Puchaz spin count 23 and counting

I just read Bill Dean's post and the quote from the BGA instructor's manual, to wit:

"As this training progresses, it is necessary to introduce brief spins where
the ground is noticeably close. 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."

Dumb.

Chris,

When, where and with whom did you train as a gliding instructor?

Have you any experience of the K13, which is typically the type of glider
which would be used in the U.K. for this type of training?

Which type of glider do you use when you give training in spin entry and
recovery?

Have you any experience of gliding accident investigation, or acquaintance
with those who have?

Do you have any idea how the U.K. record of solo stall/spin accidents
compares with that in the U.S.A.? (I don't).

In other words, do you really know what you are talking about when you
criticise U.K. methods of stall/spin training?

Bill.

W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.).
Remove "ic" to reply.


"Chris OCallaghan" wrote in message
om...

I just read Bill Dean's post and the quote from the BGA instructor's
manual, to wit:

"As this training progresses, it is necessary to introduce brief spins
where the ground is noticeably close. 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."

Dumb.

Todd Pattist wrote:
Martin Gregorie wrote:


I *think* it depends on the make of chute. I don't own one, so my
smart-alek answer would be "on or before the expiry date of the
packing slip".


In the U.S. it's independent of chute make (unless it's made
of material like silk - which none are) and it must be
repacked every 120 days. I was just wondering if this is
variable around the world. I've heard repackers tell me
they believe the 120 day period is extremely conservative.
I wondered if the other regulating bodies around the world
use that interval. Anyone?

Todd Pattist - "WH" Ventus C
(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
SOuth Africa is 12 Months.
I have heard of one successful deployment with a chute that was last packed
seven years prior to use.
Even if you only use it as a cushion for your posterior - it may save same
buttocks one day.

"Mark James Boyd" wrote in message
news:4026791b$1@darkstar...
Vaughn wrote:
"Mark Stevens" wrote in
Chris,
snip
Yes, that is true. In my experience, most owners of single-seat
glass
wear parachutes, but most clubs and commercial operations using 2-seat
gliders do not. It is just part of the culture. I think part of the
reason
for this is the disincentive created by the US requirement that all
chutes,
regardless of technology, be repacked every 120 days. An out-of-date
chute
discovered in any operating aircraft is an invitation for an expensive
and
inconvenient FAA violation notice.

I think it would be absurd to require parachutes for EVERY flight in
a 2-33 (a glider I've only flown ONCE above 3000 feet). 30 extra pounds
on every flight in a glider with no fatalities in 30 years, hardly
enough elevator to stall in any legal CG, and flown mostly below
3000 feet? Silly, in my opinion.

4 in last 29 years, one ruled suicide, a few more before that, but nothing
like Puchaz. IS-28B2 had a similar reputation years ago when instructors
were spinning into the ground

Mark,

So far as I know you are correct.

The accident in 1990 at the South Wales Gliding club, Usk was a deliberate
spin where the Chief Flying instructor in the front seat was coaching
(training) a candidate for an assistant instructor rating. The spin was
therefore a deliberate spin for training purposes. The BGA
Instructors' Manual first published in 1994 states "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 accident on 18th January 2004 at The Soaring Center, Husbands Bosworth
is still being investigated, and all I know is rumour.

These accidents apart, none of the Puchacz spin accidents was a deliberate
spin for training or any other purpose.

I have been having a fair amount of correspondence off-board, and none of us
can recall a fatal accident, other than above, involving a deliberate spin
for training purposes dual. However we can recall many spin accidents solo
both fatal and lucky not to be, where it seems likely that faulty or
inadequate training was a factor. This is why the low level spin entry
exercises were introduced.

Of course, this type of training depends for safety on careful selection and
good training and checking of instructors, including good supervision in the
clubs. We pay a lot of attention to this, and the BGA (to which the
government authorities are happy to delegate instructor training,
certification, renewal etc.) keep a tight control on this. How are these
things done in the U.S.A.?

I will repeat the quote from the Manual (copy & paste is easy):

If you read the BGA Instructors' Manual (Second edition), the relevant
section is "Section 5" with two chapters, "18 Stalling" and "19 Spinning and
Spiral Dives".

In chapter 19 on page 19-3 it says under the heading:

"ADVICE TO INSTRUCTORS

"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.

