Puch spin in

[Mike Borgelt]

This morning I learned that another Puchacz has spun in in the UK
killing the student and instructor while they were apparently doing
intentional spins and recoveries.

Any UK pilots know more about this?

Does this make it 15 or 16 fatal spin ins in this type?

Mike Borgelt

[Al Eddie]

Nothing has been released yet - the BGA are still investigating.

Your numbers are probably right but you're missing
the point. The issue is more likely to be of type familiarity
and recency in general, not the fact that a particular
aircraft type is totally predictable in its behaviour.

Al

At 06:54 23 January 2004, Mike Borgelt wrote:
>This morning I learned that another Puchacz has spun
>in in the UK
>killing the student and instructor while they were
>apparently doing
>intentional spins and recoveries.
>
>Any UK pilots know more about this?
>
>Does this make it 15 or 16 fatal spin ins in this
>type?
>
>Mike Borgelt
>
>
>

[Chris Rollings]

Five, in the UK, if memory serves correct, and assuming
Sunday's accident was a spinning one (which as Al observed
is not known at present). I've no idea how many World-wide,
I've never seen any international accident statistics.

At 07:18 23 January 2004, Al Eddie wrote:
>Nothing has been released yet - the BGA are still investigating.
>
>Your numbers are probably right but you're missing
>the point. The issue is more likely to be of type familiarity
>and recency in general, not the fact that a particular
>aircraft type is totally predictable in its behaviour.
>
>Al
>
>At 06:54 23 January 2004, Mike Borgelt wrote:
>>This morning I learned that another Puchacz has spun
>>in in the UK
>>killing the student and instructor while they were
>>apparently doing
>>intentional spins and recoveries.
>>
>>Any UK pilots know more about this?
>>
>>Does this make it 15 or 16 fatal spin ins in this
>>type?
>>
>>Mike Borgelt
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>

[Mike Borgelt]

On 23 Jan 2004 07:34:04 GMT, Chris Rollings
> wrote:

>Five, in the UK, if memory serves correct, and assuming
>Sunday's accident was a spinning one (which as Al observed
>is not known at present). I've no idea how many World-wide,
>I've never seen any international accident statistics.
>
>At 07:18 23 January 2004, Al Eddie wrote:
>>Nothing has been released yet - the BGA are still investigating.
>>
>>Your numbers are probably right but you're missing
>>the point. The issue is more likely to be of type familiarity
>>and recency in general, not the fact that a particular
>>aircraft type is totally predictable in its behaviour.
>>
>>Al

Spinning in in the Puchacz would seem to be a far higher risk than
aerotow upsets due to using a belly release. With 5 in the UK alone
maybe someone ought to look into this.

A few years ago two test pilots with extensive spin experience
including in gliders managed to kill themselves in a Puchacz spin in
the US. At the time that was the 13th or 14th case allegedly and there
was one more in Austria shortly after that.


Either the type is involved in lots of deliberate spinning accidents
because a lot of this is done in them or there is something odd about
it.

In either case there is cause for concern.

I've flown the Puchacz but I sure wouldn't even think about spinning
one.


Mike Borgelt

[Chris Reed]

I suspect Mike's first point is correct, in the UK at least. Annual checks
for all club members have started at my club, and our Puchacz will probably
spend as much time between now and April spinning as in normal flight. UK
Puchacz's spent a lot of time in autorotation.

I have no doubts when spinning the aircraft because it behaves exactly as it
should - plenty of pre-spin warnings (in normal modes of entering a spin),
and immediate recovery if you carry out the proper recovery procedures.
Sensible procedures (like our rule of no intentional spins below 1500 ft)
are a good idea.

It's also very good for learning and teaching reasons not to do certain
things - once a pilot has discovered that a spin from a failed winch launch
occurs without the standard warning signs, it really reinforces the message
not to begin maneouvering before flying speed has been regained.

