Sport Pilot Talk

Jack Tyler · Posted: Sun May 29, 2011 8:53 am Post subject: Evektor SportStar Chute Deploy

For those who have an interest in the efficacy of emergency chute deployments - and who don't monitor the Dan Johnson blog - here is a recent report from the Czech Republic:

Evektor SportStar Chute Deploy
http://www.bydanjohnson.com/index.cfm (scroll down a bit...)

Paul, you stay away from any practice spins, OK?

drseti · Joined: 28 Nov 2009 Posts: 1390 Location: Lock Haven PA

Jack Tyler wrote: Paul, you stay away from any practice spins, OK?

Jack, you can count on that! Thanks for your concern.

Good save, to be sure. Just two things concern me in that post:

Quote: An airframe parachute is standard equipment on the SportStar,

News to me. Mine certainly didn't come with one. If they've added it as standard equipment, I imagine that is only on certain models. And, although I have no objection whatever to someone specifying and adding a BRS, I still object to any aircraft manufacturer making them "standard equipment," thus denying the owner freedom of choice.

Quote: which has been extensively spin tested according to company sources.

I realize there has been spin testing. However, the S-LSA version in the US is very explicitly placarded against "all aerobatic maneuvers, including spins." I'm sure there's a good reason for this, and sincerely hope all owners respect the limitation, regardless of what the manufacturer may claim.

Jack Tyler · Posted: Tue May 31, 2011 5:30 am Post subject:

Paul and the group:

Quote: "...[The Evektor] has been extensively spin tested according to company sources."
"I realize there has been spin testing. However, the S-LSA version in the US is very explicitly placarded against "all aerobatic maneuvers, including spins."

This is an interesting issue in it's own right, but also in a broader sense. Some mfgrs. (but not all?) wouldn't think of introducing an a/c to the marketplace without full spin recovery testing. See e.g. a small portion of the RV-12 spin testing here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmK7EcC1WNM
Yet to limit liability, a mfgr. can placard the a/c to restrict it from all aerobatic flight, thereby preventing anyone from legally learning first-hand about its spin recovery performance. Personally, I wouldn't consider owning an LSA a/c unless I had a basic understanding of the spin recovery testing regimen it underwent. A good example of this is the Cessna Skycatcher design. This was originally developed by the most experienced Part 23 mfgr. in the world...and yet without full spin testing, it's design flaws would not have been fully understood. Imagine buying that a/c if it had been put into the market by a mfgr. who didn't spin test the first iteration of the design.

More broadly, how does the ASTM LSA Standard help us as consumers (buyers & pilots)? Does it insure flight testing that includes spin recovery testing? If so, how extensive is it? How is it documented by the mfgr.? I don't know because, so far, I can't find these standards in the public domain. Has anyone else found a free, public source for the current ASTM F2245 - 10c: Standard Specification for Design and Performance of a Light Sport Airplane? It appears to me it is treated as a proprietary ASTM product and only available by purchase (see http://www.astm.org/Standards/F2245.htm )

I realize many folks, seeing an LSA a/c on the flight line, would just assume it is safe in flight and would have no further interest in understanding to what limits it was (supposedly) tested, or what the flight testing omitted. For those of us who do care, one would think the current Standard would be freely available to consult. Perhaps someone here can help us find such a source? I'd surely welcome it.

rsteele · Joined: 12 Feb 2007 Posts: 261

I've never seen the spec. But one of the flying mag's did a two month series on the ASTM standard a year to two ago. If I remember correctly, ASTM requires that S-LSAs be spin tested and that they must be recoverable from a 1.5 turn spin. I don't remember if there are any specifics on how they are spin tested. Speaking has someone who has never been in a spin, I'd guess the devil is in the details.

Very enlightening articles. They pointed out the differences between Part 23 and ASTM and how in some cases Part 23 is more strict and in a few places where ASTM is more strict. Mostly the wording is different, but the standards nearly identical, as least as far a air frame and flight characteristics. They didn't go into systems (fuel, electrical etc) to any extent.

drseti · Joined: 28 Nov 2009 Posts: 1390 Location: Lock Haven PA

rsteele wrote: Speaking has someone who has never been in a spin, I'd guess the devil is in the details.

This raises an interesting question (probably for a separate thread). Under FAR 91 subpart H, all CFIs were required to log spin training. I had to demonstrate entry into, and recovery from, 3 turns to both the right and the left. But, of course, that was decades ago, so I don't know if it's still required. I am under the impression that no such requirement exists for Subpart K (Sport Pilot) instructors. Does anyone know if this is the case?

zdc · Guest

drseti wrote: rsteele wrote: Speaking has someone who has never been in a spin, I'd guess the devil is in the details.

This raises an interesting question (probably for a separate thread). Under FAR 91 subpart H, all CFIs were required to log spin training. I had to demonstrate entry into, and recovery from, 3 turns to both the right and the left. But, of course, that was decades ago, so I don't know if it's still required. I am under the impression that no such requirement exists for Subpart K (Sport Pilot) instructors. Does anyone know if this is the case?

Subpart K instructors [I'm one] are requred to have the spin endorsement. I'm too lazy to look up the specific reg right now.

drseti · Posted: Tue May 31, 2011 2:29 pm Post subject:

zdc wrote: Subpart K instructors [I'm one] are required to have the spin endorsement.

I'm relieved to hear that. Thanks for responding.

roger lee · Posted: Tue May 31, 2011 3:59 pm Post subject: Spin trouble

I think most people that get into spin trouble probably don't do it on purpose, but once in they can't get out. Several LSA aircraft have gone down and had to have the chute during factory testing. Some aircraft don't recover from spins very well and evidently for some not at all.

roger lee · Posted: Tue May 31, 2011 10:19 pm Post subject: Spin testing

CT4ME

Master Member

Group:Members
Posts:265
Joined:16-June 10
LocationPhoenix, AZ (KDVT)
Posted Today, 07:22 PM
Updated info... from ByDanJohnson.com... the aircraft was undergoing spin testing, and had completed 30 spins. The test pilot then did some "something" that got the aircraft into an unrecoverable flight condition. The parachute was deployed, the plane ended up in the lake, and the pilot was not hurt. It took about five minutes to sink.
Tim
350+ hours of CT flyin' fun
My Spot Track