Puchaz spin count 23 and counting

At 07:48 10 February 2004, Mark James Boyd wrote:
BAToulson wrote:

and then I'd show them the statistics for
lightning strikes and prove that wearing a chute increased
the
chance of being hit by lightening, and this was a much
greater risk than what we estimated was the risk of

being the first fatal accident in the 2-33 in over
30 years,
much less one that might require a chute...

A short while after the then CFI of the London Gliding
Club mandated all training flights will use chutes,
one of our K21's was hit by a lightning strike which
travelled horizontally some 3-4 miles. The glider was
totaly destroyed, with the tail only attached by it's
control cables. Both pilot and student bailed out and
landed safely (bar a few breaks). Had this been prior
to Jed's time as CFI, we would have had two more dead
pilots.

I think that was the first of a kind in the UK, certainly
the risk of being hit in a mid-air is much greater,
and we have those pretty much every season!

Just because statistics show that something is unlikely,
it does not mean that the next flight you make wont
be the next entry into those same statistics!

Your chute is your only chance.

In article ,
Pete Zeugma wrote:
At 07:48 10 February 2004, Mark James Boyd wrote:
BAToulson wrote:

and then I'd show them the statistics for
lightning strikes and prove that wearing a chute increased
the
chance of being hit by lightening, and this was a much
greater risk than what we estimated was the risk of

being the first fatal accident in the 2-33 in over
30 years,
much less one that might require a chute...

A short while after the then CFI of the London Gliding
Club mandated all training flights will use chutes,
one of our K21's was hit by a lightning strike which
travelled horizontally some 3-4 miles. The glider was
totaly destroyed, with the tail only attached by it's
control cables. Both pilot and student bailed out and
landed safely (bar a few breaks). Had this been prior
to Jed's time as CFI, we would have had two more dead
pilots.

SEE!! Wearing a parachute attracts lightning strikes!
Who wants that?

OK JUST KIDDING!!! :PPPP

15 (realy fifteen) rescue jumps from gliders were reported by the German BFU
(air accident investigation agency) in summer 2003 in Germany or out of
German registered gliders abroad. 14 succeeeded. Most jumps were caused
by mid air collisions, others by structural failures.
Double seaters as well as single seaters were involved.
One jump was directly out of a winch launch (ASK21, aileron not connected),
some others were also close to ground, including the fatal one.
Since there are only about 30,000 glider pilots here, roughly one of 2000
had to jump!
Those who want to board a glider without a parachute should keep this in
mind!
(In other years only about two or three rescue jumps were registerd.)
Happy flights
Walter

Mark,
I guess it comes down to a matter of government control, doesn't it? You Brits
require fully developed spins and us Yanks allow our instructors to demonstrate
and instruct as they see fit.

You Brits collect all the guns and us Yanks allow our citizens to protect
themselves.

You Brits force everyone into a state health care system and us Yanks allow our
citizens to choose.

It all comes down to a matter of freedom to choose, didn't we fight a war with
you chaps over this?


Chris,

Some gentle reminders about reality here in the UK..


The vast majority of the UK training fleet does not
comprise of Puchasz's. Indeed you find clubs that solely
use them for ab-initio training (not many) and clubs
that have one as a spin/aerobatic trainer. Indeed the
BGA operates one (99) partly for this purpose. All
the other clubs have to soldier on with dull old K13's
for spin/stall awareness/avoidance training..

On the other hand some clubs have taken the view that
where there is smoke there is fire, and although no
one analytically has managed to determine why these
accidents seem to follow the Puchasz in the UK, these
clubs take an avoidance strategy. My own view for what
it's worth is that it is an aircraft with a big elevator
and a big rudder that loses more height per turn in
a spin than a K7/13, and if you screw up the recovery
will reverse. But it's an honest aircraft and from
my experience does what it's told to do. I would be
happy to operate one from my own club from aerotow,
but remain to be convinced it's an aircraft I would
want to be used on the wire.

It's also worth understanding that the Puch has acquired
a somewhat hairy chested reputation and bar stories
tend to grow in scariness like fishing stories increase
the size of the fish..

For instance our airfield is situated on top of a small
ridge.. When we spin train we try and spin over the
valley, which gives us about another 300 ft.. Guess
how many people actually factor this into their post
spin exercise in bar debrief.. ?

Again and again the UK instructors have pointed out
here that we're not teaching spinning we're teaching
spin avoidance.. However in my and my instructors panels
view that requires us to demonstrate and then get students
to understand how spins happen and then recover from
them - from cable breaks, from underbanked, over ruddered
turns and from thermalling turns..

