Bill Daniels said,
*Rather than blame the glider, I would point the finger at training
that doesnt equip pilots with the skills needed to fly these gliders*
I tend to agree. Have umpteen hours in Puchii. I have always found them
very predictable if flown within C of G limits. Have never had a
problem with spin recovery if the correct technique is employed. If
treated like a Blanik (when auto rotating) and back pressure alone is
released, they definitely will not come out. The full correct drill
must be applied. I have found no recovery problem with 8 or more turn
spins during aerobatic sequences.
HOwever, as indicated it probably would not hurt for a recap by those
with the skills regarding any nasty that may be lurking. Remove the
doubt once and for all.
Henry


--
henell
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted via OziPilots Online [ http://www.OziPilotsOnline.com.au ]
- A website for Australian Pilots regardless of when, why, or what they fly -

I've never flown one and haven't looked at the manual - is the recovery you've
employed detailed in the manual?

In article >,
(henell) wrote:

>
> Bill Daniels said,
I have found no recovery problem with 8 or more turn
> spins during aerobatic sequences.
>

In one of the many messages on Puchaczs over the last two weeks, I believe
someone said that the Puchacz was only certified by the Poles for a two
turn full spin. If I am correct, then maybe the message above shows why
this glider has acquired some of its bad reputation. Pilots should stick
to the manufacturers or flying authorities limits.

I know of one instructor who was asked to start to spin a Puchacz at 800
feet above the ground as part of his annual instructor check. There is no
room for error if you are deliberately initiating a full spin at such a
low level.

In the UK a great deal of all spin training is done in Puchaczs. At our
club we have three Puchaczs. We routinely have visitors who come to our
club and ask to do spinning because they believe that the two seaters used
in their clubs are incapable of proper spin training.

Twenty years ago I was thermalling with an instructor over a ridge. We
were approx 500 feet above the trees in a Bocian with the instructor
flying in a weak thermal. Without any warning to me, on my fifth flight
ever, the Bocian went in to a full spin. We were very close to the trees
by the time the instructor recovered.

This episode convinced me that full spin training is essential. There are
many people who have been flying low and slow trying to extend their
flight time and have suddenly found themselves in incipient or full spins.
How well they recover from these frightening episodes is entirely
dependant on how well they have been trained to recover from full spins.

In summary I believe that the Puchaczs poor reputation is not deserved. A
one or two turn spin done with plenty of height is not dangerous.

"Edward Colver" > wrote in message
. co.uk...
> In article >,
> (henell) wrote:
>
> >
> > Bill Daniels said,
> I have found no recovery problem with 8 or more turn
> > spins during aerobatic sequences.

I didn't write the above. Somebody else did.

Bill Daniels
> >
>
> In one of the many messages on Puchaczs over the last two weeks, I believe
> someone said that the Puchacz was only certified by the Poles for a two
> turn full spin. If I am correct, then maybe the message above shows why
> this glider has acquired some of its bad reputation. Pilots should stick
> to the manufacturers or flying authorities limits.
>
> I know of one instructor who was asked to start to spin a Puchacz at 800
> feet above the ground as part of his annual instructor check. There is no
> room for error if you are deliberately initiating a full spin at such a
> low level.
>
> In the UK a great deal of all spin training is done in Puchaczs. At our
> club we have three Puchaczs. We routinely have visitors who come to our
> club and ask to do spinning because they believe that the two seaters used
> in their clubs are incapable of proper spin training.
>
> Twenty years ago I was thermalling with an instructor over a ridge. We
> were approx 500 feet above the trees in a Bocian with the instructor
> flying in a weak thermal. Without any warning to me, on my fifth flight
> ever, the Bocian went in to a full spin. We were very close to the trees
> by the time the instructor recovered.
>
> This episode convinced me that full spin training is essential. There are
> many people who have been flying low and slow trying to extend their
> flight time and have suddenly found themselves in incipient or full spins.
> How well they recover from these frightening episodes is entirely
> dependant on how well they have been trained to recover from full spins.
>
> In summary I believe that the Puchaczs poor reputation is not deserved. A
> one or two turn spin done with plenty of height is not dangerous.
>
>

> > >
> > > Bill Daniels said,
> > I have found no recovery problem with 8 or more turn
> > > spins during aerobatic sequences.
>
> I didn't write the above. Somebody else did.
>
> Bill Daniels
> > >

Apologies.
Using "cut and paste" can lead to mistakes.

(Shoulbe) wrote in message >...
> I've never flown one and haven't looked at the manual - is the recovery you've
> employed detailed in the manual?

Yes! I'd be interested, what's so mean about the Puch? I checked
myself out in one, several years ago, and then taught a corporate
pilot how to fly it.
Shortly after, that pilot left the job, and the glider sat around for
years till it was sold to England. We did some beginning spins. But I
have 1000s of hrs in Blaniks. Guess I am lucky to be still alive?

DB

"I know of one instructor who was asked to start to spin a Puchacz at
800
feet above the ground as part of his annual instructor check. There is
no
room for error if you are deliberately initiating a full spin at such
a
low level."

Wouldn't it be better to initiate the practice spin at 3,000 feet,
then check the altitude at the bottom of the recovery? I am very
confident in my ability to recognize and recover from a spin, but I
would NEVER, NEVER, NEVER enter one intentionally at 800 feet AGL, if
for no other reason than spinning in the pattern would be frowned on
at most airports I frequent. Nor would I put my life into someone
else's hands quite so readily. From 800 feet there is very little
opportunity to take control and sort out a recovery gone awry.

The most surprising aspect of the Puchacz discussion to date is the
number of accidents involving instructors. This led me to believe that
perhaps there was something amiss with the aircraft (which may be the
case). But clearly there are training practices in place in Britain
that should be scrutinized. Frankly, if a CFI asked me to spin from
800 agl, I'd consider it a test of my judgment, the only appropriate
response being, "Let's land and take another tow."

I've always thought the Brits pretty sensible. Is this a form of
hazing among the fraternity of BGA flight instructors? It is very
difficult to justify such extreme measures for the sake of
proficiency. (Will he keep his head on straight when the ground is
rushing madly at him? And if he doesn't, then what?) Or is it a
vestige left over from a time when aircraft design was less regulated
and spin entries were common? Or both?

You've heard of social Darwinism? Perhaps this is organizational
Royalism: training philosophies shaped by too many generations of
inbreeding....

I have to say, from outside looking in, it's just a little
frightening.

In article >,
Chris OCallaghan > wrote:
>"I know of one instructor who was asked to start to spin a Puchacz at
>800
>feet above the ground as part of his annual instructor check.

Presumably this was over the radio, and nobody liked him anyway?
I read some of these altitudes folks are doing this stuff, and
I put my head in my hands...

When I did aerobatics, it was always 5000ft floor (expected termination
of the manuever) if you had chutes, 3000 feet floor if no chutes.

Chris,

Some gentle reminders about reality here in the UK..


The vast majority of the UK training fleet does not
comprise of Puchasz's. Indeed you find clubs that solely
use them for ab-initio training (not many) and clubs
that have one as a spin/aerobatic trainer. Indeed the
BGA operates one (99) partly for this purpose. All
the other clubs have to soldier on with dull old K13's
for spin/stall awareness/avoidance training..

On the other hand some clubs have taken the view that
where there is smoke there is fire, and although no
one analytically has managed to determine why these
accidents seem to follow the Puchasz in the UK, these
clubs take an avoidance strategy. My own view for what
it's worth is that it is an aircraft with a big elevator
and a big rudder that loses more height per turn in
a spin than a K7/13, and if you screw up the recovery
will reverse. But it's an honest aircraft and from
my experience does what it's told to do. I would be
happy to operate one from my own club from aerotow,
but remain to be convinced it's an aircraft I would
want to be used on the wire.

It's also worth understanding that the Puch has acquired
a somewhat hairy chested reputation and bar stories
tend to grow in scariness like fishing stories increase
the size of the fish..

For instance our airfield is situated on top of a small
ridge.. When we spin train we try and spin over the
valley, which gives us about another 300 ft.. Guess
how many people actually factor this into their post
spin exercise in bar debrief.. ?

Again and again the UK instructors have pointed out
here that we're not teaching spinning we're teaching
spin avoidance.. However in my and my instructors panels
view that requires us to demonstrate and then get students
to understand how spins happen and then recover from
them - from cable breaks, from underbanked, over ruddered
turns and from thermalling turns..

People who don't train in spin avoidance often tend
to get confused about the different phases of spinning.
Anyone who manages to autorotate, and then spin for
one turn in a Puchasz (or any other glider for that
matter) from 800 ft AGL is clearly a lunatic.. Demonstrating
a departure at somewhat higher altitude is a different
matter..

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...


And of course here in the UK we look with some amusement
at the social darwinism in the US that allows 40 million
people to choose not to have access to health care,
the preventative effect on the murder rate that widespread
handgun ownership has, and the preventative affect
on crime of a prison incarceration rate about eight
times the european average..






At 16:06 07 February 2004, Chris Ocallaghan wrote:
>'I know of one instructor who was asked to start to
>spin a Puchacz at
>800
>feet above the ground as part of his annual instructor
>check. There is
>no
>room for error if you are deliberately initiating a
>full spin at such
>a
>low level.'
>
>Wouldn't it be better to initiate the practice spin
>at 3,000 feet,
>then check the altitude at the bottom of the recovery?
>I am very
>confident in my ability to recognize and recover from
>a spin, but I
>would NEVER, NEVER, NEVER enter one intentionally at
>800 feet AGL, if
>for no other reason than spinning in the pattern would
>be frowned on
>at most airports I frequent. Nor would I put my life
>into someone
>else's hands quite so readily. From 800 feet there
>is very little
>opportunity to take control and sort out a recovery
>gone awry.
>
>The most surprising aspect of the Puchacz discussion
>to date is the
>number of accidents involving instructors. This led
>me to believe that
>perhaps there was something amiss with the aircraft
>(which may be the
>case). But clearly there are training practices in
>place in Britain
>that should be scrutinized. Frankly, if a CFI asked
>me to spin from
>800 agl, I'd consider it a test of my judgment, the
>only appropriate
>response being, 'Let's land and take another tow.'
>
>I've always thought the Brits pretty sensible. Is this
>a form of
>hazing among the fraternity of BGA flight instructors?
>It is very
>difficult to justify such extreme measures for the
>sake of
>proficiency. (Will he keep his head on straight when
>the ground is
>rushing madly at him? And if he doesn't, then what?)
>Or is it a
>vestige left over from a time when aircraft design
>was less regulated
>and spin entries were common? Or both?
>
>You've heard of social Darwinism? Perhaps this is organizational
>Royalism: training philosophies shaped by too many
>generations of
>inbreeding....
>
>I have to say, from outside looking in, it's just a
>little
>frightening.
>

"Mark Stevens" > wrote in
message ...
> Chris,
>
>
> Again and again the UK instructors have pointed out
> here that we're not teaching spinning we're teaching
> spin avoidance.. However in my and my instructors panels
> view that requires us to demonstrate and then get students
> to understand how spins happen and then recover from
> them - from cable breaks, from underbanked, over ruddered
> turns and from thermalling turns..

I tend to agree; but in the US, spin training is not required for any
glider or airplane ticket except CFI. As a student, I made the choice to
not solo any spinnable trainer without spin training. As a CFIG, I have
conformed to the "party line" and sent many students solo with only stall
avoidance, recognition and recovery training; without any hint of a problem.
I think (and suggest) that these people should seek spin training before
moving on to more demanding ships.

>...
> Anyone who manages to autorotate, and then spin for
> one turn in a Puchasz (or any other glider for that
> matter) from 800 ft AGL is clearly a lunatic..

Agree emphaticaly.

> Demonstrating
> a departure at somewhat higher altitude is a different
> matter..
>
> 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?

Yes, that is true. In my experience, most owners of single-seat glass
wear parachutes, but most clubs and commercial operations using 2-seat
gliders do not. It is just part of the culture. I think part of the reason
for this is the disincentive created by the US requirement that all chutes,
regardless of technology, be repacked every 120 days. An out-of-date chute
discovered in any operating aircraft is an invitation for an expensive and
inconvenient FAA violation notice.

>and it's
> permitted to do aerobatics without them?

Under certain conditions...yes.

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...

I don't disagree, like helmets on motorcycles, it is (or is not) part
of the local safety culture and the majority naturally conform. That said,
is chute use normal in all small UK aircraft, or is it just gliders? If
only gliders, why?

> And of course here in the UK we look with some amusement
> at the social darwinism in the US that allows 40 million
> people to choose not to have access to health care,

Most of those 40 million people did not make that choice for
themselves, it was made for them. I think that the European 2-tier
(public/private) model of medical care has great merit.

> the preventative effect on the murder rate that widespread handgun
ownership has,

A persistant hangover from our old cowboy culture.

>and the preventative affect on crime of a prison incarceration rate about
eight
> times the european average..

The rate is truly astounding for young black males in the US.



Vaughn

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...

Mark,
I guess it comes down to a matter of government control, doesn't it? You Brits
require fully developed spins and us Yanks allow our instructors to demonstrate
and instruct as they see fit.

You Brits collect all the guns and us Yanks allow our citizens to protect
themselves.

You Brits force everyone into a state health care system and us Yanks allow our
citizens to choose.

It all comes down to a matter of freedom to choose, didn't we fight a war with
you chaps over this?

>
>Chris,
>
>Some gentle reminders about reality here in the UK..
>
>
>The vast majority of the UK training fleet does not
>comprise of Puchasz's. Indeed you find clubs that solely
>use them for ab-initio training (not many) and clubs
>that have one as a spin/aerobatic trainer. Indeed the
>BGA operates one (99) partly for this purpose. All
>the other clubs have to soldier on with dull old K13's
>for spin/stall awareness/avoidance training..
>
>On the other hand some clubs have taken the view that
>where there is smoke there is fire, and although no
>one analytically has managed to determine why these
>accidents seem to follow the Puchasz in the UK, these
>clubs take an avoidance strategy. My own view for what
>it's worth is that it is an aircraft with a big elevator
>and a big rudder that loses more height per turn in
>a spin than a K7/13, and if you screw up the recovery
>will reverse. But it's an honest aircraft and from
>my experience does what it's told to do. I would be
>happy to operate one from my own club from aerotow,
>but remain to be convinced it's an aircraft I would
>want to be used on the wire.
>
>It's also worth understanding that the Puch has acquired
>a somewhat hairy chested reputation and bar stories
>tend to grow in scariness like fishing stories increase
>the size of the fish..
>
>For instance our airfield is situated on top of a small
>ridge.. When we spin train we try and spin over the
>valley, which gives us about another 300 ft.. Guess
>how many people actually factor this into their post
>spin exercise in bar debrief.. ?
>
>Again and again the UK instructors have pointed out
>here that we're not teaching spinning we're teaching
>spin avoidance.. However in my and my instructors panels
>view that requires us to demonstrate and then get students
>to understand how spins happen and then recover from
>them - from cable breaks, from underbanked, over ruddered
>turns and from thermalling turns..
>
>People who don't train in spin avoidance often tend
>to get confused about the different phases of spinning.
>Anyone who manages to autorotate, and then spin for
>one turn in a Puchasz (or any other glider for that
>matter) from 800 ft AGL is clearly a lunatic.. Demonstrating
>a departure at somewhat higher altitude is a different
>matter..
>
>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...
>
>
>And of course here in the UK we look with some amusement
>at the social darwinism in the US that allows 40 million
>people to choose not to have access to health care,
>the preventative effect on the murder rate that widespread
>handgun ownership has, and the preventative affect
>on crime of a prison incarceration rate about eight
>times the european average..
>
>
>
>
>
>
>At 16:06 07 February 2004, Chris Ocallaghan wrote:
>>'I know of one instructor who was asked to start to
>>spin a Puchacz at
>>800
>>feet above the ground as part of his annual instructor
>>check. There is
>>no
>>room for error if you are deliberately initiating a
>>full spin at such
>>a
>>low level.'
>>
>>Wouldn't it be better to initiate the practice spin
>>at 3,000 feet,
>>then check the altitude at the bottom of the recovery?
>>I am very
>>confident in my ability to recognize and recover from
>>a spin, but I
>>would NEVER, NEVER, NEVER enter one intentionally at
>>800 feet AGL, if
>>for no other reason than spinning in the pattern would
>>be frowned on
>>at most airports I frequent. Nor would I put my life
>>into someone
>>else's hands quite so readily. From 800 feet there
>>is very little
>>opportunity to take control and sort out a recovery
>>gone awry.
>>
>>The most surprising aspect of the Puchacz discussion
>>to date is the
>>number of accidents involving instructors. This led
>>me to believe that
>>perhaps there was something amiss with the aircraft
>>(which may be the
>>case). But clearly there are training practices in
>>place in Britain
>>that should be scrutinized. Frankly, if a CFI asked
>>me to spin from
>>800 agl, I'd consider it a test of my judgment, the
>>only appropriate
>>response being, 'Let's land and take another tow.'
>>
>>I've always thought the Brits pretty sensible. Is this
>>a form of
>>hazing among the fraternity of BGA flight instructors?
>>It is very
>>difficult to justify such extreme measures for the
>>sake of
>>proficiency. (Will he keep his head on straight when
>>the ground is
>>rushing madly at him? And if he doesn't, then what?)
>>Or is it a
>>vestige left over from a time when aircraft design
>>was less regulated
>>and spin entries were common? Or both?
>>
>>You've heard of social Darwinism? Perhaps this is organizational
>>Royalism: training philosophies shaped by too many
>>generations of
>>inbreeding....
>>
>>I have to say, from outside looking in, it's just a
>>little
>>frightening.

