Another stall spin

On Sep 5, 6:45*am, Don Burns wrote:
Another reason I trim full forward while in the pattern is that I feel the
back pressure during the entire approach. *If I slow from approach speed to
say 10 knots slower, I feel the additional back pressure. *A kind of
pressure warning system.

I noticed that my chances of inadvertently slowing down go way up if I
am flying out of trim. The interesting part is that this applies both
to trimming forward or aft. Basically, I find it easier to feel
"little pressure" vs "no pressure" than "some pressure" vs "more
pressure."

Bart

On Sep 5, 6:45*am, Don Burns wrote:
Another reason I trim full forward while in the pattern is that I feel the
back pressure during the entire approach. *If I slow from approach speed to
say 10 knots slower, I feel the additional back pressure. *A kind of
pressure warning system.

Can you tell us how many off airport landings you have made using this
technique?

My experience is that any distraction will result in the speed
trending towards the trim speed. Off airport landings are often high
stress and therefore a continuous distraction. I would never
deliberately fly an approach out of trim. Too fast can be a bigger
problem than too slow.

Andy (GY)

I am with Bart, for the same reason - always trim for approach speed as it
is easier to sense if not at trimmed speed. As a former instructor, I would
never teach or encourage anyone to do anything else.

(Dunno exactly how many off-field landings – over 100 in farm fields and
another 50 or so at other airfields etc..)

Chris N

At 15:46 05 September 2012, Bart wrote:
On Sep 5, 6:45=A0am, Don Burns wrote:
Another reason I trim full forward while in the pattern is that
I feel
th=
e
back pressure during the entire approach. =A0If I slow from
approach
spee=
d to
say 10 knots slower, I feel the additional back pressure.
=A0A kind of
pressure warning system.

I noticed that my chances of inadvertently slowing down go
way up if I
am flying out of trim. The interesting part is that this applies
both
to trimming forward or aft. Basically, I find it easier to feel
"little pressure" vs "no pressure" than "some pressure" vs "more
pressure."

Bart


Not a good practice - and, BTW, a technique designed to detect
a 10 knot drop in airspeed suggests acceptance of an approach
speed target range that is not sufficiently precise for safety in
one direction or accurate landing in the other.

Trim for approach speed, monitor your airspeed and look out.

John Galloway

Can you tell us how many off airport landings you have made using this
technique? ABOUT 60 IN 23 YEARS

My experience is that any distraction will result in the speed
trending towards the trim speed. Off airport landings are often high
stress and therefore a continuous distraction. I would never
deliberately fly an approach out of trim. Too fast can be a bigger
problem than too slow. I CONSTANTLY CHECK THE AIRSPEED DURING THE APPROACH
AND HAVE NOT HAD A PROBLEM WITH TOO MUCH AIRSPEED. I BELIEVE MOST SPEED
RELATED AVIATION ACCIDENTS RESULT FROM FLYING TOO SLOW NOT FROM FLYING TOO
FAST.

Andy (GY)

I CONSTANTLY CHECK THE AIRSPEED DURING THE APPROACH

AND HAVE NOT HAD A PROBLEM WITH TOO MUCH AIRSPEED. I BELIEVE MOST SPEED

RELATED AVIATION ACCIDENTS RESULT FROM FLYING TOO SLOW NOT FROM FLYING TOO

FAST.


Are you a flight instructor?

In my last post I talked about making an early decision to land out and
never attempting low saves ala 300' AGL. The many following posts are all
about low altitude departures from controlled flight.

Nobody thinks he'll die on this flight but, if I was an insurance
underwriter, I'd give lower premiums to those who commit to safe field
landings over those who attempt low saves.

I have a hard time accepting "safety lectures" which espouse safely pulling
your fat out of the fire rather than not letting it get there in the first
place.


"Bob Whelan" wrote in message
...
On 9/3/2012 9:43 AM, Dan Marotta wrote:
If I thought I was going to die every time I flew, I wouldn't fly.

Nor would I. I've never thought I "*was* going to die every time I flew,"
only that if I didn't get certain things "right enough" on THIS approach
that I *could* die. Big difference.

There's a long history of dead pilots - better and more experienced than
I - who *did* die from not getting some basic things right.
- - - - - -


The problem, as I see it, with these low altitude stall/spin accidents
stems
from the desire to get home rather than landing out. Back in the '70s
the
USAF called it "Get-Home-itis" and warned that it was a good way to get
killed. Pilots need to make the decision to terminate a flight before
there
is no option other than landing in an unlandable place or trying to make
a low
save a mile from home just to avoid the inconvenience of a retrieve.

Good thinking...with which I'm in 100% agreement.
- - - - - -


Long ago I made the commitment to never be outside of gliding distance of
a
suitable landing area. I also carry the phone numbers of people who have
told
me that they will come to get me if I land out. I always know where I
will
land if I don't get that next thermal so there's no problem if I don't
get it
and there are never any attempts to thermal at 300' AGL.

If my conservatism causes me to rarely get more than 500Km in a day, but
I can
*live* with that.

