Houston crash today

[[email protected]]

A JS-1C crashed today near Houston. Pilot died.

[Sean Fidler]

http://www.khou.com/news/local/font-color990000BREAKING-FONT-Pilot-killed-in-glider-crash-in-Fort-Bend-County-266940651.html

On Sunday, July 13, 2014 11:01:46 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> A JS-1C crashed today near Houston. Pilot died.

[[email protected]]

Very sad. Is there any information as to whether the glider was being flown as 18m or 21m and also what phase of flight it was in when it (presumably) departed?

John Galloway ( JS1-c owner)

[Kevin Christner]

A disturbing pattern is beginning to form with the JS1c

[[email protected]]

On Monday, July 14, 2014 1:08:26 PM UTC+1, Kevin Christner wrote:
> A disturbing pattern is beginning to form with the JS1c

Given the current unknowns about the two JS1c fatalities its a bit of a stretch to say that.

[Walt Connelly]

Any word on the status of the pilot who crashed at Truckee? Looked like a bad nose in type of accident.

Walt

[Ramy[_2_]]

The other one the same day at Truckee was not a fatality thank god. Pilot is recovering well.

[Frank Whiteley]

On Monday, July 14, 2014 2:35:35 PM UTC-6, Walt Connelly wrote:
> Any word on the status of the pilot who crashed at Truckee? Looked like
>
> a bad nose in type of accident.
>
>
>
> Walt
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Walt Connelly

I suspect some the cockpit damage was from pilot extraction. I picked up a comment attributed to 2T of a broken ankle, broken ribs and collarbone, a broken back - severity not known. There's no paralysis so hopefully something that will heal with time.

Frank Whiteley

[[email protected]]

On Monday, July 14, 2014 5:10:15 PM UTC-7, Ramy wrote:
> The other one the same day at Truckee was not a fatality thank god. Pilot is recovering well.

That was at least the third crash of a JS1-C this year, the first was a fatality in South Africa back in January. The report I saw was sketchy, but highly experienced pilot (glider and otherwise), high winds, and likely stall/spin. I don't know how many have been made, so far, but while it may be a higher than usual accident rate, it could just be sad coincidence.

[[email protected]]

Are there any details online about the Truckee crash?

[Kevin Christner]

This reminds me... Why does anyone think it's safe to spin a Puchcaz?

[[email protected]]

The history of stall/spin accidents claiming experienced glider pilots has become a phenomenon which I believed is unequaled in any other aspect of modern aviation safety. Everyone is CONTINUALLY warned and it continues at an incredible rate!

[[email protected]]

On Sunday, July 13, 2014 11:01:46 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> A JS-1C crashed today near Houston. Pilot died.

Where can one find any information on the Truckee crash? Nothing jumps out from a Google search.

[[email protected]]

Prescott Soaring Facebook page has three photos of the aftermath.

[[email protected]]

There is not to my knowledge any indication that the Truckee accident was a stall/spin. What little reporting I've seen points in a somewhat different direction. It's mostly speculation right now so take care.

[Ramy[_2_]]

The Truckee crash was probably a combination of low approach combined with strong sink at the runway threshold which is above a 100 feet cliff. The stall was likely induced by the pilot in last moment attempt to pull up and clear the cliff, which most likely saved his life. It does not look like the glider itself was a factor in this crash.

Ramy

[Eric Munk]

If you can't spell it, don't spin it.

At 01:51 15 July 2014, Kevin Christner wrote:
>This reminds me... Why does anyone think it's safe to spin a Puchcaz?
>

[Jim White[_2_]]

At 03:01 14 July 2014, wrote:
>A JS-1C crashed today near Houston. Pilot died.
>
The report says Rokki Ford Roberts. Is this the guy I know as Shack
Roberts, who used to fly at Booker in UK?

Jim

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, July 15, 2014 2:09:21 AM UTC+1, wrote:
> On Monday, July 14, 2014 5:10:15 PM UTC-7, Ramy wrote:
>
> > The other one the same day at Truckee was not a fatality thank god. Pilot is recovering well.
>
>
>
> That was at least the third crash of a JS1-C this year, the first was a fatality in South Africa back in January. The report I saw was sketchy, but highly experienced pilot (glider and otherwise), high winds, and likely stall/spin. I don't know how many have been made, so far, but while it may be a higher than usual accident rate, it could just be sad coincidence.


Where was the third JS1-C accident this year Marc?

There wasn't a high wind at the time of the Bloemfontein JS1-C fatality. I was launched just before the glider involved and there was a moderate headwind. I recorded 9 knots on my SeeYou thermal trace at the same time and close to overhead the accident which occurred while on aerotow at low altitude.

John Galloway

[Kevin Neave[_2_]]

OK, I'll bite.

Why do you think it's NOT safe to spin a Puchacz?

And do you think it IS safe to spin a K21?

KN

At 01:51 15 July 2014, Kevin Christner wrote:
>This reminds me... Why does anyone think it's safe to spin a Puchcaz?
>

[Shaun McLaughlin[_2_]]

At 07:43 15 July 2014, Jim White wrote:
>At 03:01 14 July 2014, wrote:
>>A JS-1C crashed today near Houston. Pilot died.
>>
>The report says Rokki Ford Roberts. Is this the guy I know as Shac
>Roberts, who used to fly at Booker in UK?
>
>Jim
>
>

Doubt it Jim- apparently the pilot was 67 years old, based on the news
reports.

