Another stall spin [Archive]

Bob Whelan[_3_]

August 26th 12, 09:33 PM

On 8/26/2012 1:20 PM, Walt Connelly wrote:
> Jp Stewart;822355 Wrote:
>> From TA's Dansville contest write-up:
>> "Unfortunately, we were also saddened to hear of yet another apparent
>> stall-spin fatality; Jim Rizzo, Finger Lakes club president and FAA
>> Designated Examiner for the area was killed when his glider crashed into
>> a farmer’s field not far from the Dansville airport. Jim was not part
>> of the contest and was just flying locally when the accident occurred.
>> All we know is what the farmer said (and this is 3rd hand to me) that
>> apparently Jim was trying to thermal away from a low altitude and spun
>> in (sound familiar? – it should – this is the 3rd almost identical
>> fatality this season here on the east coast)."
>> http://soaringcafe.com/2012/08/day-6-at-dansville-region-3/
>>
>> JP
>
> Amazing that almost every time we read about such an incident the pilot
> is highly rated and experienced. Is it that with experience comes
> complacency? This gentleman was a designated examiner, makes a relative
> newbie such as myself wonder. Condolences to the family.
>
> Walt

My condolences to family, friends and Finger Lakes Soaring Club members.
Terrible and sad...

Obviously only Jim Rizzo could answer your question were it directed his way.

To your question's most general sense, I suspect there are some pilots for
whom experience does somewhat correlate to complacency, in certain things.
It's only human nature.

But my own thinking on such life-and-death matters, and the fact the question
is in your mind right now, strongly suggest to me that individuals DO contain
within them the ability to NOT fall (thought) prey to complacency. Complacency
isn't pre-ordained, it's a (sometimes, non-)decision we choose to make. To my
way of thinking, life and death flying situations deserve to be approached
with the active thought, "What could go wrong in this situation? If so, what
are my 'outs'?" If the "outs" aren't guaranteed to keep you alive, then
perhaps you shouldn't be "playing there." If Joe Pilot chooses to NOT think
this way, then J.P. may or not be complacent, but J.P. arguably is not as
situationally aware as fragile flesh might soon wish it had been...

Bob W.

Tim Mara

August 27th 12, 03:31 PM

I am especially saddened to hear this, Jim was a good friend and a great guy
I've know for probably more than 30 years. Jim was not only a good friend
but a great asset to his club and the people around him, he was always jolly
and helpful, willing to take on the extra responsibilities and help promote
his club and help those around him. I, in fact had just flown with Jim on
the practice day at Region III in the clubs K21 to renew my CFI certificate,
together we had a good flight that included working some rough choppy
thermal to complete the exam. I know there will be a void again losing yet
another of my soaring pals and his loss will be deeply felt by all that knew
him.
tim Mara

"Jp Stewart" > wrote in message
...
From TA's Dansville contest write-up:
"Unfortunately, we were also saddened to hear of yet another apparent
stall-spin fatality; Jim Rizzo, Finger Lakes club president and FAA
Designated Examiner for the area was killed when his glider crashed into a
farmer’s field not far from the Dansville airport. Jim was not part of the
contest and was just flying locally when the accident occurred. All we know
is what the farmer said (and this is 3rd hand to me) that apparently Jim was
trying to thermal away from a low altitude and spun in (sound familiar? – it
should – this is the 3rd almost identical fatality this season here on the
east coast)."
http://soaringcafe.com/2012/08/day-6-at-dansville-region-3/

JP

Tom Nau[_2_]

August 27th 12, 06:55 PM

On Sunday, August 26, 2012 12:22:28 PM UTC-5, Gary Adams wrote:
> Why?? Again and again. Why do we think it won't happen to me? Why do we wait too late to be prep'ed to land? Why do we keep hearing the same story? No, we don't know why Jim crashed for sure....but we know one possibility most of us actually never practice in our personal planes....sure we do it every 2 years in a BFR flying a 103, 2-33, or K-21....I will be honest and say I've never practiced a spin in my ASW-20CL with winglets....my memory of what the early '20's (of which I once co-owned, involved in a fatal crash in '80)was capable of doing....... low, slow, turning, with flaps in 4. Sad string of events. On Sunday, August 26, 2012 12:11:45 AM UTC-4, Jp Stewart wrote: > From TA's Dansville contest write-up: > > "Unfortunately, we were also saddened to hear of yet another apparent stall-spin fatality; Jim Rizzo, Finger Lakes club president and FAA Designated Examiner for the area was killed when his glider crashed into a farmer’s field not far from the Dansville airport. Jim was not part of the contest and was just flying locally when the accident occurred. All we know is what the farmer said (and this is 3rd hand to me) that apparently Jim was trying to thermal away from a low altitude and spun in (sound familiar? – it should – this is the 3rd almost identical fatality this season here on the east coast)." > > http://soaringcafe.com/2012/08/day-6-at-dansville-region-3/ > > > > JP

With all humility, maybe I can offer a plausible explanation. Yesterday I landed-out at an airport which was not my intended destination. After a 3.5 hr flight with lots of thermalling I was in the pattern at this airport working a very weak thermal before putting the gear down to land. Mind you I have flown the same '28 for the past 8 years. Normally I thermal around 50 kts but will go down to 45 kts on occasion. While working this weak thermal I shockingly noticed the airspeed in the low 40s. I don't recall the altitude at which it changes, but at high altitude while thermalling, the downward wing moves backwards in relation to the ground and at low altitude the wing moves forward in relation to the ground. Without strict airspeed discipline it tempting to make the downward wing stop moving forward so rapidly and airspeed can become too slow. My condolences to family and friends.

Tom

[email protected]

August 27th 12, 06:58 PM

More sad news. I am surprised to hear that many pilots don't practice spins. I spin my ship regularly - typically in thermalling configuration, as many entry modes as I can come up with, left and right. I focus on recognition and recovery techniques and note the altitude required. If it's legal/possible to do in the ship you fly regularly it's worth practicing - always with a chute, lots of altitude and c.g. double-checked beforehand.

9B

[email protected]

August 27th 12, 08:05 PM

On Sunday, August 26, 2012 12:11:45 AM UTC-4, Jp Stewart wrote:
> From TA's Dansville contest write-up: "Unfortunately, we were also saddened to hear of yet another apparent stall-spin fatality; Jim Rizzo, Finger Lakes club president and FAA Designated Examiner for the area was killed when his glider crashed into a farmer’s field not far from the Dansville airport. Jim was not part of the contest and was just flying locally when the accident occurred. All we know is what the farmer said (and this is 3rd hand to me) that apparently Jim was trying to thermal away from a low altitude and spun in (sound familiar? – it should – this is the 3rd almost identical fatality this season here on the east coast)." http://soaringcafe.com/2012/08/day-6-at-dansville-region-3/ JP

I'll chime in with Tim. Jim was a great guy and could not do enough to help make his home club go. He always had a smile on his face and a big laugh.
Possibly his apparently having taken nothing to drink after instructing for a while and then going to fly for 3-1/2 hrs or so may have contributed to his error in judgement. Sadly, it appears that he could have straightened out and landed on the airport, albeit with a very low approach.
We HAVE GOT TO STOP THERMALLING LOW. There is no new lesson here. I've lost 3 friends this year to the same mistake.
Sadly
UH

noel.wade

August 27th 12, 08:37 PM

On Aug 26, 12:20*pm, Walt Connelly
> wrote:

> Is it that with experience comes
> complacency?

Well, one thing I've observed from a few accidents around my area is
that people confuse "total time" with "currency". They are two VERY
different things. A high-time pilot can be rusty and out-of-practice,
and therefore exhibit sub-par airmanship just as easily as a low-time
pilot. But I've seen a lot of people show extreme deference to high-
time pilots, and simply assume that said pilot is automatically
qualified, current, and safe to fly whenever they show up.

Showing respect is fine; but we do everyone a disservice when we
abdicate our responsibility to exercise good judgment about the safety
of an operation, and fail to act as checks-and-balances on one
another. No one - no matter their total experience-level - is immune
to making a mistake, becoming complacent, or simply mis-estimating our
skills & preparedness.

Given the other comments in this thread, the above comments may not
apply in this specific incident; but think about it the next time you
see a high-time pilot show up at the airport for the first time in a
while. Or if you notice someone who's strictly been giving rides and
instruction for months suddenly head out for a cross-country flight.
Stop, ask him/her when they last flew. Offer to provide help, or to
offer a CAC or PCC. Offer to double-check their safety gear /
supplies. You have to be polite, respectful, and diplomatic about
this; but don't just assume that because they're high-time that they
deserve a hands-off/red-carpet treatment. If we help each other out,
we can catch each other's mistakes, and have fewer devastated friends
and family.

--Noel

Brian[_1_]

August 27th 12, 09:08 PM

So I am seeing the why do we still thermal low comment, but no one is says how low. I suspect these accidents may not be a low as some of us think. But have no data to back it up.
With so many of us using flight recorders it should be pretty easy to look a few of these accidents and see, but somehow this data never seems to reach us. I can understand some liability issues but it seems like it would be pretty easy to reproduce the data into a generic format that didn't give away the location or ID of what happened but would still allow us to review the flight path of an actual flight that led to the accident.

Brian

kirk.stant

August 27th 12, 09:28 PM

Just a comment about stall - spin recoveries and practice:

These have to be practiced in the glider you are going to be potentially "spinning" - and often the recovery process will NOT be a spin recovery, it will be a spiral dive recovery; not at all the same thing at low altitude!

My LS6 is very spin resistant, but can be forced to depart/drop a wing (simulating turbulence, etc). However, it transitions to a spiral dive immediatly (speed increasing is obvious cue). If the classic spin recovery is started, like practiced in the local club 2-seater, the forward stick will result in a vertical high speed dive and a lot of altitude loss - possibly beyond Vne. The correct recovery is to roll wings level(full aileron and rudder) then pull hard - speed is not a problem by the time the wings are leveled!

At low altitude, the wrong recovery procedure can result in insufficient altitude to recover.

PRACTICE IN YOUR OWN GLIDER!

Kirk
66

[email protected]

August 27th 12, 09:30 PM

On Monday, August 27, 2012 4:08:49 PM UTC-4, Brian wrote:
> So I am seeing the why do we still thermal low comment, but no one is says how low. I suspect these accidents may not be a low as some of us think. But have no data to back it up. With so many of us using flight recorders it should be pretty easy to look a few of these accidents and see, but somehow this data never seems to reach us. I can understand some liability issues but it seems like it would be pretty easy to reproduce the data into a generic format that didn't give away the location or ID of what happened but would still allow us to review the flight path of an actual flight that led to the accident. Brian

I'll jump in and define low as that altitude from which you are not likely to recover from a spin and save your life.
From what I heard about the observed departure from controlled flight to impact was a portion of a turn.
After the FAA seizes the recorder, if there is one, it seems to be very hard to ever get it back. Also, sometimes the last few seconds before impact may be missing based on a few accidents I've seen the logs of. No idea why this might be.
Again FWIW
UH

Frank Whiteley

August 27th 12, 10:59 PM

On Monday, August 27, 2012 2:30:30 PM UTC-6, (unknown) wrote:
> On Monday, August 27, 2012 4:08:49 PM UTC-4, Brian wrote:
>
> > So I am seeing the why do we still thermal low comment, but no one is says how low. I suspect these accidents may not be a low as some of us think.. But have no data to back it up. With so many of us using flight recorders it should be pretty easy to look a few of these accidents and see, but somehow this data never seems to reach us. I can understand some liability issues but it seems like it would be pretty easy to reproduce the data into a generic format that didn't give away the location or ID of what happened but would still allow us to review the flight path of an actual flight that led to the accident. Brian
>
>
>
> I'll jump in and define low as that altitude from which you are not likely to recover from a spin and save your life.
>
> From what I heard about the observed departure from controlled flight to impact was a portion of a turn.
>
> After the FAA seizes the recorder, if there is one, it seems to be very hard to ever get it back. Also, sometimes the last few seconds before impact may be missing based on a few accidents I've seen the logs of. No idea why this might be.
>
> Again FWIW
>
> UH

From what I've seen, logger data appears to be buffered in memory before being written to the log file. If the power is interrupted by impact, the last 15 seconds or so isn't written to the log. A similar experience is driving into a tunnel with a SiriusXM radio. The buffered content plays for 10-15 seconds before quitting due to loss of signal.

Through the few phone calls, e-mails, and conversations I had with Jim through SSA committee work, I found him to be amicable, personal, and helpful. Sad loss to soaring, his region, and many friends.

Frank Whiteley

Bill[_21_]

August 27th 12, 11:09 PM

On Sunday, August 26, 2012 12:11:45 AM UTC-4, Jp Stewart wrote:
> From TA's Dansville contest write-up:
>
> "Unfortunately, we were also saddened to hear of yet another apparent stall-spin fatality; Jim Rizzo, Finger Lakes club president and FAA Designated Examiner for the area was killed when his glider crashed into a farmer’s field not far from the Dansville airport. Jim was not part of the contest and was just flying locally when the accident occurred. All we know is what the farmer said (and this is 3rd hand to me) that apparently Jim was trying to thermal away from a low altitude and spun in (sound familiar? – it should – this is the 3rd almost identical fatality this season here on the east coast)."
>
> http://soaringcafe.com/2012/08/day-6-at-dansville-region-3/
>
>
>
> JP

I’m very sad to hear of Jim’s accident. It sends a clear message that this can happen to anyone including me! Having been CFIGing for many years, I know that I have not adequately trained my students in spins. The equipment just doesn’t allow.

I also know that the late Kai Gertsen wrote a series of instructional publications including what I deem most valuable, “Why Spin Training”. This well written report about Spins is written for glider pilots and we all need to read, digest and read again to help us understand how we can be better prepared to deal with a spin situation. I require every pilot to read Kai’s Spin report as part of their BFR.

Quoting the first chapter on of the latest edition of “Why Spin Training” from Kai Gertsen’s just published book, “Desperate to Fly”….

“Spinning is the biggest cause of gliding fatalities. Every year we lose a handful of our fellow glider pilots in this country to spin-ins. This is truly tragic, as I am certain these accidents would not occur if all pilots received adequate spin training. I know of several cases where spin training saved the day. Pilots who are not prepared are not likely to take proper action when the time comes”.

Please buy this book from Wings and Wheels or the publisher, BTLinkpublishing.com. This is the really good information that we need to understand. Lets put an end to this tragic accident.

I send my deepest condolences to Jim Rizzo’s family and friends.

Bill Batesole

Bill D

August 27th 12, 11:13 PM

Responding to Noel. Excellent post. Indeed, currency and experience are two very different things. It only takes weeks for the sharp edge of flying skill to start to rust.

It doesn't matter why if, when the moment comes, the pilot lacks the skills to deal with the situation. I always make me wonder why some people spend a lot to acquire the skills to get a rating and then do nothing to maintain those skills. I'm thinking of "highly skilled" contest pilots who make only 20 landings a year - sometimes for decades on end. At some point, they have very little of their skill-set left.

Ramy

August 27th 12, 11:40 PM

On Monday, August 27, 2012 1:08:49 PM UTC-7, Brian wrote:
> So I am seeing the why do we still thermal low comment, but no one is says how low. I suspect these accidents may not be a low as some of us think. But have no data to back it up.
>
> With so many of us using flight recorders it should be pretty easy to look a few of these accidents and see, but somehow this data never seems to reach us. I can understand some liability issues but it seems like it would be pretty easy to reproduce the data into a generic format that didn't give away the location or ID of what happened but would still allow us to review the flight path of an actual flight that led to the accident.
>
>
>
> Brian

My thoughts exactly. we need the actual data to learn something from those accidents, but it is almost never provided. We should have enough statistics to be able to determine how low is too low to recover, so we can adjust our threshold. This is what safety culture is all about. If we keep this info to ourselves, no much can be learned.

Ramy

[email protected]

August 28th 12, 12:08 AM

On Monday, August 27, 2012 6:40:42 PM UTC-4, Ramy wrote:
> On Monday, August 27, 2012 1:08:49 PM UTC-7, Brian wrote: > So I am seeing the why do we still thermal low comment, but no one is says how low. I suspect these accidents may not be a low as some of us think. But have no data to back it up. > > With so many of us using flight recorders it should be pretty easy to look a few of these accidents and see, but somehow this data never seems to reach us. I can understand some liability issues but it seems like it would be pretty easy to reproduce the data into a generic format that didn't give away the location or ID of what happened but would still allow us to review the flight path of an actual flight that led to the accident. > > > > Brian My thoughts exactly. we need the actual data to learn something from those accidents, but it is almost never provided. We should have enough statistics to be able to determine how low is too low to recover, so we can adjust our threshold. This is what safety culture is all about.. If we keep this info to ourselves, no much can be learned. Ramy

I do not agree.
There is nothing new to learn from Jim's accident.
People just keep repeating the same stupid stuff they know better than to do.
A handful of folks on this forum seem to want to study the crap out of accidents like this in the hope that they will learn something new.
There are no new lessons to be learned here guys. It is very simple. You can't circle at low altitude without an unaceptable risk of a(commonly gust induced) stall spin. And these spins do NOT happen like the ones we practice.. They happen much more quickly and violently. I have a personal hard deck of 500 feet where circling is cancelled. The only exception is ridge flying where a whole group of additional variables come into play.
If you want data, go spin your glider in the configuration you fly it all the time. Let it start to spin, not just catch it when it departs. See how much altitude you lose, then throw in another 1-200 feet for the surprise factor.
I spin sailpalnes probably 60-80 times a year and my contest gliders a dozen time a year. From that, I've developed my personal limits.
Note that gliders with winglets commonly may be more benign in stall than ones without, but may well be uglier in a true spin.
As instructors, mentors, and friends, we need to embrace and promote the concept that we all need a limit where we STOP SOARING AND START LANDING with NO exceptions.
Sorry to rant, but I've lost 3 friends this year, all for the same damn reason and all knew better.
UH

son_of_flubber

August 28th 12, 12:12 AM

On Monday, August 27, 2012 6:40:42 PM UTC-4, Ramy wrote:
>we need the actual data to learn something from those accidents, but it is almost never provided.

I suggest that you take your glider to 2500 AGL or so, fly it like you normally do, circle in a weak thermal, record the 'start altitude', put it into a spin and record the altitude of the low point in your spin recovery.

Do this ten times. Take the worst case altitude loss and add a 'safety factor'.

The results will help you set a "personal minimum circling altitude'.

Why would actual flight path accident data (for a different pilot in a different glider) give you a better number?

Ramy

August 28th 12, 12:38 AM

On Monday, August 27, 2012 4:08:30 PM UTC-7, (unknown) wrote:
> On Monday, August 27, 2012 6:40:42 PM UTC-4, Ramy wrote:
>
> > On Monday, August 27, 2012 1:08:49 PM UTC-7, Brian wrote: > So I am seeing the why do we still thermal low comment, but no one is says how low. I suspect these accidents may not be a low as some of us think. But have no data to back it up. > > With so many of us using flight recorders it should be pretty easy to look a few of these accidents and see, but somehow this data never seems to reach us. I can understand some liability issues but it seems like it would be pretty easy to reproduce the data into a generic format that didn't give away the location or ID of what happened but would still allow us to review the flight path of an actual flight that led to the accident. > > > > Brian My thoughts exactly. we need the actual data to learn something from those accidents, but it is almost never provided. We should have enough statistics to be able to determine how low is too low to recover, so we can adjust our threshold. This is what safety culture is all about. If we keep this info to ourselves, no much can be learned. Ramy
>
>
>
> I do not agree.
>
> There is nothing new to learn from Jim's accident.
>
> People just keep repeating the same stupid stuff they know better than to do.
>
> A handful of folks on this forum seem to want to study the crap out of accidents like this in the hope that they will learn something new.
>
> There are no new lessons to be learned here guys. It is very simple. You can't circle at low altitude without an unaceptable risk of a(commonly gust induced) stall spin. And these spins do NOT happen like the ones we practice. They happen much more quickly and violently. I have a personal hard deck of 500 feet where circling is cancelled. The only exception is ridge flying where a whole group of additional variables come into play.
>
> If you want data, go spin your glider in the configuration you fly it all the time. Let it start to spin, not just catch it when it departs. See how much altitude you lose, then throw in another 1-200 feet for the surprise factor.
>
> I spin sailpalnes probably 60-80 times a year and my contest gliders a dozen time a year. From that, I've developed my personal limits.
>
> Note that gliders with winglets commonly may be more benign in stall than ones without, but may well be uglier in a true spin.
>
> As instructors, mentors, and friends, we need to embrace and promote the concept that we all need a limit where we STOP SOARING AND START LANDING with NO exceptions.
>
> Sorry to rant, but I've lost 3 friends this year, all for the same damn reason and all knew better.
>
> UH

The point was to qualify what is too low. I agree about 500 feet. This is also my threshold. But some will consider below 1000 feet as low, while others will consider 200 feet... As such, would be helpful to know how low they were thermaling, if the data is available.

Ramy

Ramy

John Godfrey (QT)[_2_]

August 28th 12, 02:01 AM

On Sunday, August 26, 2012 12:11:45 AM UTC-4, Jp Stewart wrote:
> From TA's Dansville contest write-up:
>
> "Unfortunately, we were also saddened to hear of yet another apparent stall-spin fatality; Jim Rizzo, Finger Lakes club president and FAA Designated Examiner for the area was killed when his glider crashed into a farmer’s field not far from the Dansville airport. Jim was not part of the contest and was just flying locally when the accident occurred. All we know is what the farmer said (and this is 3rd hand to me) that apparently Jim was trying to thermal away from a low altitude and spun in (sound familiar? – it should – this is the 3rd almost identical fatality this season here on the east coast)."
>
> http://soaringcafe.com/2012/08/day-6-at-dansville-region-3/
>
>
>
> JP
I believe it is all based in denial.

I've come to believe that pilots simply do not recognize or admit to themselves (in the "applies to me today, on this flight, in this thermal" sense) that below a specific AGL, regardless of their skill as pilots, if an incipient spin happens for whatever reason, they WILL hit the ground. Thus they (we) do not recognize that below that AGL, we have chosen to change the nature of the game to one of betting our lives.

For what reason are you (me) betting our life on the flight today?

If you do not know this AGL number empirically for you in your aircraft, you need to figure it out. It would seem unlikely that it could ever be below 500 feet, allowing for the fact that few of us are perfect pilots with negligible reaction times.

It doesn't matter that we are "over a good field" or "in the pattern" or whatever, the ground is just as hard.

Again, for what reason is your life worth betting today, and do you know when you have placed the bet?

With deepest heartfelt sympathy for this and the other tragic losses this year.

QT

Ramy

August 28th 12, 02:34 AM

On Monday, August 27, 2012 6:01:52 PM UTC-7, John Godfrey (QT) wrote:
> On Sunday, August 26, 2012 12:11:45 AM UTC-4, Jp Stewart wrote:
>
> > From TA's Dansville contest write-up:
>
> >
>
> > "Unfortunately, we were also saddened to hear of yet another apparent stall-spin fatality; Jim Rizzo, Finger Lakes club president and FAA Designated Examiner for the area was killed when his glider crashed into a farmer’s field not far from the Dansville airport. Jim was not part of the contest and was just flying locally when the accident occurred. All we know is what the farmer said (and this is 3rd hand to me) that apparently Jim was trying to thermal away from a low altitude and spun in (sound familiar? – it should – this is the 3rd almost identical fatality this season here on the east coast)."
>
> >
>
> > http://soaringcafe.com/2012/08/day-6-at-dansville-region-3/
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > JP
>
> I believe it is all based in denial.
>
>
>
> I've come to believe that pilots simply do not recognize or admit to themselves (in the "applies to me today, on this flight, in this thermal" sense) that below a specific AGL, regardless of their skill as pilots, if an incipient spin happens for whatever reason, they WILL hit the ground. Thus they (we) do not recognize that below that AGL, we have chosen to change the nature of the game to one of betting our lives.
>
>
>
> For what reason are you (me) betting our life on the flight today?
>
>
>
> If you do not know this AGL number empirically for you in your aircraft, you need to figure it out. It would seem unlikely that it could ever be below 500 feet, allowing for the fact that few of us are perfect pilots with negligible reaction times.
>
>
>
> It doesn't matter that we are "over a good field" or "in the pattern" or whatever, the ground is just as hard.
>
>
>
> Again, for what reason is your life worth betting today, and do you know when you have placed the bet?
>
>
>
> With deepest heartfelt sympathy for this and the other tragic losses this year.
>
>
>
> QT

It is worth pointing out that this should also apply when thermaling over mountain terrain. While it is generally obvious that you are getting too low to thermal when you drop below pattern altitude, it is not so obvious when flying over mountain terrain, since you are still high above the surrounding, but maybe only couple of hundred feet above the slope below you. As a result, it is much more common to thermal close to terrain than thermaling too low over a field. This is also where there is much higher chance for an upset due to turbulence.

Ramy

Brad[_2_]

August 28th 12, 03:07 AM

On Aug 27, 6:34*pm, Ramy > wrote:
> On Monday, August 27, 2012 6:01:52 PM UTC-7, John Godfrey (QT) wrote:
> > On Sunday, August 26, 2012 12:11:45 AM UTC-4, Jp Stewart wrote:
>
> > > From TA's Dansville contest write-up:
>
> > > "Unfortunately, we were also saddened to hear of yet another apparent stall-spin fatality; Jim Rizzo, Finger Lakes club president and FAA Designated Examiner for the area was killed when his glider crashed into a farmer’s field not far from the Dansville airport. *Jim was not part of the contest and was just flying locally when the accident occurred. *All we know is what the farmer said (and this is 3rd hand to me) that apparently Jim was trying to thermal away from a low altitude and spun in (sound familiar? – it should – this is the 3rd almost identical fatality this season here on the east coast)."
>
> > >http://soaringcafe.com/2012/08/day-6-at-dansville-region-3/
>
> > > JP
>
> > I believe it is all based in denial.
>
> > I've come to believe that pilots simply do not recognize or admit to themselves (in the "applies to me today, on this flight, in this thermal" sense) that below a specific AGL, regardless of their skill as pilots, if an incipient spin happens for whatever reason, they WILL hit the ground. Thus they (we) do not recognize that below that AGL, we have chosen to change the nature of the game to one of betting our lives.
>
> > For what reason are you (me) betting our life on the flight today?
>
> > If you do not know this AGL number empirically for you in your aircraft, you need to figure it out. It would seem unlikely that it could ever be below 500 feet, allowing for the fact that few of us are perfect pilots with negligible reaction times.
>
> > It doesn't matter that we are "over a good field" or "in the pattern" or whatever, the ground is just as hard.
>
> > Again, for what reason is your life worth betting today, and do you know when you have placed the bet?
>
> > With deepest heartfelt sympathy for this and the other tragic losses this year.
>
> > QT
>
> It is worth pointing out that this should also apply when thermaling over mountain terrain. While it is generally obvious that you are getting too low to thermal when you drop below pattern altitude, it is not so obvious when flying over mountain terrain, since you are still high above the surrounding, but maybe only couple of hundred feet above the slope below you. As a result, it is much more common to thermal close to terrain than thermaling too low over a field. This is also where there is much higher chance for an upset due to turbulence.
>
> Ramy

The closer to the terrain I am the faster my thermalling speed.

Brad

August 28th 12, 04:38 AM

On Saturday, August 25, 2012 9:11:45 PM UTC-7, Jp Stewart wrote:
> From TA's Dansville contest write-up:
>
> "Unfortunately, we were also saddened to hear of yet another apparent stall-spin fatality; Jim Rizzo, Finger Lakes club president and FAA Designated Examiner for the area was killed when his glider crashed into a farmer’s field not far from the Dansville airport. Jim was not part of the contest and was just flying locally when the accident occurred. All we know is what the farmer said (and this is 3rd hand to me) that apparently Jim was trying to thermal away from a low altitude and spun in (sound familiar? – it should – this is the 3rd almost identical fatality this season here on the east coast)."
>
> http://soaringcafe.com/2012/08/day-6-at-dansville-region-3/
>
>
>
> JP

This accident is just ANOTHER in a long string of accidents where the pilot felt, incorrectly, that their pilotage abilities were adequate for the task at hand. I agree with UH, there is NOTHING to be learned from this accident, because if you chose to push the envelope you are going to, SOONER OR LATER, find yourself over its edge. So YOU THINK you are a better pilot than Jim? Maybe you are, maybe you aren't: are you WILLING TO KILL YOURSELF to find out?

The solution IS NOT to fly faster when you are lower; the solution is to NOT GET YOURSELF into the situation to begin with!

Everybody likes to get back and tell their story about a low save; everybody OOHs and AWHs. Nobody says "You DUMB ****, YOU COULD HAVE KILLED YOURSELF!"

What I do is simple risk management: what are the tradeoffs of pulling such a stunt off versus the downside. Generally speaking, when the downside is killing yourself, there is no upside that will justify itself. If you land out, it might take you a day to get retrieved (just did one of those: it was ****ty, but the pilot lived). In this case, the retrieve would have been 2-3 hours, as compared to BEING DEAD!

We have got to stop the culture of adulating pilots who do dumb things. Now, they will still do dumb things, but we have to pointedly tell them that it is DUMB!

End of rant.

Tom
2G

Brad[_2_]

August 28th 12, 05:28 AM

On Aug 27, 8:38*pm, 2G > wrote:
> On Saturday, August 25, 2012 9:11:45 PM UTC-7, Jp Stewart wrote:
> > From TA's Dansville contest write-up:
>
> > "Unfortunately, we were also saddened to hear of yet another apparent stall-spin fatality; Jim Rizzo, Finger Lakes club president and FAA Designated Examiner for the area was killed when his glider crashed into a farmer’s field not far from the Dansville airport. *Jim was not part of the contest and was just flying locally when the accident occurred. *All we know is what the farmer said (and this is 3rd hand to me) that apparently Jim was trying to thermal away from a low altitude and spun in (sound familiar? – it should – this is the 3rd almost identical fatality this season here on the east coast)."
>
> >http://soaringcafe.com/2012/08/day-6-at-dansville-region-3/
>
> > JP
>
> This accident is just ANOTHER in a long string of accidents where the pilot felt, incorrectly, that their pilotage abilities were adequate for the task at hand. I agree with UH, there is NOTHING to be learned from this accident, because if you chose to push the envelope you are going to, SOONER OR LATER, find yourself over its edge. So YOU THINK you are a better pilot than Jim? Maybe you are, maybe you aren't: are you WILLING TO KILL YOURSELF to find out?
>
> The solution IS NOT to fly faster when you are lower; the solution is to NOT GET YOURSELF into the situation to begin with!
>
> Everybody likes to get back and tell their story about a low save; everybody OOHs and AWHs. Nobody says "You DUMB ****, YOU COULD HAVE KILLED YOURSELF!"
>
> What I do is simple risk management: what are the tradeoffs of pulling such a stunt off versus the downside. Generally speaking, when the downside is killing yourself, there is no upside that will justify itself. If you land out, it might take you a day to get retrieved (just did one of those: it was ****ty, but the pilot lived). In this case, the retrieve would have been 2-3 hours, as compared to BEING DEAD!
>
> We have got to stop the culture of adulating pilots who do dumb things. Now, they will still do dumb things, but we have to pointedly tell them that it is DUMB!
>
> End of rant.
>
> Tom
> 2G

Tell us Tom, how did you crack up your DG-400 years ago?

Brad

Duster

August 28th 12, 06:32 AM

Here is a good example of an unintentional stall-spin captured on
video, but at altitude. About 1/2 way through the recording, notice
the pilot's airspeed just before he begins a right turn (you can see
the yellow arc on the ASI). Note his control inputs as he
inadvertantly starts the spin. You can see his rudder movements and
his stick inputs pretty clearly (I think I see him retracting flaps
possibly too). He even narrates what he did to recover.... then I
think he recognizes one thing he might have done a bit differently. He
recovered nevertheless; question is would he have been successful much
closer to the ground? Could a sudden lift-gust toss someone low into a
non-recoverable? Think he gained or lost altitude in the spin
(surprise; watch the altimeter). By the way, the pilot has some
fantastic videos; thanks to him for sharing them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PpJA53LjarM&feature=relmfu

Ramy

August 28th 12, 06:53 AM

Tom, easy said than done. We all agree that circling too close to the ground is not a good idea, but there is no always a clear indication when it is too close. I don't know why many of you insist that there is nothing to learn from this accident without knowing the most important fact: how low was he circling?? If we find out it was 800 feet, will you go and claim that it is dumb to circle below 1000 feet? This is why we need to know the details, so we can make more informed conclusions.

Ramy

Roel Baardman

August 28th 12, 06:56 AM

Around me (The Netherlands) a lot of people seem to follow "the 7-5-3 rule":
- Find landable terrain at 700m, but continue searching for thermals.
- Start picking a field for landing at 500m, continue searching for thermals but stay around the field picked.
- Initiate the landing at 300m, ignore thermals. Congratulate yourself on a nice flight and focus on getting the glider down in one piece.

Roel

[email protected]

August 28th 12, 01:41 PM

On Tuesday, August 28, 2012 1:53:21 AM UTC-4, Ramy wrote:
> Tom, easy said than done. We all agree that circling too close to the ground is not a good idea, but there is no always a clear indication when it is too close. I don't know why many of you insist that there is nothing to learn from this accident without knowing the most important fact: how low was he circling?? If we find out it was 800 feet, will you go and claim that it is dumb to circle below 1000 feet? This is why we need to know the details, so we can make more informed conclusions. Ramy

Jim was a bit above the sight line of the trees bordering the airport and I would estimate maybe 3/4 of a mile away. Based on this, I would estimate his altitude as being on the order of 300 feet or so. That the glider rotated only a portion of a turn before impact would support this estimate.
Many time people decide it is OK to circle low because they have the airport, or maybe a really good field below. That makes the likely outcome of the landing somewhat better, IF the set up of the landing doesn't get messed up by a sudden loss of altitude. The possible consequences of a spin, however, are still deadly.
UH
UH

jfitch

August 28th 12, 05:11 PM

I believe that thinking in terms of "what exact altitude do I stop thermalling" is bound to get you into trouble. Accidents seem always to be a chain of events, any link of which could have prevented the accident. They are rarely exclusively the cause of a single, sudden event. Focusing on a single event in an accident frequently ignores several other things that would have changed the outcome, even if the single event still occurred.

I think of safety in terms of my margin for error. This is affected by a great many things: first and foremost my appetite for risk, then in no obvious order pilot skill and currency, terrain, familiarity with terrain and aircraft, physical state of fitness at the moment, weather conditions, distracting concurrent events, mental state of mind, and many other factors.

I have picked my desired margin for error (it is higher than many pilots I know) and try to stay above it. If it is late in the day, turbulent, with terrain I will give up for landing very high. If I am fresh, have 5000 AGL, no other gliders around I might circle at 1 knot above stall/spin speed. These have a similar margin for error. Circling at 400 ft over a flat desert on a calm day has a greater margin for error than circling at 1500 ft in gusty conditions over terrain with two other gliders. A hard altitude number for circling is meaningless in isolation.

I have met pilots (who later died) who were skilled, but frequently flew with a very low margin for error. Most of the time they pulled it off, but one time, they didn't: the statistics of error probability exceeded the margin they allowed. I have met pilots (who later died) who were skilled, and even careful, but did not recognize the reduction in margin of error caused by some of their actions.

Of course most pilots instinctively or subconsciously try to balance the margin for error to some extent, and in any case it is not a number you can quantify. But if you think of it specifically as a quantity, and study even for a few moments what affects it, and keep it in mind as you fly, you are likely to change how you fly in some circumstances. Circling at 400 ft has already reduced your margin for error substantially in several dimensions. You can never predict or control all of the things that are going to happen: now even a slight distraction or small gust might exceed the margin you have allowed, and you become a statistic.

BobW

August 28th 12, 05:50 PM

On 8/27/2012 5:08 PM, wrote:
> On Monday, August 27, 2012 6:40:42 PM UTC-4, Ramy wrote:
>> ...<Intervening snip...>

My thoughts
>> exactly. we need the actual data to learn something from those accidents,
>> but it is almost never provided. We should have enough statistics to be
>> able to determine how low is too low to recover, so we can adjust our
>> threshold. This is what safety culture is all about. If we keep this info
>> to ourselves, no much can be learned. Ramy
>
> I do not agree. There is nothing new to learn from Jim's accident. People
> just keep repeating the same stupid stuff they know better than to do.