"As this training progresses, it is necessary to introduce brief spins where
the ground is noticeably close. 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."

That is just the first two paragraphs of quite a long explanation.

W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.).
Remove "ic" to reply.


"Mark Stevens" wrote in
message ...

Bill,

So if I may summarise briefly - of the five accidents with Puch's where
we're fairly certain of the causes only one occurred during spin avoidance
training. If my memory is correct was that not the one with two
instructors on board?

Can you summarise or comment on any other two seater accidents with
serious injury or fatalities that were spin related in any way in that
time period? I'm stretching to think of some..

Mark

No Bill, I don't know a goddam thing. I happened on this newsgroup
several years ago and determined it was so threadbare that I could
post without any knowledge of the subject at all and blend right in.
Over the months and years, I became bolder. I read a few books. I'm an
avid reader, and I don't really care what... Knauff, Piggot, Welch,
Reichmann, Langeweische, et al. I now feel like I know more about the
sport than most of the people who post to this group. I guess you
could say I've become a white paper expert. And frankly, from the
outside looking in, this is about the dumbest exercise I've ever seen
wrapped in the trappings of reasoned cause and effect.

Organizations get things wrong. My gliding association, right or
wrong, may it always be right rings a little hollow.

In article ,
Todd Pattist wrote:
Bruce Greeff wrote:

SOuth Africa is 12 Months. [parachute repack interval]

Thank you. Any other pilots want to tell me the repack
requirements in their country? I know there are lots of
non-U.S. pilots here, and most fly with chutes. When do you
repack them?

Todd Pattist - "WH" Ventus C
(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)

Canada went to a 180 day repack cycle in 2000.
Partially because they believed the riggers that
said the more frequent repack cycle was actually
CAUSING injuries by overstretching fabric more
quickly...

want to quote some other sections from it too......
like about the rudder and boats!

At 06:18 11 February 2004, Chris Ocallaghan wrote:
I just read Bill Dean's post and the quote from the
BGA instructor's manual, to wit:

'As this training progresses, it is necessary to introduce
brief spins where
the ground is noticeably close. 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.'

Dumb.

why dumb? the experience of ground rush is a very good
inforcement lesson as to why you dont mess with low
slow over ruddered flat turns!

At 14:06 11 February 2004, Chris Ocallaghan wrote:

ive only been reading your posts for a couple of weeks
and ive already worked out you dont know squat and
infact you are actually a threat to student/low time
glider pilots lives.

No Bill, I don't know a goddam thing.

it shows frequently.

I happened on this newsgroup
several years ago and determined it was so threadbare
that I could
post without any knowledge of the subject at all and
blend right in.

i actually wonder if you post with several different
identities.

Over the months and years, I became bolder. I read
a few books. I'm an
avid reader, and I don't really care what... Knauff,
Piggot, Welch,
Reichmann, Langeweische, et al. I now feel like I know
more about the
sport than most of the people who post to this group.


pity it does not sink in, but then you miss the whole
practical bit dont you! Reichmann is a case in point.

I guess you
could say I've become a white paper expert.

is that toilet paper?

And frankly, from the
outside looking in, this is about the dumbest exercise
I've ever seen
wrapped in the trappings of reasoned cause and effect.

so in all your reading and the huge amount of knowledge
youve gained from it, you have gained a level of understanding
normaly achieved through practical experience, of just
how sudden a glider like a puch can enter into a spin?
some how I doubt that very much.


Organizations get things wrong. My gliding association,
right or
wrong, may it always be right rings a little hollow.

actually the bga have come to the position the instructors
manual currently holds over the last 70 odd years.
its an evolving process.

In article ,
Todd Pattist wrote:
Derrick Steed wrote:

I go on the recommendation of the people who repack mine - the parachute
club at Sibson: they recommend no long than four months between repacks

Nothing personally against the parachute folks you go to (I have no
idea about them specifically), but isn't this like asking
the monkeys how often you should feed them bananas?
I assume they're making money per repack, right?

Reminds me of an instructor who's given over 500 hours dual in
the past two years and gotten one student through license.
His answer to every student: "you need more training!"


Thanks. That's the same interval used in the U.S. I
presume you are in the U.K. Is that interval a requirement,
or just a suggestion?
Todd Pattist - "WH" Ventus C
(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)