Originally Posted by
43Inches
There's also no evidence to state they didn't try the POH recovery first either. So it's pure speculation that the accident is the result of MB or PARE technique. That is key to remember its just a possibility that instructor used MB first as some form of demonstration. The ATSB is just highlighting the issues with one size fits all emergency procedures as opposed to POH procedure and also the dangers inherent in spin training. I've had the pleasure of spinning C152As, Airtourers and a few others there's always some quirk you have to be careful of, from min/max fuel levels to recovery technique to CoG limits. I've heard a few myths like 'all aircraft can be spun and recovered', well there's a few dead test pilots out there that might say otherwise, I think most wear personal chutes or the aircraft has some form of recovery chute fitted these days during spin testing.
Agree with what you’ve said, although would point out that the evidence from the other student in the same endorsement ‘course’ on the same day showed that they were to learn/demonstrate MB first, then PARE…backed up by notes that were taken by both students. This would suggest that it is likely that the reason for being unable to recover initially is because they were using MB, although sadly we will never really know. The report suggests that they may have been effecting a recover given the type of impact but ran out of height to get there.