[Kevin Christner]

>Why do you think it's NOT safe to spin a Puchacz?

As of January 2004 Cindy B. had identified 23 fatal spins or over 1/8 of the fleet. A high proportion of these were fatal and several involved 2 CFIGs at the controls. A few searches will yield a couple more since then.

>And do you think it IS safe to spin a K21?

To my knowledge K21s are permitted for spinning. Don't they have a tail ballast box for that purpose? I believe something over 1000 have been built. I don't think 125+ have plowed into the ground.

[JS]

My speculation:
I would fly a JS1 again.
As will the pilot involved in the Truckee accident.
Jim

[Kevin Christner]

>Given the current unknowns about the two JS1c fatalities its a bit of a stretch to say that.

Beyond that rudder pedals slicing through cables

http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20120501X72635&key=1

I can find no recommended action on the manufacturers website.

[Eric Munk]

If a glider does not spin (like an unmodded ASK-21), it will not be
involved in a spin-related accident. Unfortunately pilots do spin.
Sometimes even if they don't want too. And most aircraft they fly after
their training on ASK-21's do too.

[Piotr Szafranski]

Sorry to continue OT, but Kevin, is there a study of Puchacz accidents (comparing to other types) which takes into account what percentage of Puchacz (vs. other types) flights are to perform spin recovery training? If you know the source I would be grateful. To not to clutter the thread, you may e-mail me
"piotr dot szafranski at gmail dot com"

On Tuesday, July 15, 2014 12:22:38 PM UTC+2, Kevin Christner wrote:
> >Why do you think it's NOT safe to spin a Puchacz?
>
>
>
> As of January 2004 Cindy B. had identified 23 fatal spins or over 1/8 of the fleet. A high proportion of these were fatal and several involved 2 CFIGs at the controls. A few searches will yield a couple more since then.

[Kevin Christner]

I can't say I know of a study. You could have a point. But when very experienced pilots are being killed on a regular basis it begs the questions 1) is this a safe glider for spin training and 2) should we be doing such training at all.

I have not seen a report of such a high percentage of incidents in any other glider, such as an L-13, which had many multiples of the number of Puchaczs in service.

[Eric Munk]

By heart by far the most of the accidents you mention were from inadvertent
spins. Cable breaks, turn to final, etc. Plus some while doing spin
training.

Having flown the Puch for spin training quite a lot, I can say it spins
quite well, and recovers quite well. The only drawbacks are the relatively
short warning time when inducing a spin from a slightly nose-up slipping
turn. ANd the delayed recovery when spinning with an aft CoG or improper
recovery techniques.

At 12:01 15 July 2014, Kevin Christner wrote:
>I can't say I know of a study. You could have a point. But when very
>experienced pilots are being killed on a regular basis it begs the
>questions 1) is this a safe glider for spin training and 2) should we be
>doing such training at all.
>
>I have not seen a report of such a high percentage of incidents in any
>other glider, such as an L-13, which had many multiples of the number of
>Puchaczs in service.
>

[Kevin Christner]

The Puch may be recoverable 999 times out of 1000. Unless an airplane is recoverable 1000 times out of 1000 no one should be spinning it.

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, July 15, 2014 6:48:26 AM UTC-4, Eric Munk wrote:
> If a glider does not spin (like an unmodded ASK-21), it will not be
>
> involved in a spin-related accident. Unfortunately pilots do spin.
>
> Sometimes even if they don't want too. And most aircraft they fly after
>
> their training on ASK-21's do too.

Any glider will do the part of the spin that will kill you, even if it does not enter a sustained spin.
Some are simply more tolerant to pilot error.
UH

[John Galloway[_1_]]

Kevin, your original comment referred to "a disturbing pattern
is beginning to form with the JS1c" which is the 21/18 version.
The accident that you now refer which was caused by a
severed rudder cable to was to the 18m-only JS1B.

I think that the original JS1 rudder pedal S tube design was
very poor indeed but you now report that you "can find no
recommended action on the manufacturers website". If you
had followed the link at the bottom of the report you referenced
to the fuller accident report you would find information at the
end about the TN modifications that were made to all JS1
rudder pedals.

http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief2.aspx?
ev_id=20120501X72635&ntsbno=CEN12LA265&akey=1

The relevant service bulletins and TNs regarding the rudder
pedal modifications are also in the technical support section of
the JS website but you presumably are not registered for access
to that.

All JS1s now flying will have been delivered (including all JS1-
Cs) or modified to the new rudder cable/S-tube design which I
can assure you I check routinely before flight on my glider and
can find no evidence of any cable damage at all. I can also say
for certain that the Blomfontein accident was not caused by a
severed rudder cable because Uys Jonker spoke to the
remaining pilots there (including myself) about his findings
immediately after he had inspected the wreckage the following
day.

As to whether the 2 fatal accidents this year involving the JS1-C
variant are connected in any other sort of pattern, you simply
cannot infer that yet. I would be more interested than most to
find out.