People who don't train in spin avoidance often tend
to get confused about the different phases of spinning.
Anyone who manages to autorotate, and then spin for
one turn in a Puchasz (or any other glider for that
matter) from 800 ft AGL is clearly a lunatic.. Demonstrating
a departure at somewhat higher altitude is a different
matter..

Just a quick comment on parachutes from Mark Boyds
later post you mean that in the US you do not wear
parachutes in gliders as a matter of routine? and it's
permitted to do aerobatics without them? From a UK
perspective that seems criminally negligent and we
accept the cost of running parachutes for all seats
in all club gliders as simply something it would be
inconceivable to do.. And yes, they have saved lives...


And of course here in the UK we look with some amusement
at the social darwinism in the US that allows 40 million
people to choose not to have access to health care,
the preventative effect on the murder rate that widespread
handgun ownership has, and the preventative affect
on crime of a prison incarceration rate about eight
times the european average..






At 16:06 07 February 2004, Chris Ocallaghan wrote:
'I know of one instructor who was asked to start to
spin a Puchacz at
800
feet above the ground as part of his annual instructor
check. There is
no
room for error if you are deliberately initiating a
full spin at such
a
low level.'

Wouldn't it be better to initiate the practice spin
at 3,000 feet,
then check the altitude at the bottom of the recovery?
I am very
confident in my ability to recognize and recover from
a spin, but I
would NEVER, NEVER, NEVER enter one intentionally at
800 feet AGL, if
for no other reason than spinning in the pattern would
be frowned on
at most airports I frequent. Nor would I put my life
into someone
else's hands quite so readily. From 800 feet there
is very little
opportunity to take control and sort out a recovery
gone awry.

The most surprising aspect of the Puchacz discussion
to date is the
number of accidents involving instructors. This led
me to believe that
perhaps there was something amiss with the aircraft
(which may be the
case). But clearly there are training practices in
place in Britain
that should be scrutinized. Frankly, if a CFI asked
me to spin from
800 agl, I'd consider it a test of my judgment, the
only appropriate
response being, 'Let's land and take another tow.'

I've always thought the Brits pretty sensible. Is this
a form of
hazing among the fraternity of BGA flight instructors?
It is very
difficult to justify such extreme measures for the
sake of
proficiency. (Will he keep his head on straight when
the ground is
rushing madly at him? And if he doesn't, then what?)
Or is it a
vestige left over from a time when aircraft design
was less regulated
and spin entries were common? Or both?

You've heard of social Darwinism? Perhaps this is organizational
Royalism: training philosophies shaped by too many
generations of
inbreeding....

I have to say, from outside looking in, it's just a
little
frightening.

JJ Sinclair

JJ Sinclair wrote in article
...
Mark,
I guess it comes down to a matter of government control, doesn't it? You
Brits
require fully developed spins and us Yanks allow our instructors to
demonstrate
and instruct as they see fit.

You Brits collect all the guns and us Yanks allow our citizens to protect
themselves.

You Brits force everyone into a state health care system and us Yanks
allow our
citizens to choose.

It all comes down to a matter of freedom to choose, didn't we fight a war
with
you chaps over this?


Chris,

Some gentle reminders about reality here in the UK..

RIGHT ON, JJ!!!!
Well said.
They may be the epitome of civility, but then, they don't have a choice.
Cheers! , Pete

(JJ Sinclair) wrote in message ...

I guess it comes down to a matter of government control, doesn't it? You Brits
require fully developed spins and us Yanks allow our instructors to demonstrate
and instruct as they see fit.

I'm sorry, is that someone from a country where they worry about
what's legally mandated in rule 91.307(b) telling those of us in a
country where almost every aspect of gliding is run by the gliding
community telling us that we're less controlled?

Just checking.

Ian

Mark Stevens wrote:

Just a quick comment on parachutes from Mark Boyds
later post you mean that in the US you do not wear
parachutes in gliders as a matter of routine? and it's
permitted to do aerobatics without them? From a UK
perspective that seems criminally negligent and we
accept the cost of running parachutes for all seats
in all club gliders as simply something it would be
inconceivable to do.. And yes, they have saved lives...

A coupla things. No pilot is required to wear parachutes
if he is the sole occupant.

Next, aerobatics is a little ambiguous. 91.303 says
"an intentional maneuver involving an abrupt change
in an aircraft's attitude, an abnormal attitude, or abnormal
acceleration, not necessary for normal flight."

In 91.307(c), every occupant must wear a parachute
to execute an intentional manuever that exceeds 60 degrees
of bank or 30 degrees nose-up or down attitude relative to
the horizon.

So "aerobatics" (including stalls, chandelles, lazy-8s, steep
turns 50 degrees, etc.) can be done without parachutes (although
there are still requirements to stay away from airways, cities,
airport airspace, low vis, above 1500 ft AGL, etc.).

