Cost Reduction Thought

[xaminmo]

As stated by Ron and others, cheap and simple is the way to go, especially if rental is by HOBBS rate.

Min for part 61 is 40 hours, average is 60, and it's not horribly uncommon for it to be 80 if you get stuck on one maneuver, have training interruptions, or whatever.

Racking up time learning to push buttons should be saved for after the rating.

 

[poadeleted20]

I do disagree with the premise that there was no change when spin training was eliminated from the PP curriculum. There was a change, the change was that it coincided with the first generation of "spin resistance" designed into light planes. Spin training became "unnecessary" because you don't just "break into" a spin in a 150-172 generation plane like you could relatively easily in generations prior.

That's not quite what the FAA's logic was. They determined that pretty much all the fatal stall/spin accidents occurred from altitudes too low to recover. They felt that the emphasis should be stall/spin prevention (which always works), not spin recovery (which only works with enough altitude), and the certificate requirements and practical test guides (this having occurred before the FAA switched to practial test standards) were modified accordingly.

I also disagree with spin training being unnecessary just because planes don't like to spin anymore. It still happens that people get killed in spin situations. With just a bit of actual spin training, people will be much more likely to be able to catch and correct before the spin occurs.

The FAA and I both believe one does not need "actual spin training" to be able to "catch and correct before the spin occurs." If the ball stays in the center, and the stall doesn't occur, you simply cannot spin. That's why the PTS focuses on recognizing when one is at the edge of the stall, and flying at high angles of attack without yawing or stalling.

 

[poadeleted20]

This is the only other thing I could find:

http://www.peter2000.co.uk/aviation/misc/3-105960-Cirrusstall-spinreport.pdf

It goes into more detail - but appears to itself contain a summary of what is in Cirrus Design reports "12419" and "15568" which may be what you had in mind?

No, that's not it either, but it appears to summarize what the Cirrus official said in the interview we can't find.

 

[RotorAndWing]

That's not quite what the FAA's logic was.

The FAA and I both believe .........

So you are a spokesman on behalf of the FAA?

 

[poadeleted20]

So you are a spokesman on behalf of the FAA?

No, but I've read what they've written, so unless you're saying (and have evidence) that is not the position of the FAA Flight Standards Service, go bother someone else.