Another stall spin

Just a comment about stall - spin recoveries and practice:

These have to be practiced in the glider you are going to be potentially "spinning" - and often the recovery process will NOT be a spin recovery, it will be a spiral dive recovery; not at all the same thing at low altitude!

My LS6 is very spin resistant, but can be forced to depart/drop a wing (simulating turbulence, etc). However, it transitions to a spiral dive immediatly (speed increasing is obvious cue). If the classic spin recovery is started, like practiced in the local club 2-seater, the forward stick will result in a vertical high speed dive and a lot of altitude loss - possibly beyond Vne. The correct recovery is to roll wings level(full aileron and rudder) then pull hard - speed is not a problem by the time the wings are leveled!

At low altitude, the wrong recovery procedure can result in insufficient altitude to recover.

PRACTICE IN YOUR OWN GLIDER!

Kirk
66

On Monday, August 27, 2012 4:08:49 PM UTC-4, Brian wrote:
So I am seeing the why do we still thermal low comment, but no one is says how low. I suspect these accidents may not be a low as some of us think. But have no data to back it up. With so many of us using flight recorders it should be pretty easy to look a few of these accidents and see, but somehow this data never seems to reach us. I can understand some liability issues but it seems like it would be pretty easy to reproduce the data into a generic format that didn't give away the location or ID of what happened but would still allow us to review the flight path of an actual flight that led to the accident. Brian

I'll jump in and define low as that altitude from which you are not likely to recover from a spin and save your life.
From what I heard about the observed departure from controlled flight to impact was a portion of a turn.
After the FAA seizes the recorder, if there is one, it seems to be very hard to ever get it back. Also, sometimes the last few seconds before impact may be missing based on a few accidents I've seen the logs of. No idea why this might be.
Again FWIW
UH

On Monday, August 27, 2012 2:30:30 PM UTC-6, (unknown) wrote:
On Monday, August 27, 2012 4:08:49 PM UTC-4, Brian wrote:

So I am seeing the why do we still thermal low comment, but no one is says how low. I suspect these accidents may not be a low as some of us think.. But have no data to back it up. With so many of us using flight recorders it should be pretty easy to look a few of these accidents and see, but somehow this data never seems to reach us. I can understand some liability issues but it seems like it would be pretty easy to reproduce the data into a generic format that didn't give away the location or ID of what happened but would still allow us to review the flight path of an actual flight that led to the accident. Brian



I'll jump in and define low as that altitude from which you are not likely to recover from a spin and save your life.

From what I heard about the observed departure from controlled flight to impact was a portion of a turn.

After the FAA seizes the recorder, if there is one, it seems to be very hard to ever get it back. Also, sometimes the last few seconds before impact may be missing based on a few accidents I've seen the logs of. No idea why this might be.

Again FWIW

UH

From what I've seen, logger data appears to be buffered in memory before being written to the log file. If the power is interrupted by impact, the last 15 seconds or so isn't written to the log. A similar experience is driving into a tunnel with a SiriusXM radio. The buffered content plays for 10-15 seconds before quitting due to loss of signal.

Through the few phone calls, e-mails, and conversations I had with Jim through SSA committee work, I found him to be amicable, personal, and helpful. Sad loss to soaring, his region, and many friends.

Frank Whiteley

On Monday, August 27, 2012 1:08:49 PM UTC-7, Brian wrote:
So I am seeing the why do we still thermal low comment, but no one is says how low. I suspect these accidents may not be a low as some of us think. But have no data to back it up.

With so many of us using flight recorders it should be pretty easy to look a few of these accidents and see, but somehow this data never seems to reach us. I can understand some liability issues but it seems like it would be pretty easy to reproduce the data into a generic format that didn't give away the location or ID of what happened but would still allow us to review the flight path of an actual flight that led to the accident.



Brian

My thoughts exactly. we need the actual data to learn something from those accidents, but it is almost never provided. We should have enough statistics to be able to determine how low is too low to recover, so we can adjust our threshold. This is what safety culture is all about. If we keep this info to ourselves, no much can be learned.

