Puchacz fatal accident 18 Jan. 2004 at Husbands Bosworth. [Archive]

Andrew Warbrick

January 14th 05, 09:44 AM

At 23:00 13 January 2005, T O D D P A T T I S T wrote:
>Stewart Kissel
>wrote:
>
>>A very thorough report...don't see how the Puchasz
>>can be the culprit here....
>
>I read it and came away thinking the Puch was still
>a
>possible culprit.
>
How? As stated in the report the Puch spins readily
but recovers very easily. Quoted from the report:

'It can reasonably be concluded that the only control
mishandling of the PUCHACZ
that can lead to delay in spin exit is the retention
of full pro spin elevator…. '

It is actually difficult for us to teach proper spin
recover in the Puch simply because it recovers so easily.
You have to watch what rudder pedals are doing, common
problems are:

1. Not removing pro spin rudder but moving the stick
forward (glider usually recovers).
2. Centralising the rudder and moving the stick forward
(glider pretty much always recovers).
3. Not removing opposite rudder promptly after spin
stops (danger of flicking the other way or overloading
the rudder).

The danger is that a pilot gets the impression 'all
I have to do to recover is relax the back pressure'
that'll kill you in a glider with genuinely nasty spin
recovery characteristics like the DG500.

>>1.) Spin entries are permitted at 1500', with an easy
>>spinning ship this does not give one a lot of leeway.
>
>1500' should be enough, but the report indicated that
>the
>Puch was more difficult to recover than other trainers
>and
>implied that this might have contributed to the accident.
>
>

Eh? Where did it say that? It's easier to recover than
other trainers!

>>2.) Having an instructor with a bad ticker teaching
>>these manuevers.
>
>Regardless of the advisability of instructing with
>this
>medical condition:
>
>1) The instructor was still alive after the accident,
>not
>dead/incapacitated.
>
>2) The instructor's legs were injured, and they seemed
>to be
>leg injuries consistent with conscious reaction to
>the
>imminent approach of the ground.
>
>>3.) Combining (1) and (2) with a relatively green
>>trainee...who might not recognize when things head
>>south.
>
>The trainee's right leg was injured in a way the report
>considered to be consistent with applying full opposite
>rudder to the left spin.
>
>They had made at least two successful full spin recoveries
>prior to their final spin (perhaps more, the witnesses
>didn't see the full flight).

Two or three full spins and recoveries down from 3000
to 1500' sounds about right, usually you have to have
at least a few seconds of debrief after each recovery
along the lines of 'you forgot this or that, try again'.
Personally I'm happy enough demonstrating a spin entry
and recovery at 1500' but I won't let the P2 initiate
the spin below 2000' except maybe if every entry and
recovery up to then has been 'textbook'. Having said
which, quite often at my club we can climb to 3200',
push out over flat ground, practice spinning down to
1800' then climb back up to 3200' on the ridge again
for another go.

> Sure it's possible that they
>did two correctly, and then screwed up. It's also
>possible,
>the instructor had a partial attack, slumped to block
>the
>stick, then recovered, etc. But the bottom line is
>we still
>don't know why.
>
>

I'm sorry, 'slumped to block the stick', the last time
I flew HCD (a long time ago admittedly) I'm pretty
sure it had a five point harness, how the heck do you
'slump to block the stick' wearing a five point harness?

I do, however, have to agree, we will never know exactly
what happened in this awful tragedy and any further
speculation over it is probably counter productive.

[email protected]

January 14th 05, 11:26 AM

Andrew Warbrick wrote:
> At 23:00 13 January 2005, T O D D P A T T I S T wrote:
> >Stewart Kissel
> >wrote:
> >
> >>A very thorough report...don't see how the Puchasz
> >>can be the culprit here....
> >
> >I read it and came away thinking the Puch was still
> >a
> >possible culprit.
> >
> How? As stated in the report the Puch spins readily
> but recovers very easily. Quoted from the report:
>
> 'It can reasonably be concluded that the only control
> mishandling of the PUCHACZ
> that can lead to delay in spin exit is the retention
> of full pro spin elevator.... '
>
> It is actually difficult for us to teach proper spin
> recover in the Puch simply because it recovers so easily.
> You have to watch what rudder pedals are doing, common
> problems are:
>
> 1. Not removing pro spin rudder but moving the stick
> forward (glider usually recovers).
> 2. Centralising the rudder and moving the stick forward
> (glider pretty much always recovers).
> 3. Not removing opposite rudder promptly after spin
> stops (danger of flicking the other way or overloading
> the rudder).
>
> The danger is that a pilot gets the impression 'all
> I have to do to recover is relax the back pressure'
> that'll kill you in a glider with genuinely nasty spin
> recovery characteristics like the DG500.
>
> >>1.) Spin entries are permitted at 1500', with an easy
> >>spinning ship this does not give one a lot of leeway.
> >
> >1500' should be enough, but the report indicated that
> >the
> >Puch was more difficult to recover than other trainers
> >and
> >implied that this might have contributed to the accident.
> >
> >
>
> Eh? Where did it say that? It's easier to recover than
> other trainers!
>
> >>2.) Having an instructor with a bad ticker teaching
> >>these manuevers.
> >
> >Regardless of the advisability of instructing with
> >this
> >medical condition:
> >
> >1) The instructor was still alive after the accident,
> >not
> >dead/incapacitated.
> >
> >2) The instructor's legs were injured, and they seemed
> >to be
> >leg injuries consistent with conscious reaction to
> >the
> >imminent approach of the ground.
> >
> >>3.) Combining (1) and (2) with a relatively green
> >>trainee...who might not recognize when things head
> >>south.
> >
> >The trainee's right leg was injured in a way the report
> >considered to be consistent with applying full opposite
> >rudder to the left spin.
> >
> >They had made at least two successful full spin recoveries
> >prior to their final spin (perhaps more, the witnesses
> >didn't see the full flight).
>
> Two or three full spins and recoveries down from 3000
> to 1500' sounds about right, usually you have to have
> at least a few seconds of debrief after each recovery
> along the lines of 'you forgot this or that, try again'.
> Personally I'm happy enough demonstrating a spin entry
> and recovery at 1500' but I won't let the P2 initiate
> the spin below 2000' except maybe if every entry and
> recovery up to then has been 'textbook'. Having said
> which, quite often at my club we can climb to 3200',
> push out over flat ground, practice spinning down to
> 1800' then climb back up to 3200' on the ridge again
> for another go.
>
> > Sure it's possible that they
> >did two correctly, and then screwed up. It's also
> >possible,
> >the instructor had a partial attack, slumped to block
> >the
> >stick, then recovered, etc. But the bottom line is
> >we still
> >don't know why.
> >
> >
>
> I'm sorry, 'slumped to block the stick', the last time
> I flew HCD (a long time ago admittedly) I'm pretty
> sure it had a five point harness, how the heck do you
> 'slump to block the stick' wearing a five point harness?
>
> I do, however, have to agree, we will never know exactly
> what happened in this awful tragedy and any further
> speculation over it is probably counter productive.

