Puchaz Spinning thread that might be of interest in light of the recent accident.

Arnold Pieper wrote:

Repeating someone who wrote this earlier in the week :
"Sure, we should stop training landings as well because that's where the
majority of the accidents happen."

The ignorance in this particular discussion has reached a level where it's
beyond help.


Well, presumably total accidents would increase if you stopped teaching
landings. The point of this thread is that perhaps spin accidents will
decrease if we stop teaching spinning. Whether that is true, I don't
know, but the landing analogy is irrelevant.

I am inclined to believe that spin training is good, if done properly.
However, the impression I got out of spin training was "Wow, if it is
that hard to make a glider spin, then I will certainly know if I am
about to spin." If that is typical impression, then spin training may
just teach pilots that they don't have to worry about spinning.

You just proved the point about why people should have spin training :
-Your impression is not correct.
-You haven't had enough spin training, you still don't get what's important
about it.

You will once you get enough spin training and read some of the material.



"Greg Arnold" wrote in message
news:%OERb.1498$tP1.1422@fed1read07...
Arnold Pieper wrote:

Repeating someone who wrote this earlier in the week :
"Sure, we should stop training landings as well because that's where the
majority of the accidents happen."

The ignorance in this particular discussion has reached a level where
it's
beyond help.


Well, presumably total accidents would increase if you stopped teaching
landings. The point of this thread is that perhaps spin accidents will
decrease if we stop teaching spinning. Whether that is true, I don't
know, but the landing analogy is irrelevant.

I am inclined to believe that spin training is good, if done properly.
However, the impression I got out of spin training was "Wow, if it is
that hard to make a glider spin, then I will certainly know if I am
about to spin." If that is typical impression, then spin training may
just teach pilots that they don't have to worry about spinning.

(JJ Sinclair) wrote in message ...
Well, we certainly have two schools of thought on this spinning issue. I think
the "Spinners", hearken back 60 years or more and probably have their roots in
military training. They say things like, "Train Hard, Fight Easy" Who are we
fighting? My God, we're killing people as we try to make them safer pilots. I
was amazed to read that the Brits seek out sailplanes with "GOOD" spin
characteristics. Isn't that like buying a sailboat that is easily upset, just
so we can all get dumped in the water and then set it right side up again?

The truth is, most sailplanes from the Eastern block, spin real GOOD. Put them
in the hands of a low time pilot and we are setting up a disaster. Aren't we
just asking for trouble when we solo a student in a Puch? We had one spin-in,
here in California with two high time sailplane pilots on board. We had a
single place Lark spin-in from 10,000 feet with a low time pilot on board. RIP
X 3

Here's a thought. Buy sailplanes that don't spin easily (G-103 & ASK-21) and
enjoy this sport by teaching only spin entry and immediate recovery.
JJ Sinclair
************************************************** ******************************
JJ, if you are going to mention sailplanes that DON"T spin easily why
didn't you mention your Genesis 2? Sometime try to get it to spin. I
don't think you'll be able to.

Arnold Pieper wrote:
Repeating someone who wrote this earlier in the week :
"Sure, we should stop training landings as well because that's where the
majority of the accidents happen."

Bad analogy. The difference is that you HAVE to land.

Tony "for spin training" V.

Ian Johnston wrote:

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 12:35:43 UTC, (Chris
OCallaghan) wrote:

: the point of my link was to show that you will not spin from
: coordinated flight.

Tight turn. Slow speed. String in the middle. Pull up sharply as if
another glider has just cut into the thermal. Whoops. Well, it works
in a Bocian, anyway.

Ian
--

Another way I experienced it during my 1st flight in an ASH25 (with
an instructor in the back seat of course). Circling in a thermal, with
just to much aft stick than approriate. Speed slowly decayed (slowly
beacause the hight weight and inertia of the glider), induced roll
and yaw slowly increased, needing more and more inside rudder and
outside stick, up to the point where a incipent spin started, immediateley
stopped by releasing back pressure and centralizing ailerons and rudder.
At the time of departure, stick and rudder were strongly crossed,
but the flight was coordinated and the yaw string in the middle.

Hi All
Hope I'm not covering old ground on this thread and
may I start by saying since we don't know the cause
of the recent Puchacz incident, this doesn't relate
to it, but the content of the thread. I knew John.
He smiled lots.

Much good advice within indeed. My first syndicate
was a Bocian and IS29D, both of which spun at will,
the IS29 without any pre-stall buffet. I once managed
to spin the IS29 at the top of a loop which was slightly
the wrong side of exciting...

It does seem inexplicable (try as we might) that competent
folks on well proven gliders get bitten. Sure spinning
is complex and instruction invariably tries to be simple
- 'if the nose drops, ease the stick forward' etc.
With brain overload easily induced in students, it
has to be simple. Perhaps the more complex subtleties
of spinning SHOULD be introduced later as 'Advanced
spin awareness'?

