, deliberately kept in pro spin controls or were so asleep at the switch you were stupid times 3JasonE wrote: ↑Fri May 20, 2022 2:23 pm
Pilots should not be afraid of a spin and should have plenty enough training to be comfortable recognizing one long before it happens, and recovering quickly if it does. I don't feel the standard syllabus here in Canada did a good enough job for me. One lesson with 2-3 spins does not build enough muscle memory IMO.
I would suggest that if a pilot is not completely comfortable with slow flight and stall recovery, then they should be working on that, not how to pull the red handle. I fully support that pilots should practice at the limits, but the limits that matter are those just before and after the airplane leaves controlled flight. So the exercises of most value IMO are flight in the extreme slow flight regime at moderately high power. The airplane should be just nibbling at the stall so that you have to actively manage AOA and yaw to maintain control.goingmissed wrote: ↑Sat May 21, 2022 8:51 am There are so many people here who think, "I've been trained to recover from a stall and I am comfortable recovering from a stall, therefore everyone else should be comfortable with it."
Guess what, some people aren't comfortable with it. They don't want to rely on a stall recovery technique that they may not have practiced in a decade. Some people are weekend warriors who go out for a leisure flight without the intention of pushing the aircraft to it's limits.
Who are any of us to judge another pilot for choosing to add an additional layer of protection to their aircraft?
My perspective is different. In my opinion, the only benefit provided by a BRS to a certified plane is that if the airplane ends up in an unflyable condition, yet still within the 'chute deployment envelope, the RBS becomes the last layer of protection. Hitting the ground excepted, no unaccelerated stall in a certified plane will render it unflyable. If the pilot thinks of the BRS as a layer of protection, they must be prepared, trained, and current enough to maintain the flight as much as possible within the deployment envelope, and have a plan for when they cannot remain in the envelope (close to the ground, takeoff and landing come to mind). Like be ready to "avoid" a stall.choosing to add an additional layer of protection to their aircraft?
Are you seriously advocating that a device that destroys the airframe is an acceptable alternative to a normal stall recovery?goingmissed wrote: ↑Sat May 21, 2022 8:51 am Guess what, some people aren't comfortable with it. They don't want to rely on a stall recovery technique that they may not have practiced in a decade.
I know of a group of four children (under 20 y/o) that were killed in a 172 that got into a flat spin.photofly wrote: ↑Sat May 21, 2022 11:45 amAre you seriously advocating that a device that destroys the airframe is an acceptable alternative to a normal stall recovery?goingmissed wrote: ↑Sat May 21, 2022 8:51 am Guess what, some people aren't comfortable with it. They don't want to rely on a stall recovery technique that they may not have practiced in a decade.
We all know where the fault for that lies, and it's not with the absence of a parachute. Why would a pilot not have practiced a stall recovery in a decade? I'm not arguing that nobody should want a parachute, but there are lower limits to proficiency below which I think someone should recognize they should just not fly.goingmissed wrote: ↑Sat May 21, 2022 2:30 pmI know of a group of four children (under 20 y/o) that were killed in a 172 that got into a flat spin.photofly wrote: ↑Sat May 21, 2022 11:45 amAre you seriously advocating that a device that destroys the airframe is an acceptable alternative to a normal stall recovery?goingmissed wrote: ↑Sat May 21, 2022 8:51 am Guess what, some people aren't comfortable with it. They don't want to rely on a stall recovery technique that they may not have practiced in a decade.
The only way to get an airworthy 172 into a flat spin is to load it behind the aft aft C of G limit. 172's have two aft C of G limits, depending upon how the pilot has chosen to operate it. But even loaded in front of the more aft of those two limits, it will not flat spin - I've done the testing. From spin testing other Cessnas (260/208) I can say that at the aft C of G limit, it may require "brisk" control wheel input (as described in the POH) and sustained full nose down to break the stall/spin. But correctly loaded Cessna singles do not enter unrecoverable spins.in a 172 that got into a flat spin
They shouldn’t be flying the plane if they aren’t comfortable with stall recovery, if they don’t fly enough to stay comfortable then they should go up with an instructor until they are. The day after you are done your flight test should be a day you are becoming more proficient at flying it shouldn’t be a high point of your proficiency.goingmissed wrote: ↑Sat May 21, 2022 8:51 am There are so many people here who think, "I've been trained to recover from a stall and I am comfortable recovering from a stall, therefore everyone else should be comfortable with it."
Guess what, some people aren't comfortable with it. They don't want to rely on a stall recovery technique that they may not have practiced in a decade. Some people are weekend warriors who go out for a leisure flight without the intention of pushing the aircraft to it's limits.
Who are any of us to judge another pilot for choosing to add an additional layer of protection to their aircraft?