Another stall spin

On Monday, August 27, 2012 6:40:42 PM UTC-4, Ramy wrote:
we need the actual data to learn something from those accidents, but it is almost never provided.

I suggest that you take your glider to 2500 AGL or so, fly it like you normally do, circle in a weak thermal, record the 'start altitude', put it into a spin and record the altitude of the low point in your spin recovery.

Do this ten times. Take the worst case altitude loss and add a 'safety factor'.

The results will help you set a "personal minimum circling altitude'.

Why would actual flight path accident data (for a different pilot in a different glider) give you a better number?

On Sunday, August 26, 2012 12:11:45 AM UTC-4, Jp Stewart wrote:
From TA's Dansville contest write-up:

"Unfortunately, we were also saddened to hear of yet another apparent stall-spin fatality; Jim Rizzo, Finger Lakes club president and FAA Designated Examiner for the area was killed when his glider crashed into a farmer’s field not far from the Dansville airport. Jim was not part of the contest and was just flying locally when the accident occurred. All we know is what the farmer said (and this is 3rd hand to me) that apparently Jim was trying to thermal away from a low altitude and spun in (sound familiar? – it should – this is the 3rd almost identical fatality this season here on the east coast)."

http://soaringcafe.com/2012/08/day-6...ille-region-3/



JP




I’m very sad to hear of Jim’s accident. It sends a clear message that this can happen to anyone including me! Having been CFIGing for many years, I know that I have not adequately trained my students in spins. The equipment just doesn’t allow.

I also know that the late Kai Gertsen wrote a series of instructional publications including what I deem most valuable, “Why Spin Training”. This well written report about Spins is written for glider pilots and we all need to read, digest and read again to help us understand how we can be better prepared to deal with a spin situation. I require every pilot to read Kai’s Spin report as part of their BFR.

Quoting the first chapter on of the latest edition of “Why Spin Training” from Kai Gertsen’s just published book, “Desperate to Fly”….

“Spinning is the biggest cause of gliding fatalities. Every year we lose a handful of our fellow glider pilots in this country to spin-ins. This is truly tragic, as I am certain these accidents would not occur if all pilots received adequate spin training. I know of several cases where spin training saved the day. Pilots who are not prepared are not likely to take proper action when the time comes”.

Please buy this book from Wings and Wheels or the publisher, BTLinkpublishing.com. This is the really good information that we need to understand. Lets put an end to this tragic accident.

I send my deepest condolences to Jim Rizzo’s family and friends.

Bill Batesole

Responding to Noel. Excellent post. Indeed, currency and experience are two very different things. It only takes weeks for the sharp edge of flying skill to start to rust.

It doesn't matter why if, when the moment comes, the pilot lacks the skills to deal with the situation. I always make me wonder why some people spend a lot to acquire the skills to get a rating and then do nothing to maintain those skills. I'm thinking of "highly skilled" contest pilots who make only 20 landings a year - sometimes for decades on end. At some point, they have very little of their skill-set left.

On Sunday, August 26, 2012 12:11:45 AM UTC-4, Jp Stewart wrote:
From TA's Dansville contest write-up:

"Unfortunately, we were also saddened to hear of yet another apparent stall-spin fatality; Jim Rizzo, Finger Lakes club president and FAA Designated Examiner for the area was killed when his glider crashed into a farmer’s field not far from the Dansville airport. Jim was not part of the contest and was just flying locally when the accident occurred. All we know is what the farmer said (and this is 3rd hand to me) that apparently Jim was trying to thermal away from a low altitude and spun in (sound familiar? – it should – this is the 3rd almost identical fatality this season here on the east coast)."

http://soaringcafe.com/2012/08/day-6...ille-region-3/



JP
I believe it is all based in denial.

I've come to believe that pilots simply do not recognize or admit to themselves (in the "applies to me today, on this flight, in this thermal" sense) that below a specific AGL, regardless of their skill as pilots, if an incipient spin happens for whatever reason, they WILL hit the ground. Thus they (we) do not recognize that below that AGL, we have chosen to change the nature of the game to one of betting our lives.

For what reason are you (me) betting our life on the flight today?

If you do not know this AGL number empirically for you in your aircraft, you need to figure it out. It would seem unlikely that it could ever be below 500 feet, allowing for the fact that few of us are perfect pilots with negligible reaction times.

It doesn't matter that we are "over a good field" or "in the pattern" or whatever, the ground is just as hard.

Again, for what reason is your life worth betting today, and do you know when you have placed the bet?

With deepest heartfelt sympathy for this and the other tragic losses this year.