One other consideration you may wish to ponder is the
British weather, with possible icing and wet wings.
This easily produces an asymetric wing:
Imagine the instructional flight. All upper air work
done well, the air's smooth and we try that old chestnut
of the 'unexpected' deeper stall in the circuit - the
one where the nose is down, grounds coming up and we
just can't resist pulling before it's 'unstuck'. Demonstrated
to me. Instructed by me. But NEVER in a wet or icy
Puchacz, Bocian, IS29. Even a gentle simple, stall
could bite very differently with wet / icy wings and
turn a benign glider into something far more interesting.

Fly safe out there.
Pete Harvey


At 15:24 28 January 2004, Robert Ehrlich wrote:
Ian Johnston wrote:

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 12:35:43 UTC,
(Chris
OCallaghan) wrote:

: the point of my link was to show that you will not
spin from
: coordinated flight.

Tight turn. Slow speed. String in the middle. Pull
up sharply as if
another glider has just cut into the thermal. Whoops.
Well, it works
in a Bocian, anyway.

Ian
--

Another way I experienced it during my 1st flight in
an ASH25 (with
an instructor in the back seat of course). Circling
in a thermal, with
just to much aft stick than approriate. Speed slowly
decayed (slowly
beacause the hight weight and inertia of the glider),
induced roll
and yaw slowly increased, needing more and more inside
rudder and
outside stick, up to the point where a incipent spin
started, immediateley
stopped by releasing back pressure and centralizing
ailerons and rudder.
At the time of departure, stick and rudder were strongly
crossed,
but the flight was coordinated and the yaw string in
the middle.

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 14:57:38 UTC, Todd Pattist
wrote:

: "Ian Johnston" wrote:
:
: : So your answer to my question seems to be that 1) anything
: : that's certified is safe enough by definition,
:
: No, I mean it has been carefully checked and found to be safe at
: anything a competent instructor should be asking it to do.
:
: This comment and many others like it assume that the flight
: test of a new aircraft design that demonstrates the ability
: to recover a spin after a limited number of turns is
: sufficient for us to know that all spins are recoverable.

Hence "should be asking it to do". It is not competent instruction to
explore the wilder reaches of spinning behaviour with a pupil on
board.

: If I've stayed within my ability limits and survived, and they have
: strayed beyond their's and died then, yes. Bluntly.
:
: Sounds like me the first 10 years I instructed. :-(

Hey - you're still alive. You must be doing *something* right!


: Agreed partially. Might lead to the curse of over rule-dependence and
: under brain-dependence which seems to be creeping through the gliding
: movement.
:
: CAll them recommendations if you like. I've done lots of
: spins without chutes - probably more without than with, but
: only in aircraft I trusted and had spun before, with a
: similar loading.

Then we're agreed!

: : limitations on which instructors give the
: : instruction,
:
: No, no, no, a thousand times no! Well, two "no"s anyway:
:
: Aren't you the one who says the deaths were the instructors
: fault? They didn't have the skill to recover? So you'd be
: against limiting full spin instruction to senior
: instructors?

No - I reckon all instructors should have the skills to recover from
any spin they end up in, and all instructors should be competent and
happy teaching basic spinning. Can you imagine a club in which only
the more experienced instructors were allowed to teach winch launch
failures? (And, by the way, I have had a senior instructor at a Very
Large UK Club explain to me that they always rotated straight into the
full climb on the winch because "we've got a modern winch and we
change the cables regularly - we don't have cable breaks "

: It was far better to give the first spin experience to a
: student as the base to final overruddered break and
: recovery.

That is effectively how I was initiated, though in the contect of a
slow, overruddered turn while hill soaring. Just as nasty - you're
even nearer the ground then than on a final turn!

: but we have to pay attention when people
: repeatedly die using existing procedures.

I'm with you there. I just don't think "Better instructor training"
and "better choice of training aircraft" should be ruled out ...

: So you go through the list of deceased instructors and tell
: me how they differed from those who still live. I don't
: think you can.

In one way it's glibly easy. They died. And unless that was because of
an unforeseeable mechanical or structural failure of the aircraft, or
because some unexpected turbulence through the glider into a strange
and unrecoverable spin mode, then it was their fault, just as the
overwhelming majority of gliding accidents are the pilot's fault. I
really don't like being this blunt but, since you ask, the ones who
are alive are better pilots.

: It should be checked, in theory, but I do a bit extra when
: I'm going to fly inverted, or some other unusual maneuver.
: I've noticed that "full" rudder on the ground may be only
: achieved at the maximum leg extension, combined with maximum
: foot extension

I'm fortunate (for once) in being 6'4" then - hgetting full pedal
travel is - cough - not an issue.

: Emphasis on
: seating position and rudder adjustment so that each pilot
: can apply a high level of force tot he rudder at full throw
: might be just sufficient to alleviate some of these training
: deaths.

