Puchaz Spinning thread that might be of interest in light of the recent accident.

[Al]

http://www.gliderforum.com/thread-view.asp?threadid=167&start=1

This might be of interest when discussing the Puch and its spinning.

Condolences to the family and friends of the victims of the recent crash.

Regards

Al

[Mark James Boyd]

In article >,
JJ Sinclair > wrote:
>It's winter, I'm bored and I haven't started any good controversies (this year)
>so here goes:
>
>In the early 50's the USAF had a policy to give jump training to all aircrew
>personnel. They soon learned that they were getting twice the injuries in
>training that they were experiencing in real bail-outs. They decided to stop
>the actual jump training and just give PLF and kit deployment, etc training.
>
>So, JJ asks, In light of recent events that show its been reining Puchaz's, Do
>we really want to teach full blown spins? Isn't spin entry and immediate
>recovery, all we should be doing?
>
>JJ Sinclair

With three times as many fatalities in training than flying (helicopters),
one wonders the wisdom of practicing hundreds of autorotations during
helicopter training as well.

[JJ Sinclair]

It's winter, I'm bored and I haven't started any good controversies (this year)
so here goes:

In the early 50's the USAF had a policy to give jump training to all aircrew
personnel. They soon learned that they were getting twice the injuries in
training that they were experiencing in real bail-outs. They decided to stop
the actual jump training and just give PLF and kit deployment, etc training.

So, JJ asks, In light of recent events that show its been reining Puchaz's, Do
we really want to teach full blown spins? Isn't spin entry and immediate
recovery, all we should be doing?

JJ Sinclair

[John Shelton]

Gee. This looks like a nice place to misbehave:

The military trains people with NO flying time for the purpose of
accomplishing a mission. Those missions are not all expected to end with a
landing back home but need to succeed in other ways. On the other hand,
commercial aviation and sport aviation quite often involve pilots with much
more flying time and each and every flight is expected to end safely.

So, while ignorance is bliss, training is the only way to improve ones
chances of completing a flight safely.

While insurance companies do not want helicopter trainees to practice full
autorotations, your only chance for walking without a cane is knowing how to
do one when you need to. So, the first time you do one is the first time you
need to. Not very smart.

Being an old geezer, I have a million examples.

If the training is killing people, then maybe the training procedures need
tweaking. But canceling training is a very bad idea. In the end, the Air
Force spun a zillion of us out of the sky in T-37's with only a few deaths
along the way. We were required to speak and perform the T-37 spin recovery
procedures with a calm voice while the little ******* started wrapping up.
But to this day, I can recite the -37 spin recovery procedure in my sleep
and perform it without thinking twice.

"Mark James Boyd" > wrote in message
news:401166ad$1@darkstar...
> In article >,
> JJ Sinclair > wrote:
> >It's winter, I'm bored and I haven't started any good controversies (this
year)
> >so here goes:
> >
> >In the early 50's the USAF had a policy to give jump training to all
aircrew
> >personnel. They soon learned that they were getting twice the injuries in
> >training that they were experiencing in real bail-outs. They decided to
stop
> >the actual jump training and just give PLF and kit deployment, etc
training.
> >
> >So, JJ asks, In light of recent events that show its been reining
Puchaz's, Do
> >we really want to teach full blown spins? Isn't spin entry and immediate
> >recovery, all we should be doing?
> >
> >JJ Sinclair
>
> With three times as many fatalities in training than flying (helicopters),
> one wonders the wisdom of practicing hundreds of autorotations during
> helicopter training as well.

[Stewart Kissel]

OK JJ, I'll bite (sorta)-

With spin entry training being done so often in benign-handling
ships, what in fact are we teaching/learning?

'Pull back, Pull back, okay kick in full rudder'-and
the thinking might go-'Gee, how does anyone get into
a spin, this is way to much work'

How does this apply the first time someone gets in
a ship that may fall off on its own?



At 18:24 23 January 2004, Mark James Boyd wrote:
>In article ,
>JJ Sinclair wrote:
>>It's winter, I'm bored and I haven't started any good
>>controversies (this year)
>>so here goes:
>>
>>In the early 50's the USAF had a policy to give jump
>>training to all aircrew
>>personnel. They soon learned that they were getting
>>twice the injuries in
>>training that they were experiencing in real bail-outs.
>>They decided to stop
>>the actual jump training and just give PLF and kit
>>deployment, etc training.
>>
>>So, JJ asks, In light of recent events that show its
>>been reining Puchaz's, Do
>>we really want to teach full blown spins? Isn't spin
>>entry and immediate
>>recovery, all we should be doing?
>>
>>JJ Sinclair
>
>With three times as many fatalities in training than
>flying (helicopters),
>one wonders the wisdom of practicing hundreds of autorotations
>during
>helicopter training as well.
>

[Bob Salvo]

>Do
>we really want to teach full blown spins? Isn't spin entry and immediate
>recovery, all we should be doing

Exactly!
Bob

[Robin Birch]

In message >, Bob Salvo
> writes
>>Do
>>we really want to teach full blown spins? Isn't spin entry and immediate
>>recovery, all we should be doing
>
>Exactly!
>Bob
Well yes, and no. I think that the problem a lot of people have is that
they are taught spinning in simple benign aeroplanes that you have to
TELL to spin and come out with no encouragement.

Whilst this is good for the basics I truly believe that train and train
and train to do the harder stuff in aeroplanes (with appropriate
guidance and instructors) that have the capability to bite is the only
way to improve peoples' capabilities to the stage that they can handle
bad situations.

Too many people think they can deal with nasty situations because they
learnt (for instance) spinning in a K13 or 150 or similar. Several
years ago we had a group of power pilots, of the normal sport aviation
type - nothing extreme, turn up for some trial flights in gliders.
Several of them asked to be shown some spins and a suitable instructor
took them round. They were totally disorientated and didn't know what
to do. They had gone through all of the current training at the time
and as far as we know were good pilots.

The person in this thread who said that the training itself may be the
issue rather than doing training is, I believe, right. The old adage
"train hard fight easy" is true just about everywhere, the point is
"train hard"

As to the statement above. Yes, as soon as you know you are in a spin,
get out of it, if you can. However, learning all the other stuff
properly can only help.

Cheers

Robin

A very low hours pilot who has had enough shocks to realise how much he
has to learn.
--
Robin Birch

[SNOOP]

Folks would like to plod through life thinking that they will
recognize the good old nose up, stall, kick rudder, this must be the
entry to a spin, I can recover from this. Who wouldn't.

The one we like to pound into their memory is the nose level on the
horizon, cross control (over shooting the final)feed in top aileron,
and away you go into the nicest spin entry. Recognize it and recover.
We don't need to let it wind up either.

Again a good cirriculum lets you do this training with a high degree
of safety, if the instructor is properly trained.


Stewart Kissel > wrote in message >...
> OK JJ, I'll bite (sorta)-
>
> With spin entry training being done so often in benign-handling
> ships, what in fact are we teaching/learning?
>
> 'Pull back, Pull back, okay kick in full rudder'-and
> the thinking might go-'Gee, how does anyone get into
> a spin, this is way to much work'
>
> How does this apply the first time someone gets in
> a ship that may fall off on its own?
>
>
>
> At 18:24 23 January 2004, Mark James Boyd wrote:
> >In article ,
> >JJ Sinclair wrote:
> >>It's winter, I'm bored and I haven't started any good
> >>controversies (this year)
> >>so here goes:
> >>
> >>In the early 50's the USAF had a policy to give jump
> >>training to all aircrew
> >>personnel. They soon learned that they were getting
> >>twice the injuries in
> >>training that they were experiencing in real bail-outs.
> >>They decided to stop
> >>the actual jump training and just give PLF and kit
> >>deployment, etc training.
> >>
> >>So, JJ asks, In light of recent events that show its
> >>been reining Puchaz's, Do
> >>we really want to teach full blown spins? Isn't spin
> >>entry and immediate
> >>recovery, all we should be doing?
> >>
> >>JJ Sinclair
> >
> >With three times as many fatalities in training than
> >flying (helicopters),
> >one wonders the wisdom of practicing hundreds of autorotations
> >during
> >helicopter training as well.
> >

[John Shelton]

That's the one that would get me. Low and slow, sneaking over a fence
needing juuuuuuust liiiiiitle rudder to line up. I think an instructor can
pound into your head NOT to do that, how to check yourself, and let you
practice your stupidity. On my own as a test pilot, I will certainly get
killed.



"SNOOP" > wrote in message
om...
> Folks would like to plod through life thinking that they will
> recognize the good old nose up, stall, kick rudder, this must be the
> entry to a spin, I can recover from this. Who wouldn't.
>
> The one we like to pound into their memory is the nose level on the
> horizon, cross control (over shooting the final)feed in top aileron,
> and away you go into the nicest spin entry. Recognize it and recover.
> We don't need to let it wind up either.
>
> Again a good cirriculum lets you do this training with a high degree
> of safety, if the instructor is properly trained.
>
>

[F1y1n]

(Mark James Boyd) wrote in message news:<401166ad$1@darkstar>...
> In article >,
> JJ Sinclair > wrote:
> >It's winter, I'm bored and I haven't started any good controversies (this year)
> >so here goes:
> >
> >In the early 50's the USAF had a policy to give jump training to all aircrew
> >personnel. They soon learned that they were getting twice the injuries in
> >training that they were experiencing in real bail-outs. They decided to stop
> >the actual jump training and just give PLF and kit deployment, etc training.
> >
> >So, JJ asks, In light of recent events that show its been reining Puchaz's, Do
> >we really want to teach full blown spins? Isn't spin entry and immediate
> >recovery, all we should be doing?
> >
> >JJ Sinclair
>
> With three times as many fatalities in training than flying (helicopters),
> one wonders the wisdom of practicing hundreds of autorotations during
> helicopter training as well.

I once asked an instructor to demonstrate a spin in a two-seat
aircraft I was transitioning into. His answer: "I'd rather not to."
After some discussion he absolutely refused to do any spins,
apparently out of fear. In my opinion this guy should have been
stripped of his FAA ratings. Somebody who hasn't spun a glider and
recovered should not be allowed to carry passangers, much less to
instruct. A spin is a well-behaved, predictable flight regime that is
documented in the aircraft manual (of most gliders). Somebody unable
or unwilling to enter this flight regime is incompetent and can not
call himself a pilot in my opinion.

[Mark James Boyd]

John Shelton > wrote:
>Gee. This looks like a nice place to misbehave:
>
>So, while ignorance is bliss, training is the only way to improve ones
>chances of completing a flight safely.
>
>While insurance companies do not want helicopter trainees to practice full
>autorotations, your only chance for walking without a cane is knowing how to
>do one when you need to. So, the first time you do one is the first time you
>need to. Not very smart.
>
>If the training is killing people, then maybe the training procedures need
>tweaking. But canceling training is a very bad idea. In the end, the Air

I guess my question is how many is enough? Teaching a spin and recovery
once? Teaching it 10 times? Teaching it 100 times?

Or is it sufficient to simply teach spin avoidance? What causes
a spin and how to not do it?

How much should we focus and teach spin avoidance vs. spin proficiency?

The same question comes up about instrument training. The IFR training
requires 3 hours of instruments for power PPL, but is silent about
the number of hours of training of how to avoid inadvertent IFR.
Some pilots are emboldened by their IFR and their spin training
and either enter these conditions on purpose, or become
bold because of their training.

I've had students do both: spins solo and intentional IFR without
a rating. Since then I have spent a LOT more time talking about the
hazards of these manuevers by low time pilots, both before and after
I give them this training. And I now spend a LOT more time teaching
about how these things develop and can be avoided, rather than teaching
the emergency procedure for recovery again and again and again.

I've done maybe a hundred spins in a dozen different aircraft,
but when I teach it to a new student, I always do it only
once (for PPL) and we spend a lot of time and take a lot of
precautions (remove all potentially flying projectiles,
wear parachutes, do an actual W&B not just paper, etc).
I don't do this for me (I know the W&B beforehand, I've
done the pre-flight myself already, I know if this
particular aircraft needs forward stick for recovery, etc).
Instead I want to show them by example that spins and instrument
flight are serious business, and that even the
professionals are extra thorough before these manuevers.

So I guess I'm saying doing these dramatic manuevers
repeatedly inadvertently may in some students convey
the wrong impression that such things are routine. They are not.

They are emergency procedures, and taught to convey
the full impact of such an emergency, to focus the student
on avoiding the emergency. As many accident reports show,
spin recovery procedures, in real life, rarely get
used when it really counts, because one is too low
(400 feet up base to final).
Spin recovery at 3000ft is just something we do after
the demonstration so we can fly some more that day.

Spin avoidance is the key, at least in my book.
Just like IFR avoidance for the power PPL.

If a pilot is looking for more, take an acro course or
get an instrument rating...or join the military :P

My two cents...

[Chris Reed]

Another one which works well in the Puchacz is the thermalling turn with
just a little too much into turn rudder. Bleed the speed back to the stall
and it rolls smoothly into a spin, just like many single seaters. Now
translate that into scratching at 800 feet ...

My view (for my own flying) is that being trained in spin
recognition/avoidance would have been of little relevance. I've now had a
fair amount of experience of putting a glider into a spin in most of the
likely modes I'd encounter in a single seater (final turns, thermalling
turns, failed winch launches, high speed stall with yaw etc.), and think I'm
far better placed to avoid a spin in the first place because of this.

Given that a reasonable performance single seater is likely to spin far more
readily than a training glider, because that's the trade off to achieve the
extra performance, I'm never really confident flying one until I have spun
it and noted any subtleties in spin entry and recovery.

Are those of you who don't want to spin sure that you would recognise the
imminence of a spin in your single seater?

"SNOOP" > wrote in message
om...
> Folks would like to plod through life thinking that they will
> recognize the good old nose up, stall, kick rudder, this must be the
> entry to a spin, I can recover from this. Who wouldn't.
>
> The one we like to pound into their memory is the nose level on the
> horizon, cross control (over shooting the final)feed in top aileron,
> and away you go into the nicest spin entry. Recognize it and recover.
> We don't need to let it wind up either.
>
> Again a good cirriculum lets you do this training with a high degree
> of safety, if the instructor is properly trained.
>
>
> Stewart Kissel > wrote in
message >...
> > OK JJ, I'll bite (sorta)-
> >
> > With spin entry training being done so often in benign-handling
> > ships, what in fact are we teaching/learning?
> >
> > 'Pull back, Pull back, okay kick in full rudder'-and
> > the thinking might go-'Gee, how does anyone get into
> > a spin, this is way to much work'
> >
> > How does this apply the first time someone gets in
> > a ship that may fall off on its own?
> >
> >
> >
> > At 18:24 23 January 2004, Mark James Boyd wrote:
> > >In article ,
> > >JJ Sinclair wrote:
> > >>It's winter, I'm bored and I haven't started any good
> > >>controversies (this year)
> > >>so here goes:
> > >>
> > >>In the early 50's the USAF had a policy to give jump
> > >>training to all aircrew
> > >>personnel. They soon learned that they were getting
> > >>twice the injuries in
> > >>training that they were experiencing in real bail-outs.
> > >>They decided to stop
> > >>the actual jump training and just give PLF and kit
> > >>deployment, etc training.
> > >>
> > >>So, JJ asks, In light of recent events that show its
> > >>been reining Puchaz's, Do
> > >>we really want to teach full blown spins? Isn't spin
> > >>entry and immediate
> > >>recovery, all we should be doing?
> > >>
> > >>JJ Sinclair
> > >
> > >With three times as many fatalities in training than
> > >flying (helicopters),
> > >one wonders the wisdom of practicing hundreds of autorotations
> > >during
> > >helicopter training as well.
> > >

[John Shelton]

> I guess my question is how many is enough? Teaching a spin and recovery
> once? Teaching it 10 times? Teaching it 100 times?

I don't know. How about until the student gets it right?

> Or is it sufficient to simply teach spin avoidance? What causes
> a spin and how to not do it?

No. What usually causes a spin is inattention. When a student is
concentrating on a maneuver in a canned situation, you cannot possibly
simulate the circumstances that will lead them to a spin entry, that moment
of confusion when nothing seems to be working right and then a calm
recovery. There are some counter-intuitive things that must go on and they
must be taught, not talked about.

> How much should we focus and teach spin avoidance vs. spin proficiency?

Not spin proficiency. We are not aerobatic pilots. Spin recovery.

When I was getting my helicopter license, I told the instructor that if we
didn't do autorotations to the ground, I would go shopping for someone who
would. In that manner, I learned before I needed it the very critical timing
required to pull it off. If I had had to guess how to transition mentally
and manually from an auto to a hover to an auto to the ground and had to bet
my spine on it, I very likely would have lost the bet. I am a firm believer
in instruction to prepare the pilot for whatever he/she may face. If we face
spins, then train us how to get out of them.

I already know how. If nobody else wants to teach it or learn it, I
shouldn't care. So I won't.

[Vaughn]

"F1y1n" > wrote in message
om...
>
> I once asked an instructor to demonstrate a spin in a two-seat
> aircraft I was transitioning into.

Did you have chutes? In the US, the only time you are allowed to spin
dual without chutes is when you are working on a rating that requires spin
training. If you were asking the CFI to spin without chutes (just a wild
guess), he was 100% correct to turn you down. I would too.

I would also refuse to spin a student in a glider that I had not
previously spun myself.

> ...In my opinion this guy should have been
> stripped of his FAA ratings. Somebody who hasn't spun a glider and
> recovered should not be allowed to carry passangers,

Like it or not; in the US, spin training is not required for the
commercial rating...

> much less to instruct.

...but it is required for CFI. That does not make every CFI a
qualified acro jock.

> A spin is a well-behaved, predictable flight regime...

Not necessarily true, not even true of all trainers. Some gliders
have, (or at least are reputed to have) multiple spin modes. Not all
aircraft have perfect rigging, and a certain percentage have accumulated
repairs and/or mods over years of operation that change the distribution of
mass about the various axis and have an unknown effect on spin behavior.

Just two weeks ago, I found myself practicing stalls in a 152 that I
wouldn't spin in a bet. It had a dent in the leading edge of one wing and
had a nasty wing drop at every stall, but otherwise performed well.

Vaughn



>that is
> documented in the aircraft manual (of most gliders). Somebody unable
> or unwilling to enter this flight regime is incompetent and can not
> call himself a pilot in my opinion.

[Edward Downham]

If I took charge of a gliding club using Puchacz(s) for basic training, the
first thing I would do is pile them all in a heap in the corner of the field
and set fire to them.

This may come across as something of a controversial viewpoint. Let me explain.

As far as I know, we are now into double figures (in the UK alone) in terms of
fatalities when it comes to stall/spin accidents in the Puchacz. Compare this
to gliders like the twin Grob and K-21: there are far greater numbers of them
flying many times more hours with a much better record. Even older machines
such as the K-13 stand out well in comparison.

I really can't see the advantage of a training glider that spins so readily and
kills you if you get the recovery (slightly) wrong.

I think some of the instructing fraternity (in the UK) have become too focussed
on spinning as an 'exercise' and not something to be avoided. I believe that if
a significant group of pilots are having _inadvertent_ stall/spin
incidents/accidents when they are flying solo, then there is something very
very wrong with the most elementary training we are giving.

I read and hear much concerning technical details of spinning, i.e. what glider
X does after 5 turns with part aileron and that glider Y flicks when you yank
and stamp on the controls. All fairly irrelevant. If you get to the point of
having to do a full recovery one might question as to how you got there in the
first place. If you are low down (especially in machines like the Puchacz),
where most bad accidents occur, knowing how to recover from a spin is probably
not going to be of much use. Indeed, it may help to make the subsequent impact
unsurviveable.

What we seem to be failing to do is to instill a basic awareness of what the
glider is up to, and the _instinctive_ reactions required if the airframe stops
responding to your commands. Mike Cuming wrote a seminal article in S&G, some
years back, entiltled: "STOP PULLING THE STICK BACK!". This should be required
reading for all pre-solo students.

If you really want to show people full-blooded spins and recoveries, take them
up to a safe height in an aerobatic power aircraft, certified for those kind of
manoevres. You will be able to do much more for a lot less money.

Frankly, I see little point in making pilots deliberately demonstrate their
'expertise' in abusing a glider to the point it autorotates, then attempting to
do something about it. This is not the world aerobatic championships. I would
much rather see immediate instinctive corrections to any possible loss of
control.

To the experienced pilots/instructors reading this: when was the last time you
ended up (inadvertently) in a spin? Yes, you get wing drops in thermals etc.
but do you sit there, doing nothing, until the ground and sky start going round
very fast? No. I'm sure you don't, as you are alive to read this.

What drove me to stay up at night to write this post was a feeling of
anger/helplessness/sadness that yet more people have died in what I regard as a
pointless exercise. I knew the P1 in the double-fatal crash this week but not
his fifteen year old student.

Safe flying to all of you.

[Arnold Pieper]

That full-blown glider pilots would question the need for spin training is
unbelievable.
But all the oppinions I read on this tread just shows how much ignorance
there is on the subject, it's really sad.

What nobody seems to realize is that the Puchacz is used more extensively in
these types of training than anything else.
Older gliders are simply not spun at the very low altitudes that they seem
to do it in the UK, which is why other models don't appear on any
statistics.

Spin training is an absolute MUST for any glider pilot. I've done it time
and again in Puchacz with many students, and none of my students share these
sad oppinions, none of them think of it as some obscure black magic,
life-threatening manouver.

But I've always done spin training at 3000ft, until the student realizes
what does it take to recover from the spin, and how the controls behave, and
therefore, how to realize you're about to spin in the low base-to-final.

Enough of this nonsense.


"Stewart Kissel" > wrote in
message ...
> OK JJ, I'll bite (sorta)-
>
> With spin entry training being done so often in benign-handling
> ships, what in fact are we teaching/learning?
>
> 'Pull back, Pull back, okay kick in full rudder'-and
> the thinking might go-'Gee, how does anyone get into
> a spin, this is way to much work'
>
> How does this apply the first time someone gets in
> a ship that may fall off on its own?
>
>
>
> At 18:24 23 January 2004, Mark James Boyd wrote:
> >In article ,
> >JJ Sinclair wrote:
> >>It's winter, I'm bored and I haven't started any good
> >>controversies (this year)
> >>so here goes:
> >>
> >>In the early 50's the USAF had a policy to give jump
> >>training to all aircrew
> >>personnel. They soon learned that they were getting
> >>twice the injuries in
> >>training that they were experiencing in real bail-outs.
> >>They decided to stop
> >>the actual jump training and just give PLF and kit
> >>deployment, etc training.
> >>
> >>So, JJ asks, In light of recent events that show its
> >>been reining Puchaz's, Do
> >>we really want to teach full blown spins? Isn't spin
> >>entry and immediate
> >>recovery, all we should be doing?
> >>
> >>JJ Sinclair
> >
> >With three times as many fatalities in training than
> >flying (helicopters),
> >one wonders the wisdom of practicing hundreds of autorotations
> >during
> >helicopter training as well.
> >
>
>
>

[Dave Martin]

Why is it when there is a fatality we set off on a
chest beating exercise? The poor old Puchacz.

It is built to do a job, which it does excellently.
It can be used effectively to teach all aspects of
the glider pilots training syllabus without adding
weights, spin whiskers or other fancy gismos. It does
not have to be provoked into performing some of the
exercises, it does them as it should, correctly and
on command.

Yes it spins. It is designed to do that! OK it suffers
from some of its build quality.

It gives plenty of warning of the approaching stall,
it also gives plenty of warning that it is about to
spin. It can be flown very badly on or about the stall
and provided the pilot is aware of the circumstance
merely regaining flying speed generally solves the
problems.

Capable instructors can teach the whole range of stalling
and further stalling exercises. Unfortunately it allows
those not familiar with it into some dangerous areas

Like all gliders, instructors should be taught what
the glider is capable of, its qualities and how to
get the best out of the glider. I have been teaching
on Puchacz gliders for over 10 years and the more I
fly them the more I realise what a superb training
tool they are.

Other two seaters do some jobs better, but overall
the Puchacz is perhaps best all round training glider
in production today. It is a training tool and should
be used as such.

Having said that it is not a glider to get complacent
with. Like many gliders even those with alleged docile
characteristics if flown badly it will bite the unwary.


Dave

[bumper]

Some aircraft designs, given the wrong set of circumstances, can exhibit
unusual or divergent flight characteristics. They can enter a deep stall or
flat spin from which recovery is impossible or difficult. Not sure if the
Puchaz suffers from any of this, the accident numbers alone may make some
wonder. Being your basic coward, I wouldn't spin one without knowing for
sure what's going on . . . and I'll admit I don't.
--
bumper ZZ (reverse all after @)>
"Dare to be different . . . circle in sink."


"Dave Martin" > wrote in message
...
> Why is it when there is a fatality we set off on a
> chest beating exercise? The poor old Puchacz.
>
> It is built to do a job, which it does excellently.
> It can be used effectively to teach all aspects of
> the glider pilots training syllabus without adding
> weights, spin whiskers or other fancy gismos. It does
> not have to be provoked into performing some of the
> exercises, it does them as it should, correctly and
> on command.
>
> Yes it spins. It is designed to do that! OK it suffers
> from some of its build quality.
>
> It gives plenty of warning of the approaching stall,
> it also gives plenty of warning that it is about to
> spin. It can be flown very badly on or about the stall
> and provided the pilot is aware of the circumstance
> merely regaining flying speed generally solves the
> problems.
>
> Capable instructors can teach the whole range of stalling
> and further stalling exercises. Unfortunately it allows
> those not familiar with it into some dangerous areas
>
> Like all gliders, instructors should be taught what
> the glider is capable of, its qualities and how to
> get the best out of the glider. I have been teaching
> on Puchacz gliders for over 10 years and the more I
> fly them the more I realise what a superb training
> tool they are.
>
> Other two seaters do some jobs better, but overall
> the Puchacz is perhaps best all round training glider
> in production today. It is a training tool and should
> be used as such.
>
> Having said that it is not a glider to get complacent
> with. Like many gliders even those with alleged docile
> characteristics if flown badly it will bite the unwary.
>
>
> Dave
>
>
>
>
>

[Mike Lindsay]

In article et>, John
Shelton > writes
>If the training is killing people, then maybe the training procedures need
>tweaking. But canceling training is a very bad idea. In the end, the Air
>Force spun a zillion of us out of the sky in T-37's with only a few deaths
>along the way. We were required to speak and perform the T-37 spin recovery
>procedures with a calm voice while the little ******* started wrapping up.
>But to this day, I can recite the -37 spin recovery procedure in my sleep
>and perform it without thinking twice.
>
A long time ago Ray Stafford Allen of the London GC invented something
he called The Clots Spin.

It simulated the thoughts of a recently soloed pilot doing an approach.

It went something like this;

I'm downwind now, I must turn about there to land THERE. Oh, I am a bit
too low. I'll hold the nose up. I'm still too low, I'd better not put
too much bank on. But I'm not turning quick enough, I'll rudder it
round......

We were required to recite before going solo.

Seems to me a very good idea, it gets it into your mind how to avoid the
problem.
--
Mike Lindsay

[Chris OCallaghan]

A year or two ago, there were people suggesting that low spins, say
below 1500 agl, were an important training exercise since they let the
student experience the shock of a canopy full of earth coming on
quickly. By having experienced this, the pilot would be able to react
more quickly to the accidental stall/spin in the pattern and thus
effect a faster, safer recovery.

