Originally Posted by
jonkster
was that testing only incipient spin recovery or fully developed spins?
I'll see if I can find out the information however I would imagine that it is incipient spin recovery. By the way the comment:
It must be assumed that the SR20 has some unrecoverable characteristics
refers to the fact that to recover a Cirrus from a spin, the yoke must be pushed FULL forward and not just partially; indeed, pushing full nose down was viewed as an action can be daunting for a pilot who finds themselves looking down at the ground with it spinning around them.....
Originally Posted by
Lead Balloon
I will try to make it simpler for you, FMJ:
The absence of a deployed chute is not conclusive of an absence of attempts to deploy it. There are documented instances of pilots attempting to deploy the chute but it failing to deploy properly or at all.
(Equally, the presence of a deployed chute is not conclusive of the presence of attempts to deploy it. There are documented instances of the chute deploying without human intervention.)
And I will make it even simpler for you.
1) Let's assume you're high enough and have deployed / attempted to deploy the chute. You have a couple of minutes descent in front of you. What are you going to do. You can't aviate, nor can you navigate.
In your example where the chute misfired, you said he didn't communicate. This is what you wrote:
If the base of the IMC had been granite rather than clear air in that incident, the Monday Morning Quarterbacks would be asking why the pilot didn’t transmit a mayday and pull the chute.
Your words, not mine. But he did. The report clearly stated that he had declared pulling the chute. Indeed, most pilots who deploy at an altitude higher than circuit pattern typically DO communicate. So why didn't this pilot, if he popped the chute at 9000 feet, even if it misfired / misdeployed?
2) unwanted chute deployment was always an issue that happened on the ground and this itself led to an SB..... you know that....