Three statistics would be interesting to compare, although I doubt if
there is data for all of them.

1. Number of accidents and/or fatalities resulting from spin training.

2. Number of accidents and/or fatalities from accidents in which pilots
had previously undergone the above-mentioned spin training.

3. Number of spin recoveries resulting in accident avoidance from
pilots who had previously undergone the above-mentioned spin training.

I'm hoping that the lives saved through the spin recovery training far
exceeds the lives lost.

Andreas Maurer

January 14th 05, 02:18 PM

On 14 Jan 2005 09:44:06 GMT, Andrew Warbrick
> wrote:

>How? As stated in the report the Puch spins readily
>but recovers very easily.

>It is actually difficult for us to teach proper spin
>recover in the Puch simply because it recovers so easily.

Considering the sheer number of spin accidents with instructors on
board of Puchacz I dare to doubt that statement.

>The danger is that a pilot gets the impression 'all
>I have to do to recover is relax the back pressure'
>that'll kill you in a glider with genuinely nasty spin
>recovery characteristics like the DG500.

DG500 nasty spin recovery characteristics?
Which ones? I'm doing a lot of spin training in the DG-505 with 17.2m
wingtips and the spin behaviour is really nice.

Bye
Andreas

Andrew Warbrick

January 14th 05, 04:13 PM

At 15:00 14 January 2005, Andreas Maurer wrote:
>On 14 Jan 2005 09:44:06 GMT, Andrew Warbrick
> wrote:
>
>>How? As stated in the report the Puch spins readily
>>but recovers very easily.
>
>>It is actually difficult for us to teach proper spin
>>recovery in the Puch simply because it recovers so
>>easily.
>
>Considering the sheer number of spin accidents with
>>instructors on
>board of Puchacz I dare to doubt that statement.

Have you ever spun one? I will repeat myself, it recovers
from most spins with most cockpit loads if you let
go the stick, so on the majority of occasions the instructor
has to be vigilant that the pupil applies the correct
recovery or an incorrect recovery technique will have
been learnt.

>
>>The danger is that a pilot gets the impression 'all
>>I have to do to recover is relax the back pressure'
>>that'll kill you in a glider with genuinely nasty spin
>>recovery characteristics like the DG500.
>
>DG500 nasty spin recovery characteristics?
>Which ones? I'm doing a lot of spin training in the
>DG-505 with 17.2m
>wingtips and the spin behaviour is really nice.
>
>
>Bye
>Andreas
>

The DG-500 is fully compliant with JAR22 when the CofG
is within limits. When the CofG is near the aft limit
it requires the correct spin recovery to be applied,
in the correct order, or the ground will do the recovery
for you, it will continue to autorotate with the stick
on the front stop if you just heave the stick forward
without first centralising the ailerons and applying
full opposite rudder. It may be possible to recover
by applying the full opposite rudder after heaving
the stick forward but it will be a delayed recover
due to control surface masking.

A pilot who has acquired the impression from the Puch
that all is required is to let go or relax the back
pressure could be killed in this situation.

Andrew Warbrick

January 14th 05, 05:09 PM

At 16:00 14 January 2005, T O D D P A T T I S T wrote:
>Andrew Warbrick
>wrote:
>
>>>I read it and came away thinking the Puch was still
>>>a possible culprit.
>>>
>>How? As stated in the report the Puch spins readily
>>but recovers very easily. Quoted from the report:
>>
>>'It can reasonably be concluded that the only control
>>mishandling of the PUCHACZ
>>that can lead to delay in spin exit is the retention
>>of full pro spin elevator…. '
>
>I was referring to these parts of the report:
>
>'The trial confirmed that the glider was compliant
>with JAR
>22; however, it considered that two areas
>were worthy of additional comment. The trial considered
>the
>aircraft to be only marginally compliant in respect
>of
>stalls during turns and noted that avoidance of uncontrolled
>rolling and spinning off a turn was reliant on pilot
>awareness and skill. The trial also noted that height
>loss
>in a spin was significantly greater than on other types
>and
>that this was largely due to the steep attitude
>(70 ° nose down) of the developed spin.'
>

The turning stall characteristics of the Puch would
seem to be irrelevant in this case since the accident
was apparently as a result of an intentional spin initiated
at an altitude where recovery should have been 100%
guaranteed by 800ft at the lowest.

>And this part:
>'The JAR recovery procedure first introduces full opposite
>rudder to counter the yaw rate. This use of rudder
>on the
>Puchacz leads (to) a pitch down in the spin which reduces
>incidence sufficient to facilitate auto recovery at
>forward
>CG where recovery then occurs. As the established spin
>is
>already estimated at 60-70 degrees, this pitch down
>gives a
>very steep exit, perceived to be over vertical but
>probably
>not so. It also contributes to the extensive height
>loss
>during exit. In a tense or panic situation, particularly
>at
>low level, the involuntary reaction could be expected
>to be
>retention of full aft stick. This will sustain a spin
>against full opposite rudder at CG aft of 6.0 inches
>aft
>of datum.'
>
>The CG of the accident aircraft was behind '6.0 inches
>aft
>of datum'
>

I really don't see where you're going, if you're saying
all gliders should recover from spins with the stick
held fully aft just using full opposite rudder, then
don't fly practically any single seater or any two
seater less docile than a K21.

>I also noted the fact that including this accident
>there
>were six Puch spin accidents in the U.K. and five included
>fatals. There are many more in the U.S.
>

The Puch seems to me to be the most common glider in
the UK for teaching all aspects of spin recognition
and recovery. So it's natural that, since many clubs
operate the Puchacz, some solely for spin training,
if a spin training related accident happens there's
a good chance it will be in a Puch. It's a question
of exposure, there are less spin training accidents
in other gliders because they fly less spin training
sorties.

>>I do, however, have to agree, we will never know exactly
>>what happened in this awful tragedy and any further
>>speculation over it is probably counter productive.
>
>We agree it was an awful tragedy, but as I'm sure you
>know,
>there is concern over the number of fatal spin accidents
>in
>the Puch by relatively experienced pilots. A discussion
>of
>reports like this is how future tragedies are avoided.
> I
>was concerned by your comment that implied the report
>exonerated the Puch, when I didn't read it that way.
> At the
>very least, I would think Puch operators would want
>to make
>sure they keep the CG of the Puch forward of the '6'
>aft of
>datum' point per the recommendation discussed in the
>report, and adhere to the spin altitude limits.
>
>
>
>
>
I didn't make the original comment.