JJ Sinclair

Vaughn > wrote:
>"Mark Stevens" > wrote in
>> Chris,
>>
> I tend to agree; but in the US, spin training is not required for any
>glider or airplane ticket except CFI. As a student, I made the choice to
>not solo any spinnable trainer without spin training. As a CFIG, I have
>conformed to the "party line" and sent many students solo with only stall
>avoidance, recognition and recovery training; without any hint of a problem.
>I think (and suggest) that these people should seek spin training before
>moving on to more demanding ships.
>

I gave spin training to every pilot I ever soloed, before solo.
It used to be a PPL requirement, I've been told...

>> 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?
>
> Yes, that is true. In my experience, most owners of single-seat glass
>wear parachutes, but most clubs and commercial operations using 2-seat
>gliders do not. It is just part of the culture. I think part of the reason
>for this is the disincentive created by the US requirement that all chutes,
>regardless of technology, be repacked every 120 days. An out-of-date chute
>discovered in any operating aircraft is an invitation for an expensive and
>inconvenient FAA violation notice.

I think it would be absurd to require parachutes for EVERY flight in
a 2-33 (a glider I've only flown ONCE above 3000 feet). 30 extra pounds
on every flight in a glider with no fatalities in 30 years, hardly
enough elevator to stall in any legal CG, and flown mostly below
3000 feet? Silly, in my opinion.

>
>>and it's
>> permitted to do aerobatics without them?
>
> Under certain conditions...yes.
>
> 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...

Sure, in some conditions. But how many people have they
killed invisibly? The guy wearing the chute for the
winch pattern tow? Not a chance he'd have enough altitude to
use the chute, but maybe the extra weight was just
enough to cause the cable break and the stall/spin?
Kinda an invisible possibility, isn't it?
No real way to determine that...

I think REQUIRING parachutes for ALL glider operations is absurd.

PROVIDING them for all operations is quite civilized...
And teaching the judgement about when they are useful, and training
the eject techniques, probably has an excellent sobering effect...

I suspect this poster simply meant chutes are provided for use,
but I'd like to know if this is not just an option but a
requirement...

>
> I don't disagree, like helmets on motorcycles, it is (or is not) part
>of the local safety culture and the majority naturally conform. That said,
>is chute use normal in all small UK aircraft, or is it just gliders? If
>only gliders, why?

Hmmm...that is an interesting question. I'd love to hear
the UK answer.

In the US, chutes are generally only worn in aerobatic
aircraft during aerobatics as far as small aircraft go,
in my experience. A few others too (jump pilots, ferry pilots,
experimental test pilots, some tow pilots).

I've seen a lot of chutes (many legally expired) in single seat
gliders as well. The FAA seems to leave these guys alone,
recognising that since no chute at all is required,
having an expired one in a single seater is not exactly
front page news...

JJ,

Strangely enought it's nothing to do with the government
(well not yet at the moment) - the BGA decides these
things as a movement.. It's not always transparent,
and not always accountable but it's certainly better
than letting the CAA decide these things..

We can argue about gun control all we want but simply
compare the rates of gun deaths between switzerland
where there is an assault rifle in most houses against
that of the US.. But that would be because they still
have a militia. The UK has a thriving private health
care sector as do most European countries.. So I suspect
we do have some choices whereas a significant proportion
of US citizens have no choice at all in accessing healthcare.
Again labelling things as 'socialist' is not very
helpful - is the US public school system 'socialist'
as well?

My real point was to point out that different viewpoints
can be equally valid and that there is rarely one right
answer.. I've spent a lot of time in the US, and there
are things I like about it and things I don't. When
I'm there I tend to comment on the positive and refrain
from being negative..

PS

A couple of years ago a friend and I were sitting in
a bar on the 4th of July in Houston and got chatting
to some of the locals.. They gleefully reminded us
what they were celebrating... We commented we had come
over for that very purpose..







At 16:00 08 February 2004, Jj Sinclair wrote:
>Mark,
>I guess it comes down to a matter of government control,
>doesn't it? You Brits
>require fully developed spins and us Yanks allow our
>instructors to demonstrate
>and instruct as they see fit.
>
>You Brits collect all the guns and us Yanks allow our
>citizens to protect
>themselves.
>
>You Brits force everyone into a state health care system
>and us Yanks allow our
>citizens to choose.
>
>It all comes down to a matter of freedom to choose,
>didn't we fight a war with
>you chaps over this?
>
>>
>>Chris,
>>
>>Some gentle reminders about reality here in the UK..
>>
>>
>>The vast majority of the UK training fleet does not
>>comprise of Puchasz's. Indeed you find clubs that solely
>>use them for ab-initio training (not many) and clubs
>>that have one as a spin/aerobatic trainer. Indeed the
>>BGA operates one (99) partly for this purpose. All
>>the other clubs have to soldier on with dull old K13's
>>for spin/stall awareness/avoidance training..
>>
>>On the other hand some clubs have taken the view that
>>where there is smoke there is fire, and although no
>>one analytically has managed to determine why these
>>accidents seem to follow the Puchasz in the UK, these
>>clubs take an avoidance strategy. My own view for what
>>it's worth is that it is an aircraft with a big elevator
>>and a big rudder that loses more height per turn in
>>a spin than a K7/13, and if you screw up the recovery
>>will reverse. But it's an honest aircraft and from
>>my experience does what it's told to do. I would be
>>happy to operate one from my own club from aerotow,
>>but remain to be convinced it's an aircraft I would
>>want to be used on the wire.
>>
>>It's also worth understanding that the Puch has acquired
>>a somewhat hairy chested reputation and bar stories
>>tend to grow in scariness like fishing stories increase
>>the size of the fish..
>>
>>For instance our airfield is situated on top of a small
>>ridge.. When we spin train we try and spin over the
>>valley, which gives us about another 300 ft.. Guess
>>how many people actually factor this into their post
>>spin exercise in bar debrief.. ?
>>
>>Again and again the UK instructors have pointed out
>>here that we're not teaching spinning we're teaching
>>spin avoidance.. However in my and my instructors panels
>>view that requires us to demonstrate and then get students
>>to understand how spins happen and then recover from
>>them - from cable breaks, from underbanked, over ruddered
>>turns and from thermalling turns..
>>
>>People who don't train in spin avoidance often tend
>>to get confused about the different phases of spinning.
>>Anyone who manages to autorotate, and then spin for
>>one turn in a Puchasz (or any other glider for that
>>matter) from 800 ft AGL is clearly a lunatic.. Demonstrating
>>a departure at somewhat higher altitude is a different
>>matter..
>>
>>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...
>>
>>
>>And of course here in the UK we look with some amusement
>>at the social darwinism in the US that allows 40 million
>>people to choose not to have access to health care,
>>the preventative effect on the murder rate that widespread
>>handgun ownership has, and the preventative affect
>>on crime of a prison incarceration rate about eight
>>times the european average..
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>At 16:06 07 February 2004, Chris Ocallaghan wrote:
>>>'I know of one instructor who was asked to start to
>>>spin a Puchacz at
>>>800
>>>feet above the ground as part of his annual instructor
>>>check. There is
>>>no
>>>room for error if you are deliberately initiating a
>>>full spin at such
>>>a
>>>low level.'
>>>
>>>Wouldn't it be better to initiate the practice spin
>>>at 3,000 feet,
>>>then check the altitude at the bottom of the recovery?
>>>I am very
>>>confident in my ability to recognize and recover from
>>>a spin, but I
>>>would NEVER, NEVER, NEVER enter one intentionally at
>>>800 feet AGL, if
>>>for no other reason than spinning in the pattern would
>>>be frowned on
>>>at most airports I frequent. Nor would I put my life
>>>into someone
>>>else's hands quite so readily. From 800 feet there
>>>is very little
>>>opportunity to take control and sort out a recovery
>>>gone awry.
>>>
>>>The most surprising aspect of the Puchacz discussion
>>>to date is the
>>>number of accidents involving instructors. This led
>>>me to believe that
>>>perhaps there was something amiss with the aircraft
>>>(which may be the
>>>case). But clearly there are training practices in
>>>place in Britain
>>>that should be scrutinized. Frankly, if a CFI asked
>>>me to spin from
>>>800 agl, I'd consider it a test of my judgment, the
>>>only appropriate
>>>response being, 'Let's land and take another tow.'
>>>
>>>I've always thought the Brits pretty sensible. Is this
>>>a form of
>>>hazing among the fraternity of BGA flight instructors?
>>>It is very
>>>difficult to justify such extreme measures for the
>>>sake of
>>>proficiency. (Will he keep his head on straight when
>>>the ground is
>>>rushing madly at him? And if he doesn't, then what?)
>>>Or is it a
>>>vestige left over from a time when aircraft design
>>>was less regulated
>>>and spin entries were common? Or both?
>>>
>>>You've heard of social Darwinism? Perhaps this is organizational
>>>Royalism: training philosophies shaped by too many
>>>generations of
>>>inbreeding....
>>>
>>>I have to say, from outside looking in, it's just a
>>>little
>>>frightening.
>
>JJ Sinclair
>

Mark Stevens > wrote:
>
>A couple of years ago a friend and I were sitting in
>a bar on the 4th of July in Houston and got chatting
>to some of the locals.. They gleefully reminded us
>what they were celebrating... We commented we had come
>over for that very purpose..

LOL. Even the wife thought that one was witty...
(she usually only laughs when I trip over something).

Mark,

We don't require parachutes for all operations, but
we provide them, and I don't know a private pilot who
flies without one. We do require the use of parachutes
for all club gliders.

Pilots in the UK are routinely saved by parachutes,
both from two seaters and single seaters..And they're
used at altitudes rather less than you imagine, including
bailing out at the top of a wire launch due to a incorrectly
rigged tailplane..

Mark



At 18:00 08 February 2004, Mark James Boyd wrote:
>Vaughn wrote:
>>'Mark Stevens' wrote in
>>> Chris,
>>>
>> I tend to agree; but in the US, spin training
>>is not required for any
>>glider or airplane ticket except CFI. As a student,
>>I made the choice to
>>not solo any spinnable trainer without spin training.
>> As a CFIG, I have
>>conformed to the 'party line' and sent many students
>>solo with only stall
>>avoidance, recognition and recovery training; without
>>any hint of a problem.
>>I think (and suggest) that these people should seek
>>spin training before
>>moving on to more demanding ships.
>>
>
>I gave spin training to every pilot I ever soloed,
>before solo.
>It used to be a PPL requirement, I've been told...
>
>>> 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?
>>
>> Yes, that is true. In my experience, most owners
>>of single-seat glass
>>wear parachutes, but most clubs and commercial operations
>>using 2-seat
>>gliders do not. It is just part of the culture. I
>>think part of the reason
>>for this is the disincentive created by the US requirement
>>that all chutes,
>>regardless of technology, be repacked every 120 days.
>> An out-of-date chute
>>discovered in any operating aircraft is an invitation
>>for an expensive and
>>inconvenient FAA violation notice.
>
>I think it would be absurd to require parachutes for
>EVERY flight in
>a 2-33 (a glider I've only flown ONCE above 3000 feet).
> 30 extra pounds
>on every flight in a glider with no fatalities in 30
>years, hardly
>enough elevator to stall in any legal CG, and flown
>mostly below
>3000 feet? Silly, in my opinion.
>
>>
>>>and it's
>>> permitted to do aerobatics without them?
>>
>> Under certain conditions...yes.
>>
>> 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...
>
>Sure, in some conditions. But how many people have
>they
>killed invisibly? The guy wearing the chute for the
>
>winch pattern tow? Not a chance he'd have enough altitude
>to
>use the chute, but maybe the extra weight was just
>enough to cause the cable break and the stall/spin?
>
>Kinda an invisible possibility, isn't it?
>No real way to determine that...
>
>I think REQUIRING parachutes for ALL glider operations
>is absurd.
>
>PROVIDING them for all operations is quite civilized...
>And teaching the judgement about when they are useful,
>and training
>the eject techniques, probably has an excellent sobering
>effect...
>
>I suspect this poster simply meant chutes are provided
>for use,
>but I'd like to know if this is not just an option
>but a
>requirement...
>
>>
>> I don't disagree, like helmets on motorcycles,
>>it is (or is not) part
>>of the local safety culture and the majority naturally
>>conform. That said,
>>is chute use normal in all small UK aircraft, or is
>>it just gliders? If
>>only gliders, why?
>
>Hmmm...that is an interesting question. I'd love to
>hear
>the UK answer.
>
>In the US, chutes are generally only worn in aerobatic
>aircraft during aerobatics as far as small aircraft
>go,
>in my experience. A few others too (jump pilots, ferry
>pilots,
>experimental test pilots, some tow pilots).
>
>I've seen a lot of chutes (many legally expired) in
>single seat
>gliders as well. The FAA seems to leave these guys
>alone,
>recognising that since no chute at all is required,
>having an expired one in a single seater is not exactly
>front page news...
>

Mark,

Along the lines of - 'why is divorce so expensive?
because it's worth it' ..:-)

Mark.

At 18:12 08 February 2004, Mark James Boyd wrote:
>Mark Stevens wrote:
>>
>>A couple of years ago a friend and I were sitting in
>>a bar on the 4th of July in Houston and got chatting
>>to some of the locals.. They gleefully reminded us
>>what they were celebrating... We commented we had come
>>over for that very purpose..
>
>LOL. Even the wife thought that one was witty...
>(she usually only laughs when I trip over something).
>

On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 15:54:18 GMT, "Vaughn"
> wrote:

> 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...
>
> I don't disagree, like helmets on motorcycles, it is (or is not) part
>of the local safety culture and the majority naturally conform. That said,
>is chute use normal in all small UK aircraft, or is it just gliders? If
>only gliders, why?
>
AFAIK the UK practise of always wearing chutes in gliders dates from
the lightning strike on an ASK-21 about 8 years ago. Its occupants
were wearing chutes and both survived. They would not have done so
without them. Having said that, chute use is not entirely universal:
we never wear them in our T-21b, but that's the only exception I know.
I'm not clear on the reason for this.

I wasn't in gliding when that accident happened though I have read the
report, but by the time I started in 2000 chutes had become universal.
It think its the view that it would be silly to need one and not have
it that tipped the balance and all clubs quietly started using chutes
virtually all the time. Apart from that, all training gliders
routinely thermal or run ridges near the field, often in gaggles,
often up to 4000+ ft AGL, so wearing chutes makes sense to me.

I've never worn a chute in a light plane, and that includes SF-25s, or
even seen one in the cabin on the relatively few occasions I've flown
in GA aircraft in the UK. I'd always assumed that had a lot to do with
the relative difficulty of getting out of a GA plane in a hurry
compared with a glider. That has to make the chute much less useful.

A question for the PPLs amongst us: just how high would you need to be
to start egress from a full 4-place GA plane for everybody to exit
with room for the chute to open?


--
martin@ : Martin Gregorie
gregorie : Harlow, UK
demon :
co : Zappa fan & glider pilot
uk :

Mark,
We have had a pleasant little discussion of parachutes, gun control and
socialized medicine, however you have failed to address the core issue of the
British requirement to teach full blown spins. You feel that those who survive
the spin training will be better for it. This position fails to address the
fact that you Brits are screwing students and instructors into the ground on a
fairly regular basis. Some of us feel your cure (spin training) is worse than
the desease (spin accidents).
Your comments on the core issue?
JJ Sinclair

In article >, Martin Gregorie
> writes:

>I wasn't in gliding when that accident happened though I have read the
>report, but by the time I started in 2000 chutes had become universal.
>It think its the view that it would be silly to need one and not have
>it that tipped the balance and all clubs quietly started using chutes
>virtually all the time. Apart from that, all training gliders
>routinely thermal or run ridges near the field, often in gaggles,
>often up to 4000+ ft AGL, so wearing chutes makes sense to me.

Another good reason to always wear chutes when instructing. What would you say
at an inquest or to your insurance company when a pupil died because he could
not bale out as he did not have a 'chute? I have little doubt you and or cyour
club could be successfully sued for negligence.

Duty of care in a big issue over here.

As an instructor of nearly 30 years I would not fly with a pupil in any glider
without a chute if it were possible to fit one in. Additionally, all of our
club aircraft are fitted with impact absorbing cushions for the same reason.

Barney
UK

In article <4026791b$1@darkstar>, (Mark James Boyd)
writes:

>>
>> I don't disagree, like helmets on motorcycles, it is (or is not) part
>>of the local safety culture and the majority naturally conform. That said,
>>is chute use normal in all small UK aircraft, or is it just gliders? If
>>only gliders, why?
>
>Hmmm...that is an interesting question. I'd love to hear
>the UK answer

Simple, how many power pilots do you know do "steep" turns at 7knots above the
stall; How many deliberately fly in circles with a group of others, many in the
blind spot on a busy day, STILL 7 knots over stall speed.

Barney
UK

On 8 Feb 2004 09:59:55 -0700, (Mark James Boyd)
wrote:

>> 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...
>
>Sure, in some conditions. But how many people have they
>killed invisibly? The guy wearing the chute for the
>winch pattern tow? Not a chance he'd have enough altitude to
>use the chute, but maybe the extra weight was just
>enough to cause the cable break and the stall/spin?
>Kinda an invisible possibility, isn't it?
>No real way to determine that...

