I gather then that you don't like twins since they aren't spin certified. Personally I really like the Baron despite the lack of spin certification.

I don't know about the recovery part, but there is a lot of "spin" associated with Cirrus on this site and elsewhere.
And why would a Cirrus ever even need spin recovery, after all the are claimed to be "spin resitant" anyway.
Any reports of a Cirrus actually spinnnig is probably just negative pr from someone trying to sell you a Bonaza anyway, isn't it.

Hey, Nate, I know they have some good Bar-B-Q and spicy Mexican food around Abilene, but I usually washed mine down with a Dr. Pepper or Corona.
Does it taste better with Kool Aid?

Bill,
Are you trying to dish out some sarcastic humor, or are you really just trying to be obnoxious and insulting?

Why wouldn't they let him stall in the sim? I thought the point of sims was to try things that are too dangerous to practice in real airplanes. Maybe the sim doesn't represent stalls well?

I know many planes are not spin certified, but are there planes that are not certified to be stalled?

I practice stalls in my Baron regularly - its very well behaved - at least at idle or low power. A full power still might be exciting but doesn't seem a realistic scenario. I sure won't try to spin it.

They told him they won't let you stall it because they don't want to give you any bad ideas. The training is all about stall prevention.

I've never done sim training, is that typical? I'm all in favor of stall avoidance, but unless a stall is completely unrecoverable I'd want to try one to have practice recovering just in case.

In a twin sim I'd like to see an engine cut below Vmc, again to see how quickly things go bad and what is and isn't recoverable.

It may be for legal reasons, but some sim instructors follow the letter of the law on training. It is ok to shoot minimum approaches, but not below mins, unless it is for a miss. Occasionally you will find an instructor who will let you fly approaches to 50 feet and a quarter mile to demonstrate how in an emergency you actually can do it, rather than run out of fuel. The stall/spin thing may be for the same reason. They don't want to " encourage" something forbidden in the real plane.

Exposing students to things like that (that are too expensive or too dangerous in the real airplane) is the POINT of using the simulator!

If it's a full motion simulator, I wonder if stalls make it bang hard enough to possibly cause damage to the simulator?

Possible, but sounds like a design flaw.

Juan,

As a counterpoint, I was at Cirrus in Duluth in November 2013 for the delivery of my airplane and 5 days of initial training. As a part of the training I was required to demonstrate power on and power off stalls both straight ahead and with 20 degree banks to the left and right. My friend who was with me and doing h is CSIP training had the same experience. So my experience did not match yours. Perhaps as a part of Cirrus' increased commitment to training over the past couple of years things have changed. BTW the stalls are quite benign compared to other aircraft I have owned.

Spins are a prohibited maneuver in the SR22 and the ONLY approved method of recovery is CAPS activation. Given the number of pilots killed in their failure to recover from spins both in training and inadvertently that approved method is undoubtedly the safest option irrespective of whether or not the airframe is capable of recovery in the normal manner.

My training with a Platinum CSIP (super duper Cirrus CFII) matched Tony's exactly. That was in Georgetown Texas going through the standardized training.

Matt,

I understand....also enjoyed the 50 foot ceilings...who knows how the attorneys think...

Craig,

Whenever we did really big unusual attitudes, they would turn off the motion, then you could roll it without hitting the stops. Or fly inverted..( after all boxes have been checked, last 5 minutes after the work was done))

For the most part this has actually been an interesting and informative thread in my opinion. We've had a good discussion regarding:

1. The aerodynamics of spins, how they happen, how to get out, the differences in spins and spirals, etc.

2. The foolishness of trying certain maneuvers with passengers.

3. The importance of training & knowledge.

4. The relative spinnability of various airframes including Bonanza's, Baron's and Cirrus.

5. Other miscellaneous discussions relating to flying airplanes that is of interest to practically anyone.

Most of the posters on this forum are civil, well behaved and considerate. Even when they don't agree, don't like another poster or don't like the topic. But the downside of having 28,000 registered members, I suppose, is that there is an inevitable bleed through of the negative aspects of other forums.

The captioned post is one of those.

In case anyone has missed it, I've copied what many of us think of as a hallmark of BT: the requirement for civility. This from the BT "Terms of Service":
Civility



I'm not trying to call out anyone in particular, and that is why I have removed the User's name from the captioned, offensive post. But I am also getting sick and tired of it. If you can't behave yourself, and can't at least behave within the minimal requirements of what you agreed to when you joined BT please go away.

Tony, you have quoted that a personal attack is not acceptable, that is, "calling attention to the personal shortcomings of someone rather than their arguments".
You say, "we encourage you to challenge other points of view".
That is a good statement, but is it applied fairly to all?

In no way is my post about the Cirrus any form of personal attack, it refers to the arguments that some posters have made about Cirrus spins and spin recovery and certification and such.
That is what I have debated.
I used the metaphor of washing food down with Kool Aid. For years, unfortunatly since JIm Jones, drinking the Kool Aid has come to mean accepting and idea or action without really thinking. which is the point I was trying to make about the Cirrus.

If you look back a couple of pages to Nate's post on page 7 of this topic you see someone refererred to as a "yahoo". I was not named in this, but I think it is likely that it was directed at me. Would you say calling someone a "yahoo" is a personal attack?
You may look at every word I have written on this forum and I'll bet you will not find once where I have called another member on here a name like that.

I may have strong opinions on some topics, but I don't resort to personal insults and insulting terms like "yahoo" . If I have done this inadvertenly, give me an example and I will apologize for this.

I personally believe in the value of an open discussion on many topics, Among Adults, and I am don't take it as a personal attack if someone disagrees with my point of view, as many do.
I'd like to be able to discuss this with you by phone, it it hard to do on a computer.
Please read the next post also.
Bill G.