I am not sure if the Puch can be fully exonerated,
I have seen the video of a spinning Puch going flat
and eventually recovering, it gives me the heebie jeebies.
It wasn't mentioned in the report, but I understand
it happened at a very high density altitude, this accident
was at an airfield elevation of 500' on a cold winters
day.

However, I see nothing in the report to suggest that
the characteristics of the Puch were a contributory
factor. A phrase in the text you quoted was 'In a tense
or panic situation, particularly at low level, the
involuntary reaction could be expected to be retention
of full aft stick.' This is precisely why we do spin
recovery training, we're trying to create muscle memory
that if the world is going round but the G and airspeed
are not increasing you apply the full spin recovery,
you don't sit there with the stick on the back stop
trying to level the wings with the ailerons.

Actually, we try to put more emphasis on stall recognition,
if your involuntary response to a stall symptom is
to relax back pressure then you likely will not stall
or spin (this has saved me before in a high pressure
situation).

And yes, when flying the Puch I do try to keep the
CofG well forward of the aft limit and, as I said before,
I won't let a spin demo go beyond the incipient stage
below 1500', but then, I'm a wimp.

Andreas Maurer

January 14th 05, 05:34 PM

On 14 Jan 2005 16:13:14 GMT, Andrew Warbrick
> wrote:

>Have you ever spun one? I will repeat myself, it recovers
>from most spins with most cockpit loads if you let
>go the stick, so on the majority of occasions the instructor
>has to be vigilant that the pupil applies the correct
>recovery or an incorrect recovery technique will have
>been learnt.

Until now I have not even seen a Puchacz in real life - but the sheer
number of spin accidents with experienced pilots suggests that
something is wrong, don't you agree?

I wonder about "letting go the stick" and letting the glider recover
itself - is this really being taught as a procedure? We teach our
student pilots to center the stick, and apply opposite rudder - in
that order. Letting go the stick is an unknown procedure for me, I
have to admit.

>The DG-500 is fully compliant with JAR22 when the CofG
>is within limits. When the CofG is near the aft limit
>it requires the correct spin recovery to be applied,
>in the correct order, or the ground will do the recovery
>for you, it will continue to autorotate with the stick
>on the front stop if you just heave the stick forward
>without first centralising the ailerons and applying
>full opposite rudder. It may be possible to recover
>by applying the full opposite rudder after heaving
>the stick forward but it will be a delayed recover
>due to control surface masking.

Hmm... looks like the missing 80 cm of wingspan on the 505 really seem
to make a difference here - our 505 recovers nicely even at fully aft
CG positions.

>A pilot who has acquired the impression from the Puch
>that all is required is to let go or relax the back
>pressure could be killed in this situation.

I don't think this is the problem. A typical Puchacz spin accident has
the instructor onboard, and I'm pretty sure that most of these
instructors knew about the correct spin recovery procedure.

Here in Germany we also had our share of Puchacz spin accident. One
was a successful spin recovery that went into an opposite spin - the
IP was not able to recover the second spin before impact.

Bye
Andreas

Ian Strachan

January 14th 05, 07:04 PM

In article >, Andrew Warbrick
> writes

snip

>I won't let a spin demo go beyond the incipient stage
>below 1500', but then, I'm a wimp.

Dear Andrew,

You are not a wimp, you are sensible and alive. And so are your
students.

Having flown many spins in a military training environment, there was
always a "golden rule" on recovery heights. Heights for spin entry and
minimum heights for recovery were always such that if recovery had not
taken place, there was sufficient height to bale out or eject as
appropriate. I speak of the fully-developed spin, of course. Bale-out
heights were, to my recollection, something like 4000 ft for a Harvard
and Jet Provost and no less than 12000 ft for a Hunter. I recall a
Hunter spin bottom out once at 6000 ft but passing 12 it was recovering
so the crew stuck with it. They started at 35k, by the way!

It is this simple safety rule that some parts of the gliding world seem
to have forgotten. An instructional cult seems to have grown up in some
places that seems to think that low level spinning is an absolute
necessity to teach student pilots of the dangers. I instructed in
gliders for 35 years and IMHO, it is not necessary. Recovery from
fully-developed spins can be taught at a safe height just as in other
branches of aviation. There is nothing "macho" about spinning too low,
just a failure to understand the dynamics of the manoeuvre and the
possible dangers not only to the instructor but to the innocent student.

In any case, the emphasis in instruction should be on quick recovery at
the wing-drop or incipient stage before the spin has developed fully.
THAT should be practised very regularly and full multi-turn spins only
rarely to show what can happen if the correct actions are not taken
early enough.

I have even heard it said by some instructors that deliberate low level
spinning is required because the student must experience the visual
"ground rush" that he/she would get in a real situation of an
inadvertent spin at low level. This is a good way to an early grave,
particularly if something happens in one of these low level spins such
as control failure, rudder cable slackness, or even as simple as
someone's foot trapped the wrong side of a rudder pedal.

Also, spins are not regular reliable manoeuvres with streamlined stable
airflow, they are complex interactions between turbulent (stalled)
airflow, significant control moments and inertia/gyroscopic effects.
Occasionally, for no particular reason other than statistics, a spin
will go deeper into the stall (high alpha) than normal, and recovery
will be delayed. Think of this before continuing a deliberate
fully-developed spin below the height above the hard stuff at which it
would be possible to bale out if the recovery were to go wrong.

There are old pilots and there are bold pilots, but there are few old,
bold, pilots. An aviation truism, I think. Me, I'm old but still here
and enjoying cross country soaring!

--
Ian Strachan

Don Johnstone

January 14th 05, 07:41 PM

Spot on Ian. The rules for the Air Cadets in the UK,
RAF rules, prohibit intentional spinning below 2500ft
in a glider. If you are still spinning you abandon
at this height and to my mind this is one of the most
sensible rules the AC have. Even that might be cutting
it a bit fine depending on how easy it is to actually
get out of the glider.

