Cost Reduction Thought

S

Scott_D

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Jan 7, 2011
Messages
3
Location
Philadelphia
Display Name
Display name:
Scott D.
Hi all. My name is Scott, and about 11 years ago I started on my PPL (about 5 hrs) but didn't finish for various reasons. I'm starting up again, and ultimately want to get my certificate in a Cirrus Perspective SR20 (mostly because my wife likes the safety features.) Now I'm looking at finishing up at Wing's Field... they have a Cirrus package for about $7600 (pre-pay discount) which includes 40 flight hrs, but I know that 40hrs is the minimum and it's not practical to assume I'll be ready for my test at that point. I was thinking of putting in some hrs on a Grumman Trainer at PNE before transferring to the Cirrus, just to build up some flight time before I switch to the Cirrus to complete everything. There is almost a $100 dollar difference per hour on the rental of the two aircraft. I was thinking it would be cheaper to put in say 10 hrs on the Grumman trainer, then switch to the Cirrus for hopefully the last 40 hrs, instead of paying for 40hrs up-front on the Cirrus then needing 10 more hours on the back end to feel comfortable at almost $100 dollars more an hr for rental. Am I way off base here, or is this a good idea? This could save me about $1000. Maybe I should just do everything in the Cirrus and just suck it up and deal with the cost.

I flew a 172 before, but that's almost the same price as the Cirrus and not a huge cost savings.

Thanks for your thoughts!!
 
So it's safe to assume your wife doesn't care about the alleged safety features of the Cirrus if she's not in the airplane?

Scott_D said:
Hi all. My name is Scott, and about 11 years ago I started on my PPL (about 5 hrs) but didn't finish for various reasons. I'm starting up again, and ultimately want to get my certificate in a Cirrus Perspective SR20 (mostly because my wife likes the safety features.) Now I'm looking at finishing up at Wing's Field... they have a Cirrus package for about $7600 (pre-pay discount) which includes 40 flight hrs, but I know that 40hrs is the minimum and it's not practical to assume I'll be ready for my test at that point. I was thinking of putting in some hrs on a Grumman Trainer at PNE before transferring to the Cirrus, just to build up some flight time before I switch to the Cirrus to complete everything. There is almost a $100 dollar difference per hour on the rental of the two aircraft. I was thinking it would be cheaper to put in say 10 hrs on the Grumman trainer, then switch to the Cirrus for hopefully the last 40 hrs, instead of paying for 40hrs up-front on the Cirrus then needing 10 more hours on the back end to feel comfortable at almost $100 dollars more an hr for rental. Am I way off base here, or is this a good idea? This could save me about $1000. Maybe I should just do everything in the Cirrus and just suck it up and deal with the cost.

I flew a 172 before, but that's almost the same price as the Cirrus and not a huge cost savings.

Thanks for your thoughts!!
Click to expand...
 
Do your training in the least expensive well maintained and safe plane and don't over think too much about what you'll ultimately want to fly.

And, generally speaking, it's a bad idea to prepay for your training. A search of most forums will reveal many broken hearts, promises, and wallets over those arrangements.
 
I'd suggest doing all your training in Herb Hortman's AA-1x's and then getting a Cirrus CSI checkout after you get your certificate. You can use the money you saved in the process to build XC time in the Cirrus towards your instrument rating. As the AA-1B is a bit more demanding of good stick-and-rudder skills, you'll be a better pilot for all that, too.
 
I'm an owner of a beachcraft sierra and working towards my ppl. I found and have been told it's a lot harder in a complex plain than a trainer, and my planes a lot slower than a Cirrius. I have about 40 hours and am just getting ready to solo. I think you are better off doing your training in a inexpensive plane and get checked out in the Cirrius. You'll be done quicker. Good luck
 
Good advice so far. No point in overdoing it on the cost of the training aircraft. You can always transition to it later.

Also keep in mind that, while you acknowledge 40 hours is a minimum and that you expect another 10, keep in mind that it may be another 15, or 20, or 25 ... All sorts of things can conspire to add hours to your student time. A change in instructors, lousy weather, a short layoff for some reason, some little glitch you can't get past. The best strategy is to train 3 days a week, every week. You'll be done with minimal hassle in 3 months or so.
 