John Galloway



At 10:26 15 July 2014, Kevin Christner wrote:
>>Given the current unknowns about the two JS1c fatalities its
a bit of a
>stretch to say that.
>
>Beyond that rudder pedals slicing through cables
>
>http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?
ev_id=20120501X72635&key=1
>
>I can find no recommended action on the manufacturers
website.
>
>

[Andy K]

Kevin, tell us how many gliders did you spin? Have you done any aerobatics in a glider? You seem to talk a lot about Puchacz tell us about your experiane. This reminds me about your arguments with Sean and how you drew conclusions prematurely. Puchacz is an aerobatic glider so don't compare it to L-13. Others already told you Puchacz spins and recovers well. Experianced pilots kill themselves many different ways. It has always been like that in the world of soaring. How did this thread become about Puchacz?
AK

[Chris Nicholas[_2_]]

Kevin, I think it's safe to spin a Puchacz under some
circumstances but not others. The reason (which is what you
asked) is that it is good training for stall and spin awareness and
recovery, and helps keep the reaction sharp to any unexpected
departure. When conducted at a safe height, it is as safe as any
unusual attitude.

The Puchacz in my limited experience, and as found by others
with far more experience, is predictable; and standard recovery
works well. It can also demonstrate how things can go wrong
with incorrect recovery technique. It is good preparation for
flying other gliders which have sudden departure modes (I fly
one such).

It is not safe to spin one close to the ground. It is particularly
unsafe to do so inadvertently and with too little training so that
reactions are not fast enough. As one pilot told his mentor after
a near-fatal crash, “I didn’t believe what you told me”. He should
have believed, and flown his final turn with more margin.

It is a truism that gliders that do not spin will not feature in
spinning accidents. Those that do sometimes will. If all spin
training and inadvertent spins are carried out in the latter type,
only those will feature in spin accident reports. There are
enough solo glider spin accidents to show that training (UK, USA
or elsewhere) is not stopping people doing it. My belief is that
only more and better training, in a glider that will spin, has any
chance of improving the statistics. Many such accidents feature
so-called experienced pilots. I wonder if log book evidence is
that they were experienced in recurrent spin etc. training and
recovery, or whether their experience is of thousands of hours
never practising spin recovery and not keeping their reactions
sharp. And it would be impossible to tell if they have developed
bad habits such as slow or over-ruddered final turns, or
thermalling low in turbulent conditions al low speeds, only just
high enough to avoid departure, leaving them vulnerable to one
day finding a bad gust just at the wrong time.

These are general comments, not related to any particular
recent accident. My sympathies are with the families and friends
of accident victims. I wish we did a better job of preventing
them happening.

Chris N

[Kevin Christner]

On Tuesday, July 15, 2014 3:05:44 PM UTC-4, Andy K wrote:
> Kevin, tell us how many gliders did you spin? Have you done any aerobatics in a glider? You seem to talk a lot about Puchacz tell us about your experiane. This reminds me about your arguments with Sean and how you drew conclusions prematurely. Puchacz is an aerobatic glider so don't compare it to L-13. Others already told you Puchacz spins and recovers well. Experianced pilots kill themselves many different ways. It has always been like that in the world of soaring. How did this thread become about Puchacz?
>
> AK

Without going through my log book I think the number is four.

L-13 and Puchacz both spin. Why one being an acrobatic glider and the other not has anything to do with whether the Puch is safe to spin seems irrelevant. Furthermore the Puch is not certified fully aerobatic in the US.

I brought up the Puch because its an example of a glider that has a trend of accidents that some people want to deny as being a serious safety issue.

From Tom Knauff in a previous post:

"A recent double fatality involving two very experienced pilots in an SZD
50-3 Puchacz is still another in a series of reported accidents
involving this glider. Similar reports have involved double fatalities
with flight instructors in both seats.

It is suggested that owner/operators of this type of glider consider
placarding the glider against all intentional spins until
recommendations are made by the factory or government agencies.

An alternate recommendation would be to placard the glider against
intentional multi-turn spins and/or intentional spins entries below
3,000 feet above ground level."

Someone may have spun and recovered the Puch 999 times. That doesn't mean that the 1000th spin won't result in an unrecoverable situation.

As for Sean, I'll let his posts speak for themselves.

[Chris Nicholas[_2_]]

Kevin, do you know of any evidence that P. Spin fatalities
include any, at all, where it was the 1000th that failed to recover
when high enough and correct recovery was applied?

I have read several P. fatal spin reports, and none were like
that. Almost all were too low for recovery. (But there are
several for which I don’t know details, so if you do, please
elaborate.)

I know details of only one where 2 instructors went in. (Chris
Rollings has written it up in greater detail.) Briefly, they held it
into the spin too long, while one was training the other in the
patter, and realised too late to recover. Human error, nothing to
do with P’s spin or recovery characteristics except that, yes, it
will spin when commanded to.

I don’t know details of the other 2-instructor accidents – but I
doubt if they involved anyone well practised in spin recovery
while at a sufficient height to recover. Again, if you do know
some, please elaborate – or point to the accident reports
supporting your assertion.

