Another stall spin

On Aug 28, 12:33*pm, Ramy wrote:
On Tuesday, August 28, 2012 12:20:10 PM UTC-7, noel.wade wrote:
On Aug 27, 8:38*pm, 2G wrote:

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!"

So in my first contest, there was a tough day trying to work our way

back uphill to higher terrain (and home). *I ended up making 3 low

saves in a row, each only about 300' AGL. *I could have soared out to

lower terrain if needed each time, but I was making thermalling turns

only a couple of hundred feet off the ground. *When I got home, I was

chuffed that only Gary Ittner and I made it home (everyone else landed

out). *Upon reviewing the traces it appears that he and I did

virtually the same thing, making low-save after low-save at almost

identical points on the route home (though I was 15-20 minutes behind

him).

Just a few weeks later I was at another contest, proudly relaying this

story to Tom Kelly ("711"). *He basically said exactly the same thing

- that I was an idiot and could have killed myself quite easily, and

to get the hell away from him.

At first I was very hurt, and then I was really ****ed off. *Wasn't

Gary a legend in the sport? *Wasn't I "smart" to have figured this out

and emulated him (even if unintentionally)? *Wasn't I skilled to have

pulled it off and gotten home? *Here I was, a budding contest pilot,

doing well on a tough day and hanging (sorta) with one of the best

pilots around! *Why the hell should I be raked over the coals for my

accomplishment??

Over time, I've come to the realization that Tom's attitude is a lot

closer to the right attitude. *A lot of good, skilled, experienced

pilots do dumb things. *Even if I am the hottest pilot in the universe

(breaking news: I'm not), it isn't always smart to mirror the behavior

of top pilots. *Following someone else's lead into a trap is just

dumb. I'll admit that I still sometimes take moderate risks in my

contest flying; but I'm far more cognizant of them and I don't simply

use other pilots as a measuring-stick for safety or what's "right" to

do.

--Noel

This is exactly why those kind of discussions on RAS are so important. You will hear opinions that you will normally wouldn't hear elsewhere or face to face. I will definitely think twice next time before deciding to thermal below 500 ft AGL.
Sad news but great discussion.

Ramy

I agree. John C's description of low altitude dynamics and perception
was an eye opener.

I have a hard deck limit on thermalling, but it is different dependent
on terrain.

Brad

On Tuesday, August 28, 2012 10:16:31 AM UTC-7, kirk.stant wrote:

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!

I agree with Kirk. Just because practicing spin entry/recovery at altitude isn't identical to spin entry/recovery at 300' doesn't mean that practice at altitude isn't worthwhile - and it's definitely a lot easier on the nerves than practicing at 300'. There are other things we can do to try to become aware of the different atmospheric, geometric and mindset issues down low and under pressure, but the basic airmanship of knowing how your glider spins/recovers is a universal good in my estimation.

9B

On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 12:33:36 -0700, Ramy wrote:


This is exactly why those kind of discussions on RAS are so important.
You will hear opinions that you will normally wouldn't hear elsewhere or
face to face. I will definitely think twice next time before deciding to
thermal below 500 ft AGL.
Sad news but great discussion.

I think 500 ft is pretty much a minimum safety height. Here's a data
point for that. When an ASW-20 departs in a thermalling turn using zero
flap (position #3), if you react immediately its easy enough to be back
in level flight after a total of 90 degrees of rotation, but you will
have lost 300 ft and have around 80 kts on the clock.

FWIW I never set my LK8000/XCSoar safety height to less than 1000 ft.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

snip
We are only a small voice but I would suggest changing the rules to the
affect that if you are less than 600ft AGL that is your GPNS land out position
This would mean there are no points to be gained from low scrapes.

This is one of those good ideas that gets worse as you try to implement it.

The problem is how do you enforce it?
How does the pilot know if he is or was less than 600ft? If he doesn't know he has to assume he wasn't and keep racing?
Does coming in at 90kts at 500 ft and pulling up to 650 in a 10kt thermal disqualify you?
Does passing over a Ridge at 500 (or 300 or 200) feet disqualify you?

