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 -

I've never flown one and haven't looked at the manual - is the recovery you've
employed detailed in the manual?

(Shoulbe) wrote in message ...
I've never flown one and haven't looked at the manual - is the recovery you've
employed detailed in the manual?

Yes! I'd be interested, what's so mean about the Puch? I checked
myself out in one, several years ago, and then taught a corporate
pilot how to fly it.
Shortly after, that pilot left the job, and the glider sat around for
years till it was sold to England. We did some beginning spins. But I
have 1000s of hrs in Blaniks. Guess I am lucky to be still alive?

DB

In article ,
(henell) wrote:


Bill Daniels said,
I have found no recovery problem with 8 or more turn
spins during aerobatic sequences.


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.

"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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.