Are you saying that you agree with this, that you practice it, and
that it has become common practice in the UK?

(You note that you start your training at 3000 agl, then imply that
once the student is acclimated, you bring the entry altitude down.)

[Bruce Hoult]

In article
>,
"bumper" > wrote:

> Some aircraft designs, given the wrong set of circumstances, can exhibit
> unusual or divergent flight characteristics. They can enter a deep stall or
> flat spin from which recovery is impossible or difficult. Not sure if the
> Puchaz suffers from any of this, the accident numbers alone may make some
> wonder.

There have got to be more Blaniks around than Pooks, and they also spin
very enthusiastically and suddenly (but with the classic warnings) off a
botched turn. But I haven't noticed them featuring in the accident
statistics.

-- Bruce

[Mike Borgelt]

On 25 Jan 2004 01:26:39 GMT, (Edward Downham)
wrote:

>If I took charge of a gliding club using Puchacz(s) for basic training, the
>first thing I would do is pile them all in a heap in the corner of the field
>and set fire to them.
>
>This may come across as something of a controversial viewpoint. Let me explain.
>
>As far as I know, we are now into double figures (in the UK alone) in terms of
>fatalities when it comes to stall/spin accidents in the Puchacz. Compare this
>to gliders like the twin Grob and K-21: there are far greater numbers of them
>flying many times more hours with a much better record. Even older machines
>such as the K-13 stand out well in comparison.
>
>I really can't see the advantage of a training glider that spins so readily and
>kills you if you get the recovery (slightly) wrong.
>
>I think some of the instructing fraternity (in the UK) have become too focussed
>on spinning as an 'exercise' and not something to be avoided. I believe that if
>a significant group of pilots are having _inadvertent_ stall/spin
>incidents/accidents when they are flying solo, then there is something very
>very wrong with the most elementary training we are giving.
>
>I read and hear much concerning technical details of spinning, i.e. what glider
>X does after 5 turns with part aileron and that glider Y flicks when you yank
>and stamp on the controls. All fairly irrelevant. If you get to the point of
>having to do a full recovery one might question as to how you got there in the
>first place. If you are low down (especially in machines like the Puchacz),
>where most bad accidents occur, knowing how to recover from a spin is probably
>not going to be of much use. Indeed, it may help to make the subsequent impact
>unsurviveable.
>
>What we seem to be failing to do is to instill a basic awareness of what the
>glider is up to, and the _instinctive_ reactions required if the airframe stops
>responding to your commands. Mike Cuming wrote a seminal article in S&G, some
>years back, entiltled: "STOP PULLING THE STICK BACK!". This should be required
>reading for all pre-solo students.
>
>If you really want to show people full-blooded spins and recoveries, take them
>up to a safe height in an aerobatic power aircraft, certified for those kind of
>manoevres. You will be able to do much more for a lot less money.
>
>Frankly, I see little point in making pilots deliberately demonstrate their
>'expertise' in abusing a glider to the point it autorotates, then attempting to
>do something about it. This is not the world aerobatic championships. I would
>much rather see immediate instinctive corrections to any possible loss of
>control.
>
>To the experienced pilots/instructors reading this: when was the last time you
>ended up (inadvertently) in a spin? Yes, you get wing drops in thermals etc.
>but do you sit there, doing nothing, until the ground and sky start going round
>very fast? No. I'm sure you don't, as you are alive to read this.
>
>What drove me to stay up at night to write this post was a feeling of
>anger/helplessness/sadness that yet more people have died in what I regard as a
>pointless exercise. I knew the P1 in the double-fatal crash this week but not
>his fifteen year old student.
>
>Safe flying to all of you.
>
>


Thank you Edward. That is the best article on this issue I have ever
seen.

I agree 100% and particularly with the "do it in a power plane
designed for this". I did this two years ago in a Pitts S2A with an
experienced airshow pilot who is also an aerobatic instructor. We both
wore parachutes, had a proper briefing and agreed to abandon ship if
control not regained by 4000 feet AGL. All spins were begun from at
least 9000 feet. I learned more about spinning in that hour than in my
previous 35 years flying.

Now for a solution to keep everyone happy - I believe we have the
technology to build a realistic, close to full motion, spin simulator
at an affordable price.
This will allow through and complete exploration of the pre stall,
stall and spin regime for training and combine this with one real full
spin aircraft exercise at altitude with proper precautions and
briefing.

Lets do this and stop killing people in training exercises.

We lost a couple of people in Australia a few years ago in a Blanik
during an annual "spin check".
The spin turned into a spiral and the aircraft broke up in the
recovery. They weren't at high altitude nor wearing parachutes.

Many experienced pilots I know flat out refuse to do full spins during
annual checks as being an unnecessary risk. They will happily
demonstrate stalls and incipient spins.

Mike Borgelt

[Ian Johnston]

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 01:26:39 UTC, (Edward
Downham) wrote:

: As far as I know, we are now into double figures (in the UK alone) in terms of
: fatalities when it comes to stall/spin accidents in the Puchacz. Compare this
: to gliders like the twin Grob and K-21: there are far greater numbers of them
: flying many times more hours with a much better record.

But you have to take an overall view: how many of the pilots who die
in solo spins accidents do so because they were trained in nice, safe,
you-have-to-do-something-special-to-get-this-to-stall two seaters.

On your hypothetical airfield, would you fit all two seaters with
elevator stops so that pupils could never stall [1]?

Ian

[1i] In the conventional nose-up-slow-down-nose-up-slow-down-whoops
way
--

[Bill Daniels]

"Mike Borgelt" > wrote in message
...
> On 25 Jan 2004 01:26:39 GMT, (Edward Downham)
> wrote:
>
> >If I took charge of a gliding club using Puchacz(s) for basic training,
the
> >first thing I would do is pile them all in a heap in the corner of the
field
> >and set fire to them.
> >
> >This may come across as something of a controversial viewpoint. Let me
explain.
> >
> >As far as I know, we are now into double figures (in the UK alone) in
terms of
> >fatalities when it comes to stall/spin accidents in the Puchacz. Compare
this
> >to gliders like the twin Grob and K-21: there are far greater numbers of
them
> >flying many times more hours with a much better record. Even older
machines
> >such as the K-13 stand out well in comparison.
> >
> >I really can't see the advantage of a training glider that spins so
readily and
> >kills you if you get the recovery (slightly) wrong.
> >
> >I think some of the instructing fraternity (in the UK) have become too
focussed
> >on spinning as an 'exercise' and not something to be avoided. I believe
that if
> >a significant group of pilots are having _inadvertent_ stall/spin
> >incidents/accidents when they are flying solo, then there is something
very
> >very wrong with the most elementary training we are giving.
> >
> >I read and hear much concerning technical details of spinning, i.e. what
glider
> >X does after 5 turns with part aileron and that glider Y flicks when you
yank
> >and stamp on the controls. All fairly irrelevant. If you get to the point
of
> >having to do a full recovery one might question as to how you got there
in the
> >first place. If you are low down (especially in machines like the
Puchacz),
> >where most bad accidents occur, knowing how to recover from a spin is
probably
> >not going to be of much use. Indeed, it may help to make the subsequent
impact
> >unsurviveable.
> >
> >What we seem to be failing to do is to instill a basic awareness of what
the
> >glider is up to, and the _instinctive_ reactions required if the airframe
stops
> >responding to your commands. Mike Cuming wrote a seminal article in S&G,
some
> >years back, entiltled: "STOP PULLING THE STICK BACK!". This should be
required
> >reading for all pre-solo students.
> >
> >If you really want to show people full-blooded spins and recoveries, take
them
> >up to a safe height in an aerobatic power aircraft, certified for those
kind of
> >manoevres. You will be able to do much more for a lot less money.
> >
> >Frankly, I see little point in making pilots deliberately demonstrate
their
> >'expertise' in abusing a glider to the point it autorotates, then
attempting to
> >do something about it. This is not the world aerobatic championships. I
would
> >much rather see immediate instinctive corrections to any possible loss of
> >control.
> >
> >To the experienced pilots/instructors reading this: when was the last
time you
> >ended up (inadvertently) in a spin? Yes, you get wing drops in thermals
etc.
> >but do you sit there, doing nothing, until the ground and sky start going
round
> >very fast? No. I'm sure you don't, as you are alive to read this.
> >
> >What drove me to stay up at night to write this post was a feeling of
> >anger/helplessness/sadness that yet more people have died in what I
regard as a
> >pointless exercise. I knew the P1 in the double-fatal crash this week but
not
> >his fifteen year old student.
> >
> >Safe flying to all of you.
> >
> >
>
>
> Thank you Edward. That is the best article on this issue I have ever
> seen.
>
> I agree 100% and particularly with the "do it in a power plane
> designed for this". I did this two years ago in a Pitts S2A with an
> experienced airshow pilot who is also an aerobatic instructor. We both
> wore parachutes, had a proper briefing and agreed to abandon ship if
> control not regained by 4000 feet AGL. All spins were begun from at
> least 9000 feet. I learned more about spinning in that hour than in my
> previous 35 years flying.
>
> Now for a solution to keep everyone happy - I believe we have the
> technology to build a realistic, close to full motion, spin simulator
> at an affordable price.
> This will allow through and complete exploration of the pre stall,
> stall and spin regime for training and combine this with one real full
> spin aircraft exercise at altitude with proper precautions and
> briefing.
>
> Lets do this and stop killing people in training exercises.
>
> We lost a couple of people in Australia a few years ago in a Blanik
> during an annual "spin check".
> The spin turned into a spiral and the aircraft broke up in the
> recovery. They weren't at high altitude nor wearing parachutes.
>
> Many experienced pilots I know flat out refuse to do full spins during
> annual checks as being an unnecessary risk. They will happily
> demonstrate stalls and incipient spins.
>
> Mike Borgelt

I did an annual check of a ATP pilot who owns a glider. He had also been
flying aerobatic aircraft such as the Citabria and PItts. The annual check
was in a Blanik L-23. We decided on a two turn spin so that I could know
when to expect a recovery attempt.

At two turns, I saw the rear pedals shift to their anti-spin position but
the stick remained aft of center and the L-23 continued to spin as if
nothing had been done to stop it. I said, "two turns" to remind him of our
bargain. Then the stick moved forward and the glider stopped rotating and
entered the recovery dive.

Asked about the delay in recovery, the pilot said that the standard recovery
technique used in the powered aircraft he had been flying was just to
reverse the rudder and to keep the stick aft of center. I pointed out that
every glider I knew of required forward stick for a sure recovery. (We did
several more spins until we both were comfortable with his spin recovery
technique.)

I think the take-home lesson is that airplanes can spin more benignly than
gliders. Relying on spin training in airplanes is just not always
appropriate and can leave the pilot with misconceptions about glider spin
recovery.

I think that, if you fly gliders that will spin, it is wise to experience
the spin recovery at least once and preferably more often than that.

That said, there is nothing wrong with basic training that emphasizes
recognition of an incipient spin over spin recovery. Recognition that a
spin is imminent, and knowledge of the technique to prevent it, will save
more lives than expert spin recovery.

So, is spin training dangerous? Yes, but much less dangerous than not doing
spin training. The path from novice to expert is sometimes fraught with
peril but remaining a novice is more dangerous still. The Puch, Blanik, and
Lark spin more like the glass gliders most of us fly. As such, they are
excellent trainers. Just choose an instructor that is very experienced with
them.

Bill Daniels

Bill Daniels

[F1y1n]

"Vaughn" > wrote in message >...
> "F1y1n" > wrote in message
> om...
> >
> > I once asked an instructor to demonstrate a spin in a two-seat
> > aircraft I was transitioning into.
>
> Did you have chutes? In the US, the only time you are allowed to spin
> dual without chutes is when you are working on a rating that requires spin
> training. If you were asking the CFI to spin without chutes (just a wild
> guess), he was 100% correct to turn you down. I would too.

Unless you are already CFIG, you are always 'working on a rating' when
flying dual with a (current) CFIG. No parachutes needed for spinning.
And no, as I said, he did not turn me down because of the lack of a
chute.

> I would also refuse to spin a student in a glider that I had not
> previously spun myself.

This begs the question: Why the hell would you instruct in an aircraft
you haven't spun yourself? Doing so would be foolish, IMHO.

> Like it or not;

not

> in the US, spin training is not required for the
> commercial rating...
>
> ...but it is required for CFI. That does not make every CFI a
> qualified acro jock.

If you read the FARs you will find that spin training is not acro.

> > A spin is a well-behaved, predictable flight regime...
>
> Not necessarily true, not even true of all trainers. Some gliders
> have, (or at least are reputed to have) multiple spin modes.

The spin rate, pitch angle, descent rate, and any pitch oscillation
amplitude and frequency does depend on the CG and gross weight, sure,
but a spin within the CG in an approved glider with a standard
airworthiness certificate is always benign can be recovered using the
documented procedures. As I said: 'well-behaved' and 'predictable'.

> Not all
> aircraft have perfect rigging, and a certain percentage have accumulated
> repairs and/or mods over years of operation that change the distribution of
> mass about the various axis and have an unknown effect on spin behavior.

Any mods that effect the CG require a new weight & balance. See my
comment above re safe flight within CG. You'd be suicidal flying a
glider with an unkown spin behavior. Instructing in one would be
border-line criminal. My point is: a spin is not some black magic.
Learn it, and instruct it. If you are afraid of spinning you shouldn't
be flying, much less teaching.

> Just two weeks ago, I found myself practicing stalls in a 152 that I
> wouldn't spin in a bet. It had a dent in the leading edge of one wing and
> had a nasty wing drop at every stall, but otherwise performed well.

Most 150s and 152s I have flown drop a wing at stall, as do many older
gliders. Does this make them unsafe to spin? Emphatically no! They
will spin happily in either direction.

[F.L. Whiteley]

"F1y1n" > wrote in message

<snip>
> amplitude and frequency does depend on the CG and gross weight, sure,
> but a spin within the CG in an approved glider with a standard
> airworthiness certificate is always benign can be recovered using the
> documented procedures. As I said: 'well-behaved' and 'predictable'.
>
Up to the two turn JAR 22 test standard for modern gliders. Beyond that,
you are a test pilot.

[Bruce Greeff]

If all you are planning to fly is well behaved and you are a cautious
pilot who never competes, or flies till fatigue set in that is fine.

Conversely a lot of the aircraft out there, and particularly the glass
single seaters will depart into a spin with little warning in the right
circumstances. Recovery attitude is often nearly vertical and the entry
violent. This is especially true of high performance single seaters with
high wingloadings. (lots of water in the wings)

We are also in part of the world that preaches spin identification and
avoidance. I fly a 33 year old glass plane (Standard Cirrus) that has
delightful handling and is relatively easy to fly, up to a point. Beyond
that point the alacrity with which she drops a wing prompted me to go
out and get some real spin training, so at least I have a chance. Maybe
I am just a mediocre pilot, but I am not sure I will not cross the line
some day. Even in a docile K13 the first couple were disorienting and I
recovered more because of the K13's behavior than correct procedure -
and I did this post solo.

Now I am a lot more relaxed in situations where it is possible I might
spin inadvertently like turbulent thermals.

Bruce

Arnold Pieper wrote:
> That full-blown glider pilots would question the need for spin training is
> unbelievable.
> But all the oppinions I read on this tread just shows how much ignorance
> there is on the subject, it's really sad.
>
> What nobody seems to realize is that the Puchacz is used more extensively in
<SNIP>

[Arnold Pieper]

Chris,

No, I don't think you have to spin below 1500agl, I don't agree with that
practice.

By "doing it time and again until the student realizes...." I just meant
practicing spins repeatedly during the training syllabus, not just once for
demonstration.



"Chris OCallaghan" > wrote in message
om...
> A year or two ago, there were people suggesting that low spins, say
> below 1500 agl, were an important training exercise since they let the
> student experience the shock of a canopy full of earth coming on
> quickly. By having experienced this, the pilot would be able to react
> more quickly to the accidental stall/spin in the pattern and thus
> effect a faster, safer recovery.
>
> Are you saying that you agree with this, that you practice it, and
> that it has become common practice in the UK?
>
> (You note that you start your training at 3000 agl, then imply that
> once the student is acclimated, you bring the entry altitude down.)

[Arnold Pieper]

Read the previous treads.

The Puchacz is used for low altitude spin training more than anything else
because it is that well trusted.

Being subject to that more than other/older designs, it is just more
exposed.
Where people don't spin gliders at low altitudes, the Puchacz has as clean
(or cleaner) a record as any other training glider.

If you don't know what's going on, check the www.ssa.org website, click on
Magazines, then on "Dick Johnson" and find his flight evaluation of the
Puchacz and the specific "spin characteristics evaluation" of the Puchacz,
in which Dick gives the Puchacz a clean bill of health.


"bumper" > wrote in message
...
> Some aircraft designs, given the wrong set of circumstances, can exhibit
> unusual or divergent flight characteristics. They can enter a deep stall
or
> flat spin from which recovery is impossible or difficult. Not sure if the
> Puchaz suffers from any of this, the accident numbers alone may make some
> wonder. Being your basic coward, I wouldn't spin one without knowing for
> sure what's going on . . . and I'll admit I don't.
> --
> bumper ZZ (reverse all after @)>
> "Dare to be different . . . circle in sink."
>
>
> "Dave Martin" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Why is it when there is a fatality we set off on a
> > chest beating exercise? The poor old Puchacz.
> >
> > It is built to do a job, which it does excellently.
> > It can be used effectively to teach all aspects of
> > the glider pilots training syllabus without adding
> > weights, spin whiskers or other fancy gismos. It does
> > not have to be provoked into performing some of the
> > exercises, it does them as it should, correctly and
> > on command.
> >
> > Yes it spins. It is designed to do that! OK it suffers
> > from some of its build quality.
> >
> > It gives plenty of warning of the approaching stall,
> > it also gives plenty of warning that it is about to
> > spin. It can be flown very badly on or about the stall
> > and provided the pilot is aware of the circumstance
> > merely regaining flying speed generally solves the
> > problems.
> >
> > Capable instructors can teach the whole range of stalling
> > and further stalling exercises. Unfortunately it allows
> > those not familiar with it into some dangerous areas
> >
> > Like all gliders, instructors should be taught what
> > the glider is capable of, its qualities and how to
> > get the best out of the glider. I have been teaching
> > on Puchacz gliders for over 10 years and the more I
> > fly them the more I realise what a superb training
> > tool they are.
> >
> > Other two seaters do some jobs better, but overall
> > the Puchacz is perhaps best all round training glider
> > in production today. It is a training tool and should
> > be used as such.
> >
> > Having said that it is not a glider to get complacent
> > with. Like many gliders even those with alleged docile
> > characteristics if flown badly it will bite the unwary.
> >
> >
> > Dave
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

[Andrew Warbrick]

We get more heavy landing accidents in training than
in post solo flying, so by that argument we shouldn't
be teaching people to land either!

At 18:12 23 January 2004, Jj Sinclair wrote:
>It's winter, I'm bored and I haven't started any good
>controversies (this year)
>so here goes:
>
>In the early 50's the USAF had a policy to give jump
>training to all aircrew
>personnel. They soon learned that they were getting
>twice the injuries in
>training that they were experiencing in real bail-outs.
>They decided to stop
>the actual jump training and just give PLF and kit
>deployment, etc training.
>
>So, JJ asks, In light of recent events that show its
>been reining Puchaz's, Do
>we really want to teach full blown spins? Isn't spin
>entry and immediate
>recovery, all we should be doing?
>
>JJ Sinclair
>

[Vaughn]

"F1y1n" > wrote in message
om...
> "Vaughn" > wrote in message
>...
> > "F1y1n" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > >
> > > I once asked an instructor to demonstrate a spin in a two-seat
> > > aircraft I was transitioning into.
> >
> > Did you have chutes? In the US, the only time you are allowed to
spin
> > dual without chutes is when you are working on a rating that requires
spin
> > training. If you were asking the CFI to spin without chutes (just a
wild
> > guess), he was 100% correct to turn you down. I would too.
>
> Unless you are already CFIG, you are always 'working on a rating' when
> flying dual with a (current) CFIG. No parachutes needed for spinning.
> And no, as I said, he did not turn me down because of the lack of a
> chute.

Wrong. This is a very optimistic intrepetation of the FARs that I have
heard before, I doubt that it would fly with the FAA. If you don't have a
commercial, you are not "working on your CFI".

>
> > I would also refuse to spin a student in a glider that I had not
> > previously spun myself.
>
> This begs the question: Why the hell would you instruct in an aircraft
> you haven't spun yourself? Doing so would be foolish, IMHO.

It is done all the time.
>
> > Like it or not;
>
> not

Take it up with the feds, I actually agree. (for the record, I delayed
my solo until I received spin training)

>
> > in the US, spin training is not required for the
> > commercial rating...
> >
> > ...but it is required for CFI. That does not make every CFI a
> > qualified acro jock.
>
> If you read the FARs you will find that spin training is not acro.

Where?

>
> > > A spin is a well-behaved, predictable flight regime...
> >
> > Not necessarily true, not even true of all trainers. Some gliders
> > have, (or at least are reputed to have) multiple spin modes.
>
> The spin rate, pitch angle, descent rate, and any pitch oscillation
> amplitude and frequency does depend on the CG and gross weight, sure,
> but a spin within the CG in an approved glider with a standard
> airworthiness certificate is always benign can be recovered using the
> documented procedures. As I said: 'well-behaved' and 'predictable'.

Read the rest of this thread, and then go back and google old threads
on the Puchaz.
>
> > Not all
> > aircraft have perfect rigging, and a certain percentage have accumulated
> > repairs and/or mods over years of operation that change the distribution
of
> > mass about the various axis and have an unknown effect on spin behavior.
>
> Any mods that effect the CG require a new weight & balance. See my
> comment above re safe flight within CG. You'd be suicidal flying a
> glider with an unkown spin behavior. Instructing in one would be
> border-line criminal. My point is: a spin is not some black magic.
> Learn it, and instruct it. If you are afraid of spinning you shouldn't
> be flying, much less teaching.

There is more to it than weight and balance, the distribution of weight
around the cg is very important to spin behaviour. My point is that the
glider on the flight line may not be the same as the glider that was
manufactured. It is idiocy to assume it will always behave the same.

>
> > Just two weeks ago, I found myself practicing stalls in a 152 that
I
> > wouldn't spin in a bet. It had a dent in the leading edge of one wing
and
> > had a nasty wing drop at every stall, but otherwise performed well.
>
> Most 150s and 152s I have flown drop a wing at stall, as do many older
> gliders. Does this make them unsafe to spin? Emphatically no! They
> will spin happily in either direction.

Again; this was not the same airplane that left the factory, the
airfoils were no longer symmetrical right and left. The airplane follows
the laws of physics, it can't read the flight manual.

Have a nice life;
Vaughn

[Edward Downham]

>Date: 26/01/2004 00:45 GMT Standard Time
>Message-id: <cCUlhtvFIYkV-pn2-PiHmQrhdZUiZ@localhost>
>
>On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 01:26:39 UTC, (Edward
>Downham) wrote:
>
>: As far as I know, we are now into double figures (in the UK alone) in terms
>of
>: fatalities when it comes to stall/spin accidents in the Puchacz. Compare
>this
>: to gliders like the twin Grob and K-21: there are far greater numbers of
>them
>: flying many times more hours with a much better record.
>
>But you have to take an overall view: how many of the pilots who die
>in solo spins accidents do so because they were trained in nice, safe,
>you-have-to-do-something-special-to-get-this-to-stall two seaters.
>
>On your hypothetical airfield, would you fit all two seaters with
>elevator stops so that pupils could never stall [1]?
>
>Ian
>
>[1i] In the conventional nose-up-slow-down-nose-up-slow-down-whoops
>way
>--

Ian,

If there were many accident reports which read "...The single seater entered a
spin

at 5000' and was seen to carry on down until it hit the ground..." then I
would

agree with you.

The point I am making is that if you make a low, slow, under-banked and

over-ruddered final turn, no amount of 'spin training' is going to protect you
from

what is going to happen next. Ejection seats have an 'envelope', outside which

survival is not assured. Helicopters have an 'avoid curve', inside which a
power

loss will cause a crash, no matter how skilful the pilot. Gliders are the same
and

if we choose to operate in this zone, we must accept the consequences.

In using modern accident prevention techniques, we try and break the 'causal
chain'

in the sequence of events leading up to the accident itself. I would put
forward

the premise that spin recovery (at low level) is beyond the end of that chain,
i.e.

you have already decided to have an accident and are now along for the ride.


I regard the ability of pilots to operate their aircraft in this manner as a

_critical failure_ in the way they have been instructed.


You do not need a snappy spinning/stalling glider to instill these most basic

airmanship/handling skills into a student. Any aircraft will do.

To instructors: do you let your P2 get away with demonstrating what I describe
in

the second paragraph?

I don't remember advocating 'non-stalling' trainers, simply that too much
effort is

going into an exercise which has a dubious risk/reward ratio. For many years we
had

no sailplanes at LGC which could be spun and there was no such training. What
we

_did_ do was concentrate on the 'old chestnuts' like: "Never low AND slow" and

properly planned and controlled approaches.

Finally, I am not 'anti' people going off spinning. Indeed, I quite enjoy a
good

thrash downwards at the end of the day. I just think the whole exercise has to
be

put in a relevant context.

Ed

[Edward Downham]

>From: "Ian Johnston"
>Date: 26/01/2004 00:45 GMT Standard Time
>Message-id: <cCUlhtvFIYkV-pn2-PiHmQrhdZUiZ@localhost>
>
>On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 01:26:39 UTC, (Edward
>Downham) wrote:
>
>: As far as I know, we are now into double figures (in the UK alone) in terms
>of
>: fatalities when it comes to stall/spin accidents in the Puchacz. Compare
>this
>: to gliders like the twin Grob and K-21: there are far greater numbers of
>them
>: flying many times more hours with a much better record.
>
>But you have to take an overall view: how many of the pilots who die
>in solo spins accidents do so because they were trained in nice, safe,
>you-have-to-do-something-special-to-get-this-to-stall two seaters.
>
>On your hypothetical airfield, would you fit all two seaters with
>elevator stops so that pupils could never stall [1]?
>
>Ian
>
>[1i] In the conventional nose-up-slow-down-nose-up-slow-down-whoops
>way
>--

Ian,

If there were many accident reports which read "...The single seater entered a
spin at 5000' and was seen to carry on down until it hit the ground..." then I
would agree with you.

The point I am making is that if you make a low, slow, under-banked and
over-ruddered final turn, no amount of 'spin training' is going to protect you
from what is going to happen next. Ejection seats have an 'envelope', outside
which survival is not assured. Helicopters have an 'avoid curve', inside which
a power loss will cause a crash, no matter how skilful the pilot. Gliders are
the same and if we choose to operate in this zone, we must accept the
consequences.

In using modern accident prevention techniques, we try and break the 'causal
chain' in the sequence of events leading up to the accident itself. I would put
forward the premise that spin recovery (at low level) is beyond the end of that
chain, i.e. you have already decided to have an accident and are now along for
the ride.


I regard the ability of pilots to operate their aircraft in this manner as a
_critical failure_ in the way they have been instructed.


