Puchaz spin count 23 and counting

In article ,
Vaughn wrote:

"Mark James Boyd" wrote in message
news:402bf598$1@darkstar...

Aerobatics with less than 3 miles vis is prohibited
in the US without waiver, as far as I know...

And in the US you would have to remain at least 1000' above the cloud
(assuming class E or class G 1200' agl.)

actually, there are some fairly large areas of "G" airspace
which go up to 10,000+ here in CA and NV. Spin down to cloud level,
then level descent through the deck. I've never done it myself,
but I'd bet money Carl Herold has...

Not a whole lot of traffic in these areas either, so that's
a very minor issue (big sky, little bullet theory).

Stupid? Maybe (for some folks). Legal, sure.

but the idea still might have
merit given the theory that clouds are usually soft and empty but the ground
is invariably hard.

The guy who told me he spun through a cloud intentionally in his
Pitts said it was psycholigically REALLY hard to hold the spin
through the 500 foot layer through to break out...

In article 402c2ade$1@darkstar, Mark James Boyd wrote:
In article ,
Vaughn wrote:

"Mark James Boyd" wrote in message
news:402bf598$1@darkstar...

Aerobatics with less than 3 miles vis is prohibited
in the US without waiver, as far as I know...

And in the US you would have to remain at least 1000' above the cloud
(assuming class E or class G 1200' agl.)

actually, there are some fairly large areas of "G" airspace
which go up to 10,000+ here in CA and NV. Spin down to cloud level,

Clear retraction of this idea to follow...

then level descent through the deck. I've never done it myself,
but I'd bet money Carl Herold has...

Not a whole lot of traffic in these areas either, so that's
a very minor issue (big sky, little bullet theory).

Stupid? Maybe (for some folks). Legal, sure.

Instant retraction. I just checked part 91. Still need
1000 ft above for VFR in G during day. And no IFR
aerobatics are permitted (that seems fairly non-controversial).

So spinning down to cloud level when above 1200 ft should be
illegal without a waiver (although if done certain ways,
I could see it being safe).

On the other hand, spinning down to cloud level below 1200 AGL
could be legal (although I'd have a hard time ever considering
this to be safe).

but the idea still might have
merit given the theory that clouds are usually soft and empty but the ground
is invariably hard.

The guy who told me he spun through a cloud intentionally in his
Pitts said it was psycholigically REALLY hard to hold the spin
through the 500 foot layer through to break out...

Chinese wise man say: check reg first, then post to newsgroup

"Mark James Boyd" wrote in message
news:402c3016$1@darkstar...
In article 402c2ade$1@darkstar,

Instant retraction. I just checked part 91. Still need
1000 ft above for VFR in G during day. And no IFR
aerobatics are permitted (that seems fairly non-controversial).

So spinning down to cloud level when above 1200 ft should be
illegal without a waiver (although if done certain ways,
I could see it being safe).

Chinese wise man say: check reg first, then post to newsgroup

I would be reading this with a superior grin if I hadn't come so close
to making the same error myself! These winter threads can be a good
excercise.

Vaughn

In article ,
Vaughn Simon wrote:

"Mark James Boyd" wrote in message
news:402c3016$1@darkstar...
In article 402c2ade$1@darkstar,

Instant retraction. I just checked part 91. Still need
1000 ft above for VFR in G during day. And no IFR
aerobatics are permitted (that seems fairly non-controversial).

So spinning down to cloud level when above 1200 ft should be
illegal without a waiver (although if done certain ways,
I could see it being safe).

Chinese wise man say: check reg first, then post to newsgroup

I would be reading this with a superior grin if I hadn't come so close
to making the same error myself! These winter threads can be a good
excercise.

Vaughn

In my defense, it is a pretty obscure question. As far as
I recall, I've never been in any G above 1200 AGL near clouds,
so had never thought about this before...

Well, it ain't so important to us US folk anyway, since
from what I hear we don't do anything close to the
cloud flying they do in the UK. And after all the
post was just for the UK 800 ft AGL spin alternative
anyway

Sure do love the UK-US banter...makes me want to
go overseas for some wit and some wenches...er. winches...

In article ,
Todd Pattist wrote:
(Chris OCallaghan) wrote:

I have a friend who only repacks his chute once per year, generally
around the beginning of his contest season. His plan if questioned by
the FAA is as follows:

FAA: This parachute is out of date.

Pilot: That's not a parachute; it's a seat cushion.

What it is is not really in question. I suspect the FAA can
prove what it is if they're pushed - and he'll lose. OTOH,
it's only illegal to fly with it if it's "available for
emergency use." If he flies without putting on the straps,
I suspect it's legal. I know I could not put on a chute
inside my cockpit if I was sitting on any straps.

Of course, then it really *is* an expensive seat cushion,
and I'd rather have a chute with me.

In my experience, if you're having this conversation,
you did something ELSE wrong first. This tiny nail in your
coffin isn't the one that's gonna keep you in that dark,
lonely place...

In my experience, if you're having this conversation,
you did something ELSE wrong first. This tiny nail in your
coffin isn't the one that's gonna keep you in that dark,
lonely place...

Probably not. But it makes for good apres vol machismo.

Bring 'em on, baby. I'll give those feds what for. Oh, hey, toss me another beer!

The 2-32 has been actively sought after and purchased by the
glider ride industry. It's the only 3-seat option that lets
the ride-seller's customer share the experience with the
spouse or girlfriend/boyfriend. They aren't used much for
training anymore. And they are valuable enough that clubs
tend to sell them.

I do spin training in a 2-32 every year at Warner Springs. Good group of
guys/gals. Great glider to spin.