Well... at the moment I know four glider pilots in person who were
using the nylon letdown successfully.
One girl bailed out of their ASW-19 during a winch launch (elevator
not connected) [500 ft], one bailed out of his Ventus after he had
rammed another glider [5000 ft, unfortunately the other pilot was not
able to bail out], and two bailed out of their respective Ka-8(s after
they had collided at 700 ft.

Note the altitudes .

I know of not a single case where the additional weight of a parachute
caused a problem. I also have not even heard of any case where the
parachute caused a disadvantage.

[i]
>I think REQUIRING parachutes for ALL glider operations is absurd.

Any questions left?

Bye
Andreas

On 8 Feb 2004 08:54:58 -0700, (Mark James Boyd)
wrote:

>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.).

Ahh.. I have to apologize. In my other reply I forgot to mention the
guy who bailed out of his Lo-100 that had lost a wing inflight while
doing aerobatics.
He started to leaeve the glider at 3.000 ft, the chute opened less
than 100 ft above the ground.


Bye
Andreas

JJ Sinclair > wrote in article
>...
> Mark,
> I guess it comes down to a matter of government control, doesn't it? You
Brits
> require fully developed spins and us Yanks allow our instructors to
demonstrate
> and instruct as they see fit.
>
> You Brits collect all the guns and us Yanks allow our citizens to protect
> themselves.
>
> You Brits force everyone into a state health care system and us Yanks
allow our
> citizens to choose.
>
> It all comes down to a matter of freedom to choose, didn't we fight a war
with
> you chaps over this?
>
> >
> >Chris,
> >
> >Some gentle reminders about reality here in the UK..
> >
> RIGHT ON, JJ!!!!
Well said.
They may be the epitome of civility, but then, they don't have a choice.
Cheers! , Pete

At 18:00 08 February 2004, Mark James Boyd wrote:
>I've seen a lot of chutes (many legally expired) in
>single seat
>gliders as well. The FAA seems to leave these guys
>alone,
>recognising that since no chute at all is required,
>having an expired one in a single seater is not exactly
>front page news...

Geez, I don't know any FAA types ignoring 61.307(a)...
whenever a parachute is carried in any aircraft and
made 'available for emergency use,' it must be in current
pack.

Judy

JJ,

The only point your original post made about spin avoidance
training was that the UK government required us to
do whereas in the land of the free etc you could do
what you damn well wanted. I pointed out that the government
did not require us to do anything, and the BGA (the
SSA equivalent) made those decisions in a fully deregulated
manner unlike you guys with the FAA all over you..
My original tetchy response was to a post that suggested
that we did not try and look objectively at every accident
and disseminate conclusions from that..

Now you've decided to address the substantive issue,
my view is as follows..

1. We do not 'routinely' spin students in during training.
Guess what, not all Puch spin accidents occurred during
instructor led spin exercises.

2. I've suggested there are some reservations about
the
specific use of the Puch amongst our instructor community


3. My understanding is that our accident rates overall
compare favourably with elsewhere in the world - this
was confirmed by our regional examiner at a CFI and
coach meeting on Saturday.

The problem with your analysis is that you focus on
accidents of commission, but not accidents of omission..
we don't know how many lives have been saved by spin
avoidance training, we do know how many have been lost.
What we do know is that the number of spin related
deaths has decreased. So I guess my answer is that
in my view the cure is better than the disease, although
we'd rather that noone died or was injured at any point
during their flying career..

In my opinion any comparison with the withdrawal of
spin training for US PPL's is invalid, power pilots
do not routinely fly at high angles of attack, and
tend not to use the rudder in most phases of flight.
They also tend not to make the number of outlandings
glider pilots do and tend not to have the same problems
to solve in the pattern..

I hope this answers your question on where I stand..

At 21:18 08 February 2004, Jj Sinclair wrote:
>Mark,
>We have had a pleasant little discussion of parachutes,
>gun control and
>socialized medicine, however you have failed to address
>the core issue of the
>British requirement to teach full blown spins. You
>feel that those who survive
>the spin training will be better for it. This position
>fails to address the
>fact that you Brits are screwing students and instructors
>into the ground on a
>fairly regular basis. Some of us feel your cure (spin
>training) is worse than
>the desease (spin accidents).
>Your comments on the core issue?
>JJ Sinclair
>

On 2/8/04 5:18 AM, in article ,
"Mark Stevens" > wrote:

> And of course here in the UK we look with some amusement
> at...the preventative affect on crime of a prison incarceration
> rate about eight times the european average.

If we just had a distant land, peopled only by a few aboriginals, to which
we could send those misfits, I am sure it would be much more economical than
sheltering and feeding them here at our expense. Our surrounding moat is
also a bit narrow, in some places non-existent, and I'm sure that reflects
badly somehow on our judgment and character. Perhaps you Brits would be
willing to take on a few of tens of thousands of these excessively
incarcerated individuals. Surely, you can make peaceful productive citizens
of them simply by offering free medical care and an environment in which
their potential victims have almost no means of defending themselves.

If there were any imperfections or glaring anachronisms in UK culture, I'm
sure I would be not only unqualified to criticize them but also totally
uninterested, since I neither live, vote, nor pay taxes there. Your
expertise on matters social has been noted however, and I trust you won't
mind our calling on you to help us find our footing in the swamp of
inadequacy and despair in which we find ourselves.

When you have taken a goodly number of those unfortunates (whom we have so
obviously failed) and made them welcome as members of your glider syndicate,
perhaps you would be so kind as to report on your progress in teaching them
to spin Puchaz, and thereby draw this thread back on topic.


-----
Jack
-----

Jack,

What a delicious use of irony... However, I was merely
responding to a comment made by one of your fellow
countrymen who clearly had neither your delicacy of
touch or restraint.

Given the fact I'm about 20% english I don't really
give a toss what happened 160 years ago, although I
understand we're not the people these days shipping
people to a far away island and holding them prisoner..:-)
And it's today I'm mainly interested in.. Otherwise
we can discuss how many people were moved involuntarily
from where to where in the late 18th and 19th centuries..


Mark












At 09:24 09 February 2004, Jack wrote:
>On 2/8/04 5:18 AM, in article -be
>>rlin.de,
>'Mark Stevens' wrote:
>
>> And of course here in the UK we look with some amusement
>> at...the preventative affect on crime of a prison
>>incarceration
>> rate about eight times the european average.
>
>If we just had a distant land, peopled only by a few
>aboriginals, to which
>we could send those misfits, I am sure it would be
>much more economical than
>sheltering and feeding them here at our expense. Our
>surrounding moat is
>also a bit narrow, in some places non-existent, and
>I'm sure that reflects
>badly somehow on our judgment and character. Perhaps
>you Brits would be
>willing to take on a few of tens of thousands of these
>excessively
>incarcerated individuals. Surely, you can make peaceful
>productive citizens
>of them simply by offering free medical care and an
>environment in which
>their potential victims have almost no means of defending
>themselves.
>
>If there were any imperfections or glaring anachronisms
>in UK culture, I'm
>sure I would be not only unqualified to criticize them
>but also totally
>uninterested, since I neither live, vote, nor pay taxes
>there. Your
>expertise on matters social has been noted however,
>and I trust you won't
>mind our calling on you to help us find our footing
>in the swamp of
>inadequacy and despair in which we find ourselves.
>
>When you have taken a goodly number of those unfortunates
>(whom we have so
>obviously failed) and made them welcome as members
>of your glider syndicate,
>perhaps you would be so kind as to report on your progress
>in teaching them
>to spin Puchaz, and thereby draw this thread back on
>topic.
>
>
>-----
>Jack
>-----
>
>

At 18:00 08 February 2004, Mark James Boyd wrote:

At 16:00 08 February 2004, Jj Sinclair wrote:
>Mark,
>I guess it comes down to a matter of government control,
>doesn't it? You Brits
>require fully developed spins and us Yanks allow our
>instructors to demonstrate
>and instruct as they see fit.
>
>You Brits collect all the guns and us Yanks allow our
>citizens to protect
>themselves.
>
>You Brits force everyone into a state health care system
>and us Yanks allow our
>citizens to choose.
>
>It all comes down to a matter of freedom to choose,
>didn't we fight a war with
>you chaps over this?

I'm sorry, but I can't resist this even though it's a bit off-topic: (deliberate misinterpretation) the only war we fought with you (the one about independence) we lost. The other one involved the UK in conflict that was more about securing middle eastern resources and oil for the west and protecting a bunch of magpies living on the coast of the mediteranean sea than it was about protecting us from WMD's. The arguments being presented now about how wonderful it is that a despotic regime has been removed ignore the fact that the same regime was heartily supported through the 80's by the US and the UK, amonst others.

Bring it on...

Rgds,

Derrick.

Your point regarding 'Accidents of Omission' is interesting.
If your local drug company marketed an antibiotic that
then proceeded to kill 23 patients, I'm not sure whether
the subsequent litigants would be much impressed by
the uncertain number of lives saved. Yes we need spin
training, and preferably on an annual basis so we don’t
forget what to do if, what we spent the previous year
avoiding, accidentally happens. Surely the point at
issue is whether the Puch is a safe vehicle for these
manoeuvres. And if it isn't, then should it be airborne
at all. Certainly the number of accidents involving
the Puch as against the number produced does seem to
indicate that something is amiss. Is there a statistician
out there who could look at the numbers and make a
scientific pronouncement on this? I seem to remember
in my school days, (when Queen Victoria ruled), there
was something called the Chi-squared test which allowed
one to state whether two separate groups of occurrence
were significantly different. Could we compare, for
example, the number of K-13's et al spun in relation
to the numbers built, as against the Puch in the same
manner and pronounce with a specified degree of confidence
whether the accident rate, (spin in's), was significantly
different?

Steve Hopkins wrote:
Your point regarding 'Accidents of Omission' is interesting.
If your local drug company marketed an antibiotic that
then proceeded to kill 23 patients, I'm not sure whether
the subsequent litigants would be much impressed by
the uncertain number of lives saved. Yes we need spin
training, and preferably on an annual basis so we don't
forget what to do if, what we spent the previous year
avoiding, accidentally happens. Surely the point at
issue is whether the Puch is a safe vehicle for these
manoeuvres. And if it isn't, then should it be airborne
at all. Certainly the number of accidents involving
the Puch as against the number produced does seem to
indicate that something is amiss. Is there a statistician
out there who could look at the numbers and make a
scientific pronouncement on this? I seem to remember
in my school days, (when Queen Victoria ruled), there
was something called the Chi-squared test which allowed
one to state whether two separate groups of occurrence
were significantly different. Could we compare, for
example, the number of K-13's et al spun in relation
to the numbers built, as against the Puch in the same
manner and pronounce with a specified degree of confidence
whether the accident rate, (spin in's), was significantly
Different?
Would it tell you anything? The point about statistical tests is that you
first eliminate any factors which would skew the result. So you would have
to take into account at least the following:
1. the numbers of spin exercises carried out in puch's against the number in
other types of glider (single and two pew),
2. the training history of the pilots involved in accident free spins
against those in spins where an accident occurred,
3. the flying history of the pilots involved in accident free spins against
those in spins where an accident occurred,
4. the height at which the spin was entered
5. the circumstances of the spin (e.g. deliberate as opposed to induced
6. the method of inducement if that was the method of entry
7. the repair history of the glider (just in case this changed the mass
distribution of same)
8. the weights of the pilots concerned (the mass distribution again)
I'm personally convinced that the issue here is not whether the aircraft is
safe, but whether the pilot is safe to carry out the spinning exercises
concerned - I would only feel safe carrying these exercises with an
instructor whom I knew for certain was current and experienced with carrying
these exercises whichever glider type it is that is used. It is clear that
the puch and other gliders like it can enter a full spin which requires that
the correct procedure be used to recover from it - surely this is a training
issue? And surely it requires that pilots only be allowed to fly gliders
which they have proven their ability to handle?
Rgds,
Derrick.

Mark wrote>>>>>>>>>>>>>Otherwise
>we can discuss how many people were moved involuntarily
>from where to where in the late 18th and 19th centuries..
>

Mark,
How did Australia get populated with chaps that spoke english?
JJ Sinclair

Mark wrote>>>>>>I pointed out that the government
>did not require us to do anything, and the BGA (the
>SSA equivalent) made those decisions in a fully deregulated
>manner unlike you guys with the FAA all over you..

Mark,
The BGA IS the government, you just don't realize it. You MUST do what the BGA
says, if you wish to fly gliders in England. We don't have to do ANYTHING the
SSA tells us to do. I believe your government (BGA) is telling you to do 2 turn
spins in both directions, on initial check-out and every spring thereafter.

Most of our instructors, exercising their freedom of choice, teach spin
recognition and spin avoidance. We feel that ANY spin accident that accured
after the glider was intentionally put into a spin, can NOT justified.
JJ Sinclair

Derrick,
I just activated my time machine and its now 1938. Now, do we DO something
about Hitler or just let him involve us in another world war?

Our recent war had more to do with removing a Hitler type threat, than anything
to do with oil.
JJ Sinclair

JJ,

Not awfully interested in this but most of them migrated
voluntarily, a significant number were transported.


It's also how a lot of the first colonies in the Eastern
US states
were populated - through indentured labour with no
return ticket.

How did most african-americans arrive in the US? Given
that
yours is apparently the land of the free etc etc, all
men equal etc etc.. And when did legal segregation
end? You're only seeing what you want to see pal..

Mark







At 15:00 09 February 2004, Jj Sinclair wrote:
>Mark wrote>>>>>>>>>>>>>Otherwise
>>we can discuss how many people were moved involuntarily
>>from where to where in the late 18th and 19th centuries..
>>
>
>Mark,
>How did Australia get populated with chaps that spoke
>english?
>JJ Sinclair
>

JJ,

Again you demonstrate your somewhat tenuous grasp of
the facts and geography.. There is nothing legally
stopping someone operating and flying gliders outside
of the BGA umbrella in the UK or even the bit called
england.

I'm happy to carry on listening to you talk out of
your arse by
email, but I suspect we're boring the rest of group..

Mark




At 15:12 09 February 2004, Jj Sinclair wrote:
>Mark wrote>>>>>>I pointed out that the government
>>did not require us to do anything, and the BGA (the
>>SSA equivalent) made those decisions in a fully deregulated
>>manner unlike you guys with the FAA all over you..
>
>Mark,
>The BGA IS the government, you just don't realize it.
>You MUST do what the BGA
>says, if you wish to fly gliders in England. We don't
>have to do ANYTHING the
>SSA tells us to do. I believe your government (BGA)
>is telling you to do 2 turn
>spins in both directions, on initial check-out and
>every spring thereafter.
>
>Most of our instructors, exercising their freedom of
>choice, teach spin
>recognition and spin avoidance. We feel that ANY spin
>accident that accured
>after the glider was intentionally put into a spin,
>can NOT justified.
>JJ Sinclair
>

Mark,
What's that they say about living in glass houses and throughing rocks?
JJ Sinclair

JJ,

I usually respect your postings, but this time you have written arrogant
nonsense, and I am afraid you have wound me up.

What do you mean by "full blown spins"? I give three alternatives below,
please tell me which you mean, or do you mean something else?

1./ Some people say of any glider if it stalls with lateral instability
and starts to rotate, that "it span".

2./ Some people describe the manoeuvre between initial stall and a full
developed spin as an "incipient spin". Some people would say "it span".

In the U.K. we prefer to call it a "stall with wing drop", this is because
the recovery from a "stall with wing drop" is sometimes different from the
recovery from a developed full spin (e.g. the K21 at aft permitted C. of G.
position, see the Schleicher Flight Manual April 1980 as amended by
Schleicher Technical Note 23 for the K21 of Jan. 1991).

3./ Some people reserve the phrase "full spin" for genuine stable
developed autorotation which will continue until a change in control
position is made.

If, as I suspect, you mean by "full blown spins" choice 3./ above; what do
you mean by "the British requirement to teach full blown spins"?

If you have read the BGA Instructors' Manual (Second edition), and remember
what you have read, you will recall that the relevant section is "Section 5"
with two chapters, "18 Stalling" and "19 Spinning and Spiral Dives".

In chapter 19 on page 19-3 it says under the heading:

"ADVICE TO INSTRUCTORS

"In the initial stages of spin training, continuous spins of two or three
turns are mainly to allow the trainee time to study the characteristics of
the spin and give confidence that the recovery action from a stabilised spin
is effective. There is no requirement for these spins to be noticeably
close to the ground, so their training value is not compromised if they are
completed very high. The majority of spin training will then involve brief
spins of about a half a turn with the primary aim of recognising the
circumstances in which the spin can occur, correctly identifying the
spin/spiral dive, and practising the correct recovery action.

"As this training progresses, it is necessary to introduce brief spins where
the ground is noticeably close. This is to ensure that the trainee will
take the correct recovery action even when the nose is down and the ground
approaching. A very experienced instructor flying a docile two seater in
ideal conditions may be prepared to initiate a brief spin from 800'. A
less docile two seater with a less experienced instructor, or less than
ideal conditions, should raise the minimum height considerably."

That is just the first two paragraphs of quite a long explanation.

Note that in the U.K. the highest altitude for any gliding site or airfield
is the Midland Gliding Club, Long Mynd at 1,411 ft. a.s.l. It is known
that stall/spin recovery can get worse at altitude, in particular I
understand that this can be noticeable above about 7,000 ft. a.s.l.