You do not need a snappy spinning/stalling glider to instill these most basic
airmanship/handling skills into a student. Any aircraft will do.

To instructors: do you let your P2 get away with demonstrating what I describe
in the second paragraph?

I don't remember advocating 'non-stalling' trainers, simply that too much
effort is going into an exercise which has a dubious risk/reward ratio. For
many years we had no sailplanes at LGC which could be spun and there was no
such training. What we _did_ do was concentrate on the 'old chestnuts' like:
"Never low AND slow" and properly planned and controlled approaches.

Finally, I am not 'anti' people going off spinning. Indeed, I quite enjoy a
good thrash downwards at the end of the day. I just think the whole exercise
has to be put in a relevant context.

Ed

[Ian Johnston]

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 12:30:13 UTC, (Edward
Downham) wrote:
: The point I am making is that if you make a low, slow, under-banked and
: over-ruddered final turn, no amount of 'spin training' is going to protect you
: from what is going to happen next.

Indeed. But spin training may have given you the idea that something
nasty might happen in those circumstances. As it is, I remain very
worried indeed by the training regime in many, many clubs which says
"Today we will spin. We will use a special glider, or we will add
unusual bits to the glider you normally fly". The result is an
overwhelming impression that it can't happen to me....

: In using modern accident prevention techniques, we try and break the 'causal
: chain' in the sequence of events leading up to the accident itself. I would put
: forward the premise that spin recovery (at low level) is beyond the end of that
: chain, i.e. you have already decided to have an accident and are now along for
: the ride.

I agree completely.

: You do not need a snappy spinning/stalling glider to instill these most basic
: airmanship/handling skills into a student. Any aircraft will do.

I don't agree. You (one) can give all the lectures one likes, but if
the training glider doesn't do it, the pupil will not believe it.

: I don't remember advocating 'non-stalling' trainers, simply that too much
: effort is going into an exercise which has a dubious risk/reward ratio. For
: many years we had no sailplanes at LGC which could be spun and there was no
: such training. What we _did_ do was concentrate on the 'old chestnuts' like:
: "Never low AND slow" and properly planned and controlled approaches.

Did it work?

Ian

[Ian Johnston]

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 00:15:20 UTC, Mike Borgelt
> wrote:

: Many experienced pilots I know flat out refuse to do full spins during
: annual checks as being an unnecessary risk. They will happily
: demonstrate stalls and incipient spins.

I would hate to have somebody as nervous about their flying skills as
that above me in a thermal.

Ian
--

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

Ed,

You have got several things exactly right.

1. Before a glider can be in an inadvertent full spin, the pilot has to
get the following things wrong:

Fail to avoid the stall/spin altogether,
Fail to recognise that the glider is starting to stall/spin,
Or fail to use the correct recovery after recognising that it
has started to stall/spin.

2. There are times in every flight when a failure to avoid will be
disaster, and recovery is academic.

3. The standard BGA instruction does not give enough emphasis on or
satisfactory methods for avoiding altogether.

Ask most pilots and most instructors how to avoid, and they will give
the symptoms for recognising that the glider is already too close to
the stall and recovery action is already required.

Most pilots and instructors just do not understand the difference
between avoidance and recognition.

4. Gliders can depart into a spin entry without any of the symptoms
normally taught for recognising the approaching stall , except for
stick movement and position.

For the pilot, one moment it is flying normally, the next it is
pointing at the ground and rotating.

This can happen inadvertently to a glider which cannot be made to do
this deliberately.

5. The stall/spin occurs whenever, and only when, the angle of attack is
too high. The angle of attack is controlled by the elevator i.e. the
stick.

Moving the stick back, increasing angle of attack:
A long way back, angle of attack is high;
On the back stop, stall position.

Recovery depends on reducing the angle of attack, no reduction, no
recovery. Without a forward movement of the stick, recovery may not
be possible.

6. It should be a standard part of all handling instruction to teach
pupils to monitor stick position and movement.

This can and should be taught ahead of and parallel to monitoring
attitude and change of attitude This must be kept to the forefront
of the pupil's mind throughout training.

Only collision avoidance is more important than angle of attack (and
loss of control due to a stall/spin can lead to a collision).

7. Spinning is an aerobatic manoeuvre, some pilots do them for fun.
Instructors should only spin as required for instruction, and not use
instruction as an excuse for aerobatics. Aerobatic instruction is a
different thing altogether.

8. Whenever there is an accident or incident involving a stall/spin, the
first questions which should be asked are:

If inadvertent, why did the pilot fail to avoid?
If deliberate, why was this exercise in this manner necessary?

Fly safe, avoid stalling!

Bill.

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

>
> "Edward Downham" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> If I took charge of a gliding club using Puchacz(s) for basic training,
> the first thing I would do is pile them all in a heap in the corner of the
> field and set fire to them.
>
> This may come across as something of a controversial viewpoint. Let me
> explain.
>
> As far as I know, we are now into double figures (in the UK alone) in
> terms of fatalities when it comes to stall/spin accidents in the Puchacz.
> Compare this to gliders like the twin Grob and K-21: there are far greater
> numbers of them flying many times more hours with a much better record.
> Even older machines such as the K-13 stand out well in comparison.
>
> I really can't see the advantage of a training glider that spins so
> readily and kills you if you get the recovery (slightly) wrong.
>
> I think some of the instructing fraternity (in the UK) have become too
> focussed on spinning as an 'exercise' and not something to be avoided. I
> believe that if a significant group of pilots are having _inadvertent_
> stall/spin incidents/accidents when they are flying solo, then there is
> something very very wrong with the most elementary training we are giving.
>
> I read and hear much concerning technical details of spinning, i.e. what
> glider X does after 5 turns with part aileron and that glider Y flicks
> when you yank and stamp on the controls. All fairly irrelevant. If you
> get to the point of having to do a full recovery one might question as to
> how you got there in the first place. If you are low down (especially in
> machines like the Puchacz), where most bad accidents occur, knowing how to
> recover from a spin is probably not going to be of much use. Indeed, it
> may help to make the subsequent impact unsurviveable.
>
> What we seem to be failing to do is to instil a basic awareness of what
> the glider is up to, and the _instinctive_ reactions required if the
> airframe stops responding to your commands. Mike Cuming wrote a seminal
> article in S&G, some years back, entitled: "STOP PULLING THE STICK
> BACK!". This should be required reading for all pre-solo students.
>
> If you really want to show people full-blooded spins and recoveries, take
> them up to a safe height in an aerobatic power aircraft, certified for
> those kind of manoeuvres. You will be able to do much more for a lot
less
> money.
>
> Frankly, I see little point in making pilots deliberately demonstrate
> their 'expertise' in abusing a glider to the point it autorotates, then
> attempting to do something about it. This is not the world aerobatic
> championships. I would much rather see immediate instinctive corrections
> to any possible loss of control.
>
> To the experienced pilots/instructors reading this: when was the last time
> you ended up (inadvertently) in a spin? Yes, you get wing drops in
> thermals etc. but do you sit there, doing nothing, until the ground and
> sky start going round very fast? No. I'm sure you don't, as you are
> alive to read this.
>
> What drove me to stay up at night to write this post was a feeling of
> anger/helplessness/sadness that yet more people have died in what I regard
> as a pointless exercise. I knew the P1 in the double-fatal crash this
> week but not his fifteen year old student.
>
> Safe flying to all of you.
>

[Paul Repacholi]

"Arnold Pieper" > writes:


> The Puchacz is used for low altitude spin training more than
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

What is this? Below 10,000 feet?

--
Paul Repacholi 1 Crescent Rd.,
+61 (08) 9257-1001 Kalamunda.
West Australia 6076
comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot
Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.
EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.

[Tony Verhulst]

Stewart Kissel wrote:

> 'Pull back, Pull back, okay kick in full rudder'-and
> the thinking might go-'Gee, how does anyone get into
> a spin, this is way to much work'

Yeah, this is pretty useless and I don't do that. Here's something I
posted about 3 years agog.

--------------------


I became a learn to spin convert after
unintentionally spinning on my very first flight in a single seat
glider. I was thermalling and (presumably) got too slow and
uncoordinated and, over she went. I'd had spin training and the recovery
was a no brainer.

I totally agree that teaching spins by pulling the nose up and then
stomping on the rudder is not particularly useful (fun though . I do
demonstrate this technique first so that the student feels what the spin
feels like. Then he won't be surprised and can pay more attention to
what I'm trying to teach.

After the "yank and stomp" spin, I explain that that isn't the spin that
will kill you. At altitude, I simulate a slow base to final spin,
gradually slowing the glider down, pretending that we're over shooting
the runway center line and then "helping" the turn along by adding
inside rudder. As I'm adding rudder, the glider enters the spin AND THE
NOSE WAS NEVER ABOVE THE HORIZON. After about 1/2 a rev, I'll mention
to the student that if this had happened at 400 feet, we'd be dead about
now. It's a real eye opener.



Tony V.

[Chris OCallaghan]

Thanks Arnold, for the clarification.

Do you supplement your spin training with conditioning exercises to
reinforce the prompt movement forward of the stick at the first sign
of an iminent stall? Repeated spin entries could condition a student
to await the stall break, since we are intentionally trying to develop
a spin, recognize it, and recover. "Hold it back. Good. Feed in some
rudder to skid the turn. Good. Now try to pick up the dropping wing.
Good..." This could unintentionally program a student to await the
stall break rather than reacting instinctively to a prestall by
immediately lowering angle of attack.

Where do you put your spin training in the syllabus? And do you demand
stall onset recognition before and revisit after?

I agree that it is wise to expose a student to spins, to the point
where it is recognized and the student demonstrates appropriate
recovery, but I think it is more important to teach onset recognition
and recovery. I'm just trying to get a sense of where in the syllabus
instructors put this skill and why.

Thanks again,

Chris OC

[Mark James Boyd]

F.L. Whiteley > wrote:
>
>"F1y1n" > wrote in message
>
><snip>
>> amplitude and frequency does depend on the CG and gross weight, sure,
>> but a spin within the CG in an approved glider with a standard
>> airworthiness certificate is always benign can be recovered using the
>> documented procedures. As I said: 'well-behaved' and 'predictable'.

Not true. The official procedures for weight and balance
miss a lot of subtlety. There are those who believe
this is what killed Art Scholl...

Think about it...

[Mark James Boyd]

W.J. \(Bill\) Dean \(U.K.\). > wrote:
>
> For the pilot, one moment it is flying normally, the next it is
> pointing at the ground and rotating.
>
> This can happen inadvertently to a glider which cannot be made to do
> this deliberately.

Hmmm...so gliders spinning is "non-deterministic?" Quantum spinning? :P
I don't buy it. Just because someone can't replicate it doesn't mean
it can't be replicated. I had an instructor with over 20,000 hours
of dual given in 152's. The guy was fearless. He told me he had
a student do a perfect spin, with ailerons only (no rudder), and
a recovery after a turn and a half. He spent weeks trying to do the
same thing and couldn't do it...but I bet the student could :P

>
>5. The stall/spin occurs whenever, and only when, the angle of attack is
> too high. The angle of attack is controlled by the elevator i.e. the
> stick.

Sometimes it's controlled by the stick, and as some FedEx pilots
have proven, sometimes it isn't...

>7. Spinning is an aerobatic manoeuvre, some pilots do them for fun.
> Instructors should only spin as required for instruction, and not use
> instruction as an excuse for aerobatics. Aerobatic instruction is a
> different thing altogether.
>Bill.

I believe some instructors get bored doing the same old
thing all the time, and do "extra spin training" and "repeated
engine failure" for their own amusement. I believe I have seen this
occassionally to the detriment and delay and increased
expense of the student's training...

[Chris OCallaghan]

JJ's point is very well taken. Anytime an instructor and a student die
in a sailplane accident of no other apparent cause than following the
training syllabus, you should start asking all kinds of questions.
About the aircraft, the instructor, the student, the training...

My understanding is that the Puchaz became popular only for its spin
characteristics. It's easy to put into a spin throughout its cg range.
I recall lively exchanges among those purchasing the glider for spin
training and those suggesting that having a club ship with a
disposition to autorotate was a liability for all but the most
experienced pilots. Our club spent a few weeks discussing this prior
to purchasing a Grob.

As we teach spins now, even among the most ardent advocates of hands
on training, the only people who are proficient are those who give the
training or do spins as a regular aerobatic exercise. Having seen and
done one is comforting (or not), but if it has been more than a season
between spins, then you probably aren't as capable as you may think.

As JJ points out, recognition of an imminent stall and prompt recovery
is much more important to your well being than spin recognition and
recovery. Stable aircraft do not spin without significant coaxing.
Misuse of the controls is best addressed through instruction. And
while we want to know how to recover from any spin we might enter
despite the best efforts of our instructors to keep us out of them,
the emphasis should be before the stall rather than after.

I suspect that spin training has become a rite of passage, which makes
objective analysis of its risks and benefits more difficult. But if a
low time pilot spins in, it's not a result of poor spin training,
rather it was the failure of the instructor to accurately judge the
pilot's ability to recognize the signs of an impending stall and to
react to them promptly and correctly.

Spin training will save your soft pink bottom between the altitudes of
1500 and 500 agl. Above, and you'll have time to sort things out.
Below, and the pooch awaits with love in her eyes, regardless of your
training. And since you had better keep things well sorted below 500
feet, why not extend that philosophy all the way up to cloudbase?

I'm not saying spin training has no value... but it is not a lack of
spin training that kills pilots. It's failing to recognize the
oncoming stall and displaced yaw string in the first place.

(To review the importance of coordination in spin avoidance, follow
this link: http://groups.google.com/groups?q=turning+stalls+and+insipient+spins+group: rec.aviation.soaring&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&group=rec.aviation.soaring&selm=236582a0.0311111552.71abee9a%40posting.google .com&rnum=1.)

[Edward Downham]

>On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 12:30:13 UTC, (Edward
>Downham) wrote:
>: The point I am making is that if you make a low, slow, under-banked and
>: over-ruddered final turn, no amount of 'spin training' is going to protect
you
>: from what is going to happen next.
>
>Indeed. But spin training may have given you the idea that something
>nasty might happen in those circumstances. As it is, I remain very
>worried indeed by the training regime in many, many clubs which says
>"Today we will spin. We will use a special glider, or we will add
>unusual bits to the glider you normally fly". The result is an
>overwhelming impression that it can't happen to me....

I agree with you about the 'specialised spin training' and the possibility it
might end up as a 'detached' exercise. As an aside, many years ago we modified
a K-21 at LGC to take spinning weights. I remember going up on one of the first
sorties (as a young P2). It was horribly unpredictable, even though we had
weighed ourselves and worked out the CofG quite carefully. I don't recall many
other spinning sessions being undertaken (in that glider) after that.

>: You do not need a snappy spinning/stalling glider to instill these most
basic
>: airmanship/handling skills into a student. Any aircraft will do.
>
>I don't agree. You (one) can give all the lectures one likes, but if
>the training glider doesn't do it, the pupil will not believe it.

I think we may be arguing at slightly cross purposes. I would question the
assumption that the pupil 'will not believe it'; 'it' being a loss of control
near the ground. (You may be thinking of a more marked stall/wing drop/spin
when demonstrating high AoA flight, in which case I apologise). Some things
just have to be understood, and more importantly, put into practice. There are
regimes of flight which are difficult to reproduce with fidelity (because you
don't want to be there _for real_). OK so you can simulate a crappy final turn
at altitude but you don't get a) the compelling visual cues that made you cock
it up in the first place b) the ground rush when it all goes wrong and c) the
effects of wind shear/gradient that occur at low level. I am not able to
propose a better solution to this problem, apart from restating that the focus
in training must be to _avoid_ this situation at all costs.

If you fly (one flies) with someone who starts to demonstrate undesirable
traits low down (decaying airspeed and/or coordination mixed in with a loss of
awareness of the glider performance), is it not time for immediate prompting or
takeover of control? In this case it matters little about the _actual_
characteristics of the glider: you are teaching the art of safe flying and
trying to build mental reflexes which will allow the pilot to survive in the
future, and I do mean _survive_. This is one area where you could say "You'll
do it and you'll do it _until you get it right_".
IMHO this is _the_ most important thing you can ever teach anybody in an
aeroplane: as your workload increases and your little world becomes smaller and
smaller your primary task is to remain _in control_ (fly the glider).

>: I don't remember advocating 'non-stalling' trainers, simply that too much
>: effort is going into an exercise which has a dubious risk/reward ratio. For
>: many years we had no sailplanes at LGC which could be spun and there
>:was no such training. What we _did_ do was concentrate on the 'old
>:chestnuts' like:
>: "Never low AND slow" and properly planned and controlled approaches.
>
>Did it work?
>
>Ian

The short answer is I don't know. I was trained at LGC during this period
(luckily by some very good, patient instructors) and did not go on to have any
high or low level stall/spin problems, or even develop a reluctance to practice
them on my own. I don't remember lots of gliders spiralling out of the sky but
again there _were_ accidents during that time, so I suspect any data is lost in
the surrounding noise.

To get back to my original point in my first post, I see no reason in having a
everyday training glider in a club environment with such easily (and
unintentionally) demonstrable spinning characteristics. Yes, if you want to go
spinning go and do it - it all adds to your experience.

My real fear (as I have pointed out in some private emails) is that clubs who
buy a glider such as the Puchacz do it for mainly financial reasons. Because
money is still tight they end up doing trial lessons, first solos, mutual
flying and the like. I agree that in skilled hands that should make no
difference but back in the real world not everybody is proficient to that
level. A messed up cable break in one of the German glass 2-seaters might end
in an accident needing workshop attention but not a hospital/undertaker. In a
Puchacz...?

[Edward Downham]

This may appear as a double post - if so, sorry!
>Subject: Re: Puchaz Spinning thread that might be of interest in light of the
>recent accident.
>From: "Ian Johnston"
>Date: 26/01/2004 14:27 GMT Standard Time

>On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 12:30:13 UTC, (Edward
>Downham) wrote:
>: The point I am making is that if you make a low, slow, under-banked and
>: over-ruddered final turn, no amount of 'spin training' is going to protect
you
>: from what is going to happen next.
>
>Indeed. But spin training may have given you the idea that something
>nasty might happen in those circumstances. As it is, I remain very
>worried indeed by the training regime in many, many clubs which says
>"Today we will spin. We will use a special glider, or we will add
>unusual bits to the glider you normally fly". The result is an
>overwhelming impression that it can't happen to me....

I agree with you about the 'specialised spin training' and the possibility it
might end up as a 'detached' exercise. As an aside, many years ago we modified
a K-21 at LGC to take spinning weights. I remember going up on one of the first
sorties (as a young P2). It was horribly unpredictable, even though we had
weighed ourselves and worked out the CofG quite carefully. I don't recall many
other spinning sessions being undertaken (in that glider) after that.

>: You do not need a snappy spinning/stalling glider to instill these most
basic
>: airmanship/handling skills into a student. Any aircraft will do.
>
>I don't agree. You (one) can give all the lectures one likes, but if
>the training glider doesn't do it, the pupil will not believe it.

I think we may be arguing at slightly cross purposes. I would question the
assumption that the pupil 'will not believe it'; 'it' being a loss of control
near the ground. (You may be thinking of a more marked stall/wing drop/spin
when demonstrating high AoA flight, in which case I apologise). Some things
just have to be understood, and more importantly, put into practice. There are
regimes of flight which are difficult to reproduce with fidelity (because you
don't want to be there _for real_). OK so you can simulate a crappy final turn
at altitude but you don't get a) the compelling visual cues that made you cock
it up in the first place b) the ground rush when it all goes wrong and c) the
effects of wind shear/gradient that occur at low level. I am not able to
propose a better solution to this problem, apart from restating that the focus
in training must be to _avoid_ this situation at all costs.

If you fly (one flies) with someone who starts to demonstrate undesirable
traits low down (decaying airspeed and/or coordination mixed in with a loss of
awareness of the glider performance), is it not time for immediate prompting or
takeover of control? In this case it matters little about the _actual_
characteristics of the glider: you are teaching the art of safe flying and
trying to build mental reflexes which will allow the pilot to survive in the
future, and I do mean _survive_. This is one area where you could say "You'll
do it and you'll do it _until you get it right_".
IMHO this is _the_ most important thing you can ever teach anybody in an
aeroplane: as your workload increases and your little world becomes smaller and
smaller your primary task is to remain _in control_ (fly the glider).

>: I don't remember advocating 'non-stalling' trainers, simply that too much
>: effort is going into an exercise which has a dubious risk/reward ratio. For
>: many years we had no sailplanes at LGC which could be spun and there
>:was no such training. What we _did_ do was concentrate on the 'old
>:chestnuts' like:
>: "Never low AND slow" and properly planned and controlled approaches.
>
>Did it work?
>
>Ian

The short answer is I don't know. I was trained at LGC during this period
(luckily by some very good, patient instructors) and did not go on to have any
high or low level stall/spin problems, or even develop a reluctance to practice
them on my own. I don't remember lots of gliders spiralling out of the sky but
again there _were_ accidents during that time, so I suspect any data is lost in
the surrounding noise.

To get back to my original point in my first post, I see no reason in having a
everyday training glider in a club environment with such easily (and
unintentionally) demonstrable spinning characteristics. Yes, if you want to go
spinning go and do it - it all adds to your experience.

My real fear (as I have pointed out in some private emails) is that clubs who
buy a glider such as the Puchacz do it for mainly financial reasons and because
money is tight they end up doing trial lessons, first solos, mutual flying and
the like. I agree that in skilled hands that should make no difference but back
in the real world not everybody is proficient to that level. A messed up cable
break in one of the German glass 2-seaters might end in an accident needing
workshop attention but not a hospital/undertaker. In a Puchacz...?

[Mark James Boyd]

Todd Pattist > wrote:
>had an oxy bottle in the nose. I've flown a Blanik in a
>stable flight attitude (nose high cross controlled) that I
>was only able to get into once despite at least 50 attempts
>to reproduce it.
>
>It makes sense to me to pay attention to the experience of
>others, particularly when that experience led them into an
>unrecoverable flight mode - and to recognize that I may not
>be all that much better a pilot than they were.
>Todd Pattist - "WH" Ventus C
>(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)

Just for fun, maybe try to figure out how many different
ways you could design/modify an aircraft so that it
would spin all the way into the ground despite fully
functioning controls.

How about one that spins and recovers to the left great, but
to the right it goes into the ground?

Now do this once using aerodynamics, and once not using
aerodynamics. Now do it with a pylon/retract engine.
Now do it so it doesn't show up on the weight and balance that
the pilot calculates. Now do it so the mechanics weight and
balance doesn't catch it. Now do it so the lateral balance
doesn't catch it. Now do it so that a specially designed
test for roll momentum doesn't catch it, and it spins uncontrollably
into the ground anyway. Now do it so the yaw string is
perfectly straight all the way until the spin is
unrecoverable.

Assume you did this with all the weight fixed (not moving).
Now let the weight move. Now figure out what weights
in a glider move and how you can design it so that they cause
an unrecoverable spin without anyone noticing.

Now figure out how, in unaccelerated flight, you can make
it spin only if you have MORE airspeed.

Fuel in one wing of a Grumman AA-1, perfectly input adverse yaw,
wings with slightly different AOA, cargo that isn't secured and
rolls back, a sudden pylon engine stoppage, weighty repairs in
interesting places, dirt in the belly, weights at the top of
the rudder, leaky ballast bags, elevator airflow interruption
by an open canopy or flaps, movie cameras on the wingtips,
water condensing in one "tuna tank" on a wingtip, more
weight above the C.G. than below it, elevator/C.G./trim
in a way that only a prop makes the elevator effective,
higher aspect ratio wings, asymmetric debris on the wing,
blah blah blah...

But for the most part, near the ground, fly fast, mostly level,
smooth/slow/light on the stick and smile...

For you cowboys at a bijillion feet at 25% from aft C.G.
torquing it up tight in a thermal way over gross with ballast
in your schmancy gliders without a hint of stall warning...

GOOD LUCK! :PPPPPP

and I hope that pooch with those loving eyes is
a girl... ROFLMAO

[Chris Nicholas]

None of what I write here has anything to do with any accidents for
which the investigation is ongoing, analysis is incomplete, or reports
not yet published. My views have largely been made known before, at
times when no fatal accidents were in the news.

Another caveat - I am no longer a gliding instructor and my views have
no official place in the scheme of things.

First, there is now, rightly I believe, much more pre-solo emphasis on
awareness of the imminence of a stall or spin and recognition in time to
prevent it happening. I suspect even more training there would be a good
thing.

Second, I think there should be enough training in actual full spins and
recoveries that it becomes automatic to recognise it and correctly
recover. I do not think that happens generally at present.

Thirdly , I think that spin training and practice in recovery, in
suitable gliders, should continue post solo, for as long as the pilot
keeps flying, to keep the automatic recovery reflex in good nick. I am
convinced that for most, that does not happen today. The reason in part
for all three points so far, is that spinning into the ground solo, or
while pilot in command, has remained one of the top UK killers. I cannot
see how stopping spin training could reduce the incidence of such solo
accidents, and the small number while training which might be prevented
are surely likely to be more than offset by yet more inadvertent spins
if training were stopped altogether.

Fourth, note "suitable" in my third point - I would rather not have
early solo pilots doing solo spin practice in a Puchaz, for instance,
though I am willing to listen to arguments otherwise from those with
more experience.



The reason I believe that full spin training should be maintained AS
WELL AS, not instead of avoidance/recognition training, is that there
continue to be accidents originating at heights where recovery is
possible - if only the pilot would recognise it.

A typical gliding accident, though with an atypically happy ending, was
like this. The pilot's survival and hence first-hand account gives a
rare insight to one's thought processes when such an accident is
happening.

A solo glider pilot had a winch launch. Cable broke at about 4-600 feet.
Pilot heard bang and felt jerk of cable breaking, forgot all training,
and concluded tail falling off or similar. He lowered nose of glider
from climb attitude to attempt to maintain (or regain) normal attitude
and flying speed - only thing done right in the whole event.

He thought he had enough height to to an abbreviated circuit, and
initiated a turn, without checking speed was sufficient.

Observers say he did two full turns or more of a spin. He said he saw
the ground spinning which seemed to confirm to him that the glider was
out of control as tail had fallen off or whatever, so he pulled back on
the stick hoping to get the nose up. It didn't work, and he concluded he
was going to die.

He can't remember the next bit for certain, but thinks he let go of
everything and covered his face. Benign glider then recovered from spin
into steep dive. (The end result was a landing with some damage but no
major injury to the pilot.)

To me, a key element is that he saw the ground spinning but never
considered that the glider was in a spin. That can only be put down to
lack of familiarity if all the other steps in avoidance have been
missed. Yes, he also needed (imho) better cable break training, better
flight situation awareness, better recognition of onset of stall/spin,
but in the end when all those failed the one last thing to save him
might have been familiarity with a full spin and the correct reaction to
it. What actually saved him was the glider design. Not all would.

Chris N.

[Ian Johnston]

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 17:15:34 UTC, (Edward
Downham) wrote:

: I agree with you about the 'specialised spin training' and the possibility it
: might end up as a 'detached' exercise. ...
: I think we may be arguing at slightly cross purposes.

I think maybe we are - lots of agreement, anyway!