Severe pitch and bank, on the other hand (which many in other
countries would consider the "true" definition of
aerobatics) do generally require parachutes.

The exception is that CFI's may teach spins and recoveries
to students without anyone wearing a parachute if the
spin training is "required for certificate or
rating." This has been twisted to mean that anyone,
including one who's never flown before, might want
to someday be a CFI (the only rating that
specifically requires spins, and instructional proficiency
in spins), so we can give anyone
spin instruction.

By reg, US CFI's are required by 61.183(i)(2) to "demonstrate
instructional proficiency in stall awareness, spin entry, spins,
and spin recovery procedures." I took an aerobatics course to
do this, but presumably, if ALL US CFI's have instructional proficiency
in this particular manuever (as the reg demands) then they
can teach this locally.

Doing this without parachutes to pilots who don't even have
a license yet? Well, that's a pretty tight twisting of these
rules. But the FAA is clear about STRONGLY encouraging use of
chutes during instructional spins as well, just not to the
point of requiring it.

As far as solo chutes go, Darwinism at its finest. Same
for the solo requirements before license. I think pilots
should be encouraged to do all the silly things they've
ever thought of, solo, over somewhere deserted, without a
chute. Get it out of one's system before endangering others,
I think... Better that he die alone due to poor judgement,
than take his wife and her sister with him to a dark,
watery grave...

Of course, I also think all the auto driver's side
seat belts and airbags should be
replaced with a sharp, rusty metal spike right in the
middle of the steering wheel. Within about a year, everyone
would drive the speed limit, nobody would drive drunk,
lots of people would get remedial training before any accident
ever happened, and we'd all wave each other through
stop signs with a nod and a smile...
And a lot of people would switch to bicycles... :P

So my opinions should be justifiably suspect in this area...

On 8 Feb 2004 08:54:58 -0700, (Mark James Boyd)
wrote:

A coupla things. No pilot is required to wear parachutes
if he is the sole occupant.

Next, aerobatics is a little ambiguous. 91.303 says
"an intentional maneuver involving an abrupt change
in an aircraft's attitude, an abnormal attitude, or abnormal
acceleration, not necessary for normal flight."

In 91.307(c), every occupant must wear a parachute
to execute an intentional manuever that exceeds 60 degrees
of bank or 30 degrees nose-up or down attitude relative to
the horizon.

So "aerobatics" (including stalls, chandelles, lazy-8s, steep
turns 50 degrees, etc.) can be done without parachutes (although
there are still requirements to stay away from airways, cities,
airport airspace, low vis, above 1500 ft AGL, etc.).

Ahh.. I have to apologize. In my other reply I forgot to mention the
guy who bailed out of his Lo-100 that had lost a wing inflight while
doing aerobatics.
He started to leaeve the glider at 3.000 ft, the chute opened less
than 100 ft above the ground.


Bye
Andreas

Andreas Maurer wrote:

Ahh.. I have to apologize. In my other reply I forgot to mention the
guy who bailed out of his Lo-100 that had lost a wing inflight while
doing aerobatics.
He started to leaeve the glider at 3.000 ft, the chute opened less
than 100 ft above the ground.

That's about what I'd expect. I had a good friend who was to
ferry a very sketchy speed canard several thousand miles.
I begged her to borrow a chute for the trip, and
fly above 5000ft AGL, and if the engine burped,
eject that nice big canopy and hit the silk.

The damn thing with those tiny wings landed at 70+ knots, and
with those shopping-cart wheels it would've been no
fun off field...

She wore a chute for the ferry, and had no problems...
But our conversation about the risks really helped
her be more demanding of the mechanics...

JJ,

Strangely enought it's nothing to do with the government
(well not yet at the moment) - the BGA decides these
things as a movement.. It's not always transparent,
and not always accountable but it's certainly better
than letting the CAA decide these things..

We can argue about gun control all we want but simply
compare the rates of gun deaths between switzerland
where there is an assault rifle in most houses against
that of the US.. But that would be because they still
have a militia. The UK has a thriving private health
care sector as do most European countries.. So I suspect
we do have some choices whereas a significant proportion
of US citizens have no choice at all in accessing healthcare.
Again labelling things as 'socialist' is not very
helpful - is the US public school system 'socialist'
as well?

My real point was to point out that different viewpoints
can be equally valid and that there is rarely one right
answer.. I've spent a lot of time in the US, and there
are things I like about it and things I don't. When
I'm there I tend to comment on the positive and refrain
from being negative..

PS

A couple of years ago a friend and I were sitting in
a bar on the 4th of July in Houston and got chatting
to some of the locals.. They gleefully reminded us
what they were celebrating... We commented we had come
over for that very purpose..