At 20:00 14 January 2005, Ian Strachan wrote:
>In article , Andrew Warbrick
> writes
>
>snip
>
>>I won't let a spin demo go beyond the incipient stage
>>below 1500', but then, I'm a wimp.
>
>Dear Andrew,
>
>You are not a wimp, you are sensible and alive. And
>so are your
>students.
>
>Having flown many spins in a military training environment,
>there was
>always a 'golden rule' on recovery heights. Heights
>for spin entry and
>minimum heights for recovery were always such that
>if recovery had not
>taken place, there was sufficient height to bale out
>or eject as
>appropriate. I speak of the fully-developed spin, of
>course. Bale-out
>heights were, to my recollection, something like 4000
>ft for a Harvard
>and Jet Provost and no less than 12000 ft for a Hunter.
> I recall a
>Hunter spin bottom out once at 6000 ft but passing
>12 it was recovering
>so the crew stuck with it. They started at 35k, by
>the way!
>
>It is this simple safety rule that some parts of the
>gliding world seem
>to have forgotten. An instructional cult seems to
>have grown up in some
>places that seems to think that low level spinning
>is an absolute
>necessity to teach student pilots of the dangers.
>I instructed in
>gliders for 35 years and IMHO, it is not necessary.
> Recovery from
>fully-developed spins can be taught at a safe height
>just as in other
>branches of aviation. There is nothing 'macho' about
>spinning too low,
>just a failure to understand the dynamics of the manoeuvre
>and the
>possible dangers not only to the instructor but to
>the innocent student.
>
>In any case, the emphasis in instruction should be
>on quick recovery at
>the wing-drop or incipient stage before the spin has
>developed fully.
>THAT should be practised very regularly and full multi-turn
>spins only
>rarely to show what can happen if the correct actions
>are not taken
>early enough.
>
>I have even heard it said by some instructors that
>deliberate low level
>spinning is required because the student must experience
>the visual
>'ground rush' that he/she would get in a real situation
>of an
>inadvertent spin at low level. This is a good way
>to an early grave,
>particularly if something happens in one of these low
>level spins such
>as control failure, rudder cable slackness, or even
>as simple as
>someone's foot trapped the wrong side of a rudder pedal.
>
>Also, spins are not regular reliable manoeuvres with
>streamlined stable
>airflow, they are complex interactions between turbulent
>(stalled)
>airflow, significant control moments and inertia/gyroscopic
>effects.
>Occasionally, for no particular reason other than statistics,
>a spin
>will go deeper into the stall (high alpha) than normal,
>and recovery
>will be delayed. Think of this before continuing a
>deliberate
>fully-developed spin below the height above the hard
>stuff at which it
>would be possible to bale out if the recovery were
>to go wrong.
>
>There are old pilots and there are bold pilots, but
>there are few old,
>bold, pilots. An aviation truism, I think. Me, I'm
>old but still here
>and enjoying cross country soaring!
>
>--
>Ian Strachan
>
>

[email protected]

January 15th 05, 12:54 AM

I think that the strong criticism of the Puch is totally unwarranted.
Puchacz was designed as a initial training ship but also one which can
fly many more aerobatic maneuvers then some other gliders. Puch can fly
rolls, loops, spins, hammerheads, snaps, you can teach inverted flight
in it, etc. It is called "advanced aerobatic trainer". It is quite a
remarkable glider. Of course the Germans will never admit it, so they
going to insist on their DG's. The point here is, after reading the
accident report it indicates to me a pilot error. Each glider has a
different characteristics. Some of them will recover with the stick in
the full aft position and some will not. Plain and simple. Each glider
comes from the factory with its manual. And that manual will tell you
how to fly specific ship. This is the same as comparing 7ECA Citabria,
which will recover from a spin with full aft elevator, to a Sukhoi 26:
this one needs to be recovered with the stick forward to break the
stall. You see, pilots flying aerobatics are aware of the handling
characteristics of the planes they fly. If I will be teaching a student
spins, I will be at 5000 + AGL. Why? Because if something goes to crap
I still have time to get out. They were flying spins at 1500. So, you
might say it is legal because the FARs are saying "no aerobatic
maneuvers below 1500' " . But is this really smart? Anyway, we can beat
the horse to death and everybody will have a different opinions. I
flown in SZD-50-3 Puchacz in the early and mid eighties with test pilot
January Roman with saddle bags filled with led near its tail to
simulate the aft C.G. without any problems. In addition we have done
those spins inverted as well...no problems. And we have done several
times. Puchacz is a trainer but it is also more then a trainer.
Approach it properly, with good manners and everything will be fine,
screw with it and it will bite. But the same is true for other gliders
and airplanes. Even for the DG. Everything else is in the pilot hands.

JohnWN in Burke, VA

January 15th 05, 03:46 AM

This isn't directly related; however, I ran across this article in the Dec.
2004 Glider Magazine. Apparently, the front control column failed.
"SZD-50-3 Puchacz Grounded in Poland":
http://www.glidingmagazine.com/NewsArticle.asp?id=1375

John In Burke, VA

"T o d d P a t t i s t" > wrote in message
...
> Andrew Warbrick >
> wrote:
>
>>>I read it and came away thinking the Puch was still
>>>a possible culprit.
>>>
>>How? As stated in the report the Puch spins readily
>>but recovers very easily. Quoted from the report:
>>
>>'It can reasonably be concluded that the only control
>>mishandling of the PUCHACZ
>>that can lead to delay in spin exit is the retention
>>of full pro spin elevator.. '
>
> I was referring to these parts of the report:
>
> "The trial confirmed that the glider was compliant with JAR
> 22; however, it considered that two areas
> were worthy of additional comment. The trial considered the
> aircraft to be only marginally compliant in respect of
> stalls during turns and noted that avoidance of uncontrolled
> rolling and spinning off a turn was reliant on pilot
> awareness and skill. The trial also noted that height loss
> in a spin was significantly greater than on other types and
> that this was largely due to the steep attitude
> (70 ° nose down) of the developed spin."
>
> And this part:
> "The JAR recovery procedure first introduces full opposite
> rudder to counter the yaw rate. This use of rudder on the
> Puchacz leads (to) a pitch down in the spin which reduces
> incidence sufficient to facilitate auto recovery at forward
> CG where recovery then occurs. As the established spin is
> already estimated at 60-70 degrees, this pitch down gives a
> very steep exit, perceived to be over vertical but probably
> not so. It also contributes to the extensive height loss
> during exit. In a tense or panic situation, particularly at
> low level, the involuntary reaction could be expected to be
> retention of full aft stick. This will sustain a spin
> against full opposite rudder at CG aft of 6.0 inches aft
> of datum."
>
> The CG of the accident aircraft was behind "6.0 inches aft
> of datum"
>
> I also noted the fact that including this accident there
> were six Puch spin accidents in the U.K. and five included
> fatals. There are many more in the U.S.
>
>>I do, however, have to agree, we will never know exactly
>>what happened in this awful tragedy and any further
>>speculation over it is probably counter productive.
>
> We agree it was an awful tragedy, but as I'm sure you know,
> there is concern over the number of fatal spin accidents in
> the Puch by relatively experienced pilots. A discussion of
> reports like this is how future tragedies are avoided. I
> was concerned by your comment that implied the report
> exonerated the Puch, when I didn't read it that way. At the
> very least, I would think Puch operators would want to make
> sure they keep the CG of the Puch forward of the "6" aft of
> datum" point per the recommendation discussed in the
> report, and adhere to the spin altitude limits.
>
>
>
>

Janusz Kesik

January 15th 05, 10:00 AM

Uzytkownik "Andreas Maurer" > napisal w wiadomosci
...
> On 14 Jan 2005 16:13:14 GMT, Andrew Warbrick
> > wrote:
>
> >Have you ever spun one?