My view, based on my own experience and the reactions of student pilots at
my club, is that the best approach is to become so familiar with spinning
that one's reaction to an unintended spin is not "Oh ****" + panic, but
instead, "Oh dear, a spin, now fix it".

Last year I was flying my new (well, 1968) Open Cirrus, and decided to check
out its spin characteristics. When I performed the recovery procedure, it
didn't work! Instead of panic, I remember thinking "Hmm, can't have done
that right, do it again" - I discovered I wasn't using full opposite rudder
because the rudder loads were substantially higher when spinning. At height
was a good time to find this out, rather than low down in an unintentional
spin. If I hadn't undergone formal spin recovery refresher training every
year since I started flying, I doubt whether I'd have spun the Cirrus
intentionally. Of course, I might never spin it unintentionally, but I do
now feel rather happier knowing its quirks in the recovery.

I'd be far less happy fitting the spin kit to a K21 and spinning that - from
what I read this "unspinnable" glider has some interesting recovery
characterics. And anyway, it's not unspinnable in standard configuration -
our lightest instructor with a light student (still within weight limits)
has spun ours!



"Mike Borgelt" > wrote in message
...
> On 23 Jan 2004 07:34:04 GMT, Chris Rollings
> > wrote:
> Spinning in in the Puchacz would seem to be a far higher risk than
> aerotow upsets due to using a belly release. With 5 in the UK alone
> maybe someone ought to look into this.
>
> A few years ago two test pilots with extensive spin experience
> including in gliders managed to kill themselves in a Puchacz spin in
> the US. At the time that was the 13th or 14th case allegedly and there
> was one more in Austria shortly after that.
>
>
> Either the type is involved in lots of deliberate spinning accidents
> because a lot of this is done in them or there is something odd about
> it.
>
> In either case there is cause for concern.
>
> I've flown the Puchacz but I sure wouldn't even think about spinning
> one.
>
>
> Mike Borgelt

[Owain Walters]

Everyone is always an expert arent they?

Why do internet lurkers always have an opinion on things
they dont know the first fact about?

[Stewart Kissel]

Well it is mid-winter, when Puch-spinning competes
with the PW-5 flaming, 2-33 viability, and what-sorta-hat-to-wear
as a topic.
(NOT INTENDED TO MAKE LIGHT OF THE SERIOUSNESS OF THIS
TOPIC)

After a review of old threads on this topic, I was
interested in not finding a pilot's report on difficulty
in the spin-recovery characteristics of this ship.
Anyone out there in ras-world care to comment on a
first-person experience?




At 15:42 23 January 2004, Owain Walters wrote:
>Everyone is always an expert arent they?
>
>Why do internet lurkers always have an opinion on things
>they dont know the first fact about?
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Robert John]

I don't claim any great expertise on the Puchacz but
my limited experience of spinning it (BGA Instructor's
course) is that it is predictable and 'standard' in
its recovery. I have been told (though not tried it
myself) that if aggressively entered into the spin
- i.e. from a high-nose stall - it will tuck its nose
very low as it spins, even going past the vertical.
That could be disconcerting and make recovery harder
but the standard actions always work.
I knew John well, by the way, and know that he would
have been current as he instructed regularly midweek
at Dunstable as well as his home club. I don't know
how current he was on the Puch.
Rob
At 15:54 23 January 2004, Stewart Kissel wrote:
>Well it is mid-winter, when Puch-spinning competes
>with the PW-5 flaming, 2-33 viability, and what-sorta-hat-to-wear
>>
>as a topic.
>(NOT INTENDED TO MAKE LIGHT OF THE SERIOUSNESS OF THIS
>TOPIC)
>
>After a review of old threads on this topic, I was
>interested in not finding a pilot's report on difficulty
>in the spin-recovery characteristics of this ship.
> Anyone out there in ras-world care to comment on a
>first-person experience?
>
>
>
>
>At 15:42 23 January 2004, Owain Walters wrote:
>>Everyone is always an expert arent they?
>>
>>Why do internet lurkers always have an opinion on things
>>they dont know the first fact about?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>