: I would question the
: assumption that the pupil 'will not believe it'; 'it' being a loss of control
: near the ground.

I think the pupil ends up simply not believing that a spin will
happend at any time, because during training it so obviously - in the
average K21-equipped club - had to be very carefully and unusually
prepared for. I'm not in favour of pupils practicing spins in the
circuit!

: Some things
: just have to be understood, and more importantly, put into practice.

My introduction to spinning was in my fairly early days at Portmoak.
Said Bob: "You are flying too slowly and over-ruddering your turns. If
you do that a bit more, you will scare yourself ****less - if you're
lucky. I have control." With that he flew the Bocian out over the loch
- at about 2,500 feet, did coupleof clearing turns and flew too slowly
while overruddering the turn. And scared me ****less.

If he'd said "I'll show you what will happen when we next get the
chance to fly a different glider" or, worse "I'll tell you what will
happen" then I just wouldn't have believed him at that deep physical
oh-****-I-don't-want-to-die self preservation level.

: If you fly (one flies) with someone who starts to demonstrate undesirable
: traits low down (decaying airspeed and/or coordination mixed in with a loss of
: awareness of the glider performance), is it not time for immediate prompting or
: takeover of control?

Absolutely (caveat: I'm not a gliding instructor). But I think it's
essential to explain why these traits are so undesirable. It's a
different thing from just flying with the string all over the place:
hat just gets you down a bit sooner...

: To get back to my original point in my first post, I see no reason in having a
: everyday training glider in a club environment with such easily (and
: unintentionally) demonstrable spinning characteristics.

I think that's where we diverge. I think all training gliders should
spin like single seat gliders. I reckon the fact that they don't must
be considered as a prime candidate for the reason that so many pilots
continue to die in spins. They just don't think it'll happen to them.

: A messed up cable break in one of the German glass 2-seaters might end
: in an accident needing workshop attention but not a hospital/undertaker. In a
: Puchacz...?

If the instructor's any good ...

Ian

--

[Ian Johnston]

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 17:40:38 UTC, Chris Nicholas
> wrote:

: Thirdly , I think that spin training and practice in recovery, in
: suitable gliders, should continue post solo, for as long as the pilot
: keeps flying, to keep the automatic recovery reflex in good nick.

My club - Borders GC - insists on comprehensive spin checks for all
pilots as part of the annual checks. I rather enjoy those flights,
particularly when I can persuade a light instructor to go in the front
of a Bocian while I fly from the back...

Ian


--

[Ian Johnston]

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 15:10:56 UTC, Todd Pattist
> wrote:

: "Chris Reed" > wrote:
:
: >Are those of you who don't want to spin sure that you would recognise the
: >imminence of a spin in your single seater?
:
: Are those of you that advocate dual spin training in this
: aircraft sure that you are a better pilot than the CFI's
: who've died?

There could be other reasons: pupils frozen on the controls,
instructor late taking over. But fundamentally, sorry, I don't believe
that Puchacz's - or any other certified gliders - kill competent
instructors. It's a hell of a way to find out, though, that you are
not - or the guy behind you is not - a competent instructor.

I once had a full cat instructor at a UK club nag me at the top of my
check flight winch launch to "pull back harder ... pull back harder".
We were in a) a Puchacz and b) pre stall buffet. It was two weeks
after a fatal spin off a winch launch at that club. I never have flown
there again, and I never will fly there again.

Ian

[Ian Johnston]

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 16:59:56 UTC, (Chris
OCallaghan) wrote:

: To review the importance of coordination in spin avoidance

Personally I rather like the spin entries from balanced flight. Very
thrilling.

Ian

--

[Kirk Stant]

(Mark James Boyd) wrote in message news:<40155d2a$1@darkstar>...

> For you cowboys at a bijillion feet at 25% from aft C.G.
> torquing it up tight in a thermal way over gross with ballast
> in your schmancy gliders without a hint of stall warning...

Mark, come to the dark side...

(Deep raspy breathing - a well used cannula perhaps)

Oops, got to go find some lead to put in my tail; that pesky CG is
trying to creep in front of the rudder pedals again...BAD CG! Go back
where you belong!

Seriously, if you want to try out a nice spinning US glider, get some
time in a 2-32 with a QUALIFIED spin instructor - that lovely hunk of
tin will absolutely water your eyes out of a cross-controlled skidding
base-to-final spin setup! No warning, and YEE-HAA there you are
staring at the ground.

Lots of fun (at altitude with parachutes, of course).

Kirk

[Arnold Pieper]

:) Very funny Paul. I heard they do it at 500-1000 ft (for rope
breaks)...Which is confirmed by the accident reports.
Always resulting from one of these low altitude spins.


"Paul Repacholi" > wrote in message
...
> "Arnold Pieper" > writes:
>
>
> > The Puchacz is used for low altitude spin training more than
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> What is this? Below 10,000 feet?
>
> --
> Paul Repacholi 1 Crescent Rd.,
> +61 (08) 9257-1001 Kalamunda.
> West Australia 6076
> comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot
> Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.
> EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.

[Shawn Curry]

Kirk Stant wrote:
> (Mark James Boyd) wrote in message news:<40155d2a$1@darkstar>...
>
>
>>For you cowboys at a bijillion feet at 25% from aft C.G.
>>torquing it up tight in a thermal way over gross with ballast
>>in your schmancy gliders without a hint of stall warning...
>
>
> Mark, come to the dark side...
>
> (Deep raspy breathing - a well used cannula perhaps)
>
> Oops, got to go find some lead to put in my tail; that pesky CG is
> trying to creep in front of the rudder pedals again...BAD CG! Go back
> where you belong!

Wasn't that the Christmas eggnog?

>
> Seriously, if you want to try out a nice spinning US glider, get some
> time in a 2-32 with a QUALIFIED spin instructor - that lovely hunk of
> tin will absolutely water your eyes out of a cross-controlled skidding
> base-to-final spin setup! No warning, and YEE-HAA there you are
> staring at the ground.

Just did my first spins in a 2-32 a month ago. Yee-Haw! is right!.
I've done the shallow bank cross control entry in a Blanik too. I think
it made the impression the instructor wanted. :-0

Shawn

[Bruce Greeff]

I'm also no instructor, but a personal experience converted me to spin
training.

As a low time solo pilot I went and joined a club a long way from home,
but in a very scenic part of the country. It's a very pleasant place to
spend a weekend and I was keen to get let loose in one of the club planes.

The CFI has a display licence and a penchant for aerobatics. He is also
an exceptionally good instructor. We went up on a check flight after
flying a few times with the other instructors. After a couple of minutes
of scratching in very weak thermals I decided it was not working and set
up for a nice safe circuit. High Key point at 1000" AGL and all very
propper in the K13.

Said hoary instructor then says, there's a bird circling, lets see if we
can join it, it is only just off the chosen circuit, a little over the
dam, so I enter a nice slow turn under the bird. (Starting to be
predictable isn't it) At this point, at 900" the CFI waits till I look
up at the bird (and get the yaw string out) and feeds in a tiny bit of
into turn rudder. I only had time to wonder whether it was a gust or him
moving in his seat before there was a momentary burble from the wingroot
and the canopy was full of ground and dam...

Having been trained in spin avoidance and recovery, I straightened it up
and got us back into the circuit , somewhat lower and more shaken than
stirred.

I'd learned to fly on Bergfalkes which have a particularly ineffectual
rudder, so was overdoing it in the K13, and had not appreciated quite
how close I had come before. Said CFI and I had a quiet discussion about
the flight, and then I got sent up solo in the K13, a lot safer than I
had been.

Lessons for me:
Even docile old ladies can be grumpy and won't always give you enough
warning to take corrective measures. Particularly in an unfamiliar
aircraft and or situation - you may miss or misinterpret the early
warnings.
Don't make assumptions - What felt normal for the Bergie, was pre-stall
buffet in the K13.
Most importantly - spin entry can be quite unobtrusive, just like in my
single seater trying to core that bumpy little thermal...

These days I tend to carry a little more speed, and I never assume I'm
competent to avoid a spin.

[Arnold Pieper]

Chris,

Spin training comes right along Stall training. Impending spins first, then
fully developed spins.
Recovery from an impending stall/spin might sometime be as simple as
reducing back pressure and making slight opposite rudder pressure, all the
while continuing the turn. In other words, it may not be necessary to dive
like a rock in the middle of a gaggle because you sense an impending spin.
A fully developed spin on the other hand (such as one resulting from a
cross-controled, or wings-level, skidding turn), may require much more
positive and effective use of anti-spin controls (full opposite rudder and
stick forward). It all depends on the glider and the position of the pitch
trim, some will recover from the spin if you simply let go of the controls.

But spins have to be repeated several times as the student builds-up time,
especially before first soloing any new type of glider, and then on every
BFR. The student will then see all of these different scenarios as his
training progresses.

This is the only way to be safe : With the student having a full
understanding of the different ways it can happen and the different ways to
recover.

"Chris OCallaghan" > wrote in message
om...
> Thanks Arnold, for the clarification.
>
> Do you supplement your spin training with conditioning exercises to
> reinforce the prompt movement forward of the stick at the first sign
> of an iminent stall? Repeated spin entries could condition a student
> to await the stall break, since we are intentionally trying to develop
> a spin, recognize it, and recover. "Hold it back. Good. Feed in some
> rudder to skid the turn. Good. Now try to pick up the dropping wing.
> Good..." This could unintentionally program a student to await the
> stall break rather than reacting instinctively to a prestall by
> immediately lowering angle of attack.
>
> Where do you put your spin training in the syllabus? And do you demand
> stall onset recognition before and revisit after?
>
> Chris OC

[Chris OCallaghan]

[countertroll]

Ian,

the point of my link was to show that you will not spin from
coordinated flight. If you want to spin, at some point you'll need to
make a yaw movement, either with rudder or aileron, and for most
gliders, some of each. If the yaw string stays straight throughout the
stall break, there isn't enough yaw motion to achieve autorotation.

I suspect those who think they can enter a spin from balanced flight
have one of two things happening:

1. They are misusing the controls at the moment of the stall break,
creating yaw through aileron drag by instinctively trying to lift the
dropping wing, or by feeding in rudder. In either case, these are very
bad habits if done unconsciously.

2. They are entering spiral dives and misidentifying them as insipient
spins. Since the insipient phase looks much the same this isn't
surprising, and one can recover early in the spiral dive with the same
control inputs used for spin recovery; however, recognition and
appropriate response will save many feet of altitude loss.

This is worth thinking through. If a sailplane can spin from
coordinated flight, then at any given moment you are at risk of losing
500 to 1000 feet in a matter of seconds. This is based on the notion
that you have absolutely no control over the process save recognition
and recovery. But your use of the controls are of paramount importance
during an unexpected stall, the result of turbulence or distraction.
If your instinctive reaction is to nuetralize the controls, you've
removed the aggrevation that will take an aircraft past its "tipping"
point into autorotation. This is the classic compromise between
stability and controlability.

If we flew aircraft so unstable they could enter a spin without
control inputs, we'd all be hard pressed to justify the risks we would
face while flying.

"Ian Johnston" > wrote in message news:<cCUlhtvFIYkV-pn2-O04tsSrmcyTw@localhost>...
> On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 16:59:56 UTC, (Chris
> OCallaghan) wrote:
>
> : To review the importance of coordination in spin avoidance
>
> Personally I rather like the spin entries from balanced flight. Very
> thrilling.
>
> Ian
>
> --

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

I spoke today with the British Gliding Association (with Barry Rolfe, the
long serving employed full time Secretary and Administrator).

I also received a message today in reply to questions of mine to the
Department of Transport, Air Accidents Investigation Branch.

From these communications and others I have seen, my conclusion is:

No-one is yet prepared to say how or why the Puchacz crashed. In
particular, no-one will confirm that a stall-spin was involved; assumptions
that the glider was spinning are speculation and rumour.

The accident is being investigated by the AAIB, therefore when the report is
completed it will be published by them in their monthly printed report and
on-line at www.aaib.gov.uk , go to Bulletins
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_control/documents/contentservertemplate/dft_index.hcst?n=5254&l=2 .
The report will be included under the month and year of the date of the
report, not the date of the accident.

There have been four previous fatal accidents in the U.K. involving a
Puchacz. None of these were investigated by the AAIB, therefore the
reports are not available from the AAIB, the reports would have been
prepared by the BGA. No BGA accident reports are available on-line.

The previous 4 Puchacz accidents all involved stall/spinning.

I should mention that I personally am not, and never have been involved in
any capacity with the BGA sub-groups who deal with Accident Investigation,
Safety, Instruction or Technical matters.

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

>
> "Al" > wrote in message
> ...
> http://www.gliderforum.com/thread-view.asp?threadid=167&start=1
>
> This might be of interest when discussing the Puch and its spinning.
>
> Condolences to the family and friends of the victims of the recent crash.
>
> Regards
>
> Al
>

[JC]

"Vaughn" > wrote:

<snip>
>>
>> Unless you are already CFIG, you are always 'working on a rating' when
>> flying dual with a (current) CFIG. No parachutes needed for spinning.
>> And no, as I said, he did not turn me down because of the lack of a
>> chute.
>
> Wrong. This is a very optimistic intrepetation of the FARs that I have
>heard before, I doubt that it would fly with the FAA. If you don't have a
>commercial, you are not "working on your CFI".
>
>>
<snip>

Actually Vaugn, you are wrong. Parachutes are not required for spin
training. This issue is addressed by the FAA in the Frequently Asked
Questions section of their web site. Below is a copy of the question
and answer. (The URL for the entire FAQ document is:
http://av-info.faa.gov/data/640otherfaq/pt61-17.pdf )

FAQs Part 61 With Chg #17, 08/22/2002
All Q&A’s from #1 through #522
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
14 CFR, PART 61
ARRANGED BY SECTION
MAINTAINED BY ALLAN PINKSTON
PILOT EXAMINER STANDARDIZATION TEAM, AFS-640
Contact: Allan Pinkston phone: (405) 954 - 6472
E-Mail:


QUESTION: Situation is, I am a flight instructor and I have a student
who is a Private Pilot and is rated in a
single-engine land airplane. This pilot is not seeking any further
rating, but wants me to give him flight training on
"stall awareness, spin entry, spins, and spin recovery techniques"
just like it says in §61.105. The question is,
under §91.307(c) are parachutes required for this kind of training?
ANSWER: §61.105; No parachute is required. Historically the FAA’s
position on this issue, we have
determined since this training is a private pilot requirement that is
addressed in §61.105 as an aeronautical
knowledge training area and the person is merely receiving training on
a piloting skill that is a pilot certification
requirement for receiving, and for maintaining, that private pilot
certificate, parachutes are NOT required. The
rationale of this determination, also covers student pilots,
commercial pilots, airline transport pilots, and flight
instructors. But as always, the FAA would never discourage the use of
parachutes.
{Q&A-136}

[Mike Borgelt]

On 26 Jan 2004 14:29:29 GMT, "Ian Johnston" >
wrote:

>On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 00:15:20 UTC, Mike Borgelt
> wrote:
>
>: Many experienced pilots I know flat out refuse to do full spins during
>: annual checks as being an unnecessary risk. They will happily
>: demonstrate stalls and incipient spins.
>
>I would hate to have somebody as nervous about their flying skills as
>that above me in a thermal.
>
>Ian


It is called risk management. They fly gliders to go soaring not to do
aerobatics. Most of them have thousands of hours of flying cross
country and in competition. They consider it far riskier to do spins
in gliders of uncertain history with instructors of little experience
and training who typically seem to them to demonstrate dangerous
overconfidence.

And they won't spin down on you from above.

Some of the attitudes revealed in this thread make me despair that
anything will ever happen to improve the soaring safety record.

Mike Borgelt

[Mike Borgelt]

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 18:56:36 -0700, "Bill Daniels"
> wrote:


>Asked about the delay in recovery, the pilot said that the standard recovery
>technique used in the powered aircraft he had been flying was just to
>reverse the rudder and to keep the stick aft of center. I pointed out that
>every glider I knew of required forward stick for a sure recovery. (We did
>several more spins until we both were comfortable with his spin recovery
>technique.)
>
>I think the take-home lesson is that airplanes can spin more benignly than
>gliders. Relying on spin training in airplanes is just not always
>appropriate and can leave the pilot with misconceptions about glider spin
>recovery.

I think the gentleman's spin recovery training was suspect. Since when
was standard spin recovery other than:

Full opposite rudder
Pause
Move the stick forward
When the spin stops centralise rudder and recover gently from the
dive?

Even if the aircraft recovers with mere application of opposite rudder
surely the full standard recovery must be taught?

The fatality in the Blanik here a few years ago was that the spin
became a spiral so even the Blanik won't necessarily stay in a spin.

>I think that, if you fly gliders that will spin, it is wise to experience
>the spin recovery at least once and preferably more often than that.

As I said I agree. Note however you cannot do this in all types that
you fly. Some like the Standard Libelle and Nimbus 3DM are placarded
against deliberate spins.
>
>That said, there is nothing wrong with basic training that emphasizes
>recognition of an incipient spin over spin recovery. Recognition that a
>spin is imminent, and knowledge of the technique to prevent it, will save
>more lives than expert spin recovery.
>
>So, is spin training dangerous? Yes, but much less dangerous than not doing
>spin training. The path from novice to expert is sometimes fraught with
>peril but remaining a novice is more dangerous still. The Puch, Blanik, and
>Lark spin more like the glass gliders most of us fly. As such, they are
>excellent trainers. Just choose an instructor that is very experienced with
>them.
>
>Bill Daniels

When two testpilot/spin instructors, at least one of whom had
extensive spin experience in gliders can kill themselves in a Puch by
spinning in I wonder how much experience the instructor has to have?

The experienced cross country pilots I know never spin accidently. At
most they may get a wing drop in a thermal. The question is what do
they know or do that prevents them from ever spinning accidently?
If we find this out we might make some progress.

Mike

[Bill Daniels]

"Mike Borgelt" > wrote in message
...

Snip---

> When two testpilot/spin instructors, at least one of whom had
> extensive spin experience in gliders can kill themselves in a Puch by
> spinning in I wonder how much experience the instructor has to have?

Snip---

> Mike

It does make one wonder. I seem to recall something on r.a.s. to the effect
that an inspection of a Puch in the USA turned up a metal plate that was
adrift somewhere in the rudder control curcuit. This loose plate, it was
said, could prevent the rudder from moving back from the fully deflected
position. I seem to recall that it was suspected that some of the spin-in
accidents might be due to this.

Perhaps someone with a better memory will comment.

Bill Daniels

[Arnold Pieper]

If you read the other thread about spinning you may understand what
experienced pilots do.
Recovery from incipient spins might be just a sligh easing of the stick with
slight opposite rudder pressure.
No need to dive inside the thermal.

However, the only way to recognize this condition is to train for it, while
also training for fully developed spins, resulting from level attitudes with
pro-turn rudder and low speed (a definite killer in low altitudes).

The reference to the more benign spin characteristic of some training
airplanes is true.
In some of them you don't need to move the stick full forward to recover
from a spin.
Basically the spin breaks off very easily with just a sligh easing of the
control column forward and opposite rudder.
Full forward stick will only cause an excessively nose-low attitude
resulting in a high-speed dive following the spin.
But this is only true in certain aircraft, and if the pilot trains in them
he will recognize this.

The Puchacz has a similar characteristic, actually.
If you press opposite rudder while keeping the stick aft, nothing much
happens for a full turn (I never went beyond that).
But with this opposit rudder applied, as soon as back pressure on the stick
is removed, the glider sort of "snaps" out of the spin.
There is no need to move the stick all the way forward or you will then be
in an aerobatic, 90 degree nose-low dive.
Unnecessary.

As I pointed out earlier, Dick Johnson tested the Puchacz and gave it a
clean bill of health.
www.ssa.org, click on Magazines, Dick Johnson, scroll down to find the
Puchacz evaluations (2 articles).


"Mike Borgelt" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 18:56:36 -0700, "Bill Daniels"
> > wrote:
>
>
> >Asked about the delay in recovery, the pilot said that the standard
recovery
> >technique used in the powered aircraft he had been flying was just to
> >reverse the rudder and to keep the stick aft of center. I pointed out
that
> >every glider I knew of required forward stick for a sure recovery. (We
did
> >several more spins until we both were comfortable with his spin recovery
> >technique.)
> >
> >I think the take-home lesson is that airplanes can spin more benignly
than
> >gliders. Relying on spin training in airplanes is just not always
> >appropriate and can leave the pilot with misconceptions about glider spin
> >recovery.
>
> I think the gentleman's spin recovery training was suspect. Since when
> was standard spin recovery other than:
>
> Full opposite rudder
> Pause
> Move the stick forward
> When the spin stops centralise rudder and recover gently from the
> dive?
>
> Even if the aircraft recovers with mere application of opposite rudder
> surely the full standard recovery must be taught?
>
> The fatality in the Blanik here a few years ago was that the spin
> became a spiral so even the Blanik won't necessarily stay in a spin.
>
> >I think that, if you fly gliders that will spin, it is wise to experience
> >the spin recovery at least once and preferably more often than that.
>
> As I said I agree. Note however you cannot do this in all types that
> you fly. Some like the Standard Libelle and Nimbus 3DM are placarded
> against deliberate spins.
> >
> >That said, there is nothing wrong with basic training that emphasizes
> >recognition of an incipient spin over spin recovery. Recognition that a
> >spin is imminent, and knowledge of the technique to prevent it, will save
> >more lives than expert spin recovery.
> >
> >So, is spin training dangerous? Yes, but much less dangerous than not
doing
> >spin training. The path from novice to expert is sometimes fraught with
> >peril but remaining a novice is more dangerous still. The Puch, Blanik,
and
> >Lark spin more like the glass gliders most of us fly. As such, they are
> >excellent trainers. Just choose an instructor that is very experienced
with
> >them.
> >
> >Bill Daniels
>
> When two testpilot/spin instructors, at least one of whom had
> extensive spin experience in gliders can kill themselves in a Puch by
> spinning in I wonder how much experience the instructor has to have?
>
> The experienced cross country pilots I know never spin accidently. At
> most they may get a wing drop in a thermal. The question is what do
> they know or do that prevents them from ever spinning accidently?
> If we find this out we might make some progress.
>
> Mike
>

[Vaughn]

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

> Actually Vaugn, you are wrong. Parachutes are not required for spin
> training. This issue is addressed by the FAA in the Frequently Asked
> Questions section of their web site. Below is a copy of the question
> and answer. (The URL for the entire FAQ document is:
> http://av-info.faa.gov/data/640otherfaq/pt61-17.pdf )

I stand corrected.

Vaughn

[JJ Sinclair]

Well, we certainly have two schools of thought on this spinning issue. I think
the "Spinners", hearken back 60 years or more and probably have their roots in
military training. They say things like, "Train Hard, Fight Easy" Who are we
fighting? My God, we're killing people as we try to make them safer pilots. I
was amazed to read that the Brits seek out sailplanes with "GOOD" spin
characteristics. Isn't that like buying a sailboat that is easily upset, just
so we can all get dumped in the water and then set it right side up again?

The truth is, most sailplanes from the Eastern block, spin real GOOD. Put them
in the hands of a low time pilot and we are setting up a disaster. Aren't we
just asking for trouble when we solo a student in a Puch? We had one spin-in,
here in California with two high time sailplane pilots on board. We had a
single place Lark spin-in from 10,000 feet with a low time pilot on board. RIP
X 3

Here's a thought. Buy sailplanes that don't spin easily (G-103 & ASK-21) and
enjoy this sport by teaching only spin entry and emmediate recovery.
JJ Sinclair

[Arnold Pieper]

Repeating someone who wrote this earlier in the week :
"Sure, we should stop training landings as well because that's where the
majority of the accidents happen."

The ignorance in this particular discussion has reached a level where it's
beyond help.


"JJ Sinclair" > wrote in message
...
> Well, we certainly have two schools of thought on this spinning issue. I
think
> the "Spinners", hearken back 60 years or more and probably have their
roots in
> military training. They say things like, "Train Hard, Fight Easy" Who are
we
> fighting? My God, we're killing people as we try to make them safer
pilots. I
> was amazed to read that the Brits seek out sailplanes with "GOOD" spin
> characteristics. Isn't that like buying a sailboat that is easily upset,
just
> so we can all get dumped in the water and then set it right side up again?
>
> The truth is, most sailplanes from the Eastern block, spin real GOOD. Put
them
> in the hands of a low time pilot and we are setting up a disaster. Aren't
we
> just asking for trouble when we solo a student in a Puch? We had one
spin-in,
> here in California with two high time sailplane pilots on board. We had a
> single place Lark spin-in from 10,000 feet with a low time pilot on board.
RIP
> X 3
>
> Here's a thought. Buy sailplanes that don't spin easily (G-103 & ASK-21)
and
> enjoy this sport by teaching only spin entry and emmediate recovery.
> JJ Sinclair

[Arnold Pieper]

(...........) The ignorance in this particular discussion has reached a
level where it's
> beyond help.

Well, sorry for sounding so harsh.
I think everybody deserves access to the right information so :
1) Forget all the "oppinions" that have been flying around on this subject.
2) Run to the SSA, or BGA or other such web sites, and order some of the
excellent books written by people like Tom Knauff, Derek Piggot, Bob Wander.
Recognized as world authorities in glider flight training.

If you're a student you will benefit tremendously from reading this material
before your next flight lesson.
The right knowledge can save your life and ensure a long and happy flying
carrer.

If you're an instructor, chances are good that you already have some of
these books.
And in that case, you have refrained from saying anything here at
rec.aviation.soaring (as I should have done).
Most of what I read here these past few days clearly came from people who
don't even know thes names.

[Ian Johnston]

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 14:40:28 UTC, Todd Pattist
> wrote:

: "Ian Johnston" > wrote:

: >But fundamentally, sorry, I don't believe
: >that Puchacz's - or any other certified gliders - kill competent
: >instructors. It's a hell of a way to find out, though, that you are
: >not - or the guy behind you is not - a competent instructor.
:
: So your answer to my question seems to be that 1) anything
: that's certified is safe enough by definition,

No, I mean it has been carefully checked and found to be safe at
anything a competent instructor should be asking it to do.

: and 2) you or
: those you deem "competent" are better than those who've
: died?

If I've stayed within my ability limits and survived, and they have
strayed beyond their's and died then, yes. Bluntly.

: We agree that there can be bad instructors, but wouldn't the
: accidents be spread among other glider types? Regardless of
: the cause, it's worthwhile for those who do spin training to
: look at their procedures, their aircraft and their
: instructors in light of these accidents and decide if
: improvements can be made.

Agreed completely.

: Minimum heights for spin entries,
: parachutes,

Agreed partially. Might lead to the curse of over rule-dependence and
under brain-dependence which seems to be creeping through the gliding
movement.

: limitations on which instructors give the
: instruction,

No, no, no, a thousand times no! Well, two "no"s anyway:

1) My main worry about spin training at the moment is that it's very
often presented in such a way (special aircraft or special
preparation) that the pupil assumes it doesn't happen in normal
flights. So even if they know, in theory, how to get out of a spin,
they get into one at a height where that knowledge is fatally useless
- because it just won't happen. Having to get a special instructor to
do spin training will only make this worse.

