What attributes do you think new MOSAIC compliant LSA aircraft should have to return General Aviation to 10,000 aircraft sales per year?

[WDD]

I hear you. Thinking back on my PPL CFI's, and even the IFR CFII's, there was too much of "what do you want to work on today"? I'm a student with a passed written test, but you're asking a guy with little experience on flight training what should be worked on?

CFI's and CFII's leaving abruptly because they got a job offer, next CFI and CFII just picked up where ever. Things were missed in training. (First CFII told me he rarely uses the Attitude Indicator. Steer by rudder, not ailerons. Second CFII always worked the GTN, despite me trying to do so. And I was supposed to learn how? Third one finally was an older guy not headed to the airlines, but things were still missed. First guy? He's flying for Spirit now).

 

[MauleSkinner]

Sure it was.

Every prospective pilot who gets frustrated by the lousy process and walks away is one fewer potential buyer. Trying to push that back on the prospective buyer - as you were doing - isn't the answer.

Want customers? It's simple:

1) Figure out what they want
2) Figure out what they DON'T want to deal with
3) Figure out a way to deliver (1) while avoiding (2)
4) Tell as many prospective customers as possible that you have figure it out

The problem with GA right now is that the people inside the system won't admit that the entry process is broken and keeping people out. Then, they complain that there aren't enough buyers, which makes everything too expensive due to lack of volume.

Want more GA buyers? FIX THE TRAINING SYSTEM.

Your experience apparently doesn’t allow you to see other people’s experience.

 

[WDD]

I'll posit that the training system would fix itself if there was a market big enough. The system sucks because of the lack of volume, not the other way around.

It might suck because the demand is higher (larger market now) and supply is limited (not enough schools, competition) so the schools suck because they can.

 

[ateamer]

If a student quits aviation because he can’t wait for a DPE, there is no loss of a future aircraft owner. Someone who gives up that easily won’t make it through the purchase process. Oh, maybe he will buy a plane someday, but he’ll walk at the first annual for sure.

 

[DJTorrente]

If a student quits aviation because he can’t wait for a DPE, there is no loss of a future aircraft owner. Someone who gives up that easily won’t make it through the purchase process. Oh, maybe he will buy a plane someday, but he’ll walk at the first annual for sure.

That is PRECISELY how to keep aviation marginalized forever. Usage will never grow under the mindset of "You're not TOUGH ENOUGH to handle this, BRAH!" We'd make five million new pilots if we spent a fraction of that energy on lowering the hurdles so the process didn't require super-human fortitude. And while it may ding the ego, it makes flying easier for all do it.

 

[WDD]

If a student quits aviation because he can’t wait for a DPE, there is no loss of a future aircraft owner. Someone who gives up that easily won’t make it through the purchase process. Oh, maybe he will buy a plane someday, but he’ll walk at the first annual for sure.

Or.... If the process was a lot more customer friendly, he'd be more likely to continue and probably would buy. We're not talking about having to wait for slow service at the drive through. We're talking about spending a significant amount of money and time and then having to wait for a month or more for the chance to spend even more money on a test.

Enduring the unneeded and non productive pain and suffering of the current system isn't a virtue. It doesn't make better pilots. Maybe it does weed out those with more common sense than the rest of us.

 

[ateamer]

The DPE situation sucks. But why not just go put and solo and build experience while waiting? Isn’t that what you’ll be doing once you get your ticket? Nothing says a solo student can’t go on a breakfast or burger run, a sunset flight, or add airports to your logbook. The only difference is you can’t take a passenger. 90%+ of the pilots I know - most of them with thousands of hours and decades of experience, everyone from private pilots to active airline pilots - could do almost all of their personal flying on a student pilot certificate.

 

[MauleSkinner]

So far, you have done nothing in this thread except disagree with everything said.

What is your proposal?

Turn back time about 80 years.

 

[MauleSkinner]

This isn't correct AT ALL.

The solo endorsement limits a pilot to daytime flights within 25 miles of their training airport. Cross-country flights beyond that distance require a separate endorsement for each and every flight, per 61.93(c)3.

It also limits them in terms of conditions and the airplane model, so you cannot go rent a different airplane and fly it without an instructor, as well as any weather conditions limitations that the CFI placed on the endorsement.

