Intriguing. The Pitts S-2 could be said to have a non-standard recovery procedure too.
follows:-
My suspicion is that the US manufacturer found the spinning characteristics compliant with part 23 but a bit unconventional - certainly the POH uses a non-standard spin recovery. That is probably at the root of the "no spinning" requirement.
What / how do the FAA, CAA etc define spin recovery techniques and therefore what defines the unconventional spin recovery which the CAA then prohibit intentional spinning??
I'm not sure this is valid is it?? After all here are some very recent events with pilots who in aerobatic terms are reasonably inexperienced.
Here is the 2014 standard known sequence:-
http://www.aerobatics.org.uk/sequenc...dKnown2014.gif
As you might be able to see figure 4 is a one and a quarter turn spin. So I think we might be able to agree that in order to fly this figure you need to be able to in control of the machine.
Here are the results from a competition just last weekend.
CD's Report
As we can see the 1st and 2nd places at standard level flew Pitts S-2 and actually the 4th and 5th places flew Slingsby T67's.
I don't actually agree that a Pitts S2 has any strange spin characteristics but if it does then we can see that it can be controlled to within a 1/4 of a turn and that goes for the T67. Doesn't it suggest that there are some odd teachings / theories around spinning?