At 16:00 08 February 2004, Jj Sinclair wrote:
Mark,
I guess it comes down to a matter of government control,
doesn't it? You Brits
require fully developed spins and us Yanks allow our
instructors to demonstrate
and instruct as they see fit.

You Brits collect all the guns and us Yanks allow our
citizens to protect
themselves.

You Brits force everyone into a state health care system
and us Yanks allow our
citizens to choose.

It all comes down to a matter of freedom to choose,
didn't we fight a war with
you chaps over this?


Chris,

Some gentle reminders about reality here in the UK..


The vast majority of the UK training fleet does not
comprise of Puchasz's. Indeed you find clubs that solely
use them for ab-initio training (not many) and clubs
that have one as a spin/aerobatic trainer. Indeed the
BGA operates one (99) partly for this purpose. All
the other clubs have to soldier on with dull old K13's
for spin/stall awareness/avoidance training..

On the other hand some clubs have taken the view that
where there is smoke there is fire, and although no
one analytically has managed to determine why these
accidents seem to follow the Puchasz in the UK, these
clubs take an avoidance strategy. My own view for what
it's worth is that it is an aircraft with a big elevator
and a big rudder that loses more height per turn in
a spin than a K7/13, and if you screw up the recovery
will reverse. But it's an honest aircraft and from
my experience does what it's told to do. I would be
happy to operate one from my own club from aerotow,
but remain to be convinced it's an aircraft I would
want to be used on the wire.

It's also worth understanding that the Puch has acquired
a somewhat hairy chested reputation and bar stories
tend to grow in scariness like fishing stories increase
the size of the fish..

For instance our airfield is situated on top of a small
ridge.. When we spin train we try and spin over the
valley, which gives us about another 300 ft.. Guess
how many people actually factor this into their post
spin exercise in bar debrief.. ?

Again and again the UK instructors have pointed out
here that we're not teaching spinning we're teaching
spin avoidance.. However in my and my instructors panels
view that requires us to demonstrate and then get students
to understand how spins happen and then recover from
them - from cable breaks, from underbanked, over ruddered
turns and from thermalling turns..

People who don't train in spin avoidance often tend
to get confused about the different phases of spinning.
Anyone who manages to autorotate, and then spin for
one turn in a Puchasz (or any other glider for that
matter) from 800 ft AGL is clearly a lunatic.. Demonstrating
a departure at somewhat higher altitude is a different
matter..

Just a quick comment on parachutes from Mark Boyds
later post you mean that in the US you do not wear
parachutes in gliders as a matter of routine? and it's
permitted to do aerobatics without them? From a UK
perspective that seems criminally negligent and we
accept the cost of running parachutes for all seats
in all club gliders as simply something it would be
inconceivable to do.. And yes, they have saved lives...


And of course here in the UK we look with some amusement
at the social darwinism in the US that allows 40 million
people to choose not to have access to health care,
the preventative effect on the murder rate that widespread
handgun ownership has, and the preventative affect
on crime of a prison incarceration rate about eight
times the european average..






At 16:06 07 February 2004, Chris Ocallaghan wrote:
'I know of one instructor who was asked to start to
spin a Puchacz at
800
feet above the ground as part of his annual instructor
check. There is
no
room for error if you are deliberately initiating a
full spin at such
a
low level.'

Wouldn't it be better to initiate the practice spin
at 3,000 feet,
then check the altitude at the bottom of the recovery?
I am very
confident in my ability to recognize and recover from
a spin, but I
would NEVER, NEVER, NEVER enter one intentionally at
800 feet AGL, if
for no other reason than spinning in the pattern would
be frowned on
at most airports I frequent. Nor would I put my life
into someone
else's hands quite so readily. From 800 feet there
is very little
opportunity to take control and sort out a recovery
gone awry.

The most surprising aspect of the Puchacz discussion
to date is the
number of accidents involving instructors. This led
me to believe that
perhaps there was something amiss with the aircraft
(which may be the
case). But clearly there are training practices in
place in Britain
that should be scrutinized. Frankly, if a CFI asked
me to spin from
800 agl, I'd consider it a test of my judgment, the
only appropriate
response being, 'Let's land and take another tow.'

I've always thought the Brits pretty sensible. Is this
a form of
hazing among the fraternity of BGA flight instructors?
It is very
difficult to justify such extreme measures for the
sake of
proficiency. (Will he keep his head on straight when
the ground is
rushing madly at him? And if he doesn't, then what?)
Or is it a
vestige left over from a time when aircraft design
was less regulated
and spin entries were common? Or both?

You've heard of social Darwinism? Perhaps this is organizational
Royalism: training philosophies shaped by too many
generations of
inbreeding....

I have to say, from outside looking in, it's just a
little
frightening.

JJ Sinclair