I spent a grand total of $500 getting my PPL, and I had to twist my CFI's arm just to take that. Of course there was the additional the cost of my purchasing an Aeronca Champ, but it was the plane I wanted after a got my license, so why put it off and pay thousands of bucks in rental costs? Learning in your own plane comes with its own issues, but I don't regret going this route one bit - learning to fly in a tailwheel airplane...especially one that really forces basic stick and rudder skills. You could do the same thing with a cheap 150 and sell it later. It just depends on if you want be an aircraft owner or not.

I agree with what others have said about learning in the cheapest, simplest plane that doesn't distract you from the fundamental skills of flying. You can check out in the Cirrus with all its whiz bang gadgetry quickly and easily later on. It's a whole 'nuther controversial subject, but a glance at the record of the Cirrus in the NTSB's would not support the fact that it's any safer than anything else. Of course you have to be sensitive to your wife's feelings, but I'm sure you can understand there can be a pretty big disconnect between her feelings on the "safety" of a Cirrus vs. the reality of the situation.
 
Last edited:
Train in the plane you are going to fly. I have some time in a Tiger and love the airplane. I took the transition training at KLOM (pre paid for the package) and feel very comfortable recommending it. They are a GREAT(!) organization. Technically Advance Aircraft are challenging, and wondrous. Going from a Tiger to an SR20 was like going from an American car with an automatic transmission to a British sports car with a manual transmission driving on the wrong side of the road. Everything is there, just not exactly where it was before. I love the SR20 but she is expensive. If you are thinking 'cost reduction' it is probably not the plane for you.
 
Scott_D said:
I flew a 172 before, but that's almost the same price as the Cirrus and not a huge cost savings.
Click to expand...

A 172 that costs almost as much as a Cirrus????????

What does it have under the hood?

G1000?

Night/synthetic vision, see-through-clouds stuff???

Really curious....It sounds about right that the Cirrus would run about a hundred more than the Grumman, but unless the 172 is a 2011 with every bell and whistle that Cessna offers, the Skyhawk shouldn't be anywhere near the cost of an SR20.
 
Thanks for the great comments!

I agree that the Cirrus can make a pilot, especially a student, much more complacent with the false sense of saftey. I don't care what I fly honestly... I would fly a lawn chair with cardboard wings if my family would go for it. After reading everyone's comments though, I'm seriously considering training cheap and checking out in a Cirrus for when I have passengers who think the Cirrus is safer.

Fearless Tower said:
A 172 that costs almost as much as a Cirrus????????

What does it have under the hood?

G1000?

Night/synthetic vision, see-through-clouds stuff???

Really curious....It sounds about right that the Cirrus would run about a hundred more than the Grumman, but unless the 172 is a 2011 with every bell and whistle that Cessna offers, the Skyhawk shouldn't be anywhere near the cost of an SR20.
Click to expand...

I'm just saying that the Cirrus is about 40 to 50 dollars more to rent that the 172. Yes significant, but not as significant as the 100 dollar an hour difference in the Grumman Trainer. I was more relating that to the extra hours I would need on top of the 40 hrs the pre-paid package includes. Yes, you're correct, if I did all of the training in the 172 or the Grumman Trainer it would be a huge difference over the SR20.
 
Scott_D said:
I would fly a lawn chair with cardboard wings if my family would go for it.
Click to expand...


Here you go!

Gyro.jpg
 
Scott_D said:
I'm just saying that the Cirrus is about 40 to 50 dollars more to rent that the 172. Yes significant, but not as significant as the 100 dollar an hour difference in the Grumman Trainer. I was more relating that to the extra hours I would need on top of the 40 hrs the pre-paid package includes. Yes, you're correct, if I did all of the training in the 172 or the Grumman Trainer it would be a huge difference over the SR20.
Click to expand...
Unless you have trouble getting in and out of the Grumman, or are so heavy you and your instructor will over-gross it, I see no long-term gain in training in the 172 over the Grumman, and you can use the $3K you save from 172 vs Grumman for your later SR20 checkout (probably with money to spare) and then have another $3K or so from the 172 vs SR20 difference to build XC PIC time in the SR20.
 
Scott_D said:
I'm just saying that the Cirrus is about 40 to 50 dollars more to rent that the 172.
Click to expand...

40-50 difference still seems like a high priced 172. Is that for a G1000?

Not sure what the going rate for SR20s is, but my flying club's SR22s go for $250/hr. Most of our 172s are in the $95/hr range.....a 172 SP with G430 will be around $125 and a G1000 rents for $145.