I don't think a rule will work, plus it only addresses contest flying. However I have gotton on the radio and told a pilot he was setting a bad example and it was time for him to land. We do need to do more of this and teach pilots to apply this kind of peer pressure.

Brian

On Tuesday, August 28, 2012 2:13:48 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Tuesday, August 28, 2012 10:16:31 AM UTC-7, kirk.stant wrote:



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!



I agree with Kirk. Just because practicing spin entry/recovery at altitude isn't identical to spin entry/recovery at 300' doesn't mean that practice at altitude isn't worthwhile - and it's definitely a lot easier on the nerves than practicing at 300'. There are other things we can do to try to become aware of the different atmospheric, geometric and mindset issues down low and under pressure, but the basic airmanship of knowing how your glider spins/recovers is a universal good in my estimation.



9B

I'm pretty sure I don't understand this. Why not practice spins at 300 ft? If you thermal at 300 ft, either A) you are quite sure you will never spin at 300 ft or B), you think you can safely recover from 300 ft. spin. If (A) there is no need to practice spins at 300 or any other altitude. If B, then 300 ft spin practice is perfectly safe.

I think for most pilots, recovering from a spin initiated at 300 ft would scare the hell out of them. You should really not be intentionally putting yourself in a position where the hell can be scared out of you. If you are engaging in an activity that cannot be safely practiced, how then can it be safely done without practice?

On Saturday, August 25, 2012 10:11:45 PM UTC-6, 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

Gliders don't ever "just spin" - pilots spin them. These accidents are not something which happens to pilots, they are something pilots do to themselves.

Practicing full spins at low altitude is stupid and deadly. If you want to practice how to avoid this kind of accident, practice incipient spins and recoveries - over and over. Learn to instinctively recognize the onset and to instinctively recover. Caught early, recoveries cost zero altitude. Look at Bruno's video again. How much altitude did it take for him to recover?

Tape some "pitch strings" to the sides of the canopy so you can see the angle off attack and how it slowly increases in slow flight until the glider stalls with the nose barely above the horizon then rudder a turn to see the real killer. Hauling the nose way above the horizon and kicking rudder is not how accidental spins start.

On 8/28/2012 5:25 PM, jfitch wrote:
On Tuesday, August 28, 2012 2:13:48 PM UTC-7,
wrote:
On Tuesday, August 28, 2012 10:16:31 AM UTC-7, kirk.stant wrote:



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!



I agree with Kirk. Just because practicing spin entry/recovery at
altitude isn't identical to spin entry/recovery at 300' doesn't mean that
practice at altitude isn't worthwhile - and it's definitely a lot easier
on the nerves than practicing at 300'. There are other things we can do
to try to become aware of the different atmospheric, geometric and
mindset issues down low and under pressure, but the basic airmanship of
knowing how your glider spins/recovers is a universal good in my
estimation.



9B

I'm pretty sure I don't understand this. Why not practice spins at 300 ft?
If you thermal at 300 ft, either A) you are quite sure you will never spin
at 300 ft or B), you think you can safely recover from 300 ft. spin. If (A)
there is no need to practice spins at 300 or any other altitude. If B, then
300 ft spin practice is perfectly safe.

I think for most pilots, recovering from a spin initiated at 300 ft would
scare the hell out of them. You should really not be intentionally putting
yourself in a position where the hell can be scared out of you. If you are
engaging in an activity that cannot be safely practiced, how then can it be
safely done without practice?


Now *I'm* puzzled! :-)

Re-reading my earlier post, I can't find where I even *hinted* "practicing
unusual attitude recoveries is a bad thing!"

But since it was implicitly asked what my point was, I'll try and be succinct.
(Warning! There was more than one point.) In no particular order...
- skills practice is good;
- practicing some skills (e.g. departures from controlled flight at low
altitudes) is like practicing Russian roulette;
- skill won't help if your margins are too thin;
- certain margins (e.g. "safe spinning height") are inherently unquantifiable
if life-continuing precision is one's goal.

Bob - wimpoid - W.