In which case I am all for those precautions - before every flight!

: You seem to be saying that our existing procedures are fine,
: and if only everyone would do it right, we wouldn't have
: these accidents. That's fine, in theory, but I don't know
: anyone who thinks they do it wrong.

You misunderstand me - or maybe I just misspeak myself ((c) R.
Reagan). Obviously the procedures are not perfect. But I think we
should look at every part of them: what makes me unhappy is a regime
which works fine in nice docile two-setaer trainers, but then doesn't
apply to single seaters. Every presolo K13 pilot in the UK checks
"undercarriage" and "flaps" going downwind ...

Ian

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 15:01:49 UTC, Tony Verhulst
wrote:

: Arnold Pieper wrote:
: Repeating someone who wrote this earlier in the week :
: "Sure, we should stop training landings as well because that's where the
: majority of the accidents happen."
:
: Bad analogy. The difference is that you HAVE to land.

Should simulated cable breaks be taught, or should pupils just be
taught to recognize the symptoms of a cable break and be taken up in
a special glider a couple of times as they near first solo to
practice. I've never had a real cable break, myself, so I know it's
not going to happen to me ...

Ian

On 28 Jan 2004 01:36:38 GMT, "Ian Johnston"
wrote:

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 22:14:22 UTC, Mike Borgelt
wrote:

: It is called risk management. They fly gliders to go soaring not to do
: aerobatics. Most of them have thousands of hours of flying cross
: country and in competition. They consider it far riskier to do spins
: in gliders of uncertain history with instructors of little experience
: and training who typically seem to them to demonstrate dangerous
: overconfidence.

Ho yes. All good excuses. They should get their checks with
instructors they trust in gliders they trust.

How do you do this?
The good two seaters are in private hands and not available and some
of them are placarded against deliberate spins. That leaves you with
club heaps subject to unknown history , amateur maintenance and
unknown numbers of 20 cent pieces under the seats amonst the control
system. The instructors all have their GFA ratings. The system does
nothing to weed out the incompetent even when they demonstrate their
incompetence. We had one instructor 3 years ago spin a Puch in from
low altitude while thermalling with a student because the instructor
got out of glide range of the airfield and wishing to avoid derigging
(the tug was a hired one not to be used for field retrieves) took over
and tried to thermal away. Two serious injuries. They must be one of
the few Puch spin ins where both survived.
The instructor had been the Chief Flying Instructor of that Club in
recent history.

: And they won't spin down on you from above.

If that blithe confidence is misplaced, though, will they be able to
stop spinning?


The "blithe confidence" is based on thousands of hours where this
hasn't happened. Unlike the blithe confidence displayed by some that
they will always manage to recover from spinning Puchaczs despite the
growing evidence to the contrary.

Though it's not really the reluctance about spinning which gets me -
it's the general nervousness about flyng skills which it reveals.

If you aren't a little nervous before takeoff maybe you don't really
understand the problem. You are less than 60 seconds away from
perhaps having to demonstrate that you are mentally prepared and
skilled enough to cope with a low altitude emergency. I don't know
about you but this always gets my attention.

: Some of the attitudes revealed in this thread make me despair that
: anything will ever happen to improve the soaring safety record.

I agree with you there.

Ian

I really don't care whether you or Arnold Pieper or anyone else spin
Puch's or not as long as nobody is coerced into doing so.
There is a perfectly defensible position that says repeated full spin
demonstrations are unnecessary.

We aren't going to improve flight safety by continuing the "tick the
box" mentality that annual checks encourage. The BGA and GFA records
speak for themselves.

Mike Borgelt

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 23:15:10 UTC, Mike Borgelt
wrote:

: On 28 Jan 2004 01:36:38 GMT, "Ian Johnston"
: wrote:

: Ho yes. All good excuses. They should get their checks with
: instructors they trust in gliders they trust.
:
: How do you do this?
: The good two seaters are in private hands and not available and some
: of them are placarded against deliberate spins.

Then you yell like hell about a club or gliding federation that
doesn't insist on training aircraft of sufficient quality?

: The instructors all have their GFA ratings. The system does
: nothing to weed out the incompetent even when they demonstrate their
: incompetence.

Then it would seem that blaming the aircraft might be a wee bit over
hasty?

: The "blithe confidence" is based on thousands of hours where this
: hasn't happened. Unlike the blithe confidence displayed by some that
: they will always manage to recover from spinning Puchaczs despite the
: growing evidence to the contrary.

Most of the Puchacz accidents I've seen described involve low level
spins, like the one you discussed in your post. Recovery ain't an
option in those cases, generally speaking. Rapid conversion to an
effective religion is the only hope.

: There is a perfectly defensible position that says repeated full spin
: demonstrations are unnecessary.

Personally, I think the tail ends of single seaters sticking out of
fields and hill sides makes a pretty good attack on that position.


Ian