For $200/hr, you should be building multi-engine time.
 
Fearless Tower said:
A 172 that costs almost as much as a Cirrus????????

What does it have under the hood?

G1000?

Night/synthetic vision, see-through-clouds stuff???

Really curious....It sounds about right that the Cirrus would run about a hundred more than the Grumman, but unless the 172 is a 2011 with every bell and whistle that Cessna offers, the Skyhawk shouldn't be anywhere near the cost of an SR20.
Click to expand...

Fearless Tower said:
40-50 difference still seems like a high priced 172. Is that for a G1000?

Not sure what the going rate for SR20s is, but my flying club's SR22s go for $250/hr. Most of our 172s are in the $95/hr range.....a 172 SP with G430 will be around $125 and a G1000 rents for $145.

For $200/hr, you should be building multi-engine time.
Click to expand...

The rate for the 172s is not too high at Wings. Wings is a Cirrus Serivce center and gives about the lowest price per hour for Cirrus that I have seen. So its more the cost of the cirrus is low than the 172 is high.
 
wabower said:
Millions of dollars have been lost by the use of pre-pay discounts. Be very careful.
Click to expand...

Very good advice. Don't ever prepay more than you are prepared to loose. The only time you should have to prepay for training is if you buy a 10-hour block.
 
Ron and I don't alway agree, but on this count we agree 100%.

Learn to fly in the cheapest airplane you can confortably fly. You will learn the basics better this way anyway and you can learn how to fly the computer in the Cirrus later, after you have mastered the basics. I think the Cirrus would just tend to overload you at 1st.

Now if you were buying a Cirrus I might change my recommendation a bit if you were learning in your own airplane. But the advantage of renting is you can rent just enough airplane for your current mission.

The $4000+ you save can go to another rating, airplane or checkout in the Cirrus, or just more flight hours..

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL
 
Train cheap. An old, ratty aircraft can teach you to fly just as well as, if not better than, the fancy-schmancy new stuff. If you can get your Private for half the cost, you'll still have the other half you budgeted to use on Cirrus transition training - And you'll end up with more and better experience for the same amount of money. :yes:
 
"...if the family would go for it..."

While this is an important consideration which may even become an obstacle in your training, you must remember that their perceptions are guided by subjective opinion of non-aviation folk. Therefore, it is a layman's opinion which is ignorant. And that is your answer of how to combat that obstacle. Exchange that opinion with an informed, knowlegeable opinion.
 
Scott_D said:
Thanks for the great comments!

I agree that the Cirrus can make a pilot, especially a student, much more complacent with the false sense of saftey. I don't care what I fly honestly... I would fly a lawn chair with cardboard wings if my family would go for it. After reading everyone's comments though, I'm seriously considering training cheap and checking out in a Cirrus for when I have passengers who think the Cirrus is safer.


Click to expand...

Just ask yourself which airplane has been around longer. If the Grumman was "unsafe" would it still be flown today? If I was you, I'd be seriously looking at the Grumman. If that isn't an option due to weight or something else, then the 172. Just not the Cirrus. That should be a checkout after you earn your PPL.

Best of luck!
 
Scott,

Thoughts:

The most important safety feature on board the aircraft during Primary training is your CFI.

After your Primary training, and getting your license, the number one safety feature on board is you.

By the averages, realize you're not likely to finish your PPL at 40 hours. Budget for 80.

Therefore, invest serious TIME in yourself first, then airplane "safety features" later. If you can get that TIME in the air and EXPERIENCE cheaper, go cheaper. All airplanes have to be FLOWN. The better you fly, the less you need any of the "safety features" of the Cirrus.

Would you or she want you to pay extra money to be more distracted from your number one job of learning to aviate? I doubt it. There's a lot of distractions from flying in a typical Cirrus cockpit.

Don't change aircraft mid-training. It'll take longer to get the rating.

Use the extra money saved to FLY MORE and build your experience, building a solid base of knowledge in your head about how to FLY first. $100/hr is serious money... use the delta between the Cirrus and something less expensive to put more hours in your logbook. Lots more. You need the experience right now.

What's going on with Skyhawk prices in your area? Something's not right there. Most here are about $90/hr cheaper than a Cirrus.