The manual and the revisions for the second edition were written by BGA
staff and members with no input from U.K. government authorities, neither
the Civil Aviation Authority nor the Department for Transport (who
investigate accidents). This is because the CAA and DfT recognise that
they do not have the expertise and don't particularly want to gain it, they
would far rather we were self-regulating. So far the BGA and CAA between
them have managed to keep the politicians off our backs.

The first edition of the BGA Instructors' Manual was published in 1994 and
amended in Feb. 1999, the second published in Feb. 2003. It is freely
available from the BGA; go to http://www.gliding.co.uk, "BGA Shop",
"Manuals, Log books & handbooks"
https://www.gliding.co.uk/bgashop/shop.cgi?se=&op=sc&ci=5 ,
"Instructors' Handbook".

If you have not read the manual, what in hell do you think you are doing in
pronouncing on "the British requirement"?

You state "your cure (spin training) is worse than the disease (spin
accidents)". What is your evidence for this; and how do you, how can you
know what the disease (spin accidents) would be if we did less of the cure
(spin training).

I was told yesterday evening that in Germany they reduced spin training (for
gliding) about 8 years ago, but have recently re-introduced it. I heard
this from a good source, but can anyone confirm it?

This and the other threads on spinning etc. started after news of the double
fatality in a Puchacz crash on 18th January. So far I understand that it
appears that it hit the ground spinning, but we do not know why. The
latest rumour I heard is that it might have been medical factors, in which
case it might have made no difference what type was being used or what
exercise the instructor was doing when struck by illness; you must
understand that this is what I said, RUMOUR.

Do you really need telling that you should not believe everything you read
on Rec. Aviation Soaring, and that many of the postings including some from
the U.K. are based more on emotion than on knowledge, reason and experience?

Many of the posters here are not and never have been instructors. JJ, what
is your qualification and experience as a gliding instructor?

DISCLAIMER.

I personally am not, and never have been involved in any capacity with the
BGA sub-groups who deal with Accident Investigation, Safety, Instruction or
Technical matters. I was once on the BGA Executive for four years, about
15 years ago, but never part of the sub-committee structure.

The views I express here are my own entirely.

Regards - Bill.

W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.).
Remove "ic" to reply.

>
> "JJ Sinclair" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> Mark,
>
> We have had a pleasant little discussion of parachutes, gun control and
> socialized medicine, however you have failed to address the core issue of
> the British requirement to teach full blown spins. You feel that those
> who survive the spin training will be better for it. This position fails
> to address the fact that you Brits are screwing students and instructors
> into the ground on a fairly regular basis. Some of us feel your cure
> (spin training) is worse than the disease (spin accidents).
>
> Your comments on the core issue?
>
> JJ Sinclair.
>

Mark wrote>>>>>>>>>>>>>Otherwise
>we can discuss how many people were moved involuntarily
>from where to where in the late 18th and 19th centuries..
>

Mark,
How did Australia get populated with chaps that spoke english?
JJ Sinclair

And Derrick wrote: we sent loads or Irish and Welsh there who were so
enamoured of the English that they made it the standard language for all the
other nationalities that turned up there, and then they imported the
sheep...

Rgds,

Derrick.

Mark James Boyd wrote:
> ...
> I think REQUIRING parachutes for ALL glider operations is absurd.
> ...

This is what the french regulations requires. Although I can admit that
our regulations have many absurd points, I would not count this one among
them. It is the same thing for seat belts in cars: if the regulation don't
make installing and using them mandatory, the statistics prove that cases
where they should be used and are not are way over the cases where they are
used and this causes some inconvenience.

Bill,
I have been responding to posts in this thread that indicate:

1. The British are now investigating their 4th Puch spin-in with unspecified
other types that have spun-in as a result of spin-training.

2. The british require 2-turn spins (full blown) in both directions, on initial
check-out and annually thereafter.

3. Some practice spins are entered as low as pattern altitude.

If the above is not true, please disregard my postings on the subject. I do
believe that ANY accident resulting from an intentional spin entry is
unacceptable and that spin training should emphasize spin recognition and spin
avoidance with recovery within 1 turn..

I now leave the British glider training in the good hands of the British glider
instructors and will post no more on this subject.
JJ Sinclair

On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 13:51:19 -0500, Todd Pattist
> wrote:

>"W.J. \(Bill\) Dean \(U.K.\)." >
>wrote:
>
>> A very experienced instructor flying a docile two seater in
>>ideal conditions may be prepared to initiate a brief spin from 800'.
>
>Wow! Even with the "docile" "ideal conditions" and "very
>experienced" qualifiers, I find this 800' comment in an
>officially sanctioned instructor's guide to be highly
>surprising. There's not much room here for anything
>unexpected from the student or the aircraft.
>
>Todd Pattist - "WH" Ventus C
>(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)


What it is Todd, is lunacy.(officially sanctioned of course)

If anyone did this to me after we landed safely(if we survived) I'd be
tempted to rip the stick out of the front cockpit and severely
chastise the "instructor" about the head and shoulders with it.

Mike Borgelt

On 9 Feb 2004 09:17:28 GMT, Mark Stevens
> wrote:

>In my opinion any comparison with the withdrawal of
>spin training for US PPL's is invalid, power pilots
>do not routinely fly at high angles of attack, and
>tend not to use the rudder in most phases of flight.
>They also tend not to make the number of outlandings
>glider pilots do and tend not to have the same problems
>to solve in the pattern..


Do you fly power?
I got my power licence after 27 years gliding.
Where do you get the idea that power pilots don't use the rudder?
Rudder is used as required. In most power planes not much rudder is
required because of the design of the ailerons and the short wings but
it is still required if you want to keep the ball in the middle. Put a
well trained power pilot in a glider and he might take a couple of
minutes to figure it out but that is about all. He probably will take
a little longer to do good coordinated continuous steep turns but that
is only because glider pilots do many more than power pilots do.
Hopefully power pilots don't do many outlandings but I was impressed
by the amount of time spent during training on forced landings and
then you have a far worse problem than in a glider.

JJ might fill you in on use of rudder at high AOA in power planes like
the F4.

Mike Borgelt

On 2/9/04 3:32 PM, in article ,
"Mike Borgelt" > wrote:

> JJ might fill you in on use of rudder at high AOA
> in power planes like the F4.

....and in the F-100, for example, where improper rudder use will take you
out of the fight in a hurry, and not in a good way. Rudder coordination is
certainly not something with which fighter pilots, and tail-dragger pilots,
are unfamiliar.


-----
Jack
-----

On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 09:15:09 -0500, Todd Pattist
> wrote:

>Martin Gregorie > wrote:
>
>>AFAIK the UK practise of always wearing chutes in gliders dates from
>>the lightning strike on an ASK-21 about 8 years ago
>
>BTW, how often are you required to repack the chutes in the
>UK?

I *think* it depends on the make of chute. I don't own one, so my
smart-alek answer would be "on or before the expiry date of the
packing slip".

--
martin@ : Martin Gregorie
gregorie : Harlow, UK
demon :
co : Zappa fan & glider pilot
uk :

JJ,

1./ "The British are now investigating their 4th Puch spin-in with
unspecified other types that have spun-in as a result of spin-training."

In fact, unfortunately, we British are now investigating our sixth Puchacz
fatal accident. If, I repeat if, this last one turns out to be a spin-in,
it will be the fifth.

The accident in 2003 (20/03) happened when the glider was flown into the
winch-wire while another glider was being launched. From my reading of the
accident report, there was no stall or spin, and the type of glider made no
difference at all.

The accident in 1995 (82/95) was a spin entry when the pilot in command lost
control while recovering from a launch failure at about 300 ft. The pupil
was not touching the controls at any point, the stall/spin was not part of
training, nor was the launch failure itself. I am afraid that there have
been a number of similar accidents to various different types of glider.
The accident to the DG500 shown in the video on the "Spin" thread seems to
have been similar, that pilot was lucky he was already very low, it seems
clear to me that if he had been say 100ft higher when the glider departed he
would have been much worse off.

The accidents in 1993 (132/93) and 1991 (111/91) were due to failure to
recover from a spin entry at low level. It is likely that the spin entries
were inadvertent, and the pilots in command tried to recover immediately.
However, the pupils held the stick right back so the gliders span into the
ground. Hence the advice now given for pupils to be told to keep their
hands clear of the stick for first stall/spins, and for these to be done at
altitude anyway.

The accident in 1990 (114/90) was a deliberate spin for training purposes,
recovery was started too low. This is why the advice quoted in my previous
posting today at 17.07 was given in the BGA Instructors' Manual published in
1994.

2./ "The British require 2-turn spins (full blown) in both directions, on
initial check-out and annually thereafter."

We do not require 2-turn spins annually. I don't know what you mean by
initial check-out. I had annual check-outs at two clubs last year, one in
a K21 and one in a K13. With the K21 we did no spins at all (it won't at
my weight), with the K13 we did spin entries, but no 2-turn spins (again,
the K13 won't at my weight).

Individual clubs, or individual instructors may require more stringent
testing, and it will vary with the assessment of the pupil, but there is no
general requirement as far as I know for 2-turn spins in both directions (if
there is, how did I escape?). Only clubs using the Puchacz or some other
E. European gliders would be able to insist on everyone doing a 2-turn spin;
given suitable conditions and enough height this sounds quite a good idea
anyway.

I still don't know the difference between a full blown 2-turn spin, and any
other kind of 2-turn spin.

3./ "Some practice spins are entered as low as pattern altitude."

I don't know what you mean by circuit pattern altitude. This depends so
much on the nature of the site, and the conditions. I have done a lot of
flights where the normal launch height was less than 800ft., not very
satisfactory but there it is. I have also flown in conditions when it is
normal to be on finals at 1,000ft. or more.

The quotation I gave in my previous posting explains why and in what
circumstances a spin entry might be called for at 800ft, with of course an
immediate recovery. Although the manual does not say so, this would
almost certainly be done in a K13. JJ, how much flying have you done in a
K13? And I don't know how much difference it would make, flying from
Minden at 4,718ft. a.s.l. (and hot) compared with the Long Mynd at 1,411ft.
and a temperate climate.

I have not disregarded your posting because some may actually take notice of
what you say.
You say "I do believe that ANY accident resulting from an intentional spin
entry is unacceptable". What does this mean, that you think an accident
from an inadvertent spin entry is acceptable? Certainly, that could
explain why you seem to think that much of our spin training is wrong and
unnecessary.

So far as we in the U.K. are concerned, we think that any accident, from any
cause, and especially from spin entries whether deliberate or inadvertent is
unacceptable. The coaching (training) of instructors, and the training of
pupils has this aim, to prevent accidents during training, and after
training.

We firmly believe that stall/spin training is essential, and that this must
include experience of actual stalls, actual spin entries and actual spins in
order to teach avoidance, recognition and recovery. Failure to do this
during dual training will just result in a worse accident record among
pilots who are supposedly trained. All this is clearly explained in our
BGA Instructors' Manual, and much of it in the quotation I gave in my
previous posting.

Regards - Bill.

W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.).
Remove "ic" to reply.

>
> "JJ Sinclair" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> Bill,
>
> I have been responding to posts in this thread that indicate:
>
> 1./ The British are now investigating their 4th Puch spin-in with
> unspecified other types that have spun-in as a result of spin-training.
>
> 2./ The British require 2-turn spins (full blown) in both directions, on
> initial check-out and annually thereafter.
>
> 3./ Some practice spins are entered as low as pattern altitude.
>
> If the above is not true, please disregard my postings on the subject. I
> do believe that ANY accident resulting from an intentional spin entry is
> unacceptable and that spin training should emphasize spin recognition and
> spin avoidance with recovery within 1 turn.
>
> I now leave the British glider training in the good hands of the British
> glider instructors and will post no more on this subject.
>
> JJ Sinclair.
>

Mark Stevens > wrote in message >...
> Chris,
>
> Some gentle reminders about reality here in the UK..


Mark, no need to be gentle. I can stand a good pummeling, so long as
its delivered with skill and panache.

Mine was an honest reaction to yet another account of a pilot being
asked to intentionally spin a glider at low altitude by a flight
instructor certified by the BGA. I would expect this of maverick
instructors in the US, but I had been given the impression that the
BGA did a much more successful job of homogonizing training practices.

Spin training is good. Stall recognition and recovery is better. The
two together, with emphasis on the latter and careful instruction in
the former is best. I think we're on the same page here.

Martin Gregorie > wrote in message >...

>
> A question for the PPLs amongst us: just how high would you need to be
> to start egress from a full 4-place GA plane for everybody to exit
> with room for the chute to open?


Modern emergency parachutes are designed to be fast opening. But in
the end, the decision that is being weighed when seriously considering
whether to bail out of a broken airplane or to stay with it is this:
what are the relative probabilities of survival? If there is
absolutely zero chance of survival if the pilot elects to stay with
the airplane, then perhaps there is no real "minimum" bail out
altitude...

That issue aside, I did some research that wound up as an article in
Sport Aerobatics magazine awhile back on the subject of emergency bail
outs. In one case, one pilot successfully bailed out at about 300 feet
AGL. See http://www.richstowell.com/bailout.htm for the full article.

Rich (still leaning on the "power" crutch)
http://www.richstowell.com

BAToulson > wrote:
>In article <4026791b$1@darkstar>, (Mark James Boyd)
>writes:
>
>>>
>>> I don't disagree, like helmets on motorcycles, it is (or is not) part
>>>of the local safety culture and the majority naturally conform. That said,
>>>is chute use normal in all small UK aircraft, or is it just gliders? If
>>>only gliders, why?
>>
>>Hmmm...that is an interesting question. I'd love to hear
>>the UK answer
>
>Simple, how many power pilots do you know do "steep" turns at 7knots above the
>stall; How many deliberately fly in circles with a group of others, many in the
>blind spot on a busy day, STILL 7 knots over stall speed.
>
>Barney
>UK

Hmmm...an excellent point. I think this is very agreed by
most US glider pilots. And as far as I know, in the
US chutes are required in formal competition, and I agree with
this...

Todd Pattist wrote:
> "W.J. \(Bill\) Dean \(U.K.\)." >
> wrote:
>
>
>>A very experienced instructor flying a docile two seater in
>>ideal conditions may be prepared to initiate a brief spin from 800'.
>
>
> Wow! Even with the "docile" "ideal conditions" and "very
> experienced" qualifiers, I find this 800' comment in an
> officially sanctioned instructor's guide to be highly
> surprising. There's not much room here for anything
> unexpected from the student or the aircraft.
>
> Todd Pattist - "WH" Ventus C
> (Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
Having been exposed to sub 800' spins by a BGA qualified instructor - in a place
where only spin avoidance is required to be taught I can say that the experience
had great value for me.
Now I know that you can recover, without too much drama from a spin at that
height, and how to do it. Until you have done it you have no idea - the actual
spin is not different, but the scenery/experience is.

Multiple ordinary ,and accelerated and even one inverted spin in a Pitts S2 was
interesting and fun, at 3000-4000AGL. The "boring, docile" K13 was heart
stopping at 800'.

If I ever do it inadvertently, at least I have processed the mental stuff
relating to spinning this low at least twice. Got a better chance of not choking
up and making a mess of the recovery. That would be regrettable, because, as has
been noted correctly there is very little margin for error.
Was quite satisfied with the safety aspect with an instructor who has been
teaching this for 40+ years sitting in the back of an immaculate K13, in still
air. Would have my doubts about doing it with most others though...

Andreas Maurer > wrote:
>On 8 Feb 2004 09:59:55 -0700, (Mark James Boyd)
>wrote:
>
>>> 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...
>>
>>Sure, in some conditions. But how many people have they
>>killed invisibly? The guy wearing the chute for the
>>winch pattern tow? Not a chance he'd have enough altitude to
>>use the chute, but maybe the extra weight was just
>>enough to cause the cable break and the stall/spin?
>>Kinda an invisible possibility, isn't it?
>>No real way to determine that...
>
>Well... at the moment I know four glider pilots in person who were
>using the nylon letdown successfully.
>One girl bailed out of their ASW-19 during a winch launch (elevator
>not connected) [500 ft], one bailed out of his Ventus after he had
>rammed another glider [5000 ft, unfortunately the other pilot was not
>able to bail out], and two bailed out of their respective Ka-8(s after
>they had collided at 700 ft.

Was the altitude the bailout or chute opening
altitude? Perhaps a better question is:

If I gave you a 2-22 and asked you to bail out solo,
how low would you do it?

I've static line chuted at 800 feet. The hard deck for novice
solo sport chuters is 2500ft. The firejumpers declare
500ft as "the last chance to deploy parachute and have it be effective",
and say that if the "aircraft is below 1000 feet, a decision
has to be made immediately."

The 500 ft and 700 ft are simply lucky.

www.richstowell.com/bailout.htm

was really great about the folks who had given up and started to
bail but died during impact (perhaps if they'd tried to
keep flying instead, might have survived), the canopy that
knocked a guy unconscious, and the chute on so the
pilot was too far forward.

As you can see, there are a LOT of very small disadvantages, that add up...

>
>Note the altitudes .
>
>I know of not a single case where the additional weight of a parachute
>caused a problem. I also have not even heard of any case where the
>parachute caused a disadvantage.

As I said, no real way of determining that. How many investigators are
willing to say: "at the 23G's encountered at the moment of impact,
the 330 extra pounds exerted by the parachute on the back
of the victim were the difference between serious injuries and
fatality. We therefore conclude that the parachute was a
contributor to the fatality."

I read a recent well-worded report about why child safety seats
are not required in airplanes. In the end, the feds determined that
it would cost an additional $9 billion a year, and would save the
lives of six children a year from aviation deaths. On the other
hand, people would then fly less with their kids, and in the
150+ mile car trips, there would be 1000's of more fatalities.

