[Freeport]

Folks the testing involved here is spin testing, not to be confused with what most of you are used to as spiral flight such as that conducted at airshows.

Spiral flight maintains control surface function of an aircraft. Otherwise there would be a LOT of dead stunt pilots out there.

Spin testing purposely defeats control surface function through low speed and high angles of flight path; the aircraft is almost literally falling out of the sky.

Spin testing is an exceedingly dangerous business so don't go out and do it. You'll most likely end up dead and as an ex-crash investigator, you'll just get guys like me shaking their heads at your shear stupidity.

All aircraft will have a flight environment that can be excited where the aircraft is non-recoverable; including aircraft like the Long-Ez which are “Spin Resistant”.

Spin testing purposely tries to find these lurking monsters and document them so that the allowable flight envelope can be identified.

As can be seen by this incident, it can be very hard to pin down and is very unforgiving once entry is made.

[pabianice]

Good review, but it leaves the big question unanswered: in this era of computer design, CAD/CAM, and well-known aerodynamics, how could Cessna have produced a light airplane that cannot recover from a spin? I demonstrate spins in a Cessna 150 — first produced in 1959 and the direct descendant of the 1946 140.

[Blood of Tyrants]

I am no pilot but from what I have heard other pilots say about other Cessna aircraft is that they are self recover from a stall. Just let go of the yoke and the plane will correct itself. Now with that kind of background in aircraft building, you would think that the 162 would be a no brainer.

[patton]

Spin recovery was mandatory when I went to flight school.