Puchacz fatal accident 18 Jan. 2004 at Husbands Bosworth.

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.

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

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?

Ian
--

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 |
\---------------------------------------/

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

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

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.

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

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

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.