From a practical perspective, the only thing my solo endorsement allows me to do is practice steep turns and stalls by myself and land at one other nearby airport, and only in extremely clear conditions. That's it. Nothing else. I can fly through the Class B airspace to do it, but...so what?

That isn’t correct AT ALL.

There is nothing that restricts a student pilot to within 25 miles of their training airport. There are restrictions for LANDING anywhere else, but those are easily overcome by having an instructor review your flight planning and sign off a cross country endorsement.

What your issues boil down to us YOU picked the wrong flight school.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Read what I responded to, then read 61.93(c)3.

No, you cannot go out and add airports to your logbook. No, you can't go off and do burger runs. No, you can't go do a sunset flight.

A solo endorsement is worthless for anything other than generating billable flight time for the school renting the plane.

I read what you responded to. I also read 61.93(c)(3).

Are you saying that you haven’t been trained in the maneuvers and procedures required? If that’s the case, you shouldn’t be bitching about scheduling a checkride, as you’re not ready.

And you also don’t have a grasp of regulations, so again, you’re not ready for your checkride.

Guess what? We’re back to students wasting instructors’ time.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Condescending attitude and knee-jerk responses like the ones you are giving here are a big part of the problem with GA today. The high and mighty act you are exhibiting doesn't exactly attract others to the activity.

Hen I suggest you stop giving condescending and knee-jerk responses like the ones I’m giving. Your high and mighty act is repelling others from GA.

 

[TCABM]

…The solo endorsement limits a pilot to daytime flights within 25 miles of their training airport. ..

Provide a regulatory reference for that limitation please.

 

[MauleSkinner]

No. Read it. You don't seem to understand it.

I do understand it very clearly, as I have completed the requirements within the past 6 months. When was the last time you flew under a solo endorsement?

Ok…let’s see…

(3) A student pilot who seeks solo cross-country flight privileges

This would be someone flying under a solo endorsement, right?

must have received ground and flight training from an authorized instructor on the cross-country maneuvers and procedures listed in this section that are appropriate to the aircraft to be flown.

This would be ground and flight instruction that is required prior to checkride, right?

Seems pretty straightforward. Nothing about 25 miles, nothing restricting cross country endorsements if you have the training required for a checkride.

 

[TCABM]

61.93(b)

How does that limit a student from flying 50.1NM or more from the airport a student normally receives training at to overfly a landmark and return to the original airport to land?

 

[Ed Haywood]

First CFII told me he rarely uses the Attitude Indicator.

What's wrong with that? AI is not even a required instrument for VFR aircraft.

 

[MauleSkinner]

What's wrong with that? AI is not even a required instrument for VFR aircraft.

AI is taking over, though.

 

[texasclouds]

How many cars are you buying with engine technology from 1940, a chassis from 1960, no catalytic converter, AC, power windows, or airbags?

Where can I place a deposit!

 

[WDD]

What's wrong with that? AI is not even a required instrument for VFR aircraft.

Flying on instruments and not using the Attitude Indicator????

 

[MauleSkinner]

Flying on instruments and not using the Attitude Indicator????

I didn’t start using an attitude indicator until I got into jets.

 

[hindsight2020]

needle ball airspeed nonsense. Killed more people than cancer.

 

[popPilot]

One crazy idea nobody has mentioned on how to get to the high numbers of units, is if we(as consumers) all agree on only one make and model that we commit to buy with the aircraft features the majority wants.

And yes, although the global GA sales numbers wouldn't add up anyway, the price will gradually go down(i.e some automation, certain part/components that maybe before were outsourced can now be built in-house thus no middle man profits, etc) then the new buyers will come in to the total global GA sales, it will be like a snow ball effect.

Of course this would also mean all other companies not building this X model will go out of business unless they are absorbed by the company building the X model.

At the same time could also bring possible issues that we have seen before in history when there is lack of competition (one of them being price increase, the very thing we are trying to avoid lol)

 

[Ed Haywood]

Flying on instruments and not using the Attitude Indicator????

Ah ok, I thought you meant during VFR flight.

 

[popPilot]

Definitely possible, as they’ve been working on the regulatory side for years via the existing UAM policies. As for the process, the key to remember is all current UAM and RAM processes are public transport based and not private based. While there are plans for a private component to UAM I don’t think that will happen until the public UAM side has “matured.”

Why they didn't start the other way around, private first then public?

 

[Palmpilot]

needle ball airspeed nonsense. Killed more people than cancer.