I have great respect for Tom K. and his safety work, but I don’t
agree with him that P.s should not be spun until modified. They
do what they are designed to do – act as a trainer, which will
spin, and will recover, and can be used to demonstrate correct
and incorrect techniques safely (if flown properly and at suitable
heights) and repeatably.

What is your evidence for the contrary, with fact from accidents,
not just numbers involved?

And if you can, please answer the dilemma that I mentioned
previously – how to stop so-called experienced pilots from
inadvertent spins when thermalling or final turning low down? Do
you really thing that training everyone in unspinnable gliders will
cure it? If so, how?

Genuine questions – seeking sensible answers.

Chris N

[Chris Rollings[_2_]]

I have carried out many thousands of spins in a number of Puchacz,
including the 5 turn, extended aft C of G spins required for UK
certification when the type was first introduced aound 1980. During the
late 80's and 90's a large part of my job was running instructor courses
and I largely used the Puchacz for the spin training required (far more in
the UK than the USA, each instructor probably did about 40 spin entries and
recoveries on the course). I never once experienced a delay on recovery,
centralise airlerons, full opposite rudder and move the stick forward and
it was out in less than a turn.

I did quite a lot of experimenting ( some of it to assist with accident
investigations). Not applying opposite rudder delayed the recovery a
little but never prevented it. Applying opposite rudder and aileron but
keeping the stick hard back ( the natural reaction of a pilot who has not
realised he is spinning) sometimes resulted in a rapid flick into a spin in
the opposite direction, sometimes just flattened the spin and slowed the
rate of rotation a little. Out-spin aileron with the stick still back and
full in-spin rudder caused slight flattening and slowing of rotation, in
spin aileron slight steepening and a slight increase in rate of rotation.

More to follow on the accidents recorded in the UK, next time it rains,
busy now.

At 12:09 16 July 2014, Kevin Christner wrote:
>On Tuesday, July 15, 2014 3:05:44 PM UTC-4, Andy K wrote:
>> Kevin, tell us how many gliders did you spin? Have you done any
>aerobatic=
>s in a glider? You seem to talk a lot about Puchacz tell us about your
>expe=
>riane. This reminds me about your arguments with Sean and how you drew
>conc=
>lusions prematurely. Puchacz is an aerobatic glider so don't compare it
>to=
> L-13. Others already told you Puchacz spins and recovers well.
>Experianced=
> pilots kill themselves many different ways. It has always been like that
>i=
>n the world of soaring. How did this thread become about Puchacz?
>>=20
>> AK
>
>Without going through my log book I think the number is four.
>
>L-13 and Puchacz both spin. Why one being an acrobatic glider and the
>othe=
>r not has anything to do with whether the Puch is safe to spin seems
>irrele=
>vant. Furthermore the Puch is not certified fully aerobatic in the US.
>
>I brought up the Puch because its an example of a glider that has a trend
>o=
>f accidents that some people want to deny as being a serious safety
issue.
>=
>=20
>
>From Tom Knauff in a previous post:
>
>"A recent double fatality involving two very experienced pilots in an SZD
>50-3 Puchacz is still another in a series of reported accidents
>involving this glider. Similar reports have involved double fatalities
>with flight instructors in both seats.
>
>It is suggested that owner/operators of this type of glider consider
>placarding the glider against all intentional spins until
>recommendations are made by the factory or government agencies.
>
>An alternate recommendation would be to placard the glider against
>intentional multi-turn spins and/or intentional spins entries below
>3,000 feet above ground level."
>
>Someone may have spun and recovered the Puch 999 times. That doesn't
mean
>=
>that the 1000th spin won't result in an unrecoverable situation.
>
>As for Sean, I'll let his posts speak for themselves.
>
>

[Kevin Christner]

> I have great respect for Tom K. and his safety work, but I don't
>
> agree with him that P.s should not be spun until modified. They
>
> do what they are designed to do - act as a trainer, which will
>
> spin, and will recover, and can be used to demonstrate correct
>
> and incorrect techniques safely (if flown properly and at suitable
>
> heights) and repeatably.
>

Others may feel free to take their chances. Personally I'll take Tom's advice.

>
> What is your evidence for the contrary, with fact from accidents,
>
> not just numbers involved?
>

Since typically no one knows what actually happened, we have to rely on statistics, which say there is some sort of issue.

>
> And if you can, please answer the dilemma that I mentioned
>
> previously - how to stop so-called experienced pilots from
>
> inadvertent spins when thermalling or final turning low down? Do
>
> you really thing that training everyone in unspinnable gliders will
>
> cure it? If so, how?

Plenty of pilots, including the instructors that you mentioned that put the P. in, have had the training and have still failed to do so. I highly doubt anyone could recover from a spin turning final at 400 feet.

> Genuine questions - seeking sensible answers.

Fair enough. Hope I've obliged.

[Kevin Neave[_2_]]

OK Kevin, if you're keen on statistics...

In the 30 or so years that the Puchacz has been available how many solo
pilots have died in stall spin accidents?
What 2-seater did they do most of their training in?

