A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Soaring
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Too many accidents



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old September 14th 18, 01:27 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Jonathan Walker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7
Default Too many accidents

Just to correct a couple of misconceptions about the ASK21 and spinning.

It WILL spin without the use of a spin kit, it just needs a rearward CofG.
Normally (but not always) with an instructor on board the CofG will be to
far forward but once the pupil goes solo then that can be a very different
matter! Any talk that an aircraft is unspinable is the type of thing that
can lull trainees into a false sense of security.

As for the comment that it make a good spin trainer with the spin weights I
would have to disagree. Its spin entry and recovery are inconsistent even
at the same CofG. If you look at the updated flight manual even the spin
recovery is non-standard. Note the point that says
"Warning: Fall forward stick may retard or even prevent spin recovery"

https://www.alexander-schleicher.de/..._TM23_E_HB.pdf


If your not careful you are training pilots with a recovery technique that
will not work for all other aircraft.


At 08:41 14 September 2018, Steve Thompson wrote:
Referring to the ASK21 TM4b, publicly available on the
AS site. I see on page 4 : "By following the spin ballast
table a c.g. of approx. 406 mm (16 inch) is set in for the
flight."

As far as I can tell from other data, this is not the aft
limit. I believe the aft limit is 469mm.

The USAF spinning tests are well documented in the
technical note flight manual and discusses inertia effects
as well as just CG position effects. 406mm is aft enough.



At 23:32 13 September 2018, Andreas Maurer wrote:
On Mon, 10 Sep 2018 08:56:05 -0700 (PDT), krasw
wrote:

maanantai 10. syyskuuta 2018 16.54.53 UTC+3

kirjoitti:
Un-spinable? You might want to watch this and look

up the USAF report
conducted on the spin characteristics of the ASK-21.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXH6XDxQdPY

ASK21 is unspinable unless you equip with spin kit

designed to move cg
well aft of normal limits. Without this kit you cannot

spin 21.

One addition:
The spin weights put the CG to the normal aft limit, but

not beyond
it.
This is the same CG that you would have if a light pilot

flies without
a copilot.

With the spin weights the ASK-21 is an excellent spin

trainer.


Cheers
Andreas




Ads
  #102  
Old September 14th 18, 01:44 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Tango Whisky
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 274
Default Too many accidents

Le vendredi 14 septembre 2018 14:30:05 UTC+2, Jonathan Walker a √©crit¬*:
Just to correct a couple of misconceptions about the ASK21 and spinning.

It WILL spin without the use of a spin kit, it just needs a rearward CofG..
Normally (but not always) with an instructor on board the CofG will be to
far forward but once the pupil goes solo then that can be a very different
matter! Any talk that an aircraft is unspinable is the type of thing that
can lull trainees into a false sense of security.

As for the comment that it make a good spin trainer with the spin weights I
would have to disagree. Its spin entry and recovery are inconsistent even
at the same CofG. If you look at the updated flight manual even the spin
recovery is non-standard. Note the point that says
"Warning: Fall forward stick may retard or even prevent spin recovery"

https://www.alexander-schleicher.de/..._TM23_E_HB.pdf


If your not careful you are training pilots with a recovery technique that
will not work for all other aircraft.


I agree with this. With the spin kit, spin entry is not at all like what you would see with an LS4, LS8 or Discus (which can be brought into a spin with the nose not much above the horizon. And I don't like the fact that recovery is non-standard. If the student uses the wrong technique, you will do 3-4 more turns after you've taken over controls. For that reasin, I don't do spin training with the ask below 1000 m AGL.
  #103  
Old September 14th 18, 03:22 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Dan Marotta
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,319
Default Too many accidents

So...¬* If you'll only train spins in an aircraft with a "standard"
recovery, what's a solo pilot to do when he encounters a "non-standard"
spin recovery requirement?¬* This sounds to me like something is lacking...

On 9/14/2018 6:44 AM, Tango Whisky wrote:
Le vendredi 14 septembre 2018 14:30:05 UTC+2, Jonathan Walker a √©crit¬*:
Just to correct a couple of misconceptions about the ASK21 and spinning.

It WILL spin without the use of a spin kit, it just needs a rearward CofG.
Normally (but not always) with an instructor on board the CofG will be to
far forward but once the pupil goes solo then that can be a very different
matter! Any talk that an aircraft is unspinable is the type of thing that
can lull trainees into a false sense of security.

As for the comment that it make a good spin trainer with the spin weights I
would have to disagree. Its spin entry and recovery are inconsistent even
at the same CofG. If you look at the updated flight manual even the spin
recovery is non-standard. Note the point that says
"Warning: Fall forward stick may retard or even prevent spin recovery"

https://www.alexander-schleicher.de/..._TM23_E_HB.pdf


If your not careful you are training pilots with a recovery technique that
will not work for all other aircraft.

