Puchacz New Cautionary Tale/Tail

On 9/8/2010 12:19 AM, F-U-Ed. wrote:
On Sep 6, 6:50 pm, wrote:
Folks:
Snip...

You will not yet find this on any accident/incident reports.
Cindy Brickner
Southern Californiawww.caracole-soaring.com

Just for your information, before you so blatantly post such rude and
one sided statements, you should know

[The alleged pilot] is no saint
in the soaring community and if that is your perception on the man
after his phone call to "alert" the community and "save the Puchacz's
and their users", I can honestly say that you are all VERY mistaken.
Best Regards, Blue Skies and Happy Soaring to all

Hmmm...of the two posts, the first one seems distinctly less overwrought than
the second one...but there IS a factual error in the first one. You CAN find a
listing of the incident in the preliminary FAA daily accident/incident data at...

http://www.faa.gov/data_research/acc...a/A_0907_N.txt

Within a few weeks it can be expected to show up as an NTSB Preliminary
Report, too.

I for one would much prefer to be alerted to incidents as these than to remain
in wondering ignorance. And while I'd also like to know more about the
individual pilots involved (because it may well influence my personal
conclusions about any incident...and personal conclusions about others'
misfortunes are always my own goal when it comes to my own future flight
safety), I recognize that generally only thos who know/knew the pilot(s)
involved are privy to such intensely personal information. Such is the way of
the world and human nature...

Regards,
Bob W.

P.S. For those paying attention to publicly available information, 2010 has
become a genuinely statistically bad year for U.S. soaring, both in quantity
and deaths. Please - let's try and avoid all avoidable incidents for at
*least* the rest of the calendar year!

On Sep 7, 11:19*pm, "F-U-Ed." wrote:

Just for your information, before you so blatantly post such rude and
one sided statements, you should know that this pilot...

[Full message and header omitted but on file.]

Reading Cindy's post, and even between its lines, I really don't see
any content that particularly defames the Puch. I'm guessing that most
European sailplanes are susceptible to very similar failure modes.
There is an excellent lesson here that a good PCC should also include
the axial play of control surfaces, and not just their deflection,
sense, and slop.

Also, if you really must post material like this, my suggestion would
be to do so either more completely anonymously or more openly. And
better yet either more moderately or not at all. I think we've all
occasionally posted in haste and repented at leisure, so I do
understand how strong feelings can cloud one's judgment. Mike's
suggestion of taking a deep breath before clicking Send is probably a
good one.

Thanks, Bob K.

Reading Cindy's post, and even between its lines, I really don't see
any content that particularly defames the Puch.

Thanks.
I'm sensitive about Pooches overall, and wanted to be as fair to the
airframe
as I could be.

There is an excellent lesson here that a good PCC should also include
the axial play of control surfaces, and not just their deflection,
sense, and slop.


THAT was/is the message the pilot and I wanted to emphasize.
Thanks for the comment about AXIAL examination. I frequently see
pilots wobble surfaces about, sometimes too roughly, and VERY seldom
see someone check all surfaces for all three axes of movement. That
could perhaps have found this as a potential departure of a surface.

I was delighted to read the thread's progress tonight. Thank you to
Eric M. for the detail and thoughtfullness of his contribution. And to
JJ.
I couldn't begin to recall the fanny hardware, as the last 50-3 I knew
was over ten years ago, and only through one periodic inspection.
(Tongue bit and lips clenched. Restraint shown here.)

Thanks to many of you for defending my reputation! Ahhh, Chivalry.

And Bob W. -- the incident report wasn't YET published. ;-)
I wasn't waiting for Monday, as I only get to here intermittently.
I am glad to see it recorded, and will be curious to see what, if any
conclusions, can be drawn. I deliberately avoided any personal
conjecture,
writing only what was told to me. (Adjusting front pedals may have
masked a 'moment of change', or not.)


I did not point fingers of fault in any direction.
There are plenty of US glider "events" that never make it into any
reporting
system. I only did what was asked -- to try to have some good results
and discussions from an otherwise unsettling flight. I hope this
inspires
other pilots to POST and share things that keep each other more
aware, more conscientious and still having fun with each other in
2011.

We could all use the reminders.

Cindy
(who went wave soaring Wednesday)
www.caracole-soaring.com

I have quite a few hours in the back seat of a Puchacz, and like some
other posters suspect that the story as related to Cindy is somewhat
suspect. For example:

On Saturday, following only a few flights, the pilot felt some
restriction in rudder movement, and asked the front seat passenger
to adjust the length of rudder stirrups for more freedom of movement.
The passenger complied, and free movement was "restored."

Altering the front pedals merely lengthens or shortens the cable
connecting front and rear pedals - the cable which actuates the rudder
runs from the rear pedals to the rudder fittings. The only restriction
this change could affect would be that of the front pilot's feet on
the pedals.

Also the Puchacz is not strongly directionally stable even with the
rudder attached. With it missing, I'm sure the glider would have been
wallowing around the sky and clearly have felt utterly wrong, even
when attempting to fly straight. If:

The flight continued in nice lift, and some mild maneuvers
for perhaps twenty five more minutes prior to landing.

without a rudder, the pilot must have been flying in boxing gloves not
to notice something was very wrong.

I'm not saying the rudder didn't fall off, but I don't find the
"decorative" parts of the story convincing.