2) Instructors ought to be able to recover from spins (in controlled
situations). If they can't they bleeding well shouldn't be
instructing.

: perhaps simple extra ground checks of foot
: clearance and full rudder throw prior to a spin training
: flight might help.

I'd have thought that was covered by pre-launch checks anyway. And it
should be, on the basis that every flight is a spin flight, just as
every winch launch will see a cable break ...

Ian
: Be careful out there!
: Todd Pattist - "WH" Ventus C
: (Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)


--

[Ian Johnston]

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 12:35:43 UTC, (Chris
OCallaghan) wrote:

: the point of my link was to show that you will not spin from
: coordinated flight.

Tight turn. Slow speed. String in the middle. Pull up sharply as if
another glider has just cut into the thermal. Whoops. Well, it works
in a Bocian, anyway.

Ian
--

[Ian Johnston]

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 22:14:22 UTC, Mike Borgelt
> wrote:

: It is called risk management. They fly gliders to go soaring not to do
: aerobatics. Most of them have thousands of hours of flying cross
: country and in competition. They consider it far riskier to do spins
: in gliders of uncertain history with instructors of little experience
: and training who typically seem to them to demonstrate dangerous
: overconfidence.

Ho yes. All good excuses. They should get their checks with
instructors they trust in gliders they trust.

: And they won't spin down on you from above.

If that blithe confidence is misplaced, though, will they be able to
stop spinning?

Though it's not really the reluctance about spinning which gets me -
it's the general nervousness about flyng skills which it reveals.

: Some of the attitudes revealed in this thread make me despair that
: anything will ever happen to improve the soaring safety record.

I agree with you there.

Ian

--

[Ian Johnston]

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 00:29:02 UTC, (JJ Sinclair)
wrote:

: Here's a thought. Buy sailplanes that don't spin easily (G-103 & ASK-21) and
: enjoy this sport by teaching only spin entry and emmediate recovery.

Which is absolutely fine as long as you never fly a single seater
which spins easily.

Ian

PS And why not put an elevator stop on while you're at it, so you
never have to bother with stalls?

--

[Greg Arnold]

Arnold Pieper wrote:

> Repeating someone who wrote this earlier in the week :
> "Sure, we should stop training landings as well because that's where the
> majority of the accidents happen."
>
> The ignorance in this particular discussion has reached a level where it's
> beyond help.


Well, presumably total accidents would increase if you stopped teaching
landings. The point of this thread is that perhaps spin accidents will
decrease if we stop teaching spinning. Whether that is true, I don't
know, but the landing analogy is irrelevant.

I am inclined to believe that spin training is good, if done properly.
However, the impression I got out of spin training was "Wow, if it is
that hard to make a glider spin, then I will certainly know if I am
about to spin." If that is typical impression, then spin training may
just teach pilots that they don't have to worry about spinning.

[Arnold Pieper]

You just proved the point about why people should have spin training :
-Your impression is not correct.
-You haven't had enough spin training, you still don't get what's important
about it.

You will once you get enough spin training and read some of the material.



"Greg Arnold" > wrote in message
news:%OERb.1498$tP1.1422@fed1read07...
> Arnold Pieper wrote:
>
> > Repeating someone who wrote this earlier in the week :
> > "Sure, we should stop training landings as well because that's where the
> > majority of the accidents happen."
> >
> > The ignorance in this particular discussion has reached a level where
it's
> > beyond help.
>
>
> Well, presumably total accidents would increase if you stopped teaching
> landings. The point of this thread is that perhaps spin accidents will
> decrease if we stop teaching spinning. Whether that is true, I don't
> know, but the landing analogy is irrelevant.
>
> I am inclined to believe that spin training is good, if done properly.
> However, the impression I got out of spin training was "Wow, if it is
> that hard to make a glider spin, then I will certainly know if I am
> about to spin." If that is typical impression, then spin training may
> just teach pilots that they don't have to worry about spinning.
>
>

[Slingsby]

(JJ Sinclair) wrote in message >...
> Well, we certainly have two schools of thought on this spinning issue. I think
> the "Spinners", hearken back 60 years or more and probably have their roots in
> military training. They say things like, "Train Hard, Fight Easy" Who are we
> fighting? My God, we're killing people as we try to make them safer pilots. I
> was amazed to read that the Brits seek out sailplanes with "GOOD" spin
> characteristics. Isn't that like buying a sailboat that is easily upset, just
> so we can all get dumped in the water and then set it right side up again?
>
> The truth is, most sailplanes from the Eastern block, spin real GOOD. Put them
> in the hands of a low time pilot and we are setting up a disaster. Aren't we
> just asking for trouble when we solo a student in a Puch? We had one spin-in,
> here in California with two high time sailplane pilots on board. We had a
> single place Lark spin-in from 10,000 feet with a low time pilot on board. RIP
> X 3
>
> Here's a thought. Buy sailplanes that don't spin easily (G-103 & ASK-21) and
> enjoy this sport by teaching only spin entry and immediate recovery.
> JJ Sinclair
************************************************** ******************************
JJ, if you are going to mention sailplanes that DON"T spin easily why
didn't you mention your Genesis 2? Sometime try to get it to spin. I
don't think you'll be able to.

[Tony Verhulst]

Arnold Pieper wrote:
> Repeating someone who wrote this earlier in the week :
> "Sure, we should stop training landings as well because that's where the
> majority of the accidents happen."

Bad analogy. The difference is that you HAVE to land.

Tony "for spin training" V.

[Robert Ehrlich]

Ian Johnston wrote:
>
> On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 12:35:43 UTC, (Chris
> OCallaghan) wrote:
>
> : the point of my link was to show that you will not spin from
> : coordinated flight.
>
> Tight turn. Slow speed. String in the middle. Pull up sharply as if
> another glider has just cut into the thermal. Whoops. Well, it works
> in a Bocian, anyway.
>
> Ian
> --

Another way I experienced it during my 1st flight in an ASH25 (with
an instructor in the back seat of course). Circling in a thermal, with
just to much aft stick than approriate. Speed slowly decayed (slowly
beacause the hight weight and inertia of the glider), induced roll
and yaw slowly increased, needing more and more inside rudder and
outside stick, up to the point where a incipent spin started, immediateley
stopped by releasing back pressure and centralizing ailerons and rudder.
At the time of departure, stick and rudder were strongly crossed,
but the flight was coordinated and the yaw string in the middle.

[Peter Harvey]

Hi All
Hope I'm not covering old ground on this thread and
may I start by saying since we don't know the cause
of the recent Puchacz incident, this doesn't relate
to it, but the content of the thread. I knew John.
He smiled lots.

Much good advice within indeed. My first syndicate
was a Bocian and IS29D, both of which spun at will,
the IS29 without any pre-stall buffet. I once managed
to spin the IS29 at the top of a loop which was slightly
the wrong side of exciting...

It does seem inexplicable (try as we might) that competent
folks on well proven gliders get bitten. Sure spinning
is complex and instruction invariably tries to be simple
- 'if the nose drops, ease the stick forward' etc.
With brain overload easily induced in students, it
has to be simple. Perhaps the more complex subtleties
of spinning SHOULD be introduced later as 'Advanced
spin awareness'?

One other consideration you may wish to ponder is the
British weather, with possible icing and wet wings.
This easily produces an asymetric wing:
Imagine the instructional flight. All upper air work
done well, the air's smooth and we try that old chestnut
of the 'unexpected' deeper stall in the circuit - the
one where the nose is down, grounds coming up and we
just can't resist pulling before it's 'unstuck'. Demonstrated
to me. Instructed by me. But NEVER in a wet or icy
Puchacz, Bocian, IS29. Even a gentle simple, stall
could bite very differently with wet / icy wings and
turn a benign glider into something far more interesting.

Fly safe out there.
Pete Harvey


At 15:24 28 January 2004, Robert Ehrlich wrote:
>Ian Johnston wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 12:35:43 UTC,
>>(Chris
>> OCallaghan) wrote:
>>
>> : the point of my link was to show that you will not
>>spin from
>> : coordinated flight.
>>
>> Tight turn. Slow speed. String in the middle. Pull
>>up sharply as if
>> another glider has just cut into the thermal. Whoops.
>>Well, it works
>> in a Bocian, anyway.
>>
>> Ian
>> --
>
>Another way I experienced it during my 1st flight in
>an ASH25 (with
>an instructor in the back seat of course). Circling
>in a thermal, with
>just to much aft stick than approriate. Speed slowly
>decayed (slowly
>beacause the hight weight and inertia of the glider),
>induced roll
>and yaw slowly increased, needing more and more inside
>rudder and
>outside stick, up to the point where a incipent spin
>started, immediateley
>stopped by releasing back pressure and centralizing
>ailerons and rudder.
>At the time of departure, stick and rudder were strongly
>crossed,
>but the flight was coordinated and the yaw string in
>the middle.
>

[Ian Johnston]

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 14:57:38 UTC, Todd Pattist
> wrote:

: "Ian Johnston" > wrote:
:
: >: So your answer to my question seems to be that 1) anything
: >: that's certified is safe enough by definition,
: >
: >No, I mean it has been carefully checked and found to be safe at
: >anything a competent instructor should be asking it to do.
:
: This comment and many others like it assume that the flight
: test of a new aircraft design that demonstrates the ability
: to recover a spin after a limited number of turns is
: sufficient for us to know that all spins are recoverable.

Hence "should be asking it to do". It is not competent instruction to
explore the wilder reaches of spinning behaviour with a pupil on
board.

: >If I've stayed within my ability limits and survived, and they have
: >strayed beyond their's and died then, yes. Bluntly.
:
: Sounds like me the first 10 years I instructed. :-(

Hey - you're still alive. You must be doing *something* right!


: >Agreed partially. Might lead to the curse of over rule-dependence and
: >under brain-dependence which seems to be creeping through the gliding
: >movement.
:
: CAll them recommendations if you like. I've done lots of
: spins without chutes - probably more without than with, but
: only in aircraft I trusted and had spun before, with a
: similar loading.

Then we're agreed!

: >: limitations on which instructors give the
: >: instruction,
: >
: >No, no, no, a thousand times no! Well, two "no"s anyway:
:
: Aren't you the one who says the deaths were the instructors
: fault? They didn't have the skill to recover? So you'd be
: against limiting full spin instruction to senior
: instructors?

No - I reckon all instructors should have the skills to recover from
any spin they end up in, and all instructors should be competent and
happy teaching basic spinning. Can you imagine a club in which only
the more experienced instructors were allowed to teach winch launch
failures? (And, by the way, I have had a senior instructor at a Very
Large UK Club explain to me that they always rotated straight into the
full climb on the winch because "we've got a modern winch and we
change the cables regularly - we don't have cable breaks "

: It was far better to give the first spin experience to a
: student as the base to final overruddered break and
: recovery.

That is effectively how I was initiated, though in the contect of a
slow, overruddered turn while hill soaring. Just as nasty - you're
even nearer the ground then than on a final turn!

: but we have to pay attention when people
: repeatedly die using existing procedures.

I'm with you there. I just don't think "Better instructor training"
and "better choice of training aircraft" should be ruled out ...

: So you go through the list of deceased instructors and tell
: me how they differed from those who still live. I don't
: think you can.

In one way it's glibly easy. They died. And unless that was because of
an unforeseeable mechanical or structural failure of the aircraft, or
because some unexpected turbulence through the glider into a strange
and unrecoverable spin mode, then it was their fault, just as the
overwhelming majority of gliding accidents are the pilot's fault. I
really don't like being this blunt but, since you ask, the ones who
are alive are better pilots.

: It should be checked, in theory, but I do a bit extra when
: I'm going to fly inverted, or some other unusual maneuver.
: I've noticed that "full" rudder on the ground may be only
: achieved at the maximum leg extension, combined with maximum
: foot extension

I'm fortunate (for once) in being 6'4" then - hgetting full pedal
travel is - cough - not an issue.

: Emphasis on
: seating position and rudder adjustment so that each pilot
: can apply a high level of force tot he rudder at full throw
: might be just sufficient to alleviate some of these training
: deaths.

In which case I am all for those precautions - before every flight!

: You seem to be saying that our existing procedures are fine,
: and if only everyone would do it right, we wouldn't have
: these accidents. That's fine, in theory, but I don't know
: anyone who thinks they do it wrong.

You misunderstand me - or maybe I just misspeak myself ((c) R.
Reagan). Obviously the procedures are not perfect. But I think we
should look at every part of them: what makes me unhappy is a regime
which works fine in nice docile two-setaer trainers, but then doesn't
apply to single seaters. Every presolo K13 pilot in the UK checks
"undercarriage" and "flaps" going downwind ...

Ian

[Ian Johnston]

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 15:01:49 UTC, Tony Verhulst >
wrote:

: Arnold Pieper wrote:
: > Repeating someone who wrote this earlier in the week :
: > "Sure, we should stop training landings as well because that's where the
: > majority of the accidents happen."
:
: Bad analogy. The difference is that you HAVE to land.

Should simulated cable breaks be taught, or should pupils just be
taught to recognize the symptoms of a cable break and be taken up in
a special glider a couple of times as they near first solo to
practice. I've never had a real cable break, myself, so I know it's
not going to happen to me ...

Ian

[Mike Borgelt]

On 28 Jan 2004 01:36:38 GMT, "Ian Johnston" >
wrote:

>On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 22:14:22 UTC, Mike Borgelt
> wrote:
>
>: It is called risk management. They fly gliders to go soaring not to do
>: aerobatics. Most of them have thousands of hours of flying cross
>: country and in competition. They consider it far riskier to do spins
>: in gliders of uncertain history with instructors of little experience
>: and training who typically seem to them to demonstrate dangerous
>: overconfidence.
>
>Ho yes. All good excuses. They should get their checks with
>instructors they trust in gliders they trust.

How do you do this?
The good two seaters are in private hands and not available and some
of them are placarded against deliberate spins. That leaves you with
club heaps subject to unknown history , amateur maintenance and
unknown numbers of 20 cent pieces under the seats amonst the control
system. The instructors all have their GFA ratings. The system does
nothing to weed out the incompetent even when they demonstrate their
incompetence. We had one instructor 3 years ago spin a Puch in from
low altitude while thermalling with a student because the instructor
got out of glide range of the airfield and wishing to avoid derigging
(the tug was a hired one not to be used for field retrieves) took over
and tried to thermal away. Two serious injuries. They must be one of
the few Puch spin ins where both survived.
The instructor had been the Chief Flying Instructor of that Club in
recent history.
>
>: And they won't spin down on you from above.
>
>If that blithe confidence is misplaced, though, will they be able to
>stop spinning?
>

The "blithe confidence" is based on thousands of hours where this
hasn't happened. Unlike the blithe confidence displayed by some that
they will always manage to recover from spinning Puchaczs despite the
growing evidence to the contrary.

>Though it's not really the reluctance about spinning which gets me -
>it's the general nervousness about flyng skills which it reveals.

If you aren't a little nervous before takeoff maybe you don't really
understand the problem. You are less than 60 seconds away from
perhaps having to demonstrate that you are mentally prepared and
skilled enough to cope with a low altitude emergency. I don't know
about you but this always gets my attention.
>
>: Some of the attitudes revealed in this thread make me despair that
>: anything will ever happen to improve the soaring safety record.
>
>I agree with you there.
>
>Ian

I really don't care whether you or Arnold Pieper or anyone else spin
Puch's or not as long as nobody is coerced into doing so.
There is a perfectly defensible position that says repeated full spin
demonstrations are unnecessary.

We aren't going to improve flight safety by continuing the "tick the
box" mentality that annual checks encourage. The BGA and GFA records
speak for themselves.

Mike Borgelt

[Ian Johnston]

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 23:15:10 UTC, Mike Borgelt
> wrote:

: On 28 Jan 2004 01:36:38 GMT, "Ian Johnston" >
: wrote:

: >Ho yes. All good excuses. They should get their checks with
: >instructors they trust in gliders they trust.
:
: How do you do this?
: The good two seaters are in private hands and not available and some
: of them are placarded against deliberate spins.

Then you yell like hell about a club or gliding federation that
doesn't insist on training aircraft of sufficient quality?

: The instructors all have their GFA ratings. The system does
: nothing to weed out the incompetent even when they demonstrate their
: incompetence.

Then it would seem that blaming the aircraft might be a wee bit over
hasty?

: The "blithe confidence" is based on thousands of hours where this
: hasn't happened. Unlike the blithe confidence displayed by some that
: they will always manage to recover from spinning Puchaczs despite the
: growing evidence to the contrary.

Most of the Puchacz accidents I've seen described involve low level
spins, like the one you discussed in your post. Recovery ain't an
option in those cases, generally speaking. Rapid conversion to an
effective religion is the only hope.

: There is a perfectly defensible position that says repeated full spin
: demonstrations are unnecessary.

Personally, I think the tail ends of single seaters sticking out of
fields and hill sides makes a pretty good attack on that position.


Ian

[Eric Greenwell]

Ian Johnston wrote:

>
> : There is a perfectly defensible position that says repeated full spin
> : demonstrations are unnecessary.
>
> Personally, I think the tail ends of single seaters sticking out of
> fields and hill sides makes a pretty good attack on that position.

Do these accidents show an inability to: 1) recover from full spins, 2)
from incipient spins, 3) detect the signs of an impending (but not yet
incipient) spin, 4) avoid spin precursors entirely? If the answer is 1),
doesn't that mean three opportunities have been missed to avoid the need
for #1? And perhaps suggests it is better to spend training time on 4,
3, and 2 instead? Since low level spins don't leave much room for
recovering anyway, being skilled at 4, 3, and 2 seems more useful.

--
-----
change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Arnold Pieper]

Ian,

I couldn't agree more.
Blaming the Puchacz or the practice of spin training is very short sighted
indeed.

What bothers me is that some of the people who express oppinions here really
talk like those trial lawyers.
Man, they can talk the talk.
But in most cases they don't have much experience (if any), are still
students or are just enthusiasts.
You wouldn't know that by the way they express their oppinions.

What you "think" as a student is obviously very important, but sometimes you
have to learn to listen and practice, as opposed to trying to lecture your
instructor as to why you think this way or that (is that lawyer thing
again).
Just sit down, follow along, listen, open your eyes and mind to the
experience, let it sink in, think about it in the comfort of the house, then
come back for more.

Many of the concepts involved in flying are not intuitive. You should always
read many sources, practice, until you understand.
When I see this many people creating all sorts of excuses for not doing
spins, all I can think is that all of them are at the very early stages of
their flying careers, when stalls are this big monster ready to bite and
scare the living daylights out of you.
This will eventually pass and the pilot will become more mature and more
secure as he understands.

I once had a student, a Heart Surgeon, who after the first lesson with
Stalls started to give me this lecture about the health (or heart) risks
related to practicing this maneuver. He thought the fear could cause the
heart to spasm or whatever that was...
He basically was so affraid to die that it took him many months (and the
love of flying) to actually complete those very few first hours of
instruction. Always with that lecture, always feeling tense before
practicing stalls and spins.
He follow the advise to read more and more sources, understand the
importance of it, and he is today one of the safest pilots I know, even
instructing spins these days.

Anyway, I remember not that long ago many people hastily condemning the
Piper Malibu, as a result of several high-altitude accidents.
All kinds of crazy posibilities were hastily suggested, bad design, bad
tail, bad structure, this, that and the other.
Public pressure was so big that the FAA did an unprecedented
"re-certification" process with the airplane, as if they were not 100%
certain that all the bases were covered in the original certification.

The aircraft (Piper Malibu) came out of it as clean as before, with flying
colors.
It was then discovered that traning was the biggest issue. The airplane was
being flown at high-altitudes and speeds by pilots who were not used to
those conditions.
The Malibu is in fact a safer, more honest airplane than many older designs.


> : The instructors all have their GFA ratings. The system does
> : nothing to weed out the incompetent even when they demonstrate their
> : incompetence.
>
> Then it would seem that blaming the aircraft might be a wee bit over
> hasty?
>
> : The "blithe confidence" is based on thousands of hours where this
> : hasn't happened. Unlike the blithe confidence displayed by some that
> : they will always manage to recover from spinning Puchaczs despite the
> : growing evidence to the contrary.
>
> Most of the Puchacz accidents I've seen described involve low level
> spins, like the one you discussed in your post. Recovery ain't an
> option in those cases, generally speaking. Rapid conversion to an
> effective religion is the only hope.
>
> : There is a perfectly defensible position that says repeated full spin
> : demonstrations are unnecessary.
>
> Personally, I think the tail ends of single seaters sticking out of
> fields and hill sides makes a pretty good attack on that position.
>
>
> Ian

[Bruce Greeff]

Eric Greenwell wrote:
> Ian Johnston wrote:
>
>>
>> : There is a perfectly defensible position that says repeated full spin
>> : demonstrations are unnecessary.
>>
>> Personally, I think the tail ends of single seaters sticking out of
>> fields and hill sides makes a pretty good attack on that position.
>
>
> Do these accidents show an inability to: 1) recover from full spins, 2)
> from incipient spins, 3) detect the signs of an impending (but not yet
> incipient) spin, 4) avoid spin precursors entirely? If the answer is 1),
> doesn't that mean three opportunities have been missed to avoid the need
> for #1? And perhaps suggests it is better to spend training time on 4,
> 3, and 2 instead? Since low level spins don't leave much room for
> recovering anyway, being skilled at 4, 3, and 2 seems more useful.
>
Very true - It is far better to have the skills and training in numbers
4,3 and 2 so that you never get there inadvertently - but 1 is what
sometimes happens while planning or practising other things...
A pilot can manage his or her own performance and what the aircraft is
doing with skills and best practice - the air we fly in can be
unpredictable and difficult to judge. Sometimes other aircraft do things
that force a choice between collision and flying outside the parameters
that 4,3,and 2 have taught you. Sometimes people get so focussed on the
task at hand they don't notice the risks they are taking. Thats how "1"
happens.

Personally I like to cover all the bases.

Even if the spin experience just reminds you of what you can't get away
with the next time you even think about taking that thermal to prevent a
landing. I know of one fatal accident that might have been prevented if
the pilot had ever intentionally spun his Ventus 2cx with full water.
The expeience would possibly have changed his decision making in taking
a thermal at less than spin recovery height. Point is - he did not know
what his recovey height was.

I understand that most modern European single seaters exhibit a violent
spin entry, progressing to an approximately vertical attitude with
airspeed approaching VNE on recovery in this configuration. Even if you
have the height there is very little margin for error, in these
conditions I can't help thinking that experience in recovery might save
the fractions of a second that can make the difference between a topic
for discussion after the flight and an unrecoverable situation.
JAR 22 certification does not mean docility, only that it will recover
with conventional control inputs, under specific conditions.

Whether intentionally spinning a Puchacz (or anything else for that
matter) at low altitude is advisable is a seperate matter. Our club as a
2000" base for recovery - seems reasonable, at least you have a chance
if things go wrong.

[Andrew Warbrick]

At 17:24 28 January 2004, Ian Johnston wrote:
>On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 15:01:49 UTC, Tony Verhulst
>wrote:
>
>: Arnold Pieper wrote:
>: > Repeating someone who wrote this earlier in the
>>week :
>: > 'Sure, we should stop training landings as well
>>because that's where the
>: > majority of the accidents happen.'
>:
>: Bad analogy. The difference is that you HAVE to land.
>
>Should simulated cable breaks be taught, or should
>pupils just be
>taught to recognize the symptoms of a cable break
>and be taken up in
>a special glider a couple of times as they near first
>solo to
>practice. I've never had a real cable break, myself,
>so I know it's
>not going to happen to me ...
>
>Ian
>
To reinforce what Ian just said. Perhaps we ought to
consider the consequences of not training full spin
recovery. When someone who has not been so trained
has the ground do the spin recovery for them, their
estate will sue the training organisation for negligence
in not training to recover from a mode of flight which
is well known to be fatal if not correctly recovered
from. You can't just teach people to recite the spin
recovery, it has to be practiced at altitude in a glider
or it won't get properly applied when needed.

Also, you might consider that the reason large numbers
of pilots of high performance sailplanes are not hitting
the ground spinning is precisely because they have
had spin avoidance and recovery training.

[Chris OCallaghan]

I'll take your word for it... stalling from a tight turn is difficult
unless the elevator is powerful or the cg well back. However, the next
time you do this, keep the stick back, ailerons and rudder neutral. If
it spins you should be able to let it go through 3 or 4 full rotations
without building up speed. Count them, and let me know if that's the
case. I'll want to find one an fly it.

I suspect there are sailplanes out there without adequate vertical
stabilizers, or, conversely, appropriate washout in the wing. But I
hope not many, and it would serve us all to know which ones they are.

"Ian Johnston" > wrote in message news:<cCUlhtvFIYkV-pn2-FWmHH7udlJdT@localhost>...
> On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 12:35:43 UTC, (Chris
> OCallaghan) wrote:
>
> : the point of my link was to show that you will not spin from
> : coordinated flight.
>
> Tight turn. Slow speed. String in the middle. Pull up sharply as if
> another glider has just cut into the thermal. Whoops. Well, it works
> in a Bocian, anyway.
>
> Ian
> --

[Chris OCallaghan]

This is an interesting case. I haven't really thought this through
since stalling is difficult in most properly balanced sailplanes at
high angles of bank. A long wingspan adds yet another aggrevator. But
your speed is higher in a steep turn, thus the vertical stabilizer is
more efficient. And right off hand I can think of several outcomes
that would look like spins, but are, in fact, something else. Think of
a wing over, for example. If you shot the initial 90 degrees of turn
after apex, it would look very much like a spin entry.

Nonetheless, I haven't tried a stall from a coordinated steep turn,
with controls crossed and the yaw string straight. And I won't have a
chance for another month or so...

Perhaps, for the time being, I need to ammend my position to say that
a spin is unlikely in most sailplanes if the ailerons and rudder are
neutralized.

In the meantime, if you have a chance to repeat, see if the instructor
will let the "spin" develop. I'm interested to see if it is really a
spin (I think the chances are good, though, if the controls stay
crossed). Try it again, but at entry, center the ailerons and rudder,
but leave the stick back. That is, add no further aggrevation after
the stall break and see what it does. By the way, how rapid was the
autorotation at stall break? How much change in direction did you
experience before rolling back to level? How much altitude did you
lose, if you took notice? And was there anything unusual about this
particular 25?

Robert Ehrlich > wrote in message >...
> Ian Johnston wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 12:35:43 UTC, (Chris
> > OCallaghan) wrote:
> >
> > : the point of my link was to show that you will not spin from
> > : coordinated flight.
> >
> > Tight turn. Slow speed. String in the middle. Pull up sharply as if
> > another glider has just cut into the thermal. Whoops. Well, it works
> > in a Bocian, anyway.
> >
> > Ian
> > --
>
> Another way I experienced it during my 1st flight in an ASH25 (with
> an instructor in the back seat of course). Circling in a thermal, with
> just to much aft stick than approriate. Speed slowly decayed (slowly
> beacause the hight weight and inertia of the glider), induced roll
> and yaw slowly increased, needing more and more inside rudder and
> outside stick, up to the point where a incipent spin started, immediateley
> stopped by releasing back pressure and centralizing ailerons and rudder.
> At the time of departure, stick and rudder were strongly crossed,
> but the flight was coordinated and the yaw string in the middle.