I'm a big proponent of choice, especially for solo pilots.
I think the tremendous advantages of wearing a chute
happen so infrequently, and the minor disadvantages
occur so often, that we are dealing with

..83 x .0001

vs

..0002 x .41

and if any of these numbers are even a little off, the argument could
go either way. Very sketchy dealing with very big and very little
numbers...

so just let the pilots decide for themselves...
>
>[i]
>>I think REQUIRING parachutes for ALL glider operations is absurd.
>
>Any questions left?

Yes, how much does it cost ($$$) to tow an additional 15 pounds
aloft during every glider flight in the US in a year?
If this money were instead spent on flyers mailed to
every pilot about checking the elevator connection
before flight, would more lives be saved?

The child safety seat fed folks seemed to think it is best spent
increasing awareness about venetian blind cords strangling
infants...

>
>Bye
>Andreas

Robert Ehrlich > wrote:
>Mark James Boyd wrote:
>> ...
>> I think REQUIRING parachutes for ALL glider operations is absurd.
>> ...
>
>This is what the french regulations requires. Although I can admit that
>our regulations have many absurd points, I would not count this one among
>them. It is the same thing for seat belts in cars: if the regulation don't
>make installing and using them mandatory, the statistics prove that cases
>where they should be used and are not are way over the cases where they are
>used and this causes some inconvenience.

Show me a single-seat car which has a miniscule chance of
injuring another person. Show me the safety statistics for
this...and perhaps you have a parallel to certain glider operations.

I liked Rod Machado's quote from Feb 2004 AOPA pilot:

"So the next time you hear the word always, only or never
used in an aviation sentence, think about asking the
question: So what?"

"Sorry, but no cigar today."

Martin Gregorie > wrote:
>On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 15:54:18 GMT, "Vaughn"
> wrote:
>
>> 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...
>>
>> I don't disagree, like helmets on motorcycles, it is (or is not) part
>>of the local safety culture and the majority naturally conform. That said,
>>is chute use normal in all small UK aircraft, or is it just gliders? If
>>only gliders, why?

Helmets, like much safety equipment, can increase the chance
of an accident but usually reduce the injury when one happens.
Somewhere in there is a good balance...

>>
>AFAIK the UK practise of always wearing chutes in gliders dates from
>the lightning strike on an ASK-21 about 8 years ago. Its occupants
>were wearing chutes and both survived. They would not have done so
>without them. Having said that, chute use is not entirely universal:
>we never wear them in our T-21b, but that's the only exception I know.
>I'm not clear on the reason for this.

Aha! Chute use is NOT mandatory for ALL UK glider operations!
Excellent! Very civilized. And I think a much better way
since at least to some extent now pilots need to ask
themselves "why should I wear a chute" which is MUCH more
important a mental exercise than the rote donning of the
silk...

>I've never worn a chute in a light plane, and that includes SF-25s, or
>even seen one in the cabin on the relatively few occasions I've flown
>in GA aircraft in the UK. I'd always assumed that had a lot to do with
>the relative difficulty of getting out of a GA plane in a hurry
>compared with a glider. That has to make the chute much less useful.
>
>A question for the PPLs amongst us: just how high would you need to be
>to start egress from a full 4-place GA plane for everybody to exit
>with room for the chute to open?

C'mon Martin, it's a glider newsgroup. How about, how high would
YOU voluntarily exit a glider with a chute.

For me, somewhere between 1500-2500 feet AGL sounds right.
Below that, I'd rather think I'd try to fly and perhaps
bugger it in...

BAToulson > wrote:
>
>Another good reason to always wear chutes when instructing. What would you say
>at an inquest or to your insurance company when a pupil died because he could
>not bale out as he did not have a 'chute? I have little doubt you and or cyour
>club could be successfully sued for negligence.

I'd never wear a chute and not give one to a student. If it isn't
a dual flight, then I'd refer them to the PIC (solo) for the flight
(oops, he's dead), and then I'd show them the statistics for
lightning strikes and prove that wearing a chute increased the
chance of being hit by lightening, and this was a much
greater risk than what we estimated was the risk of
being the first fatal accident in the 2-33 in over 30 years,
much less one that might require a chute...

Then I'd take them for a flight with chutes, and at a nice high
altitude ask them if they'd rather jump out, or land with me...

>
>Duty of care in a big issue over here.
>
>As an instructor of nearly 30 years I would not fly with a pupil in any glider
>without a chute if it were possible to fit one in. Additionally, all of our
>club aircraft are fitted with impact absorbing cushions for the same reason.

Cushions are useful for EVERY landing...well, at least the ones
I make :P An excellent, low cost, high benefit idea...

And having flown with many instructors, there are certainly a few
I'd rather wear chutes with... :PPPPP

>
>Barney
>UK

Andreas Maurer > wrote:
>
>Ahh.. I have to apologize. In my other reply I forgot to mention the
>guy who bailed out of his Lo-100 that had lost a wing inflight while
>doing aerobatics.
>He started to leaeve the glider at 3.000 ft, the chute opened less
>than 100 ft above the ground.

That's about what I'd expect. I had a good friend who was to
ferry a very sketchy speed canard several thousand miles.
I begged her to borrow a chute for the trip, and
fly above 5000ft AGL, and if the engine burped,
eject that nice big canopy and hit the silk.

The damn thing with those tiny wings landed at 70+ knots, and
with those shopping-cart wheels it would've been no
fun off field...

She wore a chute for the ferry, and had no problems...
But our conversation about the risks really helped
her be more demanding of the mechanics...

W.J. \(Bill\) Dean \(U.K.\). > wrote:
>
>"In the initial stages of spin training, continuous spins of two or three
>turns are mainly to allow the trainee time to study the characteristics of
>the spin and give confidence that the recovery action from a stabilised spin
>is effective. There is no requirement for these spins to be noticeably
>close to the ground, so their training value is not compromised if they are
>completed very high. The majority of spin training will then involve brief
>spins of about a half a turn with the primary aim of recognising the
>circumstances in which the spin can occur, correctly identifying the
>spin/spiral dive, and practising the correct recovery action.

Spins for license training used to be required in the
US also. Perhaps not a bad way to show what NOT to do.
I don't have a problem with this too much...

>
>"As this training progresses, it is necessary to introduce brief spins where
>the ground is noticeably close.

EEEEEEeeeeek!!! Not with ME on board. 33% of dual fatalities in the
US are failed emergency "procedures." A LOT of those are caused by the
ground. I'm not afraid of heights, I'm afraid of LACK of heights...

>This is to ensure that the trainee will
>take the correct recovery action even when the nose is down and the ground
>approaching. A very experienced instructor flying a docile two seater in
>ideal conditions may be prepared to initiate a brief spin from 800'. A
>less docile two seater with a less experienced instructor, or less than
>ideal conditions, should raise the minimum height considerably."

Egads! Below 1500 AGL for recovery even, in the US one would
need an aerobatic waiver. And I doubt it would allow
passengers.

You guys have some real solid brass ones. Couldn't you just
start at a higher altitude and use a cloud deck below you?
Quite a thrill spinning through a cloud deck (so I'm told :)
There ARE clouds over the pond right? :PPP

This is a huge difference between US and UK glider training...
very interesting...

Bruce Greeff > wrote:
>Todd Pattist wrote:
>Now I know that you can recover, without too much drama from a spin at that
>height, and how to do it. Until you have done it you have no idea - the actual
>spin is not different, but the scenery/experience is.
>
>Multiple ordinary ,and accelerated and even one inverted spin in a Pitts S2 was
>interesting and fun, at 3000-4000AGL. The "boring, docile" K13 was heart
>stopping at 800'.
>
>If I ever do it inadvertently, at least I have processed the mental stuff
>relating to spinning this low at least twice. Got a better chance of not choking
>up and making a mess of the recovery. That would be regrettable, because, as has
>been noted correctly there is very little margin for error.
>Was quite satisfied with the safety aspect with an instructor who has been
>teaching this for 40+ years sitting in the back of an immaculate K13, in still
>air. Would have my doubts about doing it with most others though...

Full deflection of controls at low altitude, and jamming possibly caused by
negative G's (and some flying object) makes me nervous...

"little margin for error" indeed...

Judy Ruprecht > wrote:
>At 18:00 08 February 2004, Mark James Boyd wrote:
>>I've seen a lot of chutes (many legally expired) in
>>single seat
>>gliders as well. The FAA seems to leave these guys
>>alone,
>>recognising that since no chute at all is required,
>>having an expired one in a single seater is not exactly
>>front page news...
>
>Geez, I don't know any FAA types ignoring 61.307(a)...
>whenever a parachute is carried in any aircraft and
>made 'available for emergency use,' it must be in current
>pack.

Er...I wasn't suggesting they are ignoring 61.307(a),
just that their investigation of:

recurring complaints
suspected violations of FARs
and special emphasis areas

keeps them pretty busy with more obvious dangers,

and since it is rare that an inspector
will observe it unsafe, be notified by ATC of
it being unsafe, or find it in a routine inspection
are low (given the part 91 Ramp Inspection Checklist
doesn't even note this item)

Chapter 56, Conduct a FAR Part 91 Ramp Inspection

www1.faa.gov/avr/afs/faa/8700/8700_vol2/2_056_00.pdf

I'd say the chances of being violated for this in
a single seat experimental glider are about equivalent
to violations for missing static wicks or
flammable data plates.

Since solo parachutes aren't generally required,
for safety, I personally don't think parachutes worn in
single seat aircraft should have any expiration, and
I think the pilot should be able to pack it him/her self,
if he/she wants.

Passengers, on the other hand, don't have any idea
what's going on, and regs for them seem like a good idea...

In article >,
Steve Hopkins > wrote:
>Your point regarding 'Accidents of Omission' is interesting.
>If your local drug company marketed an antibiotic that
>then proceeded to kill 23 patients, I'm not sure whether
>the subsequent litigants would be much impressed by
>the uncertain number of lives saved. Yes we need spin
>training, and preferably on an annual basis so we don’t
>forget what to do if, what we spent the previous year
>avoiding, accidentally happens. Surely the point at
>issue is whether the Puch is a safe vehicle for these
>manoeuvres. And if it isn't, then should it be airborne
>at all. Certainly the number of accidents involving
>the Puch as against the number produced does seem to
>indicate that something is amiss. Is there a statistician
>out there who could look at the numbers and make a
>scientific pronouncement on this? I seem to remember
>in my school days, (when Queen Victoria ruled), there
>was something called the Chi-squared test which allowed
>one to state whether two separate groups of occurrence
>were significantly different. Could we compare, for
>example, the number of K-13's et al spun in relation
>to the numbers built, as against the Puch in the same
>manner and pronounce with a specified degree of confidence
>whether the accident rate, (spin in's), was significantly
>different?

I think the whole arguments on both sides are VERY
difficult to make convincingly. I myself sometimes
wonder if my spinning students was instructive, or
simply encouraged them to do it on their own without
any more training. Does my 3 hours of IFR training
for power students just make them bolder in poor weather?

The Puch quastion has a bit of a parallel to the
Piper Tomahawk spin question in the US. Some
instructors love it, some hate it, and they
do have a lot more spin accidents than Cezzna 152s...

I doubt we will find consensus, but this has been informative...

In article <4028832a$1@darkstar>,
(Mark James Boyd) wrote:

> Was the altitude the bailout or chute opening
> altitude? Perhaps a better question is:
>
> If I gave you a 2-22 and asked you to bail out solo,
> how low would you do it?

Weeeell, after you gave me the $10k in cash I expect I'd get a tow to
5000 ft or more...

You make some good points.

And I note that although I spend quite a lot of time flying at more than
2000 feet above the airfield, I probably don't spend very much of it
more than 2000 ft above the *terrain*. Which is what counts for
parachute opening.

-- Bruce

On 9 Feb 2004 16:45:49 -0800, (Rich Stowell)
wrote:

>Martin Gregorie > wrote in message >...
>
>>
>> A question for the PPLs amongst us: just how high would you need to be
>> to start egress from a full 4-place GA plane for everybody to exit
>> with room for the chute to open?
>
>
>Modern emergency parachutes are designed to be fast opening.
>
Yes, but that isn't what I was asking. Given that a 4-seat GA aircraft
has at most two doors, that the pilot leaves last and that normal
seating is installed:

- how long would it take three adults to leave by one door, followed
by the pilot out his side?

- how much height would be lost during that time? gliding? spinning?

- given typical GA cruising heights, which often seem to be around
3000 ft in the UK, how high would the plane be when the last occupant
left?

In other words, given typical operating conditions and loads for a
typical GA aircraft is there any point in all occupants wearing
chutes? That's even ignoring the volume and weight of the chutes.

Remember that this isn't either a blame or a GA-bashing exercise, but
merely an attempt to discover if a chute is more use to a glider pilot
than it is to the occupant of a typical GA aircraft. I suspect that
its more use to a glider pilot because of the egress problem and that
is why we use 'em and GA pilots don't but it would be nice to have
some factual confirmation or otherwise of this.

>That issue aside, I did some research that wound up as an article in
>Sport Aerobatics magazine awhile back on the subject of emergency bail
>outs. In one case, one pilot successfully bailed out at about 300 feet
>AGL. See http://www.richstowell.com/bailout.htm for the full article.
>
Good article. Thanks for the link.


--
martin@ : Martin Gregorie
gregorie : Harlow, UK
demon :
co : Zappa fan & glider pilot
uk :

On 9 Feb 2004 23:28:52 -0700, (Mark James Boyd)
wrote:

>Martin Gregorie > wrote:
>>On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 15:54:18 GMT, "Vaughn"
> wrote:
>>
>>> 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...
>>>
>>> I don't disagree, like helmets on motorcycles, it is (or is not) part
>>>of the local safety culture and the majority naturally conform. That said,
>>>is chute use normal in all small UK aircraft, or is it just gliders? If
>>>only gliders, why?
>
>Helmets, like much safety equipment, can increase the chance
>of an accident but usually reduce the injury when one happens.
>Somewhere in there is a good balance...
>
>>>
>>AFAIK the UK practise of always wearing chutes in gliders dates from
>>the lightning strike on an ASK-21 about 8 years ago. Its occupants
>>were wearing chutes and both survived. They would not have done so
>>without them. Having said that, chute use is not entirely universal:
>>we never wear them in our T-21b, but that's the only exception I know.
>>I'm not clear on the reason for this.
>
>Aha! Chute use is NOT mandatory for ALL UK glider operations!
>Excellent! Very civilized. And I think a much better way
>since at least to some extent now pilots need to ask
>themselves "why should I wear a chute" which is MUCH more
>important a mental exercise than the rote donning of the
>silk...
>
>>I've never worn a chute in a light plane, and that includes SF-25s, or
>>even seen one in the cabin on the relatively few occasions I've flown
>>in GA aircraft in the UK. I'd always assumed that had a lot to do with
>>the relative difficulty of getting out of a GA plane in a hurry
>>compared with a glider. That has to make the chute much less useful.
>>
>>A question for the PPLs amongst us: just how high would you need to be
>>to start egress from a full 4-place GA plane for everybody to exit
>>with room for the chute to open?
>
>C'mon Martin, it's a glider newsgroup. How about, how high would
>YOU voluntarily exit a glider with a chute.
>
>For me, somewhere between 1500-2500 feet AGL sounds right.
>Below that, I'd rather think I'd try to fly and perhaps
>bugger it in...

That sounds about right for me too, provided the aircraft is still on
one piece and (potentially) flyable.

See my recent post earlier in the thread for a fuller explanation of
why I asked about the GA experience.

--
martin@ : Martin Gregorie
gregorie : Harlow, UK
demon :
co : Zappa fan & glider pilot
uk :

At 07:48 10 February 2004, Mark James Boyd wrote:
>BAToulson wrote:
>>
>and then I'd show them the statistics for
>lightning strikes and prove that wearing a chute increased
>the
>chance of being hit by lightening, and this was a much
>greater risk than what we estimated was the risk of
>
>being the first fatal accident in the 2-33 in over
>30 years,
>much less one that might require a chute...

A short while after the then CFI of the London Gliding
Club mandated all training flights will use chutes,
one of our K21's was hit by a lightning strike which
travelled horizontally some 3-4 miles. The glider was
totaly destroyed, with the tail only attached by it's
control cables. Both pilot and student bailed out and
landed safely (bar a few breaks). Had this been prior
to Jed's time as CFI, we would have had two more dead
pilots.

I think that was the first of a kind in the UK, certainly
the risk of being hit in a mid-air is much greater,
and we have those pretty much every season!

Just because statistics show that something is unlikely,
it does not mean that the next flight you make wont
be the next entry into those same statistics!

Your chute is your only chance.

Errr

Mike..in answer to your points...

I don't have much power experience, but people I have
flown with and coverted to gliders include an ETPS
graduate, a lightning pilot and ex RAF low level aerobatics
champion and a number of high hour ATPL's - and I've
listened intently to what they've said during the conversion
process..

Perhaps I should have excluded fighter and aerobatic
pilots specifically from my comments, but I did not
say spam can pilots never used the rudder nor that
they never fly at high AOA..

During my own power training in the UK (again post
learning to glide like you) I was not terribly impressed
with the forced landing training.

As has been said here before glider pilots spend most
of the time flying in the lower 40% of the speed range
of their airframe and power pilots (F4's, world record
attempts, test flying, excursions into outer space
and so on excluded) spend most of the time in the upper
40% of their speed range..

