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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Puchaz spin count 23 and counting
Bill Daniels said, *Rather than blame the glider, I would point the finger at training that doesnt equip pilots with the skills needed to fly these gliders* I tend to agree. Have umpteen hours in Puchii. I have always found them very predictable if flown within C of G limits. Have never had a problem with spin recovery if the correct technique is employed. If treated like a Blanik (when auto rotating) and back pressure alone is released, they definitely will not come out. The full correct drill must be applied. I have found no recovery problem with 8 or more turn spins during aerobatic sequences. HOwever, as indicated it probably would not hurt for a recap by those with the skills regarding any nasty that may be lurking. Remove the doubt once and for all. Henry -- henell ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Posted via OziPilots Online [ http://www.OziPilotsOnline.com.au ] - A website for Australian Pilots regardless of when, why, or what they fly - |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
I've never flown one and haven't looked at the manual - is the recovery you've
employed detailed in the manual? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"Edward Colver" wrote in message . co.uk... In article , (henell) wrote: Bill Daniels said, I have found no recovery problem with 8 or more turn spins during aerobatic sequences. I didn't write the above. Somebody else did. Bill Daniels In one of the many messages on Puchaczs over the last two weeks, I believe someone said that the Puchacz was only certified by the Poles for a two turn full spin. If I am correct, then maybe the message above shows why this glider has acquired some of its bad reputation. Pilots should stick to the manufacturers or flying authorities limits. 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. In the UK a great deal of all spin training is done in Puchaczs. At our club we have three Puchaczs. We routinely have visitors who come to our club and ask to do spinning because they believe that the two seaters used in their clubs are incapable of proper spin training. Twenty years ago I was thermalling with an instructor over a ridge. We were approx 500 feet above the trees in a Bocian with the instructor flying in a weak thermal. Without any warning to me, on my fifth flight ever, the Bocian went in to a full spin. We were very close to the trees by the time the instructor recovered. This episode convinced me that full spin training is essential. There are many people who have been flying low and slow trying to extend their flight time and have suddenly found themselves in incipient or full spins. How well they recover from these frightening episodes is entirely dependant on how well they have been trained to recover from full spins. In summary I believe that the Puchaczs poor reputation is not deserved. A one or two turn spin done with plenty of height is not dangerous. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Bill Daniels said, I have found no recovery problem with 8 or more turn spins during aerobatic sequences. I didn't write the above. Somebody else did. Bill Daniels Apologies. Using "cut and paste" can lead to mistakes. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
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. Presumably this was over the radio, and nobody liked him anyway? I read some of these altitudes folks are doing this stuff, and I put my head in my hands... When I did aerobatics, it was always 5000ft floor (expected termination of the manuever) if you had chutes, 3000 feet floor if no chutes. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"Mark Stevens" wrote in message ... Chris, 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.. I tend to agree; but in the US, spin training is not required for any glider or airplane ticket except CFI. As a student, I made the choice to not solo any spinnable trainer without spin training. As a CFIG, I have conformed to the "party line" and sent many students solo with only stall avoidance, recognition and recovery training; without any hint of a problem. I think (and suggest) that these people should seek spin training before moving on to more demanding ships. ... 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.. Agree emphaticaly. 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? 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. and it's permitted to do aerobatics without them? Under certain conditions...yes. 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? 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, Most of those 40 million people did not make that choice for themselves, it was made for them. I think that the European 2-tier (public/private) model of medical care has great merit. the preventative effect on the murder rate that widespread handgun ownership has, A persistant hangover from our old cowboy culture. and the preventative affect on crime of a prison incarceration rate about eight times the european average.. The rate is truly astounding for young black males in the US. Vaughn |
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 |