Spins in a tailwheel
- Thread starter Jaybird180
- Start date
Here is how I can tell you that parachutes are not required in spins in a 172 under any conditions; because they are permitted with out an egress system required for all planes that operate when parachutes are required. It's as simple as that. Spins are not an aerobatic maneuver, they are a very real hazard of flight that every private pilot should do to competency in their training. It reall only take 3 2 turns to learn to deal with it to a heading even. If you just let go with a 172 it will recover itself within a turn, these are the reasons a chute is not required. The FAA sylabus is written with the intent of producing safe jet pilots and there is no place for spins in jet primacy training, so they got more hood time instead. By the time someone staying in small recip planes gets a PP, they should have no concerns about a spin anymore and be competent and experienced at catching the situation in the first quarter turn after the wing tucks and living.
You will find no prohibitions on teaching Private Pilot candidates spins. When Air Carrier planes could get into a spin, the FAA had PPs train in spins. Now that airliners have redundant spin proofing, we don't need to. The FAA's primary job is to protect the commercial aviation consumer from airlines, pilots, and the manufacture and repair shops being crooks or incompetents.
You will find no prohibitions on teaching Private Pilot candidates spins. When Air Carrier planes could get into a spin, the FAA had PPs train in spins. Now that airliners have redundant spin proofing, we don't need to. The FAA's primary job is to protect the commercial aviation consumer from airlines, pilots, and the manufacture and repair shops being crooks or incompetents.
whifferdill
Line Up and Wait
This is not an issue that is near and dear to my heart, but where in the FARs does it state that the chute requirement associated with the 60 degree bank or 30 degree pitch limitations are N/A when doing spins OUTSIDE the CFI/student flight training context? Or for that matter, any other maneuver that exceeds 60 deg. of bank or 30 deg. of pitch?
They are if they are intentional. But like I said earlier, it really makes no difference, because nowhere in the FARs does it specifically state chutes are required for aerobatic flight. Folks have accidentally snap rolled airplanes. There's a very subtle, but distinct difference between snaps and spins. Does that mean you can do intentional snap rolls, or any other aerobatics without chutes, only because someone could possibly recreate the maneuver accidentally?
Last edited:
That they are intentional is not enough to make them aerobatic, the reason they were intended is needed. If the reason is recognition and prevention then it is not, it is emergency recovery training. There is actually consideration given to this obvious in the verbiage connected to spins being greater than 2 turns with the first 2 turns having their own distinction of being termed in writing Spin Entries. Since the goal is to get past the shock and get control, recognition and recovery training should never go past 2 turns, so any spin beyond that is entered unintentionally therefore the parachute rule doesn't apply.
If you can't get out of the plane, the chute does no good. If the egress system isn't there, anything the plane is ok to do, it is ok to do without chutes. The 172 is approved for spins when flown in the utility category by the definition of utility category. It is approved to do so without egress doors. No chutes required to do spin training geared towards safety of life emergency training. Geez, it's easy stuff in a 172, the primary thing to demonstrate is 'let go', if you are at the altitude you should be practicing stalls and minimum controllable airspeed flight, and it tucks a wing and you don't know what to do, just let go an pull your feet clear from the peddles. The plane will recover within a half to three quarters of a turn then you can recover.
whifferdill
Line Up and Wait
You're still talking about spin "training", which implies flight instruction w/ CFI. It's already been established that no chutes are required for spins when flight training is being conducted w/ a CFI. This seems a pretty clear indication that outside this context, chutes ARE "required" to be legal during spins if you're not solo or carrying a required crewmember. And once again, it doesn't matter one bit whether spins are "aerobatics" or not. Regarding the chute requirement, it's about the bank and pitch angles achieved.
Of course...that's common sense. But the regs don't necessarily support that.
What do you mean by "egress system" besides either an ejection seat or doors that can be jettisoned? There are lots of airplanes that have neither. I would be interested in seeing a supporting statement from the FAA allowing the 60 degree, 30 deg. bank limitation to be disregarded only because the aircraft does not have an "egress system". RVs would fall into this category. It's nearly impossible to open a slider or side-by-side tip-up canopy (not RV-4 type tip up) in flight. I don't think the FAA would waive the chute requirement for you and your buddy doing acro only because it may be difficult to get out of the airplane. But In any case, can you point to the FARs that support this claim?