This is spin resistance

[JW Scud]

Whole video is interesting but the demo starts at 2:00.

[John Swallow]

I would ask of them three questions:

1. Has the aircraft been spun?

2. What are the characteristics?

3. What recovery procedure is utilized?

The F-5 was touted as "Spin proof". Turns out it was "Spin resistant". At the stall, if the nose sliced, you were along for the ride; it was non-recoverable...

[digits]

I would ask of them three questions:

1. Has the aircraft been spun?

2. What are the characteristics?

3. What recovery procedure is utilized?

The F-5 was touted as "Spin proof". Turns out it was "Spin resistant". At the stall, if the nose sliced, you were along for the ride; it was non-recoverable...

Good point... The harder it is to get in a spin, the harder it is to get out, usually.

[Colonel]

The Ercoupe was billed as "spin-proof". Really, it was just an airplane for
pilots that didn't know how to fly. It had no rudder pedals, so it was hoped
that pilots would never yaw the aircraft. Designers have been trying for a
very long time to make an airplane that any hamfisted idiot could fly. I guess
the Airbus was their crowning glory.

The problem is that as the aircraft become less demanding, the pilots become
less skilled. People deny this, but it's true. You end up with the same margin
of safety with an incredibly complex aircraft loaded with safety systems for
weak pilots.

The problem is that one day, one or more of those incredibly complex aircraft
systems malfunction, and create a nasty aircraft that the weak pilots do not
have a hope in Hell of dealing with, and everyone on board dies in the name
of egalitarian safety. Very few people are capable of seeing the irony.

See MCAS. There's a real triumph of safety and regulatory compliance. It's
pretty well killed Boeing.

At the other end of the spectrum, far away from the rounded-corners Fisher-Price
playpen aircraft, are the F-104 and Pitts and Gee Bee Racer, for example. They
are extremely capable, and do exactly what you tell them to do.

This horrifies the bad pilots, who quickly kill themselves in them, and call them
all sorts of silly names. Skilled pilots love aircraft like that. You know. BAD PEOPLE.

[Liquid_Charlie]

I'm sitting here and the topic of dumbing down has been discussed on several occasions. Just like the auto industry with gadgets and gimmicks to let the substandard driver on the road with a false sense of security. Spin resistant, indeed, but looking at the video and seeing the stab fluttering and a T-Tail at that. I also watched a vid of them "playing like a PWC", while step turns are useful and fun I didn't like what I was seeing.

The stall stats they use, I think it is misleading, for an experienced pilot can anyone really remember when a stall and a spin was inadvertently encountered or experienced.

This aircraft is focused on the new pilot who want to own and I think they are misleading the consumer. Humans manage to create situations that never should or could happen.

[Colonel]

Cirrus was quite um, innovative. Fixed gear and no spin recovery.

"Pull early, pull often"

I'm willing to accept the rhetoric that the ICON is the safest aircraft ever built,
but Roy Halladay seemed to figure out otherwise.

airplane’s altitudes first at 1,909 feet, then 600 feet, then down to 36 feet and finally 11 feet above the water.

... descended in a final steep 45-degree bank.