>
> Until now I have not even seen a Puchacz in real life - but the sheer
> number of spin accidents with experienced pilots suggests that
> something is wrong, don't you agree?

Why doesn't it surprise me? Most of the pilots who write the worst opinions
on Puchacz never have flown it, or even seen it.

> I don't think this is the problem. A typical Puchacz spin accident has
> the instructor onboard, and I'm pretty sure that most of these
> instructors knew about the correct spin recovery procedure.

I think that they're often crashed in spins just because they're most often
used ships for spin training. Just because they spin in a textbook way and
need a textbook recovery to get out of a spin, not only 'releasing the
stick' just like the Bocian or Junior.

> Here in Germany we also had our share of Puchacz spin accident. One
> was a successful spin recovery that went into an opposite spin - the
> IP was not able to recover the second spin before impact.

Maybe they were too surprised by the fact that the glider entered another
spin due to inproper recovery action that they had lost a little bit too
much time.

Regards,

--
Janusz Kesik
Poland
to reply put my name.surname[at]gazeta.pl
-------------------------------------
See Wroclaw (Breslau) in photography,
The XIX Century, the Festung Breslau, and photos taken today.
http://www.wroclaw.dolny.slask.pl

Tony Verhulst

January 15th 05, 03:26 PM

> I wonder about "letting go the stick" and letting the glider recover
> itself - is this really being taught as a procedure?

I have not done this in glider but it works just great in a Super
Decathelon. Even a fully developed spin recovers quicky but you do add
opposite rudder. My acro instructor (placed 10th in the 2004 World
Advanced Aerobatic Championship in Sweden, FWIW) claims that most
reasonably stable aircraft will recover in this fashion. The ones that
don't are the Pitts's and Extra's - designed for acro and nothing else.
I intend to try it in an L23 when the season starts up again.

Tony V.

Don Johnstone

January 15th 05, 07:16 PM

At 16:00 14 January 2005, T O D D P A T T I S T wrote:
(snip)
>>
>I also noted the fact that including this accident
>there
>were six Puch spin accidents in the U.K. and five included
>fatals. There are many more in the U.S.

This raises an interesting point. I am not for one
moment suggesting that this is the case but what if
there were some condition or some sequence that made
a glider irrecoverable from a spin, how would we know?
The only witness to that fact would not be available
to us.
>
>>I do, however, have to agree, we will never know exactly
>>what happened in this awful tragedy and any further
>>speculation over it is probably counter productive.

I agree speculation may be inappropriate but discussion
around future prevention should be encouraged. A glider
spinning is out of control. We all assume that the
glider can be recovered to controlled flight. One way
of preventing accidents is to discontinue spinning
at a sensible height or if that cannot be achieved
abandon the glider. I can see that the definition of
'sensible' height may result in heated discussion so
I will only say that I have my own limit which I will
use and which I brief to others when flying dual.

Andrew Warbrick

January 15th 05, 09:43 PM

At 18:30 14 January 2005, Andreas Maurer wrote:
>On 14 Jan 2005 16:13:14 GMT, Andrew Warbrick
> wrote:
>
>>Have you ever spun one? I will repeat myself, it recovers
>>from most spins with most cockpit loads if you let
>>go the stick, so on the majority of occasions the instructor
>>has to be vigilant that the pupil applies the correct
>>recovery or an incorrect recovery technique will have
>>been learnt.
>
>Until now I have not even seen a Puchacz in real life
>- but the sheer
>number of spin accidents with experienced pilots suggests
>that
>something is wrong, don't you agree?
>
>I wonder about 'letting go the stick' and letting the
>glider recover
>itself - is this really being taught as a procedure?
>We teach our
>student pilots to center the stick, and apply opposite
>rudder - in
>that order. Letting go the stick is an unknown procedure
>for me, I
>have to admit.
>

You didn't read what I posted did you? I said the problem
with the Puchacz as a teaching tool is that it recovers
too easily even if the wrong (letting go of the stick)
technique is used and that as instructors we have to
be very careful that the pupil is not learning an incorrect
technique (which includes the non BGA/JAR22 technique
of moving the stick forward and then applying opposite
rudder. To quote from the DG500 trainer flight manual
'Apply full opposite rudder against direction of spin,
pause, then ease stick forwards until the rotation
ceases, centralise the controls and carefully pull
out of the dive. The ailerons should be kept neutral
during recovery.' If you are teaching anything else,
you are in test pilot territory).

It may be possible to recover
>>by applying the full opposite rudder after heaving
>>the stick forward but it will be a delayed recover
>>due to control surface masking.
>
>Hmm... looks like the missing 80 cm of wingspan on
>the 505 really seem
>to make a difference here - our 505 recovers nicely
>even at fully aft
>CG positions.
>

I can't remember precisely which of the 5000 variants
of the DG500 it applied to, it was probably the unflapped,
short span, retractable wheel version (whatever version
the SGC operates).

>
>>A pilot who has acquired the impression from the Puch
>>that all is required is to let go or relax the back
>>pressure could be killed in this situation.
>
>I don't think this is the problem. A typical Puchacz
>spin accident has
>the instructor onboard, and I'm pretty sure that most
>of these
>instructors knew about the correct spin recovery procedure.
>

I think you've got the wrong end of the stick, I was
commenting that it is a problem with the Puch as a
tool for teaching spin recovery, not that it was a
factor in any accidents.

>Here in Germany we also had our share of Puchacz spin
>accident. One
>was a successful spin recovery that went into an opposite
>spin - the
>IP was not able to recover the second spin before impact.
>

Which empasises the need to teach correct recovery
techniqes which include removing the opposite rudder
before loading the wings up pulling out of the dive.

>
>
>Bye
>Andreas
>

Regards,

Andrew

Ian Strachan

January 15th 05, 10:08 PM

In article >, Tony Verhulst
> writes
>
>> I wonder about "letting go the stick" and letting the glider recover
>> itself - is this really being taught as a procedure?