Below is an excerpt from a soaring book, copyright 1940. (The book is "Flight
Without Power" by Lewin B. Barringer. Note the U.S. distance record at the
time of writing wasn't even 500 km. What could glider pilots - who by today's
standards were rank beginners - POSSIBLY teach us experts today?)

From p. 180, 1942 edition...

"A common mistake of students making tight spirals is to pull back too hard on
the stick and either forget about the rudder or apply rudder on the downside.
The usual result is a sudden stall followed by a fast spin as the nose drops.
*It may sometimes take as much as 200 feet to recover, so it is obvious that a
beginner should never make steep turns at low altitude* (emphasis added)."

The last bit of the final sentence is worth repeating: "...so it is obvious
that a beginner should never make steep turns at low altitude."

Some points to ponder...

1) Barringer was writing about lightly wing-loaded (by today's standards)
utility gliders of lower than 2-22 performance. (How much altitude will *you*
require in the event of a low-altitude, inadvertent departure from controlled
flight, in your more heavily wing-loaded glider, at an altitude low enough to
already be raising your anxiety levels [and probably tend you toward
hastily-/anxiety-ridden, life-threateningly-urgent recovery motions]? We all
fly our best when anxious, right? I wonder if any of this year's dead pilots
ever even got the chance to implement recovery motions? If they did, obviously
it didn't matter.)

2) We've 72 subsequent years of evidence demonstrating Barringer's observation
shouldn't be limited to "a beginner". This year's North American record
tragically punctuates the point...

3) For those inclined to practice inadvertent departures from controlled
flight and rapid recoveries, once you've established your minimums (presumably
from practicing at a safe height agl), just to be certain you've got things
right, practice them in the landing pattern, "where you'll always have a
runway within reach." You survivors, let us know how things go; better yet,
YouTube things for the rest of us wimpoids. Meanwhile we'll be reading about
the non-survivors.
- - - - - -

Understand, I'm not arguing against spin practice, honing skills, learning
efficient "departure recovery" in lost-height-terms, or even against the
concept of establishing minimums. That's all great stuff. I think every
soaring pilot should actively practice such things every season.

But to lose sight of the fact that thin margin flying activity is necessarily
increased-danger flying activity, and, the fact the line between "recovery by
skill" and DEATH can never be firmly known beforehand or rigidly quantified,
is (arguably) to still have one's thinking inclined away from the unavoidable,
established by physics and Mother Nature (neither of which care one bit about
you or me or anyone else), risks of flight and *toward* continuing to push
one's limits, perhaps in areas where they should not be pushed.

So what new IS there to learn from all the low-altitude stall-spin deaths in
North America this soaring season? (This is not a rhetorical question.)

Is any of that knowledge guaranteed to prevent future such deaths?

Like practicing Russian roulette or playing on the freeway, there seem to be
some things that just aren't ever a good idea. (Ask survivors' family and
friends.)

How a person thinks, matters.

Bob W.

John Cochrane[_3_]

August 28th 12, 06:08 PM

One point not reiterated yet here -- the atmosphere down low is very
different from what you're used to at 2000 feet and above. It's easy
to say "I haven't unintentionally stalled /spun in a thermal in a
thousand hours. How much of a dope do you have to be?"

A short list of what's different down low: The atmosphere is much more
turbulent. Thermals, such as they are are much smaller. In this layer,
many small punchy thermals will start. Many will die. The ones we use
up higher consist of many little parcels of hot air that have
coalesced. Most thermals are either short lived, or basically
unworkable to a modern glider. You're in the boundary layer where wind
is being affected by the ground, so there is wind-induced turbulence.
Punches of strong lift/gust followed by sink when you make a half turn
will be the norm.

The ground picture will be totally different to the pilot. If you turn
downwind at altitude, you don't notice that much. If you turn downwind
at 300 feet, all of a sudden the ground will rush by and, this being a
high stress moment, you may pull back. Just as the gust you turned in
fades, or the thermal turns to sink. And when the canopy fills with
trees going by at 70 mph, the urge to pull back will be really strong.
You may push forward to recover at altitude, but it's really really
hard to do with the ground coming up fast.

So, just because you've never unintentionally spun at altitude does
not mean your chances at 300 feet are the same.

Not to raise a tired subject, but why we give out contest points for
thermaling at 300 feet or below remains a puzzling question to me.

John Cochrane

kirk.stant

August 28th 12, 06:16 PM

Bob, I'm not quite sure what your point is. In fact, you seem at first to suggest that practicing unusual attitude recoveries is a bad thing!

That flies completely in the face of all aviation safety training I've ever had. You have to know the beast and how to defeat it (or at least hold it at bay). If you are not practicing departure recoveries at a safe altitude, how the hell are you going to have any chance of recovering following an unplanned (aren't they all?) upset at low altitude, whether on the ridge or in the pattern.

But spin training in a Blanik, while fun, may be actually counterproductive if you fly high-performance glass. You have to train in your ship, or something very similar.

I agree that there is nothing new to learn - but the same old lesson has to be relearned and practiced - Plan for emergencies, practice how to cope with them, avoid situations that exceed your actual, current skill.

And painfully, learn from other's tragic mistakes - their loss may save you....

Kirk
66

Brian[_1_]

August 28th 12, 06:54 PM

On Tuesday, August 28, 2012 11:08:01 AM UTC-6, John Cochrane wrote:
<snip>
>
> So, just because you've never unintentionally spun at altitude does
>
> not mean your chances at 300 feet are the same.
>
<snip>
>
>
> John Cochrane

Excellent point John, and for the same reasons I think the spinning intentionally at altitude and being confident you can recover may provide a false sense of security when thermalling low. It just isn't the same when done done at 300 feet.

Brian

Brian[_1_]

August 28th 12, 07:05 PM

Jim was a bit above the sight line of the trees bordering the airport and I would estimate maybe 3/4 of a mile away. Based on this, I would estimate his altitude as being on the order of 300 feet or so. That the glider rotated only a portion of a turn before impact would support this estimate.
>
<snip>
>
> UH
>
Thanks UH,
That is the information that 99% of us were missing from this accident.

Would be nice to have some flight recorder evidence to confirm it if available, but understand it might not be available.
Would also be nice to have similar information about the other accidents.

Brian

Roel Baardman

August 28th 12, 07:20 PM

> And when the canopy fills with trees going by at 70 mph, the urge to pull back will be really strong.
> You may push forward to recover at altitude, but it's really really hard to do with the ground coming up fast.

This reminds me of personal aerobatic experience and being inverted at 45 deg nose down at 1000ft. The normal pushing and rolling then goes against
everything your gut tells you to do.

It also reminded me of this crash in the UK, by an aerobatic pilot who was obviously very familiar with spinning this particular glider (although not at
gusty weather I suspect):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxbulrrQVig

Roel

Bill D

August 28th 12, 07:33 PM

On Saturday, August 25, 2012 10:11:45 PM UTC-6, Jp Stewart wrote:
> From TA's Dansville contest write-up:
>
> "Unfortunately, we were also saddened to hear of yet another apparent stall-spin fatality; Jim Rizzo, Finger Lakes club president and FAA Designated Examiner for the area was killed when his glider crashed into a farmer’s field not far from the Dansville airport. Jim was not part of the contest and was just flying locally when the accident occurred. All we know is what the farmer said (and this is 3rd hand to me) that apparently Jim was trying to thermal away from a low altitude and spun in (sound familiar? – it should – this is the 3rd almost identical fatality this season here on the east coast)."
>
> http://soaringcafe.com/2012/08/day-6-at-dansville-region-3/
>
>
>
> JP

"She's not answering the helm, Capt'n" - departure from controlled flight. I think there was an article in some aviation publication with the above title. It holds the key to maintaining control.

If you look carefully at Bruno's video of the inadvertent, incipient spin, you will see a moment where the stick is moving progressively left even as the glider accelerates its roll to the right. That's the instant he departed from controlled flight - the glider was not 'answering' his aileron input.. It should set off all the alarms in your head as it did in his. For me, it's like an electric shock.

Bruno's recovery was not textbook but it worked extremely well. He unloaded the wing by moving the stick forward unstalling the wing and reentering the realm of controlled flight where his ailerons worked normally. Even his narration indicated he didn't apply opposite rudder in a timely manner as the text books call for. Actually, I think he did the right thing - first unload the wing then, after it unstalls, fly the glider normally.

So far, I like every single post in this thread. It's about avoiding accidents by flying well enough to avoid them. That's the secret to safety.

August 28th 12, 07:35 PM

On Monday, August 27, 2012 10:53:21 PM UTC-7, Ramy wrote:
> Tom, easy said than done. We all agree that circling too close to the ground is not a good idea, but there is no always a clear indication when it is too close. I don't know why many of you insist that there is nothing to learn from this accident without knowing the most important fact: how low was he circling?? If we find out it was 800 feet, will you go and claim that it is dumb to circle below 1000 feet? This is why we need to know the details, so we can make more informed conclusions.
>
>
>
> Ramy

Ramy,

I listened to one pilot explain how he is confiddent to thermal at an altitude of 100 ft: do you think that is high enough?

Minimum thermalling altitude would reasonably be high enough to recover (demonstrated) from a stall/spin plus (at least, triple that for lower time cross country pilots) a 200 ft safety margin. This is REALLY not that difficult to figure out.

Tom
2G

Jonathon May[_2_]

August 28th 12, 08:04 PM

At 18:35 28 August 2012, 2G wrote:
>On Monday, August 27, 2012 10:53:21 PM UTC-7, Ramy wrote:
>> Tom, easy said than done. We all agree that circling too close to the
>gro=
>und is not a good idea, but there is no always a clear indication when it

>=
>is too close. I don't know why many of you insist that there is nothing
to
>=
>learn from this accident without knowing the most important fact: how low
>w=
>as he circling?? If we find out it was 800 feet, will you go and claim
>that=
> it is dumb to circle below 1000 feet? This is why we need to know the
>deta=
>ils, so we can make more informed conclusions.
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> Ramy
>
>Ramy,
>
>I listened to one pilot explain how he is confiddent to thermal at an
>altit=
>ude of 100 ft: do you think that is high enough?
>
>Minimum thermalling altitude would reasonably be high enough to recover
>(de=
>monstrated) from a stall/spin plus (at least, triple that for lower time
>cr=
>oss country pilots) a 200 ft safety margin. This is REALLY not that
>difficu=
>lt to figure out.
>
>Tom
>2G
>This is so similar to the others that I can only say the same things ,was

there a situation in the cockpit we don't know. Insect bite,medical
problem,PDA fell off in the chop???
The only thing I know it is depressing me to keep loosing people from our
small community .
These days I fly a duo discus turbo and our rule is 1000ft AGL and the
engine
comes out or we set up a circuit into our chosen field.We don't fight
about it
but when the gear goes down you know your partner is making the point.
We are only a small voice but I would suggest changing the rules to the
affect
that if you are less than 600ft AGL that is your GPNS land out position
This
would mean there are no points to be gained from low scrapes.

noel.wade

August 28th 12, 08:20 PM

On Aug 27, 8:38*pm, 2G > wrote:
>
> Everybody likes to get back and tell their story about a low save; everybody OOHs and AWHs. Nobody says "You DUMB ****, YOU COULD HAVE KILLED YOURSELF!"

So in my first contest, there was a tough day trying to work our way
back uphill to higher terrain (and home). I ended up making 3 low
saves in a row, each only about 300' AGL. I could have soared out to
lower terrain if needed each time, but I was making thermalling turns
only a couple of hundred feet off the ground. When I got home, I was
chuffed that only Gary Ittner and I made it home (everyone else landed
out). Upon reviewing the traces it appears that he and I did
virtually the same thing, making low-save after low-save at almost
identical points on the route home (though I was 15-20 minutes behind
him).

Just a few weeks later I was at another contest, proudly relaying this
story to Tom Kelly ("711"). He basically said exactly the same thing
- that I was an idiot and could have killed myself quite easily, and
to get the hell away from him.

At first I was very hurt, and then I was really ****ed off. Wasn't
Gary a legend in the sport? Wasn't I "smart" to have figured this out
and emulated him (even if unintentionally)? Wasn't I skilled to have
pulled it off and gotten home? Here I was, a budding contest pilot,
doing well on a tough day and hanging (sorta) with one of the best
pilots around! Why the hell should I be raked over the coals for my
accomplishment??

Over time, I've come to the realization that Tom's attitude is a lot
closer to the right attitude. A lot of good, skilled, experienced
pilots do dumb things. Even if I am the hottest pilot in the universe
(breaking news: I'm not), it isn't always smart to mirror the behavior
of top pilots. Following someone else's lead into a trap is just
dumb. I'll admit that I still sometimes take moderate risks in my
contest flying; but I'm far more cognizant of them and I don't simply
use other pilots as a measuring-stick for safety or what's "right" to
do.

--Noel

Ramy

August 28th 12, 08:33 PM

On Tuesday, August 28, 2012 12:20:10 PM UTC-7, noel.wade wrote:
> On Aug 27, 8:38*pm, 2G > wrote:
>
> >
>
> > Everybody likes to get back and tell their story about a low save; everybody OOHs and AWHs. Nobody says "You DUMB ****, YOU COULD HAVE KILLED YOURSELF!"
>
>
>
> So in my first contest, there was a tough day trying to work our way
>
> back uphill to higher terrain (and home). I ended up making 3 low
>
> saves in a row, each only about 300' AGL. I could have soared out to
>
> lower terrain if needed each time, but I was making thermalling turns
>
> only a couple of hundred feet off the ground. When I got home, I was
>
> chuffed that only Gary Ittner and I made it home (everyone else landed
>
> out). Upon reviewing the traces it appears that he and I did
>
> virtually the same thing, making low-save after low-save at almost
>
> identical points on the route home (though I was 15-20 minutes behind
>
> him).
>
>
>
> Just a few weeks later I was at another contest, proudly relaying this
>
> story to Tom Kelly ("711"). He basically said exactly the same thing
>
> - that I was an idiot and could have killed myself quite easily, and
>
> to get the hell away from him.
>
>
>
> At first I was very hurt, and then I was really ****ed off. Wasn't
>
> Gary a legend in the sport? Wasn't I "smart" to have figured this out
>
> and emulated him (even if unintentionally)? Wasn't I skilled to have
>
> pulled it off and gotten home? Here I was, a budding contest pilot,
>
> doing well on a tough day and hanging (sorta) with one of the best
>
> pilots around! Why the hell should I be raked over the coals for my
>
> accomplishment??
>
>
>
> Over time, I've come to the realization that Tom's attitude is a lot
>
> closer to the right attitude. A lot of good, skilled, experienced
>
> pilots do dumb things. Even if I am the hottest pilot in the universe
>
> (breaking news: I'm not), it isn't always smart to mirror the behavior
>
> of top pilots. Following someone else's lead into a trap is just
>
> dumb. I'll admit that I still sometimes take moderate risks in my
>
> contest flying; but I'm far more cognizant of them and I don't simply
>
> use other pilots as a measuring-stick for safety or what's "right" to
>
> do.
>
>
>
> --Noel

This is exactly why those kind of discussions on RAS are so important. You will hear opinions that you will normally wouldn't hear elsewhere or face to face. I will definitely think twice next time before deciding to thermal below 500 ft AGL.
Sad news but great discussion.

Ramy

Brad[_2_]

August 28th 12, 08:41 PM

On Aug 28, 12:33*pm, Ramy > wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 28, 2012 12:20:10 PM UTC-7, noel.wade wrote:
> > On Aug 27, 8:38*pm, 2G > wrote:
>
> > > Everybody likes to get back and tell their story about a low save; everybody OOHs and AWHs. Nobody says "You DUMB ****, YOU COULD HAVE KILLED YOURSELF!"
>
> > So in my first contest, there was a tough day trying to work our way
>
> > back uphill to higher terrain (and home). *I ended up making 3 low
>
> > saves in a row, each only about 300' AGL. *I could have soared out to
>
> > lower terrain if needed each time, but I was making thermalling turns
>
> > only a couple of hundred feet off the ground. *When I got home, I was
>
> > chuffed that only Gary Ittner and I made it home (everyone else landed
>
> > out). *Upon reviewing the traces it appears that he and I did
>
> > virtually the same thing, making low-save after low-save at almost
>
> > identical points on the route home (though I was 15-20 minutes behind
>
> > him).
>
> > Just a few weeks later I was at another contest, proudly relaying this
>
> > story to Tom Kelly ("711"). *He basically said exactly the same thing
>
> > - that I was an idiot and could have killed myself quite easily, and
>
> > to get the hell away from him.
>
> > At first I was very hurt, and then I was really ****ed off. *Wasn't
>
> > Gary a legend in the sport? *Wasn't I "smart" to have figured this out
>
> > and emulated him (even if unintentionally)? *Wasn't I skilled to have
>
> > pulled it off and gotten home? *Here I was, a budding contest pilot,
>
> > doing well on a tough day and hanging (sorta) with one of the best
>
> > pilots around! *Why the hell should I be raked over the coals for my
>
> > accomplishment??
>
> > Over time, I've come to the realization that Tom's attitude is a lot
>
> > closer to the right attitude. *A lot of good, skilled, experienced
>
> > pilots do dumb things. *Even if I am the hottest pilot in the universe
>
> > (breaking news: I'm not), it isn't always smart to mirror the behavior
>
> > of top pilots. *Following someone else's lead into a trap is just
>
> > dumb. I'll admit that I still sometimes take moderate risks in my
>
> > contest flying; but I'm far more cognizant of them and I don't simply
>
> > use other pilots as a measuring-stick for safety or what's "right" to
>
> > do.
>
> > --Noel
>
> This is exactly why those kind of discussions on RAS are so important. You will hear opinions that you will normally wouldn't hear elsewhere or face to face. I will definitely think twice next time before deciding to thermal below 500 ft AGL.
> Sad news but great discussion.
>
> Ramy

I agree. John C's description of low altitude dynamics and perception
was an eye opener.

I have a hard deck limit on thermalling, but it is different dependent
on terrain.

Brad

[email protected]

August 28th 12, 10:13 PM

On Tuesday, August 28, 2012 10:16:31 AM UTC-7, kirk.stant wrote:

> Bob, I'm not quite sure what your point is. In fact, you seem at first to suggest that practicing unusual attitude recoveries is a bad thing!

I agree with Kirk. Just because practicing spin entry/recovery at altitude isn't identical to spin entry/recovery at 300' doesn't mean that practice at altitude isn't worthwhile - and it's definitely a lot easier on the nerves than practicing at 300'. There are other things we can do to try to become aware of the different atmospheric, geometric and mindset issues down low and under pressure, but the basic airmanship of knowing how your glider spins/recovers is a universal good in my estimation.

9B

Martin Gregorie[_5_]

August 28th 12, 10:35 PM

On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 12:33:36 -0700, Ramy wrote:

>
> This is exactly why those kind of discussions on RAS are so important.
> You will hear opinions that you will normally wouldn't hear elsewhere or
> face to face. I will definitely think twice next time before deciding to
> thermal below 500 ft AGL.
> Sad news but great discussion.
>
I think 500 ft is pretty much a minimum safety height. Here's a data
point for that. When an ASW-20 departs in a thermalling turn using zero
flap (position #3), if you react immediately its easy enough to be back
in level flight after a total of 90 degrees of rotation, but you will
have lost 300 ft and have around 80 kts on the clock.

FWIW I never set my LK8000/XCSoar safety height to less than 1000 ft.

--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

Brian[_1_]

August 28th 12, 10:39 PM

<snip>
> We are only a small voice but I would suggest changing the rules to the
> affect that if you are less than 600ft AGL that is your GPNS land out position
> This > would mean there are no points to be gained from low scrapes.

This is one of those good ideas that gets worse as you try to implement it.

The problem is how do you enforce it?
How does the pilot know if he is or was less than 600ft? If he doesn't know he has to assume he wasn't and keep racing?
Does coming in at 90kts at 500 ft and pulling up to 650 in a 10kt thermal disqualify you?
Does passing over a Ridge at 500 (or 300 or 200) feet disqualify you?

I don't think a rule will work, plus it only addresses contest flying. However I have gotton on the radio and told a pilot he was setting a bad example and it was time for him to land. We do need to do more of this and teach pilots to apply this kind of peer pressure.

Brian

jfitch

August 29th 12, 12:25 AM

On Tuesday, August 28, 2012 2:13:48 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 28, 2012 10:16:31 AM UTC-7, kirk.stant wrote:
>
>
>
> > Bob, I'm not quite sure what your point is. In fact, you seem at first to suggest that practicing unusual attitude recoveries is a bad thing!
>
>
>
> I agree with Kirk. Just because practicing spin entry/recovery at altitude isn't identical to spin entry/recovery at 300' doesn't mean that practice at altitude isn't worthwhile - and it's definitely a lot easier on the nerves than practicing at 300'. There are other things we can do to try to become aware of the different atmospheric, geometric and mindset issues down low and under pressure, but the basic airmanship of knowing how your glider spins/recovers is a universal good in my estimation.
>
>
>
> 9B

I'm pretty sure I don't understand this. Why not practice spins at 300 ft? If you thermal at 300 ft, either A) you are quite sure you will never spin at 300 ft or B), you think you can safely recover from 300 ft. spin. If (A) there is no need to practice spins at 300 or any other altitude. If B, then 300 ft spin practice is perfectly safe.

I think for most pilots, recovering from a spin initiated at 300 ft would scare the hell out of them. You should really not be intentionally putting yourself in a position where the hell can be scared out of you. If you are engaging in an activity that cannot be safely practiced, how then can it be safely done without practice?

Bill D

August 29th 12, 01:04 AM

On Saturday, August 25, 2012 10:11:45 PM UTC-6, Jp Stewart wrote:
> From TA's Dansville contest write-up:
>
> "Unfortunately, we were also saddened to hear of yet another apparent stall-spin fatality; Jim Rizzo, Finger Lakes club president and FAA Designated Examiner for the area was killed when his glider crashed into a farmer’s field not far from the Dansville airport. Jim was not part of the contest and was just flying locally when the accident occurred. All we know is what the farmer said (and this is 3rd hand to me) that apparently Jim was trying to thermal away from a low altitude and spun in (sound familiar? – it should – this is the 3rd almost identical fatality this season here on the east coast)."
>
> http://soaringcafe.com/2012/08/day-6-at-dansville-region-3/
>
>
>
> JP

Gliders don't ever "just spin" - pilots spin them. These accidents are not something which happens to pilots, they are something pilots do to themselves.

Practicing full spins at low altitude is stupid and deadly. If you want to practice how to avoid this kind of accident, practice incipient spins and recoveries - over and over. Learn to instinctively recognize the onset and to instinctively recover. Caught early, recoveries cost zero altitude. Look at Bruno's video again. How much altitude did it take for him to recover?

Tape some "pitch strings" to the sides of the canopy so you can see the angle off attack and how it slowly increases in slow flight until the glider stalls with the nose barely above the horizon then rudder a turn to see the real killer. Hauling the nose way above the horizon and kicking rudder is not how accidental spins start.

BobW

August 29th 12, 01:41 AM

On 8/28/2012 5:25 PM, jfitch wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 28, 2012 2:13:48 PM UTC-7,
> wrote:
>> On Tuesday, August 28, 2012 10:16:31 AM UTC-7, kirk.stant wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Bob, I'm not quite sure what your point is. In fact, you seem at first
>>> to suggest that practicing unusual attitude recoveries is a bad thing!
>>
>>
>>
>> I agree with Kirk. Just because practicing spin entry/recovery at
>> altitude isn't identical to spin entry/recovery at 300' doesn't mean that
>> practice at altitude isn't worthwhile - and it's definitely a lot easier
>> on the nerves than practicing at 300'. There are other things we can do
>> to try to become aware of the different atmospheric, geometric and
>> mindset issues down low and under pressure, but the basic airmanship of
>> knowing how your glider spins/recovers is a universal good in my
>> estimation.
>>
>>
>>
>> 9B
>
> I'm pretty sure I don't understand this. Why not practice spins at 300 ft?
> If you thermal at 300 ft, either A) you are quite sure you will never spin
> at 300 ft or B), you think you can safely recover from 300 ft. spin. If (A)
> there is no need to practice spins at 300 or any other altitude. If B, then
> 300 ft spin practice is perfectly safe.
>
> I think for most pilots, recovering from a spin initiated at 300 ft would
> scare the hell out of them. You should really not be intentionally putting
> yourself in a position where the hell can be scared out of you. If you are
> engaging in an activity that cannot be safely practiced, how then can it be
> safely done without practice?
>

Now *I'm* puzzled! :-)

Re-reading my earlier post, I can't find where I even *hinted* "practicing
unusual attitude recoveries is a bad thing!"

But since it was implicitly asked what my point was, I'll try and be succinct.
(Warning! There was more than one point.) In no particular order...
- skills practice is good;
- practicing some skills (e.g. departures from controlled flight at low
altitudes) is like practicing Russian roulette;
- skill won't help if your margins are too thin;
- certain margins (e.g. "safe spinning height") are inherently unquantifiable
if life-continuing precision is one's goal.

Bob - wimpoid - W.

August 29th 12, 01:47 AM

On Tuesday, August 28, 2012 12:33:37 PM UTC-7, Ramy wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 28, 2012 12:20:10 PM UTC-7, noel.wade wrote:
>
> > On Aug 27, 8:38*pm, 2G > wrote:
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Everybody likes to get back and tell their story about a low save; everybody OOHs and AWHs. Nobody says "You DUMB ****, YOU COULD HAVE KILLED YOURSELF!"
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > So in my first contest, there was a tough day trying to work our way
>
> >
>
> > back uphill to higher terrain (and home). I ended up making 3 low
>
> >
>
> > saves in a row, each only about 300' AGL. I could have soared out to
>
> >
>
> > lower terrain if needed each time, but I was making thermalling turns
>
> >
>
> > only a couple of hundred feet off the ground. When I got home, I was
>
> >
>
> > chuffed that only Gary Ittner and I made it home (everyone else landed
>
> >
>
> > out). Upon reviewing the traces it appears that he and I did
>
> >
>
> > virtually the same thing, making low-save after low-save at almost
>
> >
>
> > identical points on the route home (though I was 15-20 minutes behind
>
> >
>
> > him).
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Just a few weeks later I was at another contest, proudly relaying this
>
> >
>
> > story to Tom Kelly ("711"). He basically said exactly the same thing
>
> >
>
> > - that I was an idiot and could have killed myself quite easily, and
>
> >
>
> > to get the hell away from him.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > At first I was very hurt, and then I was really ****ed off. Wasn't
>
> >
>
> > Gary a legend in the sport? Wasn't I "smart" to have figured this out
>
> >
>
> > and emulated him (even if unintentionally)? Wasn't I skilled to have
>
> >
>
> > pulled it off and gotten home? Here I was, a budding contest pilot,
>
> >
>
> > doing well on a tough day and hanging (sorta) with one of the best
>
> >
>
> > pilots around! Why the hell should I be raked over the coals for my
>
> >
>
> > accomplishment??
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Over time, I've come to the realization that Tom's attitude is a lot
>
> >
>
> > closer to the right attitude. A lot of good, skilled, experienced
>
> >
>
> > pilots do dumb things. Even if I am the hottest pilot in the universe
>
> >
>
> > (breaking news: I'm not), it isn't always smart to mirror the behavior
>
> >
>
> > of top pilots. Following someone else's lead into a trap is just
>
> >
>
> > dumb. I'll admit that I still sometimes take moderate risks in my
>
> >
>
> > contest flying; but I'm far more cognizant of them and I don't simply
>
> >
>
> > use other pilots as a measuring-stick for safety or what's "right" to
>
> >
>
> > do.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > --Noel
>
>
>
> This is exactly why those kind of discussions on RAS are so important. You will hear opinions that you will normally wouldn't hear elsewhere or face to face. I will definitely think twice next time before deciding to thermal below 500 ft AGL.
>
> Sad news but great discussion.
>
>
>
> Ramy

THANK YOU for admitting you were wrong; I feel like I made some sort of impression. I feel that it will take this kind of CRITICAL self and group appraisal to have any serious impact on the current accident rate.

Frankly, the current approach by the Soaring Safety Foundation is completely ineffective: "There is no acceptable accident rate." What the hell does that mean and how can that mentality be used to reduce the accident rate? Then they categorize accidents by phase of flight (takeoff, in-flight, landing, etc.). Accidents are caused by pilots making DUMB DECISIONS (baring the relative few mechanical failures), pure and simple. WHY do pilots make dumb decisions? The possibilities are:
1. They freeze and stop flying the glider.
2. They don't want to land back and wait in line for a relight.
3. They don't want to go thru the hassle of a retrieve (and may not have anyone available to retrieve them).
4. They have never landed in a field and are afraid.
5. They are trying to win a contest.
6. They are trying to set a record.
7. They have some sort of commitment and must get back to the field.
8. They are tired and/or dehydrated and are not thinking properly.
9. They don't want to scratch their expensive glider.
10. They want to impress their fellow pilots.

I am sure there are others. Honestly, the first one is a killer and I don't have a solution for it; some people simply can't handle stress and shouldn't be pilots. One guy wrote two long articles in soaring describing exactly this reaction and was congratulated for being honest: nobody told him to take up a different sport!

The others can be dealt with. One day, I casually told another pilot in a little difficulty not to worry, I will come and get you if you land out (he didn't). The next day he sent me an email thanking me for that comment, and that it greatly reduced his stress level at the time.

The bottom line is we have to be openly critical of our fellow pilots who are making obviously dumb decisions. That may not have any effect, but it certainly won't if we remain silent.

Tom
2G

John Cochrane[_3_]

August 29th 12, 02:00 AM

On Aug 28, 4:39*pm, Brian > wrote:
> <snip>
>
> > We are only a small voice but I would suggest changing the rules to the
> > affect *that if you are less than 600ft AGL that is your GPNS land out position
> > This > would mean there are no points to be gained from low scrapes.
>
> This is one of those good ideas that gets worse as you try to implement it.

jack gilbert

August 29th 12, 02:18 AM

jack gilbert

August 29th 12, 02:22 AM

BobW

August 29th 12, 02:23 AM

On 8/28/2012 11:08 AM, John Cochrane wrote:
>
> One point not reiterated yet here -- the atmosphere down low is very
> different from what you're used to at 2000 feet and above.
<Snip...>

> A short list of what's different down low: The atmosphere is much more
> turbulent. Thermals, such as they are are much smaller. In this layer,
> many small punchy thermals will start. Many will die. The ones we use
> up higher consist of many little parcels of hot air that have
> coalesced. Most thermals are either short lived, or basically
> unworkable to a modern glider. You're in the boundary layer where wind
> is being affected by the ground, so there is wind-induced turbulence.
> Punches of strong lift/gust followed by sink when you make a half turn
> will be the norm.
>
> The ground picture will be totally different to the pilot. If you turn
> downwind at altitude, you don't notice that much. If you turn downwind
> at 300 feet, all of a sudden the ground will rush by and, this being a
> high stress moment, you may pull back. Just as the gust you turned in
> fades, or the thermal turns to sink. And when the canopy fills with
> trees going by at 70 mph, the urge to pull back will be really strong.
> You may push forward to recover at altitude, but it's really really
> hard to do with the ground coming up fast.
>
> So, just because you've never unintentionally spun at altitude does
> not mean your chances at 300 feet are the same.
<Snip...>

> John Cochrane

Science now can create movies & pictures of the accuracy/reality of what John
asserts above. Roughly 10 years ago I attended a presentation that included
LIDAR movies and pictures of thermals from ground to ~1500' agl. I expect
atmospheric imaging technology has significantly advanced since then.

Any "somewhat experienced" glider pilot would instantly recognize the 1,500'
images as being a thermal. However, in the absence of previous exposure to the
presentation, it required an explanation of what one was looking at, before
Joe Average Glider Pilot might recognize the rising air patterns from ground
level to the base of "a recognizable thermal" as being a coalescing thermal.
(For doubting-Thomas readers, there were multiple thermal examples, so we
weren't looking at the notorious "sample of one".)

Aficionados of tornado photographs might have a glimmer, because the closest
visual wavelength pictures I've seen that kinda-sorta mimic what the LIDAR
imagery showed, have been tornadoes with multitudes of thin, ropy,
mini-twisters feeding into the main funnel well above ground level.
Near-ground-level organization of some "multiple rope twister" photos I've
seen is scanty to non-existent. It doesn't take too much imagination to equate
"plenty of low-altitude garbage" I - and probably many RAS readers - have
tussled with striving for a low-altitude save, with what LIDAR and tornado
photos suggest (to me, anyway) isn't uncommon low-level thermal organization.
"Dynamic" is a pale descriptor of what goes on between ground level and the
agl level a modern sailplane can effectively use.

Unless your ship has the thermaling radius of an insect or a small bird, "what
John C. said" is likely to be in your low-level future. Is it worth betting
your life on?

For the record, the lowest I ever thermaled away from was 650' agl (Dalhart,
TX) on a day with 15-20 knot ground winds (not uncommon there). Yeah, right
above the launch airport. It took me 20 minutes and multiple low points, and
despite being both on vacation and on top of my game at the time, I was
sufficiently wrung out by the process that it also required some decompression
time once I'd established myself, before I could talk myself into heading out
on-course. The save was right after launching, when I was fresh.

Bob W.

Duster

August 29th 12, 02:43 AM

>RE: Bill D On Saturday
[i]
>...If you look carefully at Bruno's video of the inadvertent, incipient spin, you will see a moment where the stick is moving progressively left even as the glider accelerates its roll to the right. >That's the instant he departed from controlled flight - the glider was not 'answering' his aileron input. It should set off all the alarms in your head as it did in his. For me, it's like an electric >shock.
>Bruno's recovery was not textbook but it worked extremely well. He unloaded the wing by moving the stick forward unstalling the wing and reentering the realm of controlled flight where his >ailerons worked normally. Even his narration indicated he didn't apply opposite rudder in a timely manner as the text books call for. Actually, I think he did the right thing - first unload the wing >then, after it unstalls, fly the glider normally.

Bill makes several good points. However, Bruno's response to the
incipient right-hand spin as viewed on his tape (
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PpJA53LjarM&feature=relmfu ) and
narrated in his YouTube comments is not what happens. He does have the
stick biased to the left, but then after he enters the spin and his
reaction is to jam more opposite aileron in. Also, I do not see him
unload the wing and the stick never appears to move forward, at least
by much. His rudder input is what appears to unstall the glider. To
quote from his >70K viewed video. " I instinctively moved the stick
left after the wing dropped to the right and started spinning. It
didn't cause the spin entry because I did it after the spin started.
You are completely right though that I should have moved the stick
back to neutral or even into the turn. I thought I had at the time the
video proved I didn't. ï»¿ Can't argue with video. :) -Bruno"

Bill D

August 29th 12, 03:53 AM

On Tuesday, August 28, 2012 7:43:23 PM UTC-6, Duster wrote:
> >RE: Bill D On Saturday [in part]
>
>
>
> >...If you look carefully at Bruno's video of the inadvertent, incipient spin, you will see a moment where the stick is moving progressively left even as the glider accelerates its roll to the right. >That's the instant he departed from controlled flight - the glider was not 'answering' his aileron input. It should set off all the alarms in your head as it did in his. For me, it's like an electric >shock.
>
> >Bruno's recovery was not textbook but it worked extremely well. He unloaded the wing by moving the stick forward unstalling the wing and reentering the realm of controlled flight where his >ailerons worked normally. Even his narration indicated he didn't apply opposite rudder in a timely manner as the text books call for. Actually, I think he did the right thing - first unload the wing >then, after it unstalls, fly the glider normally.
>
>
>
> Bill makes several good points. However, Bruno's response to the
>
> incipient right-hand spin as viewed on his tape (
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PpJA53LjarM&feature=relmfu ) and
>
> narrated in his YouTube comments is not what happens. He does have the
>
> stick biased to the left, but then after he enters the spin and his
>
> reaction is to jam more opposite aileron in. Also, I do not see him
>
> unload the wing and the stick never appears to move forward, at least
>
> by much. His rudder input is what appears to unstall the glider. To
>
> quote from his >70K viewed video. " I instinctively moved the stick
>
> left after the wing dropped to the right and started spinning. It
>
> didn't cause the spin entry because I did it after the spin started.
>
> You are completely right though that I should have moved the stick
>
> back to neutral or even into the turn. I thought I had at the time the
>
> video proved I didn't. ï»¿ Can't argue with video. :) -Bruno"

The stick doesn't have to move forward much - 3/4 of an inch will do it. I thought I saw that much. The main thing is to "feel" the ailerons start "answering the helm" again - then add some airspeed and don't do it again.

