Your point is well thought out and quite valid and in total agreement with the FAA philosophy/policy, Tom.
No asbestos underwear required. <g> On a related note; Being a student pilot in the early '50's certainly exposed me to my fair share of spins and recoveries in aircraft that were meant for it. This is not the scene today and these "tricks" were over-rated anyway. Just my opinion, mind ya. As a high time old crop duster flying very overloaded in tight turns close to the ground, I kind of take a very SOFT position on spins and recoveries. Pun intended. <g> Like the FAA sez, STALL RECOGNITION is the KEY to safe flight. If ya don't ever spin, recovery techniques are quite academic. If you W-A-N-T to spin, recovery procedures can come in very handy. SO, if one TRULY KNOWS when his/her flying machine is about to stall and smite them, the rest of the action will never occur without the consent of the **COMPETENT** flying machine operator (pilot). Bob Urban - ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Tom Laird-McConnell wrote: > > Maybe (probably) I don't know what I'm talking about, but if you are going > to fly an Ercoupe and only an Ercoupe, why is everyone saying you must be > doing spins? Or is this not a group dedicated to the only plane with a > placard stating "this airplane is incharacteristicaly capable of spinning?" > > When you move to another craft, take the time to learn what you need to know > about that craft, whether it be tail dragger, 172, twin, whatever. If you > are moving to a craft which can spin, and you don't have spin training, then > get some. Any new plane you get in you should go up with an instructer long > enough to learn how to fly that plane. > > So why bother learning spins if you are going to buy an ercoupe and fly that > only? (that's what started this thread, right?) > > Now I will put on my asbestos underwear. > > <incoming!> > > -Tom >
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
