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.