[email protected]

August 29th 12, 04:26 AM

On Tuesday, August 28, 2012 8:53:10 PM UTC-6, Bill D wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 28, 2012 7:43:23 PM UTC-6, Duster wrote:
>
> > >RE: Bill D On Saturday [in part]
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > >...If you look carefully at Bruno's video of the inadvertent, incipient spin, you will see a moment where the stick is moving progressively left even as the glider accelerates its roll to the right. >That's the instant he departed from controlled flight - the glider was not 'answering' his aileron input. It should set off all the alarms in your head as it did in his. For me, it's like an electric >shock.
>
> >
>
> > >Bruno's recovery was not textbook but it worked extremely well. He unloaded the wing by moving the stick forward unstalling the wing and reentering the realm of controlled flight where his >ailerons worked normally. Even his narration indicated he didn't apply opposite rudder in a timely manner as the text books call for. Actually, I think he did the right thing - first unload the wing >then, after it unstalls, fly the glider normally.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Bill makes several good points. However, Bruno's response to the
>
> >
>
> > incipient right-hand spin as viewed on his tape (
>
> >
>
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PpJA53LjarM&feature=relmfu ) and
>
> >
>
> > narrated in his YouTube comments is not what happens. He does have the
>
> >
>
> > stick biased to the left, but then after he enters the spin and his
>
> >
>
> > reaction is to jam more opposite aileron in. Also, I do not see him
>
> >
>
> > unload the wing and the stick never appears to move forward, at least
>
> >
>
> > by much. His rudder input is what appears to unstall the glider. To
>
> >
>
> > quote from his >70K viewed video. " I instinctively moved the stick
>
> >
>
> > left after the wing dropped to the right and started spinning. It
>
> >
>
> > didn't cause the spin entry because I did it after the spin started.
>
> >
>
> > You are completely right though that I should have moved the stick
>
> >
>
> > back to neutral or even into the turn. I thought I had at the time the
>
> >
>
> > video proved I didn't. ï»¿ Can't argue with video. :) -Bruno"
>
>
>
> The stick doesn't have to move forward much - 3/4 of an inch will do it. I thought I saw that much. The main thing is to "feel" the ailerons start "answering the helm" again - then add some airspeed and don't do it again.

I am extremely saddened to hear of Jim's accident and passing. My heart goes out to his family and close friends. In the soaring community we all are close friends and family.

I don't have a clue what happened to Jim and still don't understand why ships will spin close to the ground when they don't normally up high - other than the new to me points made by John C.

My video that has been referenced before can be a good learning tool but there are some facts that need to be known. I was flying in an ASW-20BL that had some major known flight and stability issues. The ship would try to spin on me at least 10 times every flight while thermalling! As you can see in the video I was able to get out of it and still stay centered in the thermal. Spinning is always a surprise but I had actually gotten used to it.

PLEASE NOTE that what got me out of the spin was that I immediately and instinctively went into negative flap. I didn't have time to press the rudder before it was already out of the spin and recovering. Yes, I reactively moved the ailerons in the wrong direction because I instinctively didn't want to turn the way the ship was turning/entering into spin. I think if most unexpected spins were caught on video you would also see the reflexive pull of the stick in the wrong direction as the nose drops and aircraft dip to the side unexpectedly. It was the moving of the flaps to negative that would always get me out of the spin before I had time and presence of mind to do the 3 right things we are all taught with unloading the sailplane, opposite rudder and neutralizing the ailerons. I had trained myself to instantly throw the flaps forward as soon as the sailplane broke and you can see that little altitude was lost.

Please note that we fixed this particular 20's spin tendency with those crazy wonderful winglets and it never tried to spin on my again. I have not had a single spin either since getting a 27. My thoughts are with Jim and his loved ones and hope and pray we don't have any more of these terrible events.

Warm wishes,
Bruno - B4

[email protected]

August 29th 12, 05:34 AM

On Tuesday, August 28, 2012 8:26:37 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> My video that has been referenced before can be a good learning tool but
> there are some facts that need to be known. I was flying in an ASW-20BL
> that had some major known flight and stability issues. The ship would try
> to spin on me at least 10 times every flight while thermalling! As you can
> see in the video I was able to get out of it and still stay centered in the
> thermal. Spinning is always a surprise but I had actually gotten used to it.

Really? I believe I was one of the past owners of that ship, and it was the nicest handling glider I ever owned, and I never once had a problem with an inadvertent spin entry (I did do 90% of my flying with the 16.6M tips, though). What the heck did you guys do to it out in Utah? ;^)

Marc

[email protected]

August 29th 12, 08:07 AM

Le mercredi 29 août 2012 03:00:11 UTC+2, John Cochrane a écrit*:
> On Aug 28, 4:39*pm, Brian > wrote:
>

> It's easy technically. Add sua files that prescribe minimum MSL
>
> altitudes over the task area. RIdges and mountains stick out; areas
>
> near known ridge routes that need less than 500 feet can be
>
> specifically exempted. Then flight computers will tell you when you
>
> get close, and give an airspace intrusion noise when you've violated
>
> it.
>
>
> For most flatland sites a single MSL altitude will work over most of
>
> the contest area and it's easy.
>
[...]
>
>
>
> John Cochrane

Well, it's not that easy. I live in one of the flattest regions in Europe (there is even a song in French about "this flat land that is mine"), but only 50 miles out the ground has already risen 1000 ft. There are programs, of course, with relief maps that seem to be the answer. But when using See You, for example, to analyse a flight, I'm always made aware that these maps are still too inaccurate to really implement the proposed rule.

About low saves: we once had a relatively well known international competitor doing a speech about competition flights, and claiming he succeeded in thermaling away from treetop height with his big Nimbus. What he didn't tell on that occasion was that he'd crashed another Nimbus by trying to fly a 180° to land when failing to get his "turbo" started after a car launch with only 650 ft of rope (that story was published by one of his friends who was doing the same sort of thing: they both were touring Australia with their gliders). I think he was very lucky to be able to tell his story... but he certainly gave the wrong signal to his audience!

Peter Higgs

August 29th 12, 11:18 AM

Hi All, I think two things have not been mentioned about your practice
spins...

We have all tried spinning from S+L flight, even by quickly raising the
nose and maybe kicking in a bit of rudder, but have you tried replicating
the circumstances of the crash...
i.e. Entering a 45deg angle of bank orbit, reducing the speed, then
kicking in a boot-full of pro rudder. This is soooo much different to
the S+L entry.

The second point I would like to make is that several posts refer to flying
at the (IAS.) stall speed. This again is going to be different with the
wings at a banked angle... typically add 7 knotts at 45 deg and 16 knotts
at 60 deg AOB. (to take account of the increased G loading.) and make sure
it is your inner wing tip is doing that speed.

Pete

At 00:41 29 August 2012, BobW wrote:
>On 8/28/2012 5:25 PM, jfitch wrote:
>> On Tuesday, August 28, 2012 2:13:48 PM UTC-7,
>> wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, August 28, 2012 10:16:31 AM UTC-7, kirk.stant wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Bob, I'm not quite sure what your point is. In fact, you seem at
first
>>>> to suggest that practicing unusual attitude recoveries is a bad
thing!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I agree with Kirk. Just because practicing spin entry/recovery at
>>> altitude isn't identical to spin entry/recovery at 300' doesn't mean
>that
>>> practice at altitude isn't worthwhile - and it's definitely a lot
easier
>>> on the nerves than practicing at 300'. There are other things we can
do
>>> to try to become aware of the different atmospheric, geometric and
>>> mindset issues down low and under pressure, but the basic airmanship
of
>>> knowing how your glider spins/recovers is a universal good in my
>>> estimation.
>>>
>>>

kirk.stant

August 29th 12, 01:28 PM

On Tuesday, August 28, 2012 6:25:32 PM UTC-5, jfitch wrote:

> I think for most pilots, recovering from a spin initiated at 300 ft would scare the hell out of them. You should really not be intentionally putting yourself in a position where the hell can be scared out of you. If you are engaging in an activity that cannot be safely practiced, how then can it be safely done without practice?

The point of practicing recognition and recovery from departures (incipient spins) at altitude is to learn to recognize the symptoms and the immediate recovery procedures that apply to your glider. If you never really slow your glider down and actually recover - or not - from a departure, then your minimum altitude had better include enough to learn - which is probably a lot more than 1000'!

This is similar to the fiasco the FAA in the US went through with twin-engine VMC training long ago (60s?): FAA required single engine VMC demonstration at low altitude, and of course lost a bunch due to loss of control too low to recover. Dumb and totally unnecessary, of course, and was quickly changed to allow the demonstration at a high enough altitude to allow recovery if VMC became spin recovery. But the training for control at VMC is still required.

(VMC: minimum controllable speed on one engine - below that you run out of rudder & aileron to maintain control and depart into a spin, aggravated by the good engine running at full power - not fun at any altitude but deadly down low.)

Kirk

kirk.stant

August 29th 12, 01:30 PM

OK, I guess my reading skills were not functioning very well when I read your first post (need more practice at altitude). We pretty much agree.

On Tuesday, August 28, 2012 7:41:20 PM UTC-5, BobW wrote:

> Re-reading my earlier post, I can't find where I even *hinted* "practicing
>
> unusual attitude recoveries is a bad thing!"
>
>
>
> But since it was implicitly asked what my point was, I'll try and be succinct.
>
> (Warning! There was more than one point.) In no particular order...
>
> - skills practice is good;
>
> - practicing some skills (e.g. departures from controlled flight at low
>
> altitudes) is like practicing Russian roulette;
>
> - skill won't help if your margins are too thin;
>
> - certain margins (e.g. "safe spinning height") are inherently unquantifiable
>
> if life-continuing precision is one's goal.
>
>
>
> Bob - wimpoid - W.

[email protected]

August 29th 12, 01:51 PM

On Tuesday, August 28, 2012 9:22:58 PM UTC-4, jack gilbert wrote:
> On Sunday, August 26, 2012 12:11:45 AM UTC-4, Jp Stewart wrote: > From TA's Dansville contest write-up: > > "Unfortunately, we were also saddened to hear of yet another apparent stall-spin fatality; Jim Rizzo, Finger Lakes club president and FAA Designated Examiner for the area was killed when his glider crashed into a farmer’s field not far from the Dansville airport. Jim was not part of the contest and was just flying locally when the accident occurred. All we know is what the farmer said (and this is 3rd hand to me) that apparently Jim was trying to thermal away from a low altitude and spun in (sound familiar? – it should – this is the 3rd almost identical fatality this season here on the east coast)." > > http://soaringcafe.com/2012/08/day-6-at-dansville-region-3/ > > > > JP You all seem to "assume" that Jim was intentionally trying to execute controlled flight at a low altitude. He may,.... have experienced an extreme crisis, ie heart attack. JG

The issue of pilot incapacitation is part of this investigation. This is an appropriate part of any investigation.
That said, the sailplane was seen circling over one corner of the field, then shifted to another corner where it started to circle and subsequently departed from controlled flight.
This based upon 2 eyewitness accounts that I heard reported.
If I were in crisis, I wouldn't be circling, I'd be trying to land right now.
My personal impression, with information available at this time, leads me to believe this is a judgement error, possibly contributed to by dehydration..
It is common after accidents for people to think "he was too good a pilot to make such a mistake- it must be medical. None of us are that good so we must fly in ways that reduce the consequences of our mistakes.
Again FWIW
UH

Tim Hanke

August 29th 12, 03:23 PM

On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 8:51:37 AM UTC-4, (unknown) wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 28, 2012 9:22:58 PM UTC-4, jack gilbert wrote: > On Sunday, August 26, 2012 12:11:45 AM UTC-4, Jp Stewart wrote: > From TA's Dansville contest write-up: > > "Unfortunately, we were also saddened to hear of yet another apparent stall-spin fatality; Jim Rizzo, Finger Lakes club president and FAA Designated Examiner for the area was killed when his glider crashed into a farmer’s field not far from the Dansville airport. Jim was not part of the contest and was just flying locally when the accident occurred. All we know is what the farmer said (and this is 3rd hand to me) that apparently Jim was trying to thermal away from a low altitude and spun in (sound familiar? – it should – this is the 3rd almost identical fatality this season here on the east coast)." > > http://soaringcafe.com/2012/08/day-6-at-dansville-region-3/ > > > > JP You all seem to "assume" that Jim was intentionally trying to execute controlled flight at a low altitude. He may,.... have experienced an extreme crisis, ie heart attack. JG The issue of pilot incapacitation is part of this investigation. This is an appropriate part of any investigation. That said, the sailplane was seen circling over one corner of the field, then shifted to another corner where it started to circle and subsequently departed from controlled flight. This based upon 2 eyewitness accounts that I heard reported. If I were in crisis, I wouldn't be circling, I'd be trying to land right now. My personal impression, with information available at this time, leads me to believe this is a judgement error, possibly contributed to by dehydration. It is common after accidents for people to think "he was too good a pilot to make such a mistake- it must be medical. None of us are that good so we must fly in ways that reduce the consequences of our mistakes. Again FWIW UH

I have flown with Jim for the last 15+ years. He was a CFIG that taught spin training in the Blanik l-13's and now in their L-13AC. Jim was what I would say is a conservative pilot. It is my understanding from others that he did not take water with him on the flight. It was a hot day and not sure if his judgement may have been alterted due to dehydration. I think it would be a good thing also to wait and see if the medical findings show any heart issues. Too me the spin is not cut and dry. Is their a dehydration issue? Medical issue? What would make him thermal so low at 3.5 hours into a local flight?

Tim Hanke H1

Bob Whelan[_3_]

August 29th 12, 06:28 PM

On 8/29/2012 8:23 AM, Tim Hanke wrote:

>> On Tuesday, August 28, 2012 9:22:58 PM UTC-4, jack gilbert wrote:

>> You all seem to "assume" that Jim was intentionally trying to execute
>> controlled flight at a low altitude. He may,.... have experienced an
>> extreme crisis, ie heart attack. JG

>
> I have flown with Jim for the last 15+ years. He was a CFIG that taught
> spin training in the Blanik l-13's and now in their L-13AC. Jim was what I
> would say is a conservative pilot. It is my understanding from others that
> he did not take water with him on the flight. It was a hot day and not sure
> if his judgement may have been alterted due to dehydration. I think it
> would be a good thing also to wait and see if the medical findings show any
> heart issues. Too me the spin is not cut and dry. Is their a dehydration
> issue? Medical issue? What would make him thermal so low at 3.5 hours into
> a local flight?
>
> Tim Hanke H1
>

My heart goes out to all of Jim's family and friends; the soaring community is
a small, close-knit one. Each accidental death hurts in everyone's heart.
Talking about it can be a coping mechanism for some...it certainly is for me.

I can't speak for other previous contributors to this thread, but speaking for
myself I readily admit the circumstances of this particular accident may
always have very real uncertainty in my mind as to contributing factors.
(That's a common thing...)

That said, I've long tried to look at others' misfortunes by way of extracting
something(s) usefully life-enhancing for my own flying. That requires making
"working conclusions" based upon (sometimes) hidden assumptions, in the face
of uncertain facts.

Over the years I think I've encountered some "fairly well documented" glider
fatalities that did indeed involve medical incapacitation. It's always possible.

I've also encountered a whole lot more "apparent departures from controlled
flight too low for survivable reactions" that DON'T seem to have any obvious
medical connections (e.g. stroke, heart attack), to make me willing to hang my
hat on survivability always being " medically based." For me, ignoring the
many accidents that (also seem to) include intentional
risk-taking/margin-thinning just seems imprudent. Maybe that's just me. In any
event, *that's* where I've been coming from in this thread. We seem to have
a(nother) low-altitude departure from controlled flight in this instance. Why?
I don't know. We may never know with certainty. Certainly Jim Rizzo could have
made some fatally-flawed decisions. If he did, it doesn't make him a bad human
being or in any way change who he was, and from comments shared in this
thread, he seems to have been a decent, helpful person indeed...someone I
would have felt privileged to know. But given the historical litany of such
(low-altitude departure from controlled flight) fatal accidents, and given
this year's North American record of such accidents, to NOT discuss them as a
fact of aviation life might arguably be tantamount to sweeping potential
realities under the rug.

FWIW, having most of my gliding PIC experience in the
(low-humidity/sunny/evaporatively-cooling) intermountain west, I've no doubt
dehydration is: a) insidious (at multiple levels); b) potentially
life-threatening (again, at multiple levels, e.g. physiologically *and*
judgmentally); and c) easily possible for any glider pilot (and perhaps more
likely for an instructing pilot who typically must talk [respire more] a lot).

It should be no surprise to conclude dehydration-related accidents HAVE
happened. (Ref: Paul Schweizer's near-fatal committed-to-the-landing-pattern
crash in a Texas 1-26 Championships, easily found by researching the online
"Soaring" magazine files. Useful lessons therein...)

My guess is every contributor to this thread is coming from the perspective of
"trying to extract useful-to-them lessons" from Jim Rizzo's tragic accident,
and maybe (from the more experienced types, e.g. UH, John C.) to help "spread
the word about the "what's and why's" inherent to the risks of intentionally
attempting "low-altitude-saves." If it's necessary, I apologize for any
inadvertent pain occasioned by my contributions.

Sadly,

Bob W.

Bob Whelan[_3_]

August 30th 12, 02:18 AM

On 8/28/2012 7:23 PM, BobW wrote:
> On 8/28/2012 11:08 AM, John Cochrane wrote:
>>
>> One point not reiterated yet here -- the atmosphere down low is very
>> different from what you're used to at 2000 feet and above.
> <Snip...>
>
>> A short list of what's different down low: The atmosphere is much more
>> turbulent. Thermals, such as they are are much smaller. In this layer,
>> many small punchy thermals will start. Many will die. The ones we use
>> up higher consist of many little parcels of hot air that have
>> coalesced. Most thermals are either short lived, or basically
>> unworkable to a modern glider. You're in the boundary layer where wind
>> is being affected by the ground, so there is wind-induced turbulence.
>> Punches of strong lift/gust followed by sink when you make a half turn
>> will be the norm.
>>
>> The ground picture will be totally different to the pilot. If you turn
>> downwind at altitude, you don't notice that much. If you turn downwind
>> at 300 feet, all of a sudden the ground will rush by and, this being a
>> high stress moment, you may pull back. Just as the gust you turned in
>> fades, or the thermal turns to sink. And when the canopy fills with
>> trees going by at 70 mph, the urge to pull back will be really strong.
>> You may push forward to recover at altitude, but it's really really
>> hard to do with the ground coming up fast.
>>
>> So, just because you've never unintentionally spun at altitude does
>> not mean your chances at 300 feet are the same.
> <Snip...>
>
>> John Cochrane
>
> Science now can create movies & pictures of the accuracy/reality of what John
> asserts above. Roughly 10 years ago I attended a presentation that included
> LIDAR movies and pictures of thermals from ground to ~1500' agl. I expect
> atmospheric imaging technology has significantly advanced since then.

Apologizing for "replying" to my own post, below is an announcement for a
recent presentation - using the latest in real-time imaging technology - that
woulda likely been of interest to any soaring pilot interested in visualizing
and flying in wave conditions. Wish I coulda attended. Undoubtedly the dynamic
imagery woulda been compelling stuff...

Though written somewhat in "scientific-ese language," a not terribly
inaccurate synopsis (for you Twitter fans) might be: Dynamic wave-n-rotor
radar movies show why the wind blows hard in different directions in Wyoming.

Sorry, no links available...

<Begin cut-n-insert...>
For those science inclined members here is an interesting talk coming up:

Announcement will run from Wed, 08/15/2012 to Tue, 08/28/2012
Stefano Serafin and Lukas Strauss
Department of Meteorology and Geophysics, University of Vienna

On January 26th 2006, the University of Wyoming King Aircraft (UWKA)
documented the occurrence of a wave-induced boundary-layer separation (BLS)
event in the lee of the Medicine Bow Range (Wyoming). Remote sensing
measurements with the dual-Doppler Wyoming Cloud Radar (WCR) aboard UWKA
indicate strong wave activity, downslope winds in excess of 30 m/s within 200
m above the ground and near-surface flow reversal in the lee of the mountain
range. Owing to its fine resolution, the radar is also able to capture
small-scale coherent vortical structures (subrotors) embedded within the main
rotor zone.

A distinctive feature of the observed phenomenon is its unsteadiness, as
demonstrated by the BLS line moving upstream for about 8 km in approximately
half an hour. Mesoscale simulations with the WRF model at a maximum horizontal
grid spacing of 400 m reveal the dynamic forcing leading to this rapid
evolution. The upstream motion of the BLS line and of the related rotor appear
to depend on the decreasing nonlinearity of the impinging flow, which causes
the transition from a flow regime characterized by low-level wave breaking, to
another one where trapped lee waves form as a consequence of wave reflection
at an elevated neutral level. The observed upstream drift of the rotor is
shown to be dynamically consistent with the cessation of wave breaking. The
overall evolution of the phenomenon displays striking analogies with
documented unsteady Bora events, observed in the Northern Adriatic Sea.

Model simulations are verified against airborne measurements along a number of
cross-mountain flight legs, as well as against surface data. Also, a
quantification of turbulence intensity in this BLS event, using both
high-frequency in situ and radar measurements, is attempted. Given the complex
topography and the limited period of time of the observations, measuring
turbulence proves to be a challenging task. Preliminary estimates of turbulent
kinetic energy and eddy-dissipation rate along the flight trajectory will be
presented.

Tuesday August 28, 2012, 2:00 PM – 3:00PM
<End cut-n-insert...>

Duster

August 30th 12, 07:33 PM

On Aug 28, 10:26Â*pm, wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 28, 2012 8:53:10 PM UTC-6, Bill D wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 28, 2012 7:43:23 PM UTC-6, Duster wrote:
>
> > > >RE: Bill D Â* Â*On Saturday [in part]
>
> > > >...If you look carefully at Bruno's video of the inadvertent, incipient spin, you will see a moment where the stick is moving progressively left even as the glider accelerates its roll to the right. >That's the instant he departed from controlled flight - the glider was not 'answering' his aileron input. It should set off all the alarms in your head as it did in his.. Â*For me, it's like an electric >shock.
>
> > > >Bruno's recovery was not textbook but it worked extremely well. Â*He unloaded the wing by moving the stick forward unstalling the wing and reentering the realm of controlled flight where his >ailerons worked normally. Â*Even his narration indicated he didn't apply opposite rudder in a timely manner as the text books call for. Â*Actually, I think he did the right thing - first unload the wing >then, after it unstalls, fly the glider normally.
>
> > > Bill makes several good points. However, Bruno's response to the
>
> > > incipient right-hand spin as viewed on his tape (
>
> > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PpJA53LjarM&feature=relmfu) and
>
> > > narrated in his YouTube comments is not what happens. He does have the
>
> > > stick biased to the left, but then after he enters the spin and his
>
> > > reaction is to jam more opposite aileron in. Also, I do not see him
>
> > > unload the wing and the stick never appears to move forward, at least
>
> > > by much. His rudder input is what appears to unstall the glider. To
>
> > > quote from his >70K viewed video. " I instinctively moved the stick
>
> > > left after the wing dropped to the right and started spinning. It
>
> > > didn't cause the spin entry because I did it after the spin started.
>
> > > You are completely right though that I should have moved the stick
>
> > > back to neutral or even into the turn. I thought I had at the time the
>
> > > video proved I didn't. ï»¿ Can't argue with video. :) -Bruno"
>
> > The stick doesn't have to move forward much - 3/4 of an inch will do it.. Â*I thought I saw that much. Â*The main thing is to "feel" the ailerons start "answering the helm" again - then add some airspeed and don't do it again.
>
> I am extremely saddened to hear of Jim's accident and passing. My heart goes out to his family and close friends. In the soaring community we all are close friends and family.
>
> I don't have a clue what happened to Jim and still don't understand why ships will spin close to the ground when they don't normally up high - other than the new to me points made by John C.
>
> My video that has been referenced before can be a good learning tool but there are some facts that need to be known. Â*I was flying in an ASW-20BL that had some major known flight and stability issues. Â*The ship would try to spin on me at least 10 times every flight while thermalling! As you can see in the video I was able to get out of it and still stay centered in the thermal. Spinning is always a surprise but I had actually gotten used to it.
>
> PLEASE NOTE that what got me out of the spin was that I immediately and instinctively went into negative flap. I didn't have time to press the rudder before it was already out of the spin and recovering. Yes, I reactively moved the ailerons in the wrong direction because I instinctively didn't want to turn the way the ship was turning/entering into spin. I think if most unexpected spins were caught on video you would also see the reflexive pull of the stick in the wrong direction as the nose drops and aircraft dip to the side unexpectedly. It was the moving of the flaps to negative that would always get me out of the spin before I had time and presence of mind to do the 3 right things we are all taught with unloading the sailplane, opposite rudder and neutralizing the ailerons. I had trained myself to instantly throw the flaps forward as soon as the sailplane broke and you can see that little altitude was lost.
>
> Please note that we fixed this particular 20's spin tendency with those crazy wonderful winglets and it never tried to spin on my again. Â*I have not had a single spin either since getting a 27. My thoughts are with Jim and his loved ones and hope and pray we don't have any more of these terrible events.
>
> Warm wishes,
> Bruno - B4- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Since we have Bruno's video and comments for a "real-life" spin
(albeit at altitude), it looks like he was successful in getting out
of the spin solely by moving flaps either from positive to negative,
or from neutral to negative (you can see the flap handle position; are
they positive before the spin?). From what I gather, no opposite
rudder was inititated and he even went more opposite aileron after the
spin begins. What impresses me is that once the spin was recognized,
there was no hesitation in immediately reaching for the flap handle.
Why? Like he said, it was the most effective control input for
recovery based on his experience. I will try this in my own flap-only
ship to see if it works; however at low altitude I'm not inclined to
dump my flaps as the ship would settle and the stall speed goes up. My
question is on the ASW-20, which I've never flown, aren't the flaps
and ailerons interconnected to increase effectiveness? So, as the
flaps go to negative, lift decreases, correct?, but aileron
effectiveness becomes less also, right? Doesn't this effectively help
neutralize aileron effectiveness w/o moving the ailerons, yet be
sufficient to unspin it? Would the same technique be used at a more
critical altitude? Bruno's obviously a skilled pilot who knows his
ship; he even had the presence of mind to keep turning in the thermal.
I wish the Soaring Safety Foundation would consider archiving white
papers on flying characteristics of the different glider models, as
one recipe doesn't fit them all. A lot of good stuff gets lost in the
blogosphere. Gliderpedia anyone?
..
One lesson I learned from a master CFIG (Burt Compton) during a
simulated rope break was to avoid looking immediately back at the
airport. His point was that some stall-spins might be due to pilots
inadvertently pulling the stick back as they pivot their heads around.

Evan Ludeman[_4_]

August 30th 12, 08:58 PM

On Aug 30, 2:33Â*pm, Duster > wrote:
> On Aug 28, 10:26Â*pm, wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Tuesday, August 28, 2012 8:53:10 PM UTC-6, Bill D wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, August 28, 2012 7:43:23 PM UTC-6, Duster wrote:
>
> > > > >RE: Bill D Â* Â*On Saturday [in part]
>
> > > > >...If you look carefully at Bruno's video of the inadvertent, incipient spin, you will see a moment where the stick is moving progressively left even as the glider accelerates its roll to the right. >That's the instant he departed from controlled flight - the glider was not 'answering' his aileron input. It should set off all the alarms in your head as it did in his. Â*For me, it's like an electric >shock.
>
> > > > >Bruno's recovery was not textbook but it worked extremely well. Â*He unloaded the wing by moving the stick forward unstalling the wing and reentering the realm of controlled flight where his >ailerons worked normally. Â*Even his narration indicated he didn't apply opposite rudder in a timely manner as the text books call for. Â*Actually, I think he did the right thing - first unload the wing >then, after it unstalls, fly the glider normally.
>
> > > > Bill makes several good points. However, Bruno's response to the
>
> > > > incipient right-hand spin as viewed on his tape (
>
> > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PpJA53LjarM&feature=relmfu) and
>
> > > > narrated in his YouTube comments is not what happens. He does have the
>
> > > > stick biased to the left, but then after he enters the spin and his
>
> > > > reaction is to jam more opposite aileron in. Also, I do not see him
>
> > > > unload the wing and the stick never appears to move forward, at least
>
> > > > by much. His rudder input is what appears to unstall the glider. To
>
> > > > quote from his >70K viewed video. " I instinctively moved the stick
>
> > > > left after the wing dropped to the right and started spinning. It
>
> > > > didn't cause the spin entry because I did it after the spin started..
>
> > > > You are completely right though that I should have moved the stick
>
> > > > back to neutral or even into the turn. I thought I had at the time the
>
> > > > video proved I didn't. ï»¿ Can't argue with video. :) -Bruno"
>
> > > The stick doesn't have to move forward much - 3/4 of an inch will do it. Â*I thought I saw that much. Â*The main thing is to "feel" the ailerons start "answering the helm" again - then add some airspeed and don't do it again.
>
> > I am extremely saddened to hear of Jim's accident and passing. My heart goes out to his family and close friends. In the soaring community we all are close friends and family.
>
> > I don't have a clue what happened to Jim and still don't understand why ships will spin close to the ground when they don't normally up high - other than the new to me points made by John C.
>
> > My video that has been referenced before can be a good learning tool but there are some facts that need to be known. Â*I was flying in an ASW-20BL that had some major known flight and stability issues. Â*The ship would try to spin on me at least 10 times every flight while thermalling! As you can see in the video I was able to get out of it and still stay centered in the thermal. Spinning is always a surprise but I had actually gotten used to it.
>
> > PLEASE NOTE that what got me out of the spin was that I immediately and instinctively went into negative flap. I didn't have time to press the rudder before it was already out of the spin and recovering. Yes, I reactively moved the ailerons in the wrong direction because I instinctively didn't want to turn the way the ship was turning/entering into spin. I think if most unexpected spins were caught on video you would also see the reflexive pull of the stick in the wrong direction as the nose drops and aircraft dip to the side unexpectedly. It was the moving of the flaps to negative that would always get me out of the spin before I had time and presence of mind to do the 3 right things we are all taught with unloading the sailplane, opposite rudder and neutralizing the ailerons. I had trained myself to instantly throw the flaps forward as soon as the sailplane broke and you can see that little altitude was lost.
>
> > Please note that we fixed this particular 20's spin tendency with those crazy wonderful winglets and it never tried to spin on my again. Â*I have not had a single spin either since getting a 27. My thoughts are with Jim and his loved ones and hope and pray we don't have any more of these terrible events.
>
> > Warm wishes,
> > Bruno - B4- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Since we have Bruno's video and comments for a "real-life" spin
> (albeit at altitude), it looks like he was successful in getting out
> of the spin solely by moving flaps either from positive to negative,
> or from neutral to negative (you can see the flap handle position; are
> they positive before the spin?). From what I gather, no opposite
> rudder was inititated and he even went more opposite aileron after the
> spin begins. What impresses me is that once the spin was recognized,
> there was no hesitation in immediately reaching for the flap handle.
> Why? Like he said, it was the most effective control input for
> recovery based on his experience. I will try this in my own flap-only
> ship to see if it works; however at low altitude I'm not inclined to
> dump my flaps as the ship would settle and the stall speed goes up. My
> question is on the ASW-20, which I've never flown, aren't the flaps
> and ailerons interconnected to increase effectiveness? So, as the
> flaps go to negative, lift decreases, correct?, but aileron
> effectiveness becomes less also, right? Doesn't this effectively help
> neutralize aileron effectiveness w/o moving the ailerons, yet be
> sufficient to unspin it? Would the same technique be used at a more
> critical altitude? Bruno's obviously a skilled pilot who knows his
> ship; he even had the presence of mind to keep turning in the thermal.
> I wish the Soaring Safety Foundation would consider archiving white
> papers on flying characteristics of the different glider models, as
> one recipe doesn't fit them all. A lot of good stuff gets lost in the
> blogosphere. Gliderpedia anyone?
> .
> One lesson I learned from a master CFIG (Burt Compton) during a
> simulated rope break was to avoid looking immediately back at the
> airport. His point was that some stall-spins might be due to pilots
> inadvertently pulling the stick back as they pivot their heads around.

On a correctly rigged (i.e. control surface rigging) & sealed ASW20B
with CG in the right place, it is absolutely not necessary or
desirable to change flap settings to initiate recovery. It's a simple
matter of unload, neutral aileron, opposite rudder and fly away.
FWIW, I fly my ship with M&H winglets and the CG about 90% aft.
Different wing tips and CG location will give some difference in
departure and recovery characteristics. Bruno's ship most likely had
some error of rigging, sealing or CG location. My $0.02. My ship has
*never* departed like that. To get it to depart at all takes either a
hellish gust or significant pilot abuse. But anyhow, let's not hijack
this thread.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

[email protected]

August 30th 12, 09:13 PM

On Thursday, August 30, 2012 2:33:30 PM UTC-4, Duster wrote:
> On Aug 28, 10:26Â*pm, wrote: > On Tuesday, August 28, 2012 8:53:10 PM UTC-6, Bill D wrote: > > On Tuesday, August 28, 2012 7:43:23 PM UTC-6, Duster wrote: > > > > >RE: Bill D Â* Â*On Saturday [in part] > > > > >...If you look carefully at Bruno's video of the inadvertent, incipient spin, you will see a moment where the stick is moving progressively left even as the glider accelerates its roll to the right. >That's the instant he departed from controlled flight - the glider was not 'answering' his aileron input. It should set off all the alarms in your head as it did in his. Â*For me, it's like an electric >shock. > > > > >Bruno's recovery was not textbook but it worked extremely well. Â*He unloaded the wing by moving the stick forward unstalling the wing and reentering the realm of controlled flight where his >ailerons worked normally. Â*Even his narration indicated he didn't apply opposite rudder in a timely manner as the text books call for. Â*Actually, I think he did the right thing - first unload the wing >then, after it unstalls, fly the glider normally. > > > > Bill makes several good points. However, Bruno's response to the > > > > incipient right-hand spin as viewed on his tape ( > > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PpJA53LjarM&feature=relmfu) and > > > > narrated in his YouTube comments is not what happens. He does have the > > > > stick biased to the left, but then after he enters the spin and his > > > > reaction is to jam more opposite aileron in. Also, I do not see him > > > > unload the wing and the stick never appears to move forward, at least > > > > by much. His rudder input is what appears to unstall the glider. To > > > > quote from his >70K viewed video. " I instinctively moved the stick > > > > left after the wing dropped to the right and started spinning. It > > > > didn't cause the spin entry because I did it after the spin started. > > > > You are completely right though that I should have moved the stick > > > > back to neutral or even into the turn. I thought I had at the time the > > > > video proved I didn't. ï»¿ Can't argue with video. :) -Bruno" > > > The stick doesn't have to move forward much - 3/4 of an inch will do it. Â*I thought I saw that much. Â*The main thing is to "feel" the ailerons start "answering the helm" again - then add some airspeed and don't do it again. > > I am extremely saddened to hear of Jim's accident and passing. My heart goes out to his family and close friends. In the soaring community we all are close friends and family. > > I don't have a clue what happened to Jim and still don't understand why ships will spin close to the ground when they don't normally up high - other than the new to me points made by John C. > > My video that has been referenced before can be a good learning tool but there are some facts that need to be known. Â*I was flying in an ASW-20BL that had some major known flight and stability issues. Â*The ship would try to spin on me at least 10 times every flight while thermalling! As you can see in the video I was able to get out of it and still stay centered in the thermal. Spinning is always a surprise but I had actually gotten used to it. > > PLEASE NOTE that what got me out of the spin was that I immediately and instinctively went into negative flap. I didn't have time to press the rudder before it was already out of the spin and recovering. Yes, I reactively moved the ailerons in the wrong direction because I instinctively didn't want to turn the way the ship was turning/entering into spin. I think if most unexpected spins were caught on video you would also see the reflexive pull of the stick in the wrong direction as the nose drops and aircraft dip to the side unexpectedly. It was the moving of the flaps to negative that would always get me out of the spin before I had time and presence of mind to do the 3 right things we are all taught with unloading the sailplane, opposite rudder and neutralizing the ailerons. I had trained myself to instantly throw the flaps forward as soon as the sailplane broke and you can see that little altitude was lost. > > Please note that we fixed this particular 20's spin tendency with those crazy wonderful winglets and it never tried to spin on my again. Â*I have not had a single spin either since getting a 27. My thoughts are with Jim and his loved ones and hope and pray we don't have any more of these terrible events. > > Warm wishes, > Bruno - B4- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Since we have Bruno's video and comments for a "real-life" spin (albeit at altitude), it looks like he was successful in getting out of the spin solely by moving flaps either from positive to negative, or from neutral to negative (you can see the flap handle position; are they positive before the spin?).. From what I gather, no opposite rudder was inititated and he even went more opposite aileron after the spin begins. What impresses me is that once the spin was recognized, there was no hesitation in immediately reaching for the flap handle. Why? Like he said, it was the most effective control input for recovery based on his experience. I will try this in my own flap-only ship to see if it works; however at low altitude I'm not inclined to dump my flaps as the ship would settle and the stall speed goes up. My question is on the ASW-20, which I've never flown, aren't the flaps and ailerons interconnected to increase effectiveness? So, as the flaps go to negative, lift decreases, correct?, but aileron effectiveness becomes less also, right? Doesn't this effectively help neutralize aileron effectiveness w/o moving the ailerons, yet be sufficient to unspin it? Would the same technique be used at a more critical altitude? Bruno's obviously a skilled pilot who knows his ship; he even had the presence of mind to keep turning in the thermal. I wish the Soaring Safety Foundation would consider archiving white papers on flying characteristics of the different glider models, as one recipe doesn't fit them all. A lot of good stuff gets lost in the blogosphere. Gliderpedia anyone? . One lesson I learned from a master CFIG (Burt Compton) during a simulated rope break was to avoid looking immediately back at the airport. His point was that some stall-spins might be due to pilots inadvertently pulling the stick back as they pivot their heads around.