Judging by your numbers you shared, the Cirrus is about normal and matches some local Cirri in my area's regular rental rates:

http://www.ia-kapa.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/IA_Rate-12-27-10.pdf

Go FLY the crap out of whatever you can get your hands on. You need experience. FLY FLY FLY and then FLY some more. You're learning to FLY... not manage Cirrus panel gadgets.

When you get done with your Primary training you NEED to know how to fly. You don't NEED to have flown a Cirrus. Priorities.

It's a terrible penalty, isn't it? Flying more? ;)
 
I agree with Denverpilot. A fancy cockpit isn't the end all. A composite frame with a parachute isn't the be all. Safety is you, first and foremost.

I'm looking at a Cherokee Six 260 or 300 (suggested by others here) because it will likely fit my usage profile. I'll take a ride in one first, just to be safe, but from what I've read it's a stable VFR / IFR platform. Mind you, this actual model of plane hasn't been built since the 1970's. New isn't everything. (they did make some later versions, Saratoga's & 6X's, but with a lower useful load)

Plus I can change the cockpit for the gear I really need. Not to get rid of the steam gauges (other than backups) for all glass, I don't need that. I figured that out after a few lessons in the 172S the school had. I do admit a G1000 is nice, just not really necessary. Even if I redid the whole panel, I probably wouldn't install a full glass cockpit. Too expensive, and I don't think it'd be worth it.

Take it as you will, for I'm not that experienced a pilot.
 
One point with the parachute: What it's there to save you from is NOT what kills most pilots.

The parachute is there in case of mid-air collision, control failure, or pilot incapacitation. In the grand scheme of things, these events are exceedingly rare. They do happen (the reason the Cirri even have the chutes is because founder & former CEO Alan Klapmeier was in a mid-air collision in 1985) but they are a very small percentage of the overall and fatal accident rates.

What kills the vast majority of people in small airplanes, year after year, is running out of gas, flying into weather that they or the airplane can't handle, and pulling stupid stunts like buzzing things. Note that ALL of those things are EASILY preventable by YOU.

The Cirrus actually has a relatively poor safety record despite all the efforts Cirrus went to to build a safe, easy-to-fly airplane, in part because pilots are lulled into a false sense of security by all the gadgetry and the chute and they get complacent. There are lots and lots of weather-related Cirrus accidents by pilots who depended too much on the equipment instead of their own skill, and even planned the parachute as an out - But in far too many cases, the chute was never pulled even after the situation was unrecoverable otherwise.

Go forth, and read NTSB reports - You'll learn a lot.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/query.asp
 
My opinion:

Get your training somewhere that is convenient to get to. I used a DA-40 at an airport 1 mile from work instead of the much cheaper Warriors that were less convenient. I now rent the much cheaper Warriors.

Fly frequently. It sounds like you have the money available for the entire training, so use it. I went 2-3 times per week and completed in about 10 weeks and was signed off for my checkride in under 41 hours. Training regression is, in my opinion, the biggest reason that the average time is 70+ hours.

Commit to the book study. On non-flying days, read, read read. The written shouldn't be the thing that prevents you from taking your checkride.

Communicate with your CFI that you want to be checkride ready in 40 hours. It takes some planning to meet the requirements in that amount of time.

Good luck
 
Ok, I'll play Devil's Advocate here. So I'm going to assume that you want to fly the family and on that account you'll be doing most or much of your post license flying in the Cirrus. Here is where you'll see the value in training in the Cirrus. The Cirrus is most likely a "Glass Panel" unit with advanced radios. These features take a while to learn and be comfortable with, as does the trim on a Cirrus. Time in type... That's what it's all about. The more training time you do in type the more issues you will run into during training that you will learn to deal with also the more comfortable you will be in the handling of that aircraft.

As for being able to get a PPL done in 40 hrs, it happens all the time. They are dedicated students who fly 2-3 sessions per week or more as well as study their books. You should set yourself to finish within 2 months.
 
I'll speak from a family perspective.

Your going to need your wife on your side throughout your entire flying career.

Is it possible she has some fears and this is why she's opted for the Cirrus? Sounds like it.

I would concentrate on her for a few weeks. Book her a flight with a CFI that you think she would be confident with, as well as like as a person. She may get familiar enough to be comfortable with whatever choice you decided to learn in.

Starting your flying off with your wife worried about the safety of simple trainers is getting off on the wrong foot that is likely not reversible.
 