It's a relatively small sample so should be fairly easy to obtain the data

Regards

T'other Kevin

At 18:47 16 July 2014, Kevin Christner wrote:
>
>> I have great respect for Tom K. and his safety work, but I don't
>>
>> agree with him that P.s should not be spun until modified. They
>>
>> do what they are designed to do - act as a trainer, which will
>>
>> spin, and will recover, and can be used to demonstrate correct
>>
>> and incorrect techniques safely (if flown properly and at suitable
>>
>> heights) and repeatably.
>>
>
>Others may feel free to take their chances. Personally I'll take Tom's
>advice.
>
>>
>> What is your evidence for the contrary, with fact from accidents,
>>
>> not just numbers involved?
>>
>
>Since typically no one knows what actually happened, we have to rely on
>statistics, which say there is some sort of issue.
>
>>
>> And if you can, please answer the dilemma that I mentioned
>>
>> previously - how to stop so-called experienced pilots from
>>
>> inadvertent spins when thermalling or final turning low down? Do
>>
>> you really thing that training everyone in unspinnable gliders will
>>
>> cure it? If so, how?
>
>Plenty of pilots, including the instructors that you mentioned that put
the
>P. in, have had the training and have still failed to do so. I highly
>doubt anyone could recover from a spin turning final at 400 feet.
>
>> Genuine questions - seeking sensible answers.
>
>Fair enough. Hope I've obliged.
>

[Chris Nicholas[_2_]]

Sorry, you haven't.

Chris N

[Kevin Christner]

On Wednesday, July 16, 2014 3:42:12 PM UTC-4, Chris Nicholas wrote:
> Sorry, you haven't.
>
>
>
> Chris N

Some reasonable questions:

Are there over 25 known accidents (likely more than 50 fatalities) from stall / spin accidents in the Puchacz?

Have very experienced advocates of safety (Tom Knuaff, Cindy Brickner) opined that they have serious concerns about the P. and do not feel it is safe to spin?

Is there any other glider type that has lost ~10% of its production in spin / stall accidents?

If the answer to these questions is yes, it is very irrational to continue putting people at the risk of death. Sorry but think that is arguable.

[Kevin Christner]

On Wednesday, July 16, 2014 3:34:58 PM UTC-4, Kevin Neave wrote:
> OK Kevin, if you're keen on statistics...
>
>
>
> In the 30 or so years that the Puchacz has been available how many solo
>
> pilots have died in stall spin accidents?
>
> What 2-seater did they do most of their training in?
>
>
>
> It's a relatively small sample so should be fairly easy to obtain the data

I don't know what your definition of "small" sample size. We know there is in excess of 25 stall / spin accidents in the Puchacz alone. Stall / spin accidents clearly must exceed 100 and likely well in excess of that. Also how would you find out what glider the single place pilots trained in?

Signing off of this thread. Turning into personal attacks without any basis in fact.

[Andy K]

On Wednesday, July 16, 2014 2:47:09 PM UTC-4, Kevin Christner wrote:
> > I have great respect for Tom K. and his safety work, but I don't
>
> >
>
> > agree with him that P.s should not be spun until modified. They
>
> >
>
> > do what they are designed to do - act as a trainer, which will
>
> >
>
> > spin, and will recover, and can be used to demonstrate correct
>
> >
>
> > and incorrect techniques safely (if flown properly and at suitable
>
> >
>
> > heights) and repeatably.
>
> >
>
>
>
> Others may feel free to take their chances. Personally I'll take Tom's advice.
>
>
>
> >
>
> > What is your evidence for the contrary, with fact from accidents,
>
> >
>
> > not just numbers involved?
>
> >
>
>
>
> Since typically no one knows what actually happened, we have to rely on statistics, which say there is some sort of issue.
>
>
>
> >
>
> > And if you can, please answer the dilemma that I mentioned
>
> >
>
> > previously - how to stop so-called experienced pilots from
>
> >
>
> > inadvertent spins when thermalling or final turning low down? Do
>
> >
>
> > you really thing that training everyone in unspinnable gliders will
>
> >
>
> > cure it? If so, how?
>
>
>
> Plenty of pilots, including the instructors that you mentioned that put the P. in, have had the training and have still failed to do so. I highly doubt anyone could recover from a spin turning final at 400 feet.
>
>
>
> > Genuine questions - seeking sensible answers.
>
>
>
> Fair enough. Hope I've obliged.

Kevin, you would do well reading 5 times the post by Chris Rollings to make sure you get what he wrote as he is way more experienced in this area than you are.
No sense to argue with you as you don't listen.

Have a good day.

[Jonathon May[_2_]]

I have spun the P like most people,that's what you do with them ,I would
suggest that they spin more than any other none military aircraft.
Which would give a higher accident rate.I think most single seaters are
just
as prone to spinning but we don't deliberately do it ,if you want to get
the
best out of a x country day you don't mess around spinning ,not to mention

the strain you are putting on the airframe .
If you want to practice spinning you do it in a spin able 2 seater with a
good
instructor to critique what you are doing and sort it out if you don't .
Some times the instructor gets it wrong for lots of different reasons ,it
could
just be leaving it too long to take over ,and you get another bad stat .
Personally I have been more scared in a DG1000 with max tail weight .
High performance sailplanes with c of g well aft need treating with respect

[[email protected]]

On Sunday, July 13, 2014 11:01:46 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> A JS-1C crashed today near Houston. Pilot died.

