Spin Training

[JJ Sinclair]

Bill Dean,
The tone of the spin discussion has taken a rather harsh turn, lately. I may be
responsible for some of it, because I allowad myself to be sucked into a
discussion of gun control, socialized medicine, slavery and Oh yes, spins. The
harsh tone was not my intention and my posts have been in a sincere belief that
your spin training is outmoded.

You asked about my qualifications to address this issue. I have spent a
lifetime in the air and will turn 70 this year, if I can still recognize the
signs of impending departure from controlled flight, for another summer. I have
flown sailplanes for 30 years and logged over 4000 hours, mostly in cross
country flight. I have owned over 40 ships and flown most of what's out there,
including G-103, ASK-13, ASK-21, two-place Lark, Puch, Blanik. I have stalled
and done spin entry in all of them and even took the ASK-13 on a cross country
(won't do that again). I served as safety officer of our club (450 members) for
10 years. The only spin accidents I can remember in my 30 years soaring in
Northern California is a single place lark (fatal), PZL-59 (impact absorbed by
tree branches, pilot walked away) and recently a PW-5 (impact absorbed by tree
branches, pilot walked away). God blass those trees!

I served as a staff officer at TAC Hq. in the USAF and one of my duties was to
review all reconnaissance accidents in the command. I remember one vividly.
RF-4C was lost practicing a pop-up maneuver. The Director of Operations wanted
to know why we were still teaching that maneuver because new equipment and
tactics made it no longer necessary. The training syllabus was changed and
pop-up maneuvers were no longer taught. I believe you may have allowed your
glider training to fall into the same situation. New German ships (both single
seaters and 2-place) have rather docile spin characteristics. I question the
need to do spins in ships like the Puch, at all? Here in the US, we no longer
require spin trainingl, due to excessive spin training accidents. I do believe
most sailplane instructors still teach spin recognition and spin avoidance
(recovery within 1 revolution).

Now, don't tense up, it's just a suggestion, but if the US had the UK spin
training accidents, I would raise the red flag as high as I could get it. I
would call for a complete review of how we teach spins, what ships we do it in
and and how we taught spins. I would ask for a complete review of the training
materials with an eye on removing things like deliberately initiating a spin at
800 feet. Our gliding environment isn't as rigid as yours, but we find some,
"Monkey-See, Monkey-Do", over here in the colonies. If a low time pilot sees
the local "Hot-Shot", come screaming over the glider tie-down area at 5 feet
and 150 knots, he may very well try it himself, but not have the expertience to
pull it off. The same might happen when a sailplane is seen deliberately spun
in the pattern, don't you think?

Old ways die hard, Bill. The US Army kept a detachment of cavalry throughout
World War 2, just in case those tanks didn't work out.

Best Regards,
JJ Sinclair

[Detlev Hoppenrath]

JJ,

you mentioned the spin of the PW-5. As I fly this plane I'd be interested in
any details how this happened (and the lessons learned).