This idea seems a good way to die if you are already in a full spin,
particularly at aft C of G. I do no deny that it may work in some
aircraft but to get the idea that it is a good standard technique could
cut your time short on this earth.

Of course, you may not be in a fully developed spin, just in the early
stages before full autorotation has developed. In that case, just
centralising the stick and rudder (perhaps easing the stick forward) and
levelling the wings with aileron may work, but that just shows that you
were not in a condition of full autorotation which is the "fully
developed spin".

The standard recovery procedure once a full spin has developed that
works for most aircraft is,

1. Full rudder opposite to the spin direction (make sure it really is
opposite to the rotation, I for one have applied the wrong rudder in a
spinning jet when I was caught by a surprise departure).

2. Short pause,

3. Stick centrally and progressively forward until the rotation stops.
Keeping on absolutely FULL opposite rudder is important, some people
have only applied partial rudder with disastrous effects such as getting
into a high rotation spin. "Centrally" on the stick is important too,
applied aileron can adversely affect spin recovery. Some aircraft I
have flown that were regularly used for spin training, had a white
circle painted on the middle of the instrument panel to mark the
"central aileron" stick position for use during spin recoveries.

4. Centralise the rudder when rotation can be seen to have almost
stopped (if you wait too late to centralise the rudder, you will spin
the other way).

5. Ease gently out of the resulting steep dive, taking care not to
apply too much G (too much G can lead to G-stall or flick, and make
things worse). Bear in mind that after rotation stops, some gliders are
nearly vertical or even beyond (pitch angle, say, 100 degrees where 90
degrees is vertically down).

>I intend to try it in an L23 when the season starts up again.

I do not know the L23, but be very careful in experimenting with fully
developed spins in any aircraft, that is, those with the nose well down
and over about two full turns. They can catch you out unless you
approach the exercise systematically. Aft C of G is particularly
dangerous, as is not having enough height to bale out if things go wrong
.....

I do urge you to take such an exercise very seriously, as if your life
depended on it. As it does.

I speak as an ex military test pilot with much experience of stalling
and spinning in many types of aircraft, with and without engines. Any
fully developed spin is not to be taken lightly, at any altitude.

Recoveries from slow speed situations and wing-drops at the stall are
different, practise them often.

Conditions of full autorotation can be, often has been, and will
continue to be, fatal unless properly prepared for.

--
Ian Strachan

Stefan

January 16th 05, 01:26 PM

Ian Strachan wrote:

> The standard recovery procedure once a full spin has developed that
> works for most aircraft is,

It doesn't work in "most" aircraft, but rather in *all* aircraft which
are JAR certified. In fact, for an aircraft to get JAR certification,
this method must recover from a spin of at least five full rotations.
(If the CG is within the stated limits, of course!)

Stefan

Ian Strachan

January 16th 05, 08:09 PM

In article >, Stefan
> writes
>Ian Strachan wrote:
>
>> The standard recovery procedure once a full spin has developed that
>>works for most aircraft is,
>
>It doesn't work in "most" aircraft, but rather in *all* aircraft which
>are JAR certified. In fact, for an aircraft to get JAR certification,
>this method must recover from a spin of at least five full rotations.
>(If the CG is within the stated limits, of course!)

Glad to hear it. I try to be cautious in my posts and not to say things
that could be shot down and reduce the impact of the main points that I
am trying to make.

In this case that deliberate fully-developed spinning at low level below
bale-out height has questionable training value compared to spinning at
a safe height, is extremely foolish, and does no credit to our sport in
the eyes of others.

--
Ian Strachan

Stefan

January 16th 05, 08:35 PM

Ian Strachan wrote:

> In this case that deliberate fully-developed spinning at low level below
> bale-out height has questionable training value compared to spinning at
> a safe height, is extremely foolish,

No question about this. I never start a deliberate spin (or even try the
stall behaviour of an unknown plane) below 3000 ft AGL.

Stefan

Ian Strachan

January 16th 05, 09:09 PM

In article >, Stefan
> writes
>Ian Strachan wrote:
>
>> In this case that deliberate fully-developed spinning at low level
>>below bale-out height has questionable training value compared to
>>spinning at a safe height, is extremely foolish,
>
>No question about this. I never start a deliberate spin (or even try
>the stall behaviour of an unknown plane) below 3000 ft AGL.

Stalling, in the sense of a cautious and gradual approach to the stall,
is another thing entirely, quite different to a full autorotative state
in a downward direction.

But you are right to be cautious, particularly with any "unknown
quantity" be it a glider, powered aircraft, high performance jet, or
whatever.

At the stall, stick forward to reduce alpha, pause for airspeed to
build, then normal use of aileron to level wings as necessary, is my
recommended action in most types of aircraft.

Note, no use of coarse rudder. Coarse rudder applied near the stall can
often lead to, guess what?

A

S ...... P ....... I ........ N

Surprise, surprise .......

Myself, in a glider environment, a slow approach to a stall and a quick
recovery, starting from 1500 ft AGL is OK. In a glider with known and
reasonable characteristics, 1000 ft. The difference to a
fully-developed spin is very marked, no comparison, really.

--
Ian Strachan

Stefan

January 16th 05, 10:43 PM

Ian Strachan wrote:

> Stalling, in the sense of a cautious and gradual approach to the stall,
> is another thing entirely, quite different to a full autorotative state
> in a downward direction.

Yes. But part of my stall behaviour exploring is if, and if yes, when
and how does the glider drop a wing? Can it be held, fully stalled, with
the rudder? If yes, I push the stick forward and everyting is fine. If
no, guess what happens?

Stefan

Ian Strachan

January 16th 05, 11:55 PM

In article >, Stefan
> writes

snip

>when and how does the glider drop a wing? Can it be held, fully
>stalled, with the rudder?

But why try it in the first place? Of what benefit does it have to
training people in rapid recovery from the stall situation?

What are we trying to achieve? I would suggest that primarily it is
training for rapid stall RECOVERY. Not playing around with whether or
not we can hold the aircraft in the stall with a combination of unusual
control positions. That is test flying, not legitimate instruction of
less experienced pilots for their future benefit.

Surely, we are discussing how best to teach early gliding students, both
pre-solo and just after solo. That is the critical area. You and I can
no doubt do all sorts of interesting things at the stall and into the
fully developed spin. Hopefully we may know what we are doing and will
not come to disaster. But this is experienced-pilot-academia, not how
the less experienced people in our sport should be taught how to avoid
potentially dangerous situations.

"Stories about what the highly experienced pilot can get away with are
often dangerous to those that are less experienced".