In the event there is not a cross thread issue, this is supposed to be a thread about a Houston JS1 pilot dying in a crash. Under these circumstances, nobody cares about spinning a Puchcaz. Please move your Puchcaz discussion to the Puchcaz spinning thread by Don Johnstone. Thanks.

[Chris Rollings[_2_]]

At 20:10 16 July 2014, Kevin Christner wrote:
>On Wednesday, July 16, 2014 3:42:12 PM UTC-4, Chris Nicholas wrote:
>> Sorry, you haven't.
>>
>>
>>
>> Chris N
>
>Some reasonable questions:
>
>Are there over 25 known accidents (likely more than 50 fatalities) from
>stall / spin accidents in the Puchacz?
>
>Have very experienced advocates of safety (Tom Knuaff, Cindy Brickner)
>opined that they have serious concerns about the P. and do not feel it is
>safe to spin?
>
>Is there any other glider type that has lost ~10% of its production in
spin
>/ stall accidents?
>
>If the answer to these questions is yes, it is very irrational to
continue
>putting people at the risk of death. Sorry but think that is arguable.
>
>
I think you'll find that the Schweizer 2-32 has lost considerably more than
10% of the fleet inn spinning accidents.

[Don Johnstone[_4_]]

At 08:11 17 July 2014, Chris Rollings wrote:
>At 20:10 16 July 2014, Kevin Christner wrote:
>>On Wednesday, July 16, 2014 3:42:12 PM UTC-4, Chris Nicholas wrote:
>>> Sorry, you haven't.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Chris N
>>
>>Some reasonable questions:
>>
>>Are there over 25 known accidents (likely more than 50 fatalities) from
>>stall / spin accidents in the Puchacz?
>>
>>Have very experienced advocates of safety (Tom Knuaff, Cindy Brickner)
>>opined that they have serious concerns about the P. and do not feel it
is
>>safe to spin?
>>
>>Is there any other glider type that has lost ~10% of its production i
>spin
>>/ stall accidents?
>>
>>If the answer to these questions is yes, it is very irrational t
>continue
>>putting people at the risk of death. Sorry but think that is arguable.
>>
>>
>I think you'll find that the Schweizer 2-32 has lost considerably more
tha
>10% of the fleet inn spinning accidents.

It is not the number of gliders lost that concerns me, it is the number
lost following deliberate spins.
In the absence of any other finding of technical defect there are only two
possible causes:
1. The pilot(s) mishandled the glider and failed to apply the correct
action to recover from the spin
2. Under certain, maybe very specific loading conditions it is impossible
to recover from a spin in that particular glider.

Given that the only people who could tell you for certain are dead the
assumption has always been made that the pilots screwed up. The other
possible cause has always been vehemently denied. That is extremely poor
investigative practice, not to mention wooly thinking.
I concede that the 2nd possibility is extremely unlikely but there again
the airline safety people thought that a double engine failure on a twin
engine airliner was extremely unlikely. It took a pilot with the skill of
Sully Sullenberger to recover from that "impossibility"

[Chris Rollings[_2_]]

In the UK over the last 50 years there have been something approaching 100
fatal spinning accidents in gliders.

One was definitely deliberate (they were running an audio casstte recorder
so we know all that was said) and the handling pilot (an instructor being
trained for up-grade) did not initiate the recovery action until the glider
was abour 250 ft agl. As he was about to initiate the recovery, the Chief
Instructor in the front seat exclaimed "Jesus Christ", two and a half
seconds later the tape cut off (the conclusion we reached was that the
handling instructor was so wrapped up in what he was saying and doing he
didn't register how close the ground was getting and the senior instructor
in the front seat was looking at the rudder pedals to ensure that full
opposite rudder was used, the exclaimation came when he looked up and saw
the ground 300 feet away.

Another came in a spin down from about 5000 feet at the end of a soaring
flight. The, very experienced, pilot was known to deliberately spin off
height at the end of soaring flights, the failure to recover was probably
due to the fact that he was 20 lbs below minimum cockpit load (and knew it)
and behind the aft C of G limit.

One other was a Puchacz on a pre-solo training flight, it spun in some
distance from the field, no witnesses and no evidence as to whether the
spin was deliberate or accidental.

All of the other spin-ins were in circumstances that left no doubt that the
spin was accidental.

Accidental spin-ins occurr when the pilot is distracted from speed
monitoring by some outside circumstance and, when the glider stalls and
starts to spin, fails to recognise the spin departure and take immediate
recovery action (I once arrived at the site of a spin-in only a minute or
so after it hit the ground. The relatively unhurt pilot said, "I can't
understand what happened, there must have been something wrong with the
elevator, I kept pulling back on the stck but the nose wouldn't come up. A
few minutes later he realised he had spun. He had been trained in a regime
that taught spinning but had probably not practiced any in the 400 hours
and 8 years since he finished training). The vast majority of spin-ins
occur from less than 500 feet agl.

The majority of composite single-seat gliders have spinning charactoristics
as bad as, or worse than, the Puchacz.