[Caracole]

> To reinforce what Ian just said. Perhaps we ought to
> consider the consequences of not training full spin
> recovery. When someone who has not been so trained
> has the ground do the spin recovery for them, their
> estate will sue the training organisation for negligence
> in not training to recover from a mode of flight which
> is well known to be fatal if not correctly recovered
> from.

> Also, you might consider that the reason large numbers
> of pilots of high performance sailplanes are not hitting
> the ground spinning is precisely because they have
> had spin avoidance and recovery training.

There is no doubt that more instructiors have been killed
in spins in the Puchacz than any other glider. One of the
reasons for these fatalities may be based on some as yet
unproven spin anomaly with the Puch. However there should
be little doubt that a good portion of these fatalities are
a result of the instructors having overconfidence in their
and the glider's ability to safely do low level spins. For
those who feel spins are a necessary part of flight training,
at least have the common sense to do it with plenty of altitude
and use a hard deck altitude of at least 2000 feet so that
you and your student have the ability to bail out.

For those who insist that spins at altitude fail to put the
proper fear of God into the student, and for those who think
it is just much more convenient to do spins off of winch launches,
aren't you being negligent if you fail to at least inform the
student of the spin accident history of the Puch, as well as
letting them know that the parachute you are requiring them
to wear will be of no use, if the spin recovery is not successful?

M. Eiler

[D.A.L]

> > "Sure, we should stop training landings as well because that's where the
> > majority of the accidents happen."
> >
> > The ignorance in this particular discussion has reached a level where it's
> > beyond help.
>
>
> Well, presumably total accidents would increase if you stopped teaching
> landings. The point of this thread is that perhaps spin accidents will
> decrease if we stop teaching spinning. Whether that is true, I don't
> know, but the landing analogy is irrelevant.

Here's an analogy. Why don't we teach people how to drive when their
drunk, we know it will happen. How about we teach pilots to land on a
mountain side, in water, into trees, make a good turn at 50 ft. agl!
They've all happened. How about we practice these maneuvers regularly.
Sound stupid?
Hey, here's a novel idea! How about we spend a great many hours in
training on how to AVOID flying into a mountainous, unlandable region
or lake without enough height to get out, AVOID being low with no
escape over a forest.Teach us how to AVOID the mistakes MADE EARLIER
in our flight that got us to low for a proper circuit or RECOVERY from
a spin. Teach us how to keep a constant attitude / airspeed while
manuvering our aircraft. It,s not the spin that kills alot of pilots
it's the poor decisions and flying habits made before the spin, that
got them into trouble. If a pilot is flying below 300 ft. agl, going
slow then turns to final and spins in it was not the spin that killed
him.In my opinion. If flying low and slow is a common occurence,which
is how many spin deaths occure, should'nt we be starting there? In my
club I've seen a 1-23 make an abbreviated circuit, turn final at what
apeared to be 200ft.agl. So I asked him what happend. He said he was
low and had to change his circuit. Had no choice. So I suggested to
him that maybe flying DOWN WIND away from the club at 1500 agl. trying
to join a gaggle and add another 15 min. to his local flight was the
actual reason he had to make an abreviated circuit and dangerous low
turn. Sadly he disagreed. Now someone's going to comment that we need
spin training.I AGREE! We also need to know the safest way to land in
water or trees, avoiding telephone lines ,fence posts etc. if we had
to, but we should triple or quadruple that time in SPIN AVOIDENCE and
the PILOT DECISION PROCESS. Just my two cents.
Don
C-GLUV

[Robert Ehrlich]

Chris OCallaghan wrote:
>
> This is an interesting case. I haven't really thought this through
> since stalling is difficult in most properly balanced sailplanes at
> high angles of bank. A long wingspan adds yet another aggrevator. But
> your speed is higher in a steep turn, thus the vertical stabilizer is
> more efficient. And right off hand I can think of several outcomes
> that would look like spins, but are, in fact, something else. Think of
> a wing over, for example. If you shot the initial 90 degrees of turn
> after apex, it would look very much like a spin entry.
>
> Nonetheless, I haven't tried a stall from a coordinated steep turn,
> with controls crossed and the yaw string straight. And I won't have a
> chance for another month or so...
>
> Perhaps, for the time being, I need to ammend my position to say that
> a spin is unlikely in most sailplanes if the ailerons and rudder are
> neutralized.
>
> In the meantime, if you have a chance to repeat, see if the instructor
> will let the "spin" develop. I'm interested to see if it is really a
> spin (I think the chances are good, though, if the controls stay
> crossed). Try it again, but at entry, center the ailerons and rudder,
> but leave the stick back. That is, add no further aggrevation after
> the stall break and see what it does. By the way, how rapid was the
> autorotation at stall break? How much change in direction did you
> experience before rolling back to level? How much altitude did you
> lose, if you took notice? And was there anything unusual about this
> particular 25?
>

There was nothing unusual about this 25, only about myself. It was my
first flight in the ship, I had a very low experience at this time (< 100
hours) and had only flown ASK21 and ASK23. This happened twice in the day
at a low bank angle. There was almost no autorotation or change in
direction. It was rather the feeling that increasing outside stick could
no more counter the overbanking tendancy, but rather increased it,
that made me realize that the inner wing was stalled and the I had to
quickly release back pressure to avoid some mess, so nothing wrong
happened before immediate recovery. My propension to low speed flight
came from my familiarity with the ASK23 whose wing loading is much lower,
and from the fact that it was a weak day where low speed rather than
high bank angles helps to remain close to the core of thermals, at least
in the ASK23 I was usually flying. It was my first attempt to make a flight
longer than 5 hours, I felt it was better to try it first with an instructor
behind me and in a glider in which this may be achieved even in unfavorable
weather. This last point turned out to be true, all other gliders were
in the hangars when we landed at the end of the day and the duration was
effectively over 5 hours. However I had to wait another season before
getting my silver duration, but this is another story.

BTW I cannot try what you suggest since this 25 is no more in my club,
nor any other club 25 (but 2 private ones) and the instructor in such
a repeat attempt would probably be myself as I got this rating during
last September.

[Chris OCallaghan]

I've noted that many 25s have wing extended wing tips, some factory,
some home built. The vertical stab was designed to some theoritical
maximum... This would be yet another aggrevating factor.

What fascinates me about these reports is the effect in the real world
of the designer's tradeoff between stability and controlability.
Bigger vertical stabs would reduce the likelihood of a spin, but at
the cost of much drag. Less drag is better, but you don't want a
sailplane so unstable that moderate turbulence can flick it into a
spin from a low speed turn. So if you want to give it a good low speed
roll rate, you have to depend on the pilot's proper use of the
powerful rudder he'll need to counteract adverse yaw. But pilots are
people, and we all make mistakes. So the conscientious designer must
needs put enough surface area back there to prevent autorotation so
long as the pilot neutralizes the controls at the first indication of
an insipient stall. Even if the stall progesses, so long as the
controls aren't crossed, it shouldn't lead to a spin.

Little modern gliders seem to reflect this philosophy. As bigger
gliders become more popular among lower time pilots, shouldn't we be
examining their characteristics more carefully? While manuals give
very precise instructions on how to recover from a fully developed
spin, they recommend coordinated use of ailerons and rudder
(accompanied by a forward motion of the stick) to pick up a dropping
wing during the initial phase of a stall, straight ahead or turning.
In other words, the designer is recommending picking up the low wing
so long as it is accompanied by a "firm easing of the control stick
forward." This procedure is recommended because it results in the
minimum loss of height. We were all taught, thouigh, that if the wing
begins drop during a stall, we neutralize the ailerons, ease the stick
forward, and kick opposite rudder. Given the number (I counted 4) of
over the top spin entries noted in another thread, I wonder if we
haven't been to aggressive in preventing the "insipient spin" with
spin recovery control motions.

And as a result, misinterpret any yawing of the nose during a stall to
be the preamble to a spin. I'm splitting hairs. And it's certainly not
the stuff for students to be pondering. They need a one size fits all
recovery. But I'm genuinely interested in just what is going on at the
stall and immediately after, and if our perceptions haven't been
altered by the necessity of the shortcuts we take during training to
get us quickly to the point where we can go teach urselves.
Robert Ehrlich > wrote in message >...
> Chris OCallaghan wrote:
> >
> > This is an interesting case. I haven't really thought this through
> > since stalling is difficult in most properly balanced sailplanes at
> > high angles of bank. A long wingspan adds yet another aggrevator. But
> > your speed is higher in a steep turn, thus the vertical stabilizer is
> > more efficient. And right off hand I can think of several outcomes
> > that would look like spins, but are, in fact, something else. Think of
> > a wing over, for example. If you shot the initial 90 degrees of turn
> > after apex, it would look very much like a spin entry.
> >
> > Nonetheless, I haven't tried a stall from a coordinated steep turn,
> > with controls crossed and the yaw string straight. And I won't have a
> > chance for another month or so...
> >
> > Perhaps, for the time being, I need to ammend my position to say that
> > a spin is unlikely in most sailplanes if the ailerons and rudder are
> > neutralized.
> >
> > In the meantime, if you have a chance to repeat, see if the instructor
> > will let the "spin" develop. I'm interested to see if it is really a
> > spin (I think the chances are good, though, if the controls stay
> > crossed). Try it again, but at entry, center the ailerons and rudder,
> > but leave the stick back. That is, add no further aggrevation after
> > the stall break and see what it does. By the way, how rapid was the
> > autorotation at stall break? How much change in direction did you
> > experience before rolling back to level? How much altitude did you
> > lose, if you took notice? And was there anything unusual about this
> > particular 25?
> >
>
> There was nothing unusual about this 25, only about myself. It was my
> first flight in the ship, I had a very low experience at this time (< 100
> hours) and had only flown ASK21 and ASK23. This happened twice in the day
> at a low bank angle. There was almost no autorotation or change in
> direction. It was rather the feeling that increasing outside stick could
> no more counter the overbanking tendancy, but rather increased it,
> that made me realize that the inner wing was stalled and the I had to
> quickly release back pressure to avoid some mess, so nothing wrong
> happened before immediate recovery. My propension to low speed flight
> came from my familiarity with the ASK23 whose wing loading is much lower,
> and from the fact that it was a weak day where low speed rather than
> high bank angles helps to remain close to the core of thermals, at least
> in the ASK23 I was usually flying. It was my first attempt to make a flight
> longer than 5 hours, I felt it was better to try it first with an instructor
> behind me and in a glider in which this may be achieved even in unfavorable
> weather. This last point turned out to be true, all other gliders were
> in the hangars when we landed at the end of the day and the duration was
> effectively over 5 hours. However I had to wait another season before
> getting my silver duration, but this is another story.
>
> BTW I cannot try what you suggest since this 25 is no more in my club,
> nor any other club 25 (but 2 private ones) and the instructor in such
> a repeat attempt would probably be myself as I got this rating during
> last September.

[Arnold Pieper]

The behaviour described in a previous message as an "insipient spin" with
the ASH-25 seems to be a very simple early part of a stall.
If ailerons are used close to the Stall AOA, they might seem to work in
reverse, which is consistent with the description given in that message.
This is due to the fact that in the pre-stall, you're already close to the
Stall AOA.
The lowering Aileron (to pick up the low wing) will produce an increase in
the AOA in that part of the low wing, thus exceeding the Stall AOA and
essencially stalling that part (where the aileron is) of the low wing.
In other words : Pre-stall, left wing is low (for instance), right aileron
will stall the left wing tip thus increasing the bank angle and going to a
spiral, an apparent control reversal, easily corrected by :
The correct control input, which is to apply right rudder to pick it up, and
move the stick forward enough the reduce AOA.

This is the reason why instructors teach all students to pick up a low wing
during pre-stall by using Rudder (opposite rudder, for that matter), and not
by using coordinated controls as it is suggested, because the aileron will
work against the intended recovery.
Even if the glider wing was designed with some twist to lower the AOI at the
wingtips, they will still suffer from this reverse effect when in a
pre-stall condition.

All existing airplane and glider literature clearly recomends picking up a
low wing with opposite rudder during pre-stall, along with lowering the
nose.
I have never seen a manual suggesting to pick up a low wing at the pre-stall
with "coordinated controls", it would surprise me very much if the ASH-25
suggested something like that.

What it may be suggesting is that you always use coordinated controls (the
correct use) while thermalling, and if you sense the glider in a pre-stall
condition, lower the nose slightly and use coordinated controls to continue
the turn.

I wrote about this before : While thermalling, if you feel an inpending
stall, it may not be necessary to "dive like mad" to recover.
It may be a simple case of lowering the nose only slightly and maybe
applying some opposite rudder for a few seconds.
If you do it calmly, other gliders in the same thermal won't even notice
that you were about to stall.
Again, any experienced instructor can demonstrate this.

Happy flying.


"Chris OCallaghan" > wrote in message
om...
> I've noted that many 25s have wing extended wing tips, some factory,
> some home built. The vertical stab was designed to some theoritical
> maximum... This would be yet another aggrevating factor.
>
> What fascinates me about these reports is the effect in the real world
> of the designer's tradeoff between stability and controlability.
> Bigger vertical stabs would reduce the likelihood of a spin, but at
> the cost of much drag. Less drag is better, but you don't want a
> sailplane so unstable that moderate turbulence can flick it into a
> spin from a low speed turn. So if you want to give it a good low speed
> roll rate, you have to depend on the pilot's proper use of the
> powerful rudder he'll need to counteract adverse yaw. But pilots are
> people, and we all make mistakes. So the conscientious designer must
> needs put enough surface area back there to prevent autorotation so
> long as the pilot neutralizes the controls at the first indication of
> an insipient stall. Even if the stall progesses, so long as the
> controls aren't crossed, it shouldn't lead to a spin.
>
> Little modern gliders seem to reflect this philosophy. As bigger
> gliders become more popular among lower time pilots, shouldn't we be
> examining their characteristics more carefully? While manuals give
> very precise instructions on how to recover from a fully developed
> spin, they recommend coordinated use of ailerons and rudder
> (accompanied by a forward motion of the stick) to pick up a dropping
> wing during the initial phase of a stall, straight ahead or turning.
> In other words, the designer is recommending picking up the low wing
> so long as it is accompanied by a "firm easing of the control stick
> forward." This procedure is recommended because it results in the
> minimum loss of height. We were all taught, thouigh, that if the wing
> begins drop during a stall, we neutralize the ailerons, ease the stick
> forward, and kick opposite rudder. Given the number (I counted 4) of
> over the top spin entries noted in another thread, I wonder if we
> haven't been to aggressive in preventing the "insipient spin" with
> spin recovery control motions.
>
> And as a result, misinterpret any yawing of the nose during a stall to
> be the preamble to a spin. I'm splitting hairs. And it's certainly not
> the stuff for students to be pondering. They need a one size fits all
> recovery. But I'm genuinely interested in just what is going on at the
> stall and immediately after, and if our perceptions haven't been
> altered by the necessity of the shortcuts we take during training to
> get us quickly to the point where we can go teach urselves.
> Robert Ehrlich > wrote in message
>...
> > Chris OCallaghan wrote:
> > >
> > > This is an interesting case. I haven't really thought this through
> > > since stalling is difficult in most properly balanced sailplanes at
> > > high angles of bank. A long wingspan adds yet another aggrevator. But
> > > your speed is higher in a steep turn, thus the vertical stabilizer is
> > > more efficient. And right off hand I can think of several outcomes
> > > that would look like spins, but are, in fact, something else. Think of
> > > a wing over, for example. If you shot the initial 90 degrees of turn
> > > after apex, it would look very much like a spin entry.
> > >
> > > Nonetheless, I haven't tried a stall from a coordinated steep turn,
> > > with controls crossed and the yaw string straight. And I won't have a
> > > chance for another month or so...
> > >
> > > Perhaps, for the time being, I need to ammend my position to say that
> > > a spin is unlikely in most sailplanes if the ailerons and rudder are
> > > neutralized.
> > >
> > > In the meantime, if you have a chance to repeat, see if the instructor
> > > will let the "spin" develop. I'm interested to see if it is really a
> > > spin (I think the chances are good, though, if the controls stay
> > > crossed). Try it again, but at entry, center the ailerons and rudder,
> > > but leave the stick back. That is, add no further aggrevation after
> > > the stall break and see what it does. By the way, how rapid was the
> > > autorotation at stall break? How much change in direction did you
> > > experience before rolling back to level? How much altitude did you
> > > lose, if you took notice? And was there anything unusual about this
> > > particular 25?
> > >
> >
> > There was nothing unusual about this 25, only about myself. It was my
> > first flight in the ship, I had a very low experience at this time (<
100
> > hours) and had only flown ASK21 and ASK23. This happened twice in the
day
> > at a low bank angle. There was almost no autorotation or change in
> > direction. It was rather the feeling that increasing outside stick could
> > no more counter the overbanking tendancy, but rather increased it,
> > that made me realize that the inner wing was stalled and the I had to
> > quickly release back pressure to avoid some mess, so nothing wrong
> > happened before immediate recovery. My propension to low speed flight
> > came from my familiarity with the ASK23 whose wing loading is much
lower,
> > and from the fact that it was a weak day where low speed rather than
> > high bank angles helps to remain close to the core of thermals, at least
> > in the ASK23 I was usually flying. It was my first attempt to make a
flight
> > longer than 5 hours, I felt it was better to try it first with an
instructor
> > behind me and in a glider in which this may be achieved even in
unfavorable
> > weather. This last point turned out to be true, all other gliders were
> > in the hangars when we landed at the end of the day and the duration was
> > effectively over 5 hours. However I had to wait another season before
> > getting my silver duration, but this is another story.
> >
> > BTW I cannot try what you suggest since this 25 is no more in my club,
> > nor any other club 25 (but 2 private ones) and the instructor in such
> > a repeat attempt would probably be myself as I got this rating during
> > last September.
>

[Dave Martin]

At 09:48 31 January 2004, Arnold Pieper wrote:
>
>The correct control input, which is to apply right
>rudder to pick >it up, move stick forward enough the
>reduce AOA.

Sorry to pull one part of your story out for comment.

Some years ago the British Gliding Association dropped
the term incipient spin and called this 'Stall With
With Wing Drop'.

Most older instructors and pilots were taught as you
decribed to pick up the dropping wing with rudder.


The current BGA instructors manual states:-)

'When a wing drops at the stall it is essential to
unstall the glider before attempting to level the wings.
Once the glider is unstalled, level the wings with
coordinated ailerons and rudder.' Section 18 page 2

In the demonstration and practice section page 18.4.
The instructor is told

'Emphasise

the wings are levelled with coordinated use of ailerons
and rudder, BUT ONLY AFTER the glider is unstalled.'

Spinning is merely the natural consequence of failure
to understand and/or recognise the onset of the problems
caused by flying at or close to the stalling speed.
It is for this reason that students should be taught
both in theory and practice the stall symptoms and
the BGA further stalling exercises. Together with the
dangers of flying at of close to the stall speed in
any phase of their flight.

I agree that in many cases merely relaxing the back
pressure on the stick to regain flying speed can prevent
the onset of stalling the wing and it consequences.


Dave

[Janusz Kesik]

U=BFytkownik Bill Daniels > w wiadomooci do grup =
dyskusyjnych ...
>=20
> It does make one wonder. I seem to recall something on r.a.s. to the =
effect
> that an inspection of a Puch in the USA turned up a metal plate that =
was
> adrift somewhere in the rudder control curcuit. This loose plate, it =
was
> said, could prevent the rudder from moving back from the fully =
deflected
> position. I seem to recall that it was suspected that some of the =
spin-in
> accidents might be due to this.

One day I was told about a Puchacz accident at Bielsko in southern =
Poland, many years ago. The trim handle (a small green ball made of =
fabric) went loose and disappeared. The student replaced it with another =
one, but didn't check where's the one which got lost, and then took off =
for a spin training...
The ball has been left inside, and it managed to get into controls, and =
in the moment they were in spin and tried to move stick forward to get =
out of the spin, it locked itself preventing the stick from moving =
forward. The student with instructor kept on pushing the stick, and =
finally hit the ground killing themselves.
Finally it became clear that if they had moved stick back for a second, =
they could survive, because thic could loosen the ball...

I just wonder how the student stupid had to be to not check the glider =
throughly after noticing that the handle has gone.

Regards,


--=20
Janusz Kesik

visit www.leszno.pl - home of the www.css-leszno.it.pl

[Janusz Kesik]

U=BFytkownik Chris OCallaghan > w wiadomooci do =
grup dyskusyjnych =
gle.com...

> My understanding is that the Puchaz became popular only for its spin
> characteristics.=20

Not only, it's just a very good trainer.

>It's easy to put into a spin throughout its cg range.

Because it was designed for that.


--=20
Janusz Kesik

visit www.leszno.pl - home of the www.css-leszno.it.pl

[Vaughn]

"Janusz Kesik" > wrote in message
...

I just wonder how the student stupid had to be to not check the glider
throughly after noticing that the handle has gone.

Three thoughts:
1) I find it courious that the student was doing maintence work on the
glider. and...

2) In exactly the same situation, I wonder if I would have been sufficiently
courious to check all of the deep-dark spaces in the belly of the glider.
Frankly, I am afraid of the answer. Perhaps that is why we let A&P's do
that sort of thing? and...

3) In many gliders it is very difficult to inspect under the floorboards and
back in the tailcone, yet you never really know what may be lurking there,
tools, lost cellphones, critters, etc. I once saw a good-sized snake bail
out of a glider just as it was landing and then slink off quickly,
apparently none the worse for the experience. It was not the first flight
of the day for that ship.

Regards,
Vaughn





--
Janusz Kesik

visit www.leszno.pl - home of the www.css-leszno.it.pl

[Arnold Pieper]

I see Dave.

I'm courious now :
When you're teaching Stalls and a wing is low just before the stall, you
don't pick it up until AFTER the stall ?

This is not the way it's done in both countries where I fly.


"Dave Martin" > wrote in message
...
> At 09:48 31 January 2004, Arnold Pieper wrote:
> >
> >The correct control input, which is to apply right
> >rudder to pick >it up, move stick forward enough the
> >reduce AOA.
>
> Sorry to pull one part of your story out for comment.
>
> Some years ago the British Gliding Association dropped
> the term incipient spin and called this 'Stall With
> With Wing Drop'.
>
> Most older instructors and pilots were taught as you
> decribed to pick up the dropping wing with rudder.
>
>
> The current BGA instructors manual states:-)
>
> 'When a wing drops at the stall it is essential to
> unstall the glider before attempting to level the wings.
> Once the glider is unstalled, level the wings with
> coordinated ailerons and rudder.' Section 18 page 2
>
> In the demonstration and practice section page 18.4.
> The instructor is told
>
> 'Emphasise
>
> the wings are levelled with coordinated use of ailerons
> and rudder, BUT ONLY AFTER the glider is unstalled.'
>
> Spinning is merely the natural consequence of failure
> to understand and/or recognise the onset of the problems
> caused by flying at or close to the stalling speed.
> It is for this reason that students should be taught
> both in theory and practice the stall symptoms and
> the BGA further stalling exercises. Together with the
> dangers of flying at of close to the stall speed in
> any phase of their flight.
>
> I agree that in many cases merely relaxing the back
> pressure on the stick to regain flying speed can prevent
> the onset of stalling the wing and it consequences.
>
>
> Dave
>
>
>
>

[Ian Johnston]

On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 00:07:35 UTC, Eric Greenwell
> wrote:

: Ian Johnston wrote:


: > Personally, I think the tail ends of single seaters sticking out of
: > fields and hill sides makes a pretty good attack on that position.
:
: Do these accidents show an inability to: 1) recover from full spins, 2)
: from incipient spins, 3) detect the signs of an impending (but not yet
: incipient) spin, 4) avoid spin precursors entirely?

5) Take spins seriously as a threat.

Ian

[Martin Gregorie]

On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 14:46:10 +0100, "Janusz Kesik"
> wrote:

>I just wonder how the student stupid had to be to not check the glider throughly after noticing that the handle has gone.
>
I wonder if he thought to tell anybody else about the missing knob.


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

[Dave Martin]

At 19:00 31 January 2004, Arnold Pieper wrote:
>I see Dave.
>
>I'm courious now :
>When you're teaching Stalls and a wing is low just
>before the stall, you
>don't pick it up until AFTER the stall ?
>
>This is not the way it's done in both countries where
>I fly.
>

Arnold

Effectively Yes, and it works.

Rather than me try to explain my thoughts and experience
the manual explains the logic quite neatly (18.6)

'Whilst use of the rudder to prevent yaw in the direction
of the down-going wing is a counsel of perfection,
it must be realised that the pilot caused the inadvertent
stall in the first place by inappropriate use of the
controls. He is unlikely to start making skilful or
precise movements now. Do not attempt to use the secondary
effect of the rudder to restore the wings to the level
position. This would introduce yaw which could result
in the glider spinning. The priority must be to unstall
the glider by moving the stick forward.'

There are further spinning exercises including a demonstration
of the changing effect of the rudder at the stall to
emphases this point.

Dave

[Janusz Kesik]

U=BFytkownik Martin Gregorie > w wiadomooci =
do grup dyskusyjnych =
om...

> I wonder if he thought to tell anybody else about the missing knob.

Could be...

JK

[Ian Johnston]

On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 17:49:53 UTC, (Caracole) wrote:

: There is no doubt that more instructiors have been killed
: in spins in the Puchacz than any other glider.

Is there? Do we have some worldwide statistics to show it?

And how does the Puchacz compare with other spinnable two-seaters?
After it, it makes no sense to look at the number of spinning
accidents in K21's ...


Ian

--

[Ian Strachan]

In article >, Dave Martin
> writes

snip

>it must be realised that the pilot caused the inadvertent
>stall in the first place by inappropriate use of the
>controls. He is unlikely to start making skilful or
>precise movements now. Do not attempt to use the secondary
>effect of the rudder to restore the wings to the level
>position. This would introduce yaw which could result
>in the glider spinning. The priority must be to unstall
>the glider by moving the stick forward.'

I agree 100% with the above and some years ago had a short article
published in the BGA magazine Sailplane and Gliding on this precise
subject. I repeat this article at the end as it is still relevant.
Timeless, even.

Question: What is the use of lots of rudder near the stall likely to
induce?

No prize for the answer!

The answer is the same whether the use of rudder was well-intentioned or
not.

In the 1950s I was taught to "pick a wing up near the stall by using
rudder", but this often led to a low speed situation being converted
into the first stages of a spin, and sometimes a fully-developed spin
with a tragic conclusion if near the ground.

By the time I became an instructor in the UK Royal Air Force (1965),
instruction had changed to "in an inadvertent slow speed situation,
first reduce angle of attack using forward stick. When at a normal
flying speed, level the wings by gentle use of aileron". Incidentally,
at this time in the RAF, spinning was no covered pre-solo, only stalling
and recovery from inadvertent slow-speed situations. Fully-developed
spinning was covered at about the 30-hour stage as part of training for
aerobatics. Food for thought in the gliding world? There have been
quite a few glider spinning accidents during spinning training. I used
to be a Canberra (US B-57) flying instructor and we killed more people
in training for engine failures than were killed by engine failures
themselves. There is training and there is training, and when the
training itself becomes lethal we need to analyse carefully what we are
doing it for.