I normally respect your opinion on these sort of things,
but I do wish you would read what I wrote and not what
you thought I wrote..

Mark

At 21:36 09 February 2004, Mike Borgelt wrote:
>On 9 Feb 2004 09:17:28 GMT, Mark Stevens
> wrote:
>
>>In my opinion any comparison with the withdrawal of
>>spin training for US PPL's is invalid, power pilots
>>do not routinely fly at high angles of attack, and
>>tend not to use the rudder in most phases of flight.
>>They also tend not to make the number of outlandings
>>glider pilots do and tend not to have the same problems
>>to solve in the pattern..
>
>
>Do you fly power?
>I got my power licence after 27 years gliding.
>Where do you get the idea that power pilots don't use
>the rudder?
>Rudder is used as required. In most power planes not
>much rudder is
>required because of the design of the ailerons and
>the short wings but
>it is still required if you want to keep the ball in
>the middle. Put a
>well trained power pilot in a glider and he might take
>a couple of
>minutes to figure it out but that is about all. He
>probably will take
>a little longer to do good coordinated continuous steep
>turns but that
>is only because glider pilots do many more than power
>pilots do.
>Hopefully power pilots don't do many outlandings but
>I was impressed
>by the amount of time spent during training on forced
>landings and
>then you have a far worse problem than in a glider.
>
>JJ might fill you in on use of rudder at high AOA in
>power planes like
>the F4.
>
>Mike Borgelt
>

15 (realy fifteen) rescue jumps from gliders were reported by the German BFU
(air accident investigation agency) in summer 2003 in Germany or out of
German registered gliders abroad. 14 succeeeded. Most jumps were caused
by mid air collisions, others by structural failures.
Double seaters as well as single seaters were involved.
One jump was directly out of a winch launch (ASK21, aileron not connected),
some others were also close to ground, including the fatal one.
Since there are only about 30,000 glider pilots here, roughly one of 2000
had to jump!
Those who want to board a glider without a parachute should keep this in
mind!
(In other years only about two or three rescue jumps were registerd.)
Happy flights
Walter

(Mark James Boyd) wrote in message news:<40288f58$1@darkstar>...
> W.J. \(Bill\) Dean \(U.K.\). > wrote:

>"As this training progresses, it is necessary to introduce brief
spins where
> >the ground is noticeably close.

This reminds me of the old FAA requirement to practice twin engine-out
procedures (Vmc demonstration) at low altitudes during multiengine
training, the reasoning being the low performance of the existing
twin-engined trainers required a low altitude in order to have any
single-engine climb available to show. Apparently, this killed a LOT
of pilots due to stall spins at low altitude in light twins - not fun
with an engine caged! - until the FAA decided that the cure was a lot
worse than the disease.

Sure, with a really experienced instructor, and a really trusted
glider, a low altitude spin could be "safely" demonstrated. But I'm
not totally convinced that it is necessary for the lesson to sink in.
OTOH, in the context of spin training, it is absolutely vital to beat
into the students head the nasty impact (pun intended) of a surprise
low altitude departure.

You guys (the Brits) can possibly get away with it, due to much more
standardization (a good thing). I would hate to see it adopted in the
US, where standardization is a one of dem big woids we aint learnd in
skool.

How about our French, German, Dutch, etc. colleagues - How low do you
teach (or demonstrate; not necessarily the same thing) low altitude
spin entries?

BTW, don't forget 1812 (we still need to burn 10 Downling Street) and
Suez (Now there was a virtuous war!). Just joking, we love you man!

Kirk

Bill,

So if I may summarise briefly - of the five accidents
with Puch's where we're fairly certain of the causes
only one occurred during spin avoidance training..
If my memory is correct was that not the one with two
instructors on board?

Can you summarise or comment on any other two seater
accidents with serious injury or fatalities that were
spin related in any way in that time period? I'm stretching
to think of some..

Mark








At 23:48 09 February 2004, W.J. \bill\ Dean \u.K.\.
wrote:
>JJ,
>
>1./ 'The British are now investigating their 4th
>Puch spin-in with
>unspecified other types that have spun-in as a result
>of spin-training.'
>
>In fact, unfortunately, we British are now investigating
>our sixth Puchacz
>fatal accident. If, I repeat if, this last one turns
>out to be a spin-in,
>it will be the fifth.
>
>The accident in 2003 (20/03) happened when the glider
>was flown into the
>winch-wire while another glider was being launched.
> From my reading of the
>accident report, there was no stall or spin, and the
>type of glider made no
>difference at all.
>
>The accident in 1995 (82/95) was a spin entry when
>the pilot in command lost
>control while recovering from a launch failure at about
>300 ft. The pupil
>was not touching the controls at any point, the stall/spin
>was not part of
>training, nor was the launch failure itself. I am
>afraid that there have
>been a number of similar accidents to various different
>types of glider.
>The accident to the DG500 shown in the video on the
>'Spin' thread seems to
>have been similar, that pilot was lucky he was already
>very low, it seems
>clear to me that if he had been say 100ft higher when
>the glider departed he
>would have been much worse off.
>
>The accidents in 1993 (132/93) and 1991 (111/91) were
>due to failure to
>recover from a spin entry at low level. It is likely
>that the spin entries
>were inadvertent, and the pilots in command tried to
>recover immediately.
>However, the pupils held the stick right back so the
>gliders span into the
>ground. Hence the advice now given for pupils to
>be told to keep their
>hands clear of the stick for first stall/spins, and
>for these to be done at
>altitude anyway.
>
>The accident in 1990 (114/90) was a deliberate spin
>for training purposes,
>recovery was started too low. This is why the advice
>quoted in my previous
>posting today at 17.07 was given in the BGA Instructors'
>Manual published in
>1994.
>
>2./ 'The British require 2-turn spins (full blown)
>in both directions, on
>initial check-out and annually thereafter.'
>
>We do not require 2-turn spins annually. I don't
>know what you mean by
>initial check-out. I had annual check-outs at two
>clubs last year, one in
>a K21 and one in a K13. With the K21 we did no spins
>at all (it won't at
>my weight), with the K13 we did spin entries, but no
>2-turn spins (again,
>the K13 won't at my weight).
>
>Individual clubs, or individual instructors may require
>more stringent
>testing, and it will vary with the assessment of the
>pupil, but there is no
>general requirement as far as I know for 2-turn spins
>in both directions (if
>there is, how did I escape?). Only clubs using the
>Puchacz or some other
>E. European gliders would be able to insist on everyone
>doing a 2-turn spin;
>given suitable conditions and enough height this sounds
>quite a good idea
>anyway.
>
>I still don't know the difference between a full blown
>2-turn spin, and any
>other kind of 2-turn spin.
>
>3./ 'Some practice spins are entered as low as pattern
>altitude.'
>
>I don't know what you mean by circuit pattern altitude.
> This depends so
>much on the nature of the site, and the conditions.
> I have done a lot of
>flights where the normal launch height was less than
>800ft., not very
>satisfactory but there it is. I have also flown in
>conditions when it is
>normal to be on finals at 1,000ft. or more.
>
>The quotation I gave in my previous posting explains
>why and in what
>circumstances a spin entry might be called for at 800ft,
>with of course an
>immediate recovery. Although the manual does not
>say so, this would
>almost certainly be done in a K13. JJ, how much flying
>have you done in a
>K13? And I don't know how much difference it would
>make, flying from
>Minden at 4,718ft. a.s.l. (and hot) compared with the
>Long Mynd at 1,411ft.
>and a temperate climate.
>
>I have not disregarded your posting because some may
>actually take notice of
>what you say.
>You say 'I do believe that ANY accident resulting from
>an intentional spin
>entry is unacceptable'. What does this mean, that
>you think an accident
>from an inadvertent spin entry is acceptable? Certainly,
>that could
>explain why you seem to think that much of our spin
>training is wrong and
>unnecessary.
>
>So far as we in the U.K. are concerned, we think that
>any accident, from any
>cause, and especially from spin entries whether deliberate
>or inadvertent is
>unacceptable. The coaching (training) of instructors,
>and the training of
>pupils has this aim, to prevent accidents during training,
>and after
>training.
>
>We firmly believe that stall/spin training is essential,
>and that this must
>include experience of actual stalls, actual spin entries
>and actual spins in
>order to teach avoidance, recognition and recovery.
> Failure to do this
>during dual training will just result in a worse accident
>record among
>pilots who are supposedly trained. All this is clearly
>explained in our
>BGA Instructors' Manual, and much of it in the quotation
>I gave in my
>previous posting.
>
>Regards - Bill.
>
>W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.).
>Remove 'ic' to reply.
>
>>
>> 'JJ Sinclair' wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>> Bill,
>>
>> I have been responding to posts in this thread that
>>indicate:
>>
>> 1./ The British are now investigating their 4th
>>Puch spin-in with
>> unspecified other types that have spun-in as a result
>>of spin-training.
>>
>> 2./ The British require 2-turn spins (full blown)
>>in both directions, on
>> initial check-out and annually thereafter.
>>
>> 3./ Some practice spins are entered as low as pattern
>>altitude.
>>
>> If the above is not true, please disregard my postings
>>on the subject. I
>> do believe that ANY accident resulting from an intentional
>>spin entry is
>> unacceptable and that spin training should emphasize
>>spin recognition and
>> spin avoidance with recovery within 1 turn.
>>
>> I now leave the British glider training in the good
>>hands of the British
>> glider instructors and will post no more on this subject.
>>
>> JJ Sinclair.
>>
>
>
>

Kirk,

These are my experiences as a trainee...

When I learnt to glider, all my spin training was done
from straight from 2000' aerotows. My instructor pulled
the nose up booted the rudder in and over we went..
Over time he allowed me to do the same. My thoughts
at the time were that if for some reason I pulled the
nose up hard I would not boot the rudder in and wondered
why anyone would..

A few months later I had changed clubs and was flying
with an instructor who first demonstrated how nose
low spins could happen.. The first time we did this
at 1000' ft I had an almost irresitable urge as the
world went green/brown to pull back on the stick..
That was one of the most memorable moments of being
instructed..

Mark

At 14:18 10 February 2004, Kirk Stant wrote:
(Mark James Boyd) wrote in message
>news:...
>> W.J. \(Bill\) Dean \(U.K.\). wrote:
>
> >'As this training progresses, it is necessary to introduce
>>brief
>spins where
>> >the ground is noticeably close.
>
>This reminds me of the old FAA requirement to practice
>twin engine-out
>procedures (Vmc demonstration) at low altitudes during
>multiengine
>training, the reasoning being the low performance of
>the existing
>twin-engined trainers required a low altitude in order
>to have any
>single-engine climb available to show. Apparently,
>this killed a LOT
>of pilots due to stall spins at low altitude in light
>twins - not fun
>with an engine caged! - until the FAA decided that
>the cure was a lot
>worse than the disease.
>
>Sure, with a really experienced instructor, and a really
>trusted
>glider, a low altitude spin could be 'safely' demonstrated.
> But I'm
>not totally convinced that it is necessary for the
>lesson to sink in.
>OTOH, in the context of spin training, it is absolutely
>vital to beat
>into the students head the nasty impact (pun intended)
>of a surprise
>low altitude departure.
>
>You guys (the Brits) can possibly get away with it,
>due to much more
>standardization (a good thing). I would hate to see
>it adopted in the
>US, where standardization is a one of dem big woids
>we aint learnd in
>skool.
>
>How about our French, German, Dutch, etc. colleagues
> - How low do you
>teach (or demonstrate; not necessarily the same thing)
>low altitude
>spin entries?
>
>BTW, don't forget 1812 (we still need to burn 10 Downling
>Street) and
>Suez (Now there was a virtuous war!). Just joking,
>we love you man!
>
>Kirk
>

> I liked Rod Machado's quote from Feb 2004 AOPA pilot:

> "So the next time you hear the word always, only or never
> used in an aviation sentence, think about asking the
> question: So what?"

And the following month he said that landing anywhere in the first third
of the runway was just fine.

Tony V.

On 9 Feb 2004 23:07:22 -0700, (Mark James Boyd)
wrote:

>Was the altitude the bailout or chute opening
>altitude? Perhaps a better question is:
Bailout altitude. If the plane is still in a halfways level flight,
it's possible.

>
>If I gave you a 2-22 and asked you to bail out solo,
>how low would you do it?
Depends.
On the other hand: If you gave me a 2-22 on a really great day, I
would rather enjoy the Cumulus clouds from the ground... ;)


>The 500 ft and 700 ft are simply lucky.
Sure they are. But without the chute the pilots would have needed a
lot more luck.


>As I said, no real way of determining that. How many investigators are
>willing to say: "at the 23G's encountered at the moment of impact,
>the 330 extra pounds exerted by the parachute on the back
>of the victim were the difference between serious injuries and
>fatality. We therefore conclude that the parachute was a
>contributor to the fatality."

I never heard of such a case I have to admit.


>Yes, how much does it cost ($$$) to tow an additional 15 pounds
>aloft during every glider flight in the US in a year?
>If this money were instead spent on flyers mailed to
>every pilot about checking the elevator connection
>before flight, would more lives be saved?

How much does the life insurance fee cost that covers the dead pilots
who did not wear a chute?

Bye
Andreas

(Edward Colver) wrote in message >...

> I know of one instructor who was asked to start to spin a Puchacz at 800
> feet above the ground as part of his annual instructor check.

I trust s/he said "No" and that this was the correct response.

If s/he said "yes" then s/he should not be instructing.

If the correct response was "yes" then the check pilot should not be instructing.

Ian

(Chris OCallaghan) wrote in message >...
> The most surprising aspect of the Puchacz discussion to date is the
> number of accidents involving instructors. This led me to believe that
> perhaps there was something amiss with the aircraft (which may be the
> case).

Maybe there are instructors who, used to a gentle wing drop at the
stall in other gliders, forget that a spin might take up just a wee
bit more height ...

I've had BGA instructors ask me to do stupid or dangerous things (I
have never complied and never flown with the same instructor again)
but very seldom, and I don't think the preence of a few nutters can
fairly be blamed on the BGA.

Ian

(Mark James Boyd) wrote in message news:<4026791b$1@darkstar>...

> I think it would be absurd to require parachutes for EVERY flight in
> a 2-33 (a glider I've only flown ONCE above 3000 feet). 30 extra pounds
> on every flight in a glider with no fatalities in 30 years, hardly
> enough elevator to stall in any legal CG, and flown mostly below
> 3000 feet? Silly, in my opinion.

People have died because their parachutes failed to open.

Parachutes have been found damaged - sufficient to prevent them
opening - on inspection.

If, as seems likely, the probability of parachute damage increases
with each use, wearing them for winch circuits may well increase the
overall danger of a gliding operation.

Fun stuff, safety statistics.

Ian

(JJ Sinclair) wrote in message >...

> I guess it comes down to a matter of government control, doesn't it? You Brits
> require fully developed spins and us Yanks allow our instructors to demonstrate
> and instruct as they see fit.

I'm sorry, is that someone from a country where they worry about
what's legally mandated in rule 91.307(b) telling those of us in a
country where almost every aspect of gliding is run by the gliding
community telling us that we're less controlled?

Just checking.

Ian

(JJ Sinclair) wrote in message >...

> The BGA IS the government, you just don't realize it. You MUST do what the BGA
> says, if you wish to fly gliders in England. We don't have to do ANYTHING the
> SSA tells us to do.

And you are free to ignore the FAA completely, are you?

And, by the ay, I don't have to do what the BGA tells me. By and
large, I must if I want a BGA club to launch me, but if I can arrange
my own launch, and keep out of a few bits of airspace, I can legally
do more or less what I damn well want in a glider.

Ian

In article >,
Todd Pattist > wrote:
>Martin Gregorie > wrote:
>
>>I *think* it depends on the make of chute. I don't own one, so my
>>smart-alek answer would be "on or before the expiry date of the
>>packing slip".
>
>In the U.S. it's independent of chute make (unless it's made
>of material like silk - which none are) and it must be
>repacked every 120 days. I was just wondering if this is
>variable around the world. I've heard repackers tell me
>they believe the 120 day period is extremely conservative.
>I wondered if the other regulating bodies around the world
>use that interval. Anyone?
>
>Todd Pattist - "WH" Ventus C
>(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)

I'd bet that I could take a dozen emergency chutes, varying in
date of most recent packing over the past year,
and give them to a master rigger with over 5000 chutes
packed, and have him line them up, inspect them, and order them
by the age HE thinks they were repacked, and have him
do no better than a random ordering.

This is assuming there were no AD's over the year of course :)

120 days is quite the overkill...

http://www.afn.org/skydive/equip/repack-cycle.html

http://www.pia.com/piapubs/pia_position_on_a_180_day_repack.htm

There have been attempts to get this to 180 days (which
is internationally and in the military a fairly common standard).

In article >,
Pete Zeugma > wrote:
>At 07:48 10 February 2004, Mark James Boyd wrote:
>>BAToulson wrote:
>>>
>>and then I'd show them the statistics for
>>lightning strikes and prove that wearing a chute increased
>>the
>>chance of being hit by lightening, and this was a much
>>greater risk than what we estimated was the risk of
>>
>>being the first fatal accident in the 2-33 in over
>>30 years,
>>much less one that might require a chute...
>
>A short while after the then CFI of the London Gliding
>Club mandated all training flights will use chutes,
>one of our K21's was hit by a lightning strike which
>travelled horizontally some 3-4 miles. The glider was
>totaly destroyed, with the tail only attached by it's
>control cables. Both pilot and student bailed out and
>landed safely (bar a few breaks). Had this been prior
>to Jed's time as CFI, we would have had two more dead
>pilots.