QT

On Monday, August 27, 2012 6:01:52 PM UTC-7, John Godfrey (QT) wrote:
On Sunday, August 26, 2012 12:11:45 AM UTC-4, Jp Stewart wrote:

From TA's Dansville contest write-up:



"Unfortunately, we were also saddened to hear of yet another apparent stall-spin fatality; Jim Rizzo, Finger Lakes club president and FAA Designated Examiner for the area was killed when his glider crashed into a farmer’s field not far from the Dansville airport. Jim was not part of the contest and was just flying locally when the accident occurred. All we know is what the farmer said (and this is 3rd hand to me) that apparently Jim was trying to thermal away from a low altitude and spun in (sound familiar? – it should – this is the 3rd almost identical fatality this season here on the east coast)."



http://soaringcafe.com/2012/08/day-6...ille-region-3/







JP

I believe it is all based in denial.



I've come to believe that pilots simply do not recognize or admit to themselves (in the "applies to me today, on this flight, in this thermal" sense) that below a specific AGL, regardless of their skill as pilots, if an incipient spin happens for whatever reason, they WILL hit the ground. Thus they (we) do not recognize that below that AGL, we have chosen to change the nature of the game to one of betting our lives.



For what reason are you (me) betting our life on the flight today?



If you do not know this AGL number empirically for you in your aircraft, you need to figure it out. It would seem unlikely that it could ever be below 500 feet, allowing for the fact that few of us are perfect pilots with negligible reaction times.



It doesn't matter that we are "over a good field" or "in the pattern" or whatever, the ground is just as hard.



Again, for what reason is your life worth betting today, and do you know when you have placed the bet?



With deepest heartfelt sympathy for this and the other tragic losses this year.



QT

It is worth pointing out that this should also apply when thermaling over mountain terrain. While it is generally obvious that you are getting too low to thermal when you drop below pattern altitude, it is not so obvious when flying over mountain terrain, since you are still high above the surrounding, but maybe only couple of hundred feet above the slope below you. As a result, it is much more common to thermal close to terrain than thermaling too low over a field. This is also where there is much higher chance for an upset due to turbulence.

Ramy

On Aug 27, 6:34*pm, Ramy wrote:
On Monday, August 27, 2012 6:01:52 PM UTC-7, John Godfrey (QT) wrote:
On Sunday, August 26, 2012 12:11:45 AM UTC-4, Jp Stewart wrote:

From TA's Dansville contest write-up:

"Unfortunately, we were also saddened to hear of yet another apparent stall-spin fatality; Jim Rizzo, Finger Lakes club president and FAA Designated Examiner for the area was killed when his glider crashed into a farmer’s field not far from the Dansville airport. *Jim was not part of the contest and was just flying locally when the accident occurred. *All we know is what the farmer said (and this is 3rd hand to me) that apparently Jim was trying to thermal away from a low altitude and spun in (sound familiar? – it should – this is the 3rd almost identical fatality this season here on the east coast)."

http://soaringcafe.com/2012/08/day-6...ille-region-3/

JP

I believe it is all based in denial.

I've come to believe that pilots simply do not recognize or admit to themselves (in the "applies to me today, on this flight, in this thermal" sense) that below a specific AGL, regardless of their skill as pilots, if an incipient spin happens for whatever reason, they WILL hit the ground. Thus they (we) do not recognize that below that AGL, we have chosen to change the nature of the game to one of betting our lives.

For what reason are you (me) betting our life on the flight today?

If you do not know this AGL number empirically for you in your aircraft, you need to figure it out. It would seem unlikely that it could ever be below 500 feet, allowing for the fact that few of us are perfect pilots with negligible reaction times.

It doesn't matter that we are "over a good field" or "in the pattern" or whatever, the ground is just as hard.

Again, for what reason is your life worth betting today, and do you know when you have placed the bet?

With deepest heartfelt sympathy for this and the other tragic losses this year.

QT

It is worth pointing out that this should also apply when thermaling over mountain terrain. While it is generally obvious that you are getting too low to thermal when you drop below pattern altitude, it is not so obvious when flying over mountain terrain, since you are still high above the surrounding, but maybe only couple of hundred feet above the slope below you. As a result, it is much more common to thermal close to terrain than thermaling too low over a field. This is also where there is much higher chance for an upset due to turbulence.

Ramy

The closer to the terrain I am the faster my thermalling speed.