This is an example of where RAS can be really scary.
We see a video of a non standard recovery to am incipient spin and my impression is that this writer may well embrace this as a viable alternative to the long proven and taught spin recovery technique of applying opposite rudder, neutralizing aileron, and reducing the angle of attack by moving the stick forward.
I like Bruno and his videos, but some of what he does and shows do not reflect examples of how we should all fly. This is such an example.
So- what does Crabby UH say he did wrong?
1- Obviously exceeded the critical angle of attack of the inboard wing- gust likely a factor- could happen to any of us, and does.
2- As the wing starts to drop, adds top aileron, obviously as an automatic and likely habitual reaction. This has the effect of increasing the angle of attack on the most critical portion of the wing at exactly the wrong time..
3- No obvious use of opposite rudder.
4- No forward stick to reduce angle of attack, in fact it appears the stick is positively held back.
The dumping of flaps seems to be well practiced in recovering from this maneuver- I wonder who taught him this.
Bruno seems more worried about staying in the thermal than getting control of the glider. Maybe these techniques were why he spun it so much. Luckily not at low altitude.
The danger is when these habits are applied in a more critical situation, a tragedy can result.
PLEASE- Nobody follow this example.
Follow the training you were(I hope) given and proven techniques.
1 Opposite rudder immediately
2 Neutralize the stick to reduce angle of attack and eliminate any extra angle of attack on the inside wing which is already the slowest and at the highest angle of attack.
3 Recover smoothly from the ensuing post recovery attitude.
This should be automatic and instinctive.
Bruno- not personal
UH

Bob Whelan[_3_]

August 30th 12, 09:15 PM

On 8/30/2012 12:33 PM, Duster wrote:

<Major snip...>

> Since we have Bruno's video and comments for a "real-life" spin
> (albeit at altitude), it looks like he was successful in getting out
> of the spin solely by moving flaps either from positive to negative,
> or from neutral to negative (you can see the flap handle position; are
> they positive before the spin?). From what I gather, no opposite
> rudder was inititated and he even went more opposite aileron after the
> spin begins. What impresses me is that once the spin was recognized,
> there was no hesitation in immediately reaching for the flap handle.
> Why? Like he said, it was the most effective control input for
> recovery based on his experience. I will try this in my own flap-only
> ship to see if it works; however at low altitude I'm not inclined to
> dump my flaps as the ship would settle and the stall speed goes up.

Indeed, assuming no other changes/inputs, reducing flap deflection reduces
lift, the glider will settle (increasing the AoA, as - thanks to gravity and
trim forces - the plane/wing tries to regenerate the lost lift and return to a
non-changing-acceleration state), and the stall speed (assuming no change in G
load) increases. Kinda makes for a strong argument to not put oneself in the
position of NEEDing to dump flaps (reducing the wing's camber and effective
AoA) to prevent a spin when close to the ground, eh? :-)
- - - - - -

My
> question is on the ASW-20, which I've never flown, aren't the flaps
> and ailerons interconnected to increase effectiveness? So, as the
> flaps go to negative, lift decreases, correct?,

A partial response to the first question is, "tip-to-tip" interconnection is
generally done hoping to remain as close to the ideal (lowest induced drag)
lift distribution as possible, in the absence of roll-inducing aileron inputs.
"Roll interconnection" gets into additional aerodynamic reasoning...

To the 2nd question: "Yes"...ignoring short-time-constant changes that begin
the instant wing profile is changed. That said, "at speed" and away from any
ground reference, Joe Pilot will likely not be able to detect anything more
than a (fairly rapid/"short time constant") change in pitch attitude and
(possibly) a brief sensation (assuming he holds the same stick position) of
settling. In the real world, few pilots probably change ONLY the T.E. flap
setting; I'd bet most simultaneously are tweaking their stick position, too,
even if they don't realize it.
- - - - - -

but aileron
> effectiveness becomes less also, right?

Now THAT's a seemingly simple question...having considerable complexity in its
answer(s)! Rather than attempting a direct response, I'll toss out a few
related questions...

So why do many flap-equipped drivers start their T.O. rolls with negative
flaps? (Hint: the answer has to do with better low-speed aileron effectiveness
in T.O. configuration/attitude...easily tested in a reasonably steady ground
breeze with a friendly wingtip holder's brief assistance.)

Are every ships' ailerons rigged with the same (if any) differential?

Have you measured 45-to-45 rolls in your ship at (say) the same (thermalling)
speed in your ship, at different flap/aileron settings?
- - - - - -

Doesn't this effectively help
> neutralize aileron effectiveness w/o moving the ailerons, yet be
> sufficient to unspin it? Would the same technique be used at a more
> critical altitude?

I'm not sure I understand the first question, but at its essence, "unspinning"
a glider "merely" requires re-achieving flight. Most "unspinning instructions"
for fully-developed-spins presume rudder input will be desirable, along with
reduced AoA, but simply unstalling the wing will be sufficient. Reason for the
rudder input is (most likely - this is why they pay test pilots!) to minimize
subsequent altitude loss.

As to the "same technique" question, never forget the key to unstalling a wing
is reducing AoA. Someone will surely point out that unloading the wing will
also reduce the stall speed to zero, which is correct, but "unloading the
wing" is really a specific flavor of reduced AoA, and, is something Joe Pilot
has limited ability to do at thermalling speeds (though gravity is always
willing to help if he's out of elevator authority!). Trailing edge flaps
somewhat complicate (add to) the means of reducing AoA, compared to unflapped
wings.

Also, never forget that SOMEthing has to also initiate rotation; simply
stalling a wing symmetrically (if possible) won't by itself achieve rotation.
Possible initiators of rotation: non-symmetrical rudder input; untimely gust;
unbalanced bug accumulation (leading to unbalanced/asymmetric flow
separation/lifting forces); heavy wing; use your imagination...

If you feel OK betting your life on always achieving symmetrical flow
separation across your ship's span, then thermal away as low as you'd like,
while maintaining a hair trigger on forward stick motion! :-)
- - - - - -

Bruno's obviously a skilled pilot who knows his
> ship; he even had the presence of mind to keep turning in the thermal.
> I wish the Soaring Safety Foundation would consider archiving white
> papers on flying characteristics of the different glider models, as
> one recipe doesn't fit them all. A lot of good stuff gets lost in the
> blogosphere. Gliderpedia anyone?
> .
> One lesson I learned from a master CFIG (Burt Compton) during a
> simulated rope break was to avoid looking immediately back at the
> airport. His point was that some stall-spins might be due to pilots
> inadvertently pulling the stick back as they pivot their heads around.
>

Kids, can you spell "John Denver"? (Meaning, Burt is almost certainly right in
this particular surmise...)

Bob W.

Sean F (F2)

August 30th 12, 09:19 PM

Great post. I should spin more. We all should. It might sound wimpy but my personal limit (post Ionia R6N and Tim's accident) is 800ft (see last day trace). I have not been below 1100 AGL since except at Parowan which it was unavoidable. Im just not that good and to fight lower, even in competition, is simply not worth it to me any longer (as has been aptly demonstrated this summer). I actually figure eighted alot in Parowon near the hills in turbulent gusty thermals during the contest (my first flying ever in the mountains...) and didn't lose much. It was much more comfortable. I actually felt great about being cautious.

I also pulled aside from launching in 20-35+ kts of wind. Just too much wind for me knowing the drop off was going to be 200 ft over the mountains in most cases.

Sure has been a tough year...and unfortunately I see little real change (personally with pilots or in rules or regulation or procedure). Lots of pilots regularly down to and below 500 ft (the red zone).

Simply put, we are each are 100% responsible for ourselves and our passengers whenever we waggle the rudder and start to roll. That's all there is too it. If you choose to circle below the altitude by which you can recover 100% of the time (if you really know this altitude as UH seems too) the risks are suddenly EXTREME. You are in the "red zone" and mistakes are potentially absolutely deadly. We have all gone into the red zone. We are there every time we launch and land. We are there every time we get low and fight. Some of us well into it...200ft or so circling... I have done this several times... And I was stupid.

Ridge pilots often spend the whole damn day in the red zone. Many of us take huge risk so regularly we seem to get used to it. Some thrive on it.

The problem might be that the soaring culture (has/had/did/does?) respects low saves more than sensible land outs. This has been my experience. Not alot of atta boys for landing out. At least a few for "digging out" at 400 ft.

Unless rules are put in place to penalize low flying (in clubs, contests, etc) expect these accidents to continue... The stick is a useful tool but will it be used? Can it be used?

F2

On Monday, August 27, 2012 7:08:30 PM UTC-4, (unknown) wrote:
> On Monday, August 27, 2012 6:40:42 PM UTC-4, Ramy wrote:
>
> > On Monday, August 27, 2012 1:08:49 PM UTC-7, Brian wrote: > So I am seeing the why do we still thermal low comment, but no one is says how low. I suspect these accidents may not be a low as some of us think. But have no data to back it up. > > With so many of us using flight recorders it should be pretty easy to look a few of these accidents and see, but somehow this data never seems to reach us. I can understand some liability issues but it seems like it would be pretty easy to reproduce the data into a generic format that didn't give away the location or ID of what happened but would still allow us to review the flight path of an actual flight that led to the accident. > > > > Brian My thoughts exactly. we need the actual data to learn something from those accidents, but it is almost never provided. We should have enough statistics to be able to determine how low is too low to recover, so we can adjust our threshold. This is what safety culture is all about. If we keep this info to ourselves, no much can be learned. Ramy
>
>
>
> I do not agree.
>
> There is nothing new to learn from Jim's accident.
>
> People just keep repeating the same stupid stuff they know better than to do.
>
> A handful of folks on this forum seem to want to study the crap out of accidents like this in the hope that they will learn something new.
>
> There are no new lessons to be learned here guys. It is very simple. You can't circle at low altitude without an unaceptable risk of a(commonly gust induced) stall spin. And these spins do NOT happen like the ones we practice. They happen much more quickly and violently. I have a personal hard deck of 500 feet where circling is cancelled. The only exception is ridge flying where a whole group of additional variables come into play.
>
> If you want data, go spin your glider in the configuration you fly it all the time. Let it start to spin, not just catch it when it departs. See how much altitude you lose, then throw in another 1-200 feet for the surprise factor.
>
> I spin sailpalnes probably 60-80 times a year and my contest gliders a dozen time a year. From that, I've developed my personal limits.
>
> Note that gliders with winglets commonly may be more benign in stall than ones without, but may well be uglier in a true spin.
>
> As instructors, mentors, and friends, we need to embrace and promote the concept that we all need a limit where we STOP SOARING AND START LANDING with NO exceptions.
>
> Sorry to rant, but I've lost 3 friends this year, all for the same damn reason and all knew better.
>
> UH

Martin Gregorie[_5_]

August 30th 12, 09:39 PM

On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 13:13:31 -0700, unclhank wrote:

> The dumping of flaps seems to be well practiced in recovering from this
> maneuver- I wonder who taught him this.
>
Its the recommended first action according to the ASW-20 POH, which goes
on to say that this action alone will often cause spin recovery, but that
if it doesn't, follow the standard procedure AFTER you've set the flaps
fully negative. The POH says the flap movement is to avoid exceeding VNE:
for positive flap settings VNE is quite low.

I'd also point out that sharply selecting fully negative flap reduces AOA
relative to the fuselage and airflow and so, as the POH says, may
initiate recovery by unstalling the wing.

Two points for those who haven't flown an ASW-20:

- ailerons and flaps are interconnected so that ailerons deflect with
the flaps as the flap lever is moved except when selecting landing
flap, when the ailerons go to a negative setting. This "crow mode"
increases drag and helps to prevent tip stalling.

- the POH recommends always starting an aerotow with the flaps in
position #2 (-6 degrees) for better low-speed control.

--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

Tom Claffey

August 30th 12, 10:21 PM

My $0.20c worth:
Practice at altitude in your glider. Some new gliders are "interesting" in
a full spin.
You will most likely find that the standard recovery is best.
Do not put yourself in the low save situation, especially when windy. Look
at the winners IGC files from Uvalde [or any other contest], you will find
the winners used lesser thermals at times to stay high, smarter flying.
If you do get below your safe level then do a safe outlanding, [this also
needs a little spare altitude to set up!].
Tom

At 20:19 30 August 2012, Sean F F2 wrote:
>Great post. I should spin more. We all should. It might sound wimpy
but
>=
>my personal limit (post Ionia R6N and Tim's accident) is 800ft (see last
>da=
>y trace). I have not been below 1100 AGL since except at Parowan which
it
>=
>was unavoidable. Im just not that good and to fight lower, even in
>competi=
>tion, is simply not worth it to me any longer (as has been aptly
>demonstrat=
>ed this summer). I actually figure eighted alot in Parowon near the
hills
>=
>in turbulent gusty thermals during the contest (my first flying ever in
>the=
> mountains...) and didn't lose much. It was much more comfortable. I
>actu=
>ally felt great about being cautious.
>
>I also pulled aside from launching in 20-35+ kts of wind. Just too much
>wi=
>nd for me knowing the drop off was going to be 200 ft over the mountains
>in=
> most cases.
>
>Sure has been a tough year...and unfortunately I see little real change
>(pe=
>rsonally with pilots or in rules or regulation or procedure). Lots of
>pilo=
>ts regularly down to and below 500 ft (the red zone). =20
>
>Simply put, we are each are 100% responsible for ourselves and our
>passenge=
>rs whenever we waggle the rudder and start to roll. That's all there is
>to=
>o it. If you choose to circle below the altitude by which you can
recover
>=
>100% of the time (if you really know this altitude as UH seems too) the
>ris=
>ks are suddenly EXTREME. You are in the "red zone" and mistakes are
>potent=
>ially absolutely deadly. We have all gone into the red zone. We are
>there=
> every time we launch and land. We are there every time we get low and
>fig=
>ht. Some of us well into it...200ft or so circling... I have done this
>se=
>veral times... And I was stupid.=20
>
>Ridge pilots often spend the whole damn day in the red zone. Many of us
>ta=
>ke huge risk so regularly we seem to get used to it. Some thrive on it.
>
>The problem might be that the soaring culture (has/had/did/does?)
respects
>=
>low saves more than sensible land outs. This has been my experience.
Not
>=
>alot of atta boys for landing out. At least a few for "digging out" at
>400=
> ft.
>
>Unless rules are put in place to penalize low flying (in clubs, contests,
>e=
>tc) expect these accidents to continue... The stick is a useful tool but
>w=
>ill it be used? Can it be used?
>
>F2
>
>On Monday, August 27, 2012 7:08:30 PM UTC-4, (unknown) wrote:
>> On Monday, August 27, 2012 6:40:42 PM UTC-4, Ramy wrote:
>>=20
>> > On Monday, August 27, 2012 1:08:49 PM UTC-7, Brian wrote: > So I am
>see=
>ing the why do we still thermal low comment, but no one is says how low.
I
>=
>suspect these accidents may not be a low as some of us think. But have no
>d=
>ata to back it up. > > With so many of us using flight recorders it
should
>=
>be pretty easy to look a few of these accidents and see, but somehow this
>d=
>ata never seems to reach us. I can understand some liability issues but
it
>=
>seems like it would be pretty easy to reproduce the data into a generic
>for=
>mat that didn't give away the location or ID of what happened but would
>sti=
>ll allow us to review the flight path of an actual flight that led to the
>a=
>ccident. > > > > Brian My thoughts exactly. we need the actual data to
>lear=
>n something from those accidents, but it is almost never provided. We
>shoul=
>d have enough statistics to be able to determine how low is too low to
>reco=
>ver, so we can adjust our threshold. This is what safety culture is all
>abo=
>ut. If we keep this info to ourselves, no much can be learned. Ramy
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> I do not agree.
>>=20
>> There is nothing new to learn from Jim's accident.
>>=20
>> People just keep repeating the same stupid stuff they know better than
>to=
> do.
>>=20
>> A handful of folks on this forum seem to want to study the crap out of
>ac=
>cidents like this in the hope that they will learn something new.
>>=20
>> There are no new lessons to be learned here guys. It is very simple.
You
>=
>can't circle at low altitude without an unaceptable risk of a(commonly
>gust=
> induced) stall spin. And these spins do NOT happen like the ones we
>practi=
>ce. They happen much more quickly and violently. I have a personal hard
>dec=
>k of 500 feet where circling is cancelled. The only exception is ridge
>flyi=
>ng where a whole group of additional variables come into play.
>>=20
>> If you want data, go spin your glider in the configuration you fly it
>all=
> the time. Let it start to spin, not just catch it when it departs. See
>how=
> much altitude you lose, then throw in another 1-200 feet for the
surprise
>=
>factor.
>>=20
>> I spin sailpalnes probably 60-80 times a year and my contest gliders a
>do=
>zen time a year. From that, I've developed my personal limits. =20
>>=20
>> Note that gliders with winglets commonly may be more benign in stall
>than=
> ones without, but may well be uglier in a true spin.
>>=20
>> As instructors, mentors, and friends, we need to embrace and promote
the
>=
>concept that we all need a limit where we STOP SOARING AND START LANDING
>wi=
>th NO exceptions.
>>=20
>> Sorry to rant, but I've lost 3 friends this year, all for the same damn
>r=
>eason and all knew better.
>>=20
>> UH
>
>

Duster

August 30th 12, 11:42 PM

On Aug 30, 3:38*pm, Martin Gregorie >
wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 13:13:31 -0700, unclhank wrote:
> > The dumping of flaps seems to be well practiced in recovering from this
> > maneuver- I wonder who taught him this.
>
> Its the recommended first action according to the ASW-20 POH, which goes
> on to say that this action alone will often cause spin recovery, but that
> if it doesn't, follow the standard procedure AFTER you've set the flaps
> fully negative. The POH says the flap movement is to avoid exceeding VNE:
> for positive flap settings VNE is quite low.
>
> I'd also point out that sharply selecting fully negative flap reduces AOA
> relative to the fuselage and airflow and so, as the POH says, may
> initiate recovery by unstalling the wing.
>
> Two points for those who haven't flown an ASW-20:
>
> - ailerons and flaps are interconnected so that ailerons deflect with
> * the flaps as the flap lever is moved except when selecting landing
> * flap, when the ailerons go to a negative setting. This "crow mode"
> * increases drag and helps to prevent tip stalling.
>
> - the POH recommends always starting an aerotow with the flaps in
> * position #2 (-6 degrees) for better low-speed control.
>
> --
> martin@ * | Martin Gregorie
> gregorie. | Essex, UK
> org * * * |

.....hmm, if we're talking about recovering from a low/slow spin, I'm
not sure if I'd be overly concerned with exceeding Vne. Good point
that in landing configuration, the ailerons go negative in the 20. My
question (hypothesis), however, was how did Bruno's spin recovery work
if the only thing he did was to dump his flaps (or go negative)? My
uneducated quess was that by doing so, either the full-opposite
ailerons became unloaded and/or the AOA was reduced. If I have this
right, Bruno's spin recovery wasn't an attempt to save his life as
much as it was to stay in the strong, gusting thermal somewhere at
stratospheric altitude, which he did with good skill. He knew his
ship's behavioral characteristics well from experience, even if the
glider may not have been in factory-tune (and he did mention
somewhere about adjusting its CG).

From the Soaring Safety Foundation website it looks like at one time
they were trying to implement Condor-based videos that simulated
safety-related issues like these. Perhaps a most effective/safe way of
visualizing what the ground looks like in a low-spin.

Jim[_32_]

August 31st 12, 10:25 PM

My Monday morning quarterbacking: It appears to me that Bruno's yaw string also indicates he may have a heavy left foot and thus somewhat uncoordinated inputs too. None of us are perfect but we need to strive to be...

-Jim

kirk.stant

August 31st 12, 10:52 PM

On Friday, August 31, 2012 4:25:27 PM UTC-5, Jim wrote:
> My Monday morning quarterbacking: It appears to me that Bruno's yaw string also indicates he may have a heavy left foot and thus somewhat uncoordinated inputs too. None of us are perfect but we need to strive to be...
>
>
>
> -Jim

I disagree - to me it looks like Bruno's yaw string is centered or indicates a slight slip - hard to tell from the camera angle. I know my LS6 likes to thermal with some slip - and theoretically, since the yaw string is in front of the CG, a slip indication is actually correct - a perfectly centered yaw string during a turn actually indicates a slight skid.

Bruno did exactly the right thing - recovered per the POH from a departure
BEFORE it became a spin, then continued to thermal. If you can't do that when you are thermalling your ship, please don't join me in my thermal - go practice until you can post a video on Youtube!

Kirk
66

kirk.stant

August 31st 12, 11:11 PM

There seems to be some confusion in this thread about spins. A spin is a stable autorotation with the wings stalled and fairly constant airspeed. A departure is when the your glider starts to do something that you didn't tell it to do or want it to do, either because you got too slow and stalled it, or a gust upset it, whatever. A spin entry, in a glider that will actually spin (not all will), is a controlled departure held long enough to stabilize into a spin.

But a departure doesn't have to result in a spin. If corrective action is done promptly and correctly (almost always involving unloading the wing by reducing AOA), the glider will resume flying and will never get to the autorotation state. Many (most?) glass ships, unless the CG is way aft or flaps are in landing configuration, are reluctant to spin, probably due to limited elevator authority. They may depart, and if you sit there like a bump on a log and don't apply corrective action, may progress to a spin, or a spiral dive, or just recover on their own.

But if you experiment (at safe altitude) with the glider you fly, trying all it's configurations and finding out how it reacts to a departure, you will be prepared (like Bruno) to safely recover from a departure with minimum loss of altitude (or danger to your gaggle mates).

This is BASIC stuff, guys. If I'm just telling all of you what you already know, I apologize. But if you really don't understand this (and some of the discussions on RAS about AOA makes me think many don't) then please get with an acro/spin instructor and brush up.

Cheers,

Kirk
66

[email protected]

September 1st 12, 03:44 AM

On Friday, August 31, 2012 6:11:41 PM UTC-4, kirk.stant wrote:
> There seems to be some confusion in this thread about spins. A spin is a stable autorotation with the wings stalled and fairly constant airspeed. A departure is when the your glider starts to do something that you didn't tell it to do or want it to do, either because you got too slow and stalled it, or a gust upset it, whatever. A spin entry, in a glider that will actually spin (not all will), is a controlled departure held long enough to stabilize into a spin.
>
>
>
> But a departure doesn't have to result in a spin. If corrective action is done promptly and correctly (almost always involving unloading the wing by reducing AOA), the glider will resume flying and will never get to the autorotation state. Many (most?) glass ships, unless the CG is way aft or flaps are in landing configuration, are reluctant to spin, probably due to limited elevator authority. They may depart, and if you sit there like a bump on a log and don't apply corrective action, may progress to a spin, or a spiral dive, or just recover on their own.
>
>
>
> But if you experiment (at safe altitude) with the glider you fly, trying all it's configurations and finding out how it reacts to a departure, you will be prepared (like Bruno) to safely recover from a departure with minimum loss of altitude (or danger to your gaggle mates).
>
>
>
> This is BASIC stuff, guys. If I'm just telling all of you what you already know, I apologize. But if you really don't understand this (and some of the discussions on RAS about AOA makes me think many don't) then please get with an acro/spin instructor and brush up.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> Kirk
>
> 66

Maybe its not so basic, but then what do I know. If both wings are stalled, then you just have a stall, the nose drops and recovery is easily accomplished. If you stall in turning flight or uncoordinated use of controls, then the slower wing will stall and an autorotation will commence. The outer wing is not stalled. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Tom

Duster

September 1st 12, 11:08 AM

On Aug 31, 9:44*pm, wrote:
> On Friday, August 31, 2012 6:11:41 PM UTC-4, kirk.stant wrote:
> > There seems to be some confusion in this thread about spins. *A spin is a stable autorotation with the wings stalled and fairly constant airspeed. A departure is when the your glider starts to do something that you didn't tell it to do or want it to do, either because you got too slow and stalled it, or a gust upset it, whatever. *A spin entry, in a glider that will actually spin (not all will), is a controlled departure held long enough to stabilize into a spin.
>
> > But a departure doesn't have to result in a spin. *If corrective action is done promptly and correctly (almost always involving unloading the wing by reducing AOA), the glider will resume flying and will never get to the autorotation state. *Many (most?) glass ships, unless the CG is way aft or flaps are in landing configuration, are reluctant to spin, probably due to limited elevator authority. *They may depart, and if you sit there like a bump on a log and don't apply corrective action, may progress to a spin, or a spiral dive, or just recover on their own.
>
> > But if you experiment (at safe altitude) with the glider you fly, trying all it's configurations and finding out how it reacts to a departure, you will be prepared (like Bruno) to safely recover from a departure with minimum loss of altitude (or danger to your gaggle mates).
>
> > This is BASIC stuff, guys. *If I'm just telling all of you what you already know, I apologize. But if you really don't understand this (and some of the discussions on RAS about AOA makes me think many don't) then please get with an acro/spin instructor and brush up.
>
> > Cheers,
>
> > Kirk
>
> > 66
>
> Maybe its not so basic, but then what do I know. If both wings are stalled, then you just have a stall, the nose drops and recovery is easily accomplished. If you stall in turning flight or uncoordinated use of controls, then the slower wing will stall and an autorotation will commence. The outer wing is not stalled. Correct me if I'm wrong.
>
> Tom- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PpJA53LjarM

Yes and no. I was repeatedly taught the same spin theory (i.e., one
stalled; one not), but in a spin both wings are apparently stalled but
with one wing deeper than the other. During the incipient phase in a
controlled turn, I have read where both wings stall simulaneously,
while if uncoordinated the inboard wing stalls first before the
outboard. Back on topic, from what I read in the flaps-out landing
configuration the ASW-20's interconnecting flap/aileron system moves
the ailerons to -8deg, a design intended to reduce the chance of a tip-
stall at low altitude. Where I disagree with "66" in the ASW-20 video
is that the pilot applied the POH-recommended spin recovery at high
altitude (according to the pilot's own words). He's in a tight turn,
near or below the slowest part of the ASI white-arc range when he
encounters a gust (increasing AOA). As the incipient phase begins and
the wing drops hard, he first rapidly moves the stick further towards
the outboard wing (opposite aileron) with no opposite rudder input.
His reflexive move is to reduce flaps to full negative (per the POH)
while still holding opp aileron.. The resulting decrease in AOA is
what presumably unstalls the wings. I think this is right. When low,
the POH recommends not reduceing flaps, but rather to carry extra
speed. Good lesson.

Evan Ludeman[_4_]

September 1st 12, 01:32 PM

On Saturday, September 1, 2012 6:08:52 AM UTC-4, Duster wrote:
> Good lesson.

You'd be smarter to take UH's advice. I think he has around 1500 hours in 20s. I've got about a third of that. How much did the factory have when they wrote the book? As much as 50? We can speculate why they wrote it that way. It is a bit puzzling. The rest of the POH is excellent.

T8

kirk.stant

September 1st 12, 03:44 PM

On Saturday, September 1, 2012 5:08:52 AM UTC-5, Duster wrote:
Where I disagree with "66" in the ASW-20 video
>
> is that the pilot applied the POH-recommended spin recovery at high
>
> altitude (according to the pilot's own words). He's in a tight turn,
>
> near or below the slowest part of the ASI white-arc range when he
>
> encounters a gust (increasing AOA). As the incipient phase begins and
>
> the wing drops hard, he first rapidly moves the stick further towards
>
> the outboard wing (opposite aileron) with no opposite rudder input.
>
> His reflexive move is to reduce flaps to full negative (per the POH)
>
> while still holding opp aileron.. The resulting decrease in AOA is
>
> what presumably unstalls the wings. I think this is right. When low,
>
> the POH recommends not reduceing flaps, but rather to carry extra
>
> speed. Good lesson.

Ok, lets think about this. Steep turn, so possibly some top aileron prevent overbanking. Wing drops (bottom wing starting to stall?) first action is to use top aileron to stop the roll (top wing is presumably not stalled), then when the lower wing didn't come back up, recognize the departure and reduce angle of attack by first raising the flaps, then if necessary, forward stick. Recovery was too fast to allow a yaw rate to develop, so coarse use of rudder not really needed.

Not an expert on 20s, but I know my LS6 will recover by releasing back pressure. but manual also says to put flaps at 0 to prevent overspeeding in the recovery, should the departure end up in a full spin or spiral dive situation. Really, the response is the same - slight easing of the stick (probably not even visible in a video) and flaps up if the nose starts to drop much.

Of course, at low altitude, speed is life - when you are scratching out a save you absolutely cannot afford to depart or spin - and again now we are doing steep turns in tight, turbulent lift: quick, what's your stall speed at 60 degrees of bank? With half water? It's not in the POH, probably, so what speed do you use? AOA sure would be nice to have!

As far as only one wing being stalled in a spin - if one wing is still flying (below stall AOA), the other is just barely at stall AOA (due to yaw, gust, whatever) and the flying wing will roll you over until it too stalls (now you are spinning, via an over the top entry, or once the nose goes down you will accelerate until the stalled wing is under stalling AOA. If you fully stall the glider in a yaw, both wings are above stall AOA, but one will still produce more lift than the other, that is what causes the autorotation/spin.

Kirk
66

kirk.stant

September 1st 12, 04:55 PM

On Saturday, September 1, 2012 9:44:12 AM UTC-5, kirk.stant wrote:

> As far as only one wing being stalled in a spin - if one wing is still flying (below stall AOA), the other is just barely at stall AOA (due to yaw, gust, whatever) and the flying wing will roll you over until it too stalls (now you are spinning, via an over the top entry, or once the nose goes down you will accelerate until the stalled wing is under stalling AOA. If you fully stall the glider in a yaw, both wings are above stall AOA, but one will still produce more lift than the other, that is what causes the autorotation/spin.

I spoke too soon without refreshing myself on spin dynamics:

Depending on spin mode, the inner wing is always stalled, but the outer wing may or may not be stalled.

Good explanation of spins at: http://www.av8n.com/how/htm/spins.html

Kirk
66

Andrew[_13_]

September 2nd 12, 01:08 AM

I also have wondered how an experienced pilot can spin in from
low thermalling. It must be a full spin, with the resulting steep
recovery dive, that causes a spin-in accident: a stall doesn't lose
much height. Even the most spin-eager gliders I've flown (Dart 17
and Puchacz) always signalled an approaching stall in plenty of
time to stop an unintended spin developing. I've never
accidentally spun while thermalling at normal altitudes, not once in
my several thousand hours of gliding, so I wonder why it would be
more likely to happen low down.

One explanation might be that pilots are very stressed when
circling low, and simply don't fly as well as usual. Or maybe they
are circling unusually tightly, perhaps in a small thermal. I suspect
experienced pilots would not make these mistakes.

So I think that John Cochran's comment of August 28th may be
right. There may some unknown, unexpected risk when low-and-
slow that catches pilots out, even the best ones. Maybe small,
strong, bubbly thermals exist low down, that can perhaps
suddenly stall one wing? That would produce an immediate,
uncontrollable, violent roll, somewhat like a flick manoever,
without any advance warning signals. Not technically a spin, but
probably ending the same way: a steep dive with insufficient
height. If true, that's a risk that no amount of pilot skill can
prevent, except by adopting the sensible rules I was trained with:

1. never thermal below pattern altitude, and
2. always fly at approach speed below pattern altitude.

I have had one personal experience that supports John's
suggestion: after a normal thermal flight in the midwest, on a day
with light winds, I was on a normal final approach with wings level,
at normal approach speed (60kts). At about 100ft agl, without any
warning, my starboard wing was pushed rapidly and smoothly
upwards, and despite immediate full opposite control input, I was
put into a steep bank, I'd estimate close to 45 degrees. The surge
vanished as fast as it had arrived. After it stopped, I was able to
level the wings, correct the heading, and made a normal landing
further down the runway. It totally surprised me. I assume a
narrow thermal bubble lifted off under the starboard wing just as I
passed. I estimate the surge lasted about three seconds, so at
60kts it must have been about 300ft long. I would not have
believed it, except that it happened to me. I'm sure it would have
been much harder to cope with, if I had not been flying at
approach speed. Perhaps if I'd been flying slowly, at a higher
angle of attack, the surge might have stalled the starboard wing.
This roll event was also seen by an experienced pilot observer on
the ground, who said he was astonished to see it, and inquired
about it after I landed.

A roll upset like this has only happened to me once, so
(thankfully) its clearly a very rare occurrence, and maneageable
at approach speed. If such bubbles are baby thermals, they are
probably only in small areas, miles apart, and short lived, so
would also be rarely encountered. However a pilot who is
attempting to thermal low is presumably intentionally over an area
where baby thermals are forming, so may have a higher chance
of encountering such an effect.

At 17:08 28 August 2012, John Cochrane wrote:
>
>One point not reiterated yet here -- the atmosphere down low is
very
>different from what you're used to at 2000 feet and above. It's
easy
>to say "I haven't unintentionally stalled /spun in a thermal in a
>thousand hours. How much of a dope do you have to be?"
>
>A short list of what's different down low: The atmosphere is
much more
>turbulent. Thermals, such as they are are much smaller. In this
layer,
>many small punchy thermals will start. Many will die. The ones
we use
>up higher consist of many little parcels of hot air that have
>coalesced. Most thermals are either short lived, or basically
>unworkable to a modern glider. You're in the boundary layer
where wind
>is being affected by the ground, so there is wind-induced
turbulence.
>Punches of strong lift/gust followed by sink when you make a
half turn
>will be the norm.
>
>The ground picture will be totally different to the pilot. If you turn
>downwind at altitude, you don't notice that much. If you turn
downwind
>at 300 feet, all of a sudden the ground will rush by and, this
being a
>high stress moment, you may pull back. Just as the gust you
turned in
>fades, or the thermal turns to sink. And when the canopy fills
with
>trees going by at 70 mph, the urge to pull back will be really
strong.
>You may push forward to recover at altitude, but it's really really
>hard to do with the ground coming up fast.
>
>So, just because you've never unintentionally spun at altitude
does
>not mean your chances at 300 feet are the same.
>
>Not to raise a tired subject, but why we give out contest points
for
>thermaling at 300 feet or below remains a puzzling question to
me.
>
>John Cochrane
>

[email protected]

September 2nd 12, 04:43 AM

Not exactly the same but similar are wake vortices off the large birds when you follow them in for landing at the larger airports. ATC is supposed to space you and give you reason for it. Get in one of those and it will knock off your game .. as happened to an acquaintance of mine. Not unreasonable to think that hills/mtns, buildings, tree lines and obstacles present a similar phenomenon from surface winds.