[David Pye]

Hmmmmm, This is terribly sad to read (and my prayers
will be for their family and friends) but also very
pertinent as last Sunday, I took an aerotow to 3000'
and did my 'spinning' and some further exercises in
spinning. What aircraft did I have all this fun in.
. . You guessed it, a Puch. . . . Hmmmm, slightly
sick feeling in the stomach. . . It will be interesting
to read some more detail of the cause and specific
details if they are known. My experience was very positive,
the a/c span very quickly under the instructor's control
as I had been briefed. I just did what it said on the
can and was very pleased to feel the G as I recovered
and found the a/c behaving as per the briefing.

Having said all this and to end on a postive note,
I am hoping to get my first flight in a single seater
this weekend, probably tomorrow, hope you vastly experienced
guys (& gals) can remember just how excellent I'm sure
that must have felt! Any tips???

At 15:06 23 January 2004, Todd Pattist wrote:
>Al Eddie wrote:
>
>>The issue is more likely to be of type familiarity
>>and recency in general, not the fact that a particular
>>aircraft type is totally predictable in its behaviour.
>
>Upon what facts do you base your conclusion that the
>aircraft has spinning characteristics that are 'totally
>predictable?' Questions have been repeatedly raised
>about
>the spin behavior of this aircraft. I don't know if
>it has
>any problem, and I don't know if it has more accidents
>than
>any other type.
>
>I do know that it is possible for an aircraft to have
>unusual flight modes and spin modes that are difficult
>to
>enter and may occur only rarely in specific flight
>attitudes
>or other seldom encountered conditions. Unfortunately,
>we
>don't have perfect knowledge about what happens in
>all
>accidents. I don't think you can rule out unpredictable
>behavior in the spin, nor attribute the accident to
>a lack
>of 'type familiarity and recency in general.'
>Todd Pattist - 'WH' Ventus C
>(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
>
David Pye
Kent Gliding Club
Charing

Mob: 07946-302975
Home: 01732-873088
East Malling, Kent, UK

[David Pye]

Hmmmmm, This is terribly sad to read (and my prayers
will be for their family and friends) but also very
pertinent as last Sunday, I took an aerotow to 3000'
and did my 'spinning' and some further exercises in
spinning. What aircraft did I have all this fun in.
. . You guessed it, a Puch. . . . Hmmmm, slightly
sick feeling in the stomach. . . It will be interesting
to read some more detail of the cause and specific
details if they are known. My experience was very positive,
the a/c span very quickly under the instructor's control
as I had been briefed. I just did what it said on the
can and was very pleased to feel the G as I recovered
and found the a/c behaving as per the briefing.

Having said all this and to end on a postive note,
I am hoping to get my first flight in a single seater
this weekend, probably tomorrow, hope you vastly experienced
guys (& gals) can remember just how excellent I'm sure
that must have felt! Any tips???

At 15:06 23 January 2004, Todd Pattist wrote:
>Al Eddie wrote:
>
>>The issue is more likely to be of type familiarity
>>and recency in general, not the fact that a particular
>>aircraft type is totally predictable in its behaviour.
>
>Upon what facts do you base your conclusion that the
>aircraft has spinning characteristics that are 'totally
>predictable?' Questions have been repeatedly raised
>about
>the spin behavior of this aircraft. I don't know if
>it has
>any problem, and I don't know if it has more accidents
>than
>any other type.
>
>I do know that it is possible for an aircraft to have
>unusual flight modes and spin modes that are difficult
>to
>enter and may occur only rarely in specific flight
>attitudes
>or other seldom encountered conditions. Unfortunately,
>we
>don't have perfect knowledge about what happens in
>all
>accidents. I don't think you can rule out unpredictable
>behavior in the spin, nor attribute the accident to
>a lack
>of 'type familiarity and recency in general.'
>Todd Pattist - 'WH' Ventus C
>(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
>
David Pye
Kent Gliding Club
Charing