Ramy

On Monday, August 27, 2012 6:40:42 PM UTC-4, Ramy wrote:
On Monday, August 27, 2012 1:08:49 PM UTC-7, Brian wrote: So I am seeing the why do we still thermal low comment, but no one is says how low. I suspect these accidents may not be a low as some of us think. But have no data to back it up. With so many of us using flight recorders it should be pretty easy to look a few of these accidents and see, but somehow this data never seems to reach us. I can understand some liability issues but it seems like it would be pretty easy to reproduce the data into a generic format that didn't give away the location or ID of what happened but would still allow us to review the flight path of an actual flight that led to the accident. Brian My thoughts exactly. we need the actual data to learn something from those accidents, but it is almost never provided. We should have enough statistics to be able to determine how low is too low to recover, so we can adjust our threshold. This is what safety culture is all about.. If we keep this info to ourselves, no much can be learned. Ramy

I do not agree.
There is nothing new to learn from Jim's accident.
People just keep repeating the same stupid stuff they know better than to do.
A handful of folks on this forum seem to want to study the crap out of accidents like this in the hope that they will learn something new.
There are no new lessons to be learned here guys. It is very simple. You can't circle at low altitude without an unaceptable risk of a(commonly gust induced) stall spin. And these spins do NOT happen like the ones we practice.. They happen much more quickly and violently. I have a personal hard deck of 500 feet where circling is cancelled. The only exception is ridge flying where a whole group of additional variables come into play.
If you want data, go spin your glider in the configuration you fly it all the time. Let it start to spin, not just catch it when it departs. See how much altitude you lose, then throw in another 1-200 feet for the surprise factor.
I spin sailpalnes probably 60-80 times a year and my contest gliders a dozen time a year. From that, I've developed my personal limits.
Note that gliders with winglets commonly may be more benign in stall than ones without, but may well be uglier in a true spin.
As instructors, mentors, and friends, we need to embrace and promote the concept that we all need a limit where we STOP SOARING AND START LANDING with NO exceptions.
Sorry to rant, but I've lost 3 friends this year, all for the same damn reason and all knew better.
UH

On Monday, August 27, 2012 4:08:30 PM UTC-7, (unknown) wrote:
On Monday, August 27, 2012 6:40:42 PM UTC-4, Ramy wrote:

On Monday, August 27, 2012 1:08:49 PM UTC-7, Brian wrote: So I am seeing the why do we still thermal low comment, but no one is says how low. I suspect these accidents may not be a low as some of us think. But have no data to back it up. With so many of us using flight recorders it should be pretty easy to look a few of these accidents and see, but somehow this data never seems to reach us. I can understand some liability issues but it seems like it would be pretty easy to reproduce the data into a generic format that didn't give away the location or ID of what happened but would still allow us to review the flight path of an actual flight that led to the accident. Brian My thoughts exactly. we need the actual data to learn something from those accidents, but it is almost never provided. We should have enough statistics to be able to determine how low is too low to recover, so we can adjust our threshold. This is what safety culture is all about. If we keep this info to ourselves, no much can be learned. Ramy



I do not agree.

There is nothing new to learn from Jim's accident.

People just keep repeating the same stupid stuff they know better than to do.

A handful of folks on this forum seem to want to study the crap out of accidents like this in the hope that they will learn something new.

There are no new lessons to be learned here guys. It is very simple. You can't circle at low altitude without an unaceptable risk of a(commonly gust induced) stall spin. And these spins do NOT happen like the ones we practice. They happen much more quickly and violently. I have a personal hard deck of 500 feet where circling is cancelled. The only exception is ridge flying where a whole group of additional variables come into play.

If you want data, go spin your glider in the configuration you fly it all the time. Let it start to spin, not just catch it when it departs. See how much altitude you lose, then throw in another 1-200 feet for the surprise factor.

I spin sailpalnes probably 60-80 times a year and my contest gliders a dozen time a year. From that, I've developed my personal limits.

Note that gliders with winglets commonly may be more benign in stall than ones without, but may well be uglier in a true spin.

As instructors, mentors, and friends, we need to embrace and promote the concept that we all need a limit where we STOP SOARING AND START LANDING with NO exceptions.

Sorry to rant, but I've lost 3 friends this year, all for the same damn reason and all knew better.

UH

The point was to qualify what is too low. I agree about 500 feet. This is also my threshold. But some will consider below 1000 feet as low, while others will consider 200 feet... As such, would be helpful to know how low they were thermaling, if the data is available.

Ramy

Ramy

On 8/27/2012 5:08 PM, wrote:
On Monday, August 27, 2012 6:40:42 PM UTC-4, Ramy wrote:
...Intervening snip...