John Sullivan

September 2nd 12, 05:10 AM

At altitude thermals flow generally vertically relatively unrestricted.
At birth, even on a perfectly flat surface, thermal air must
transition from a flat, shallow disk shaped zone feeding in from
360 degrees, crashing in, upwards ,which introduces a rotational
component. Add orographic features and wind effects to these
forces occurring in such a short period of time, over a relatively
small area, and the air is very chaotic indeed.

At 00:08 02 September 2012, Andrew wrote:
>I also have wondered how an experienced pilot can spin in from
>low thermalling. It must be a full spin, with the resulting steep
>recovery dive, that causes a spin-in accident: a stall doesn't lose
>much height. Even the most spin-eager gliders I've flown (Dart
17
>and Puchacz) always signalled an approaching stall in plenty of
>time to stop an unintended spin developing. I've never
>accidentally spun while thermalling at normal altitudes, not once
in
>my several thousand hours of gliding, so I wonder why it would
be
>more likely to happen low down.
>
>One explanation might be that pilots are very stressed when
>circling low, and simply don't fly as well as usual. Or maybe they
>are circling unusually tightly, perhaps in a small thermal. I suspect
>experienced pilots would not make these mistakes.
>
>So I think that John Cochran's comment of August 28th may be
>right. There may some unknown, unexpected risk when low-
and-
>slow that catches pilots out, even the best ones. Maybe small,
>strong, bubbly thermals exist low down, that can perhaps
>suddenly stall one wing? That would produce an immediate,
>uncontrollable, violent roll, somewhat like a flick manoever,
>without any advance warning signals. Not technically a spin, but
>probably ending the same way: a steep dive with insufficient
>height. If true, that's a risk that no amount of pilot skill can
>prevent, except by adopting the sensible rules I was trained
with:
>
>1. never thermal below pattern altitude, and
>2. always fly at approach speed below pattern altitude.
>
>I have had one personal experience that supports John's
>suggestion: after a normal thermal flight in the midwest, on a
day
>with light winds, I was on a normal final approach with wings
level,
>at normal approach speed (60kts). At about 100ft agl, without
any
>warning, my starboard wing was pushed rapidly and smoothly
>upwards, and despite immediate full opposite control input, I was
>put into a steep bank, I'd estimate close to 45 degrees. The
surge
>vanished as fast as it had arrived. After it stopped, I was able to
>level the wings, correct the heading, and made a normal landing
>further down the runway. It totally surprised me. I assume a
>narrow thermal bubble lifted off under the starboard wing just as
I
>passed. I estimate the surge lasted about three seconds, so at
>60kts it must have been about 300ft long. I would not have
>believed it, except that it happened to me. I'm sure it would
have
>been much harder to cope with, if I had not been flying at
>approach speed. Perhaps if I'd been flying slowly, at a higher
>angle of attack, the surge might have stalled the starboard wing.
>This roll event was also seen by an experienced pilot observer on
>the ground, who said he was astonished to see it, and inquired
>about it after I landed.
>
>A roll upset like this has only happened to me once, so
>(thankfully) its clearly a very rare occurrence, and maneageable
>at approach speed. If such bubbles are baby thermals, they are
>probably only in small areas, miles apart, and short lived, so
>would also be rarely encountered. However a pilot who is
>attempting to thermal low is presumably intentionally over an
area
>where baby thermals are forming, so may have a higher chance
>of encountering such an effect.
>
>
>
>At 17:08 28 August 2012, John Cochrane wrote:
>>
>>One point not reiterated yet here -- the atmosphere down low
is
>very
>>different from what you're used to at 2000 feet and above. It's
>easy
>>to say "I haven't unintentionally stalled /spun in a thermal in a
>>thousand hours. How much of a dope do you have to be?"
>>
>>A short list of what's different down low: The atmosphere is
>much more
>>turbulent. Thermals, such as they are are much smaller. In this
>layer,
>>many small punchy thermals will start. Many will die. The ones
>we use
>>up higher consist of many little parcels of hot air that have
>>coalesced. Most thermals are either short lived, or basically
>>unworkable to a modern glider. You're in the boundary layer
>where wind
>>is being affected by the ground, so there is wind-induced
>turbulence.
>>Punches of strong lift/gust followed by sink when you make a
>half turn
>>will be the norm.
>>
>>The ground picture will be totally different to the pilot. If you
turn
>>downwind at altitude, you don't notice that much. If you turn
>downwind
>>at 300 feet, all of a sudden the ground will rush by and, this
>being a
>>high stress moment, you may pull back. Just as the gust you
>turned in
>>fades, or the thermal turns to sink. And when the canopy fills
>with
>>trees going by at 70 mph, the urge to pull back will be really
>strong.
>>You may push forward to recover at altitude, but it's really
really
>>hard to do with the ground coming up fast.
>>
>>So, just because you've never unintentionally spun at altitude
>does
>>not mean your chances at 300 feet are the same.
>>
>>Not to raise a tired subject, but why we give out contest points
>for
>>thermaling at 300 feet or below remains a puzzling question to
>me.
>>
>>John Cochrane
>>
>
>

Chris Rollings[_2_]

September 2nd 12, 10:45 AM

A little over 40 years ago an event occurred which stongly influenced my
thinking about spinning accidents. At the time I was employed as Deputy
Chief Instructor at a large, full time gliding club in the UK. On the day
in question I was flying the tow-plane. One of our club members, a fairly
experienced pilot with about 400 hours and a Gold Badge (very experienced
in 1972), was flying in a club glider (Ka6e). During his approach to land,
he changed his mind about where on the airfield he wanted to finish and
entered a turn at very low level over the middle of the airport. He spun
off the turn and the glider was comprehensively destroyed. I was in the
pattern at the time and landed alongside the wreckage within less than two
minutes of the accident.

The pilot had already extricated himself from the pile of firewood and was
standing next to it, apparently uninjured. I jumped out of the tow-plane
and walked up to him; what he said is stamped unforgettably on my brain.
His first remark was rather flippant, "I'm sorry, I seem to have parked it
rather untidily." The next remark was very revealing (remember this was
only about 2 minutes after he had spun in), "I can't understand what
happened, there must have been something wrong with the elevator, I kept
pulling back on the stick but the nose wouldn't come up."

Five minutes later he realised he had spun in. When he wrote out an
accident report the next day, he stated that he had entered a spin at low
altitude with insufficient height to recover and had apparently forgotten
that he did not recognise the spin at the time.

He had been trained, about 8 years earlier, in a regime which did include
spinning and recovery in pre-solo training, but there was no requirement
for anything like a BFR or annual check so long as he remained current. In
all probability he had not seen a spin from inside the cockpit for a number
of years. Little wonder that he did not recognise it instantly.

When a glider starts to spin, its acceleration downwards is somewhat less
than that of an object in free-fall and it stabilises after about one turn.
That first turn takes about 4 seconds and breaks down thus (Figures
measured on tests I conducted, mainly in a Puchacz): 1st second, height
loss about 20 feet, pitch down 20 - 30 degrees (recovery, by just moving
the stick forward will lose another 20 - 30 feet); 2nd second pitch down to
about 40 degrees, height loss total about 50 feet (recovery by moving the
stick forward and perhaps some opposite rudder will lose another 75 - 100
feet); 3rd second total height loss about 80 feet, pitch down about 50
degrees (recovery, opposite rudder and stick forward height loss an
additional 150 - 200 feet); 4th second, pitch down about 60 degrees, height
loss a bit more than 100 feet, spin now fully developed (recovery, full
opposite rudder stick forward, height loss an additional 200 - 250 feet).

If you spin at 300 feet and recognise and initiate recovery in 1 or 2
seconds you will get away with it, if it takes you 3 seconds you might just
get lucky, more than 3 seconds and you're gonna crash - hard. I should add
that my friend in the accident described above was probably somewhat below
100 feet when he spun, so he had even less time to save himself and only
about 3 seconds from departure to impact.

The FAA system, which does not require any spin training until training as
an instructor, cannot be expected to produce pilots who will recognise an
unintentional spin, purely from description, in only one or two seconds, so
departures near the ground are highly likely to result in spin-ins. Even
pilots trained under the UK system (which does include spinning and
recovery practice as part of the pre and post solo training), can't be
expected to recognise an unintentional spin that quickly if they haven't
seen and practiced one for months or years. The only thing that will work
is frequent practice and only instructors who are teaching spinning
regularly are really likely to get enough.

The pre-stall symptoms that warn of a stall, are normally readily apparent
when tou are doing a deliberate stall and looking for them, they are not so
obvious when the stall is not intended or expected, and attention is
elsewhere (on centering on a thermal or sorting out where you are going to
land, for example).

Glider pilots often tend to fly very much by attitude with the ASI as a
secondary reference, when you are very close to the ground quite small hill
or even just a row of trees can make the nose look further down than it is.
Below 500 feet AGL, glance at the ASI every 3 - 5 seconds.

At 04:10 02 September 2012, John Sullivan wrote:
>
>At altitude thermals flow generally vertically relatively unrestricted.
>At birth, even on a perfectly flat surface, thermal air must
>transition from a flat, shallow disk shaped zone feeding in from
>360 degrees, crashing in, upwards ,which introduces a rotational
>component. Add orographic features and wind effects to these
>forces occurring in such a short period of time, over a relatively
>small area, and the air is very chaotic indeed.
>
>At 00:08 02 September 2012, Andrew wrote:
>>I also have wondered how an experienced pilot can spin in from
>>low thermalling. It must be a full spin, with the resulting steep
>>recovery dive, that causes a spin-in accident: a stall doesn't lose
>>much height. Even the most spin-eager gliders I've flown (Dart
>17
>>and Puchacz) always signalled an approaching stall in plenty of
>>time to stop an unintended spin developing. I've never
>>accidentally spun while thermalling at normal altitudes, not once
>in
>>my several thousand hours of gliding, so I wonder why it would
>be
>>more likely to happen low down.
>>
>>One explanation might be that pilots are very stressed when
>>circling low, and simply don't fly as well as usual. Or maybe they
>>are circling unusually tightly, perhaps in a small thermal. I suspect
>>experienced pilots would not make these mistakes.
>>
>>So I think that John Cochran's comment of August 28th may be
>>right. There may some unknown, unexpected risk when low-
>and-
>>slow that catches pilots out, even the best ones. Maybe small,
>>strong, bubbly thermals exist low down, that can perhaps
>>suddenly stall one wing? That would produce an immediate,
>>uncontrollable, violent roll, somewhat like a flick manoever,
>>without any advance warning signals. Not technically a spin, but
>>probably ending the same way: a steep dive with insufficient
>>height. If true, that's a risk that no amount of pilot skill can
>>prevent, except by adopting the sensible rules I was trained
>with:
>>
>>1. never thermal below pattern altitude, and
>>2. always fly at approach speed below pattern altitude.
>>
>>I have had one personal experience that supports John's
>>suggestion: after a normal thermal flight in the midwest, on a
>day
>>with light winds, I was on a normal final approach with wings
>level,
>>at normal approach speed (60kts). At about 100ft agl, without
>any
>>warning, my starboard wing was pushed rapidly and smoothly
>>upwards, and despite immediate full opposite control input, I was
>>put into a steep bank, I'd estimate close to 45 degrees. The
>surge
>>vanished as fast as it had arrived. After it stopped, I was able to
>>level the wings, correct the heading, and made a normal landing
>>further down the runway. It totally surprised me. I assume a
>>narrow thermal bubble lifted off under the starboard wing just as
>I
>>passed. I estimate the surge lasted about three seconds, so at
>>60kts it must have been about 300ft long. I would not have
>>believed it, except that it happened to me. I'm sure it would
>have
>>been much harder to cope with, if I had not been flying at
>>approach speed. Perhaps if I'd been flying slowly, at a higher
>>angle of attack, the surge might have stalled the starboard wing.
>>This roll event was also seen by an experienced pilot observer on
>>the ground, who said he was astonished to see it, and inquired
>>about it after I landed.
>>
>>A roll upset like this has only happened to me once, so
>>(thankfully) its clearly a very rare occurrence, and maneageable
>>at approach speed. If such bubbles are baby thermals, they are
>>probably only in small areas, miles apart, and short lived, so
>>would also be rarely encountered. However a pilot who is
>>attempting to thermal low is presumably intentionally over an
>area
>>where baby thermals are forming, so may have a higher chance
>>of encountering such an effect.
>>
>>
>>
>>At 17:08 28 August 2012, John Cochrane wrote:
>>>
>>>One point not reiterated yet here -- the atmosphere down low
>is
>>very
>>>different from what you're used to at 2000 feet and above. It's
>>easy
>>>to say "I haven't unintentionally stalled /spun in a thermal in a
>>>thousand hours. How much of a dope do you have to be?"
>>>
>>>A short list of what's different down low: The atmosphere is
>>much more
>>>turbulent. Thermals, such as they are are much smaller. In this
>>layer,
>>>many small punchy thermals will start. Many will die. The ones
>>we use
>>>up higher consist of many little parcels of hot air that have
>>>coalesced. Most thermals are either short lived, or basically
>>>unworkable to a modern glider. You're in the boundary layer
>>where wind
>>>is being affected by the ground, so there is wind-induced
>>turbulence.
>>>Punches of strong lift/gust followed by sink when you make a
>>half turn
>>>will be the norm.
>>>
>>>The ground picture will be totally different to the pilot. If you
>turn
>>>downwind at altitude, you don't notice that much. If you turn
>>downwind
>>>at 300 feet, all of a sudden the ground will rush by and, this
>>being a
>>>high stress moment, you may pull back. Just as the gust you
>>turned in
>>>fades, or the thermal turns to sink. And when the canopy fills
>>with
>>>trees going by at 70 mph, the urge to pull back will be really
>>strong.
>>>You may push forward to recover at altitude, but it's really
>really
>>>hard to do with the ground coming up fast.
>>>
>>>So, just because you've never unintentionally spun at altitude
>>does
>>>not mean your chances at 300 feet are the same.
>>>
>>>Not to raise a tired subject, but why we give out contest points
>>for
>>>thermaling at 300 feet or below remains a puzzling question to
>>me.
>>>
>>>John Cochrane
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

Don Burns

September 2nd 12, 01:25 PM

I remember a sign on a flying office wall years ago about the three most
important rules of flying:

Rule # 1 Maintain proper air speed!

Rule # 2 Maintain proper air speed!!

Rule # 3 Maintain proper air speed!!!

At 09:45 02 September 2012, Chris Rollings wrote:
>A little over 40 years ago an event occurred which stongly influenced m
>thinking about spinning accidents. At the time I was employed as Deput
>Chief Instructor at a large, full time gliding club in the UK. On the da
>in question I was flying the tow-plane. One of our club members, a fairl
>experienced pilot with about 400 hours and a Gold Badge (very experience
>in 1972), was flying in a club glider (Ka6e). During his approach to
land
>he changed his mind about where on the airfield he wanted to finish an
>entered a turn at very low level over the middle of the airport. He spu
>off the turn and the glider was comprehensively destroyed. I was in th
>pattern at the time and landed alongside the wreckage within less than tw
>minutes of the accident.
>
>The pilot had already extricated himself from the pile of firewood and wa
>standing next to it, apparently uninjured. I jumped out of the tow-plan
>and walked up to him; what he said is stamped unforgettably on my brain.
>His first remark was rather flippant, "I'm sorry, I seem to have parked i
>rather untidily." The next remark was very revealing (remember this wa
>only about 2 minutes after he had spun in), "I can't understand wha
>happened, there must have been something wrong with the elevator, I kep
>pulling back on the stick but the nose wouldn't come up."
>
>Five minutes later he realised he had spun in. When he wrote out a
>accident report the next day, he stated that he had entered a spin at lo
>altitude with insufficient height to recover and had apparently forgotte
>that he did not recognise the spin at the time.
>
>He had been trained, about 8 years earlier, in a regime which did includ
>spinning and recovery in pre-solo training, but there was no requiremen
>for anything like a BFR or annual check so long as he remained current.
I
>all probability he had not seen a spin from inside the cockpit for a
numbe
>of years. Little wonder that he did not recognise it instantly.
>
>When a glider starts to spin, its acceleration downwards is somewhat les
>than that of an object in free-fall and it stabilises after about one
turn
> That first turn takes about 4 seconds and breaks down thus (Figure
>measured on tests I conducted, mainly in a Puchacz): 1st second, heigh
>loss about 20 feet, pitch down 20 - 30 degrees (recovery, by just movin
>the stick forward will lose another 20 - 30 feet); 2nd second pitch down
t
>about 40 degrees, height loss total about 50 feet (recovery by moving th
>stick forward and perhaps some opposite rudder will lose another 75 - 10
>feet); 3rd second total height loss about 80 feet, pitch down about 5
>degrees (recovery, opposite rudder and stick forward height loss a
>additional 150 - 200 feet); 4th second, pitch down about 60 degrees,
heigh
>loss a bit more than 100 feet, spin now fully developed (recovery, ful
>opposite rudder stick forward, height loss an additional 200 - 250 feet).
>
>If you spin at 300 feet and recognise and initiate recovery in 1 or
>seconds you will get away with it, if it takes you 3 seconds you might
jus
>get lucky, more than 3 seconds and you're gonna crash - hard. I should
ad
>that my friend in the accident described above was probably somewhat belo
>100 feet when he spun, so he had even less time to save himself and onl
>about 3 seconds from departure to impact.
>
>The FAA system, which does not require any spin training until training a
>an instructor, cannot be expected to produce pilots who will recognise a
>unintentional spin, purely from description, in only one or two seconds,
s
>departures near the ground are highly likely to result in spin-ins. Eve
>pilots trained under the UK system (which does include spinning an
>recovery practice as part of the pre and post solo training), can't b
>expected to recognise an unintentional spin that quickly if they haven'
>seen and practiced one for months or years. The only thing that will wor
>is frequent practice and only instructors who are teaching spinnin
>regularly are really likely to get enough.
>
>The pre-stall symptoms that warn of a stall, are normally readily apparen
>when tou are doing a deliberate stall and looking for them, they are not
s
>obvious when the stall is not intended or expected, and attention i
>elsewhere (on centering on a thermal or sorting out where you are going t
>land, for example).
>
>Glider pilots often tend to fly very much by attitude with the ASI as
>secondary reference, when you are very close to the ground quite small
hil
>or even just a row of trees can make the nose look further down than it
is
> Below 500 feet AGL, glance at the ASI every 3 - 5 seconds.
>
>At 04:10 02 September 2012, John Sullivan wrote:
>>
>>At altitude thermals flow generally vertically relatively unrestricted.
>>At birth, even on a perfectly flat surface, thermal air must
>>transition from a flat, shallow disk shaped zone feeding in from
>>360 degrees, crashing in, upwards ,which introduces a rotational
>>component. Add orographic features and wind effects to these
>>forces occurring in such a short period of time, over a relatively
>>small area, and the air is very chaotic indeed.
>>
>>At 00:08 02 September 2012, Andrew wrote:
>>>I also have wondered how an experienced pilot can spin in from
>>>low thermalling. It must be a full spin, with the resulting steep
>>>recovery dive, that causes a spin-in accident: a stall doesn't lose
>>>much height. Even the most spin-eager gliders I've flown (Dart
>>17
>>>and Puchacz) always signalled an approaching stall in plenty of
>>>time to stop an unintended spin developing. I've never
>>>accidentally spun while thermalling at normal altitudes, not once
>>in
>>>my several thousand hours of gliding, so I wonder why it would
>>be
>>>more likely to happen low down.
>>>
>>>One explanation might be that pilots are very stressed when
>>>circling low, and simply don't fly as well as usual. Or maybe they
>>>are circling unusually tightly, perhaps in a small thermal. I suspect
>>>experienced pilots would not make these mistakes.
>>>
>>>So I think that John Cochran's comment of August 28th may be
>>>right. There may some unknown, unexpected risk when low-
>>and-
>>>slow that catches pilots out, even the best ones. Maybe small,
>>>strong, bubbly thermals exist low down, that can perhaps
>>>suddenly stall one wing? That would produce an immediate,
>>>uncontrollable, violent roll, somewhat like a flick manoever,
>>>without any advance warning signals. Not technically a spin, but
>>>probably ending the same way: a steep dive with insufficient
>>>height. If true, that's a risk that no amount of pilot skill can
>>>prevent, except by adopting the sensible rules I was trained
>>with:
>>>
>>>1. never thermal below pattern altitude, and
>>>2. always fly at approach speed below pattern altitude.
>>>
>>>I have had one personal experience that supports John's
>>>suggestion: after a normal thermal flight in the midwest, on a
>>day
>>>with light winds, I was on a normal final approach with wings
>>level,
>>>at normal approach speed (60kts). At about 100ft agl, without
>>any
>>>warning, my starboard wing was pushed rapidly and smoothly
>>>upwards, and despite immediate full opposite control input, I was
>>>put into a steep bank, I'd estimate close to 45 degrees. The
>>surge
>>>vanished as fast as it had arrived. After it stopped, I was able to
>>>level the wings, correct the heading, and made a normal landing
>>>further down the runway. It totally surprised me. I assume a
>>>narrow thermal bubble lifted off under the starboard wing just as
>>I
>>>passed. I estimate the surge lasted about three seconds, so at
>>>60kts it must have been about 300ft long. I would not have
>>>believed it, except that it happened to me. I'm sure it would
>>have
>>>been much harder to cope with, if I had not been flying at
>>>approach speed. Perhaps if I'd been flying slowly, at a higher
>>>angle of attack, the surge might have stalled the starboard wing.
>>>This roll event was also seen by an experienced pilot observer on
>>>the ground, who said he was astonished to see it, and inquired
>>>about it after I landed.
>>>
>>>A roll upset like this has only happened to me once, so
>>>(thankfully) its clearly a very rare occurrence, and maneageable
>>>at approach speed. If such bubbles are baby thermals, they are
>>>probably only in small areas, miles apart, and short lived, so
>>>would also be rarely encountered. However a pilot who is
>>>attempting to thermal low is presumably intentionally over an
>>area
>>>where baby thermals are forming, so may have a higher chance
>>>of encountering such an effect.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>At 17:08 28 August 2012, John Cochrane wrote:
>>>>
>>>>One point not reiterated yet here -- the atmosphere down low
>>is
>>>very
>>>>different from what you're used to at 2000 feet and above. It's
>>>easy
>>>>to say "I haven't unintentionally stalled /spun in a thermal in a
>>>>thousand hours. How much of a dope do you have to be?"
>>>>
>>>>A short list of what's different down low: The atmosphere is
>>>much more
>>>>turbulent. Thermals, such as they are are much smaller. In this
>>>layer,
>>>>many small punchy thermals will start. Many will die. The ones
>>>we use
>>>>up higher consist of many little parcels of hot air that have
>>>>coalesced. Most thermals are either short lived, or basically
>>>>unworkable to a modern glider. You're in the boundary layer
>>>where wind
>>>>is being affected by the ground, so there is wind-induced
>>>turbulence.
>>>>Punches of strong lift/gust followed by sink when you make a
>>>half turn
>>>>will be the norm.
>>>>
>>>>The ground picture will be totally different to the pilot. If you
>>turn
>>>>downwind at altitude, you don't notice that much. If you turn
>>>downwind
>>>>at 300 feet, all of a sudden the ground will rush by and, this
>>>being a
>>>>high stress moment, you may pull back. Just as the gust you
>>>turned in
>>>>fades, or the thermal turns to sink. And when the canopy fills
>>>with
>>>>trees going by at 70 mph, the urge to pull back will be really
>>>strong.
>>>>You may push forward to recover at altitude, but it's really
>>really
>>>>hard to do with the ground coming up fast.
>>>>
>>>>So, just because you've never unintentionally spun at altitude
>>>does
>>>>not mean your chances at 300 feet are the same.
>>>>
>>>>Not to raise a tired subject, but why we give out contest points
>>>for
>>>>thermaling at 300 feet or below remains a puzzling question to
>>>me.
>>>>
>>>>John Cochrane
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Chris Rollings[_2_]

September 2nd 12, 02:35 PM

Anyone any idea why the system clipped the last letter off every line in my
last post?

At 09:45 02 September 2012, Chris Rollings wrote:
>A little over 40 years ago an event occurred which stongly influenced m
>thinking about spinning accidents. At the time I was employed as Deput
>Chief Instructor at a large, full time gliding club in the UK. On the da
>in question I was flying the tow-plane. One of our club members, a fairl
>experienced pilot with about 400 hours and a Gold Badge (very experience
>in 1972), was flying in a club glider (Ka6e). During his approach to
land
>he changed his mind about where on the airfield he wanted to finish an
>entered a turn at very low level over the middle of the airport. He spu
>off the turn and the glider was comprehensively destroyed. I was in th
>pattern at the time and landed alongside the wreckage within less than tw
>minutes of the accident.
>
>The pilot had already extricated himself from the pile of firewood and wa
>standing next to it, apparently uninjured. I jumped out of the tow-plan
>and walked up to him; what he said is stamped unforgettably on my brain.
>His first remark was rather flippant, "I'm sorry, I seem to have parked i
>rather untidily." The next remark was very revealing (remember this wa
>only about 2 minutes after he had spun in), "I can't understand wha
>happened, there must have been something wrong with the elevator, I kep
>pulling back on the stick but the nose wouldn't come up."
>
>Five minutes later he realised he had spun in. When he wrote out a
>accident report the next day, he stated that he had entered a spin at lo
>altitude with insufficient height to recover and had apparently forgotte
>that he did not recognise the spin at the time.
>
>He had been trained, about 8 years earlier, in a regime which did includ
>spinning and recovery in pre-solo training, but there was no requiremen
>for anything like a BFR or annual check so long as he remained current.
I
>all probability he had not seen a spin from inside the cockpit for a
numbe
>of years. Little wonder that he did not recognise it instantly.
>
>When a glider starts to spin, its acceleration downwards is somewhat les
>than that of an object in free-fall and it stabilises after about one
turn
> That first turn takes about 4 seconds and breaks down thus (Figure
>measured on tests I conducted, mainly in a Puchacz): 1st second, heigh
>loss about 20 feet, pitch down 20 - 30 degrees (recovery, by just movin
>the stick forward will lose another 20 - 30 feet); 2nd second pitch down
t
>about 40 degrees, height loss total about 50 feet (recovery by moving th
>stick forward and perhaps some opposite rudder will lose another 75 - 10
>feet); 3rd second total height loss about 80 feet, pitch down about 5
>degrees (recovery, opposite rudder and stick forward height loss a
>additional 150 - 200 feet); 4th second, pitch down about 60 degrees,
heigh
>loss a bit more than 100 feet, spin now fully developed (recovery, ful
>opposite rudder stick forward, height loss an additional 200 - 250 feet).
>
>If you spin at 300 feet and recognise and initiate recovery in 1 or
>seconds you will get away with it, if it takes you 3 seconds you might
jus
>get lucky, more than 3 seconds and you're gonna crash - hard. I should
ad
>that my friend in the accident described above was probably somewhat belo
>100 feet when he spun, so he had even less time to save himself and onl
>about 3 seconds from departure to impact.
>
>The FAA system, which does not require any spin training until training a
>an instructor, cannot be expected to produce pilots who will recognise a
>unintentional spin, purely from description, in only one or two seconds,
s
>departures near the ground are highly likely to result in spin-ins. Eve
>pilots trained under the UK system (which does include spinning an
>recovery practice as part of the pre and post solo training), can't b
>expected to recognise an unintentional spin that quickly if they haven'
>seen and practiced one for months or years. The only thing that will wor
>is frequent practice and only instructors who are teaching spinnin
>regularly are really likely to get enough.
>
>The pre-stall symptoms that warn of a stall, are normally readily apparen
>when tou are doing a deliberate stall and looking for them, they are not
s
>obvious when the stall is not intended or expected, and attention i
>elsewhere (on centering on a thermal or sorting out where you are going t
>land, for example).
>
>Glider pilots often tend to fly very much by attitude with the ASI as
>secondary reference, when you are very close to the ground quite small
hil
>or even just a row of trees can make the nose look further down than it
is
> Below 500 feet AGL, glance at the ASI every 3 - 5 seconds.
>
>At 04:10 02 September 2012, John Sullivan wrote:
>>
>>At altitude thermals flow generally vertically relatively unrestricted.
>>At birth, even on a perfectly flat surface, thermal air must
>>transition from a flat, shallow disk shaped zone feeding in from
>>360 degrees, crashing in, upwards ,which introduces a rotational
>>component. Add orographic features and wind effects to these
>>forces occurring in such a short period of time, over a relatively
>>small area, and the air is very chaotic indeed.
>>
>>At 00:08 02 September 2012, Andrew wrote:
>>>I also have wondered how an experienced pilot can spin in from
>>>low thermalling. It must be a full spin, with the resulting steep
>>>recovery dive, that causes a spin-in accident: a stall doesn't lose
>>>much height. Even the most spin-eager gliders I've flown (Dart
>>17
>>>and Puchacz) always signalled an approaching stall in plenty of
>>>time to stop an unintended spin developing. I've never
>>>accidentally spun while thermalling at normal altitudes, not once
>>in
>>>my several thousand hours of gliding, so I wonder why it would
>>be
>>>more likely to happen low down.
>>>
>>>One explanation might be that pilots are very stressed when
>>>circling low, and simply don't fly as well as usual. Or maybe they
>>>are circling unusually tightly, perhaps in a small thermal. I suspect
>>>experienced pilots would not make these mistakes.
>>>
>>>So I think that John Cochran's comment of August 28th may be
>>>right. There may some unknown, unexpected risk when low-
>>and-
>>>slow that catches pilots out, even the best ones. Maybe small,
>>>strong, bubbly thermals exist low down, that can perhaps
>>>suddenly stall one wing? That would produce an immediate,
>>>uncontrollable, violent roll, somewhat like a flick manoever,
>>>without any advance warning signals. Not technically a spin, but
>>>probably ending the same way: a steep dive with insufficient
>>>height. If true, that's a risk that no amount of pilot skill can
>>>prevent, except by adopting the sensible rules I was trained
>>with:
>>>
>>>1. never thermal below pattern altitude, and
>>>2. always fly at approach speed below pattern altitude.
>>>
>>>I have had one personal experience that supports John's
>>>suggestion: after a normal thermal flight in the midwest, on a
>>day
>>>with light winds, I was on a normal final approach with wings
>>level,
>>>at normal approach speed (60kts). At about 100ft agl, without
>>any
>>>warning, my starboard wing was pushed rapidly and smoothly
>>>upwards, and despite immediate full opposite control input, I was
>>>put into a steep bank, I'd estimate close to 45 degrees. The
>>surge
>>>vanished as fast as it had arrived. After it stopped, I was able to
>>>level the wings, correct the heading, and made a normal landing
>>>further down the runway. It totally surprised me. I assume a
>>>narrow thermal bubble lifted off under the starboard wing just as
>>I
>>>passed. I estimate the surge lasted about three seconds, so at
>>>60kts it must have been about 300ft long. I would not have
>>>believed it, except that it happened to me. I'm sure it would
>>have
>>>been much harder to cope with, if I had not been flying at
>>>approach speed. Perhaps if I'd been flying slowly, at a higher
>>>angle of attack, the surge might have stalled the starboard wing.
>>>This roll event was also seen by an experienced pilot observer on
>>>the ground, who said he was astonished to see it, and inquired
>>>about it after I landed.
>>>
>>>A roll upset like this has only happened to me once, so
>>>(thankfully) its clearly a very rare occurrence, and maneageable
>>>at approach speed. If such bubbles are baby thermals, they are
>>>probably only in small areas, miles apart, and short lived, so
>>>would also be rarely encountered. However a pilot who is
>>>attempting to thermal low is presumably intentionally over an
>>area
>>>where baby thermals are forming, so may have a higher chance
>>>of encountering such an effect.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>At 17:08 28 August 2012, John Cochrane wrote:
>>>>
>>>>One point not reiterated yet here -- the atmosphere down low
>>is
>>>very
>>>>different from what you're used to at 2000 feet and above. It's
>>>easy
>>>>to say "I haven't unintentionally stalled /spun in a thermal in a
>>>>thousand hours. How much of a dope do you have to be?"
>>>>
>>>>A short list of what's different down low: The atmosphere is
>>>much more
>>>>turbulent. Thermals, such as they are are much smaller. In this
>>>layer,
>>>>many small punchy thermals will start. Many will die. The ones
>>>we use
>>>>up higher consist of many little parcels of hot air that have
>>>>coalesced. Most thermals are either short lived, or basically
>>>>unworkable to a modern glider. You're in the boundary layer
>>>where wind
>>>>is being affected by the ground, so there is wind-induced
>>>turbulence.
>>>>Punches of strong lift/gust followed by sink when you make a
>>>half turn
>>>>will be the norm.
>>>>
>>>>The ground picture will be totally different to the pilot. If you
>>turn
>>>>downwind at altitude, you don't notice that much. If you turn
>>>downwind
>>>>at 300 feet, all of a sudden the ground will rush by and, this
>>>being a
>>>>high stress moment, you may pull back. Just as the gust you
>>>turned in
>>>>fades, or the thermal turns to sink. And when the canopy fills
>>>with
>>>>trees going by at 70 mph, the urge to pull back will be really
>>>strong.
>>>>You may push forward to recover at altitude, but it's really
>>really
>>>>hard to do with the ground coming up fast.
>>>>
>>>>So, just because you've never unintentionally spun at altitude
>>>does
>>>>not mean your chances at 300 feet are the same.
>>>>
>>>>Not to raise a tired subject, but why we give out contest points
>>>for
>>>>thermaling at 300 feet or below remains a puzzling question to
>>>me.
>>>>
>>>>John Cochrane
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Jonathon May[_2_]