Anyway, here is the old S&G article, a bit long but it has many
significant points:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------

From Sailplane and Gliding, October 1989 edition, page 221

SPINNING TRAINING - A CAUTIONARY NOTE

My basic point is very simple - The automatic application of large
amounts of opposite rudder in slow-speed "wing-drop" situations will,
for most gliders and powered aircraft, make the situation worse. This is
particularly important near the ground, where rudder applied
unnecessarily at slow speed can actually cause a crash.

I know of several accidents where this occurred, in each case the
machine being written off and the pilots badly injured.

1. In one case a stall was being deliberately practised and a
mild wing-drop occurred. Full rudder was applied and the machine quickly
entered a spin from which the pilot was unable to recover before the
ground intervened.

2. A similar case was where an inadvertent wing-drop at low
speed was turned into a full spin by coarse use of rudder, the machine
also crashing into the ground.

3. Another case that I witnessed happened at the launch point
and was even more ironic; a wing-drop occurred at about 200ft on the
approach which the pilot diagnosed as due to a stall but almost
certainly was simply due to turbulence. He had been taught to apply
opposite rudder in this situation, he duly did and the glider crashed
into the ground with its wings almost vertical.

The instinctive reaction to detecting an inadvertent low speed situation
should be to move the stick rapidly forward by an amount proportional to
the severity of the situation and then away from the dropped wing (if
there is a wing-drop). But please be very careful with the rudder until
a fully developed spin is diagnosed. It is a powerful control at the
stall and must not be abused.

I well recall gliders with horrendous stalling characteristics where a
stall was virtually an incipient spin. They would not nowadays be
granted a C of A by the National Regulatory Bodies (CAA/BGA in the UK,
FAA in the USA, LBA in Germany). I vividly remember stalling the Kite 2
(most were spun in) and Geoffrey Stephenson's Gull 1 (also eventually
spun in). A large wing-drop was usually implicit even in an attempted
"straight stall. Fortunately, stalling characteristics have improved
considerably since those days and automatic application of large amounts
of rudder to correct a wing-drop is no longer necessary, if indeed it
ever was.

Having also flown over 50 types of powered aircraft I can assure you
that, at the wing-drop stage, using forward stick for recovery followed
by normal control actions to level the wings, works equally well in a
Harvard (the 1930s piston version, not the Harvard 2 turboprop of
today), Hawk, Hunter, Canberra, Nimrod, Provost/Jet Provost, Vampire and
indeed all aircraft and gliders I have stalled except perhaps the said
Kite 2 and Gull 1 which, unfortunately, are not now available for
experiment.

As an example, the piston Harvard usually has a nasty wing-drop at the
stall, and a "classic" full spin, losing about 60Oft per turn. Many have
been "spun in", with fatal results at low level. In this context I quote
the current Boscombe Down Pilots' Notes (Boscombe Down is the UK
equivalent of Edwards and Eglin AFB in the USA, and used the Harvard for
slow speed photo-chase): "At the stall, the nose and either wing may
drop. With flaps up, the wing drops more rapidly than with flaps down.
If the stick is held back, the aircraft will spin. To recover from the
stall with minimum loss of height, apply power and simultaneously move
the control column sufficiently far forward to unstall the aircraft.
Ailerons then become effective and wing-drop should be corrected with
lateral stick. Ease out of the dive into a gentle climb ..."

Note the absence of any instruction to use rudder (that comes later in
the recovery drill for a fully developed spin), and the emphasis on
smooth handling with no automatic use of coarse or full control
deflections - "Sufficiently far forward", "Ease out", "Gentle climb".

In gliding, what we need is instruction which clearly distinguishes
between a fully developed spin, which should now be very rare except for
deliberate training at a safe height, and the earlier stages such as
wing-drop at a stall which are better recovered by quickly reducing the
angle of attack and then levelling the wings in the normal way, and not
by inducing autorotation the other way by unfeeling boots of rudder.

Stalling and spinning characteristics also vary with the C of G
position. At forward C of G all aircraft tend to be very stable in pitch
and some may not spin at all, just exhibiting a sideslipping spiral dive
in response to full pro-spin control. But as C of G moves aft, pitch
stability reduces and the tendency for a wing-drop at the stall, and to
enter a full spin, increases.

Light pilots, beware!

The Janus is an example, which I had to test for the UK Military (the
Air Cadets, anyway). It will only exhibit a true spin at fully aft C of
G, at all other C of Gs it enters a rather horrendous sideslip in
response to boots of rudder. It has very low directional stability and
is unstable in sideslip below about 55kt. Perhaps this has something to
do with some other Janus accidents (see S&G 1998 page 97). It is also
extremely twitchy in pitch control at fully aft C of G, which shows up
particularly on an aerotow in turbulent conditions and indeed sets the
aft C of G limit. These considerations should be borne in mind when, for
instance, stalling or spinning two-seaters when solo, where C of G will
generally be further aft than when dual.

Instructors have their uses, even if only as ballast!

Wind Gradient.

Stalling and spinning training is carried out at a safe height, whereas
the "worst case" inadvertent slow speed situation is probably the final
turn in a field landing in conditions of turbulence and wind gradient.
Airfields are generally flat (there are some notable exceptions) whereas
the topography around fields may not be, and wind gradient will
therefore be more severe. A slow speed situation could easily get
out-of-control (due to the lower wing being in a lower wind speed, and a
glider with benign characteristics when practising stalls at height
might bite you if you are less than careful near the ground.

There are two rather pessimistic "old adages" which may, on field
landings, be relevant -

1. "If you are going to crash, crash with your wings level".
Particularly relevant in the case of asymmetric thrust on aircraft such
as Camberra/B57, Boeing 707 etc. But also applicable to a glider on an
awkward approach to a field.

and

2. "Always hit the far hedge rather than the near hedge".

Think about it!

I am sorry this article is so long, but my overall conclusion is that we
want more practice in slow-speed situations which we may meet
inadvertently, such as a slow, badly flown turn with thermalling or
landing flap, rather than over-concentration on the deep stall or the
full spin.

And we should practise a recovery technique which is both
straightforward and that will not get us into more trouble.

Lots of us do not have either the regular flying practice of the
professional pilot, or the intuitive handling ability of a Chuck Yeager,
Neil Armstrong, John Farley or Brian Trubshaw (the latter two are
distinguished Brit test pilots, on Harrier and Concorde respectively,
Brian departing to the great test flying "cloud in the sky" a couple of
years ago).

Glider stalling characteristics will, of course, vary with type, flap
position, C of G an even wing condition (bugs, rain etc). Practise
recoveries regularly at a safe height to optimise your technique. But
generally, short of a fully developed spin, the best technique will be
to rapidly move the stick centrally forward to unstall the wings (just
enough to do this, not mechanically fully forward), and then recover
from the ensuing attitude by normal use of controls. Beware the
unnecessary use of coarse control, particularly rudder and particularly
near the ground!

IAN STRACHAN
Lasham Gliding Society

Ian is a qualified Service test pilot and an A1 category RAF flying
instructor as well as being a glider and motor glider instructor. It is
understood that Bill Scull, BGA director of operations, and Bernie
Morris, chairman of the BGA Instructors' Committee, are in agreement
with the main points of this letter.

------- end of quote from S&G ---------

--
Ian Strachan
Lasham, UK

Bentworth Hall West
Tel: +44 1420 564 195 Bentworth, Alton
Fax: +44 1420 563 140 Hampshire GU34 5LA, ENGLAND

[Pete Brown]

"Ian Strachan" wrote in message

> There are two rather pessimistic "old adages" which may, on field
landings, be relevant -

> 1. "If you are going to crash, crash with your wings level".

OK

> 2. "Always hit the far hedge rather than the near hedge". Think about
it!

This one has me stumped. Does it refer to a circumstance when one is too
high on final and an overshoot is unavoidable, in which case you want to
burn up the most energy before the inevitable?

If someone is low and they try to stretch the glide, it seems like this is
an invitation to stall prematurely and really do some damage and/or cause
injury.

What's the context for this advice?

Pete Brown

[ADP]

Bang on! If it isn't stalled it can't spin!

Allan

> Glider stalling characteristics will, of course, vary with type, flap
> position, C of G an even wing condition (bugs, rain etc). Practise
> recoveries regularly at a safe height to optimise your technique. But
> generally, short of a fully developed spin, the best technique will be
> to rapidly move the stick centrally forward to unstall the wings (just
> enough to do this, not mechanically fully forward), and then recover
> from the ensuing attitude by normal use of controls. Beware the
> unnecessary use of coarse control, particularly rudder and particularly
> near the ground!
>
> IAN STRACHAN
> Lasham Gliding Society
>
>

[Chris OCallaghan]

From the Ventus 2b Flight Manual:

Section 3.4 Stall Recovery

"On stalling whilst flying straight ahead or in a turn, normal flying
attitude is regained by frimly easing the control stick forward and,
if necessary, applying opposite rudder and aileron."

From The Student Pilot's Flight Manual (Kershner)

"Planes type-certificated under the FARs (as all US general aviation
planes are now) must meet certain rolling (ailerons) and yawing
(rudder) criteria throughout the stall. The FAA, therefore, now
encourages the use of coordinated controls to keep the wings level
during the stall."

Kershner goes on to echo your advice. Move the stick forward first. I
couldn't agree more. But the point is that the FAA is recommending
against the use of rudder only, that is, the way we are still taught
(in glding). In fact, simultaneous movements should be sufficient,
though a slight hesitation after releasing back pressure is the better
habit.

A one size fits all solution is fine in the context of protecting a
student from his ignorance. If the student, due to his inexperience,
fails to recognize and react properly early in the stall and even
possibly abuses the controls, spin recovery actions are beneficial.
But it serves the experienced pilot little if it perpetuates his
ignorance. And far worse if it becomes a crutch for an instructor who
cannot or will not effectively teach and demand flawless execution of
stall recognition and appropriate recovery skills from his students.

Modern aircraft will maintain control effectiveness (even if much
decreased) into the stall. The danger we all understand: exponentially
increasing drag at the wing tip as angle of attack increases. Add to
that the weakened effect of the vertical stab and rudder due to low
airspeed, and the primary concern becomes keeping the glider from
autorotating.

A strong rudder movement at low airspeed is an absolute necessity to
keep the yaw string straight even for small aileron movements. But its
purpose is to compensate for asymmetric drag at the wingtips. This may
or may not have the effect of checking a rolling motion, but this
effect
is secondary. Roll is not the primary reason we use the rudder. And
shouldn't be taught as such. Granted, this goes against much of what
we've been teaching in gliding for many, many years. But that doesn't
make our way right. It deserves some attention.

I'll finish this note with a quote from the FAA Flight Training
Handbook:

[after brief discussion of use of aileron during stall...]

"Even though excessive aileron pressure may have been applied, a spin
will not occur if the directional (yaw) control is maintained by
timely application of coordinated rudder pressure. Therefore, it is
important that the rudder be used properly during both the entry and
recovery from a stall. Thus, the primary use or the rudder in stall
recoveries is to conteract any tendency of the airplane to yaw. The
correct recovery technique then, would be to decrease the pitch
attitude by applying forward elevator pressure to break the stall,
advancing the throttle to increase airspeed, and SIMULTANEOUSLY
maintaining direction with COORDINATED use of aileron and rudder."

(First emphasis is mine. Second is the FAA's.)

[Robert Ehrlich]

It may be disputed if the use of the rudder for picking
up a dropping wing near stall may be or not called a
coordinated action. What I was taught and am going to
teach is that proper coordination is highly dependant
on speed (AOA if fact), slower flight implies more rudder
for the same aileron action. At the stage where the aileron
loose their efficiency or even begin to exhibit
the reversal symptom, you are reaching the limting
case where proper coordination implies action on the
rudder only. However I agree that the proper action
to do in this case is to exit from this high AOA
domain by first easing the stick forward.

[Robert John]

I was taught this 'pause' between full opposite rudder
and stick forward and the wind 'shadow' effect was
the reason; However, since it has been proven that
even a Puchacz, which has a low(ish) tailplane, will
recover faster without the pause (Dick Johnson) and
most gliders have 'T' tails to which it doesn't apply
at all, I for one will not be teaching the 'pause'
to my students.
Rob John
Duo 'Si' K6 '350'
>
>In a fully developed spin the tail surfaces can see
>an
>airflow that has a significant component coming from
>underneath the tail surfaces. If the tail surfaces
>are
>'conventional,' (i.e. not a T-tail), and the elevator
>and
>horizontal stabilizer are on the fuselage, below the
>rudder,
>then forward stick produces a 'shadow' in this airflow
>which
>can block the lower portion of the rudder near the
>elevator.
>This 'shadow' is reduced when the stick is back. If
>you
>stand below the elevator and look upward (difficult,
>I know)
>and move the stick forward in a 1-26, for example,
>this
>'shadow' effect can be seen. Thus, I was told there
>are
>some POH's for conventional tail aircraft that recommend
>using rudder *before* forward stick in the full spin
>to
>maximize the effectiveness of the anti-spin rudder.
>
>
>At least this is what I recall as being the explanation
>received from my first flight instructor. Does anyone
>else
>recall this 'explanation?'
>
>
>Todd Pattist - 'WH' Ventus C
>(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
>

[Bill Daniels]

"Robert Ehrlich" > wrote in message
...
> It may be disputed if the use of the rudder for picking
> up a dropping wing near stall may be or not called a
> coordinated action. What I was taught and am going to
> teach is that proper coordination is highly dependant
> on speed (AOA if fact), slower flight implies more rudder
> for the same aileron action. At the stage where the aileron
> loose their efficiency or even begin to exhibit
> the reversal symptom, you are reaching the limting
> case where proper coordination implies action on the
> rudder only. However I agree that the proper action
> to do in this case is to exit from this high AOA
> domain by first easing the stick forward.

Well put, Robert.

Bill Daniels

[Martin Gregorie]

On Mon, 02 Feb 2004 14:41:14 +0000, Robert Ehrlich
> wrote:

>It may be disputed if the use of the rudder for picking
>up a dropping wing near stall may be or not called a
>coordinated action. What I was taught and am going to
>teach is that proper coordination is highly dependant
>on speed (AOA if fact), slower flight implies more rudder
>for the same aileron action. At the stage where the aileron
>loose their efficiency or even begin to exhibit
>the reversal symptom, you are reaching the limting
>case where proper coordination implies action on the
>rudder only.
>
A side light on this and confirmation of your limiting case: last
winter we had a talk at the club from Andy Sephton, who is chief pilot
at The Shuttleworth Collection. A major part of his talk was on flying
the 1911 Bleriot. He said that on take off the Bleriot, with its
highly cambered curved plate wing, has so much adverse yaw plus
aileron reversal that *any* use of ailerons to level the wings on
take-off will cause a ground loop. The only way they found to manage a
take-off was to keep the stick laterally centered and to do all
yaw/roll correction with the rudder. BTW, both main wheels and the
tail wheel are on castoring suspension. He seemed to think this didn't
make things any easier.


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

[Mark James Boyd]

A spin means both wings have too high AOA and
one wing has more AOA than the other.

If you can change the AOA of both wings so they are unstalled,
using elevator only, and the stress from the now entered spiral
doesn't make the aircraft wings twist and shatter during recovery dive,
then fine, do that.

If you can't, then it would be great to have both
wings at the same AOA, then reduce the AOA. Rudder is
a possible way to do this (make both wings have the
same AOA by making them both the same airspeed, by
countering the yawing motion). In the ensuing dive
recovery, the wings are level. In some aircraft
these stresses are different than turn/spiral stresses
and the wing structure handles them better.

I suspect this is the reasoning behind
the PARE mnemonic, where rudder is used before elevator.

Power off (for them motorglider thingies)
Aileron Neutral
Rudder Opposite
Elevator forward enough to break stall

Of course, even this mnemonic doesn't work all the
time (sometimes extra power to make the tail surfaces
more effective is better, etc.).

So results for any generalization may vary...

[Mark James Boyd]

Dave Martin > wrote:

>it must be realised that the pilot caused the inadvertent
>stall in the first place by inappropriate use of the
>controls. He is unlikely to start making skilful or
>precise movements now.

LOL. Back to the "don't stall either wing in the first place"
technique.

[Mark James Boyd]

>> Beware the
>> unnecessary use of coarse control, particularly rudder and particularly
>> near the ground!
>>
>> IAN STRACHAN
>> Lasham Gliding Society

I did a few calculations of an imaginary glider with a stall speed
of 32 knots, a min sink speed of 43 knots, and
a wingspan of 87 feet.

In a 50 degree bank at 54 knots (good thermalling speed if you
believe)

www.stolaf.edu/people/hansonr/soaring/spd2fly/

the fuse and ASI says you are at radius 180 ft circling every
7 seconds. The inner wingtip is 3/4 of that distance, and
3/4 of that airspeed, and should be stalled. The outer
wingtip is 5/4 of that distance from center, and 5/4
of that airspeed, and producing excellent lift.

Now throw in a down aileron near the wingtip, increasing the
AOA of the inner wing. Now have the student
not compensating for adverse yaw, and the instructor yelling
"get that string centered right now!"

Now have the student jam in lots of rudder, and watch the
difference in airspeed and AOA during this coarse
movement.

This is probably why coarse rudder is often used to
coarsely demonstrate a spin entry...

This is also why I fly a glider with a short wingspan and
a weak rudder... (getting a worse L/D design was faster
than getting better skill)

[Bill Daniels]

"Mark James Boyd" > wrote in message
news:401eb7ea$1@darkstar...
> A spin means both wings have too high AOA and
> one wing has more AOA than the other.
>
> If you can change the AOA of both wings so they are unstalled,
> using elevator only, and the stress from the now entered spiral
> doesn't make the aircraft wings twist and shatter during recovery dive,
> then fine, do that.
>
> If you can't, then it would be great to have both
> wings at the same AOA, then reduce the AOA. Rudder is
> a possible way to do this (make both wings have the
> same AOA by making them both the same airspeed, by
> countering the yawing motion). In the ensuing dive
> recovery, the wings are level. In some aircraft
> these stresses are different than turn/spiral stresses
> and the wing structure handles them better.
>
> I suspect this is the reasoning behind
> the PARE mnemonic, where rudder is used before elevator.
>
> Power off (for them motorglider thingies)
> Aileron Neutral
> Rudder Opposite
> Elevator forward enough to break stall
>
> Of course, even this mnemonic doesn't work all the
> time (sometimes extra power to make the tail surfaces
> more effective is better, etc.).
>
> So results for any generalization may vary...

I did this calculation for my Nimbus 2 and found a 14 Kt. speed difference
across the 20 meter span in a normal thermalling situation with the ship
dry. (45 Kts/45 degree bank.)

Pushing the envelope a bit by slowing up and tightening the turn, I found
the typical big wing roll-off toward the low wing, but it didn't seem like a
spin departure. What I think is happening is that the inside wing is on the
back side of the polar and outside of the drag bucket, but still not
stalled. This produces a pronounced roll and yaw into the turn which
develops into a spiral dive if allowed to continue. The recovery is the
same as an incipient spin, reduce the back pressure, let the speed increase
a bit, reduce the bank and stay coordinated.

Bill Daniels

[Caracole]

Robert John > wrote in message >...
> I was taught this 'pause' between full opposite rudder
> and stick forward and the wind 'shadow' effect was
> the reason; However, since it has been proven that
> even a Puchacz, which has a low(ish) tailplane, will
> recover faster without the pause (Dick Johnson) and
> most gliders have 'T' tails to which it doesn't apply
> at all, I for one will not be teaching the 'pause'
> to my students.
> Rob John
> Duo 'Si' K6 '350'
> >

Then I hope you will read the revision to the AS-K 21 POH,
which updated/changed the spin recovery protocol to include the
'pause' based on flight testing, after a spinning fatality
in the K-21.
No pause, slower recovery.
Pause, more prompt recovery.
K-21 is a T-tail.

Beware broad judgments.
Please know your POH and its recommended procedures.
If you teach/deliberately enter spins, have a predetermined exit
altitude for non-responsive behavior, or don't bother wearing the chutes.

If there was on line access for the USAF Spin Eval report for the K-21,
I would make it available... but I have no electronic source.

Cindy B
www.caracolesoaring.com

[Steve Pawling]

The flight manual for the AS-K21 that I flew yesterday basically says
full opposite rudder, pause, and then stick forward. The manual also
had a note that some of the manual's contents had been included due
use by the USAF.

On the other hand, the flight manual for my LS-3a states to terminate
spins by "pronounced deflection of rudder opposite to spin direction
and careful pull out". I guess that means you don't have to move the
stick forward for spin recovery! Hmmm...must be magic!

Steve

Robert John > wrote in message >...
> I was taught this 'pause' between full opposite rudder
> and stick forward and the wind 'shadow' effect was
> the reason; However, since it has been proven that
> even a Puchacz, which has a low(ish) tailplane, will
> recover faster without the pause (Dick Johnson) and
> most gliders have 'T' tails to which it doesn't apply
> at all, I for one will not be teaching the 'pause'
> to my students.
> Rob John
> Duo 'Si' K6 '350'
> >
> >In a fully developed spin the tail surfaces can see
> >an
> >airflow that has a significant component coming from
> >underneath the tail surfaces. If the tail surfaces
> >are
> >'conventional,' (i.e. not a T-tail), and the elevator
> >and
> >horizontal stabilizer are on the fuselage, below the
> >rudder,
> >then forward stick produces a 'shadow' in this airflow
> >which
> >can block the lower portion of the rudder near the
> >elevator.
> >This 'shadow' is reduced when the stick is back. If
> >you
> >stand below the elevator and look upward (difficult,
> >I know)
> >and move the stick forward in a 1-26, for example,
> >this
> >'shadow' effect can be seen. Thus, I was told there
> >are
> >some POH's for conventional tail aircraft that recommend
> >using rudder *before* forward stick in the full spin
> >to
> >maximize the effectiveness of the anti-spin rudder.
> >
> >
> >At least this is what I recall as being the explanation
> >received from my first flight instructor. Does anyone
> >else
> >recall this 'explanation?'
> >
> >
> >Todd Pattist - 'WH' Ventus C
> >(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
> >

[Robert Ehrlich]

Steve Pawling wrote:
> ...
> On the other hand, the flight manual for my LS-3a states to terminate
> spins by "pronounced deflection of rudder opposite to spin direction
> and careful pull out". I guess that means you don't have to move the
> stick forward for spin recovery! Hmmm...must be magic!
> ...

The stick forward is in some way implied by the "careful pull out", if
you keep the stick at the place which caused the spin, i.e. near the
back stop, the pull out would be rather agressive if not stalled.

[Robert Ehrlich]

Mark James Boyd wrote:
> ...
> I did a few calculations of an imaginary glider with a stall speed
> of 32 knots, a min sink speed of and
> a wingspan of 87 feet.
>
> In a 50 degree bank at 54 knots (good thermalling speed if you
> believe)
>
> www.stolaf.edu/people/hansonr/soaring/spd2fly/
>
> the fuse and ASI says you are at radius 180 ft circling every
> 7 seconds. The inner wingtip is 3/4 of that distance, and
> 3/4 of that airspeed, and should be stalled. The outer
> wingtip is 5/4 of that distance from center, and 5/4
> of that airspeed, and producing excellent lift.
> ...

I don't completely agree with your computations. I agree with
the 54 knots, i.e. 43 knots multiplied by the square root of
the load factor at 50 degree bank. However the radius I find
for this speed and bank is 66 m (sorry, I prefer to do my
calculations in metric, because I know the formulas for metric
data), i.e 216.5 ft. A wingspan of 87 feet translate into 26.5 m,
the inner wingtip is inside the circle by an amount which is
the half wingspan multiplied by the cosine of 50 degree, this is
8.5 m or 27.8 ft. The ratio of the two radii is .87 rather than
..75 and the speed at the inner wing tip is 37.4 kt.

Anyway even with your values tis doesn't implies the inner wing tip
is stalled, because stall depends on AOA rather than speed. Of course
you need an increase of AOA in order to compensate for the
lower speed in order to keep an equal lift on both wings. Some difference
in AOA between both wings is already provided by the simple fact that
the glider is sinking, i.e. both wings have the same vertical component
of velocity but different horizontal ones. The complement is provided
by aileron deflection, which change not only the AOA but the whole
airfoil shape, so that the action is an increased Cl due to both changes
in AOA and shape. The stall case would be if the needed Cl would be higher
than the maximum achievable Cl, but this can't be decided just from the
value of the speed at wing tip.

[Mark James Boyd]

Robert Ehrlich > wrote:
>Mark James Boyd wrote:
>> ...
>> I did a few calculations of an imaginary glider with a stall speed
>> of 32 knots, a min sink speed of and
>> a wingspan of 87 feet.
>>
>> In a 50 degree bank at 54 knots (good thermalling speed if you
>> believe)
>>
>> www.stolaf.edu/people/hansonr/soaring/spd2fly/
>>
>> the fuse and ASI says you are at radius 180 ft circling every
>> 7 seconds. The inner wingtip is 3/4 of that distance, and
>> 3/4 of that airspeed, and should be stalled. The outer
>> wingtip is 5/4 of that distance from center, and 5/4
>> of that airspeed, and producing excellent lift.
>> ...
>
>I don't completely agree with your computations. I agree with
>the 54 knots, i.e. 43 knots multiplied by the square root of
>the load factor at 50 degree bank. However the radius I find
>for this speed and bank is 66 m (sorry, I prefer to do my
>calculations in metric, because I know the formulas for metric
>data), i.e 216.5 ft. A wingspan of 87 feet translate into 26.5 m,
>the inner wingtip is inside the circle by an amount which is
>the half wingspan multiplied by the cosine of 50 degree, this is
>8.5 m or 27.8 ft. The ratio of the two radii is .87 rather than
>.75 and the speed at the inner wing tip is 37.4 kt.

I forgot to change the wingspan to 90 feet to make the
math easy. Sorry. I was really just trying to make the
point that the wings have different airspeeds, and this is significant
at high bank angles and low speeds with long wings. If
this is untrue please let me know.

The bigger error of mine that you pointed out
was that I did the radius calculations assuming the wings
were level. This was incorrect on my part, and resulted
in a fairly large discrepancy....

>
>Anyway even with your values tis doesn't implies the inner wing tip
>is stalled, because stall depends on AOA rather than speed. Of course
>you need an increase of AOA in order to compensate for the
>lower speed in order to keep an equal lift on both wings. Some difference
>in AOA between both wings is already provided by the simple fact that
>the glider is sinking, i.e. both wings have the same vertical component
>of velocity but different horizontal ones. The complement is provided
>by aileron deflection, which change not only the AOA but the whole
>airfoil shape, so that the action is an increased Cl due to both changes
>in AOA and shape. The stall case would be if the needed Cl would be higher
>than the maximum achievable Cl, but this can't be decided just from the
>value of the speed at wing tip.

Exactly why I think AOA indicators halfway+ down the wings
would be nice. I've never heard of them on any gliders.
Why is this?