My thoughts
exactly. we need the actual data to learn something from those accidents,
but it is almost never provided. We should have enough statistics to be
able to determine how low is too low to recover, so we can adjust our
threshold. This is what safety culture is all about. If we keep this info
to ourselves, no much can be learned. Ramy

I do not agree. There is nothing new to learn from Jim's accident. People
just keep repeating the same stupid stuff they know better than to do.

Below is an excerpt from a soaring book, copyright 1940. (The book is "Flight
Without Power" by Lewin B. Barringer. Note the U.S. distance record at the
time of writing wasn't even 500 km. What could glider pilots - who by today's
standards were rank beginners - POSSIBLY teach us experts today?)

From p. 180, 1942 edition...

"A common mistake of students making tight spirals is to pull back too hard on
the stick and either forget about the rudder or apply rudder on the downside.
The usual result is a sudden stall followed by a fast spin as the nose drops.
*It may sometimes take as much as 200 feet to recover, so it is obvious that a
beginner should never make steep turns at low altitude* (emphasis added)."

The last bit of the final sentence is worth repeating: "...so it is obvious
that a beginner should never make steep turns at low altitude."

Some points to ponder...

1) Barringer was writing about lightly wing-loaded (by today's standards)
utility gliders of lower than 2-22 performance. (How much altitude will *you*
require in the event of a low-altitude, inadvertent departure from controlled
flight, in your more heavily wing-loaded glider, at an altitude low enough to
already be raising your anxiety levels [and probably tend you toward
hastily-/anxiety-ridden, life-threateningly-urgent recovery motions]? We all
fly our best when anxious, right? I wonder if any of this year's dead pilots
ever even got the chance to implement recovery motions? If they did, obviously
it didn't matter.)

2) We've 72 subsequent years of evidence demonstrating Barringer's observation
shouldn't be limited to "a beginner". This year's North American record
tragically punctuates the point...

3) For those inclined to practice inadvertent departures from controlled
flight and rapid recoveries, once you've established your minimums (presumably
from practicing at a safe height agl), just to be certain you've got things
right, practice them in the landing pattern, "where you'll always have a
runway within reach." You survivors, let us know how things go; better yet,
YouTube things for the rest of us wimpoids. Meanwhile we'll be reading about
the non-survivors.
- - - - - -

Understand, I'm not arguing against spin practice, honing skills, learning
efficient "departure recovery" in lost-height-terms, or even against the
concept of establishing minimums. That's all great stuff. I think every
soaring pilot should actively practice such things every season.

But to lose sight of the fact that thin margin flying activity is necessarily
increased-danger flying activity, and, the fact the line between "recovery by
skill" and DEATH can never be firmly known beforehand or rigidly quantified,
is (arguably) to still have one's thinking inclined away from the unavoidable,
established by physics and Mother Nature (neither of which care one bit about
you or me or anyone else), risks of flight and *toward* continuing to push
one's limits, perhaps in areas where they should not be pushed.

So what new IS there to learn from all the low-altitude stall-spin deaths in
North America this soaring season? (This is not a rhetorical question.)

Is any of that knowledge guaranteed to prevent future such deaths?

Like practicing Russian roulette or playing on the freeway, there seem to be
some things that just aren't ever a good idea. (Ask survivors' family and
friends.)

How a person thinks, matters.

Bob W.

Bob, I'm not quite sure what your point is. In fact, you seem at first to suggest that practicing unusual attitude recoveries is a bad thing!

That flies completely in the face of all aviation safety training I've ever had. You have to know the beast and how to defeat it (or at least hold it at bay). If you are not practicing departure recoveries at a safe altitude, how the hell are you going to have any chance of recovering following an unplanned (aren't they all?) upset at low altitude, whether on the ridge or in the pattern.

But spin training in a Blanik, while fun, may be actually counterproductive if you fly high-performance glass. You have to train in your ship, or something very similar.

I agree that there is nothing new to learn - but the same old lesson has to be relearned and practiced - Plan for emergencies, practice how to cope with them, avoid situations that exceed your actual, current skill.

And painfully, learn from other's tragic mistakes - their loss may save you....

Kirk
66

Great post. I should spin more. We all should. It might sound wimpy but my personal limit (post Ionia R6N and Tim's accident) is 800ft (see last day trace). I have not been below 1100 AGL since except at Parowan which it was unavoidable. Im just not that good and to fight lower, even in competition, is simply not worth it to me any longer (as has been aptly demonstrated this summer). I actually figure eighted alot in Parowon near the hills in turbulent gusty thermals during the contest (my first flying ever in the mountains...) and didn't lose much. It was much more comfortable. I actually felt great about being cautious.

