Another stall spin

On Monday, September 3, 2012 11:44:04 AM UTC-4, Dan Marotta wrote:
If I thought I was going to die every time I flew, I wouldn't fly. The problem, as I see it, with these low altitude stall/spin accidents stems from the desire to get home rather than landing out. Back in the '70s the USAF called it "Get-Home-itis" and warned that it was a good way to get killed. Pilots need to make the decision to terminate a flight before there is no option other than landing in an unlandable place or trying to make a low save a mile from home just to avoid the inconvenience of a retrieve. Long ago I made the committment to never be outside of gliding distance of a suitable landing area. I also carry the phone numbers of people who have told me that they will come to get me if I land out. I always know where I will land if I don't get that next thermal so there's no problem if I don't get it and there are never any attempts to thermal at 300' AGL. Of my conservatism causes me to rarely get more than 500Km in a day, but I can *live* with that. "BobW" wrote in message ... On 9/2/2012 3:45 AM, Chris Rollings wrote: Most of a Very Excellent original post snipped... ...The next remark was very revealing (remember this was only about 2 minutes after he had spun in), "I can't understand what happened, there must have been something wrong with the elevator, I kept pulling back on the stick but the nose wouldn't come up." I wonder...: 1) what percentage of glider pilots think of the stick (as in elevator/pitch) as a "nose up/down control"? 2) what percentage of glider pilots think of the stick (as in elevator/pitch) as a "speed control"? I believe 2) is the better/safer manner of thinking about it. It will ALWAYS result in the correct action being taken "if the elevator quits working" at pattern speeds. (If we've any anal aerobatic mavens, please don't muddy the picture; this thread IS about pattern departures. :-)) - - - - - - He had been trained, about 8 years earlier, in a regime which did include spinning and recovery in pre-solo training, but there was no requirement for anything like a BFR or annual check so long as he remained current. In all probability he had not seen a spin from inside the cockpit for a number of years. Little wonder that he did not recognise it instantly. I'm unconvinced recurrent training is "the complete ticket". I believe that how one fundamentally thinks (in this case, about pattern risks) is no less crucial...perhaps even MORE crucial. I also wonder how many glider pilots actively think when in the pattern "If I don't get everything as I intend/need-to, I could DIE during THIS pattern!"? I believe having such a thought in one's active awareness predisposes the mind toward awareness that pattern departures *can* occur, and if "instant" recognition/corrective action (reduction of AOA) does not occur, death is likely to soon follow. With such a thought in mind, it arguably should not matter how long ago one's recurrent training involving pattern "departure gotcha scenarios" occurred. - - - - - - ...Even pilots trained under the UK system (which does include spinning and recovery practice as part of the pre and post solo training), can't be expected to recognise an unintentional spin that quickly if they haven't seen and practiced one for months or years. ...The only thing that will work is frequent practice and only instructors who are teaching spinning regularly are really likely to get enough. To indulge in playful quibbling...is Chris R. here suggesting that only instructors be allowed to fly patterns, since "...only instructors who are teaching spinning regularly are really likely to get enough (unintentional spin entry practice to quickly recognize pattern departures)"? OK, I know he isn't, but to quibble with his point about "practice being necessary/crucial" to rapidly recognizing incipient pattern departures, I'm reasonably convinced that how a person thinks, matters...a lot!!! If a person is mentally primed for the *possibility* of incipient departure in his or her landing pattern, then not only is s/he less likely to inadvertently play in that corner of the sandbox, but s/he will also be mentally primed to rapidly/correctly react with the stick. - - - - - - Practice is great (whether governmentally mandated or self-motivated). Just don't fall into the mental trap of "*temporarily* (i.e. "because you're practicing") opening your mind" to practice and its lessons, when it should *always* be open to death-inducing possibilities. Bob - heightened awareness pattern flyer - W.

Two of the most recent were where all the pilot had to do was land on the airport so I think your point is not applicable to them. That said, knowing they could land if they fell out may have made them more comfortable trying to make the low saves.
I do agree that get home itis can be a strong motivator toward dangerous behavior.
UH