Mob: 07946-302975
Home: 01732-873088
East Malling, Kent, UK

[JC]

Stewart Kissel > wrote:

>Well it is mid-winter, when Puch-spinning competes
>with the PW-5 flaming, 2-33 viability, and what-sorta-hat-to-wear
>as a topic.
>(NOT INTENDED TO MAKE LIGHT OF THE SERIOUSNESS OF THIS
>TOPIC)
>
>After a review of old threads on this topic, I was
>interested in not finding a pilot's report on difficulty
>in the spin-recovery characteristics of this ship.
> Anyone out there in ras-world care to comment on a
>first-person experience?
>

The club I am a member of requires spin training in the Puchatz prior
to flying it solo. To demonstrate that a spin is not an
uncontrollable event he had me enter the spin from a nose high
attitude, just prior to the stall I kicked in rudder. I was then to
hold the glider in the spin for two full revolutions before taking it
out. I had to do that in both directions. After that we took another
tow and I did 3 or 4 incipient spins in each direction.

The spins were totally predictable. I do not recall how long it took
to recover from the fully developed spin, but I never had the feeling
we were not going to get out of it.

In the spin the Puch's nose will go beyond vertical. You can really
notice this when flying from the backseat. (The Blanik L-13 will do
this also.)

I was very happy for the spin training I got. Since then I have
gotten into two inadvertent spins. Both times I recognized them for
what they were and recovered with a minimal lose of altitude and no
panic.

BTW, now that I am an instructor I teach spins differently. No one
gets in trouble from an intentional stall then kicking the rudder over
to induce the spin. I teach it by simulating a low approach on base
leg. In this situation the pilot is inadvertently pulling the stick
back, trying to keep the plane up, but actually only lowering its
speed. Often times folks will then make a shallow turn to final, on
the mistaken believe that a shallow turn will loose less altitude. The
turn is initiated in the same place they normally would make their
turn. When it becomes apparent that the runway will be overshot,
still not willing to steeply bank the glider, it is then over rudder
to try to make the turn. Since the pilot has been pulling back on the
stick he is now slow enough to cause a stall and resultant spin too
low to the ground to recover.

After explaining on the ground what we are going to do I demonstrate
the spin , at quite high altitude. I will allow the glider to do about
half a spin revolution. This is enough to get the students attention
to the seriousness of this happening at low altitude, but not enough
to waste a lot of altitude or severely scare the student. I then
have them practice entering and recovering incipient spins in both
directions. I do not solo any student or transition pilot until they
can explain and demonstrate what causes a spin and how to recover
from one.
>
>
>
>At 15:42 23 January 2004, Owain Walters wrote:
>>Everyone is always an expert arent they?
>>
>>Why do internet lurkers always have an opinion on things
>>they dont know the first fact about?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

[tango4]

> It will be interesting to read some more detail of the cause and specific
details if they are known.

You'll be lucky! Accident reports are rarely released in any detail. Most
seem to get a one or two sentence wrap up in the back of the S&G Magazine.
The feedback loop to pilots IMVHO is atrocious.

Ian Molesworth

[Simon Walker]

I make no comment regarding the accident other than
to say it is truly saddening.


As far a the Puchacz goes:

In my limited experience I find it will spin more readily
than any other two seat training aircraft that I have
flown.
It also demands correct spin recovery actions to recover.
Failure to do so can result in no recovery or reversal
of spin direction.
Flown within in its weight limits, I have found no
problems.
However, as an instructor, I continually find a problem
with peoples spin recovery technique - particularly
so when they are not current.
The main problem I find is people not applying FULL
opposite rudder.
Usually I find it's actually half to two thirds. It's
possible to get away with this in just about any other
glider used for training, but try it in a Puchazc and
the chances are it's not going to work.