My CFII had me spending so much time partial-panel that I got out of the habit of looking at the AI. When I went for my multi, I found it necessary to correct that habit!

 

[hindsight2020]

Again, [NBA] it's an anachronistic party trick meant to be a glove save to get you akwardly out of the clouds before you lose control of a lawnmower ill-equipped for sustained IMC flight. Which statistically, given enough heading, time and altitude changes, will happen 100% of the time. It's also a response to a time where having cheap attitude information redundancy was considered a moonshot. Pepperidge Farms remembers, but it's time to get on with it. Sometimes I like to dazzle my students with stories about being able to fix-2-fix too, then I get over the fact the FAA outlawed it, and move on with my life. I've had a similar evolution regarding the novelty of IMC, especially recreational IMC.

BL, it was never meant to be a bona fide means of primary control of an aircraft absent a distinguishable horizon, but because a lot of people new to IFR think of IMC as a novelty, it becomes a dumb flex kinda like the rec tailwheel thing. Except dumber as excursions in the latter only bends your wallet, the former kills with regularity. To each their own of course.

As the training fleets move on to redundant ADIs, NBA will fade into obscurity. I argue it largely has, we don't dabble in it in military training as a line item in any formal capacity, all our tac aircraft are expected to have a second ADI (technically a third since HUD counts as legal IFR x1) or you punch.

 

[MauleSkinner]

it’s not the needle-ball-airspeed flying that kills. It’s the inability to fly needle-ball-and airspeed when the need arises.

Kinda the same with attitude indicators.

 

[Steamflyer]

it’s not the needle-ball-airspeed flying that kills. It’s the inability to fly needle-ball-and airspeed when the need arises.

Kinda the same with attitude indicators.

When you can NBA (and compass) a hold at night in IMC you are proficient enough to control the airplane with a failed AI.

Otherwise install a second AI and learn to cross check it with the primary AI and the rest of the panel. There's even an FAA circular allowing the removing of the T/C or T&B for a second AI if the panel space is insufficient.

Some won't fly IMC w/o two engines, others without two AIs. Others w/o both, but two AIs is very cheap insurance.

 

[MauleSkinner]

When you can NBA (and compass) a hold at night in IMC you are proficient enough to control the airplane with a failed AI.

Otherwise install a second AI and learn to cross check it with the primary AI and the rest of the panel. There's even an FAA circular allowing the removing of the T/C or T&B for a second AI if the panel space is insufficient.

Some won't fly IMC w/o two engines, others without two AIs. Others w/o both, but two AIs is very cheap insurance.

Being proficient in whatever you have may not be cheaper, but it’s better no matter what you have.

 

[Dana]

Is a T&B or TC still required for IFR so you can fly a standard rate 2 minute turn, or do the newfangled electronics take care of that?

I had a venturi driven T&B in my T-Craft, no other gyro instruments... it saved my butt once when I got caught under a lowering overcast and had to climb 500' through it to get on top, needle, ball, airspeed. I was young, inexperienced, and very foolish. I had a pretty good case of the leans by the time I broke out on top, credit to my instructor who emphasized partial panel.

 

[pfarber]

lol $300k

build more hangars first.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Is a T&B or TC still required for IFR so you can fly a standard rate 2 minute turn, or do the newfangled electronics take care of that?

I had a venturi driven T&B in my T-Craft, no other gyro instruments... it saved my butt once when I got caught under a lowering overcast and had to climb 500' through it to get on top, needle, ball, airspeed. I was young, inexperienced, and very foolish. I had a pretty good case of the leans by the time I broke out on top, credit to my instructor who emphasized partial panel.

Nothing really requires a two-minute turn unless you’re getting no-gyro vectors, so replacing it with an attitude indicator is an acceptable solution from that standpoint.

In a T-Craft, especially in a climb, I’d rather have the T&B, as it will show more deflection than an attitude indicator for the same turn rate.

But I’m also a fan of the U of Illinois/ASF emergency instrument techniques developed back in the 50s. I think relying on airplane stability rather than perishable instrument skills is a benefit to safety.

 

[Dana]

But I’m also a fan of the U of Illinois/ASF emergency instrument techniques developed back in the 50s. I think relying on airplane stability rather than perishable instrument skills is a benefit to safety.

Many older aircraft (including the T-Craft), while reasonably stable, won't stay straight and flight for a long time, but will eventually fall off into a spiral dive.