SEE!! Wearing a parachute attracts lightning strikes!
Who wants that?

OK JUST KIDDING!!! :PPPP

Mark James Boyd wrote:
> Bruce Greeff > wrote:
>
>>Todd Pattist wrote:
>>Now I know that you can recover, without too much drama from a spin at that
>>height, and how to do it. Until you have done it you have no idea - the actual
>>spin is not different, but the scenery/experience is.
>>
>>Multiple ordinary ,and accelerated and even one inverted spin in a Pitts S2 was
>>interesting and fun, at 3000-4000AGL. The "boring, docile" K13 was heart
>>stopping at 800'.
>>
>>If I ever do it inadvertently, at least I have processed the mental stuff
>>relating to spinning this low at least twice. Got a better chance of not choking
>>up and making a mess of the recovery. That would be regrettable, because, as has
>>been noted correctly there is very little margin for error.
>>Was quite satisfied with the safety aspect with an instructor who has been
>>teaching this for 40+ years sitting in the back of an immaculate K13, in still
>>air. Would have my doubts about doing it with most others though...
>
>
> Full deflection of controls at low altitude, and jamming possibly caused by
> negative G's (and some flying object) makes me nervous...
>
> "little margin for error" indeed...
>
>
Hardly full control deflection - that's the point. Slow, wide turn close to
stall only takes a little nudge to get the canopy full of brown stuff.

This, quite possibly, is the dumbest thing I have ever read. To wit:

ADVICE TO INSTRUCTORS

"A very experienced instructor flying a docile two seater in
ideal conditions may be prepared to initiate a brief spin from 800'."

A very experienced instructor initiating any type of spin with a student
in
any type of glider at 800' AGL ought to have his or her head examined. In
addition,
one hopes that one's will is up to date.

Allan



"W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.)." > wrote in message
...
> JJ,
>
> I usually respect your postings, but this time you have written arrogant
> nonsense, and I am afraid you have wound me up.
>
>

I just read Bill Dean's post and the quote from the BGA instructor's manual, to wit:

"As this training progresses, it is necessary to introduce brief spins where
the ground is noticeably close. This is to ensure that the trainee will
take the correct recovery action even when the nose is down and the ground
approaching. A very experienced instructor flying a docile two seater in
ideal conditions may be prepared to initiate a brief spin from 800'. A
less docile two seater with a less experienced instructor, or less than
ideal conditions, should raise the minimum height considerably."

Dumb.

Chris,

When, where and with whom did you train as a gliding instructor?

Have you any experience of the K13, which is typically the type of glider
which would be used in the U.K. for this type of training?

Which type of glider do you use when you give training in spin entry and
recovery?

Have you any experience of gliding accident investigation, or acquaintance
with those who have?

Do you have any idea how the U.K. record of solo stall/spin accidents
compares with that in the U.S.A.? (I don't).

In other words, do you really know what you are talking about when you
criticise U.K. methods of stall/spin training?

Bill.

W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.).
Remove "ic" to reply.

>
> "Chris OCallaghan" > wrote in message
> om...
>
> I just read Bill Dean's post and the quote from the BGA instructor's
> manual, to wit:
>
> "As this training progresses, it is necessary to introduce brief spins
> where the ground is noticeably close. This is to ensure that the trainee
> will take the correct recovery action even when the nose is down and the
> ground approaching. A very experienced instructor flying a docile two
> seater in ideal conditions may be prepared to initiate a brief spin from
> 800'. A less docile two seater with a less experienced instructor, or
> less than ideal conditions, should raise the minimum height considerably."
>
> Dumb.
>

Todd Pattist wrote:
> Martin Gregorie > wrote:
>
>
>>I *think* it depends on the make of chute. I don't own one, so my
>>smart-alek answer would be "on or before the expiry date of the
>>packing slip".
>
>
> In the U.S. it's independent of chute make (unless it's made
> of material like silk - which none are) and it must be
> repacked every 120 days. I was just wondering if this is
> variable around the world. I've heard repackers tell me
> they believe the 120 day period is extremely conservative.
> I wondered if the other regulating bodies around the world
> use that interval. Anyone?
>
> Todd Pattist - "WH" Ventus C
> (Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
SOuth Africa is 12 Months.
I have heard of one successful deployment with a chute that was last packed
seven years prior to use.
Even if you only use it as a cushion for your posterior - it may save same
buttocks one day.

"Mark James Boyd" > wrote in message
news:4026791b$1@darkstar...
> Vaughn > wrote:
> >"Mark Stevens" > wrote in
> >> Chris,
<snip>
> > Yes, that is true. In my experience, most owners of single-seat
glass
> >wear parachutes, but most clubs and commercial operations using 2-seat
> >gliders do not. It is just part of the culture. I think part of the
reason
> >for this is the disincentive created by the US requirement that all
chutes,
> >regardless of technology, be repacked every 120 days. An out-of-date
chute
> >discovered in any operating aircraft is an invitation for an expensive
and
> >inconvenient FAA violation notice.
>
> I think it would be absurd to require parachutes for EVERY flight in
> a 2-33 (a glider I've only flown ONCE above 3000 feet). 30 extra pounds
> on every flight in a glider with no fatalities in 30 years, hardly
> enough elevator to stall in any legal CG, and flown mostly below
> 3000 feet? Silly, in my opinion.
>
4 in last 29 years, one ruled suicide, a few more before that, but nothing
like Puchaz. IS-28B2 had a similar reputation years ago when instructors
were spinning into the ground

Mark,

So far as I know you are correct.

The accident in 1990 at the South Wales Gliding club, Usk was a deliberate
spin where the Chief Flying instructor in the front seat was coaching
(training) a candidate for an assistant instructor rating. The spin was
therefore a deliberate spin for training purposes. The BGA
Instructors' Manual first published in 1994 states "There is no requirement
for these spins to be noticeably close to the ground, so their training
value is not compromised if they are completed very high".

The accident on 18th January 2004 at The Soaring Center, Husbands Bosworth
is still being investigated, and all I know is rumour.

These accidents apart, none of the Puchacz spin accidents was a deliberate
spin for training or any other purpose.

I have been having a fair amount of correspondence off-board, and none of us
can recall a fatal accident, other than above, involving a deliberate spin
for training purposes dual. However we can recall many spin accidents solo
both fatal and lucky not to be, where it seems likely that faulty or
inadequate training was a factor. This is why the low level spin entry
exercises were introduced.

Of course, this type of training depends for safety on careful selection and
good training and checking of instructors, including good supervision in the
clubs. We pay a lot of attention to this, and the BGA (to which the
government authorities are happy to delegate instructor training,
certification, renewal etc.) keep a tight control on this. How are these
things done in the U.S.A.?

I will repeat the quote from the Manual (copy & paste is easy):

If you read the BGA Instructors' Manual (Second edition), the relevant
section is "Section 5" with two chapters, "18 Stalling" and "19 Spinning and
Spiral Dives".

In chapter 19 on page 19-3 it says under the heading:

"ADVICE TO INSTRUCTORS

"In the initial stages of spin training, continuous spins of two or three
turns are mainly to allow the trainee time to study the characteristics of
the spin and give confidence that the recovery action from a stabilised spin
is effective. There is no requirement for these spins to be noticeably
close to the ground, so their training value is not compromised if they are
completed very high. The majority of spin training will then involve brief
spins of about a half a turn with the primary aim of recognising the
circumstances in which the spin can occur, correctly identifying the
spin/spiral dive, and practising the correct recovery action.

"As this training progresses, it is necessary to introduce brief spins where
the ground is noticeably close. This is to ensure that the trainee will
take the correct recovery action even when the nose is down and the ground
approaching. A very experienced instructor flying a docile two seater in
ideal conditions may be prepared to initiate a brief spin from 800'. A
less docile two seater with a less experienced instructor, or less than
ideal conditions, should raise the minimum height considerably."

That is just the first two paragraphs of quite a long explanation.

W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.).
Remove "ic" to reply.

>
> "Mark Stevens" > wrote in
> message ...
>
> Bill,
>
> So if I may summarise briefly - of the five accidents with Puch's where
> we're fairly certain of the causes only one occurred during spin avoidance
> training. If my memory is correct was that not the one with two
> instructors on board?
>
> Can you summarise or comment on any other two seater accidents with
> serious injury or fatalities that were spin related in any way in that
> time period? I'm stretching to think of some..
>
> Mark
>

No Bill, I don't know a goddam thing. I happened on this newsgroup
several years ago and determined it was so threadbare that I could
post without any knowledge of the subject at all and blend right in.
Over the months and years, I became bolder. I read a few books. I'm an
avid reader, and I don't really care what... Knauff, Piggot, Welch,
Reichmann, Langeweische, et al. I now feel like I know more about the
sport than most of the people who post to this group. I guess you
could say I've become a white paper expert. And frankly, from the
outside looking in, this is about the dumbest exercise I've ever seen
wrapped in the trappings of reasoned cause and effect.

Organizations get things wrong. My gliding association, right or
wrong, may it always be right rings a little hollow.

In article >,
Todd Pattist > wrote:
>Bruce Greeff > wrote:
>
>>SOuth Africa is 12 Months. [parachute repack interval]
>
>Thank you. Any other pilots want to tell me the repack
>requirements in their country? I know there are lots of
>non-U.S. pilots here, and most fly with chutes. When do you
>repack them?
>
>Todd Pattist - "WH" Ventus C
>(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)

Canada went to a 180 day repack cycle in 2000.
Partially because they believed the riggers that
said the more frequent repack cycle was actually
CAUSING injuries by overstretching fabric more
quickly...

want to quote some other sections from it too......
like about the rudder and boats!

At 06:18 11 February 2004, Chris Ocallaghan wrote:
>I just read Bill Dean's post and the quote from the
>BGA instructor's manual, to wit:
>
>'As this training progresses, it is necessary to introduce
>brief spins where
>the ground is noticeably close. This is to ensure
>that the trainee will
>take the correct recovery action even when the nose
>is down and the ground
>approaching. A very experienced instructor flying
>a docile two seater in
>ideal conditions may be prepared to initiate a brief
>spin from 800'. A
>less docile two seater with a less experienced instructor,
>or less than
>ideal conditions, should raise the minimum height considerably.'
>
>Dumb.

why dumb? the experience of ground rush is a very good
inforcement lesson as to why you dont mess with low
slow over ruddered flat turns!

>

At 14:06 11 February 2004, Chris Ocallaghan wrote:

ive only been reading your posts for a couple of weeks
and ive already worked out you dont know squat and
infact you are actually a threat to student/low time
glider pilots lives.

>No Bill, I don't know a goddam thing.

it shows frequently.

>I happened on this newsgroup
>several years ago and determined it was so threadbare
>that I >could
>post without any knowledge of the subject at all and
>blend >right in.

i actually wonder if you post with several different
identities.

>Over the months and years, I became bolder. I read
>a few books. I'm an
>avid reader, and I don't really care what... Knauff,
>Piggot, Welch,
>Reichmann, Langeweische, et al. I now feel like I know
>more about the
>sport than most of the people who post to this group.
>

pity it does not sink in, but then you miss the whole
practical bit dont you! Reichmann is a case in point.

>I guess you
>could say I've become a white paper expert.

is that toilet paper?

>And frankly, from the
>outside looking in, this is about the dumbest exercise
>I've ever seen
>wrapped in the trappings of reasoned cause and effect.

so in all your reading and the huge amount of knowledge
youve gained from it, you have gained a level of understanding
normaly achieved through practical experience, of just
how sudden a glider like a puch can enter into a spin?
some how I doubt that very much.

>
>Organizations get things wrong. My gliding association,
>right or
>wrong, may it always be right rings a little hollow.

actually the bga have come to the position the instructors
manual currently holds over the last 70 odd years.
its an evolving process.

In article >,
Todd Pattist > wrote:
>Derrick Steed > wrote:
>
>>I go on the recommendation of the people who repack mine - the parachute
>>club at Sibson: they recommend no long than four months between repacks

Nothing personally against the parachute folks you go to (I have no
idea about them specifically), but isn't this like asking
the monkeys how often you should feed them bananas?
I assume they're making money per repack, right?

Reminds me of an instructor who's given over 500 hours dual in
the past two years and gotten one student through license.
His answer to every student: "you need more training!"

>
>Thanks. That's the same interval used in the U.S. I
>presume you are in the U.K. Is that interval a requirement,
>or just a suggestion?
>Todd Pattist - "WH" Ventus C
>(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)

Bruce Greeff wrote:

>SOuth Africa is 12 Months. [parachute repack interval]

Thank you. Any other pilots want to tell me the repack
requirements in their country? I know there are lots of
non-U.S. pilots here, and most fly with chutes. When do you
repack them?

Todd Pattist - "WH" Ventus C
(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.

I go on the recommendation of the people who repack mine - the parachute
club at Sibson: they recommend no long than four months between repacks and
when they do them they unpack it, air it for a few days in their repacking
shed, and then carry out a full inspection and deployment test.

Rgds,

Derrick.

Guys...

We've had a lot of interesting conversations, some
on, and some off topic, for which I'm partly to blame,
although I would plead some provocation..

There are two central threads to this which are...

1. Is the Puchasz a safe aeroplane?

and

2. The assertion that BGA spin training routinely spins
in and kills instructors and their pupils..

A bunch of people have helpfully gone off and dug up
the accident reports and the conclusion we've come
to is that certainly since I've been gliding (a paltry,
but intense 14 years, including seven with a full category
rating, and DCFI at one of the UK's leading ab-initio
training centres) we don't appear to have been able
to dig up a single instance of a two seater spinning
in whilst performing the evolving BGA spin avoidance/training
curriculum.. There are, as Bill has said, a lot of
rumours about the recent accident, but no formal report
has yet been issued. When it is issued I have no doubt
we will take recognisance of the conclusions. The Usk
Puch accident made significant changes to the instructor
guidelines for spin training, although this was instructor
on instructor training.

I don't have enough experience in the Puchasz to determine
whether it bites at infrequent intervals, so I won't
comment on the first issue..

However, pertinent to the second point I do know of
one person at my club who has stated that they were
saved from piling in by the spin training they received.

Now we have the facts to hand, although I don't expect
people to back off, I would ask that people who have
made comments on the way we train in the UK go back
and examine their posts in this light.

Mark








At 15:24 11 February 2004, Pete Zeugma wrote:
>At 14:06 11 February 2004, Chris Ocallaghan wrote:
>
>ive only been reading your posts for a couple of weeks
>and ive already worked out you dont know squat and
>infact you are actually a threat to student/low time
>glider pilots lives.
>
>>No Bill, I don't know a goddam thing.
>
>it shows frequently.
>
>>I happened on this newsgroup
>>several years ago and determined it was so threadbare
>>that I >could
>>post without any knowledge of the subject at all and
>>blend >right in.
>
>i actually wonder if you post with several different
>identities.
>
>>Over the months and years, I became bolder. I read
>>a few books. I'm an
>>avid reader, and I don't really care what... Knauff,
>>Piggot, Welch,
>>Reichmann, Langeweische, et al. I now feel like I know
>>more about the
>>sport than most of the people who post to this group.
>>
>
>pity it does not sink in, but then you miss the whole
>practical bit dont you! Reichmann is a case in point.
>
>>I guess you
>>could say I've become a white paper expert.
>
>is that toilet paper?
>
>>And frankly, from the
>>outside looking in, this is about the dumbest exercise
>>I've ever seen
>>wrapped in the trappings of reasoned cause and effect.
>
>so in all your reading and the huge amount of knowledge
>youve gained from it, you have gained a level of understanding
>normaly achieved through practical experience, of just
>how sudden a glider like a puch can enter into a spin?
>some how I doubt that very much.
>
>>
>>Organizations get things wrong. My gliding association,
>>right or
>>wrong, may it always be right rings a little hollow.
>
>actually the bga have come to the position the instructors
>manual currently holds over the last 70 odd years.
>its an evolving process.
>
>
>

At 14:42 11 February 2004, Todd Pattist wrote:
>Bruce Greeff wrote:
>
>>SOuth Africa is 12 Months. [parachute repack interval]
>
>Thank you. Any other pilots want to tell me the repack
>requirements in their country? I know there are lots
>of
>non-U.S. pilots here, and most fly with chutes. When
>do you
>repack them?
>Todd Pattist - 'WH' Ventus C
>(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)

Todd

Until I am shot down, in the UK there are no government
regulations on repacking dates for glider pilots personal
reserve parachutes.

About 15 years ago my own club went through the clubs
parachutes and found a moltley collection on chutes
in a wide variety of cases, with unknown repack dates.


After careful research it was found that the repack
recommendations varied from manufacturer to manufacture
and was dependant on the type of 'chute.

As a result we approached one UK manufacturer Thomas
Sports who specialise in sports parachutes. We agreed
a 6 months repack for all club owned parachutes. This
is strictly observed and any 'chute that is damaged
or suspect is sent earlier.

Cases and contents are changed in line with the manufacterers
recommended life, generally 20 or 25 years dependant
on material.

18 months ago one club member found reason to jump
from about 1000feet and the 'chute worked. He landed
without a scratch.

My own personal 'chute is repacked every 12 months,
but I know its history.

I have taken many 'chutes for repacking some with no
known last repack date but believed to be several years.
Bench test showed that the drogue 'chute worked there
was nothing to suggest the main would not have opened.
I heard one story of a UK jump club who's members jumped
'chutes that had not been repacked for several years
and they worked fine (Note to doubters I cannot support
this with evidence). They did have recently packed
reserves

I believe that where 'chutes are given to first time
pilots and club members, the club has a duty to ensure
they are servicable.