I'm also astounded by the amount of people who really
believe that they are applying FULL opposite rudder
when they actually are NOT.
I've even had reasonably high houred pilots argue that
they had full rudder in when they actually did not.
The other one I see almost as much is the stick going
forward ok but still with some 'in spin' aileron in.

If you waffle round a turn slow and with incorrectly
co-ordinated controls in a K13, K21 etc chances are
you'll probably get away with it unless you drastically
provoke it.
If you do it in a puchacz then the chances are that
it will bite.
No suprises here - it demands correct flying.

If you do spin your K13, DG500 etc and you apply your
two thirds rudder in recovery chances are it'll work
just fine.
Spin your Puchacz with half a bootfull of rudder in
your recovery and chances are it won't work.

Personally speaking, I really concentrate hard on making
sure I feel that pedal go right on to the stop and
the stick go centrally forward.

IMHO I suspect people get molly coddled flying around
in docile aircraft that don't highlight innacurate
flying.
I also suspect that alot of people don't regularly
spin themselves whilst flying solo and REALLY concentrate
on what they are ACTUALLY doing whilst recovering.


At 17:18 23 January 2004, Tango4 wrote:
>> It will be interesting to read some more detail of
>>the cause and specific
>details if they are known.
>
>You'll be lucky! Accident reports are rarely released
>in any detail. Most
>seem to get a one or two sentence wrap up in the back
>of the S&G Magazine.
>The feedback loop to pilots IMVHO is atrocious.
>
>Ian Molesworth
>
>
>

[Bill Daniels]

"JC" <JRC at visi dot com> wrote in message
...

> In the spin the Puch's nose will go beyond vertical. You can really
> notice this when flying from the backseat. (The Blanik L-13 will do
> this also.)
>

(What follows is part of my standard pre-flight briefing to students before
teaching spins -the pro's can ignore if they wish.)

Various gliders may in fact go past the vertical with respect to the ground
but there is more to it. Most of us have the mental picture of a spin entry
sequence as if the glider stops all its forward motion at the stall and
thereafter proceeds straight down in the spin. With a bit of thought, this
is seen as wrong.

In fact, the glider carries substantial forward motion through the stall and
into the spin. The result of this is that the path of the gliders center of
gravity traces an arc that transitions from level flight to vertical in the
spin. (Imagine the path of a Badminton birdie.) Usually, the first full
turn or two of autorotation is in this arc so that, at the 180 degree
points, the glider is somewhat inverted with respect to the ground. To the
pilot, this appears as if the spin is asymmetrical as the glider first goes
past the vertical and then rotates to a more nose-up attitude.

This may well be the source of a lot of the, "Wow, that glider spins funny",
or "It tries to go flat in the spin", type of statements. If the pilot
holds the glider in the spin, the path will become vertical and, from the
perspective of the pilot, will appear to spin symmetrically. With some
gliders, I have seen this take two or more turns.

If the recovery is attempted at the first 180 degree point, the glider will
reach a higher airspeed in the dive recovery and burn more altitude. A
better technique is to apply anti-spin controls at a point that will stop
the rotation at the 360 degree point. The difference in altitude loss can
be substantial.

The higher the airspeed at which the stall break occurs, and the faster the
glider snaps into the spin, the more pronounced this effect appears.

Bill Daniels

[Martin Gregorie]

On 23 Jan 2004 15:52:31 GMT, Stewart Kissel
> wrote:

>Well it is mid-winter, when Puch-spinning competes
>with the PW-5 flaming, 2-33 viability, and what-sorta-hat-to-wear
>as a topic.
>(NOT INTENDED TO MAKE LIGHT OF THE SERIOUSNESS OF THIS
>TOPIC)
>
>After a review of old threads on this topic, I was
>interested in not finding a pilot's report on difficulty
>in the spin-recovery characteristics of this ship.
> Anyone out there in ras-world care to comment on a
>first-person experience?
>
I'm due to do annuals some time between now and the start of March,
which will involve spinning the Puchacz. I'm rather looking forward to
it: I enjoy spinning at a sensible altitude. As others have said, in
general its a predictable glider: no surprises in spinning.