At 10:26 17 July 2014, Don Johnstone wrote:
>At 08:11 17 July 2014, Chris Rollings wrote:
>>At 20:10 16 July 2014, Kevin Christner wrote:
>>>On Wednesday, July 16, 2014 3:42:12 PM UTC-4, Chris Nicholas wrote:
>>>> Sorry, you haven't.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Chris N
>>>
>>>Some reasonable questions:
>>>
>>>Are there over 25 known accidents (likely more than 50 fatalities) from
>>>stall / spin accidents in the Puchacz?
>>>
>>>Have very experienced advocates of safety (Tom Knuaff, Cindy Brickner)
>>>opined that they have serious concerns about the P. and do not feel i
>is
>>>safe to spin?
>>>
>>>Is there any other glider type that has lost ~10% of its production i
>>spin
>>>/ stall accidents?
>>>
>>>If the answer to these questions is yes, it is very irrational t
>>continue
>>>putting people at the risk of death. Sorry but think that is arguable.
>>>
>>>
>>I think you'll find that the Schweizer 2-32 has lost considerably mor
>tha
>>10% of the fleet inn spinning accidents.
>
>It is not the number of gliders lost that concerns me, it is the numbe
>lost following deliberate spins.
>In the absence of any other finding of technical defect there are only tw
>possible causes:
>1. The pilot(s) mishandled the glider and failed to apply the correc
>action to recover from the spin
>2. Under certain, maybe very specific loading conditions it is impossibl
>to recover from a spin in that particular glider.
>
>Given that the only people who could tell you for certain are dead th
>assumption has always been made that the pilots screwed up. The othe
>possible cause has always been vehemently denied. That is extremely poo
>investigative practice, not to mention wooly thinking.
>I concede that the 2nd possibility is extremely unlikely but there agai
>the airline safety people thought that a double engine failure on a twi
>engine airliner was extremely unlikely. It took a pilot with the skill o
>Sully Sullenberger to recover from that "impossibility"
>
>
>

[Chris Rollings[_2_]]

Machine chops the last charactor off each line on my posts, for 10 fatal
spinning accidents read 100 no 10 as it appears.

At 12:50 17 July 2014, Chris Rollings wrote:
>In the UK over the last 50 years there have been something approaching 10
>fatal spinning accidents in gliders.
>
>One was definitely deliberate (they were running an audio casstte recorde
>so we know all that was said) and the handling pilot (an instructor bein
>trained for up-grade) did not initiate the recovery action until the
glide
>was abour 250 ft agl. As he was about to initiate the recovery, the Chie
>Instructor in the front seat exclaimed "Jesus Christ", two and a hal
>seconds later the tape cut off (the conclusion we reached was that th
>handling instructor was so wrapped up in what he was saying and doing h
>didn't register how close the ground was getting and the senior instructo
>in the front seat was looking at the rudder pedals to ensure that ful
>opposite rudder was used, the exclaimation came when he looked up and sa
>the ground 300 feet away.
>
>Another came in a spin down from about 5000 feet at the end of a soarin
>flight. The, very experienced, pilot was known to deliberately spin of
>height at the end of soaring flights, the failure to recover was probabl
>due to the fact that he was 20 lbs below minimum cockpit load (and knew
it
>and behind the aft C of G limit.
>
>One other was a Puchacz on a pre-solo training flight, it spun in som
>distance from the field, no witnesses and no evidence as to whether th
>spin was deliberate or accidental.
>
>All of the other spin-ins were in circumstances that left no doubt that
th
>spin was accidental.
>
>Accidental spin-ins occurr when the pilot is distracted from spee
>monitoring by some outside circumstance and, when the glider stalls an
>starts to spin, fails to recognise the spin departure and take immediat
>recovery action (I once arrived at the site of a spin-in only a minute o
>so after it hit the ground. The relatively unhurt pilot said, "I can'
>understand what happened, there must have been something wrong with th
>elevator, I kept pulling back on the stck but the nose wouldn't come up.

>few minutes later he realised he had spun. He had been trained in a
regim
>that taught spinning but had probably not practiced any in the 400 hour
>and 8 years since he finished training). The vast majority of spin-in
>occur from less than 500 feet agl.
>
>The majority of composite single-seat gliders have spinning
charactoristic
>as bad as, or worse than, the Puchacz.
>
>At 10:26 17 July 2014, Don Johnstone wrote:
>>At 08:11 17 July 2014, Chris Rollings wrote:
>>>At 20:10 16 July 2014, Kevin Christner wrote:
>>>>On Wednesday, July 16, 2014 3:42:12 PM UTC-4, Chris Nicholas wrote:
>>>>> Sorry, you haven't.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Chris N
>>>>
>>>>Some reasonable questions:
>>>>
>>>>Are there over 25 known accidents (likely more than 50 fatalities)
from
>>>>stall / spin accidents in the Puchacz?
>>>>
>>>>Have very experienced advocates of safety (Tom Knuaff, Cindy Brickner)
>>>>opined that they have serious concerns about the P. and do not feel i
>>is
>>>>safe to spin?
>>>>
>>>>Is there any other glider type that has lost ~10% of its production i
>>>spin
>>>>/ stall accidents?
>>>>
>>>>If the answer to these questions is yes, it is very irrational t
>>>continue
>>>>putting people at the risk of death. Sorry but think that is
arguable.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>I think you'll find that the Schweizer 2-32 has lost considerably mor
>>tha
>>>10% of the fleet inn spinning accidents.
>>
>>It is not the number of gliders lost that concerns me, it is the numbe
>>lost following deliberate spins.
>>In the absence of any other finding of technical defect there are only
tw
>>possible causes:
>>1. The pilot(s) mishandled the glider and failed to apply the correc
>>action to recover from the spin
>>2. Under certain, maybe very specific loading conditions it is impossibl
>>to recover from a spin in that particular glider.
>>
>>Given that the only people who could tell you for certain are dead th
>>assumption has always been made that the pilots screwed up. The othe
>>possible cause has always been vehemently denied. That is extremely poo
>>investigative practice, not to mention wooly thinking.
>>I concede that the 2nd possibility is extremely unlikely but there agai
>>the airline safety people thought that a double engine failure on a twi
>>engine airliner was extremely unlikely. It took a pilot with the skill o
>>Sully Sullenberger to recover from that "impossibility"
>>
>>
>>
>
>

