Puchaz spin count 23 and counting

Mark Stevens wrote:

Just a quick comment on parachutes from Mark Boyds
later post you mean that in the US you do not wear
parachutes in gliders as a matter of routine? and it's
permitted to do aerobatics without them? From a UK
perspective that seems criminally negligent and we
accept the cost of running parachutes for all seats
in all club gliders as simply something it would be
inconceivable to do.. And yes, they have saved lives...

A coupla things. No pilot is required to wear parachutes
if he is the sole occupant.

Next, aerobatics is a little ambiguous. 91.303 says
"an intentional maneuver involving an abrupt change
in an aircraft's attitude, an abnormal attitude, or abnormal
acceleration, not necessary for normal flight."

In 91.307(c), every occupant must wear a parachute
to execute an intentional manuever that exceeds 60 degrees
of bank or 30 degrees nose-up or down attitude relative to
the horizon.

So "aerobatics" (including stalls, chandelles, lazy-8s, steep
turns 50 degrees, etc.) can be done without parachutes (although
there are still requirements to stay away from airways, cities,
airport airspace, low vis, above 1500 ft AGL, etc.).

Severe pitch and bank, on the other hand (which many in other
countries would consider the "true" definition of
aerobatics) do generally require parachutes.

The exception is that CFI's may teach spins and recoveries
to students without anyone wearing a parachute if the
spin training is "required for certificate or
rating." This has been twisted to mean that anyone,
including one who's never flown before, might want
to someday be a CFI (the only rating that
specifically requires spins, and instructional proficiency
in spins), so we can give anyone
spin instruction.

By reg, US CFI's are required by 61.183(i)(2) to "demonstrate
instructional proficiency in stall awareness, spin entry, spins,
and spin recovery procedures." I took an aerobatics course to
do this, but presumably, if ALL US CFI's have instructional proficiency
in this particular manuever (as the reg demands) then they
can teach this locally.

Doing this without parachutes to pilots who don't even have
a license yet? Well, that's a pretty tight twisting of these
rules. But the FAA is clear about STRONGLY encouraging use of
chutes during instructional spins as well, just not to the
point of requiring it.

As far as solo chutes go, Darwinism at its finest. Same
for the solo requirements before license. I think pilots
should be encouraged to do all the silly things they've
ever thought of, solo, over somewhere deserted, without a
chute. Get it out of one's system before endangering others,
I think... Better that he die alone due to poor judgement,
than take his wife and her sister with him to a dark,
watery grave...

Of course, I also think all the auto driver's side
seat belts and airbags should be
replaced with a sharp, rusty metal spike right in the
middle of the steering wheel. Within about a year, everyone
would drive the speed limit, nobody would drive drunk,
lots of people would get remedial training before any accident
ever happened, and we'd all wave each other through
stop signs with a nod and a smile...
And a lot of people would switch to bicycles... :P

So my opinions should be justifiably suspect in this area...