September 2nd 12, 03:35 PM

At 13:35 02 September 2012, Chris Rollings wrote:
>Anyone any idea why the system clipped the last letter off every line in
my
>last post?
>Wash out?
>At 09:45 02 September 2012, Chris Rollings wrote:
>>A little over 40 years ago an event occurred which stongly influenced m
>>thinking about spinning accidents. At the time I was employed as Deput
>>Chief Instructor at a large, full time gliding club in the UK. On the
da
>>in question I was flying the tow-plane. One of our club members, a
fairl
>>experienced pilot with about 400 hours and a Gold Badge (very experience
>>in 1972), was flying in a club glider (Ka6e). During his approach to
>land
>>he changed his mind about where on the airfield he wanted to finish an
>>entered a turn at very low level over the middle of the airport. He spu
>>off the turn and the glider was comprehensively destroyed. I was in th
>>pattern at the time and landed alongside the wreckage within less than
tw
>>minutes of the accident.
>>
>>The pilot had already extricated himself from the pile of firewood and
wa
>>standing next to it, apparently uninjured. I jumped out of the tow-plan
>>and walked up to him; what he said is stamped unforgettably on my brain.
>>His first remark was rather flippant, "I'm sorry, I seem to have parked
i
>>rather untidily." The next remark was very revealing (remember this wa
>>only about 2 minutes after he had spun in), "I can't understand wha
>>happened, there must have been something wrong with the elevator, I
kep
>>pulling back on the stick but the nose wouldn't come up."
>>
>>Five minutes later he realised he had spun in. When he wrote out a
>>accident report the next day, he stated that he had entered a spin at lo
>>altitude with insufficient height to recover and had apparently forgotte
>>that he did not recognise the spin at the time.
>>
>>He had been trained, about 8 years earlier, in a regime which did includ
>>spinning and recovery in pre-solo training, but there was no requiremen
>>for anything like a BFR or annual check so long as he remained current.
>I
>>all probability he had not seen a spin from inside the cockpit for a
>numbe
>>of years. Little wonder that he did not recognise it instantly.
>>
>>When a glider starts to spin, its acceleration downwards is somewhat les
>>than that of an object in free-fall and it stabilises after about one
>turn
>> That first turn takes about 4 seconds and breaks down thus (Figure
>>measured on tests I conducted, mainly in a Puchacz): 1st second, heigh
>>loss about 20 feet, pitch down 20 - 30 degrees (recovery, by just movin
>>the stick forward will lose another 20 - 30 feet); 2nd second pitch down
>t
>>about 40 degrees, height loss total about 50 feet (recovery by moving th
>>stick forward and perhaps some opposite rudder will lose another 75 - 10
>>feet); 3rd second total height loss about 80 feet, pitch down about 5
>>degrees (recovery, opposite rudder and stick forward height loss a
>>additional 150 - 200 feet); 4th second, pitch down about 60 degrees,
>heigh
>>loss a bit more than 100 feet, spin now fully developed (recovery, ful
>>opposite rudder stick forward, height loss an additional 200 - 250
feet).
>>
>>If you spin at 300 feet and recognise and initiate recovery in 1 or
>>seconds you will get away with it, if it takes you 3 seconds you might
>jus
>>get lucky, more than 3 seconds and you're gonna crash - hard. I should
>ad
>>that my friend in the accident described above was probably somewhat
belo
>>100 feet when he spun, so he had even less time to save himself and onl
>>about 3 seconds from departure to impact.
>>
>>The FAA system, which does not require any spin training until training
a
>>an instructor, cannot be expected to produce pilots who will recognise a
>>unintentional spin, purely from description, in only one or two seconds,
>s
>>departures near the ground are highly likely to result in spin-ins. Eve
>>pilots trained under the UK system (which does include spinning an
>>recovery practice as part of the pre and post solo training), can't b
>>expected to recognise an unintentional spin that quickly if they haven'
>>seen and practiced one for months or years. The only thing that will
wor
>>is frequent practice and only instructors who are teaching spinnin
>>regularly are really likely to get enough.
>>
>>The pre-stall symptoms that warn of a stall, are normally readily
apparen
>>when tou are doing a deliberate stall and looking for them, they are not
>s
>>obvious when the stall is not intended or expected, and attention i
>>elsewhere (on centering on a thermal or sorting out where you are going
t
>>land, for example).
>>
>>Glider pilots often tend to fly very much by attitude with the ASI as
>>secondary reference, when you are very close to the ground quite small
>hil
>>or even just a row of trees can make the nose look further down than it
>is
>> Below 500 feet AGL, glance at the ASI every 3 - 5 seconds.
>>
>>At 04:10 02 September 2012, John Sullivan wrote:
>>>
>>>At altitude thermals flow generally vertically relatively unrestricted.
>>>At birth, even on a perfectly flat surface, thermal air must
>>>transition from a flat, shallow disk shaped zone feeding in from
>>>360 degrees, crashing in, upwards ,which introduces a rotational
>>>component. Add orographic features and wind effects to these
>>>forces occurring in such a short period of time, over a relatively
>>>small area, and the air is very chaotic indeed.
>>>
>>>At 00:08 02 September 2012, Andrew wrote:
>>>>I also have wondered how an experienced pilot can spin in from
>>>>low thermalling. It must be a full spin, with the resulting steep
>>>>recovery dive, that causes a spin-in accident: a stall doesn't lose
>>>>much height. Even the most spin-eager gliders I've flown (Dart
>>>17
>>>>and Puchacz) always signalled an approaching stall in plenty of
>>>>time to stop an unintended spin developing. I've never
>>>>accidentally spun while thermalling at normal altitudes, not once
>>>in
>>>>my several thousand hours of gliding, so I wonder why it would
>>>be
>>>>more likely to happen low down.
>>>>
>>>>One explanation might be that pilots are very stressed when
>>>>circling low, and simply don't fly as well as usual. Or maybe they
>>>>are circling unusually tightly, perhaps in a small thermal. I suspect
>>>>experienced pilots would not make these mistakes.
>>>>
>>>>So I think that John Cochran's comment of August 28th may be
>>>>right. There may some unknown, unexpected risk when low-
>>>and-
>>>>slow that catches pilots out, even the best ones. Maybe small,
>>>>strong, bubbly thermals exist low down, that can perhaps
>>>>suddenly stall one wing? That would produce an immediate,
>>>>uncontrollable, violent roll, somewhat like a flick manoever,
>>>>without any advance warning signals. Not technically a spin, but
>>>>probably ending the same way: a steep dive with insufficient
>>>>height. If true, that's a risk that no amount of pilot skill can
>>>>prevent, except by adopting the sensible rules I was trained
>>>with:
>>>>
>>>>1. never thermal below pattern altitude, and
>>>>2. always fly at approach speed below pattern altitude.
>>>>
>>>>I have had one personal experience that supports John's
>>>>suggestion: after a normal thermal flight in the midwest, on a
>>>day
>>>>with light winds, I was on a normal final approach with wings
>>>level,
>>>>at normal approach speed (60kts). At about 100ft agl, without
>>>any
>>>>warning, my starboard wing was pushed rapidly and smoothly
>>>>upwards, and despite immediate full opposite control input, I was
>>>>put into a steep bank, I'd estimate close to 45 degrees. The
>>>surge
>>>>vanished as fast as it had arrived. After it stopped, I was able to
>>>>level the wings, correct the heading, and made a normal landing
>>>>further down the runway. It totally surprised me. I assume a
>>>>narrow thermal bubble lifted off under the starboard wing just as
>>>I
>>>>passed. I estimate the surge lasted about three seconds, so at
>>>>60kts it must have been about 300ft long. I would not have
>>>>believed it, except that it happened to me. I'm sure it would
>>>have
>>>>been much harder to cope with, if I had not been flying at
>>>>approach speed. Perhaps if I'd been flying slowly, at a higher
>>>>angle of attack, the surge might have stalled the starboard wing.
>>>>This roll event was also seen by an experienced pilot observer on
>>>>the ground, who said he was astonished to see it, and inquired
>>>>about it after I landed.
>>>>
>>>>A roll upset like this has only happened to me once, so
>>>>(thankfully) its clearly a very rare occurrence, and maneageable
>>>>at approach speed. If such bubbles are baby thermals, they are
>>>>probably only in small areas, miles apart, and short lived, so
>>>>would also be rarely encountered. However a pilot who is
>>>>attempting to thermal low is presumably intentionally over an
>>>area
>>>>where baby thermals are forming, so may have a higher chance
>>>>of encountering such an effect.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>At 17:08 28 August 2012, John Cochrane wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>One point not reiterated yet here -- the atmosphere down low
>>>is
>>>>very
>>>>>different from what you're used to at 2000 feet and above. It's
>>>>easy
>>>>>to say "I haven't unintentionally stalled /spun in a thermal in a
>>>>>thousand hours. How much of a dope do you have to be?"
>>>>>
>>>>>A short list of what's different down low: The atmosphere is
>>>>much more
>>>>>turbulent. Thermals, such as they are are much smaller. In this
>>>>layer,
>>>>>many small punchy thermals will start. Many will die. The ones
>>>>we use
>>>>>up higher consist of many little parcels of hot air that have
>>>>>coalesced. Most thermals are either short lived, or basically
>>>>>unworkable to a modern glider. You're in the boundary layer
>>>>where wind
>>>>>is being affected by the ground, so there is wind-induced
>>>>turbulence.
>>>>>Punches of strong lift/gust followed by sink when you make a
>>>>half turn
>>>>>will be the norm.
>>>>>
>>>>>The ground picture will be totally different to the pilot. If you
>>>turn
>>>>>downwind at altitude, you don't notice that much. If you turn
>>>>downwind
>>>>>at 300 feet, all of a sudden the ground will rush by and, this
>>>>being a
>>>>>high stress moment, you may pull back. Just as the gust you
>>>>turned in
>>>>>fades, or the thermal turns to sink. And when the canopy fills
>>>>with
>>>>>trees going by at 70 mph, the urge to pull back will be really
>>>>strong.
>>>>>You may push forward to recover at altitude, but it's really
>>>really
>>>>>hard to do with the ground coming up fast.
>>>>>
>>>>>So, just because you've never unintentionally spun at altitude
>>>>does
>>>>>not mean your chances at 300 feet are the same.
>>>>>
>>>>>Not to raise a tired subject, but why we give out contest points
>>>>for
>>>>>thermaling at 300 feet or below remains a puzzling question to
>>>>me.
>>>>>
>>>>>John Cochrane
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

Martin Gregorie[_5_]

September 2nd 12, 04:01 PM

On Sun, 02 Sep 2012 13:35:59 +0000, Chris Rollings wrote:

> Anyone any idea why the system clipped the last letter off every line in
> my last post?
>
That hasn't happened here: I've just saved a copy of your post for future
reference and can confirm that the saved version also has unclipped
lines. I use Pan 0.135 running under RedHat Fedora 15 as my newsreader.

Thanks for the post. I particularly appreciate having the time vs.
attitude and height lost figures for the Puchacz, which is one of my
favourite dual-seat trainers.

--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

[email protected]

September 3rd 12, 12:01 AM

Am Sonntag, 2. September 2012 14:30:03 UTC+2 schrieb Don Burns:
> I remember a sign on a flying office wall years ago about the three most
>
> important rules of flying:
>
> Rule # 1 Maintain proper air speed!
> Rule # 2 Maintain proper air speed!!
> Rule # 3 Maintain proper air speed!!!
>
>
>
I'm tempted to put a sign in my office today:

Rule 1: Fly at AOA significantly below the critical AOA !
Rule 2: Fly at AOA significantly below the critical AOA !!
Rule 3: Fly at AOA significantly below the critical AOA !!!

Why that change?

I'm not good at quickly calculating the proper air speed for every configuration of flight.

In my gilder have not only a yaw string but also 2 side strings. They are 30-35° upwards at the critical AOA. As long as they are not in my field of vision, I know that I'm quite some distance away from the critical AOA.

unkown

September 3rd 12, 12:38 AM

Am Donnerstag, 30. August 2012 22:13:31 UTC+2 schrieb (unbekannt):

> I like Bruno and his videos, but some of what he does and shows do not reflect examples of how we should all fly. This is such an example.
>
> So- what does Crabby UH say he did wrong?
>
> 1- Obviously exceeded the critical angle of attack of the inboard wing- gust likely a factor- could happen to any of us, and does.
>
> 2- As the wing starts to drop, adds top aileron, obviously as an automatic and likely habitual reaction. This has the effect of increasing the angle of attack on the most critical portion of the wing at exactly the wrong time.
>
> 3- No obvious use of opposite rudder.
>
> 4- No forward stick to reduce angle of attack, in fact it appears the stick is positively held back.
>
> The dumping of flaps seems to be well practiced in recovering from this maneuver- I wonder who taught him this.
>

When I have just stalled a wing, I'm just above the critical AoA and my wing produces hardly any lift, so my AoA will increase further. But when I detect this early enough I might be able to get below the critical AoA by just moving the flaps forward. This is the most direct and the fastest way to change my AoA. If I mange to reduce my AoA below the critical AoA by moving the flaps forward, I produce more lift than with the flaps in the original position, so my increase in AoA is slower. If the gust, which caused my stalled wind, ends before I read the critical AoA in the new configuration this might be sufficient to regain control.

Reducing my AoA with the elevator is only my second but long term option, because I have to rotate my ship around the lateral axis and this rotation takes time.

With the flaps I can reduce the AoA for only a short period of time, but it quite often buys sufficient time to stay unstalled during the gust. If it is not sufficient, I have to use the conventional slow indirect method with the elevator.

unkown

September 3rd 12, 12:43 AM

Am Montag, 3. September 2012 01:38:50 UTC+2 schrieb unkown:
> Am Donnerstag, 30. August 2012 22:13:31 UTC+2 schrieb (unbekannt):
>
>
>
> > I like Bruno and his videos, but some of what he does and shows do not reflect examples of how we should all fly. This is such an example.
>
> >
>
> > So- what does Crabby UH say he did wrong?
>
> >
>
> > 1- Obviously exceeded the critical angle of attack of the inboard wing- gust likely a factor- could happen to any of us, and does.
>
> >
>
> > 2- As the wing starts to drop, adds top aileron, obviously as an automatic and likely habitual reaction. This has the effect of increasing the angle of attack on the most critical portion of the wing at exactly the wrong time.
>
> >
>
> > 3- No obvious use of opposite rudder.
>
> >
>
> > 4- No forward stick to reduce angle of attack, in fact it appears the stick is positively held back.
>
> >
>
> > The dumping of flaps seems to be well practiced in recovering from this maneuver- I wonder who taught him this.
>
> >
>
>
>
> When I have just stalled a wing, I'm just above the critical AoA and my wing produces hardly any lift, so my AoA will increase further. But when I detect this early enough I might be able to get below the critical AoA by just moving the flaps forward. This is the most direct and the fastest way to change my AoA. If I mange to reduce my AoA below the critical AoA by moving the flaps forward, I produce more lift than with the flaps in the original position, so my increase in AoA is slower. If the gust, which caused my stalled wind, ends before I read the critical AoA in the new configuration this might be sufficient to regain control.
>
>
>
> Reducing my AoA with the elevator is only my second but long term option, because I have to rotate my ship around the lateral axis and this rotation takes time.
>
>
>
>
>
> With the flaps I can reduce the AoA for only a short period of time, but it quite often buys sufficient time to stay unstalled during the gust. If it is not sufficient, I have to use the conventional slow indirect method with the elevator.

"stalled wind, ends before I read" = "stalled wing, ends before I reach"

BobW

September 3rd 12, 12:59 AM

On 9/2/2012 3:45 AM, Chris Rollings wrote:

<Most of a Very Excellent original post snipped...>

> ...The next remark was very revealing (remember this was
> only about 2 minutes after he had spun in), "I can't understand what
> happened, there must have been something wrong with the elevator, I kept
> pulling back on the stick but the nose wouldn't come up."

I wonder...:
1) what percentage of glider pilots think of the stick (as in elevator/pitch)
as a "nose up/down control"?
2) what percentage of glider pilots think of the stick (as in elevator/pitch)
as a "speed control"?

I believe 2) is the better/safer manner of thinking about it. It will ALWAYS
result in the correct action being taken "if the elevator quits working" at
pattern speeds. (If we've any anal aerobatic mavens, please don't muddy the
picture; this thread IS about pattern departures. :-))
- - - - - -

> He had been trained, about 8 years earlier, in a regime which did include
> spinning and recovery in pre-solo training, but there was no requirement
> for anything like a BFR or annual check so long as he remained current. In
> all probability he had not seen a spin from inside the cockpit for a number
> of years. Little wonder that he did not recognise it instantly.

I'm unconvinced recurrent training is "the complete ticket". I believe that
how one fundamentally thinks (in this case, about pattern risks) is no less
crucial...perhaps even MORE crucial.

I also wonder how many glider pilots actively think when in the pattern "If I
don't get everything as I intend/need-to, I could DIE during THIS pattern!"? I
believe having such a thought in one's active awareness predisposes the mind
toward awareness that pattern departures *can* occur, and if "instant"
recognition/corrective action (reduction of AOA) does not occur, death is
likely to soon follow.

With such a thought in mind, it arguably should not matter how long ago one's
recurrent training involving pattern "departure gotcha scenarios" occurred.
- - - - - -

> ...Even
> pilots trained under the UK system (which does include spinning and
> recovery practice as part of the pre and post solo training), can't be
> expected to recognise an unintentional spin that quickly if they haven't
> seen and practiced one for months or years.

>...The only thing that will work
> is frequent practice and only instructors who are teaching spinning
> regularly are really likely to get enough.

To indulge in playful quibbling...is Chris R. here suggesting that only
instructors be allowed to fly patterns, since "...only instructors who are
teaching spinning regularly are really likely to get enough (unintentional
spin entry practice to quickly recognize pattern departures)"?

OK, I know he isn't, but to quibble with his point about "practice being
necessary/crucial" to rapidly recognizing incipient pattern departures, I'm
reasonably convinced that how a person thinks, matters...a lot!!! If a person
is mentally primed for the *possibility* of incipient departure in his or her
landing pattern, then not only is s/he less likely to inadvertently play in
that corner of the sandbox, but s/he will also be mentally primed to
rapidly/correctly react with the stick.
- - - - - -

Practice is great (whether governmentally mandated or self-motivated). Just
don't fall into the mental trap of "*temporarily* (i.e. "because you're
practicing") opening your mind" to practice and its lessons, when it should
*always* be open to death-inducing possibilities.

Bob - heightened awareness pattern flyer - W.

Andy[_1_]

September 3rd 12, 01:07 AM

On Sep 2, 6:45*am, Chris Rollings > wrote:
> Anyone any idea why the system clipped the last letter off every line in my
> last post?

It didn't, all ok when I read it.

Andy (GY)

Frank Whiteley

September 3rd 12, 01:58 AM

On Saturday, September 1, 2012 6:15:03 PM UTC-6, Andrew wrote:
> I also have wondered how an experienced pilot can spin in from
>
> low thermalling. It must be a full spin, with the resulting steep
>
> recovery dive, that causes a spin-in accident: a stall doesn't lose
>
> much height. Even the most spin-eager gliders I've flown (Dart 17
>
> and Puchacz) always signalled an approaching stall in plenty of
>
> time to stop an unintended spin developing. I've never
>
> accidentally spun while thermalling at normal altitudes, not once in
>
> my several thousand hours of gliding, so I wonder why it would be
>
> more likely to happen low down.
>
>
>
> One explanation might be that pilots are very stressed when
>
> circling low, and simply don't fly as well as usual. Or maybe they
>
> are circling unusually tightly, perhaps in a small thermal. I suspect
>
> experienced pilots would not make these mistakes.
>
>
>
> So I think that John Cochran's comment of August 28th may be
>
> right. There may some unknown, unexpected risk when low-and-
>
> slow that catches pilots out, even the best ones. Maybe small,
>
> strong, bubbly thermals exist low down, that can perhaps
>
> suddenly stall one wing? That would produce an immediate,
>
> uncontrollable, violent roll, somewhat like a flick manoever,
>
> without any advance warning signals. Not technically a spin, but
>
> probably ending the same way: a steep dive with insufficient
>
> height. If true, that's a risk that no amount of pilot skill can
>
> prevent, except by adopting the sensible rules I was trained with:
>
>
>
> 1. never thermal below pattern altitude, and
>
> 2. always fly at approach speed below pattern altitude.
>
>
>
> I have had one personal experience that supports John's
>
> suggestion: after a normal thermal flight in the midwest, on a day
>
> with light winds, I was on a normal final approach with wings level,
>
> at normal approach speed (60kts). At about 100ft agl, without any
>
> warning, my starboard wing was pushed rapidly and smoothly
>
> upwards, and despite immediate full opposite control input, I was
>
> put into a steep bank, I'd estimate close to 45 degrees. The surge
>
> vanished as fast as it had arrived. After it stopped, I was able to
>
> level the wings, correct the heading, and made a normal landing
>
> further down the runway. It totally surprised me. I assume a
>
> narrow thermal bubble lifted off under the starboard wing just as I
>
> passed. I estimate the surge lasted about three seconds, so at
>
> 60kts it must have been about 300ft long. I would not have
>
> believed it, except that it happened to me. I'm sure it would have
>
> been much harder to cope with, if I had not been flying at
>
> approach speed. Perhaps if I'd been flying slowly, at a higher
>
> angle of attack, the surge might have stalled the starboard wing.
>
> This roll event was also seen by an experienced pilot observer on
>
> the ground, who said he was astonished to see it, and inquired
>
> about it after I landed.
>
>
>
> A roll upset like this has only happened to me once, so
>
> (thankfully) its clearly a very rare occurrence, and maneageable
>
> at approach speed. If such bubbles are baby thermals, they are
>
> probably only in small areas, miles apart, and short lived, so
>
> would also be rarely encountered. However a pilot who is
>
> attempting to thermal low is presumably intentionally over an area
>
> where baby thermals are forming, so may have a higher chance
>
> of encountering such an effect.
>
>
>
>
>
May have been a dust devil, without the dust, or a thermal plume (see the Angevine article linked elsewhere in this thread), or a burst.

Over three decades ago I witnessed an SR-71 on short final get banked left to nearly 90 degrees. It was arriving from the US to an overseas location. The sky had several high based virga in the area. By the time the pilot got level, the Habu was several hundred feet left of the runway center line, over the fuel depot. After that event, Blackbirds returning from missions would do a high-speed pass down the runway to check the local air. Of course this was well before micro-burst and wind shear detectors.

The air can be fickle at any altitude, but down low it can be fatal. Which is reason 39 why I don't paraglide.

Frank Whiteley

Frank Whiteley

September 3rd 12, 02:09 AM

On Saturday, September 1, 2012 10:15:02 PM UTC-6, John Sullivan wrote:
> At altitude thermals flow generally vertically relatively unrestricted.
>
> At birth, even on a perfectly flat surface, thermal air must
>
> transition from a flat, shallow disk shaped zone feeding in from
>
> 360 degrees, crashing in, upwards ,which introduces a rotational
>
> component. Add orographic features and wind effects to these
>
> forces occurring in such a short period of time, over a relatively
>
> small area, and the air is very chaotic indeed.
>
Although I agree that low level air can be chaotic, the disk or torus models are not accurate, though okay conceptual exercises. See the Wayne Angevine article linked earlier in this thread. If you accept that a number of plumes coalesce into larger thermal plumes, then you'll understand why you sometimes encounter a 'thermal' which for some reason you just can't seem to center in. That's because you are circling in and out of multiple adjacent plumes. Surface objects can certainly create turbulence within the wind gradient.

Frank Whiteley

[email protected]

September 3rd 12, 09:39 AM

Personally, I think spin training is a great thing but in Canada, although spin training including full blooded spins is standard and a checkflight with an instructor at the beginning of every season including spins is mandatory too (I've never seen a club which doesn't require it and the Soaring Association Of Canada insurance requires it as well) we really don't have that great a safety record overall. I spin my 15b at least twice a year in addition to the two spins and two incipients I have to do on the checkflight plus the spins I do with students and I actually really enjoyed doing spins in the L-13's we used to have. Does that mean I'm immune from the possibility of having a low level stall-spin? I sure hope so but I have my doubts. Having the necessity of maintaining appropriate speed in the pattern and performing well banked turns to base and final drilled into me from very early on has likely served me well though.

Peter Higgs

September 3rd 12, 11:43 AM

Hi Guys, air turbulence certainly does exist at low altitudes... I have
flown into an airfield in GB where very large aircraft are produced. The
fabrication building is HUGE and only 500m from the threshold of RW22.
With any wind speed of over 12knotts, in the right direction, this causes
ROTOR to occur on Final. (No wonder they used curved hangars in the
past.)

Just to put some maths to the speeds needed to remain above stall....

1 / cos AOB = G force eg, 1/cos60 = 2g

sqr G = increase in stall speed eg. sqr2 = 1.414

so a S+L stall speed of 40kts becomes 56.6kts at 60deg AOB. (an increase
of 16.6kts.)

Pete

At 01:09 03 September 2012, Frank Whiteley wrote:
>On Saturday, September 1, 2012 10:15:02 PM UTC-6, John Sullivan wrote:
>> At altitude thermals flow generally vertically relatively unrestricted.
>>=20
>> At birth, even on a perfectly flat surface, thermal air must=20
>>=20
>> transition from a flat, shallow disk shaped zone feeding in from=20
>>=20
>> 360 degrees, crashing in, upwards ,which introduces a rotational=20
>>=20
>> component. Add orographic features and wind effects to these=20
>>=20
>> forces occurring in such a short period of time, over a relatively=20
>>=20
>> small area, and the air is very chaotic indeed.
>>=20
>Although I agree that low level air can be chaotic, the disk or torus
>model=
>s are not accurate, though okay conceptual exercises. See the Wayne
>Angevi=
>ne article linked earlier in this thread. If you accept that a number of
>p=
>lumes coalesce into larger thermal plumes, then you'll understand why you
>s=
>ometimes encounter a 'thermal' which for some reason you just can't seem
>to=
> center in. That's because you are circling in and out of multiple
>adjacen=
>t plumes. Surface objects can certainly create turbulence within the
wind
>=
>gradient.
>
>Frank Whiteley
>

Dan Marotta

September 3rd 12, 04:43 PM

If I thought I was going to die every time I flew, I wouldn't fly.

The problem, as I see it, with these low altitude stall/spin accidents stems
from the desire to get home rather than landing out. Back in the '70s the
USAF called it "Get-Home-itis" and warned that it was a good way to get
killed. Pilots need to make the decision to terminate a flight before there
is no option other than landing in an unlandable place or trying to make a
low save a mile from home just to avoid the inconvenience of a retrieve.

Long ago I made the committment to never be outside of gliding distance of a
suitable landing area. I also carry the phone numbers of people who have
told me that they will come to get me if I land out. I always know where I
will land if I don't get that next thermal so there's no problem if I don't
get it and there are never any attempts to thermal at 300' AGL.

Of my conservatism causes me to rarely get more than 500Km in a day, but I
can *live* with that.

"BobW" > wrote in message
...
> On 9/2/2012 3:45 AM, Chris Rollings wrote:
>
> <Most of a Very Excellent original post snipped...>
>
>> ...The next remark was very revealing (remember this was
>> only about 2 minutes after he had spun in), "I can't understand what
>> happened, there must have been something wrong with the elevator, I kept
>> pulling back on the stick but the nose wouldn't come up."
>
> I wonder...:
> 1) what percentage of glider pilots think of the stick (as in
> elevator/pitch) as a "nose up/down control"?
> 2) what percentage of glider pilots think of the stick (as in
> elevator/pitch) as a "speed control"?
>
> I believe 2) is the better/safer manner of thinking about it. It will
> ALWAYS result in the correct action being taken "if the elevator quits
> working" at pattern speeds. (If we've any anal aerobatic mavens, please
> don't muddy the picture; this thread IS about pattern departures. :-))
> - - - - - -
>
>> He had been trained, about 8 years earlier, in a regime which did include
>> spinning and recovery in pre-solo training, but there was no requirement
>> for anything like a BFR or annual check so long as he remained current.
>> In
>> all probability he had not seen a spin from inside the cockpit for a
>> number
>> of years. Little wonder that he did not recognise it instantly.
>
> I'm unconvinced recurrent training is "the complete ticket". I believe
> that how one fundamentally thinks (in this case, about pattern risks) is
> no less crucial...perhaps even MORE crucial.
>
> I also wonder how many glider pilots actively think when in the pattern
> "If I don't get everything as I intend/need-to, I could DIE during THIS
> pattern!"? I believe having such a thought in one's active awareness
> predisposes the mind toward awareness that pattern departures *can* occur,
> and if "instant" recognition/corrective action (reduction of AOA) does not
> occur, death is likely to soon follow.
>
> With such a thought in mind, it arguably should not matter how long ago
> one's recurrent training involving pattern "departure gotcha scenarios"
> occurred.
> - - - - - -
>
>> ...Even
>> pilots trained under the UK system (which does include spinning and
>> recovery practice as part of the pre and post solo training), can't be
>> expected to recognise an unintentional spin that quickly if they haven't
>> seen and practiced one for months or years.
>
>>...The only thing that will work
>> is frequent practice and only instructors who are teaching spinning
>> regularly are really likely to get enough.
>
> To indulge in playful quibbling...is Chris R. here suggesting that only
> instructors be allowed to fly patterns, since "...only instructors who are
> teaching spinning regularly are really likely to get enough (unintentional
> spin entry practice to quickly recognize pattern departures)"?
>
> OK, I know he isn't, but to quibble with his point about "practice being
> necessary/crucial" to rapidly recognizing incipient pattern departures,
> I'm reasonably convinced that how a person thinks, matters...a lot!!! If a
> person is mentally primed for the *possibility* of incipient departure in
> his or her landing pattern, then not only is s/he less likely to
> inadvertently play in that corner of the sandbox, but s/he will also be
> mentally primed to rapidly/correctly react with the stick.
> - - - - - -
>
> Practice is great (whether governmentally mandated or self-motivated).
> Just don't fall into the mental trap of "*temporarily* (i.e. "because
> you're practicing") opening your mind" to practice and its lessons, when
> it should *always* be open to death-inducing possibilities.
>
> Bob - heightened awareness pattern flyer - W.

hlt[_2_]

September 3rd 12, 06:48 PM

Instructors are normally quite recent in spin recovery with the training glider. But the stall, spin and recovery characteristics of widely used trainers is quite different from stall, spin and recovery characteristics of the race ships we instructors use for our xc. Most of the high AoA things you can to with a K21 you can't do with one of the race-ships.

Bob Whelan[_3_]

September 3rd 12, 06:52 PM

On 9/3/2012 9:43 AM, Dan Marotta wrote:
> If I thought I was going to die every time I flew, I wouldn't fly.

Nor would I. I've never thought I "*was* going to die every time I flew," only
that if I didn't get certain things "right enough" on THIS approach that I
*could* die. Big difference.

There's a long history of dead pilots - better and more experienced than I -
who *did* die from not getting some basic things right.
- - - - - -

>
> The problem, as I see it, with these low altitude stall/spin accidents stems
> from the desire to get home rather than landing out. Back in the '70s the
> USAF called it "Get-Home-itis" and warned that it was a good way to get
> killed. Pilots need to make the decision to terminate a flight before there
> is no option other than landing in an unlandable place or trying to make a low
> save a mile from home just to avoid the inconvenience of a retrieve.

Good thinking...with which I'm in 100% agreement.
- - - - - -

>
> Long ago I made the commitment to never be outside of gliding distance of a
> suitable landing area. I also carry the phone numbers of people who have told
> me that they will come to get me if I land out. I always know where I will
> land if I don't get that next thermal so there's no problem if I don't get it
> and there are never any attempts to thermal at 300' AGL.
>
> If my conservatism causes me to rarely get more than 500Km in a day, but I can
> *live* with that.

More good thinking, IMO! Most soaring pilots fly for personal satisfaction, as
distinct - say - from setting state/national/international records. Learning
how to intelligently expand one's personal limits is a key piece of the
soaring puzzle.
- - - - - -

For the record, my underlying reason to finger "misguided/absent thought
patterns" as a very real hazard within the sport of soaring comes from decades
of specifically ad-hoc discussions with the "committing PIC" regarding "flaky
patterns": e.g. "drunken sailor," low,
perplexing-to-me-under-the-circumstances, etc. Based purely on
non-quantifiable, lengthy, experience discussing these sorts of events with
the pilots involved, I think I've seen a consistent pattern of "brains not
where they need to be" in terms of not fundamentally focusing on high-priority
(to THAT pattern's ultimate outcome) items. Why that is - e.g. complacency,
distraction, pushing personal limits, whatever - is less clear to me. In any
event, how a pilot thinks, matters.

FWIW,
Bob W.

[email protected]

September 3rd 12, 10:31 PM

On Monday, September 3, 2012 11:44:04 AM UTC-4, Dan Marotta wrote:
> If I thought I was going to die every time I flew, I wouldn't fly. The problem, as I see it, with these low altitude stall/spin accidents stems from the desire to get home rather than landing out. Back in the '70s the USAF called it "Get-Home-itis" and warned that it was a good way to get killed. Pilots need to make the decision to terminate a flight before there is no option other than landing in an unlandable place or trying to make a low save a mile from home just to avoid the inconvenience of a retrieve. Long ago I made the committment to never be outside of gliding distance of a suitable landing area. I also carry the phone numbers of people who have told me that they will come to get me if I land out. I always know where I will land if I don't get that next thermal so there's no problem if I don't get it and there are never any attempts to thermal at 300' AGL. Of my conservatism causes me to rarely get more than 500Km in a day, but I can *live* with that. "BobW" > wrote in message ... > On 9/2/2012 3:45 AM, Chris Rollings wrote: > > <Most of a Very Excellent original post snipped...> > >> ...The next remark was very revealing (remember this was >> only about 2 minutes after he had spun in), "I can't understand what >> happened, there must have been something wrong with the elevator, I kept >> pulling back on the stick but the nose wouldn't come up." > > I wonder...: > 1) what percentage of glider pilots think of the stick (as in > elevator/pitch) as a "nose up/down control"? > 2) what percentage of glider pilots think of the stick (as in > elevator/pitch) as a "speed control"? > > I believe 2) is the better/safer manner of thinking about it. It will > ALWAYS result in the correct action being taken "if the elevator quits > working" at pattern speeds. (If we've any anal aerobatic mavens, please > don't muddy the picture; this thread IS about pattern departures. :-)) > - - - - - - > >> He had been trained, about 8 years earlier, in a regime which did include >> spinning and recovery in pre-solo training, but there was no requirement >> for anything like a BFR or annual check so long as he remained current. >> In >> all probability he had not seen a spin from inside the cockpit for a >> number >> of years. Little wonder that he did not recognise it instantly. > > I'm unconvinced recurrent training is "the complete ticket". I believe > that how one fundamentally thinks (in this case, about pattern risks) is > no less crucial...perhaps even MORE crucial. > > I also wonder how many glider pilots actively think when in the pattern > "If I don't get everything as I intend/need-to, I could DIE during THIS > pattern!"? I believe having such a thought in one's active awareness > predisposes the mind toward awareness that pattern departures *can* occur, > and if "instant" recognition/corrective action (reduction of AOA) does not > occur, death is likely to soon follow. > > With such a thought in mind, it arguably should not matter how long ago > one's recurrent training involving pattern "departure gotcha scenarios" > occurred. > - - - - - - > >> ...Even >> pilots trained under the UK system (which does include spinning and >> recovery practice as part of the pre and post solo training), can't be >> expected to recognise an unintentional spin that quickly if they haven't >> seen and practiced one for months or years. > >>...The only thing that will work >> is frequent practice and only instructors who are teaching spinning >> regularly are really likely to get enough. > > To indulge in playful quibbling...is Chris R. here suggesting that only > instructors be allowed to fly patterns, since "...only instructors who are > teaching spinning regularly are really likely to get enough (unintentional > spin entry practice to quickly recognize pattern departures)"? > > OK, I know he isn't, but to quibble with his point about "practice being > necessary/crucial" to rapidly recognizing incipient pattern departures, > I'm reasonably convinced that how a person thinks, matters...a lot!!! If a > person is mentally primed for the *possibility* of incipient departure in > his or her landing pattern, then not only is s/he less likely to > inadvertently play in that corner of the sandbox, but s/he will also be > mentally primed to rapidly/correctly react with the stick. > - - - - - - > > Practice is great (whether governmentally mandated or self-motivated). > Just don't fall into the mental trap of "*temporarily* (i.e. "because > you're practicing") opening your mind" to practice and its lessons, when > it should *always* be open to death-inducing possibilities. > > Bob - heightened awareness pattern flyer - W.

Two of the most recent were where all the pilot had to do was land on the airport so I think your point is not applicable to them. That said, knowing they could land if they fell out may have made them more comfortable trying to make the low saves.
I do agree that get home itis can be a strong motivator toward dangerous behavior.
UH

tstock

September 4th 12, 04:53 AM

What is the lowest altitude at which you could recover from a spin, and still have enough safety margin to land? I would not thermal below this altitude, but that is just me.

Roel Baardman

September 4th 12, 06:02 AM

> When I have just stalled a wing, I'm just above the critical AoA and my win
> g produces hardly any lift, so my AoA will increase further. But when I det
> ect this early enough I might be able to get below the critical AoA by just
> moving the flaps forward.

Minor minor detail, but...
You mention the critical AoA as if it is 1 fixed value.
In subsonic airflow there is hysteresis around the stall, so the AoA needs to be a little bit lower than where it starts to stall in order to un-stall.
It is only a few degrees, but it is something which consistently shows in wind tunnel polars.
Nevertheless, and important detail if one were to come up with an automatic flap-un-staller device :-)

Roel

Ramy

September 4th 12, 08:06 AM

On Monday, September 3, 2012 10:48:44 AM UTC-7, hlt wrote:
> Instructors are normally quite recent in spin recovery with the training glider. But the stall, spin and recovery characteristics of widely used trainers is quite different from stall, spin and recovery characteristics of the race ships we instructors use for our xc. Most of the high AoA things you can to with a K21 you can't do with one of the race-ships.