On Tuesday, August 28, 2012 12:33:37 PM UTC-7, Ramy wrote:
On Tuesday, August 28, 2012 12:20:10 PM UTC-7, noel.wade wrote:

On Aug 27, 8:38*pm, 2G wrote:







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!"







So in my first contest, there was a tough day trying to work our way



back uphill to higher terrain (and home). I ended up making 3 low



saves in a row, each only about 300' AGL. I could have soared out to



lower terrain if needed each time, but I was making thermalling turns



only a couple of hundred feet off the ground. When I got home, I was



chuffed that only Gary Ittner and I made it home (everyone else landed



out). Upon reviewing the traces it appears that he and I did



virtually the same thing, making low-save after low-save at almost



identical points on the route home (though I was 15-20 minutes behind



him).







Just a few weeks later I was at another contest, proudly relaying this



story to Tom Kelly ("711"). He basically said exactly the same thing



- that I was an idiot and could have killed myself quite easily, and



to get the hell away from him.







At first I was very hurt, and then I was really ****ed off. Wasn't



Gary a legend in the sport? Wasn't I "smart" to have figured this out



and emulated him (even if unintentionally)? Wasn't I skilled to have



pulled it off and gotten home? Here I was, a budding contest pilot,



doing well on a tough day and hanging (sorta) with one of the best



pilots around! Why the hell should I be raked over the coals for my



accomplishment??







Over time, I've come to the realization that Tom's attitude is a lot



closer to the right attitude. A lot of good, skilled, experienced



pilots do dumb things. Even if I am the hottest pilot in the universe



(breaking news: I'm not), it isn't always smart to mirror the behavior



of top pilots. Following someone else's lead into a trap is just



dumb. I'll admit that I still sometimes take moderate risks in my



contest flying; but I'm far more cognizant of them and I don't simply



use other pilots as a measuring-stick for safety or what's "right" to



do.







--Noel



This is exactly why those kind of discussions on RAS are so important. You will hear opinions that you will normally wouldn't hear elsewhere or face to face. I will definitely think twice next time before deciding to thermal below 500 ft AGL.

Sad news but great discussion.



Ramy


THANK YOU for admitting you were wrong; I feel like I made some sort of impression. I feel that it will take this kind of CRITICAL self and group appraisal to have any serious impact on the current accident rate.

Frankly, the current approach by the Soaring Safety Foundation is completely ineffective: "There is no acceptable accident rate." What the hell does that mean and how can that mentality be used to reduce the accident rate? Then they categorize accidents by phase of flight (takeoff, in-flight, landing, etc.). Accidents are caused by pilots making DUMB DECISIONS (baring the relative few mechanical failures), pure and simple. WHY do pilots make dumb decisions? The possibilities a
1. They freeze and stop flying the glider.
2. They don't want to land back and wait in line for a relight.
3. They don't want to go thru the hassle of a retrieve (and may not have anyone available to retrieve them).
4. They have never landed in a field and are afraid.
5. They are trying to win a contest.
6. They are trying to set a record.
7. They have some sort of commitment and must get back to the field.
8. They are tired and/or dehydrated and are not thinking properly.
9. They don't want to scratch their expensive glider.
10. They want to impress their fellow pilots.

I am sure there are others. Honestly, the first one is a killer and I don't have a solution for it; some people simply can't handle stress and shouldn't be pilots. One guy wrote two long articles in soaring describing exactly this reaction and was congratulated for being honest: nobody told him to take up a different sport!

The others can be dealt with. One day, I casually told another pilot in a little difficulty not to worry, I will come and get you if you land out (he didn't). The next day he sent me an email thanking me for that comment, and that it greatly reduced his stress level at the time.

The bottom line is we have to be openly critical of our fellow pilots who are making obviously dumb decisions. That may not have any effect, but it certainly won't if we remain silent.

Tom
2G

On Aug 28, 4:39*pm, Brian wrote:
snip

We are only a small voice but I would suggest changing the rules to the
affect *that if you are less than 600ft AGL that is your GPNS land out position
This would mean there are no points to be gained from low scrapes.

This is one of those good ideas that gets worse as you try to implement it.

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