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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Todd Pattist wrote:
"W.J. \(Bill\) Dean \(U.K.\)." wrote: A very experienced instructor flying a docile two seater in ideal conditions may be prepared to initiate a brief spin from 800'. Wow! Even with the "docile" "ideal conditions" and "very experienced" qualifiers, I find this 800' comment in an officially sanctioned instructor's guide to be highly surprising. There's not much room here for anything unexpected from the student or the aircraft. Todd Pattist - "WH" Ventus C (Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.) Having been exposed to sub 800' spins by a BGA qualified instructor - in a place where only spin avoidance is required to be taught I can say that the experience had great value for me. Now I know that you can recover, without too much drama from a spin at that height, and how to do it. Until you have done it you have no idea - the actual spin is not different, but the scenery/experience is. Multiple ordinary ,and accelerated and even one inverted spin in a Pitts S2 was interesting and fun, at 3000-4000AGL. The "boring, docile" K13 was heart stopping at 800'. If I ever do it inadvertently, at least I have processed the mental stuff relating to spinning this low at least twice. Got a better chance of not choking up and making a mess of the recovery. That would be regrettable, because, as has been noted correctly there is very little margin for error. Was quite satisfied with the safety aspect with an instructor who has been teaching this for 40+ years sitting in the back of an immaculate K13, in still air. Would have my doubts about doing it with most others though... |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Andreas Maurer wrote:
On 8 Feb 2004 09:59:55 -0700, (Mark James Boyd) wrote: 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... Sure, in some conditions. But how many people have they killed invisibly? The guy wearing the chute for the winch pattern tow? Not a chance he'd have enough altitude to use the chute, but maybe the extra weight was just enough to cause the cable break and the stall/spin? Kinda an invisible possibility, isn't it? No real way to determine that... Well... at the moment I know four glider pilots in person who were using the nylon letdown successfully. One girl bailed out of their ASW-19 during a winch launch (elevator not connected) [500 ft], one bailed out of his Ventus after he had rammed another glider [5000 ft, unfortunately the other pilot was not able to bail out], and two bailed out of their respective Ka-8(s after they had collided at 700 ft. Was the altitude the bailout or chute opening altitude? Perhaps a better question is: If I gave you a 2-22 and asked you to bail out solo, how low would you do it? I've static line chuted at 800 feet. The hard deck for novice solo sport chuters is 2500ft. The firejumpers declare 500ft as "the last chance to deploy parachute and have it be effective", and say that if the "aircraft is below 1000 feet, a decision has to be made immediately." The 500 ft and 700 ft are simply lucky. www.richstowell.com/bailout.htm was really great about the folks who had given up and started to bail but died during impact (perhaps if they'd tried to keep flying instead, might have survived), the canopy that knocked a guy unconscious, and the chute on so the pilot was too far forward. As you can see, there are a LOT of very small disadvantages, that add up... Note the altitudes [in brackets]. I know of not a single case where the additional weight of a parachute caused a problem. I also have not even heard of any case where the parachute caused a disadvantage. As I said, no real way of determining that. How many investigators are willing to say: "at the 23G's encountered at the moment of impact, the 330 extra pounds exerted by the parachute on the back of the victim were the difference between serious injuries and fatality. We therefore conclude that the parachute was a contributor to the fatality." I read a recent well-worded report about why child safety seats are not required in airplanes. In the end, the feds determined that it would cost an additional $9 billion a year, and would save the lives of six children a year from aviation deaths. On the other hand, people would then fly less with their kids, and in the 150+ mile car trips, there would be 1000's of more fatalities. I'm a big proponent of choice, especially for solo pilots. I think the tremendous advantages of wearing a chute happen so infrequently, and the minor disadvantages occur so often, that we are dealing with ..83 x .0001 vs ..0002 x .41 and if any of these numbers are even a little off, the argument could go either way. Very sketchy dealing with very big and very little numbers... so just let the pilots decide for themselves... I think REQUIRING parachutes for ALL glider operations is absurd. Any questions left? Yes, how much does it cost ($$$) to tow an additional 15 pounds aloft during every glider flight in the US in a year? If this money were instead spent on flyers mailed to every pilot about checking the elevator connection before flight, would more lives be saved? The child safety seat fed folks seemed to think it is best spent increasing awareness about venetian blind cords strangling infants... Bye Andreas |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Robert Ehrlich wrote:
Mark James Boyd wrote: ... I think REQUIRING parachutes for ALL glider operations is absurd. ... This is what the french regulations requires. Although I can admit that our regulations have many absurd points, I would not count this one among them. It is the same thing for seat belts in cars: if the regulation don't make installing and using them mandatory, the statistics prove that cases where they should be used and are not are way over the cases where they are used and this causes some inconvenience. Show me a single-seat car which has a miniscule chance of injuring another person. Show me the safety statistics for this...and perhaps you have a parallel to certain glider operations. I liked Rod Machado's quote from Feb 2004 AOPA pilot: "So the next time you hear the word always, only or never used in an aviation sentence, think about asking the question: So what?" "Sorry, but no cigar today." |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 15:54:18 GMT, "Vaughn" wrote: 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... I don't disagree, like helmets on motorcycles, it is (or is not) part of the local safety culture and the majority naturally conform. That said, is chute use normal in all small UK aircraft, or is it just gliders? If only gliders, why? Helmets, like much safety equipment, can increase the chance of an accident but usually reduce the injury when one happens. Somewhere in there is a good balance... AFAIK the UK practise of always wearing chutes in gliders dates from the lightning strike on an ASK-21 about 8 years ago. Its occupants were wearing chutes and both survived. They would not have done so without them. Having said that, chute use is not entirely universal: we never wear them in our T-21b, but that's the only exception I know. I'm not clear on the reason for this. Aha! Chute use is NOT mandatory for ALL UK glider operations! Excellent! Very civilized. And I think a much better way since at least to some extent now pilots need to ask themselves "why should I wear a chute" which is MUCH more important a mental exercise than the rote donning of the silk... I've never worn a chute in a light plane, and that includes SF-25s, or even seen one in the cabin on the relatively few occasions I've flown in GA aircraft in the UK. I'd always assumed that had a lot to do with the relative difficulty of getting out of a GA plane in a hurry compared with a glider. That has to make the chute much less useful. A question for the PPLs amongst us: just how high would you need to be to start egress from a full 4-place GA plane for everybody to exit with room for the chute to open? C'mon Martin, it's a glider newsgroup. How about, how high would YOU voluntarily exit a glider with a chute. For me, somewhere between 1500-2500 feet AGL sounds right. Below that, I'd rather think I'd try to fly and perhaps bugger it in... |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
BAToulson wrote:
Another good reason to always wear chutes when instructing. What would you say at an inquest or to your insurance company when a pupil died because he could not bale out as he did not have a 'chute? I have little doubt you and or cyour club could be successfully sued for negligence. I'd never wear a chute and not give one to a student. If it isn't a dual flight, then I'd refer them to the PIC (solo) for the flight (oops, he's dead), 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... Then I'd take them for a flight with chutes, and at a nice high altitude ask them if they'd rather jump out, or land with me... Duty of care in a big issue over here. As an instructor of nearly 30 years I would not fly with a pupil in any glider without a chute if it were possible to fit one in. Additionally, all of our club aircraft are fitted with impact absorbing cushions for the same reason. Cushions are useful for EVERY landing...well, at least the ones I make :P An excellent, low cost, high benefit idea... And having flown with many instructors, there are certainly a few I'd rather wear chutes with... :PPPPP Barney UK |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
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... |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
W.J. \(Bill\) Dean \(U.K.\). wrote:
"In the initial stages of spin training, continuous spins of two or three turns are mainly to allow the trainee time to study the characteristics of the spin and give confidence that the recovery action from a stabilised spin is effective. There is no requirement for these spins to be noticeably close to the ground, so their training value is not compromised if they are completed very high. The majority of spin training will then involve brief spins of about a half a turn with the primary aim of recognising the circumstances in which the spin can occur, correctly identifying the spin/spiral dive, and practising the correct recovery action. Spins for license training used to be required in the US also. Perhaps not a bad way to show what NOT to do. I don't have a problem with this too much... "As this training progresses, it is necessary to introduce brief spins where the ground is noticeably close. EEEEEEeeeeek!!! Not with ME on board. 33% of dual fatalities in the US are failed emergency "procedures." A LOT of those are caused by the ground. I'm not afraid of heights, I'm afraid of LACK of heights... This is to ensure that the trainee will take the correct recovery action even when the nose is down and the ground approaching. A very experienced instructor flying a docile two seater in ideal conditions may be prepared to initiate a brief spin from 800'. A less docile two seater with a less experienced instructor, or less than ideal conditions, should raise the minimum height considerably." Egads! Below 1500 AGL for recovery even, in the US one would need an aerobatic waiver. And I doubt it would allow passengers. You guys have some real solid brass ones. Couldn't you just start at a higher altitude and use a cloud deck below you? Quite a thrill spinning through a cloud deck (so I'm told There ARE clouds over the pond right? :PPP This is a huge difference between US and UK glider training... very interesting... |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Bruce Greeff wrote:
Todd Pattist wrote: Now I know that you can recover, without too much drama from a spin at that height, and how to do it. Until you have done it you have no idea - the actual spin is not different, but the scenery/experience is. Multiple ordinary ,and accelerated and even one inverted spin in a Pitts S2 was interesting and fun, at 3000-4000AGL. The "boring, docile" K13 was heart stopping at 800'. If I ever do it inadvertently, at least I have processed the mental stuff relating to spinning this low at least twice. Got a better chance of not choking up and making a mess of the recovery. That would be regrettable, because, as has been noted correctly there is very little margin for error. Was quite satisfied with the safety aspect with an instructor who has been teaching this for 40+ years sitting in the back of an immaculate K13, in still air. Would have my doubts about doing it with most others though... Full deflection of controls at low altitude, and jamming possibly caused by negative G's (and some flying object) makes me nervous... "little margin for error" indeed... |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Judy Ruprecht wrote:
At 18:00 08 February 2004, Mark James Boyd wrote: I've seen a lot of chutes (many legally expired) in single seat gliders as well. The FAA seems to leave these guys alone, recognising that since no chute at all is required, having an expired one in a single seater is not exactly front page news... Geez, I don't know any FAA types ignoring 61.307(a)... whenever a parachute is carried in any aircraft and made 'available for emergency use,' it must be in current pack. Er...I wasn't suggesting they are ignoring 61.307(a), just that their investigation of: recurring complaints suspected violations of FARs and special emphasis areas keeps them pretty busy with more obvious dangers, and since it is rare that an inspector will observe it unsafe, be notified by ATC of it being unsafe, or find it in a routine inspection are low (given the part 91 Ramp Inspection Checklist doesn't even note this item) Chapter 56, Conduct a FAR Part 91 Ramp Inspection www1.faa.gov/avr/afs/faa/8700/8700_vol2/2_056_00.pdf I'd say the chances of being violated for this in a single seat experimental glider are about equivalent to violations for missing static wicks or flammable data plates. Since solo parachutes aren't generally required, for safety, I personally don't think parachutes worn in single seat aircraft should have any expiration, and I think the pilot should be able to pack it him/her self, if he/she wants. Passengers, on the other hand, don't have any idea what's going on, and regs for them seem like a good idea... |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Steve Hopkins k wrote: Your point regarding 'Accidents of Omission' is interesting. If your local drug company marketed an antibiotic that then proceeded to kill 23 patients, I'm not sure whether the subsequent litigants would be much impressed by the uncertain number of lives saved. Yes we need spin training, and preferably on an annual basis so we don’t forget what to do if, what we spent the previous year avoiding, accidentally happens. Surely the point at issue is whether the Puch is a safe vehicle for these manoeuvres. And if it isn't, then should it be airborne at all. Certainly the number of accidents involving the Puch as against the number produced does seem to indicate that something is amiss. Is there a statistician out there who could look at the numbers and make a scientific pronouncement on this? I seem to remember in my school days, (when Queen Victoria ruled), there was something called the Chi-squared test which allowed one to state whether two separate groups of occurrence were significantly different. Could we compare, for example, the number of K-13's et al spun in relation to the numbers built, as against the Puch in the same manner and pronounce with a specified degree of confidence whether the accident rate, (spin in's), was significantly different? I think the whole arguments on both sides are VERY difficult to make convincingly. I myself sometimes wonder if my spinning students was instructive, or simply encouraged them to do it on their own without any more training. Does my 3 hours of IFR training for power students just make them bolder in poor weather? The Puch quastion has a bit of a parallel to the Piper Tomahawk spin question in the US. Some instructors love it, some hate it, and they do have a lot more spin accidents than Cezzna 152s... I doubt we will find consensus, but this has been informative... |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Inside A U.S. Election Vote Counting Program | Peter Twydell | Military Aviation | 0 | July 10th 03 08:28 AM |