However, if the goal is to get down through an overcast and it is known for certain that the ceiling underneath is high enough to recover, an intentional spin can get you down underneath without losing control or building up excessive speed.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Many older aircraft (including the T-Craft), while reasonably stable, won't stay straight and flight for a long time, but will eventually fall off into a spiral dive.

True, but it often takes less time to fall off into a spiral dive if a pilot who isn’t proficient in instrument flying has his hands on the controls. Using rudder to nudge the needle back to center and a target trim and power setting to maintain airspeed and altitude puts a lot less stress on pilot proficiency.

 

[Palmpilot]

Many older aircraft (including the T-Craft), while reasonably stable, won't stay straight and flight for a long time, but will eventually fall off into a spiral dive.

However, if the goal is to get down through an overcast and it is known for certain that the ceiling underneath is high enough to recover, an intentional spin can get you down underneath without losing control or building up excessive speed.

Given that I've only done one spin recovery ever in my life, and it was probably thirty years ago, I would be reluctant to use that method.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

The GA heyday was an anomaly because of WWII. Had that war not occurred and produced the number of pilots it did, GA would never had grown to what it became.

I'm not sure that's true. An awful lot of those pilots associated flying with the worst experiences of their lives, and supposedly that's why the expected post-war aviation boom didn't really happen and a lot of manufacturers went out of business.

For most of the population flying is simply a mode of transportation.

True, but sad. I believe that kids, when exposed to aviation, "Get it" immediately. Young Eagles is an important thing, but it's not nearly enough. EAA boasts that we've flown 2.3 million Young Eagles since the program started in 1992. However, since 1992, 132 million American kids have turned eight years old (the youngest age for Young Eagles). So, we're flying about 1.7% of kids, once. Even if a full 30% of those Young Eagles kids become pilots, we'll simply be keeping things steady at a half percent of the population.

Just 15 years ago no one in the world needed a smartphone -- until Apple invented it. Today, two-thirds of the humans on the planet carry one.*

The public doesn't know what it GenAv can provide them because they haven't bothered to think about it -- the prospect of flying themselves in an airplane is as unfathomable and remote to them as winning the lottery, due to the high barriers to entry. If those barriers were lowered, people might find and/or invent use cases we haven't yet imagined.

The barrier isn't just the cost, it's the effort.

"Low barriers to entry" in aviation is someone taking the aforementioned phone, whipping it out and launching an app to order an aircraft that appears in 5-10 minutes and whisks them off to wherever that they don't have to learn how to fly. It is not, and will never be, GA as we know it today. Now, for longer distance travel, maybe a low barrier to entry is being part of a "travel club" that owns some automated aircraft based at the local airport... But again, it's not going to be GA as we know it today. Maybe someday that will help keep airports open for the rest of us.

Building hangars on a public airport is not that easy. Typical land leases are 20 years, and I think it would be extremely rare to be able to purchase the land outright. Even buying property next to the airport can get into hassles with "through the fence" operations.

So if you can secure the land lease for 20 years and build the hangars with your money. At the end of the twenty, the hangars and land reverts back to the airport. In some instances, the lease can get extended for 5 years, or ten. But that really depends upon local politics. After all, it's a great deal for the airport if they get possession of the hangars once the lease is over.

I fly from the 3rd-busiest airport in the state, and it's the busiest GA-only airport for 51 weeks of the year. There are hundreds of aircraft based there, and while hangars do become available, they're not easy to find. The airport has been advertising lots for lease for a while now, but nobody has taken them up on it... And I guess what you say is probably why.

An airplane can provide transportation or recreation (for those who enjoy flying) Most Americans already have a device that provides transportation, it's called an automobile. A light GA airplane is faster over some routes and slower over others. In either case, most Americans don't travel regionally all that often, certainly not often enough to commit to spending $15000 to get their private and then a similar amount every year thereafter. Pilots fly because they like to fly, few of us can make a practical case for it.

However, if you look at it as an expensive hobby, it's far easier.

Lots of people have expensive hobbies. Boating, horses, car racing, vintage car restoration, skydiving, shooting, etc all have significant entry and ongoing costs and plenty of people do them. But, only flying is particularly useful - My MIL, for example, is into horses and they cost about the same as my airplane. But, I've never asked to borrow a horse, while she asks me to fly her and other places fairly often and I'm happy to.