However, I have been warned that if you start to pull out too soon AND
still have a bit of anti-spin rudder on it will flick-roll in the
opposite direction and that the only way out of that is to complete
the barrel. Its a fairly draggy glider, so I always pause a bit longer
than usual after the spin stops before starting to pull out.

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

[SNOOP]

Sorry to hear about the accident. Our club has operated two Puch's for
about ten years now. We have taught spin recovery to all of our
students, and club members seeking their Biennial flight review, with
great success . I think the key to our success is the cirriculum that
was put together by our Chief Flight Instructor (former RAF Cadet
instructor), and our small group of instructors, and the club members
willingness, to be exposed to this important training.

We begin with a thorough ground school session, which includes weight
and balance considerations,pilots physiological
considerations(comfort) . The flight portion begins with basic stall
reviews, then steps into the incipient spin. This all starts at 5000'
agl.

I had the pleasure of being one of a group of Texas Soaring
Association members who rode back seat for Dick Johnson, and took down
data during his spin testing of the Puch back in the early 90's. Mr.
Johnson spun that glider every which way but loose, but he did it in
his usual scientific, professional approach. Yes the Puch will spin,
but it is no different then say a Stearman, or a Great Lakes, or other
aerobatic aircraft.

The Puch is by no means my favorite trainer. Neither is the Grob 103.
In fact, I would say the Puch flys much better with regard to the
amount of control harmony, and control force available then the Grob.
The Grob is nice, like a Cessna Skyhawk, but the Puch has more control
force available. Compare the control surfaces.

The low points for the Puch that we have seen, include changing the
main wheel bungies. The wheel brake for all practical purposes is non
existent.

The two mishaps that we have had with our Puchs were pilot induced.
The first one was a high time glider racing pilot takes his
girlfriend, a high time power pilot for a ride/lesson. Note: the guy
had never been an instructor. He's in the back seat,where he's not use
to sitting, does the initial takeoff, gives it to the girlfriend in
the front seat, he for all practical purposes goes to sleep. The
glider goes high on tow,then dives to recover. He wakes up just in
time to see the towrope go behind the wing. The tow line rips up
through the glass to the spoiler box. The only good thing this guy
does is to pull the release so the tow rings rip out the top of the
wing. He does a 180 and lands. The glider goes to Moriarty for repairs
and comes back online.

The other pilot induced incident, happended recently when the same
Puch was dropped in flat, and hard from ten feet. Classic pancake.
Gear damage. Repaired, back flying. Poor glider. You can almost see
aircraft hang their head when certain pilots approach to fly.

With regard to the qualifications of the occupants, well that too
should be looked at. When I was a young lad instructing, I had 747
captains wanting to fly our little Cessna 150's with out going for the
checkout. "When did you last fly something smaller then a 747"? "Well
it's been about twenty five years ago, but I was a test pilot in those
days". Test pilot of Cessna 150's? Some would even point out all
their jet type ratings. Impressive, but sir, we aren't flying jets
today.

These turned out to be fun checkouts, and I always learned something
from those guys. Yes they are fine pilots in most cases, and once you
got them to stop flaring at fifty feet in the air, they did fine.

I think we should check the details of the Puch accidents, before
condemning the aircraft. What altitude did the manuver seem to begin
at. The ones I've looked into we're approxiamently 2000' or below,
according to eye witnesses.

If we are looking for something that flies that totally eliminates the
possibility of injury, I would suggest curling.