I also pulled aside from launching in 20-35+ kts of wind. Just too much wind for me knowing the drop off was going to be 200 ft over the mountains in most cases.

Sure has been a tough year...and unfortunately I see little real change (personally with pilots or in rules or regulation or procedure). Lots of pilots regularly down to and below 500 ft (the red zone).

Simply put, we are each are 100% responsible for ourselves and our passengers whenever we waggle the rudder and start to roll. That's all there is too it. If you choose to circle below the altitude by which you can recover 100% of the time (if you really know this altitude as UH seems too) the risks are suddenly EXTREME. You are in the "red zone" and mistakes are potentially absolutely deadly. We have all gone into the red zone. We are there every time we launch and land. We are there every time we get low and fight. Some of us well into it...200ft or so circling... I have done this several times... And I was stupid.

Ridge pilots often spend the whole damn day in the red zone. Many of us take huge risk so regularly we seem to get used to it. Some thrive on it.

The problem might be that the soaring culture (has/had/did/does?) respects low saves more than sensible land outs. This has been my experience. Not alot of atta boys for landing out. At least a few for "digging out" at 400 ft.

Unless rules are put in place to penalize low flying (in clubs, contests, etc) expect these accidents to continue... The stick is a useful tool but will it be used? Can it be used?

F2

On Monday, August 27, 2012 7:08:30 PM UTC-4, (unknown) wrote:
On Monday, August 27, 2012 6:40:42 PM UTC-4, Ramy wrote:

On Monday, August 27, 2012 1:08:49 PM UTC-7, Brian wrote: So I am seeing the why do we still thermal low comment, but no one is says how low. I suspect these accidents may not be a low as some of us think. But have no data to back it up. With so many of us using flight recorders it should be pretty easy to look a few of these accidents and see, but somehow this data never seems to reach us. I can understand some liability issues but it seems like it would be pretty easy to reproduce the data into a generic format that didn't give away the location or ID of what happened but would still allow us to review the flight path of an actual flight that led to the accident. Brian My thoughts exactly. we need the actual data to learn something from those accidents, but it is almost never provided. We should have enough statistics to be able to determine how low is too low to recover, so we can adjust our threshold. This is what safety culture is all about. If we keep this info to ourselves, no much can be learned. Ramy



I do not agree.

There is nothing new to learn from Jim's accident.

People just keep repeating the same stupid stuff they know better than to do.

A handful of folks on this forum seem to want to study the crap out of accidents like this in the hope that they will learn something new.

There are no new lessons to be learned here guys. It is very simple. You can't circle at low altitude without an unaceptable risk of a(commonly gust induced) stall spin. And these spins do NOT happen like the ones we practice. They happen much more quickly and violently. I have a personal hard deck of 500 feet where circling is cancelled. The only exception is ridge flying where a whole group of additional variables come into play.

If you want data, go spin your glider in the configuration you fly it all the time. Let it start to spin, not just catch it when it departs. See how much altitude you lose, then throw in another 1-200 feet for the surprise factor.

I spin sailpalnes probably 60-80 times a year and my contest gliders a dozen time a year. From that, I've developed my personal limits.

Note that gliders with winglets commonly may be more benign in stall than ones without, but may well be uglier in a true spin.

As instructors, mentors, and friends, we need to embrace and promote the concept that we all need a limit where we STOP SOARING AND START LANDING with NO exceptions.

Sorry to rant, but I've lost 3 friends this year, all for the same damn reason and all knew better.

UH

My $0.20c worth:
Practice at altitude in your glider. Some new gliders are "interesting" in
a full spin.
You will most likely find that the standard recovery is best.
Do not put yourself in the low save situation, especially when windy. Look
at the winners IGC files from Uvalde [or any other contest], you will find
the winners used lesser thermals at times to stay high, smarter flying.
If you do get below your safe level then do a safe outlanding, [this also
needs a little spare altitude to set up!].
Tom


At 20:19 30 August 2012, Sean F F2 wrote:
Great post. I should spin more. We all should. It might sound wimpy
but
=
my personal limit (post Ionia R6N and Tim's accident) is 800ft (see last
da=
y trace). I have not been below 1100 AGL since except at Parowan which
it
=
was unavoidable. Im just not that good and to fight lower, even in
competi=
tion, is simply not worth it to me any longer (as has been aptly
demonstrat=
ed this summer). I actually figure eighted alot in Parowon near the
hills
=
in turbulent gusty thermals during the contest (my first flying ever in
the=
mountains...) and didn't lose much. It was much more comfortable. I
actu=
ally felt great about being cautious.