Henning said:
Ok, I'll play Devil's Advocate here. So I'm going to assume that you want to fly the family and on that account you'll be doing most or much of your post license flying in the Cirrus. Here is where you'll see the value in training in the Cirrus. The Cirrus is most likely a "Glass Panel" unit with advanced radios. These features take a while to learn and be comfortable with, as does the trim on a Cirrus. Time in type... That's what it's all about. The more training time you do in type the more issues you will run into during training that you will learn to deal with also the more comfortable you will be in the handling of that aircraft.
Click to expand...
While I could agree with your theory in principle for someone who isn't afraid of spending money, the title of this thread is "Cost Reduction Thought". The OP says that the Cirrus is $100/hour more than the Grumman. If he takes the minimum 40 hours to complete his private that's a $4000 difference. If he takes any more time the difference goes up from there. Surely it can't take $4000 to get checked out in a Cirrus.
 
Everskyward said:
Surely it can't take $4000 to get checked out in a Cirrus.
Click to expand...
Actually, at $200/hour, it can, especially if you're weak on basic stick-and-rudder skills and have never seen a glass panel/GPS/2-axis autopilot cockpit before. But it's not likely.

And don't call me Shirley.
 
Everskyward said:
While I could agree with your theory in principle for someone who isn't afraid of spending money, the title of this thread is "Cost Reduction Thought". The OP says that the Cirrus is $100/hour more than the Grumman. If he takes the minimum 40 hours to complete his private that's a $4000 difference. If he takes any more time the difference goes up from there. Surely it can't take $4000 to get checked out in a Cirrus.
Click to expand...


Sure it can especially if the insurance is going to require 25hrs dual.

My point was though that saving money in this fashion would be of low value in the long run if the plane that he ends up flying to keep his wife happy will be the Cirrus. Money isn't the only thing in this equation that counts. Besides, if you're afraid of spending money, ehhhh, aviation probably isn't for you....
 
Last edited:
Henning said:
Sure it can especially if the insurance is going to require 25hrs dual.
Click to expand...
I don't believe you'll find that requirement to be insured in an SR20. In any event, the pilot will end up with some 20-25 more hours of flying time (all PIC time) at the end of the day than if s/he trained from the beginning in the Cirrus, and that can have big implications if the pilot is going on to an IR.
 
Suggest you "Google" -"SPIN RECOVERY - CIRRUS" or "SPIN CHARACTERISTICS - CIRRUS":fcross:
 
Cappy said:
Suggest you "Google" -"SPIN RECOVERY - CIRRUS" or "SPIN CHARACTERISTICS - CIRRUS":fcross:
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, the paper about their spin test results written by the Cirrus official responsible for the certification flight testing was removed from the internet. However, it basically said that the airplane passed every Normal Category (Intentional Spins Prohibited) spin test that was attempted before the testing program was stopped when the FAA bought their "equivalent level of safety" argument and substituted the BRS for completion of the testing. Despite the fact that the FAA required Cirrus to make "Chute-Deploy" the spin recovery procedure in the POH as a condition of that "equivalent level of safety" finding, I've seen no evidence of any sort that there is any problem recovering a Cirrus from an incipient (less than 1 turn/3 seconds) spin using classic anti-spin control inputs.
 
Any evidence to the contrary? Not trying to be argumentative here, but the guy's wife prefers the high priced spread because of perceived safety advantages that are less than obvious to many. I say "perceived" because, at low altitude say, on approach, the POH recommended response likely could not be deployed soon enough after recognition to prevent an unpleasant outcome.

I'm just sayin'.:cornut:
 
Cappy said:
Any evidence to the contrary?
Click to expand...
Like I said, it's in Cirrus' files, but no longer publicly posted.

Not trying to be argumentative here, but the guy's wife prefers the high priced spread because of perceived safety advantages that are less than obvious to many. I say "perceived" because, at low altitude say, on approach, the POH recommended response likely could not be deployed soon enough after recognition to prevent an unpleasant outcome.
Click to expand...
That's true of even spin-approved airplanes -- spin it on the base turn, and you're dead no matter what you do.

However, having flown the SR20/22, I can tell you it's fairly easy to fly and in no way spin-prone. Stalls are benign and carry plenty of warning, and stall recovery is straightforward and prompt. There's no apparent tendency to drop a wing unless the ball isn't centered, and the rudder is fully effective in keeping the ball centered at high angles of attack with typical light plane forces.