Mike Borgelt > wrote in message >...
> On 23 Jan 2004 07:34:04 GMT, Chris Rollings
> > wrote:
>
> >Five, in the UK, if memory serves correct, and assuming
> >Sunday's accident was a spinning one (which as Al observed
> >is not known at present). I've no idea how many World-wide,
> >I've never seen any international accident statistics.
> >
> >At 07:18 23 January 2004, Al Eddie wrote:
> >>Nothing has been released yet - the BGA are still investigating.
> >>
> >>Your numbers are probably right but you're missing
> >>the point. The issue is more likely to be of type familiarity
> >>and recency in general, not the fact that a particular
> >>aircraft type is totally predictable in its behaviour.
> >>
> >>Al
>
> Spinning in in the Puchacz would seem to be a far higher risk than
> aerotow upsets due to using a belly release. With 5 in the UK alone
> maybe someone ought to look into this.
>
> A few years ago two test pilots with extensive spin experience
> including in gliders managed to kill themselves in a Puchacz spin in
> the US. At the time that was the 13th or 14th case allegedly and there
> was one more in Austria shortly after that.
>
>
> Either the type is involved in lots of deliberate spinning accidents
> because a lot of this is done in them or there is something odd about
> it.
>
> In either case there is cause for concern.
>
> I've flown the Puchacz but I sure wouldn't even think about spinning
> one.
>
>
> Mike Borgelt

[Ray Perino]

Forget curling. I'm sitting here in Invermere, BC, with 2 broken ribs
sustained from a stall and spin into the ice from a mean altitude of 88 cm.
Can't wait to get back in the air where slips are intentional and benign.
Ray

"SNOOP" > wrote in message
om...
>
> If we are looking for something that flies that totally eliminates the
> possibility of injury, I would suggest curling.
>
>
>

[W.J. \(Bill\) Dean \(U.K.\).]

There are two sources for U.K. accident and incident reports.

Those accidents which are investigated by the government may be found at:

Department of Transport, Air Accident Investigation Bureau
http://www.aaib.gov.uk/ , Bulletins (from 1996).

The reports are also published in a printed monthly pamphlet sent to all UK
flying organisations including gliding clubs.

The snag with this database is that it is in order of date (by month) of
publication of the report, and I have not found a way of searching by
accident date. I have made out my own index on a word document, to link by
accident date to the report, of the accidents which interest me; most of
these are to tugs (all of which are reported), a few are serious glider
accidents.

The other source is the British Gliding Association for accident and
incident reports where the BGA lead the investigation.

A very short summary appears in Sailplane & Gliding, and is also included in
an annual summary available in print from the BGA. At one time there was a
link on the BGA web-site to an on-line copy put up by the Essex club.
However I cannot now find that link, and the last time I looked that
database had not been updated for several years.

According to the terms of reference of the BGA Accident Investigators
(available on-line at http://www.gliding.co.uk/forms/subcommitteesterms.pdf
see the last of 12 pages), "Subsequent to each investigation a report is to
be prepared, to the format of the Air Accidents Investigation Branch
("AAIB") of the Department for Transport ("DfT"), ----- ".

I have never seen or heard of any of these reports being published or made
available, they are not even given to pilots directly involved in accidents
or incidents, or sent to the reporting club. The DfT publish the reports,
why not the BGA? I think this is a disgrace.

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

>
> "tango4" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >
> > It will be interesting to read some more detail of the cause and
> > specific details if they are known.
> >
>
> You'll be lucky! Accident reports are rarely released in any detail.
> Most seem to get a one or two sentence wrap up in the back of the S&G
> Magazine. The feedback loop to pilots IMVHO is atrocious.
>
> Ian Molesworth
>

[Vaughn]

"Ray Perino" > wrote in message
...
> Forget curling. I'm sitting here in Invermere, BC, with 2 broken ribs
> sustained from a stall and spin into the ice from a mean altitude of 88
cm.

Ouch! I know what that feels like. Don't sneeze!

Get well soon;
Vaughn



> Can't wait to get back in the air where slips are intentional and benign.
> Ray
>
> "SNOOP" > wrote in message
> om...
> >
> > If we are looking for something that flies that totally eliminates the
> > possibility of injury, I would suggest curling.
> >
> >
> >
>
>