Cheers
Detlev

http://gliding.hoppenrath.com
www.alpenstreckenflug.de


"JJ Sinclair" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...
> Bill Dean,
> The tone of the spin discussion has taken a rather harsh turn, lately. I
may be
> responsible for some of it, because I allowad myself to be sucked into a
> discussion of gun control, socialized medicine, slavery and Oh yes, spins.
The
> harsh tone was not my intention and my posts have been in a sincere belief
that
> your spin training is outmoded.
>
> You asked about my qualifications to address this issue. I have spent a
> lifetime in the air and will turn 70 this year, if I can still recognize
the
> signs of impending departure from controlled flight, for another summer. I
have
> flown sailplanes for 30 years and logged over 4000 hours, mostly in cross
> country flight. I have owned over 40 ships and flown most of what's out
there,
> including G-103, ASK-13, ASK-21, two-place Lark, Puch, Blanik. I have
stalled
> and done spin entry in all of them and even took the ASK-13 on a cross
country
> (won't do that again). I served as safety officer of our club (450
members) for
> 10 years. The only spin accidents I can remember in my 30 years soaring in
> Northern California is a single place lark (fatal), PZL-59 (impact
absorbed by
> tree branches, pilot walked away) and recently a PW-5 (impact absorbed by
tree
> branches, pilot walked away). God blass those trees!
>
> I served as a staff officer at TAC Hq. in the USAF and one of my duties
was to
> review all reconnaissance accidents in the command. I remember one
vividly.
> RF-4C was lost practicing a pop-up maneuver. The Director of Operations
wanted
> to know why we were still teaching that maneuver because new equipment and
> tactics made it no longer necessary. The training syllabus was changed and
> pop-up maneuvers were no longer taught. I believe you may have allowed
your
> glider training to fall into the same situation. New German ships (both
single
> seaters and 2-place) have rather docile spin characteristics. I question
the
> need to do spins in ships like the Puch, at all? Here in the US, we no
longer
> require spin trainingl, due to excessive spin training accidents. I do
believe
> most sailplane instructors still teach spin recognition and spin avoidance
> (recovery within 1 revolution).
>
> Now, don't tense up, it's just a suggestion, but if the US had the UK spin
> training accidents, I would raise the red flag as high as I could get it.
I
> would call for a complete review of how we teach spins, what ships we do
it in
> and and how we taught spins. I would ask for a complete review of the
training
> materials with an eye on removing things like deliberately initiating a
spin at
> 800 feet. Our gliding environment isn't as rigid as yours, but we find
some,
> "Monkey-See, Monkey-Do", over here in the colonies. If a low time pilot
sees
> the local "Hot-Shot", come screaming over the glider tie-down area at 5
feet
> and 150 knots, he may very well try it himself, but not have the
expertience to
> pull it off. The same might happen when a sailplane is seen deliberately
spun
> in the pattern, don't you think?
>
> Old ways die hard, Bill. The US Army kept a detachment of cavalry
throughout
> World War 2, just in case those tanks didn't work out.
>
> Best Regards,
> JJ Sinclair

[Stewart Kissel]

http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief2.asp?ev_id=20031009X01702&ntsbno=LA
X03CA277&akey=1





At 00:12 12 February 2004, Detlev Hoppenrath wrote:
>JJ,
>
>you mentioned the spin of the PW-5. As I fly this plane
>I'd be interested in
>any details how this happened (and the lessons learned).
>
>Cheers
>Detlev
>
>http://gliding.hoppenrath.com
>www.alpenstreckenflug.de
>

[Pete Zeugma]

At 22:42 11 February 2004, Jj Sinclair wrote:
>The same might happen when a sailplane is seen deliberately
>
>spun in the pattern, don't you think?

where has it been stated that we do that in the pattern?
when I had this low spin re-enforcement demo'd for
me on the spin course i did, it was up wind of the
airfield and off pattern. every one ive seen at my
club is done like that also. one very inportant reason
we do this demo at our club is that we are a winch
site, so 800-1000 feet is a typical pull off height.

[Detlev Hoppenrath]

So - not exactly a spin, rather a pilot who lost it...

--
http://gliding.hoppenrath.com
http://www.alpenstreckenflug.de


"Stewart Kissel" > schrieb im
Newsbeitrag ...
> http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief2.asp?ev_id=20031009X01702&ntsbno=LA
> X03CA277&akey=1
>
>
>
>
>
> At 00:12 12 February 2004, Detlev Hoppenrath wrote:
> >JJ,
> >
> >you mentioned the spin of the PW-5. As I fly this plane
> >I'd be interested in
> >any details how this happened (and the lessons learned).
> >
> >Cheers
> >Detlev
> >
> >http://gliding.hoppenrath.com
> >www.alpenstreckenflug.de
> >
>
>
>
>

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

JJ,

I want to reply in full later, but I will just say now that there is a
distinction to be made between spin accidents while training, and spin
accidents while doing deliberate spins for training purposes.

Of the six Puchacz fatal accidents in the U.K.:

The one this year on 18th January is still being investigated.

The one at Camphill on 21st February 2003 was due to the glider hitting the
winch wire while another glider was being launched (i.e. a form of mid-air
collision); stalling or spinning were not factors.

The remaining four were all stall/spin accidents, only the first at Usk on
4th August 1990 was a deliberate spin. That flight was launched by
aerotow, the pilot in command was the club Chief Flying instructor, and the
pupil was a qualified Assistant Instructor being coached for the Full
Instructor Rating. The spin was entered at about 1200 to 1400 ft and was
deliberately continuous from there, recovery was not started until about
250ft or less, which is of course too low. This type of low level
continuous spin is of course now advised against in the quotation from the
BGA Instructors' Manual which I have already given, first published in 1994.