Just looking at the statistics in the US from the last couple of years alone, it shows that the majority of fatalities were CFIG, commercial pilots, FAA examiners, in other words, those who likely not only have spin training, but also provided spin training. We just lost another one. What gives? Go figure.

Ramy

Dave Martin[_3_]

September 4th 12, 08:19 AM

Such a device exists -- it is located just behind the pilots eyes
and between his ears. Fed automatically from sensors located
around the body.

As glider pilots we regularly, by choice, fly in conditions
designed to induce a spin. I.E Turning often tightly, close to the
stall speed in rising air.

Surely we owe it to our families and friend to learn to recognise
this situation, the symptoms and the information given out by
the aircraft we fly through our senses, AND DO something to
stop it happening "fly a little faster"

As instructors we need to hammer the message home...

Just my two cents worth

Dave

At 05:02 04 September 2012, Roel Baardman wrote:
>> When I have just stalled a wing, I'm just above the critical
AoA and my
>win
>> g produces hardly any lift, so my AoA will increase further.
But when I
>det
>> ect this early enough I might be able to get below the critical
AoA by
>just
>> moving the flaps forward.
>
>Minor minor detail, but...
>You mention the critical AoA as if it is 1 fixed value.
>In subsonic airflow there is hysteresis around the stall, so the
AoA needs
>to be a little bit lower than where it starts to stall in order to
>un-stall.
>It is only a few degrees, but it is something which consistently
shows in
>wind tunnel polars.
>Nevertheless, and important detail if one were to come up with
an automatic
>flap-un-staller device :-)
>
>Roel
>

bumper[_4_]

September 4th 12, 06:34 PM

It's easy enough to practice low (within a few wing spans), slow, high bank angle turns in a power plane like a Super Cub or Husky. Not so many opportunities in a glider. To the uninitiated, there's a tendency to skid a turn when low, as some pilots try to minimize bank angle - too much bottom rudder, not enough aileron. Not a good situation to be.

noel.wade

September 5th 12, 12:46 AM

On Sep 1, 8:43*pm, wrote:
> Not unreasonable to think that hills/mtns, buildings, tree lines and obstacles present a similar phenomenon from surface winds.

I'm catching up on this thread; but in case no one has mentioned it
yet: Surface objects (such as buildings, trees, small hills, etc) can
create turbulence downwind to a distance of 10-20 times their height.
When I flew R/C models this was *very* noticeable!

For example, a small stand of trees 100 feet high can cause turbulence
1/4 to 1/2 mile downwind of the trees. That seems like quite a ways
off (horizontally) if you're down low and scratching, so you may not
think about such objects. But they can have a profound impact on the
air you run into when you're making a save. And as John Sullivan
noted, that air is already quite "confused"!

--Noel

noel.wade

September 5th 12, 01:02 AM

On Sep 4, 10:34*am, bumper > wrote:
> It's easy enough to practice low (within a few wing spans), slow, high bank angle turns in a power plane like a Super Cub or Husky. Not so many opportunities in a glider. To the uninitiated, there's a tendency to skid a turn when low, as some pilots try to minimize bank angle - too much bottom rudder, not enough aileron. Not a good situation to be.

Yes, one thing to point out is that a lot of training spins emphasize
a lot of back-stick *plus* a punch on the rudder to initiate the
spin. But IMHO this isn't how spins develop in the real world. I
believe that many spins develop as the aircraft's situation degrades
over a couple of seconds (airspeed bleeds off, or back-stick/rudder is
slowly added in by the pilot without realizing they're "creeping" on
the controls).

Another item for thought: Using trim on an aircraft is great (I am
constantly re-trimming my aircraft). BUT if you trim the aircraft for
flight at a slow speed (say an approach-speed that's a little too
slow), the trim-spring is what is "pulling back" on the stick. YOU
will not feel yourself pulling on the stick. Yet the aircraft may be
dangerously close to a stall/spin. And once it starts to develop
you'll have to PUSH *against* the trim spring in order to un-stall the
wing! Simply "relaxing the back-pressure" will not break the stall or
stop the spin. This goes against a lot of the muscle-memory we learn
when we train in gliders and perform training stalls & spins, so
pilots are not likely (IMHO) to take the full corrective action.

Lastly, think about wind gradient and headwind/tailwind components...
Let's say we're making a landing pattern (and this could be
particularly bad in an off-field situation). There's a tailwind on
downwind so the ground rushes past and we try to slow down (perhaps
subconsciously). Then we turn base/final and while we get a bit of
the headwind, we also have to remember low level wind gradients mean
that as we descent down close to the ground that headwind goes away.
So we have pulled the stick back (from trying to "slow down" on
downwind) AND we lose lift as the headwind decreases. Stall, anyone?
And possibly a spin, if the wind gradient kicks in during the base-to-
final turn. Think about the typical base-to-final spin accident -
they tend to happen when people are low and not yet on final, right?
So isn't it possible that its not just them "skidding" the turn, but
also possibly aggravated by the wind gradient? How many instructors
discuss the wind gradient with their students? How many discuss it in
terms of a low base-to-final turn?

--Noel
(CFIG-in-training)

Don Burns

September 5th 12, 01:57 AM

I prefer to move the trim full forward before entering the pattern. The
back pressure required has not been a problem with the various gliders I've
flown. If I get distracted for some reason I hopefully will be flying
faster than required, rather than slower. I too find it easier to control
air speed by varying the back pressure. If the glider is trimmed for
approach speed and there is a loss of headwind due to ground friction, the
forward pressure required to maintain airspeed feels unnatural to me.

At 00:02 05 September 2012, noel.wade wrote:
>On Sep 4, 10:34=A0am, bumper wrote:
>> It's easy enough to practice low (within a few wing spans), slow, high
>ba=
>nk angle turns in a power plane like a Super Cub or Husky. Not so many
>oppo=
>rtunities in a glider. To the uninitiated, there's a tendency to skid a
>tur=
>n when low, as some pilots try to minimize bank angle - too much bottom
>rud=
>der, not enough aileron. Not a good situation to be.
>
>Yes, one thing to point out is that a lot of training spins emphasize
>a lot of back-stick *plus* a punch on the rudder to initiate the
>spin. But IMHO this isn't how spins develop in the real world. I
>believe that many spins develop as the aircraft's situation degrades
>over a couple of seconds (airspeed bleeds off, or back-stick/rudder is
>slowly added in by the pilot without realizing they're "creeping" on
>the controls).
>
>Another item for thought: Using trim on an aircraft is great (I am
>constantly re-trimming my aircraft). BUT if you trim the aircraft for
>flight at a slow speed (say an approach-speed that's a little too
>slow), the trim-spring is what is "pulling back" on the stick. YOU
>will not feel yourself pulling on the stick. Yet the aircraft may be
>dangerously close to a stall/spin. And once it starts to develop
>you'll have to PUSH *against* the trim spring in order to un-stall the
>wing! Simply "relaxing the back-pressure" will not break the stall or
>stop the spin. This goes against a lot of the muscle-memory we learn
>when we train in gliders and perform training stalls & spins, so
>pilots are not likely (IMHO) to take the full corrective action.
>
>Lastly, think about wind gradient and headwind/tailwind components...
>Let's say we're making a landing pattern (and this could be
>particularly bad in an off-field situation). There's a tailwind on
>downwind so the ground rushes past and we try to slow down (perhaps
>subconsciously). Then we turn base/final and while we get a bit of
>the headwind, we also have to remember low level wind gradients mean
>that as we descent down close to the ground that headwind goes away.
>So we have pulled the stick back (from trying to "slow down" on
>downwind) AND we lose lift as the headwind decreases. Stall, anyone?
>And possibly a spin, if the wind gradient kicks in during the base-to-
>final turn. Think about the typical base-to-final spin accident -
>they tend to happen when people are low and not yet on final, right?
>So isn't it possible that its not just them "skidding" the turn, but
>also possibly aggravated by the wind gradient? How many instructors
>discuss the wind gradient with their students? How many discuss it in
>terms of a low base-to-final turn?
>
>--Noel
>(CFIG-in-training)
>

[email protected]

September 5th 12, 01:57 AM

Good point on wind gradient. The aircraft here was an ASW19? That was my first ship.

My condolences to family,
Darren

[email protected]

September 5th 12, 01:58 AM

On Tuesday, September 4, 2012 8:02:52 PM UTC-4, noel.wade wrote:
> On Sep 4, 10:34*am, bumper > wrote: > It's easy enough to practice low (within a few wing spans), slow, high bank angle turns in a power plane like a Super Cub or Husky. Not so many opportunities in a glider. To the uninitiated, there's a tendency to skid a turn when low, as some pilots try to minimize bank angle - too much bottom rudder, not enough aileron. Not a good situation to be. Yes, one thing to point out is that a lot of training spins emphasize a lot of back-stick *plus* a punch on the rudder to initiate the spin. But IMHO this isn't how spins develop in the real world. I believe that many spins develop as the aircraft's situation degrades over a couple of seconds (airspeed bleeds off, or back-stick/rudder is slowly added in by the pilot without realizing they're "creeping" on the controls). Another item for thought: Using trim on an aircraft is great (I am constantly re-trimming my aircraft). BUT if you trim the aircraft for flight at a slow speed (say an approach-speed that's a little too slow), the trim-spring is what is "pulling back" on the stick. YOU will not feel yourself pulling on the stick. Yet the aircraft may be dangerously close to a stall/spin. And once it starts to develop you'll have to PUSH *against* the trim spring in order to un-stall the wing! Simply "relaxing the back-pressure" will not break the stall or stop the spin. This goes against a lot of the muscle-memory we learn when we train in gliders and perform training stalls & spins, so pilots are not likely (IMHO) to take the full corrective action. Lastly, think about wind gradient and headwind/tailwind components... Let's say we're making a landing pattern (and this could be particularly bad in an off-field situation). There's a tailwind on downwind so the ground rushes past and we try to slow down (perhaps subconsciously). Then we turn base/final and while we get a bit of the headwind, we also have to remember low level wind gradients mean that as we descent down close to the ground that headwind goes away. So we have pulled the stick back (from trying to "slow down" on downwind) AND we lose lift as the headwind decreases. Stall, anyone? And possibly a spin, if the wind gradient kicks in during the base-to- final turn. Think about the typical base-to-final spin accident - they tend to happen when people are low and not yet on final, right? So isn't it possible that its not just them "skidding" the turn, but also possibly aggravated by the wind gradient? How many instructors discuss the wind gradient with their students? How many discuss it in terms of a low base-to-final turn? --Noel (CFIG-in-training)

I teach the sneaky slow low banked turn with student looking into the turn(where are the "pilots" looking when they spin on base to final?) while I have them try to force "just a little more turn" while very subtly sneaking in some more inside rudder. When it goes, they are surprised. That is the point- it comes as a surprise, especially when the pilot isn't watching the attitude and yaw.
Add a bit of a gust or shear, and it is even more sudden.
Question- "how would you like to do that low?" gets the predictable answer.
UH

Don Burns

September 5th 12, 02:37 AM

Greg Arnold

September 5th 12, 02:49 AM

On 9/4/2012 5:58 PM, wrote:
>
> I teach the sneaky slow low banked turn with student looking into the turn

(where are the "pilots" looking when they spin on base to final?) while I

have them try to force "just a little more turn" while very subtly
sneaking

in some more inside rudder. When it goes, they are surprised. That is
the point-

it comes as a surprise, especially when the pilot isn't watching the
attitude and yaw.

> Add a bit of a gust or shear, and it is even more sudden.

> Question- "how would you like to do that low?" gets the predictable answer.

> UH
>

What glider were you flying?: We tried that with an Blanik L13, and
couldn't get it to spin without using the normal highly exaggerated
control inputs - stick all the way back and full rudder.

BobW

September 5th 12, 03:25 AM

On 9/4/2012 7:49 PM, Greg Arnold wrote:
> On 9/4/2012 5:58 PM, wrote:
>>
>> I teach the sneaky slow low banked turn with student looking into the turn
> (where are the "pilots" looking when they spin on base to final?) while I
> have them try to force "just a little more turn" while very subtly sneaking
> in some more inside rudder. When it goes, they are surprised. That is the point-
> it comes as a surprise, especially when the pilot isn't watching the attitude
> and yaw.
>
>> Add a bit of a gust or shear, and it is even more sudden.
>
>> Question- "how would you like to do that low?" gets the predictable answer.
>
>> UH
>>
>
> What glider were you flying?: We tried that with an Blanik L13, and couldn't
> get it to spin without using the normal highly exaggerated control inputs -
> stick all the way back and full rudder.

Remember, it's not the fully developed spin that's the *goal* of UH's
exercise. It's the sudden/unexpected *departure* that surprises people...and
if occurring low enough often leads to death. How many of this year's North
American below-pattern-height fatalities involved a fully developed spin, I
wonder...

In a related vein, there may somewhere be a 2-33 - everyone's poster child of
a "will spin in a heartbeat" glider, right? (Not!) - that can be forced into a
fully developed spin while within its certified CG limits...but I've never
encountered it. OTOH, every 2-33 I've flown WILL do a "nice departure" if
snuck up on as UH described. I also know of (have a photo of, sent by my
instructor) a 1-26 that was spun in from ~700' agl. The 1-26 is another known
"spinning killer" of a sailplane, right? (The pilot survived.) Point being,
metal airplanes in particular are likely to have a larger "deviation from the
norm" in terms of "departure behavior and beyond..." than ships pulled from molds.

Low altitude departures tend to be killer events.

Regards,
Bob W.

Greg Arnold

September 5th 12, 03:53 AM

On 9/4/2012 7:25 PM, BobW wrote:
> On 9/4/2012 7:49 PM, Greg Arnold wrote:
>> On 9/4/2012 5:58 PM, wrote:
>>>
>>> I teach the sneaky slow low banked turn with student looking into the
>>> turn
>> (where are the "pilots" looking when they spin on base to final?) while I
>> have them try to force "just a little more turn" while very subtly
>> sneaking
>> in some more inside rudder. When it goes, they are surprised. That is
>> the point-
>> it comes as a surprise, especially when the pilot isn't watching the
>> attitude
>> and yaw.
>>
>>> Add a bit of a gust or shear, and it is even more sudden.
>>
>>> Question- "how would you like to do that low?" gets the predictable
>>> answer.
>>
>>> UH
>>>
>>
>> What glider were you flying?: We tried that with an Blanik L13, and
>> couldn't
>> get it to spin without using the normal highly exaggerated control
>> inputs -
>> stick all the way back and full rudder.
>
> Remember, it's not the fully developed spin that's the *goal* of UH's
> exercise. It's the sudden/unexpected *departure* that surprises
> people...and if occurring low enough often leads to death. How many of
> this year's North American below-pattern-height fatalities involved a
> fully developed spin, I wonder...
>
> In a related vein, there may somewhere be a 2-33 - everyone's poster
> child of a "will spin in a heartbeat" glider, right? (Not!) - that can
> be forced into a fully developed spin while within its certified CG
> limits...but I've never encountered it. OTOH, every 2-33 I've flown WILL
> do a "nice departure" if snuck up on as UH described.

Couldn't get the L13 to do that.

kirk.stant

September 5th 12, 04:22 AM

The 2-32 will do a wonderful approach departure, with very little exaggeration of the controls. Just get it a bit slow, in a shallow bank, a bit of bottom rudder and top aileron and whoops! you are pointing at the ground.

One demonstration and you will never fly a slow pattern in a 2-32!

Kirk
66

[email protected]

September 5th 12, 04:56 AM

On Tuesday, September 4, 2012 8:49:53 PM UTC-5, Greg Arnold wrote:
> On 9/4/2012 5:58 PM, wrote:
>
> >
>
> > I teach the sneaky slow low banked turn with student looking into the turn
>
>
>
> (where are the "pilots" looking when they spin on base to final?) while I
>
>
>
> have them try to force "just a little more turn" while very subtly
>
> sneaking
>
>
>
> in some more inside rudder. When it goes, they are surprised. That is
>
> the point-
>
>
>
> it comes as a surprise, especially when the pilot isn't watching the
>
> attitude and yaw.
>
>
>
> > Add a bit of a gust or shear, and it is even more sudden.
>
>
>
> > Question- "how would you like to do that low?" gets the predictable answer.
>
>
>
> > UH
>
> >
>
>
>
> What glider were you flying?: We tried that with an Blanik L13, and
>
> couldn't get it to spin without using the normal highly exaggerated
>
> control inputs - stick all the way back and full rudder.

I went out and played with trying to spin my ASW20b in thermals this weekend. In many thermals in my part of the world there is turbulent air encircling them. In several, as I thermalled through it, the airframe vibrated and it felt just like the burble before a stall/spin. I never put these two phenomena together before, but I think it would be hard to tell the difference if you were in that part of a thermal when the spin was starting. I certainly couldn't tell the difference. The rough air completely masked the burble. The nose falling through the horizon is hard to miss though. As an aside: I was quite surprised at how much I could mistreat it in a 40 degree bank without it diverging. The slightest release of back pressure and it was flying again.

I have an angle of attack string on the canopy. (see DG web site for more info on AOA strings) The airspeed and angle of attack would get out of phase as I approached the stall such that at times the airspeed showed 45 knots, yet the angle of attack string was at the stall mark. At other times, the airspeed was at 40 knots and the AOA string was below the stall mark. This was an eye opener!

Eric Greenwell[_4_]

September 5th 12, 06:29 AM

On 8/28/2012 10:54 AM, Brian wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 28, 2012 11:08:01 AM UTC-6, John Cochrane wrote:
> <snip>
>>
>> So, just because you've never unintentionally spun at altitude
>> does
>>
>> not mean your chances at 300 feet are the same.
>>
>> John Cochrane
>
> Excellent point John, and for the same reasons I think the spinning
> intentionally at altitude and being confident you can recover may
> provide a false sense of security when thermalling low. It just
> isn't the same when done done at 300 feet.

I call 300 feet "short final".

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)

Don Burns[_2_]

September 5th 12, 02:23 PM

Another reason I trim full forward while in the pattern is that I feel the
back pressure during the entire approach. If I slow from approach speed to
say 10 knots slower, I feel the additional back pressure. A kind of
pressure warning system. If it takes more back pressure the aircraft will
slow up. If on the other hand I trim for approach speed, the back pressure
to fly 10 knots slower is barely perceptible. Without the pressure
feedback it is easier to unintentionally slow up. Some gliders tend to
loose airspeed rapidly with extended air brakes which if not caught in
time can be fatal. I think we all agree that there is no substitute for
adequate airspeed and that more of it is required when manuevering in air
that is affected by terrain. At 05:29 05 September 2012, Eric Greenwell
wrote:
>On 8/28/2012 10:54 AM, Brian wrote:
>> On Tuesday, August 28, 2012 11:08:01 AM UTC-6, John Cochrane wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> So, just because you've never unintentionally spun at altitude
>>> does
>>>
>>> not mean your chances at 300 feet are the same.
>>>
>>> John Cochrane
>>
>> Excellent point John, and for the same reasons I think the spinning
>> intentionally at altitude and being confident you can recover may
>> provide a false sense of security when thermalling low. It just
>> isn't the same when done done at 300 feet.
>
>I call 300 feet "short final".
>
>--
>Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
>email me)
>

[email protected]

September 5th 12, 04:37 PM

Below 1000 ft I am looking at the string and the needle every 3 sec.

Bart[_4_]

September 5th 12, 04:46 PM

On Sep 5, 6:45*am, Don Burns > wrote:
> Another reason I trim full forward while in the pattern is that I feel the
> back pressure during the entire approach. *If I slow from approach speed to
> say 10 knots slower, I feel the additional back pressure. *A kind of
> pressure warning system.

I noticed that my chances of inadvertently slowing down go way up if I
am flying out of trim. The interesting part is that this applies both
to trimming forward or aft. Basically, I find it easier to feel
"little pressure" vs "no pressure" than "some pressure" vs "more
pressure."

Bart

Andy[_1_]

September 5th 12, 05:58 PM

On Sep 5, 6:45*am, Don Burns > wrote:
> Another reason I trim full forward while in the pattern is that I feel the
> back pressure during the entire approach. *If I slow from approach speed to
> say 10 knots slower, I feel the additional back pressure. *A kind of
> pressure warning system.

Can you tell us how many off airport landings you have made using this
technique?

My experience is that any distraction will result in the speed
trending towards the trim speed. Off airport landings are often high
stress and therefore a continuous distraction. I would never
deliberately fly an approach out of trim. Too fast can be a bigger
problem than too slow.

Andy (GY)

Chris Nicholas[_2_]

September 5th 12, 06:47 PM

I am with Bart, for the same reason - always trim for approach speed as it
is easier to sense if not at trimmed speed. As a former instructor, I would
never teach or encourage anyone to do anything else.

(Dunno exactly how many off-field landings â€“ over 100 in farm fields and
another 50 or so at other airfields etc..)

Chris N

John Galloway[_1_]

September 5th 12, 07:19 PM

At 15:46 05 September 2012, Bart wrote:
>On Sep 5, 6:45=A0am, Don Burns wrote:
>> Another reason I trim full forward while in the pattern is that
I feel
>th=
>e
>> back pressure during the entire approach. =A0If I slow from
approach
>spee=
>d to
>> say 10 knots slower, I feel the additional back pressure.
=A0A kind of
>> pressure warning system.
>
>I noticed that my chances of inadvertently slowing down go
way up if I
>am flying out of trim. The interesting part is that this applies
both
>to trimming forward or aft. Basically, I find it easier to feel
>"little pressure" vs "no pressure" than "some pressure" vs "more
>pressure."
>
>Bart

Not a good practice - and, BTW, a technique designed to detect
a 10 knot drop in airspeed suggests acceptance of an approach
speed target range that is not sufficiently precise for safety in
one direction or accurate landing in the other.

Trim for approach speed, monitor your airspeed and look out.

John Galloway

Don Burns[_2_]

September 5th 12, 11:56 PM

>
>Can you tell us how many off airport landings you have made using this
>technique? ABOUT 60 IN 23 YEARS
>
>My experience is that any distraction will result in the speed
>trending towards the trim speed. Off airport landings are often high
>stress and therefore a continuous distraction. I would never
>deliberately fly an approach out of trim. Too fast can be a bigger
>problem than too slow. I CONSTANTLY CHECK THE AIRSPEED DURING THE APPROACH
AND HAVE NOT HAD A PROBLEM WITH TOO MUCH AIRSPEED. I BELIEVE MOST SPEED
RELATED AVIATION ACCIDENTS RESULT FROM FLYING TOO SLOW NOT FROM FLYING TOO
FAST.
>
>Andy (GY)
>

Tony[_5_]

September 6th 12, 12:16 AM

> I CONSTANTLY CHECK THE AIRSPEED DURING THE APPROACH
>
> AND HAVE NOT HAD A PROBLEM WITH TOO MUCH AIRSPEED. I BELIEVE MOST SPEED
>
> RELATED AVIATION ACCIDENTS RESULT FROM FLYING TOO SLOW NOT FROM FLYING TOO
>
> FAST.
> >

Are you a flight instructor?

Dan Marotta

September 6th 12, 01:34 AM

In my last post I talked about making an early decision to land out and
never attempting low saves ala 300' AGL. The many following posts are all
about low altitude departures from controlled flight.

Nobody thinks he'll die on this flight but, if I was an insurance
underwriter, I'd give lower premiums to those who commit to safe field
landings over those who attempt low saves.

I have a hard time accepting "safety lectures" which espouse safely pulling
your fat out of the fire rather than not letting it get there in the first
place.

"Bob Whelan" > wrote in message
...
> On 9/3/2012 9:43 AM, Dan Marotta wrote:
>> If I thought I was going to die every time I flew, I wouldn't fly.
>
> Nor would I. I've never thought I "*was* going to die every time I flew,"
> only that if I didn't get certain things "right enough" on THIS approach
> that I *could* die. Big difference.
>
> There's a long history of dead pilots - better and more experienced than
> I - who *did* die from not getting some basic things right.
> - - - - - -
>
>>
>> The problem, as I see it, with these low altitude stall/spin accidents
>> stems
>> from the desire to get home rather than landing out. Back in the '70s
>> the
>> USAF called it "Get-Home-itis" and warned that it was a good way to get
>> killed. Pilots need to make the decision to terminate a flight before
>> there
>> is no option other than landing in an unlandable place or trying to make
>> a low
>> save a mile from home just to avoid the inconvenience of a retrieve.
>
> Good thinking...with which I'm in 100% agreement.
> - - - - - -
>
>>
>> Long ago I made the commitment to never be outside of gliding distance of
>> a
>> suitable landing area. I also carry the phone numbers of people who have
>> told
>> me that they will come to get me if I land out. I always know where I
>> will
>> land if I don't get that next thermal so there's no problem if I don't
>> get it
>> and there are never any attempts to thermal at 300' AGL.
>>
>> If my conservatism causes me to rarely get more than 500Km in a day, but
>> I can
>> *live* with that.
>
> More good thinking, IMO! Most soaring pilots fly for personal
> satisfaction, as distinct - say - from setting
> state/national/international records. Learning how to intelligently expand
> one's personal limits is a key piece of the soaring puzzle.
> - - - - - -
>
> For the record, my underlying reason to finger "misguided/absent thought
> patterns" as a very real hazard within the sport of soaring comes from
> decades of specifically ad-hoc discussions with the "committing PIC"
> regarding "flaky patterns": e.g. "drunken sailor," low,
> perplexing-to-me-under-the-circumstances, etc. Based purely on
> non-quantifiable, lengthy, experience discussing these sorts of events
> with the pilots involved, I think I've seen a consistent pattern of
> "brains not where they need to be" in terms of not fundamentally focusing
> on high-priority (to THAT pattern's ultimate outcome) items. Why that is -
> e.g. complacency, distraction, pushing personal limits, whatever - is less
> clear to me. In any event, how a pilot thinks, matters.
>
> FWIW,
> Bob W.

BobW

September 6th 12, 02:55 AM

On 9/5/2012 6:34 PM, Dan Marotta wrote:
> In my last post I talked about making an early decision to land out and never
> attempting low saves ala 300' AGL. The many following posts are all about low
> altitude departures from controlled flight.
>
> Nobody thinks he'll die on this flight but, if I was an insurance underwriter,
> I'd give lower premiums to those who commit to safe field landings over those
> who attempt low saves.
>
> I have a hard time accepting "safety lectures" which espouse safely pulling
> your fat out of the fire rather than not letting it get there in the first place.

Lordy. Are we reading the same posts?

*I'm* certainly not espousing safely pulling my - or anyone else's - fat out
of the fire (by attempting low saves in Russian roulette territory) vs. "not
going there in the first place".

Just to be clear, I think attempted thermalling at Russian roulette height agl
(and each pilot gets to determine what that height is for them) is (choose
what you'd like): asinine; foolish; irresponsible (at many levels); playing
with fire; etc., etc., etc.

That said, no "safety lecture" anyone thinks I may be indulging in applies
*only* to low thermalling. Minor messing about in the NTSB database, paying
attention to what one reads over the years, etc., reveals lots of
pattern-based, fatal, departures from controlled flight that may easily have
been avoidable had the pilots' involved not been "surprised".

Remember the Questair Venture? Designed by two highly experienced professional
aeronautical types, one of whom eventually died in a Venture after a (very)
high-altitude (meaning, lots of time to get things sorted out and develop a
plan) engine failure that resulted in a base-to-final
departure-from-controlled flight when they easily had the Des Moines
International Airport made.

That crunch merely springs to mind...there're lots more, including "benign
spam can" crunches.

Nor are pattern departure fatalities limited to power planes.

FWIW,
Bob W.

Eric Greenwell[_4_]

September 6th 12, 06:44 AM

On 8/30/2012 1:13 PM, wrote:
> The dumping of flaps seems to be well practiced in recovering from
> this maneuver- I wonder who taught him this. Bruno seems more worried
> about staying in the thermal than getting control of the glider.
> Maybe these techniques were why he spun it so much. Luckily not at
> low altitude.

From the flight manual spin recovery section for my ASH 26 E, which has
the same interconnected flap and aileron system as the ASW 20.

"Furthermore, spin recovery will be achieved more quickly if the flap
deflection is reduced. It is advisable to reduce circling flap to the
neutral flap setting."

I believe my ASW 20 B flight manual had similar advice. In any case, I
found reducing the flap deflection effective in the incipient or just
departed stage. I have not practiced spins beyond a quarter turn in
either the 20 or the 26.

Even though reducing flap deflection is effective, I always used the
standard recovery in addition, and I recommend Bruno learn to do that,
also. It is what gliders are certified to do, and the flap reduction
might not work well enough on all ships in all conditions, and certainly
won't work on a standard class glider.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)

BruceGreeff

September 6th 12, 08:59 AM

Hi Eric

Standard recovery is good - as long as the PIC knows the necessary
numbers, and has the presence of mind to apply it.

I have seen 2 fatalities where a spin recovery included the pilot
achieving a recovery attitude so steep that Vne was exceeded for the
flap setting.

Predictable results of flutter and catastrophic failure ensue quite rapidly.

In the one case the pilot achieved 2x Vne.

In my opinion the most important thing is to aviate first, as soon as
you are no longer spinning, fly the aeroplane. Don't follow a procedute
to it's end when you have achieved the object already, lest you make
things worse.

Most flapped gliders have multiple flap limiting speeds and accelerate
rapidly with nose down attitude. So - by the time you have gone flaps
neutral, you are probably already no longer stalled.

Bruce

On 2012/09/06 7:44 AM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> On 8/30/2012 1:13 PM, wrote:
>> The dumping of flaps seems to be well practiced in recovering from
>> this maneuver- I wonder who taught him this. Bruno seems more worried
>> about staying in the thermal than getting control of the glider.
>> Maybe these techniques were why he spun it so much. Luckily not at
>> low altitude.
>
> From the flight manual spin recovery section for my ASH 26 E, which has
> the same interconnected flap and aileron system as the ASW 20.
>
> "Furthermore, spin recovery will be achieved more quickly if the flap
> deflection is reduced. It is advisable to reduce circling flap to the
> neutral flap setting."
>
> I believe my ASW 20 B flight manual had similar advice. In any case, I
> found reducing the flap deflection effective in the incipient or just
> departed stage. I have not practiced spins beyond a quarter turn in
> either the 20 or the 26.
>
> Even though reducing flap deflection is effective, I always used the
> standard recovery in addition, and I recommend Bruno learn to do that,
> also. It is what gliders are certified to do, and the flap reduction
> might not work well enough on all ships in all conditions, and certainly
> won't work on a standard class glider.
>

--
Bruce Greeff
T59D #1771

Dan Marotta

September 6th 12, 02:56 PM

I guess we were reading different posts, Bob, or, at least coming from
different mindsets. Having directly witnessed a low altitude departure and
the results, I'm just hard core about maintaining airspeed and NEVER getting
low enough that I need to claw my way out or crash.

Learn to recognize low airspeed by sound and control pressures and high AoA
by control feedback, buffeting, reversal, etc. Learn to extract the maximum
from your glider at altitude and learn to regain control with a simple flick
of the wrist at the first indication of a departure. Of course you should
also know how to recover from an incipient spin. You should learn none of
these things at low altitude because you most likely won't get the chance to
try a second time. That's my whole point - don't put yourself in a position
to kill yourself.

"BobW" > wrote in message
...
> On 9/5/2012 6:34 PM, Dan Marotta wrote:
>> In my last post I talked about making an early decision to land out and
>> never
>> attempting low saves ala 300' AGL. The many following posts are all
>> about low
>> altitude departures from controlled flight.
>>
>> Nobody thinks he'll die on this flight but, if I was an insurance
>> underwriter,
>> I'd give lower premiums to those who commit to safe field landings over
>> those
>> who attempt low saves.
>>
>> I have a hard time accepting "safety lectures" which espouse safely
>> pulling
>> your fat out of the fire rather than not letting it get there in the
>> first place.
>
> Lordy. Are we reading the same posts?
>
> *I'm* certainly not espousing safely pulling my - or anyone else's - fat
> out of the fire (by attempting low saves in Russian roulette territory)
> vs. "not going there in the first place".
>
> Just to be clear, I think attempted thermalling at Russian roulette height
> agl (and each pilot gets to determine what that height is for them) is
> (choose what you'd like): asinine; foolish; irresponsible (at many
> levels); playing with fire; etc., etc., etc.
>
> That said, no "safety lecture" anyone thinks I may be indulging in applies
> *only* to low thermalling. Minor messing about in the NTSB database,
> paying attention to what one reads over the years, etc., reveals lots of
> pattern-based, fatal, departures from controlled flight that may easily
> have been avoidable had the pilots' involved not been "surprised".
>
> Remember the Questair Venture? Designed by two highly experienced
> professional aeronautical types, one of whom eventually died in a Venture
> after a (very) high-altitude (meaning, lots of time to get things sorted
> out and develop a plan) engine failure that resulted in a base-to-final
> departure-from-controlled flight when they easily had the Des Moines
> International Airport made.
>
> That crunch merely springs to mind...there're lots more, including "benign
> spam can" crunches.
>
> Nor are pattern departure fatalities limited to power planes.
>
> FWIW,
> Bob W.
>

Ramy

September 6th 12, 08:51 PM

On Thursday, September 6, 2012 12:59:10 AM UTC-7, BruceGreeff wrote:
> Hi Eric
>
>
>
> Standard recovery is good - as long as the PIC knows the necessary
>
> numbers, and has the presence of mind to apply it.
>
>
>
> I have seen 2 fatalities where a spin recovery included the pilot
>
> achieving a recovery attitude so steep that Vne was exceeded for the
>
> flap setting.
>
>
>
> Predictable results of flutter and catastrophic failure ensue quite rapidly.
>
>
>
> In the one case the pilot achieved 2x Vne.
>
>
>
> In my opinion the most important thing is to aviate first, as soon as
>
> you are no longer spinning, fly the aeroplane. Don't follow a procedute
>
> to it's end when you have achieved the object already, lest you make
>
> things worse.
>
>
>
> Most flapped gliders have multiple flap limiting speeds and accelerate
>
> rapidly with nose down attitude. So - by the time you have gone flaps
>
> neutral, you are probably already no longer stalled.
>
>
>
> Bruce
>
>
>
> On 2012/09/06 7:44 AM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>
> > On 8/30/2012 1:13 PM, wrote:
>
> >> The dumping of flaps seems to be well practiced in recovering from
>
> >> this maneuver- I wonder who taught him this. Bruno seems more worried
>
> >> about staying in the thermal than getting control of the glider.
>
> >> Maybe these techniques were why he spun it so much. Luckily not at
>
> >> low altitude.
>
> >
>
> > From the flight manual spin recovery section for my ASH 26 E, which has
>
> > the same interconnected flap and aileron system as the ASW 20.
>
> >
>
> > "Furthermore, spin recovery will be achieved more quickly if the flap
>
> > deflection is reduced. It is advisable to reduce circling flap to the
>
> > neutral flap setting."
>
> >
>
> > I believe my ASW 20 B flight manual had similar advice. In any case, I
>
> > found reducing the flap deflection effective in the incipient or just
>
> > departed stage. I have not practiced spins beyond a quarter turn in
>
> > either the 20 or the 26.
>
> >
>
> > Even though reducing flap deflection is effective, I always used the
>
> > standard recovery in addition, and I recommend Bruno learn to do that,
>
> > also. It is what gliders are certified to do, and the flap reduction
>
> > might not work well enough on all ships in all conditions, and certainly
>
> > won't work on a standard class glider.
>
> >
>
>
>
> --
>
> Bruce Greeff
>
> T59D #1771

Bruce, can you elaborate more on those accidents? I dont recall hearing about accidents attributed to exceeding VNE after spin recovery, in particular flap setting lower VNE. As far as I know the risk of exceeding flap VNE is flaps damage, not flutter, but I could be wrong.
I can imagine spin turning to spiral resulting in exceeding VNE, but normal recovery, even if pointing straight down, should not exceed VNE unless held too long, since the entry speed is low.

