At 13:24 21 June 2005, Stefan wrote:
Don Johnstone wrote:

It is to be
hoped that some of the above passage is the result
of iffy translation, if not it is a very strange sequence
of events.

Perfectly correct translation. No strange sequence
at all.

The report conclusions do not help. I am no expert

Yes, they do. Know your airplane, know the emergency
procedures and
particlarly know its behaviour in regading to spins.
Practice spin
recoveries, practice spiral dive recoveries. And any
pilot who is even
tempted to pull back the stick in a spin is not airworthy.

I agree entirely. But was this glider ever spinning?
The report does make the point that intentional spinning
of the 4DM is prohibited.

on the 4DM but is it possible to exceed VNe in a spin?

Certainly not. But many gliders will not stay in the
spin but go into a
spiral dive. Which was obviously the case here.

I don't see that as obvious. How did it get from spin
to spiral dive. The action taken by the pilot would
not have prevented the auto-rotation, in fact it should
have ensured that it continued and that the glider
remained stalled. Stall plus autorotation =spin.

The question is was the glider ever in a spin. Reading
Bill's post that is a pertinent question? My point
about the conclusions not helping is that they say
that the structural failure was from a 'spiral dive
OR spin'. I have to accept that the recovery action
taken by the pilot was incorrect but what was he trying
to recover from?

Stefan