I do not have the facilities or access to search the U.K. accidents
database, but I do not know of a single glider accident, in any type of
glider, in the U.K. caused by a deliberate spin entry (i.e. stall with
wing-drop) below !000 ft. If anyone knows of one such, could they please
tell me, either on this board or by e-mail.

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

>
> "JJ Sinclair" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> Bill Dean,
>
> The tone of the spin discussion has taken a rather harsh turn, lately. I
> may be responsible for some of it, because I allowed myself to be sucked
> into a discussion of gun control, socialized medicine, slavery and Oh yes,
> spins. The harsh tone was not my intention and my posts have been in a
> sincere belief that your spin training is outmoded.
>
> You asked about my qualifications to address this issue. I have spent a
> lifetime in the air and will turn 70 this year, if I can still recognize
> the signs of impending departure from controlled flight, for another
> summer. I have flown sailplanes for 30 years and logged over 4000 hours,
> mostly in cross country flight. I have owned over 40 ships and flown
> most of what's out there, including G-103, ASK-13, ASK-21, two-place Lark,
> Puch, Blanik. I have stalled and done spin entry in all of them and even
> took the ASK-13 on a cross country (won't do that again). I served as
> safety officer of our club (450 members) for 10 years. The only spin
> accidents I can remember in my 30 years soaring in Northern California is
> a single place Lark (fatal), PZL-59 (impact absorbed by tree branches,
> pilot walked away) and recently a PW-5 (impact absorbed by tree branches,
> pilot walked away). God bless those trees!
>
> I served as a staff officer at TAC Hq. in the USAF and one of my duties
> was to review all reconnaissance accidents in the command. I remember
> one vividly. RF-4C was lost practicing a pop-up manoeuvre. The
> Director of Operations wanted to know why we were still teaching that
> manoeuvre because new equipment and tactics made it no longer necessary.
> The training syllabus was changed and pop-up manoeuvres were no longer
> taught. I believe you may have allowed your glider training to fall into
> the same situation. New German ships (both single seaters and 2-place)
> have rather docile spin characteristics. I question the need to do spins
> in ships like the Puch, at all? Here in the US, we no longer require
> spin training, due to excessive spin training accidents. I do believe
> most sailplane instructors still teach spin recognition and spin avoidance
> (recovery within 1 revolution).
>
> Now, don't tense up, it's just a suggestion, but if the US had the UK spin
> training accidents, I would raise the red flag as high as I could get it.
> I would call for a complete review of how we teach spins, what ships we do
> it in and and how we taught spins. I would ask for a complete review of
> the training materials with an eye on removing things like deliberately
> initiating a spin at 800 feet. Our gliding environment isn't as rigid as
> yours, but we find some, "Monkey-See, Monkey-Do", over here in the
> colonies. If a low time pilot sees the local "Hot-Shot", come screaming
> over the glider tie-down area at 5 feet and 150 knots, he may very well
> try it himself, but not have the experience to pull it off. The same
> might happen when a sailplane is seen deliberately spun in the pattern,
> don't you think?
>
> Old ways die hard, Bill. The US Army kept a detachment of cavalry
> throughout World War 2, just in case those tanks didn't work out.
>
> Best Regards,
> JJ Sinclair.
>

[JJ Sinclair]

Bill,Thanks for the response and I realize you're not in charge of the british
glider training program. I can tell you what the USAF would probably do, in a
similar situation. They would immediately suspend all spin training in the
Puch, pending a full investigation.

This thread has brought to light the fact that the Puch can go into a flat spin
and a very good post told us that aileron against the spin would make it stay
flat. A bit of aileron may have been inadvertently applied, this can be
aggravated by G forces on the pilots arm or mis-rigging where the ailerons
aren't exactly in neutral when the stick is. I have seen this mis-rigging on
many occasions in the glider repair business.

I remember what our F-4 instructor told us about keeping the ailerons neutral
in the stall, "Think of it as though you had a hand growing right out of you're
belly button".
Hang in there,
JJ Sinclair