I agree with this. With the spin kit, spin entry is not at all like what you would see with an LS4, LS8 or Discus (which can be brought into a spin with the nose not much above the horizon. And I don't like the fact that recovery is non-standard. If the student uses the wrong technique, you will do 3-4 more turns after you've taken over controls. For that reasin, I don't do spin training with the ask below 1000 m AGL.


--
Dan, 5J
  #104  
Old September 14th 18, 04:02 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Andreas Maurer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 345
Default Too many accidents

On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 12:27:44 +0000, Jonathan Walker
wrote:


As for the comment that it make a good spin trainer with the spin weights I
would have to disagree. Its spin entry and recovery are inconsistent even
at the same CofG. If you look at the updated flight manual even the spin
recovery is non-standard. Note the point that says
"Warning: Fall forward stick may retard or even prevent spin recovery"

https://www.alexander-schleicher.de/..._TM23_E_HB.pdf


If your not careful you are training pilots with a recovery technique that
will not work for all other aircraft.



So far I have always taught the standard spin recovery - stick neutral
(!!), full opposite rudder, wait, recover. Works for all the gliders
I've flown so far (60+) and I cannot remember any halfways modern
glider where a different procedure is suggested.

Of course, spin entry is not as violent as in other gliders, but in my
opinion is is reasonably easy to give a valid demonstration.


Cheers
Andreas
  #105  
Old September 14th 18, 05:03 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Dan Marotta
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,319
Default Too many accidents

I just reread the previous post that I responded to and see that the
poster only mentioned a higher altitude requirement to teach spins in
that aircraft, not only teaching in that aircraft.

On 9/14/2018 8:22 AM, Dan Marotta wrote:
So... If you'll only train spins in an aircraft with a "standard"
recovery, what's a solo pilot to do when he encounters a
"non-standard" spin recovery requirement?¬* This sounds to me like
something is lacking...

On 9/14/2018 6:44 AM, Tango Whisky wrote:
Le vendredi 14 septembre 2018 14:30:05 UTC+2, Jonathan Walker a √©crit¬*:
Just to correct a couple of misconceptions about the ASK21 and
spinning.

It WILL spin without the use of a spin kit, it just needs a rearward
CofG.
Normally (but not always) with an instructor on board the CofG will
be to
far forward but once the pupil goes solo then that can be a very
different
matter! Any talk that an aircraft is unspinable is the type of thing
that
can lull trainees into a false sense of security.

As for the comment that it make a good spin trainer with the spin
weights I
would have to disagree. Its spin entry and recovery are inconsistent
even
at the same CofG. If you look at the updated flight manual even the
spin
recovery is non-standard. Note the point that says
"Warning: Fall forward stick may retard or even prevent spin recovery"

https://www.alexander-schleicher.de/..._TM23_E_HB.pdf


If your not careful you are training pilots with a recovery
technique that
will not work for all other aircraft.

I agree with this. With the spin kit, spin entry is not at all like
what you would see with an LS4, LS8 or Discus (which can be brought
into a spin with the nose not much above the horizon. And I don't
like the fact that recovery is non-standard. If the student uses the
wrong technique, you will do 3-4 more turns after you've taken over
controls. For that reasin, I don't do spin training with the ask
below 1000 m AGL.



--
Dan, 5J
  #106  
Old September 15th 18, 12:20 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Jonathan St. Cloud
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,036
Default Too many accidents

This accident was 8/22/2018, departure field KSEE, aircraft N# 1682G, cotanria 7KCAB
  #107  
Old September 15th 18, 03:10 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Duster[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 97
Default Too many accidents

Here is a clip of an inadvertent glider stall. It appears the pilot immediatly puts in opposite aileron (not recommended). Can't see enough leg motion to see his rudder input or elevator control. He is very quick to dump the positive flaps (I assume that's what it shows), which is good technique I might have forgot. His text edit of the proper sequence of inputs looks fine.. Kudos to him for sharing.
  #108  
Old September 15th 18, 03:21 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Duster[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 97
Default Too many accidents

On Friday, September 14, 2018 at 9:10:20 PM UTC-5, Duster wrote:
Here is a clip of an inadvertent glider stall. It appears the pilot immediatly puts in opposite aileron (not recommended). Can't see enough leg motion to see his rudder input or elevator control. He is very quick to dump the positive flaps (I assume that's what it shows), which is good technique I might have forgot. His text edit of the proper sequence of inputs looks fine. Kudos to him for sharing.


https://youtu.be/PpJA53LjarM?t=119
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
UK Air Accidents Graham Drinkell Soaring 12 June 18th 09 02:29 PM
Physiology and accidents Bill Daniels Soaring 7 May 30th 07 02:14 PM
Physiology and accidents [email protected] Soaring 0 May 29th 07 09:50 PM
Accidents in progress Dave Kearton Aviation Photos 1 April 30th 07 03:27 PM
Accidents Big John Piloting 3 December 14th 05 02:19 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:36 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2018 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.