--
Ian Strachan

Pete Reinhart

January 17th 05, 02:05 AM

Yes, that's true.
And, highly experienced pilots don't always get away with it either.
Recalling a tragic loss of two well known and respected pilots in a Nimbus 4
a few years ago.

"Ian Strachan" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Stefan
> > writes
>
> snip
>
> >when and how does the glider drop a wing? Can it be held, fully
> >stalled, with the rudder?
>
> But why try it in the first place? Of what benefit does it have to
> training people in rapid recovery from the stall situation?
>
> What are we trying to achieve? I would suggest that primarily it is
> training for rapid stall RECOVERY. Not playing around with whether or
> not we can hold the aircraft in the stall with a combination of unusual
> control positions. That is test flying, not legitimate instruction of
> less experienced pilots for their future benefit.
>
> Surely, we are discussing how best to teach early gliding students, both
> pre-solo and just after solo. That is the critical area. You and I can
> no doubt do all sorts of interesting things at the stall and into the
> fully developed spin. Hopefully we may know what we are doing and will
> not come to disaster. But this is experienced-pilot-academia, not how
> the less experienced people in our sport should be taught how to avoid
> potentially dangerous situations.
>
> "Stories about what the highly experienced pilot can get away with are
> often dangerous to those that are less experienced".
>
> --
> Ian Strachan
>

Stefan

January 17th 05, 01:01 PM

Ian Strachan wrote:

> But why try it in the first place?

Well, how about ... curiosity? After all, gliding is about fun and not
rationalism.

Stefan

Ian Johnston

January 18th 05, 10:16 AM

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 17:34:47 UTC, (Andreas Maurer)
wrote:

: Until now I have not even seen a Puchacz in real life - but the sheer
: number of spin accidents with experienced pilots suggests that
: something is wrong, don't you agree?

Not really. Spinnable gliders are going to be involved in more
spinning accidents than non-spinnable gliders. And I still think we
should consider all the solo spinners who die because they have been
trained - one way or another - to think that spinning is something you
have to do very deliberately. After all, that K21 wouldn't spin, so
this can't be a spin, so I'll just pull back more and

Ian

--

Ian Johnston

January 18th 05, 10:20 AM

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 19:41:29 UTC, Don Johnstone
> wrote:

: Spot on Ian. The rules for the Air Cadets in the UK,
: RAF rules, prohibit intentional spinning below 2500ft
: in a glider. If you are still spinning you abandon
: at this height

How many gliders will not recover from a spin with 2,500' to spare?
What are the injury rates for parachute jumps from gliders?

Ian
--

Don Johnstone

January 18th 05, 12:04 PM

Don Johnstone

January 18th 05, 12:08 PM

I am intrigued by the concept that dying is fun, do
you know something that I do not? Please share if you
do.

At 14:07 17 January 2005, Stefan wrote:
>Ian Strachan wrote:
>
>> But why try it in the first place?
>
>Well, how about ... curiosity? After all, gliding is
>about fun and not
>rationalism.
>
>Stefan
>

Stefan

January 18th 05, 12:12 PM

Don Johnstone wrote:

> I am intrigued by the concept that dying is fun, do
> you know something that I do not?

Obviously yes. I know how to recover from a spin.

> Please share if you do.

No, I won't. But I advise you to meet a good instructor immediately.

Stefan

Andrew Warbrick

January 18th 05, 03:14 PM

At 13:00 18 January 2005, Don Johnstone wrote:
>At 11:00 18 January 2005, Ian Johnston wrote:
>>On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 19:41:29 UTC, Don Johnstone
>> wrote:
>>
>>: Spot on Ian. The rules for the Air Cadets in the
>>UK,
>>: RAF rules, prohibit intentional spinning below 2500ft
>>: in a glider. If you are still spinning you abandon
>>: at this height
>>
>>How many gliders will not recover from a spin with
>>2,500' to spare?
>Nobody living can answer that question
>
>>What are the injury rates for parachute jumps from
>>gliders?
>
>How many people survive spinning in?
>

Don't know, but it is a measurable percentage. Probably
about 5%, maybe less.

Bill Gribble

January 18th 05, 03:31 PM

Don Johnstone writes
>>: Spot on Ian. The rules for the Air Cadets in the
>>UK,
>>> RAF rules, prohibit intentional spinning below 2500ft
>>> in a glider. If you are still spinning you abandon
>>> at this height
>>
>>How many gliders will not recover from a spin with
>>2,500' to spare?
>Nobody living can answer that question

But by far the greater weight of living people can demonstrate that the
glider will recover from a spin if you have 2500' to spare. In my case,
for example, all of my own spin training and personal practice has been
done from a height somewhat less than this.

>>What are the injury rates for parachute jumps from
>>gliders?
>
>How many people survive spinning in?

How many recorded instances are there of gliders spinning in from 2500'
? In how many of those cases was there absolutely no suggestion that
something else had put the glider into an untenable position and so
prevented recovery?

Although I fully appreciate ill-founded wisdom of initiating a low spin
even for training purposes, surely nobody would argue that demonstration
of spinning and tuition and practice in recovering from such an event
isn't a vital part of ab-inito training?

Yet my own ab-inito training was from a winch site across a British
winter, so the vast majority of my training flights never exceeded 2000'
agl, and they only made that on an especially good day. All of my spin
practice occurred between 1000' and 1600'. And still does, for the most
part.

I just can't imagine abandoning a glider at 2500' because of a spin, at
least not without other contributing factors. Perhaps if I'd initiated
the spin at such a height that I'd had a few rotations of being unable
to recover by that stage and I was convinced that further attempts to
recover would be futile? But I'd be jumping on the assumption that the
glider was broke, not because it was spinning.

--
Bill Gribble

/---------------------------------------\
| http://www.ingenuitytest.co.uk |
| http://www.cotswoldgliding.co.uk |
| http://www.scapegoatsanon.demon.co.uk |
\---------------------------------------/

Andreas Maurer

January 19th 05, 11:47 AM

On 18 Jan 2005 10:16:04 GMT, "Ian Johnston"
> wrote:

>: Until now I have not even seen a Puchacz in real life - but the sheer
>: number of spin accidents with experienced pilots suggests that
>: something is wrong, don't you agree?
>
>Not really. Spinnable gliders are going to be involved in more
>spinning accidents than non-spinnable gliders.

You are correct, Ian - but here in Germany still a lot of Ka-7 and
ASK-13 are in use which do spin well and are commonly used for spin
training (not to mention other two-seaters that spin like the DG-500).
Yet I have not heard of a spin accident in one of them so far,
although their number far exceeds the number of Puchacz.