Ramy

Bob Whelan[_3_]

September 6th 12, 09:08 PM

On 9/6/2012 7:56 AM, Dan Marotta wrote:
> I guess we were reading different posts, Bob, or, at least coming from
> different mindsets. Having directly witnessed a low altitude departure and
> the results, I'm just hard core about maintaining airspeed and NEVER getting
> low enough that I need to claw my way out or crash.
>
> Learn to recognize low airspeed by sound and control pressures and high AoA by
> control feedback, buffeting, reversal, etc. Learn to extract the maximum from
> your glider at altitude and learn to regain control with a simple flick of the
> wrist at the first indication of a departure. Of course you should also know
> how to recover from an incipient spin. You should learn none of these things
> at low altitude because you most likely won't get the chance to try a second
> time. That's my whole point - don't put yourself in a position to kill yourself.

Whew! Color me mildly perplexed there, for a bit. :-)

I'm in 100% agreement with everything you say above, and it's not a recent
mindset. If I could find it - which I can't - I'd include a link to an old bit
on my soaring club's website from a pre-web newsletter proving my "not a
recent mindset" claim.

Back when Rick Kohler had recently started Sundance Aviation in Moriarty (a
glider FBO, for those unfamiliar with S.A., and, in the early '90s?), on the
drive down to attend a soaring camp, I'd been pondering various aspects of
landing-pattern-departure accidents then known to me. Sought (very experienced
CFIG) Rick's input/take on things, because I - generally a believer in "never
say 'never'" when it comes to airplane/pilot possibilities - had come to the
conclusion that Joe Pilot should NEVER put himself into the position of an
inadvertent departure from controlled flight in the landing pattern.

So I asked Rick, "What do you teach your students about pattern stalls?"

His reply was, "Don't DO them!" (He/we went on to elaborate, natch, but his
pithy point was immediately clear to any reasonably experienced pilot.)

Yeah, it's a "Duh!" conclusion...if a person has ever actively thought about
it. But no licensed pilot is born "wise in the ways of aviation"...

Bob - no harm no foul - W.

[email protected]

September 7th 12, 12:22 AM

I tried a stall while thermalling, with a couple notches of positive flaps, in my last outing and find I am instinctively doing the same by moving flaps to neutral also, while moving stick forward to increase airspeed and re-attach flow. The main reason is because it is easier and requires less force to move the stick forward with the flaps moved forward to neutral at the same time. Since they are lightly mechanically coupled in my ship.

Dan Marotta

September 7th 12, 01:41 AM

I was just discussing this thread with Rick this morning and we both agree
with what you say. I tow for Rick a couple of days a week (today being
one). It helps pay for my gliding.

"Bob Whelan" > wrote in message
...
> On 9/6/2012 7:56 AM, Dan Marotta wrote:
>> I guess we were reading different posts, Bob, or, at least coming from
>> different mindsets. Having directly witnessed a low altitude departure
>> and
>> the results, I'm just hard core about maintaining airspeed and NEVER
>> getting
>> low enough that I need to claw my way out or crash.
>>
>> Learn to recognize low airspeed by sound and control pressures and high
>> AoA by
>> control feedback, buffeting, reversal, etc. Learn to extract the maximum
>> from
>> your glider at altitude and learn to regain control with a simple flick
>> of the
>> wrist at the first indication of a departure. Of course you should also
>> know
>> how to recover from an incipient spin. You should learn none of these
>> things
>> at low altitude because you most likely won't get the chance to try a
>> second
>> time. That's my whole point - don't put yourself in a position to kill
>> yourself.
>
> Whew! Color me mildly perplexed there, for a bit. :-)
>
> I'm in 100% agreement with everything you say above, and it's not a recent
> mindset. If I could find it - which I can't - I'd include a link to an old
> bit on my soaring club's website from a pre-web newsletter proving my "not
> a recent mindset" claim.
>
> Back when Rick Kohler had recently started Sundance Aviation in Moriarty
> (a glider FBO, for those unfamiliar with S.A., and, in the early '90s?),
> on the drive down to attend a soaring camp, I'd been pondering various
> aspects of landing-pattern-departure accidents then known to me. Sought
> (very experienced CFIG) Rick's input/take on things, because I - generally
> a believer in "never say 'never'" when it comes to airplane/pilot
> possibilities - had come to the conclusion that Joe Pilot should NEVER put
> himself into the position of an inadvertent departure from controlled
> flight in the landing pattern.
>
> So I asked Rick, "What do you teach your students about pattern stalls?"
>
> His reply was, "Don't DO them!" (He/we went on to elaborate, natch, but
> his pithy point was immediately clear to any reasonably experienced
> pilot.)
>
> Yeah, it's a "Duh!" conclusion...if a person has ever actively thought
> about it. But no licensed pilot is born "wise in the ways of aviation"...
>
> Bob - no harm no foul - W.

Eric Greenwell[_4_]

September 10th 12, 03:37 AM

Hi Bruce - I don't think I understand your points(s).

Are you suggesting the flap movement not be done, or the standard
recovery be done only if the flap movement doesn't stop the spin?

In other words, what would "aviate first" be for my ASH 26 E? My
understanding of the manual is the flap movement to a more negative
setting is initiated at the same time as the standard recovery. The
manual does not indicate you should follow the procedure to "it's end",
but to recover normally as soon as the spin is halted (in fact, I think
that is part of the standard procedure).

On 9/6/2012 12:59 AM, BruceGreeff wrote:
> Hi Eric
>
> Standard recovery is good - as long as the PIC knows the necessary
> numbers, and has the presence of mind to apply it.
>
> I have seen 2 fatalities where a spin recovery included the pilot
> achieving a recovery attitude so steep that Vne was exceeded for the
> flap setting.
>
> Predictable results of flutter and catastrophic failure ensue quite
> rapidly.
>
> In the one case the pilot achieved 2x Vne.
>
> In my opinion the most important thing is to aviate first, as soon as
> you are no longer spinning, fly the aeroplane. Don't follow a procedute
> to it's end when you have achieved the object already, lest you make
> things worse.
>
> Most flapped gliders have multiple flap limiting speeds and accelerate
> rapidly with nose down attitude. So - by the time you have gone flaps
> neutral, you are probably already no longer stalled.
>
> Bruce
>
> On 2012/09/06 7:44 AM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>> On 8/30/2012 1:13 PM, wrote:
>>> The dumping of flaps seems to be well practiced in recovering from
>>> this maneuver- I wonder who taught him this. Bruno seems more worried
>>> about staying in the thermal than getting control of the glider.
>>> Maybe these techniques were why he spun it so much. Luckily not at
>>> low altitude.
>>
>> From the flight manual spin recovery section for my ASH 26 E, which has
>> the same interconnected flap and aileron system as the ASW 20.
>>
>> "Furthermore, spin recovery will be achieved more quickly if the flap
>> deflection is reduced. It is advisable to reduce circling flap to the
>> neutral flap setting."
>>
>> I believe my ASW 20 B flight manual had similar advice. In any case, I
>> found reducing the flap deflection effective in the incipient or just
>> departed stage. I have not practiced spins beyond a quarter turn in
>> either the 20 or the 26.
>>
>> Even though reducing flap deflection is effective, I always used the
>> standard recovery in addition, and I recommend Bruno learn to do that,
>> also. It is what gliders are certified to do, and the flap reduction
>> might not work well enough on all ships in all conditions, and certainly
>> won't work on a standard class glider.
>>
>

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm
http://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl
- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation Mar/2004" Much of what
you need to know tinyurl.com/yfs7tnz

Eric Greenwell[_4_]

September 10th 12, 03:54 AM

On 8/30/2012 1:15 PM, Bob Whelan wrote:
> Indeed, assuming no other changes/inputs, reducing flap deflection
> reduces lift, the glider will settle (increasing the AoA, as - thanks
> to gravity and trim forces - the plane/wing tries to regenerate the
> lost lift and return to a non-changing-acceleration state), and the
> stall speed (assuming no change in G load) increases. Kinda makes for
> a strong argument to not put oneself in the position of NEEDing to
> dump flaps (reducing the wing's camber and effective AoA) to prevent
> a spin when close to the ground, eh?

"Settling" is more of an issue at 50 feet on final, than at spin
starting at pattern altitude.

When thermalling or on final, I can change from positive to neutral or
some negative flap, and the settling is minimal. Because it is
effective, quick to do, and loses less altitude, I think doing near the
ground is safer than the standard procedure.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)

Andrew[_13_]

September 10th 12, 04:18 AM

I see the sailplane spin recovery procedure in the EASA
certification specs is

ailerons neutral
full opposite rudder
stick forward until rotation stops
centralise rudder and ease out of the dive

I'd guess any flap change that manufacturers recommend is more
in preparation for the likely high speeds in the dive.

http://www.easa.europa.eu/agency-measures/docs/certification-
specifications/CS-22/Consolidated%20version%20CS-
22%20Amdt%202.pdf

At 02:54 10 September 2012, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>On 8/30/2012 1:15 PM, Bob Whelan wrote:
>> Indeed, assuming no other changes/inputs, reducing flap
deflection
>> reduces lift, the glider will settle (increasing the AoA, as -
thanks
>> to gravity and trim forces - the plane/wing tries to regenerate
the
>> lost lift and return to a non-changing-acceleration state), and
the
>> stall speed (assuming no change in G load) increases. Kinda
makes for
>> a strong argument to not put oneself in the position of NEEDing
to
>> dump flaps (reducing the wing's camber and effective AoA) to
prevent
>> a spin when close to the ground, eh?
>
>"Settling" is more of an issue at 50 feet on final, than at spin
>starting at pattern altitude.
>
>When thermalling or on final, I can change from positive to
neutral or
>some negative flap, and the settling is minimal. Because it is
>effective, quick to do, and loses less altitude, I think doing near
the
>ground is safer than the standard procedure.
>
>--
>Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us"
to
>email me)
>

Eric Greenwell[_4_]

September 10th 12, 04:29 AM

On 9/4/2012 6:49 PM, Greg Arnold wrote:
> What glider were you flying?: We tried that with an Blanik L13, and
> couldn't get it to spin without using the normal highly exaggerated
> control inputs - stick all the way back and full rudder.

Our Blanik would depart and spin from a smoothly flown, coordinated
turn. I'd have the student do a shallow (10-15 degrees) turn, keeping
the yaw string centered, and have them slowly reduce speed. At some
point, the inner wing would fall and begin a spin.

A common response was out-spin aileron, even though I'd briefed them and
demonstrated the maneuver earlier. With one student (the lightest one),
the out-spin aileron was enough to maintain the spin, even though the
stick was a bit forward of neutral.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)

Eric Greenwell[_4_]

September 10th 12, 04:42 AM

On 9/9/2012 8:18 PM, Andrew wrote:
> I see the sailplane spin recovery procedure in the EASA
> certification specs is
>
> ailerons neutral
> full opposite rudder
> stick forward until rotation stops
> centralise rudder and ease out of the dive
>
> I'd guess any flap change that manufacturers recommend is more
> in preparation for the likely high speeds in the dive.

No need to guess, as the flight manual for my ASH 26 E (and my ASW 20 B
before) is clear:

"Furthermore, spin recovery will be achieved more quickly if the flap
deflection is reduced. It is advisable to reduce circling flap to the
neutral flap setting."

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)

Andrew[_13_]

September 10th 12, 06:44 AM

the value of the procedure in the EASA certification spec is that its
a 'guaranteed spin recovery method' for gliders so certified. So
personally I treat it with great respect, and rigorously teach that
procedure. With anything else, one is a test pilot. However,
manufacturer's suggestions are certainly welcome.

At 03:42 10 September 2012, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>On 9/9/2012 8:18 PM, Andrew wrote:
>> I see the sailplane spin recovery procedure in the EASA
>> certification specs is
>>
>> ailerons neutral
>> full opposite rudder
>> stick forward until rotation stops
>> centralise rudder and ease out of the dive
>>
>> I'd guess any flap change that manufacturers recommend is
more
>> in preparation for the likely high speeds in the dive.
>
>No need to guess, as the flight manual for my ASH 26 E (and my
ASW 20 B
>before) is clear:
>
>"Furthermore, spin recovery will be achieved more quickly if the
flap
>deflection is reduced. It is advisable to reduce circling flap to the
>neutral flap setting."
>
>--
>Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us"
to
>email me)
>

BruceGreeff

September 12th 12, 10:06 AM

Hi Eric

Sorry to be obscure - I think we actually agree entirely.
Follow the standard procedure until the spin stops.

I am sure you are way more experienced than I. So - free opinion and
worth every cent you paid.

Aviate first comment applies to thinking all the time - rather than
applying rote process.

In my experience - It helps to always try to have the objective in mind
when you do something in the cockpit.
In a departure from controlled flight, that is turning into "something"
the first thing to do is to correct the condition that caused the
departure. In the instances we were discussing that is a stalled wing.
If your primary objective is to un-stall the wing then, again in my
limited experience, the manual on a flapped ship says something along
the lines of "reduce the flap setting".

So my thinking is first move flaps to neutral or negative as indicated.
This will reduce AoA, and MAY arrest the departure.

Then one should assess what the aircraft is actually doing.

If and only if you are simultaneously rotating about all three axes with
relatively stable speed and the G force is not increasing and the other
indicators unique to the type of aircraft you are flying indicate that
you are in fact spinning - then the logical thing to do is to initiate
the standard spin recovery.

If you are in a steeply descending turn with airspeed increasing and
experiencing elevated G load, you are probably in a spiral dive.

If you are - like Bruno - simply in a bit of a slip, with one wing low
and airspeed and control normal, well straighten up and fly right.

In the vast majority of gliders the reduction in AoA from flap change
will arrest the departure. The aircraft may be at an unusual attitude,
but it is fully under control. (as was the case in the video)

Following a rote spin recovery in this situation is irrational , and
with a flapped ship it may be especially dangerous. Many gliders will
accelerate rapidly enough that - especially if you have not reduced the
flap setting - you will exceed limiting speed for the aircraft
configuration and damage something. In at least two cases I have seen
this was at least a contributory factor in a fatality.

Therefore I advocate - first reduce AoA, by changing flap - that way you
have taken the action most likely to recover with the minimum
disturbance and very importantly, you have configured your aircraft for
the possible / probable high speed that will eventuate if you do have to
recover from a fully developed spin or spiral dive. And then continue
with the rest of the standard recovery process until the spin is arrested.

Again I think we agree - the critical point for me is that in a flapped
aircraft the flaps should be the first control input, and that the
result of each input should be assessed lest you do something
inappropriate to the circumstances simply because it is the next action
on the standard recovery procedure.

As a thought - consider what might have happened with Bruno if he had
immediately centralised the controls without changing flap first.
--
Bruce Greeff
T59D #1771

Evan Ludeman[_4_]

September 12th 12, 04:54 PM

On Sep 12, 5:06*am, BruceGreeff > wrote:

> As a thought - consider what might have happened with Bruno if he had
> immediately centralised the controls without changing flap first.

Motivated by this thread, I tested all this on my last flight.

What happens in my ASW20B -- if I provoke a scenario identical to
what's seen in Bruno's video, then apply normal spin recovery while
staying in #4 flap -- is that the "snap roll" stops a little past 90
degrees, the nose drops about 20 and I am able to re-establish a
thermal turn without ever exceeding 65 kts. It isn't exactly the
stuff of horror films.

A fully developed steady state spin does reasonably call for shifting
flaps to #2 (-4 deg) to avoid over stressing things on recovery. But
recovery from an incipient spin can be made (and imo should be made)
with normal spin recovery inputs.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

September 12th 12, 07:23 PM

On Thursday, August 30, 2012 2:13:31 PM UTC-6, (unknown) wrote:
e
> This is an example of where RAS can be really scary.
>
> We see a video of a non standard recovery to am incipient spin and my impression is that this writer may well embrace this as a viable alternative to the long proven and taught spin recovery technique of applying opposite rudder, neutralizing aileron, and reducing the angle of attack by moving the stick forward.
>
> I like Bruno and his videos, but some of what he does and shows do not reflect examples of how we should all fly. This is such an example.
>
> So- what does Crabby UH say he did wrong?
>
> 1- Obviously exceeded the critical angle of attack of the inboard wing- gust likely a factor- could happen to any of us, and does.
>
> 2- As the wing starts to drop, adds top aileron, obviously as an automatic and likely habitual reaction. This has the effect of increasing the angle of attack on the most critical portion of the wing at exactly the wrong time.
>
> 3- No obvious use of opposite rudder.
>
> 4- No forward stick to reduce angle of attack, in fact it appears the stick is positively held back.
>
> The dumping of flaps seems to be well practiced in recovering from this maneuver- I wonder who taught him this.
>
> Bruno seems more worried about staying in the thermal than getting control of the glider. Maybe these techniques were why he spun it so much. Luckily not at low altitude.
>
> The danger is when these habits are applied in a more critical situation, a tragedy can result.
>
> PLEASE- Nobody follow this example.
>
> Follow the training you were(I hope) given and proven techniques.
>
> 1 Opposite rudder immediately
>
> 2 Neutralize the stick to reduce angle of attack and eliminate any extra angle of attack on the inside wing which is already the slowest and at the highest angle of attack.
>
> 3 Recover smoothly from the ensuing post recovery attitude.
>
> This should be automatic and instinctive.
>
> Bruno- not personal
UH

UH,
I kinda have to laugh because Bruno was drug into this thread only because someone posted a link to one of his videos. I think you have obviously missed the fact B4 posts alot of these "Examples" to foster input and discussion and possibly keep others from harm someday. He is one of the few pilots that I know who does this and it is out of passion for the sport and a desire to make it safer. Ive flown the ship in the video and I can attest to its squirrelyness at thermal speed. If you can set your conjecture aside for a minute and rewatch the video B4 makes an off the cuff comment "Enter a spin" but all that happened is a wing dropped after he stalled in a gust. In the vid he even recited the recovery procedure per the POH verbatim (The reduction of flaps is in the POH as well). And, I am 100% certain that if this stall was low to the ground Bruno would not have been inclined to remain in this thermal. Lastly, Why would you make a harsh character assessment about the guy and his videos and then state "Nothing Personal"? That's whacked..
Kirk

Don Johnstone[_4_]

September 12th 12, 08:01 PM

At 15:54 12 September 2012, Evan Ludeman wrote:
>On Sep 12, 5:06=A0am, BruceGreeff wrote:
>
>> As a thought - consider what might have happened with Bruno if he had
>> immediately centralised the controls without changing flap first.
>
>Motivated by this thread, I tested all this on my last flight.
>
>What happens in my ASW20B -- if I provoke a scenario identical to
>what's seen in Bruno's video, then apply normal spin recovery while
>staying in #4 flap -- is that the "snap roll" stops a little past 90
>degrees, the nose drops about 20 and I am able to re-establish a
>thermal turn without ever exceeding 65 kts. It isn't exactly the
>stuff of horror films.
>
>A fully developed steady state spin does reasonably call for shifting
>flaps to #2 (-4 deg) to avoid over stressing things on recovery. But
>recovery from an incipient spin can be made (and imo should be made)
>with normal spin recovery inputs.
>
>-Evan Ludeman / T8

From the ASW 20 flight manual:

1. Recovery from spin can be easier achieved, if the
flaps are set in negative position (handle
forward).
>

[email protected]

September 12th 12, 08:39 PM

On Wednesday, September 12, 2012 2:23:49 PM UTC-4, K wrote:
> On Thursday, August 30, 2012 2:13:31 PM UTC-6, (unknown) wrote: e > This is an example of where RAS can be really scary. > > We see a video of a non standard recovery to am incipient spin and my impression is that this writer may well embrace this as a viable alternative to the long proven and taught spin recovery technique of applying opposite rudder, neutralizing aileron, and reducing the angle of attack by moving the stick forward. > > I like Bruno and his videos, but some of what he does and shows do not reflect examples of how we should all fly. This is such an example. > > So- what does Crabby UH say he did wrong? > > 1- Obviously exceeded the critical angle of attack of the inboard wing- gust likely a factor- could happen to any of us, and does. > > 2- As the wing starts to drop, adds top aileron, obviously as an automatic and likely habitual reaction. This has the effect of increasing the angle of attack on the most critical portion of the wing at exactly the wrong time. > > 3- No obvious use of opposite rudder. > > 4- No forward stick to reduce angle of attack, in fact it appears the stick is positively held back. > > The dumping of flaps seems to be well practiced in recovering from this maneuver- I wonder who taught him this. > > Bruno seems more worried about staying in the thermal than getting control of the glider. Maybe these techniques were why he spun it so much. Luckily not at low altitude. > > The danger is when these habits are applied in a more critical situation, a tragedy can result. > > PLEASE- Nobody follow this example. > > Follow the training you were(I hope) given and proven techniques. > > 1 Opposite rudder immediately > > 2 Neutralize the stick to reduce angle of attack and eliminate any extra angle of attack on the inside wing which is already the slowest and at the highest angle of attack. > > 3 Recover smoothly from the ensuing post recovery attitude. > > This should be automatic and instinctive. > > Bruno- not personal UH UH, I kinda have to laugh because Bruno was drug into this thread only because someone posted a link to one of his videos. I think you have obviously missed the fact B4 posts alot of these "Examples" to foster input and discussion and possibly keep others from harm someday. He is one of the few pilots that I know who does this and it is out of passion for the sport and a desire to make it safer. Ive flown the ship in the video and I can attest to its squirrelyness at thermal speed. If you can set your conjecture aside for a minute and rewatch the video B4 makes an off the cuff comment "Enter a spin" but all that happened is a wing dropped after he stalled in a gust. In the vid he even recited the recovery procedure per the POH verbatim (The reduction of flaps is in the POH as well). And, I am 100% certain that if this stall was low to the ground Bruno would not have been inclined to remain in this thermal. Lastly, Why would you make a harsh character assessment about the guy and his videos and then state "Nothing Personal"? That's whacked. Kirk

I've communicated with Bruno and he understands my comment. I don't think I attacked his character, nor does he seem to think I did.
What I've taken him to task, is that his response is an example of how one could make the situation much worse. ie adding top aileron.
The point I have tried to get across is that, just because it worked here doesn't make it a good practice, mostly because if adding aileron in the early departure becomes a habit, it could lead to really bad results in other ships, for example a flapped ship that does not have interconnects to raise the flaps of maybe an unflapped ship.
What is personal are the dead guys that result from nad technique and bad judgement.
Cheers
UH

Evan Ludeman[_4_]

September 12th 12, 09:07 PM

On Sep 12, 3:15*pm, Don Johnstone > wrote:
> At 15:54 12 September 2012, Evan Ludeman wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Sep 12, 5:06=A0am, BruceGreeff *wrote:
>
> >> As a thought - consider what might have happened with Bruno if he had
> >> immediately centralised the controls without changing flap first.
>
> >Motivated by this thread, I tested all this on my last flight.
>
> >What happens in my ASW20B -- if I provoke a scenario identical to
> >what's seen in Bruno's video, then apply normal spin recovery while
> >staying in #4 flap -- is that the "snap *roll" stops a little past 90
> >degrees, the nose drops about 20 and I am able to re-establish a
> >thermal turn without ever exceeding 65 kts. *It isn't exactly the
> >stuff of horror films.
>
> >A fully developed steady state spin does reasonably call for shifting
> >flaps to #2 (-4 deg) to avoid over stressing things on recovery. *But
> >recovery from an incipient spin can be made (and imo should be made)
> >with normal spin recovery inputs.
>
> >-Evan Ludeman / T8
>
> From the ASW 20 flight manual:
>
> 1. Recovery from spin can be easier achieved, if the
> flaps are set in negative position (handle
> forward).
>

and that's a great thing to keep in mind in case you ever need it. I
don't have the manual handy, but I dispute the term "easier".
Opposite rudder, ailerons neutral, stick forward enough to break the
stall is "easy". And if it is done as quickly as it should be
(reflexively, as soon as you feel the break) this event is over before
there's any drama whatsoever. I hate the thought that guys might
construe that they *need* to fumble for the flap handle to make a
recovery. In any case, guys need to investigate their own ships and
discover what works for them.

T8

Don Johnstone[_4_]

September 13th 12, 10:38 AM

At 20:07 12 September 2012, Evan Ludeman wrote:
>On Sep 12, 3:15=A0pm, Don Johnstone wrote:
>> At 15:54 12 September 2012, Evan Ludeman wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Sep 12, 5:06=3DA0am, BruceGreeff =A0wrote:
>>
>> >> As a thought - consider what might have happened with Bruno if he
had
>> >> immediately centralised the controls without changing flap first.
>>
>> >Motivated by this thread, I tested all this on my last flight.
>>
>> >What happens in my ASW20B -- if I provoke a scenario identical to
>> >what's seen in Bruno's video, then apply normal spin recovery while
>> >staying in #4 flap -- is that the "snap =A0roll" stops a little past
90
>> >degrees, the nose drops about 20 and I am able to re-establish a
>> >thermal turn without ever exceeding 65 kts. =A0It isn't exactly the
>> >stuff of horror films.
>>
>> >A fully developed steady state spin does reasonably call for shifting
>> >flaps to #2 (-4 deg) to avoid over stressing things on recovery.
=A0But
>> >recovery from an incipient spin can be made (and imo should be made)
>> >with normal spin recovery inputs.
>>
>> >-Evan Ludeman / T8
>>
>> From the ASW 20 flight manual:
>>
>> 1. Recovery from spin can be easier achieved, if the
>> flaps are set in negative position (handle
>> forward).
>>
>
>and that's a great thing to keep in mind in case you ever need it. I
>don't have the manual handy, but I dispute the term "easier".
>Opposite rudder, ailerons neutral, stick forward enough to break the
>stall is "easy". And if it is done as quickly as it should be
>(reflexively, as soon as you feel the break) this event is over before
>there's any drama whatsoever. I hate the thought that guys might
>construe that they *need* to fumble for the flap handle to make a
>recovery. In any case, guys need to investigate their own ships and
>discover what works for them.
>
>T8

When I flew a flapped glider my hand was resting on the flap lever for most
of the time when I was flying, in common with many others, so moving both
levers forward would not have involved any fumbling. Moving the flap lever
forward instantly reduces the angle of attack, and inter alia, drag, which
can be no bad thing

Mark Jardini[_2_]

September 13th 12, 03:52 PM

I had an incipient departure just the other day. I fly an Apis M. In
deconstructing the event, I saw the nose dropping and not responding
to back pressure so I put the stick forward and it was all over in a
second. I think when the aircraft doesn't do what it should for the
input, there should be a reflex alternative action. Either flaps or
stick forward is probably ok. The stick feels more like it has more
authority to me.

In a fully established spin, flaps have to come off as you will likely
exceed the white arc in recovery.

The dicey scenarios are the ones where you have to think out what is
going on before acting. The whole thinking thing is easily derailed.

Mark

jfitch

September 13th 12, 05:38 PM

Regarding practice, how many people own gliders that are certificated for spins? The last two I have owned (ASH26E & Duo Discus) intentional spins are prohibited. That doesn't prevent you from practicing departures, and may be a result of conservative attorneys rather than any real issue, nevertheless that's what the manufacturer said and your insurer would probably agree.

Bob Whelan[_3_]

September 13th 12, 08:37 PM

On 9/13/2012 8:52 AM, Mark Jardini wrote:
> I had an incipient departure just the other day. I fly an Apis M. In
> deconstructing the event, I saw the nose dropping and not responding
> to back pressure so I put the stick forward and it was all over in a
> second.

Your response is "the universal ticket for departure control"...works
(rapidly/"instantly") in any glider, regardless of wing appurtenances.

I found this true even with "so notorious a departer" as the two 2-32's my
club has had over the years, one of which "always" departed enthusiastically
left wing low if Joe Pilot insisted on ignoring prior aerodynamic warnings.
Merely relaxing aft pressure completely eliminated its "departure thrills", to
the point that a marginally aware accompanying pilot might never even be aware
what had transpired.

Another good reason to be primed to "relax back pressure" is gust-induced
"significant separation" absolutely halted upward progress in my 15-meter
unballasted ship when it occurred - for ~30 seconds, as measured by altimeter
and sweep second hand. (Gravity never stops!) A "calibrated butt" could easily
feel this effect, while a calibrated ear could actually hear it as well. And,
of course, it could be felt throughout the plane's control system. Awesome way
to depress your average climb rate!

Maybe pilots in the intermountain west get more unbidden opportunites to
practice "the stick bump" while thermalling, simply because in my experience
on the downwind side of the Continental Divide, gust-induced incipient stalls
are "the norm" during routine thermalling on days with any significant
westerly (which is to say most of them!).
- - - - - -

I think when the aircraft doesn't do what it should for the
> input, there should be a reflex alternative action. Either flaps or
> stick forward is probably ok. The stick feels more like it has more
> authority to me.
>
> In a fully established spin, flaps have to come off as you will likely
> exceed the white arc in recovery.
>
> The dicey scenarios are the ones where you have to think out what is
> going on before acting. The whole thinking thing is easily derailed.
>
> Mark
>

Good thinking!

Regards,
Bob W.

akiley

September 14th 12, 04:39 AM

I think we need to make a very clear distinction between incipient spin and developed spin. The SSA has a bronze badge study guide of which one of the questions is... "What corrective action should be taken if, while thermalling at minimum sink speed in turbulent air, the left wing drops while turning to the left" The answer to this question is NOT apply opposite rudder. The correct answer is "lower the nose before applying opposite rudder and aileron pressure"

I have never practiced spins in a glider. I'm wondering, for those who have done so. Is it common to become confused as to which direction you are spinning? I practice spins in Condor and this often happens. I'm curious if Condor spin characteristcs are very realistic. Based on recovery procedures, I'm guessing not. Incipient spins happen a lot in Condor, especially with full water working narrow thermals. Full water makes it much harder to recover.

.... Aaron

Eric Greenwell[_4_]

September 14th 12, 05:00 AM

On 9/12/2012 2:06 AM, BruceGreeff wrote:
> Hi Eric
>
> Sorry to be obscure - I think we actually agree entirely. Follow the
> standard procedure until the spin stops.
>
> I am sure you are way more experienced than I. So - free opinion and
> worth every cent you paid.
>
> Aviate first comment applies to thinking all the time - rather than
> applying rote process.
>
> In my experience - It helps to always try to have the objective in
> mind when you do something in the cockpit. In a departure from
> controlled flight, that is turning into "something" the first thing
> to do is to correct the condition that caused the departure. In the
> instances we were discussing that is a stalled wing. If your primary
> objective is to un-stall the wing then, again in my limited
> experience, the manual on a flapped ship says something along the
> lines of "reduce the flap setting".
>
> So my thinking is first move flaps to neutral or negative as
> indicated. This will reduce AoA, and MAY arrest the departure.
>
> Then one should assess what the aircraft is actually doing.
>
> If and only if you are simultaneously rotating about all three axes
> with relatively stable speed and the G force is not increasing and
> the other indicators unique to the type of aircraft you are flying
> indicate that you are in fact spinning - then the logical thing to do
> is to initiate the standard spin recovery.
>
> If you are in a steeply descending turn with airspeed increasing and
> experiencing elevated G load, you are probably in a spiral dive.
>
> If you are - like Bruno - simply in a bit of a slip, with one wing
> low and airspeed and control normal, well straighten up and fly
> right.
>
> In the vast majority of gliders the reduction in AoA from flap change
> will arrest the departure. The aircraft may be at an unusual
> attitude, but it is fully under control. (as was the case in the
> video)
>
> Following a rote spin recovery in this situation is irrational , and
> with a flapped ship it may be especially dangerous. Many gliders
> will accelerate rapidly enough that - especially if you have not
> reduced the flap setting - you will exceed limiting speed for the
> aircraft configuration and damage something. In at least two cases I
> have seen this was at least a contributory factor in a fatality.
>
> Therefore I advocate - first reduce AoA, by changing flap - that way
> you have taken the action most likely to recover with the minimum
> disturbance and very importantly, you have configured your aircraft
> for the possible / probable high speed that will eventuate if you do
> have to recover from a fully developed spin or spiral dive. And then
> continue with the rest of the standard recovery process until the
> spin is arrested.
>
> Again I think we agree - the critical point for me is that in a
> flapped aircraft the flaps should be the first control input, and
> that the result of each input should be assessed lest you do
> something inappropriate to the circumstances simply because it is the
> next action on the standard recovery procedure.

It's my understanding from my flight manual that the flap reduction and
the standard spin recovery motions are to be applied simultaneously.
Applying the flap reduction first can work (at least, under some
circumstances), but it is not what is specified in the manual, and I
have had no problems by doing the two things simultaneously. Why wait to
see if the flap reduction fails? That will only increase the height lost
and allow the glider to go further into the spin.

> As a thought - consider what might have happened with Bruno if he had
> immediately centralised the controls without changing flap first.

I have not watched the video, but the standard spin recovery does not
include centralizing the controls (the ailerons - yes, the stick and
rudder - no). Had Bruno done standard spin recovery, my belief is the
glider would have recovered immediately, and he could have continued
thermalling with very little height loss or disruption.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)

Bob Whelan[_3_]

September 14th 12, 07:25 PM

On 9/13/2012 9:39 PM, akiley wrote:
> I think we need to make a very clear distinction between incipient spin and
> developed spin. The SSA has a bronze badge study guide of which one of the
> questions is... "What corrective action should be taken if, while
> thermalling at minimum sink speed in turbulent air, the left wing drops
> while turning to the left" The answer to this question is NOT apply
> opposite rudder. The correct answer is "lower the nose before applying
> opposite rudder and aileron pressure"

Whether we're talking "an uncommanded (by Joe Pilot) departure" or "a fully
developed spin", neither can happen unless one wing is sufficiently above its
critical angle of attack that lift-reduction/increased-drag leads to loss of
lateral stability (hence the uncommanded wing drop). Anything serving to
maintain the more-stalled wing in that condition will also serve to maintain
(in a fully developed spin) or worsen (in the case of an uncommanded
departure) the condition.

Presuming Joe Pilot doesn't want the condition to worsen or continue, a useful
way to think of "corrective action" is to prioritize the sequence of potential
actions by those most likely to reduce the critical AoA ASAP. Then the SSA's
answer makes perfect sense. Why?

Recovery can NOT occur until the wings are both again flying (i.e. below their
critical AoA). (Understanding - and *believing* the preceding claim is crucial
to burning the proper corrective actions into one's noodle.)

While "instant opposite rudder" *might* prove useful (by slewing the nose
around and thereby potentially reducing the lower wing's AoA due to the
hoped-for velocity increase), success along those lines presumes sufficient
rudder authority and aerodynamic energy/conditions to halt-then-overcome the
rotational inertia of the already-/increasingly-rotating glider.

OTOH, reducing AoA directly via the stick is almost *guaranteed* to have "an
instantaneous effect" because gravity never quits, and - in this situation -
is working *for* you. Once you're unstalled, the rudder has a better chance of
assisting with recovery...
- - - - - -

>
> I have never practiced spins in a glider. I'm wondering, for those who
> have done so. Is it common to become confused as to which direction you
> are spinning?

Making no claims to be a spinning expert, and noting all my spins have been
upright (i.e. not inverted), I've never come close to being confused on spin
direction. Obviously (he sez! :-)) it IS possible to become confused, but I'd
guess most easily so in any simulator lacking "G-clues". Perhaps the real
world equivalent would be by entering a spin only after "sufficient preceding
aerobatics" to overwhelm Joe Pilot's experience base.

In "normal thermalling (and by extension, landing pattern) flight" when you
experience an uncommanded wing drop (meaning, possibly an uncommanded
departure/incipient spin), between a) the obvious "falling to one side"
sensation, and b) the rotation of the world beyond the canopy, direction has
always seemed to me immediately obvious...and of course, you probably had been
cheating toward the spin direction with rudder, too, right?!? (Meaning, a
halfway aware pilot should already know "without having to think about it"
when he's in a situation predisposing him to an uncommanded departure, and
WHY!!! What may happen next - and in what direction - "should be obvious...")

The above presumes we're NOT talking about the possibility of "over the top"
spin entries. While they're possible - and demonstrable in some gliders -
they're not the ones that commonly kill in the landing pattern, nor are they
commonly experienced while thermalling. Key word being "commonly"...

Stated another way, "in real life" you're "almost always" going to spin the
direction you're already turning. "No confusion necessary!"

I practice spins in Condor and this often happens. I'm
> curious if Condor spin characteristcs are very realistic. Based on
> recovery procedures, I'm guessing not. Incipient spins happen a lot in
> Condor, especially with full water working narrow thermals. Full water
> makes it much harder to recover.
>
> ... Aaron
>

HTH!
Bob W.