More good thinking, IMO! Most soaring pilots fly for personal
satisfaction, as distinct - say - from setting
state/national/international records. Learning how to intelligently expand
one's personal limits is a key piece of the soaring puzzle.
- - - - - -

For the record, my underlying reason to finger "misguided/absent thought
patterns" as a very real hazard within the sport of soaring comes from
decades of specifically ad-hoc discussions with the "committing PIC"
regarding "flaky patterns": e.g. "drunken sailor," low,
perplexing-to-me-under-the-circumstances, etc. Based purely on
non-quantifiable, lengthy, experience discussing these sorts of events
with the pilots involved, I think I've seen a consistent pattern of
"brains not where they need to be" in terms of not fundamentally focusing
on high-priority (to THAT pattern's ultimate outcome) items. Why that is -
e.g. complacency, distraction, pushing personal limits, whatever - is less
clear to me. In any event, how a pilot thinks, matters.

FWIW,
Bob W.

On 9/5/2012 6:34 PM, Dan Marotta wrote:
In my last post I talked about making an early decision to land out and never
attempting low saves ala 300' AGL. The many following posts are all about low
altitude departures from controlled flight.

Nobody thinks he'll die on this flight but, if I was an insurance underwriter,
I'd give lower premiums to those who commit to safe field landings over those
who attempt low saves.

I have a hard time accepting "safety lectures" which espouse safely pulling
your fat out of the fire rather than not letting it get there in the first place.

Lordy. Are we reading the same posts?

*I'm* certainly not espousing safely pulling my - or anyone else's - fat out
of the fire (by attempting low saves in Russian roulette territory) vs. "not
going there in the first place".

Just to be clear, I think attempted thermalling at Russian roulette height agl
(and each pilot gets to determine what that height is for them) is (choose
what you'd like): asinine; foolish; irresponsible (at many levels); playing
with fire; etc., etc., etc.

That said, no "safety lecture" anyone thinks I may be indulging in applies
*only* to low thermalling. Minor messing about in the NTSB database, paying
attention to what one reads over the years, etc., reveals lots of
pattern-based, fatal, departures from controlled flight that may easily have
been avoidable had the pilots' involved not been "surprised".

Remember the Questair Venture? Designed by two highly experienced professional
aeronautical types, one of whom eventually died in a Venture after a (very)
high-altitude (meaning, lots of time to get things sorted out and develop a
plan) engine failure that resulted in a base-to-final
departure-from-controlled flight when they easily had the Des Moines
International Airport made.

That crunch merely springs to mind...there're lots more, including "benign
spam can" crunches.

Nor are pattern departure fatalities limited to power planes.

FWIW,
Bob W.

On 8/30/2012 1:13 PM, wrote:
The dumping of flaps seems to be well practiced in recovering from
this maneuver- I wonder who taught him this. Bruno seems more worried
about staying in the thermal than getting control of the glider.
Maybe these techniques were why he spun it so much. Luckily not at
low altitude.

From the flight manual spin recovery section for my ASH 26 E, which has
the same interconnected flap and aileron system as the ASW 20.

"Furthermore, spin recovery will be achieved more quickly if the flap
deflection is reduced. It is advisable to reduce circling flap to the
neutral flap setting."

I believe my ASW 20 B flight manual had similar advice. In any case, I
found reducing the flap deflection effective in the incipient or just
departed stage. I have not practiced spins beyond a quarter turn in
either the 20 or the 26.

Even though reducing flap deflection is effective, I always used the
standard recovery in addition, and I recommend Bruno learn to do that,
also. It is what gliders are certified to do, and the flap reduction
might not work well enough on all ships in all conditions, and certainly
won't work on a standard class glider.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)

Hi Eric

Standard recovery is good - as long as the PIC knows the necessary
numbers, and has the presence of mind to apply it.

I have seen 2 fatalities where a spin recovery included the pilot
achieving a recovery attitude so steep that Vne was exceeded for the
flap setting.

Predictable results of flutter and catastrophic failure ensue quite rapidly.

In the one case the pilot achieved 2x Vne.

In my opinion the most important thing is to aviate first, as soon as
you are no longer spinning, fly the aeroplane. Don't follow a procedute
to it's end when you have achieved the object already, lest you make
things worse.

Most flapped gliders have multiple flap limiting speeds and accelerate
rapidly with nose down attitude. So - by the time you have gone flaps
neutral, you are probably already no longer stalled.

Bruce

On 2012/09/06 7:44 AM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
On 8/30/2012 1:13 PM, wrote:
The dumping of flaps seems to be well practiced in recovering from
this maneuver- I wonder who taught him this. Bruno seems more worried
about staying in the thermal than getting control of the glider.
Maybe these techniques were why he spun it so much. Luckily not at
low altitude.

From the flight manual spin recovery section for my ASH 26 E, which has
the same interconnected flap and aileron system as the ASW 20.

"Furthermore, spin recovery will be achieved more quickly if the flap
deflection is reduced. It is advisable to reduce circling flap to the
neutral flap setting."

I believe my ASW 20 B flight manual had similar advice. In any case, I
found reducing the flap deflection effective in the incipient or just
departed stage. I have not practiced spins beyond a quarter turn in
either the 20 or the 26.

Even though reducing flap deflection is effective, I always used the
standard recovery in addition, and I recommend Bruno learn to do that,
also. It is what gliders are certified to do, and the flap reduction
might not work well enough on all ships in all conditions, and certainly
won't work on a standard class glider.


--
Bruce Greeff
T59D #1771