I also pulled aside from launching in 20-35+ kts of wind. Just too much
wi=
nd for me knowing the drop off was going to be 200 ft over the mountains
in=
most cases.

Sure has been a tough year...and unfortunately I see little real change
(pe=
rsonally with pilots or in rules or regulation or procedure). Lots of
pilo=
ts regularly down to and below 500 ft (the red zone). =20

Simply put, we are each are 100% responsible for ourselves and our
passenge=
rs whenever we waggle the rudder and start to roll. That's all there is
to=
o it. If you choose to circle below the altitude by which you can
recover
=
100% of the time (if you really know this altitude as UH seems too) the
ris=
ks are suddenly EXTREME. You are in the "red zone" and mistakes are
potent=
ially absolutely deadly. We have all gone into the red zone. We are
there=
every time we launch and land. We are there every time we get low and
fig=
ht. Some of us well into it...200ft or so circling... I have done this
se=
veral times... And I was stupid.=20

Ridge pilots often spend the whole damn day in the red zone. Many of us
ta=
ke huge risk so regularly we seem to get used to it. Some thrive on it.

The problem might be that the soaring culture (has/had/did/does?)
respects
=
low saves more than sensible land outs. This has been my experience.
Not
=
alot of atta boys for landing out. At least a few for "digging out" at
400=
ft.

Unless rules are put in place to penalize low flying (in clubs, contests,
e=
tc) expect these accidents to continue... The stick is a useful tool but
w=
ill it be used? Can it be used?

F2

On Monday, August 27, 2012 7:08:30 PM UTC-4, (unknown) wrote:
On Monday, August 27, 2012 6:40:42 PM UTC-4, Ramy wrote:
=20
On Monday, August 27, 2012 1:08:49 PM UTC-7, Brian wrote: So I am
see=
ing the why do we still thermal low comment, but no one is says how low.
I
=
suspect these accidents may not be a low as some of us think. But have no
d=
ata to back it up. With so many of us using flight recorders it
should
=
be pretty easy to look a few of these accidents and see, but somehow this
d=
ata never seems to reach us. I can understand some liability issues but
it
=
seems like it would be pretty easy to reproduce the data into a generic
for=
mat that didn't give away the location or ID of what happened but would
sti=
ll allow us to review the flight path of an actual flight that led to the
a=
ccident. Brian My thoughts exactly. we need the actual data to
lear=
n something from those accidents, but it is almost never provided. We
shoul=
d have enough statistics to be able to determine how low is too low to
reco=
ver, so we can adjust our threshold. This is what safety culture is all
abo=
ut. If we keep this info to ourselves, no much can be learned. Ramy
=20
=20
=20
I do not agree.
=20
There is nothing new to learn from Jim's accident.
=20
People just keep repeating the same stupid stuff they know better than
to=
do.
=20
A handful of folks on this forum seem to want to study the crap out of
ac=
cidents like this in the hope that they will learn something new.
=20
There are no new lessons to be learned here guys. It is very simple.
You
=
can't circle at low altitude without an unaceptable risk of a(commonly
gust=
induced) stall spin. And these spins do NOT happen like the ones we
practi=
ce. They happen much more quickly and violently. I have a personal hard
dec=
k of 500 feet where circling is cancelled. The only exception is ridge
flyi=
ng where a whole group of additional variables come into play.
=20
If you want data, go spin your glider in the configuration you fly it
all=
the time. Let it start to spin, not just catch it when it departs. See
how=
much altitude you lose, then throw in another 1-200 feet for the
surprise
=
factor.
=20
I spin sailpalnes probably 60-80 times a year and my contest gliders a
do=
zen time a year. From that, I've developed my personal limits. =20
=20
Note that gliders with winglets commonly may be more benign in stall
than=
ones without, but may well be uglier in a true spin.
=20
As instructors, mentors, and friends, we need to embrace and promote
the
=
concept that we all need a limit where we STOP SOARING AND START LANDING
wi=
th NO exceptions.
=20
Sorry to rant, but I've lost 3 friends this year, all for the same damn
r=
eason and all knew better.
=20
UH