[Don Johnstone[_4_]]

At 12:50 17 July 2014, Chris Rollings wrote:

>
>One was definitely deliberate (they were running an audio casstte recorde
>so we know all that was said) and the handling pilot (an instructor bein
>trained for up-grade) did not initiate the recovery action until the
glide
>was abour 250 ft agl. As he was about to initiate the recovery, the Chie
>Instructor in the front seat exclaimed "Jesus Christ", two and a hal
>seconds later the tape cut off (the conclusion we reached was that th
>handling instructor was so wrapped up in what he was saying and doing h
>didn't register how close the ground was getting and the senior instructo
>in the front seat was looking at the rudder pedals to ensure that ful
>opposite rudder was used, the exclaimation came when he looked up and sa
>the ground 300 feet away.
>
I accept your logic up to a point, the scenario you paint has some merit.
However if the handling pilot had not started the recovery why would the
non handling pilot be looking at the rudder pedals to look for something he
was not going to see as it had not started yet. Be that as it may it does
appear that the intention to spin in the first place at that sort of height
was somewhat ill judged.
I have never understood why the requirements for spinning have not been
more clearly defined. For many years I flew with an organisation which had
very clear rules. Intentional spins were not permitted to be induced below
2500ft agl and if recovery was not in progress at 2000ft the glider was
abandoned.
Maybe that is a pain, having to take a tow to 5000ft to get the job done
but whatever the reasons for the non recovery at least the pilots would
survive.

[GC[_2_]]

I don't find that convincing Chris and I'm surprised to find myself
agreeing with Don Johnstone. :)

Discussion seems to be centred around the Puchacz vs the K21 but that's
a straw man. For over 50 years the most common training glider in most
of the world (in fact, the most common glider, period) has been the
Blanik. The K13/K7 has probably been the second most common trainer.
Yes, over 1000 K21s have been built but there were 2600 Blaniks and
around 1300 K13/K7s.

The vast majority of pilots over that period - whether trained in
countries which trained for spinning or did not - were trained in one of
those types. Both the Schleicher types and the Blanik spun and were
used for spin training. Neither has the track record of the Puchacz for
stall/spin accidents and they've had many more years to accrue a bad
reputation. They just haven't.

On 17/07/2014 22:50, Chris Rollings wrote:
> In the UK over the last 50 years there have been something approaching 100
> fatal spinning accidents in gliders.
>
> One was definitely deliberate (they were running an audio casstte recorder
> so we know all that was said) and the handling pilot (an instructor being...
>
> Another came in a spin down from about 5000 feet at the end of a soaring
> flight. The, very experienced, pilot was known to deliberately spin off...
>
> One other was a Puchacz on a pre-solo training flight, it spun in some
> distance from the field, no witnesses and no evidence as to whether the
> spin was deliberate or accidental.
>
> All of the other spin-ins were in circumstances that left no doubt that the
> spin was accidental.
>
> Accidental spin-ins occurr when the pilot is distracted from speed
> monitoring by some outside circumstance and, when the glider stalls and
> starts to spin, fails to recognise the spin departure and take immediate
> recovery action (I once arrived at the site of a spin-in only a minute or...

You have lovely anecdotes Chris, but they only divert attention from the
facts. Nobody knows why, but the Puchacz has a higher rate of
stall/spin accidents than the equally certified and spinnable AND SPUN
Blanik and K13/K7.

Stories of unrecoverable Puchacz spins may be fantasy but the stall/spin
hull losses are not.

Andy Ks nonsense about the Puch being "aerobatic" is a giggle. Red Bull
flew Blaniks, not Puchacz and now they can't fly Blaniks, they sure
haven't switched to Puchacz.

GC

[Eric Munk]

>Andy Ks nonsense about the Puch being "aerobatic" is a giggle. Red Bull
>flew Blaniks, not Puchacz and now they can't fly Blaniks, they sure
>haven't switched to Puchacz.

Red Bull still operates the Blanix Team using Blaniks. They iniatiated the
STC that made this possible.

PS: Puchacz is certified aerobatic in quite some countries. Low Vne, but
other than that it is quite capable of them too. I speak from experience.