IOW, it's no more likely to spin than any other light plane in its class, and at low altitude, it doesn't matter how well it recovers from a spin because if it spins that low, you won't have time to recover in any of its competitors, either.
 
Cappy said:
Any evidence to the contrary? Not trying to be argumentative here, but the guy's wife prefers the high priced spread because of perceived safety advantages that are less than obvious to many. I say "perceived" because, at low altitude say, on approach, the POH recommended response likely could not be deployed soon enough after recognition to prevent an unpleasant outcome.

I'm just sayin'.:cornut:
Click to expand...

Well, the guy lost control on approach the other week in Colorado, pulled the chute and walked home....Just sayin':cornut: It's when you don't pull the chute that you tend to end up in a BBQ.
 
Ron Levy said:
Unfortunately, the paper about their spin test results written by the Cirrus official responsible for the certification flight testing was removed from the internet. However, it basically said that the airplane passed every Normal Category (Intentional Spins Prohibited) spin test that was attempted before the testing program was stopped when the FAA bought their "equivalent level of safety" argument and substituted the BRS for completion of the testing. Despite the fact that the FAA required Cirrus to make "Chute-Deploy" the spin recovery procedure in the POH as a condition of that "equivalent level of safety" finding, I've seen no evidence of any sort that there is any problem recovering a Cirrus from an incipient (less than 1 turn/3 seconds) spin using classic anti-spin control inputs.
Click to expand...

Thanks to some archival systems, things don't always vanish from the Internet. I found this on archive.org:

http://web.archive.org/web/20060203...ign.com/pilotsworld/safety/article_06_03.aspx

I'm not going to quote from it because it is worth reading the whole thing because it contains some interesting observations from a Cirrus design engineer on the decisions and compromises they had to make.

And at the bottom of this next page which hasn't vanished,
http://www.whycirrus.com/engineering/stall-spin.aspx
it states "The European authorities (initially JAA, later EASA) when first evaluating the Cirrus SR20 agreed with the principles of the FAA/ELOS approach but had some further questions. A series of spins was performed on their initiative. While not a complete formal program they reported no unusual characteristics."

They go on to say "The fact remains that a generation of pilots has not received spin training - and from the record of prior generations it wouldn't matter if they had. Cirrus continues to go forward with aircraft designs that meet these higher "passive safety" standards regardless of the implication for spin recovery; and is committed to CAPS as a means to recover from all "loss of control" situations – including spins."

The historical evidence would seem to support their view and approach, though I know a lot of people here and elsewhere would strongly disagree.
 
Those aren't the one to which I was referring, which talked about the spin testing program in a lot more detail.
 
Jim Logajan said:
Thanks to some archival systems, things don't always vanish from the Internet. I found this on archive.org:

http://web.archive.org/web/20060203...ign.com/pilotsworld/safety/article_06_03.aspx

I'm not going to quote from it because it is worth reading the whole thing because it contains some interesting observations from a Cirrus design engineer on the decisions and compromises they had to make.

And at the bottom of this next page which hasn't vanished,
http://www.whycirrus.com/engineering/stall-spin.aspx
it states "The European authorities (initially JAA, later EASA) when first evaluating the Cirrus SR20 agreed with the principles of the FAA/ELOS approach but had some further questions. A series of spins was performed on their initiative. While not a complete formal program they reported no unusual characteristics."

They go on to say "The fact remains that a generation of pilots has not received spin training - and from the record of prior generations it wouldn't matter if they had. Cirrus continues to go forward with aircraft designs that meet these higher "passive safety" standards regardless of the implication for spin recovery; and is committed to CAPS as a means to recover from all "loss of control" situations – including spins."

The historical evidence would seem to support their view and approach, though I know a lot of people here and elsewhere would strongly disagree.
Click to expand...


I do not disagree with Cirrus's approach one bit when it comes to this subject of passive spin resistance, I wish they'd seek to cure their fuel tank rupturing in relatively minor accidents issue.

I do disagree with the premise that there was no change when spin training was eliminated from the PP curriculum. There was a change, the change was that it coincided with the first generation of "spin resistance" designed into light planes. Spin training became "unnecessary" because you don't just "break into" a spin in a 150-172 generation plane like you could relatively easily in generations prior.

I also disagree with spin training being unnecessary just because planes don't like to spin anymore. It still happens that people get killed in spin situations. With just a bit of actual spin training, people will be much more likely to be able to catch and correct before the spin occurs.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top