Normally GA is never the cost winner, and is only the time winner on mid-range trips (say, 125 to 750 miles). However, if that's the mission and you buy the right plane for it - My plane is about as good as it gets for time/cost per mile and I can beat the airlines on cost for many trips if I have my family with me.

When was the last time there were 10,000 GA planes sold in a single year?

1970s.

About 15 years ago, I plotted out the number of aircraft on the FAA registry vs. their listed year of manufacture.
View attachment 120898
Note that this was well before the FAA's policy shift that required owners to positively confirm their aircraft still existed, and the removal of those who didn't reply. Still, SOME of the planes from these years ended up being removed from the registry, probably because they crashed and the insurance company cancelled the registration.

The boom/bust of the immediate post-war period is obvious. There are a couple other period where production rates were consistently close to 10,000 a year.

Note this (A) doesn't include aircraft whose year of manufacture isn't recorded, and (B) *Does* include homebuilts.

BTW, there are 2612 aircraft listed as having been manufactured in 2020, as of 1 January this year.

Interesting. You can also see that the GA Revitalization Act did have a noticeable effect.

Unfortunately, the Great Recession really burst a lot of people's bubbles WRT whether they should spend a lot of money on a hobby vs. saving it for a rainy day. Here's the GAMA sales data, plotted by year, for GA single-engine piston, multi-engine piston, turboprops, and jets:


We'd had things pretty good for long enough that single piston aircraft were doing quite well except for the wake of 9/11, but we still haven't recovered. Interesting how the peak of jet sales was in 2008, though...

IMHO, E-VTOLs are going to be the saviors of General Aviation airports.

Not sure of y'all's neighborhoods, but mine would scream bloody murder if a resident cranked up his E-VTOL every morning at 6 AM to go to the office. Electric or not, these vehicles are NOT that quiet. And, most cities are going to scream if dozens of these things descend into the central business districts every morning. Note that many cities banned Segways....they're not likely to look at E-VTOLs with much more favor.

So... owners will need somewhere to park them, behind security fences, with storage buildings and an infrastructure for maintenance and repair. Existing GA airports are the best bet. Sure, the E-VTOLs don't need ALL that much space to take off and land, but finding the land for a whole new VTOL airport is going to be expensive.

I don't think VTOLs are really going to take off, so to speak, and even if they do, there are very few GA airports left near congested cities.

Or maybe we'll finally get to bring Meigs back.

So... the rich got all that money WITHOUT decreasing the wealth of the rest? That sounds like a growing pie to me...

No. The "rising tide lifts all boats" did not happen here... *Only* the wealthy have more money. So, the average people aren't the ones buying airplanes, the rich people are - And they're not buying airplanes that will ever be affordable to average people, no matter how used they get. You don't see a lot of JetStars, Lear 23s, etc flying around because at a certain age, they're so expensive to maintain that you just chuck 'em and get a new one.

Because there are fewer people buying unpressurized piston airplanes, there will be fewer airplanes that become affordable to the rest of us.

 

[2-Bit Speed]

I'm not sure that's true. An awful lot of those pilots associated flying with the worst experiences of their lives, and supposedly that's why the expected post-war aviation boom didn't really happen and a lot of manufacturers went out of business.

True, but sad. I believe that kids, when exposed to aviation, "Get it" immediately. Young Eagles is an important thing, but it's not nearly enough. EAA boasts that we've flown 2.3 million Young Eagles since the program started in 1992. However, since 1992, 132 million American kids have turned eight years old (the youngest age for Young Eagles). So, we're flying about 1.7% of kids, once. Even if a full 30% of those Young Eagles kids become pilots, we'll simply be keeping things steady at a half percent of the population.

The barrier isn't just the cost, it's the effort.

"Low barriers to entry" in aviation is someone taking the aforementioned phone, whipping it out and launching an app to order an aircraft that appears in 5-10 minutes and whisks them off to wherever that they don't have to learn how to fly. It is not, and will never be, GA as we know it today. Now, for longer distance travel, maybe a low barrier to entry is being part of a "travel club" that owns some automated aircraft based at the local airport... But again, it's not going to be GA as we know it today. Maybe someday that will help keep airports open for the rest of us.

I fly from the 3rd-busiest airport in the state, and it's the busiest GA-only airport for 51 weeks of the year. There are hundreds of aircraft based there, and while hangars do become available, they're not easy to find. The airport has been advertising lots for lease for a while now, but nobody has taken them up on it... And I guess what you say is probably why.