Brad

On Saturday, August 25, 2012 9:11:45 PM UTC-7, Jp Stewart wrote:
From TA's Dansville contest write-up:

"Unfortunately, we were also saddened to hear of yet another apparent stall-spin fatality; Jim Rizzo, Finger Lakes club president and FAA Designated Examiner for the area was killed when his glider crashed into a farmer’s field not far from the Dansville airport. Jim was not part of the contest and was just flying locally when the accident occurred. All we know is what the farmer said (and this is 3rd hand to me) that apparently Jim was trying to thermal away from a low altitude and spun in (sound familiar? – it should – this is the 3rd almost identical fatality this season here on the east coast)."

http://soaringcafe.com/2012/08/day-6...ille-region-3/



JP

This accident is just ANOTHER in a long string of accidents where the pilot felt, incorrectly, that their pilotage abilities were adequate for the task at hand. I agree with UH, there is NOTHING to be learned from this accident, because if you chose to push the envelope you are going to, SOONER OR LATER, find yourself over its edge. So YOU THINK you are a better pilot than Jim? Maybe you are, maybe you aren't: are you WILLING TO KILL YOURSELF to find out?

The solution IS NOT to fly faster when you are lower; the solution is to NOT GET YOURSELF into the situation to begin with!

Everybody likes to get back and tell their story about a low save; everybody OOHs and AWHs. Nobody says "You DUMB ****, YOU COULD HAVE KILLED YOURSELF!"

What I do is simple risk management: what are the tradeoffs of pulling such a stunt off versus the downside. Generally speaking, when the downside is killing yourself, there is no upside that will justify itself. If you land out, it might take you a day to get retrieved (just did one of those: it was ****ty, but the pilot lived). In this case, the retrieve would have been 2-3 hours, as compared to BEING DEAD!

We have got to stop the culture of adulating pilots who do dumb things. Now, they will still do dumb things, but we have to pointedly tell them that it is DUMB!

End of rant.

Tom
2G

On Aug 27, 8:38*pm, 2G wrote:
On Saturday, August 25, 2012 9:11:45 PM UTC-7, Jp Stewart wrote:
From TA's Dansville contest write-up:

"Unfortunately, we were also saddened to hear of yet another apparent stall-spin fatality; Jim Rizzo, Finger Lakes club president and FAA Designated Examiner for the area was killed when his glider crashed into a farmer’s field not far from the Dansville airport. *Jim was not part of the contest and was just flying locally when the accident occurred. *All we know is what the farmer said (and this is 3rd hand to me) that apparently Jim was trying to thermal away from a low altitude and spun in (sound familiar? – it should – this is the 3rd almost identical fatality this season here on the east coast)."

http://soaringcafe.com/2012/08/day-6...ille-region-3/

JP

This accident is just ANOTHER in a long string of accidents where the pilot felt, incorrectly, that their pilotage abilities were adequate for the task at hand. I agree with UH, there is NOTHING to be learned from this accident, because if you chose to push the envelope you are going to, SOONER OR LATER, find yourself over its edge. So YOU THINK you are a better pilot than Jim? Maybe you are, maybe you aren't: are you WILLING TO KILL YOURSELF to find out?

The solution IS NOT to fly faster when you are lower; the solution is to NOT GET YOURSELF into the situation to begin with!

Everybody likes to get back and tell their story about a low save; everybody OOHs and AWHs. Nobody says "You DUMB ****, YOU COULD HAVE KILLED YOURSELF!"

What I do is simple risk management: what are the tradeoffs of pulling such a stunt off versus the downside. Generally speaking, when the downside is killing yourself, there is no upside that will justify itself. If you land out, it might take you a day to get retrieved (just did one of those: it was ****ty, but the pilot lived). In this case, the retrieve would have been 2-3 hours, as compared to BEING DEAD!

We have got to stop the culture of adulating pilots who do dumb things. Now, they will still do dumb things, but we have to pointedly tell them that it is DUMB!

End of rant.

Tom
2G

Tell us Tom, how did you crack up your DG-400 years ago?

Brad

Here is a good example of an unintentional stall-spin captured on
video, but at altitude. About 1/2 way through the recording, notice
the pilot's airspeed just before he begins a right turn (you can see
the yellow arc on the ASI). Note his control inputs as he
inadvertantly starts the spin. You can see his rudder movements and
his stick inputs pretty clearly (I think I see him retracting flaps
possibly too). He even narrates what he did to recover.... then I
think he recognizes one thing he might have done a bit differently. He
recovered nevertheless; question is would he have been successful much
closer to the ground? Could a sudden lift-gust toss someone low into a
non-recoverable? Think he gained or lost altitude in the spin
(surprise; watch the altimeter). By the way, the pilot has some
fantastic videos; thanks to him for sharing them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PpJA5...feature=relmfu

Tom, easy said than done. We all agree that circling too close to the ground is not a good idea, but there is no always a clear indication when it is too close. I don't know why many of you insist that there is nothing to learn from this accident without knowing the most important fact: how low was he circling?? If we find out it was 800 feet, will you go and claim that it is dumb to circle below 1000 feet? This is why we need to know the details, so we can make more informed conclusions.

Ramy