Bye
Andreas

Don Johnstone

January 19th 05, 12:52 PM

I too know how to recover from a spin, and I don't
need to find an instructor, I were one.

The points Ian was making was why try something that
had no useful purpose in teaching a speedy recovery
from a spin. His other point was that perhaps test
flying would be best left to test pilots who have been
trained for that task and not carried out by people
who are self taught and do not have the necessary skills
and expertise. You do not know that you have exceeded
the limits of your ability until you have and when
it happens it is nice to have someone with you who
has not. Thats what training is all about, finding
your own limits. Flying is meant to be fun and it will
be if you leave test flying to those who know what
they are doing.

At 13:00 18 January 2005, Stefan wrote:
>Don Johnstone wrote:
>
>> I am intrigued by the concept that dying is fun, do
>> you know something that I do not?
>
>Obviously yes. I know how to recover from a spin.
>
>> Please share if you do.
>
>No, I won't. But I advise you to meet a good instructor
>immediately.
>
>Stefan
>

Stefan

January 19th 05, 03:44 PM

Don Johnstone wrote:

> I too know how to recover from a spin, and I don't
> need to find an instructor, I were one.

Then I'm even more puzzled that you consider exploring spins in a
certified glider, which's spin recovery procedures are described in
detail in the POH, as test piloting. I always thought test piloting was
about exploring things which are not described in the POH. But then, I'm
not an instructor.

> The points Ian was making was why try something that
> had no useful purpose

I surely hope you don't ever make love to your wife whithout producing
children, because this would not have any useful purpose.

Stefan

Nyal Williams

January 19th 05, 05:28 PM

At 11:00 18 January 2005, Ian Johnston wrote:
>On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 19:41:29 UTC, Don Johnstone
> wrote:
>
>: Spot on Ian. The rules for the Air Cadets in the
>UK,
>: RAF rules, prohibit intentional spinning below 2500ft
>: in a glider. If you are still spinning you abandon
>: at this height
>
>How many gliders will not recover from a spin with
>2,500' to spare?
>What are the injury rates for parachute jumps from
>gliders?
>
>Ian
>--

I'm guessing that this 2500ft rule has nothing to do
with glider spin recovery and altitude loss. It
seems more logical that it is the altitude needed to
deploy canopy, get out, have the chute open and slow
down the <not yet> dead weight of the pilot.

The US rule is that the spin must be stopped above
1500ft.

Don Johnstone

January 19th 05, 05:53 PM

Interesting........how is the information in the POH
obtained, yes the answer is test flying. But what is
tested? There are requirements laid down that gliders
must conform to in spin recovery. There are two ways
of approaching testing.
1. Test to see if the glider complies with the requirements
during the test flights. If it does it has passed.
2. Fly in all possible configuarations and allowable
C of G positions and see how the glider behaves. Fly
in configurations which are most unlikely to be met
in normal service and with the C of G right on the
theoretical limits and maybe beyond and assess the
behaviour.
Which approach do you think a glider manufacturer test
pilot takes. Prove that the glider complies with the
requirements or test right to the limits. The latter
is the way that military aircraft are tested at great
expense, do you honestly think that glider manufacturers
can go to that expense.
It has been said that the Puch has featured in several
fatal spin ins. What was the cause? In the absence
of any mechanical failure it is assumed that the failure
to recover was caused by pilot mishandling, and that
may be the case. We can never know that, the only person
who could prove or disprove that is very difficult
to communicate with unless you happen to know a medium.

We do not KNOW that there is not a configuration or
combination of configuration and airframe loading which
will make a spin recovery impossible or more difficult
and until someone survives such an occurrence we will
not KNOW. We do know that no-one has found such a configuration
and survived to tell anyone about it, which is not
the same as saying it has never or cannot happen.
You may think that my scenario is unlikely, I freely
admit that I do but I do not intend to find out the
hard way. Spinning below safe abandonment height leaves
no option if it all goes to rats.

What is a safe abandonment height, that is another
question. I know what I think mine is. Do you know
what yours is? I pray that I never have to find out
if I am right.

Make love to the wife.........do people still do that?
:-)

At 16:31 19 January 2005, Stefan wrote:
>Don Johnstone wrote:
>
>> I too know how to recover from a spin, and I don't
>> need to find an instructor, I were one.
>
>Then I'm even more puzzled that you consider exploring
>spins in a
>certified glider, which's spin recovery procedures
>are described in
>detail in the POH, as test piloting. I always thought
>test piloting was
>about exploring things which are not described in the
>POH. But then, I'm
>not an instructor.
>
>> The points Ian was making was why try something that
>> had no useful purpose
>
>I surely hope you don't ever make love to your wife
>whithout producing
>children, because this would not have any useful purpose.
>
>Stefan
>

Stefan

January 19th 05, 06:24 PM

Don Johnstone wrote:

> Which approach do you think a glider manufacturer test
> pilot takes. Prove that the glider complies with the
> requirements or test right to the limits. The latter
> is the way that military aircraft are tested at great
> expense, do you honestly think that glider manufacturers
> can go to that expense.

JAR-22 certification requires exactly this.

> What is a safe abandonment height, that is another
> question. I know what I think mine is. Do you know
> what yours is?

If you'd read my previous posts, you'd have seen that I wrote I'd never
start a deliberate spin below 3000 ft AGL, nor would I explore stalls
and control abuse in an unknown glider below this altitude. (This was
the post Ian replied to.) I consider this quite conservative.

Stefan

Chris Reed

January 19th 05, 08:33 PM

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-text-flowed"
style="font-family: -moz-fixed; font-size: 13px;" lang="x-western">Andreas
Maurer wrote:
 
"You are correct, Ian - but here in Germany still a lot of Ka-7 and
 
ASK-13 are in use which do spin well and are commonly used for spin
 
training (not to mention other two-seaters that spin like the DG-500).
 
Yet I have not heard of a spin accident in one of them so far,
 
although their number far exceeds the number of Puchacz."
 
 
I trained on both an ASK13 and a Puchacz, and there is a real
difference between their spin characteristics. Our K13 would spin
(since re-covering it is very reluctant), recovered very quickly and
lost far less height.
 
 
The Puchacz spin entry, recovery and height loss is much more like the
single-seaters I've spun (Astir and Open Cirrus).
 
 
From what I recall of previous discussion on r.a.s., the majority of
Puchacz spin accidents were soon after its introduction and seemed
largely to be a result of unexpected height loss compared to previous
trainers - can someone who knows more about this confirm or contradict?
 
 
Chris Reed
 
 
 
 
 
</div>
</body>
</html>