However, if you look at it as an expensive hobby, it's far easier.

Lots of people have expensive hobbies. Boating, horses, car racing, vintage car restoration, skydiving, shooting, etc all have significant entry and ongoing costs and plenty of people do them. But, only flying is particularly useful - My MIL, for example, is into horses and they cost about the same as my airplane. But, I've never asked to borrow a horse, while she asks me to fly her and other places fairly often and I'm happy to.

Normally GA is never the cost winner, and is only the time winner on mid-range trips (say, 125 to 750 miles). However, if that's the mission and you buy the right plane for it - My plane is about as good as it gets for time/cost per mile and I can beat the airlines on cost for many trips if I have my family with me.

1970s.

Interesting. You can also see that the GA Revitalization Act did have a noticeable effect.

Unfortunately, the Great Recession really burst a lot of people's bubbles WRT whether they should spend a lot of money on a hobby vs. saving it for a rainy day. Here's the GAMA sales data, plotted by year, for GA single-engine piston, multi-engine piston, turboprops, and jets:

View attachment 132773
We'd had things pretty good for long enough that single piston aircraft were doing quite well except for the wake of 9/11, but we still haven't recovered. Interesting how the peak of jet sales was in 2008, though...


I don't think VTOLs are really going to take off, so to speak, and even if they do, there are very few GA airports left near congested cities.

Or maybe we'll finally get to bring Meigs back.

No. The "rising tide lifts all boats" did not happen here... *Only* the wealthy have more money. So, the average people aren't the ones buying airplanes, the rich people are - And they're not buying airplanes that will ever be affordable to average people, no matter how used they get. You don't see a lot of JetStars, Lear 23s, etc flying around because at a certain age, they're so expensive to maintain that you just chuck 'em and get a new one.

Because there are fewer people buying unpressurized piston airplanes, there will be fewer airplanes that become affordable to the rest of us.

The posts to which I replied seem to have been deleted. Or maybe I was blocked. Either way I cannot see the posts I responded to.

Either way... 'the rest stayed even with inflation' indicates neither impoverisation nor enrichment. Thus... the rich got their money without reducing the wealth of 'the rest.' At least, that's how I read the post I was replying to.

 

[Ed Haywood]

Given that I've only done one spin recovery ever in my life, and it was probably thirty years ago, I would be reluctant to use that method.

I spin all the time, maybe half a dozen per week, and I would be reluctant to use that method too. You lose 500-1500 feet on the recovery, depending on aircraft and proficiency. You could easily break out of the clouds and still hit the ground.

Better to cut power, neutralize elevator, trim for descent rate, and keep wings level with AHI or needle/ball.

A spiral descent in a mountain valley would require more proficiency. But I still don't think I would have the guts to spin.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I spin all the time, maybe half a dozen per week, and I would be reluctant to use that method too. You lose 500-1500 feet on the recovery, depending on aircraft and proficiency. You could easily break out of the clouds and still hit the ground.

Better to cut power, neutralize elevator, trim for descent rate, and keep wings level with AHI or needle/ball.

This. Most airplanes designed after WWII are inherently stable. The "spin through the deck" technique was from pre-WWII when many aircraft weren't stable enough to pull off a hands-off descent.

So yes. Trim for a gentle descent speed (Vg would likely work well on pretty much any airplane), reduce power, establish the descent in VMC, and when you get near the tops, LET GO AND DO NOT TOUCH ANYTHING until you're in the clear. The airplane doesn't know it's in the clouds...

 

[hindsight2020]

Given that I've only done one spin recovery ever in my life, and it was probably thirty years ago, I would be reluctant to use that method.

The oft prescribed method was to chop power and concentrate on keeping wings level while trimming to a set common-to-you speed, like 70-90kts on most of these lawnmowers. Spam can POHs had such verbiage in their emergency procedures to said effect.

 

[Pinecone]

So yes. Trim for a gentle descent speed (Vg would likely work well on pretty much any airplane), reduce power, establish the descent in VMC, and when you get near the tops, LET GO AND DO NOT TOUCH ANYTHING until you're in the clear. The airplane doesn't know it's in the clouds...

Go our VFR and try this and report back. Aircraft are not laterally stable. It will fall off on a wing into a steep spiral.