[Jim]

On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 15:59:18 +0000, Robert Ehrlich
> wrote:

>Mark James Boyd wrote:
>> ...
>> I did a few calculations of an imaginary glider with a stall speed
>> of 32 knots, a min sink speed of and
>> a wingspan of 87 feet.
>>
>> In a 50 degree bank at 54 knots (good thermalling speed if you
>> believe)
>>
>> www.stolaf.edu/people/hansonr/soaring/spd2fly/
>>
>> the fuse and ASI says you are at radius 180 ft circling every
>> 7 seconds. The inner wingtip is 3/4 of that distance, and
>> 3/4 of that airspeed, and should be stalled. The outer
>> wingtip is 5/4 of that distance from center, and 5/4
>> of that airspeed, and producing excellent lift.
>> ...
>
>I don't completely agree with your computations. I agree with
>the 54 knots, i.e. 43 knots multiplied by the square root of
>the load factor at 50 degree bank. However the radius I find
>for this speed and bank is 66 m (sorry, I prefer to do my
>calculations in metric, because I know the formulas for metric
>data), i.e 216.5 ft. A wingspan of 87 feet translate into 26.5 m,
>the inner wingtip is inside the circle by an amount which is
>the half wingspan multiplied by the cosine of 50 degree, this is
>8.5 m or 27.8 ft. The ratio of the two radii is .87 rather than
>.75 and the speed at the inner wing tip is 37.4 kt.
>
>Anyway even with your values tis doesn't implies the inner wing tip
>is stalled, because stall depends on AOA rather than speed. Of course
>you need an increase of AOA in order to compensate for the
>lower speed in order to keep an equal lift on both wings. Some difference
>in AOA between both wings is already provided by the simple fact that
>the glider is sinking, i.e. both wings have the same vertical component
>of velocity but different horizontal ones.

In a descending turn, which is what gliders do in turns, it is not the
case that both wings have the same vertical component of velocity. In
a stable descending turn the inside wing is always undergoing a
downward motion relative to the outer wing. This is one cause for the
inside wing to be at a higher AOA than the outer wing, and one reason
for the resulting earlier stall than the outer wing. In an ascending
turn, power airplanes I guess, it is the outer wing that is always
undergoing a downward moovement relative to the inner wing.

I found this difficult to visualize at first, but if you try "flying"
a stable descending "turn" with your hand you will experience it
clearly.


>The complement is provided
>by aileron deflection, which change not only the AOA but the whole
>airfoil shape, so that the action is an increased Cl due to both changes
>in AOA and shape. The stall case would be if the needed Cl would be higher
>than the maximum achievable Cl, but this can't be decided just from the
>value of the speed at wing tip.

[Tony Verhulst]

> ....in a stable descending turn the inside wing is always undergoing a
> downward motion relative to the outer wing. This is one cause for the
> inside wing to be at a higher AOA than the outer wing, and one reason
> for the resulting earlier stall than the outer wing.

Understood! What I don't unerstand is how much washout plays into this
equation. I would suspect that it would reduce this efffect but how much?

Tony V.

[Jim]

On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 14:41:20 -0500, Tony Verhulst
> wrote:

>
>> ....in a stable descending turn the inside wing is always undergoing a
>> downward motion relative to the outer wing. This is one cause for the
>> inside wing to be at a higher AOA than the outer wing, and one reason
>> for the resulting earlier stall than the outer wing.
>
>Understood! What I don't unerstand is how much washout plays into this
>equation. I would suspect that it would reduce this efffect but how much?
>
>Tony V.

Really good question! I don't know. Since washout is, in a sense, a
relative term -- that is washout produces a lower AOA at the wing tips
compared to the AOA at the wing roots -- my guess is that in all cases
where AOA is critical the wing tip washout delays the effects we might
expect from what we see of the nose attitude of the aircraft. But
then, this is really not saying anything new!

[Rich Stowell]

Hi All,

A couple of important points regarding this discussion:


(Mark James Boyd) wrote in message news:<401eb7ea$1@darkstar>...
> A spin means both wings have too high AOA and
> one wing has more AOA than the other.
>
> If you can change the AOA of both wings so they are unstalled,
> using elevator only, and the stress from the now entered spiral
> doesn't make the aircraft wings twist and shatter during recovery dive,
> then fine, do that.

Attempting an elevator-only recovery (similar to a straight stall
recovery) from a spin, particularly a developed spin, will only serve
to accelerate the rotation; hence, the term "Accelerated Spin."

Doing this in some airplanes will cause them to spin fast enough for
the airframe to vibrate; others may spin fast enough to cause the nose
of the airplane to pop up into an unrecoverable flat spin mode, even
though forward elevator has been applied. If you're strong enough, you
can apply full forward elevator; yet the airlane continues to spin
really, really fast!

Accelerating the rotation aside, applying elevator PRIOR TO the
opposite rudder in airplanes with conventional tail configurations
also serves to blanket additional surface area of the rudder that may
be necessary to upset the dynamics of the spin.

Once the line from "stall" has been crossed to "spin," the order of
recovery inputs becomes critical. The sequence of Rudder--full
opposite FOLLOWED BY Elevator--forward (upright spins) is essential to
maximize the probability of spin recovery in light, general aviation
airplanes (single engine). Reversing that order can seriously alter
spin behavior for the worse and can transform an otherwise recoverable
spin into an unrecoverable spin.


<snip>
>
> I suspect this is the reasoning behind
> the PARE mnemonic, where rudder is used before elevator.

See above.


> Power off (for them motorglider thingies)
> Aileron Neutral
> Rudder Opposite
> Elevator forward enough to break stall
>
> Of course, even this mnemonic doesn't work all the
> time (sometimes extra power to make the tail surfaces
> more effective is better, etc.).

The PARE acronym points to the same tried-and-true (optimized) spin
recovery actions discovered through spin research first in the UK in
1918, later confirmed by NACA in the 1930's, then re-affirmed by NASA
in the 1970-80's. The more things change, the more they stay the
same... And the volumes of reports on spin behavior in light,
single-engine airplanes repeatedly point to these actions.

As for the comment about power -- this is a persistent aviation myth
as it relates to light, single-engine airplanes (which make up more
than 75% of the general aviation fleet, with gliders making up 1%).
The correlation between power and the rate of spin rotation is simple:
less power = slower spinning; more power = spinning faster.

In fact, a small addition of power during a normal spin can increase
the rate of rotation by more than a factor of 2! In some airplanes,
adding power not only speeds up the rotation, but also flattens the
spin. And with all other things being equal, flatter spin attitudes
are more difficult to recover from (take longer, etc.) than steeper
spin attitudes.

To eliminate the aggravating effects associated with power, reduce it
to idle right away as part of the spin recovery process.

Hope this clarifies things a bit,

Rich
http://www.richstowell.com

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

Robert,

If you look at the actual Schleicher Tech Note to the K21 No. 23 (Jan. '91),
you will find that it gives information as to why the change in the Flight
Manual was made (London Sailplanes should have a copy).

I do not have a copy myself, but from memory the alteration was made after
test flying in the USA by the military. As I recall it was used at the US
Navy Test Pilots School at Pautuxtent River (their equivalent to Boscombe
Down), and they flew it ballasted to an extended aft C. of G.

How this ties in with Cindy's information about a USAF accident and
Evaluation I don't know, perhaps my memory is at fault.

Bill.

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

>
> "Robert John" > wrote in
> message ...
>
> Cindy,
>
> Thanks for that. I fly K21s very often (though I've never been able to
> spin one). I'll look at the latest POH.
>
> Any idea why the pause is recommended? Can't be the 'shadowing' effect.
>
> Incidentally, the Duo Discus flight manual has the usual order of actions
> (Ailerons neutral, Opposite rudder, Stick forward until rotation ceases
> and airflow restored, Centralise rudder and pull out) but no mention of a
> pause. I haven't experimented with it.
>
> Rob
>
> >
> > Then I hope you will read the revision to the AS-K 21 POH, which
> > updated/changed the spin recovery protocol to include the 'pause' based
> > on flight testing, after a spinning fatality in the K-21.
> >
> > No pause, slower recovery.
> > Pause, more prompt recovery.
> > K-21 is a T-tail.
> >
> > Beware broad judgments.
> > Please know your POH and its recommended procedures.
> > If you teach/deliberately enter spins, have a predetermined exit
> > altitude for non-responsive behaviour, or don't bother wearing the
> > chutes.
> >
> > If there was on line access for the USAF Spin Eval report for the K-21,
> > I would make it available... but I have no electronic source.
> >
> > Cindy B
> > www.caracolesoaring.com
> >
>

[Gary Boggs]

The paper that Rich wrote on spin training that is posted on his web site is
a must read!

Thank you very much Rich.

--
Gary Boggs
3650 Airport Dr.
Hood River, Oregon, USA
97031-9613
"Rich Stowell" > wrote in message
m...
Hi All,

A couple of important points regarding this discussion:


(Mark James Boyd) wrote in message
news:<401eb7ea$1@darkstar>...
> A spin means both wings have too high AOA and
> one wing has more AOA than the other.
>
> If you can change the AOA of both wings so they are unstalled,
> using elevator only, and the stress from the now entered spiral
> doesn't make the aircraft wings twist and shatter during recovery dive,
> then fine, do that.

Attempting an elevator-only recovery (similar to a straight stall
recovery) from a spin, particularly a developed spin, will only serve
to accelerate the rotation; hence, the term "Accelerated Spin."

Doing this in some airplanes will cause them to spin fast enough for
the airframe to vibrate; others may spin fast enough to cause the nose
of the airplane to pop up into an unrecoverable flat spin mode, even
though forward elevator has been applied. If you're strong enough, you
can apply full forward elevator; yet the airlane continues to spin
really, really fast!

Accelerating the rotation aside, applying elevator PRIOR TO the
opposite rudder in airplanes with conventional tail configurations
also serves to blanket additional surface area of the rudder that may
be necessary to upset the dynamics of the spin.

Once the line from "stall" has been crossed to "spin," the order of
recovery inputs becomes critical. The sequence of Rudder--full
opposite FOLLOWED BY Elevator--forward (upright spins) is essential to
maximize the probability of spin recovery in light, general aviation
airplanes (single engine). Reversing that order can seriously alter
spin behavior for the worse and can transform an otherwise recoverable
spin into an unrecoverable spin.


<snip>
>
> I suspect this is the reasoning behind
> the PARE mnemonic, where rudder is used before elevator.

See above.


> Power off (for them motorglider thingies)
> Aileron Neutral
> Rudder Opposite
> Elevator forward enough to break stall
>
> Of course, even this mnemonic doesn't work all the
> time (sometimes extra power to make the tail surfaces
> more effective is better, etc.).

The PARE acronym points to the same tried-and-true (optimized) spin
recovery actions discovered through spin research first in the UK in
1918, later confirmed by NACA in the 1930's, then re-affirmed by NASA
in the 1970-80's. The more things change, the more they stay the
same... And the volumes of reports on spin behavior in light,
single-engine airplanes repeatedly point to these actions.

As for the comment about power -- this is a persistent aviation myth
as it relates to light, single-engine airplanes (which make up more
than 75% of the general aviation fleet, with gliders making up 1%).
The correlation between power and the rate of spin rotation is simple:
less power = slower spinning; more power = spinning faster.

In fact, a small addition of power during a normal spin can increase
the rate of rotation by more than a factor of 2! In some airplanes,
adding power not only speeds up the rotation, but also flattens the
spin. And with all other things being equal, flatter spin attitudes
are more difficult to recover from (take longer, etc.) than steeper
spin attitudes.

To eliminate the aggravating effects associated with power, reduce it
to idle right away as part of the spin recovery process.

Hope this clarifies things a bit,

Rich
http://www.richstowell.com

[Tony Verhulst]

>>>....in a stable descending turn the inside wing is always undergoing a
>>>downward motion relative to the outer wing. This is one cause for the
>>>inside wing to be at a higher AOA than the outer wing, and one reason
>>>for the resulting earlier stall than the outer wing.
>>
>>Understood! What I don't unerstand is how much washout plays into this
>>equation. I would suspect that it would reduce this efffect but how much?
>
> Really good question! I don't know. Since washout is, in a sense, a
> relative term -- that is washout produces a lower AOA at the wing tips
> compared to the AOA at the wing roots

After thinking about this for a while, I suspect that it (washout)
doesn't matter. After all, both wings tips have an equal amount of
washout and so the net effect cancels out. The lower wing tip will still
have a higher angle of attack than the upper and will still stall first.
In this case, the effect of washout is a (wait for it :-) ) wash.

Tony V.

[Jim]

On Wed, 04 Feb 2004 11:14:33 -0500, Tony Verhulst
> wrote:

>
>>>>....in a stable descending turn the inside wing is always undergoing a
>>>>downward motion relative to the outer wing. This is one cause for the
>>>>inside wing to be at a higher AOA than the outer wing, and one reason
>>>>for the resulting earlier stall than the outer wing.
>>>
>>>Understood! What I don't unerstand is how much washout plays into this
>>>equation. I would suspect that it would reduce this efffect but how much?
>>
>> Really good question! I don't know. Since washout is, in a sense, a
>> relative term -- that is washout produces a lower AOA at the wing tips
>> compared to the AOA at the wing roots
>
>After thinking about this for a while, I suspect that it (washout)
>doesn't matter. After all, both wings tips have an equal amount of
>washout and so the net effect cancels out. The lower wing tip will still
>have a higher angle of attack than the upper and will still stall first.
>In this case, the effect of washout is a (wait for it :-) ) wash.
>
>Tony V.

Makes sense to me! Thanks.

Jim

[Robert Ehrlich]

Jim wrote:
> ...
> In a descending turn, which is what gliders do in turns, it is not the
> case that both wings have the same vertical component of velocity. In
> a stable descending turn the inside wing is always undergoing a
> downward motion relative to the outer wing. This is one cause for the
> inside wing to be at a higher AOA than the outer wing, and one reason
> for the resulting earlier stall than the outer wing. In an ascending
> turn, power airplanes I guess, it is the outer wing that is always
> undergoing a downward moovement relative to the inner wing.
>
> I found this difficult to visualize at first, but if you try "flying"
> a stable descending "turn" with your hand you will experience it
> clearly.
>

Can't understand that. If both wingtips have a different vertical component
of velocity, the vertical distance between them should change,
increasing the bank angle if the inner wing sinks faster than the outer
one. This difference must anyway stop at 90 degrees bank. But as long
as the bank angle remains constant, both wings should have the same
vertical component of velocity.

[Bruce Greeff]

Robert Ehrlich wrote:
> Jim wrote:
>
>>...
>>In a descending turn, which is what gliders do in turns, it is not the
>>case that both wings have the same vertical component of velocity. In
>>a stable descending turn the inside wing is always undergoing a
>>downward motion relative to the outer wing. This is one cause for the
>>inside wing to be at a higher AOA than the outer wing, and one reason
>>for the resulting earlier stall than the outer wing. In an ascending
>>turn, power airplanes I guess, it is the outer wing that is always
>>undergoing a downward moovement relative to the inner wing.
>>
>>I found this difficult to visualize at first, but if you try "flying"
>>a stable descending "turn" with your hand you will experience it
>>clearly.
>>
>
>
> Can't understand that. If both wingtips have a different vertical component
> of velocity, the vertical distance between them should change,
> increasing the bank angle if the inner wing sinks faster than the outer
> one. This difference must anyway stop at 90 degrees bank. But as long
> as the bank angle remains constant, both wings should have the same
> vertical component of velocity.
Relative to what? - is the point.

You are correct that their vertical component of velocity must be the
same because of geometry, if the bank angle remains constant. However,
because the inner wing is describing a smaller diameter spiral the
relative wind will present at a higher angle of attack on the inner wing
tip - relative to the outer wingtip. Velocity relative to the ground is
not entirely sufficient to understand what is happening in three dimensions.

In the same time the inner tip travels a smaller distance, but descends
the same vertical distance, hence the greater angle of descent, not
rate. People seem to continuously confuse rates and angles? Airflow
behavior is very dependent on angles and chord wise component of airflow
velocity...

[Jim]

On Wed, 04 Feb 2004 16:06:08 -0500, Todd Pattist
> wrote:

>Bruce Greeff > wrote:
>
>>You are correct that their vertical component of velocity must be the
>>same because of geometry, if the bank angle remains constant. However,
>>because the inner wing is describing a smaller diameter spiral the
>>relative wind will present at a higher angle of attack on the inner wing
>>tip - relative to the outer wingtip.
>
>This is quite true, but it's the difference in the
>horizontal velocity that causes the difference in the angle
>of attack, and IIRC, that's what Robert said in his earlier
>post in this thread when he wrote:
>
>"Some difference in AOA between both wings is already
>provided by the simple fact that the glider is sinking, i.e.
>both wings have the same vertical component of velocity but
>different horizontal ones. "
>
>>In the same time the inner tip travels a smaller distance, but descends
>>the same vertical distance, hence the greater angle of descent, not
>>rate.
>
>True, but Jim was disagreeing with Robert when he
>(incorrectly) wrote:
>
>"In a descending turn, which is what gliders do in turns, it
>is not the case that both wings have the same vertical
>component of velocity."
>
>>People seem to continuously confuse rates and angles?
>
>Too true :-)
>
>Todd Pattist - "WH" Ventus C
>(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)

Thank you for pointing this out! I guess my fingers on the keyboard
out ran my brains. I should not have gone farther than just the
observation that the inside wing in a stable descending turn is
going down while the outside wing is going up ( and the opposite
situation in an ascending turn). I guess I really don't understand
the notion of differing horizontal vs vertical "components".
In other words, the aircraft is actively rolling about its
longitudinal axis during the turns. From this I incorrectly deduced
that one wing was moving downward more than was the other wing.

I also wish I could remember where I first read this description.
It was in a book about stalling and spinning by the fellow who
I believe flew with Tony DeVere and originally set up the
emergency maneuver training at Santa Paula. Oh well, this
is hardly the only memory that has vaporized from my ageing
brain!

[Jim]

On Wed, 04 Feb 2004 14:07:52 -0800, Jim > wrote:

>On Wed, 04 Feb 2004 16:06:08 -0500, Todd Pattist
> wrote:
>
>>Bruce Greeff > wrote:
>>
>>>You are correct that their vertical component of velocity must be the
>>>same because of geometry, if the bank angle remains constant. However,
>>>because the inner wing is describing a smaller diameter spiral the
>>>relative wind will present at a higher angle of attack on the inner wing
>>>tip - relative to the outer wingtip.
>>
>>This is quite true, but it's the difference in the
>>horizontal velocity that causes the difference in the angle
>>of attack, and IIRC, that's what Robert said in his earlier
>>post in this thread when he wrote:
>>
>>"Some difference in AOA between both wings is already
>>provided by the simple fact that the glider is sinking, i.e.
>>both wings have the same vertical component of velocity but
>>different horizontal ones. "
>>
>>>In the same time the inner tip travels a smaller distance, but descends
>>>the same vertical distance, hence the greater angle of descent, not
>>>rate.
>>
>>True, but Jim was disagreeing with Robert when he
>>(incorrectly) wrote:
>>
>>"In a descending turn, which is what gliders do in turns, it
>>is not the case that both wings have the same vertical
>>component of velocity."
>>
>>>People seem to continuously confuse rates and angles?
>>
>>Too true :-)
>>
>>Todd Pattist - "WH" Ventus C
>>(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
>
>Thank you for pointing this out! I guess my fingers on the keyboard
>out ran my brains. I should not have gone farther than just the
>observation that the inside wing in a stable descending turn is
>going down while the outside wing is going up ( and the opposite
>situation in an ascending turn). I guess I really don't understand
>the notion of differing horizontal vs vertical "components".
>In other words, the aircraft is actively rolling about its
>longitudinal axis during the turns. From this I incorrectly deduced
>that one wing was moving downward more than was the other wing.
>
>I also wish I could remember where I first read this description.
>It was in a book about stalling and spinning by the fellow who
>I believe flew with Tony DeVere and originally set up the
>emergency maneuver training at Santa Paula. Oh well, this
>is hardly the only memory that has vaporized from my ageing
>brain!
>

Now I remember! The book is "Stalling, spinning and safety"
by Sammy Mason. It's a good read.

[Jim]

On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 10:22:11 -0500, Todd Pattist
> wrote:

>Jim > wrote:
>> I should not have gone farther than just the
>>observation that the inside wing in a stable descending turn is
>>going down while the outside wing is going up ( and the opposite
>>situation in an ascending turn).
>
>This is incorrect. Both wings are going down (and both are
>going forward). They both go down at the same rate, they go
>forward at different rates (inner wing slower). If you think
>about it, that means that the inner wing has a higher AOA.
>
>
>Todd Pattist - "WH" Ventus C
>(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)

Thank you for clarifying again for me. I sure love this stuff but
I sure don't have the background to truly understand it!
But I sure love flying gliders!

Jim

[jhandl]

On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 10:22:11 -0500, Todd Pattist
> wrote:

>Jim > wrote:
>> I should not have gone farther than just the
>>observation that the inside wing in a stable descending turn is
>>going down while the outside wing is going up ( and the opposite
>>situation in an ascending turn).
>
>This is incorrect. Both wings are going down (and both are
>going forward). They both go down at the same rate, they go
>forward at different rates (inner wing slower). If you think
>about it, that means that the inner wing has a higher AOA.

I was just reading the Gider Pilot Manual by Ken Steward, pages 68 &
69. There he talks about the larger angle of attack difference in
shallow turns than in steep turns, because of the larger difference in
the circumference described by both wingtips, and concludes that steep
turns are safer than shallow turns.

I believe Steward left out an important factor, intentionally or not.
Even if the the distance between the inner and the outer circles is
larger in shallow turns, they also are much wider, and that has a
large impact in the AOA difference. Otherwise, the shalowest turn
would have the largest AOA difference, which is clearly not true.

So far this thread talked about one bank angle. Would anybody care to
compute the AOA delta for the whole range of bank angles? I guess it
would be given as a function of the wing span...

[Mark James Boyd]

In article >,
jhandl > wrote:
>On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 10:22:11 -0500, Todd Pattist
> wrote:
>
>>Jim > wrote:
>>> I should not have gone farther than just the
>>>observation that the inside wing in a stable descending turn is
>>>going down while the outside wing is going up ( and the opposite
>>>situation in an ascending turn).
>>
>>This is incorrect. Both wings are going down (and both are
>>going forward). They both go down at the same rate, they go
>>forward at different rates (inner wing slower). If you think
>>about it, that means that the inner wing has a higher AOA.
>
>I was just reading the Gider Pilot Manual by Ken Steward, pages 68 &
>69. There he talks about the larger angle of attack difference in
>shallow turns than in steep turns, because of the larger difference in
>the circumference described by both wingtips, and concludes that steep
>turns are safer than shallow turns.
>
>I believe Steward left out an important factor, intentionally or not.
>Even if the the distance between the inner and the outer circles is
>larger in shallow turns, they also are much wider, and that has a
>large impact in the AOA difference. Otherwise, the shalowest turn
>would have the largest AOA difference, which is clearly not true.
>
>So far this thread talked about one bank angle. Would anybody care to
>compute the AOA delta for the whole range of bank angles? I guess it
>would be given as a function of the wing span...

I'm figuring bank angle, airspeed, and wingspan are the three
factors. What would be really interesting is comparing the results
against the airspeeds given in the simple bank angle
tables for G loading found in many books, POH's and manuals.

If one flies the airspeeds for the bank angles shown on these
charts, for each glider (pick some popular ones), what is
the bank angle that causes the highest ratio of
airspeed between outer wingtip and inner wingtip?

Perhaps Bob Hanson at St. Olaf can be convinced to code this up :)

[Rich Stowell]

"Gary Boggs" > wrote in message >...
> The paper that Rich wrote on spin training that is posted on his web site is
> a must read!
>
> Thank you very much Rich.
>
> --
> Gary Boggs
> Hood River, Oregon, USA


You're welcome, Gary! BTW, I'll be giving a seminar on Stalls & Spins
at the NW Aviation Conference in Puyallup, WA on Feb. 21 (4:00 PM) if
anyone's interested...

Rich
http://www.richstowell.com

[Robert Ehrlich]

Mark James Boyd wrote:
>
> In article >,
> jhandl > wrote:
> >On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 10:22:11 -0500, Todd Pattist
> > wrote:
> >
> >>Jim > wrote:
> >>> I should not have gone farther than just the
> >>>observation that the inside wing in a stable descending turn is
> >>>going down while the outside wing is going up ( and the opposite
> >>>situation in an ascending turn).
> >>
> >>This is incorrect. Both wings are going down (and both are
> >>going forward). They both go down at the same rate, they go
> >>forward at different rates (inner wing slower). If you think
> >>about it, that means that the inner wing has a higher AOA.
> >
> >I was just reading the Gider Pilot Manual by Ken Steward, pages 68 &
> >69. There he talks about the larger angle of attack difference in
> >shallow turns than in steep turns, because of the larger difference in
> >the circumference described by both wingtips, and concludes that steep
> >turns are safer than shallow turns.
> >
> >I believe Steward left out an important factor, intentionally or not.
> >Even if the the distance between the inner and the outer circles is
> >larger in shallow turns, they also are much wider, and that has a
> >large impact in the AOA difference. Otherwise, the shalowest turn
> >would have the largest AOA difference, which is clearly not true.
> >
> >So far this thread talked about one bank angle. Would anybody care to
> >compute the AOA delta for the whole range of bank angles? I guess it
> >would be given as a function of the wing span...
>
> I'm figuring bank angle, airspeed, and wingspan are the three
> factors. What would be really interesting is comparing the results
> against the airspeeds given in the simple bank angle
> tables for G loading found in many books, POH's and manuals.
>
> If one flies the airspeeds for the bank angles shown on these
> charts, for each glider (pick some popular ones), what is
> the bank angle that causes the highest ratio of
> airspeed between outer wingtip and inner wingtip?
>
> Perhaps Bob Hanson at St. Olaf can be convinced to code this up :)

As a former math teacher, I liked to do a little math about the subject.
The result was that the airspeed difference deltaV between the CG and
the wingtip as function of bank angle phi, airspeed V, half wingspan b
and gravity acceleration g is given by:
deltaV = (b*g*sin(phi))/V
i.e. speed delta constantly increases with bank angle when the airspeed
remains the same (surprising ?), and decreases when airspeed increases
at a given bank angle (not surprising).

The surprising result for the difference as function of the bank angle
should be relativized as it is not aerodynamically correct to compare
the deltas at different bank angles and the same airspeed. We know that
the load factor increases with increasing bank angle, so lift must increase
in the same way. This can be done by increasing either AOA or airspeed,
but AOA is limited by the stall angle and similar aerodynamic conditions
are better maintained by increasing airspeed. If we express deltaV as
a function of bank angle at a given AOA, which may be characterized as
the speed V1 at which the glider would fly at this AOA with load factor 1,
we get:
deltaV = (b*g*sin(phi)sqrt(cos(phi)))/V1
and this has a maximun for cos(phi) = 1/sqrt(3), equivalent to
tan(phi) = sqrt(2), or phi = .955 radians = 54.7 degrees.


For the AOA delta at bank phi, airspeed V and sink Vz, I find:
deltaA = sin(phi)*cos(phi)*b*g*Vz/(V**3)
Here again it would be more significative to consider what happens at
a given AOA, characterized by the airspeed V1 and sink Vz1 obtained
at load factor 1, but as Vz is Vz1*(n**(3/2)) and V is V1*(n**(1/2)
when the load factor is n, the effect of the load factor vanishes and
the formaula remains the same:
deltaA = sin(phi)*cos(phi)*b*g*Vz1/(V1**3)
and the maximum is obtained when phi = 45 degrees.