Our club system has been proven to be satisfactory.


Hope this helps

Dave

Derrick Steed wrote:

>I go on the recommendation of the people who repack mine - the parachute
>club at Sibson: they recommend no long than four months between repacks

Thanks. That's the same interval used in the U.S. I
presume you are in the U.K. Is that interval a requirement,
or just a suggestion?
Todd Pattist - "WH" Ventus C
(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)

I've never seen a requirement from the BGA - but then maybe I'm not reading
the right things. It's not a suggestion I'm making, I was concerned that I
maintained my pack properly in the event I needed to use it.

The club I was at before the current one used to invite parachute
instructors down from Sibson for winter lectures on the care, feeding and
proper use of parachutes - my experience (although it doesn't seem to have
had any effect on the ability the parachute of those who have used them in
anger) is that most people in the gliding movement (here's where I get to
collect a lot of arrows, I bet) don't know what the proper deployment
procedure is. I hadn't been shown and didn't know until I went to Sibson and
was asked if I knew how to use it - I replied yes, of course, and was
promptly corrected and shown the correct and surefire method.

My own feeling is that there is not enough education available via the BGA
regarding parachutes, their care, use, and maintenance.

Rgds,

Derrick.

In article ,
Todd Pattist wrote:
>Derrick Steed wrote:
>
>>I go on the recommendation of the people who repack mine - the parachute
>>club at Sibson: they recommend no long than four months between repacks

Nothing personally against the parachute folks you go to (I have no
idea about them specifically), but isn't this like asking
the monkeys how often you should feed them bananas?
I assume they're making money per repack, right?

Reminds me of an instructor who's given over 500 hours dual in
the past two years and gotten one student through license.
His answer to every student: "you need more training!"

I did once meet a power flying instructor like that. My reasoning is going to the parachute club was this:
1. the chief instructor of the parachute club is well respected in the UK parachute world
2. in my judgement (OK, I'm ignorant but I can smell a rat - GWB has the longest tail I've ever seen) he seemed professional and knew what he was talking about
3. his selling technique of his particular snake oil (as you are implying) was excellent - and I saw them using the oil when I was there, from 10,000 feet no less - jumping from a ukrainian aircraft (them damn commies!)
4. his legs seemed to be long enough and I couldn't detect any signs of scrape marks on his knuckles, and he wasn't overly disposed to scratching his armpits or swinging from the nearby trees - now this is something where I consider myself an expert: most managers I've met do qualify in the armpit scratching and swinging from branches department
5. Surprise at the exchange of money for work is a real surprise coming from the home of capitalism.
Rgds,

Derrick.

Derrick Steed wrote:


>I've never seen a requirement from the BGA - but then maybe I'm not reading
>the right things. It's not a suggestion I'm making, I was concerned that I
>maintained my pack properly in the event I needed to use it.

I was asking if you faced a penalty for flying with your
parachute 4 months and 1 day after your last repack. In the
U.S., if I was to do that, I could (at least in theory) lose
my license to fly. I take it that you face no such
sanction.
Todd Pattist - "WH" Ventus C
(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are correct, there is no penalty.

Although most clubs now where parachutes as a matter of course (following some
thinly veiled threats from a certain national coach as was) there is no law
as such. Since I came back to gliding in 1989 after a long break it's always
been my understanding that pilots of single seaters contemplating cross
countries or aerobatics were recommended to where a parachute by the BGA -
the practice has only recently (a few years) been adopted for dual trainers.

In some ways the picture is worse: there are no standards mandated by the CAA
or anyone else relating to emergency parachutes for gliders. When I bought my
first parachute (Thomas Sports Equipment pop-top) little advice was available
other than "by a GQ or Irvin a cheap parachute is not worth the money", so I
did my own research (where I learned there is no CAA standard, or British
Standard [materials yes, complete thing, no]. There was once a CAA approved
parachute - I inherited one when I bought a Dart 17, it was made by Irvin in
1968 and had been approved by the CAA (I bought the Dart in 1990) for the
World championships some time in the 60's.

Rgds,

Derrick.

Mark Stevens > wrote:
>
>There are two central threads to this which are...
>
>1. Is the Puchasz a safe aeroplane?
>
>and
>
>2. The assertion that BGA spin training routinely spins
>in and kills instructors and their pupils..

I can't answer either. I will say that I personally
wouldn't consider initiating a spin entry at 800 ft, and I don't
know anyone who would.

That said, there are those in this country with aerobatic
waivers for very low aerobatics. Perhaps the UK standards
for CFI's who do 800 ft spin entries are the
equivalent...I don't know so I can't make judgements
about whether BGA practices are safe...

I still wonder why one wouldn't just do it 800 ft above
a cloud deck instead...

Derrick Steed > wrote:
>In article ,
>Todd Pattist wrote:
>>Derrick Steed wrote:
>>
>
>Nothing personally against the parachute folks you go to (I have no
>idea about them specifically), but isn't this like asking
>the monkeys how often you should feed them bananas?
>I assume they're making money per repack, right?
>
>Reminds me of an instructor who's given over 500 hours dual in
>the past two years and gotten one student through license.
>His answer to every student: "you need more training!"
>
>I did once meet a power flying instructor like that. My reasoning is going to the parachute club was this:
>5. Surprise at the exchange of money for work is a real surprise coming from the home of capitalism.

Easy now. At my house I am considered "Chief Tightwad." Anyone
telling me I should accept a 100% or even 50% cost increase
(1 extra repack per season, and the season lasts 6 months or 1 year)
for what may be negligible improvement in safety (or even
a decrease in safety) is gonna get a lot of questions.

Perhaps a better question is:
"There are a bunch of riggers in other countries, including
the US PIA as a whole (by a 3:1 margin), and they say 180 days
is fine. How are you more qualified than them, or what is
different about the UK, the riggers here, my chute, or me
to warrant the 120 days instead?"

Then I'd ask if there was a different chute I could get that
would give me a longer repack cycle.

For the extra $50 to $100 a year, I'd expect a good answer.
But keep in mind I'm a serious TIGHTWAD. :P

By the way,
www.pia.com/piapubs/pia_position_on_a_180_day_repack.htm
seems to think Great Britain has a six month cycle.
Dunno where that came from...

>Rgds,
>
>Derrick.

Derrick,

keep in mind none of this has anything to do with a critique
of you or the parachute rigger you use. I have no idea
about the answers to any of those questions, I'm sure you've done
a fine job looking into it, and there are other reasons to
do 120 day cycles (maybe it gets you in for an "egress refresher
course") which have nothing to do with the chute itself.
This is just an interesting subject, again, nothing about
anyone personally...ok?

In article >,
Simon Kahn > wrote:
>Not shooting, just buzzing....
>Not Government but BGA Laws &Rules:
>Parachutes
>RP16.
>..The owner should ensure that it is checked regularly
>by a competent authority. The interval should not be
>greater than three months or the manufacturer's recommendation,...

Yep, in the US that would be 60 days, since some natural fiber chutes
require this. The "or the manufacturer's recommendation" gives
huge leeway...

www.butlerparachutes.com/repack.htm

gives some insight here...

Not shooting, just buzzing....
Not Government but BGA Laws &Rules:
Parachutes
RP16.
...The owner should ensure that it is checked regularly
by a competent authority. The interval should not be
greater than three months or the manufacturer's recommendation,...
..

RP17
Serviceable parachutes should be warn by the occupant(s)
of gliders opertated from BGA sites, subject to the
glider being fitted to accept the occupant(s) wearing
parachute(s).


Dave Martin wrote:
>Until I am shot down, in the UK there are no government
>regulations on repacking dates for glider pilots personal
>reserve parachutes.
>

"Todd Pattist" > wrote in message
...
> Derrick Steed > wrote:
>
>
> >I've never seen a requirement from the BGA - but then maybe I'm not
reading
> >the right things. It's not a suggestion I'm making, I was concerned that
I
> >maintained my pack properly in the event I needed to use it.
>
> I was asking if you faced a penalty for flying with your
> parachute 4 months and 1 day after your last repack. In the
> U.S., if I was to do that, I could (at least in theory) lose
> my license to fly. I take it that you face no such
> sanction.

My experience in the UK has led me to believe that parachutes should be
repacked every 6 months. That is certainly what is done at my club. I
thought I'd check before posting and got a surprise. Laws and Rules for
Glider Pilots contains the following on parachutes:

"RP16. A parachute is considered to be personal equipment and not part of
the aircraft. The owner should ensure that it is checked regularly by a
competent authority. The interval should not be greater than three months
or the manufacturer's recommendation, but if the parachute has become wet or
had oil or acid spilled over it, or the release pins under the flap are
bent, it should be sent for re-packing and servicing forthwith.

RP17. Serviceable parachutes should be worn by the occupant(s) of gliders
operated from BGA sites, subject to the glider being fitted to accept the
occupant(s) wearing parachute(s)."

The above is in the Recommended Practices section which means that it's not
compulsory.

As an aside, RP16 seems to me to have daft wording. Why not use the term
"contaminated or damaged" instead of getting into specifics about
substances?

Stephen

I've read most of this discussion about spinning and spin training and I feel somewhat saddened by the polarization of views that I have seen thoughout.

My glider training started in the late 1960's and that is when I learned all about spin recovery (as taught to me at the time mostly by an ex army air corp pilot), this was all carried out after release from aero tow and never initiating an entry below 1500 feet, in fact that was the intended lowest recovery altitude for any maneuvre of this kind. After a long break from 1976 to 1989 (with a brief non-solo spell for a few weeks at club nearby in 1984) I joined a club and went solo again. A year later I bought a Dart 17 and started to enjoy flying it

During one of my early flights in the Dart (by this time I only had a few tens of hours recent flying) I was in a thermal above a ridge and responded incorrectly to a sudden wing drop with an associated nose down change in pitch (it was a rough thermal) - the Dart spun (they do that if you ask in the right tone of voice). Moving the stick forward had no effect, in fact putting the stick anywhere had no effect, the only thing that did work (once I had correctly recognized the situation) was the correct spin recovery procedure - I don't recall how many turns this was, maybe one or two, but by this time I was fairly close to the ground. It wasn't the proximity of the ground which had my attention, I was more concerned with correcting the situation in hand and thus avoiding the bone crunching intervention of the ground. During the recovery from the ensuing dive I did become more aware of the proximity of the ground (it seemed to be only a few hundred feet, if that) and worried a!
bout getting back to the upwind side of the ridge - my reaction here was to only partially recover from the dive and keep a good amount of speed on to push forward to the front of the ridge (another thing that was drummed into me in the 60's was to keep the speed up when close to the ground). I certainly remember the ground rush effect during the dive, but not during the initial part of the recovery, I think I was too busy trying to do the correct the situation at that time.

From what I can recall, the entry to this spin was initiated at less 1000 feet above ground level (It's hard to be exact, the top of the ridge - above Whipsnade lion enclosure was my belief at the time - was higher than the launch point) - the prospect of finishing up in that enclosure certainly focused my mind at the time.

What had been drummed into me back in the 60's were the following:
1. recognition of the flight mode I was in (e.g. in a spin), I believe this is one of the factors which contributed to my safe return that day
2. the correct procedure to use and how to apply it, I believe this was the other factor
3. there was talk of incipient spins and the recovery from same (a "judicious" bootful of rudder and get the nose down - there's been some argument about that already - I'm saying this is the correct action, just reporting what I remember I was instructed to do at the time)
4. one particular thing that I noticed on my return to gliding in the late 80's was the political incorrectness of term "incipient spin", and the insistence on use of the term "stall with a wing drop" - I recall a test pilot I know telling me about his time at Edwards AFB and the political incorrectness of PIO, instead it is now termed "Pilot Aircraft Coupling" - I have to ask: does it really matter whether we call it fishpaste or salmon pate? Isn't it more important that we understand the mechanics of what is happening and what to do when it does?

Lastly: I have noticed that in human affairs, there is the adoption of "fashions" - be it clothes, mannerisms, procedures, whatever. If is often not clear to me which point of view is the correct one (maybe I'm just thick - not very, mind you, just a bit). The only thing I can be certain of is that actual experience of a situation and the effect of the actions one took to correct. It worked for me - IN A DART - that doesn't necessarily mean I would do the correct thing in a different situation, but the training I receive should ensure that I can recognize it and apply what is known to be a correct recovery procedure.

I flew the Puchacz on an instructors course in 1995 and found it to be a nice aircraft to fly - we were well instructed in it's idiosyncracies and it was noted that it was a good spin trainer. We were shown that it is possible to spin the puch such that a "proper" spin recovery procedure must be used to effect a return to normal flight. We were also shown how much K13 vary in their characteristics with regard to spinning, Lasham had 9 at the time, they were all different - some spun like a top, others were very reluctant. Personally, I wouldn't attempt to teach spins on any aircraft in which I wasn't current and very familiar with. I don't currently have an instructors rating and haven't for some years - it's a dangerous trade.

Rgds,

Derrick.

Todd Pattist wrote:
>
> Bruce Greeff > wrote:
>
> >SOuth Africa is 12 Months. [parachute repack interval]
>
> Thank you. Any other pilots want to tell me the repack
> requirements in their country? I know there are lots of
> non-U.S. pilots here, and most fly with chutes. When do you
> repack them?
>

In France where we must fly with chutes according to the
regulations, the repack periodicity is as determined by
each manufacturer, I don't remember of any specific data.

I have taken many 'chutes for repacking some with no
> known last repack date but believed to be several years.
> Bench test showed that the drogue 'chute worked there
> was nothing to suggest the main would not have opened.
> I heard one story of a UK jump club who's members jumped
> 'chutes that had not been repacked for several years
> and they worked fine (Note to doubters I cannot support
> this with evidence


I have very recently seen a chute where the rubber bungees had decayed to
the extent that they glued the parachute lines together ... the very upset
packer had no doubt that it would have malfuntioned .... I would suggest
that you take no chances and have your chute repacked well within the
recommended time period

Sven Olivier

In article <40288f58$1@darkstar>, (Mark James Boyd)
writes:

>You guys have some real solid brass ones. Couldn't you just
>start at a higher altitude and use a cloud deck below you?
>Quite a thrill spinning through a cloud deck (so I'm told :)
>There ARE clouds over the pond right? :PPP

Spinning through cloud!!!

Does this meet with the approval of your Chief Flying Instructor - or the rest
of the aviation world pottering about below the same cloud you are spinning
down through?

Barney
UK

Barney
UK

In article >, Todd Pattist
> writes:

>I'd heard a few comments about English spin training from a
>winch launch at 800', but I thought it was either bar-talk
>or a rogue instructor.
>
>I know different areas use different training methods, but
>from my U.S. centric perspective, "officially sanctioned
>lunacy" seems like an awfully good description.

This was certainly true. On my instructor finishing course in 1977 with the
then British National Coach, (and you don't get much more "official" than that)
having joined downwind at about 800 ft, he took control and demonstrated a full
spin (about 1 rotation from memory) in a Bocian.

As far as I can remember this was to demonstrate the need to overcome a strong
natural instinct to pull the stick back when the grass fills the canopy and
take full recovery action.

It may not come as a total surprise to you to learn that I have never done it
since and, when Chief Flying Instructor of my club, had a rule that all spins
must be competed by 1500ft!

Barney
UK

In article >,
Sven Olivier > wrote:
>I have taken many 'chutes for repacking some with no
>> known last repack date but believed to be several years.
>> Bench test showed that the drogue 'chute worked there
>> was nothing to suggest the main would not have opened.
>> I heard one story of a UK jump club who's members jumped
>> 'chutes that had not been repacked for several years
>> and they worked fine (Note to doubters I cannot support
>> this with evidence
>
>
>I have very recently seen a chute where the rubber bungees had decayed to
>the extent that they glued the parachute lines together ... the very upset
>packer had no doubt that it would have malfuntioned .... I would suggest
>that you take no chances and have your chute repacked well within the
>recommended time period
>
>Sven Olivier
>

Was this chute less than six months since last repack?
I bet it wasn't...

On the other hand, if one leaves a chute packed today
inside a nice glider canopy or car for about
a month in 100 degree plus weather in Mexico or El Paso,
I bet the thing melts like a cassete tape...

For the few chutes that need repacking more frequently,
it's a handling and storage problem, not a "date" problem.

In article >,
BAToulson > wrote:
>In article <40288f58$1@darkstar>, (Mark James Boyd)
>writes:
>
>>You guys have some real solid brass ones. Couldn't you just
>>start at a higher altitude and use a cloud deck below you?
>>Quite a thrill spinning through a cloud deck (so I'm told :)
>>There ARE clouds over the pond right? :PPP
>
>Spinning through cloud!!!
>
>Does this meet with the approval of your Chief Flying Instructor - or the rest
>of the aviation world pottering about below the same cloud you are spinning
>down through?

This was given in the context "better to intiate spins at 800 feet
over a cloud deck than over the ground, and would give the
same effect (canopy full of cloud, must fight urge to
pull back on stick)"

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

>
>Barney
>UK
>
>Barney
>UK

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.

FAA: It clearly states it's a parachute, and I see by the repack card
that it is out of date.

Pilot: When I get it repacked, it will be a parachute again. For now,
it's a seat cushion. And if I want to jump out of an aircraft with
only a seat cushion attached to my bottom, that's my business, not
yours.

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


Vaughn

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.