Puchaz spin count 23 and counting

"Todd Pattist" wrote in message
...
Derrick Steed wrote:


I've never seen a requirement from the BGA - but then maybe I'm not
reading
the right things. It's not a suggestion I'm making, I was concerned that
I
maintained my pack properly in the event I needed to use it.

I was asking if you faced a penalty for flying with your
parachute 4 months and 1 day after your last repack. In the
U.S., if I was to do that, I could (at least in theory) lose
my license to fly. I take it that you face no such
sanction.

My experience in the UK has led me to believe that parachutes should be
repacked every 6 months. That is certainly what is done at my club. I
thought I'd check before posting and got a surprise. Laws and Rules for
Glider Pilots contains the following on parachutes:

"RP16. A parachute is considered to be personal equipment and not part of
the aircraft. The owner should ensure that it is checked regularly by a
competent authority. The interval should not be greater than three months
or the manufacturer's recommendation, but if the parachute has become wet or
had oil or acid spilled over it, or the release pins under the flap are
bent, it should be sent for re-packing and servicing forthwith.

RP17. Serviceable parachutes should be worn by the occupant(s) of gliders
operated from BGA sites, subject to the glider being fitted to accept the
occupant(s) wearing parachute(s)."

The above is in the Recommended Practices section which means that it's not
compulsory.

As an aside, RP16 seems to me to have daft wording. Why not use the term
"contaminated or damaged" instead of getting into specifics about
substances?

Stephen

I've read most of this discussion about spinning and spin training and I feel somewhat saddened by the polarization of views that I have seen thoughout.

My glider training started in the late 1960's and that is when I learned all about spin recovery (as taught to me at the time mostly by an ex army air corp pilot), this was all carried out after release from aero tow and never initiating an entry below 1500 feet, in fact that was the intended lowest recovery altitude for any maneuvre of this kind. After a long break from 1976 to 1989 (with a brief non-solo spell for a few weeks at club nearby in 1984) I joined a club and went solo again. A year later I bought a Dart 17 and started to enjoy flying it

During one of my early flights in the Dart (by this time I only had a few tens of hours recent flying) I was in a thermal above a ridge and responded incorrectly to a sudden wing drop with an associated nose down change in pitch (it was a rough thermal) - the Dart spun (they do that if you ask in the right tone of voice). Moving the stick forward had no effect, in fact putting the stick anywhere had no effect, the only thing that did work (once I had correctly recognized the situation) was the correct spin recovery procedure - I don't recall how many turns this was, maybe one or two, but by this time I was fairly close to the ground. It wasn't the proximity of the ground which had my attention, I was more concerned with correcting the situation in hand and thus avoiding the bone crunching intervention of the ground. During the recovery from the ensuing dive I did become more aware of the proximity of the ground (it seemed to be only a few hundred feet, if that) and worried a!
bout getting back to the upwind side of the ridge - my reaction here was to only partially recover from the dive and keep a good amount of speed on to push forward to the front of the ridge (another thing that was drummed into me in the 60's was to keep the speed up when close to the ground). I certainly remember the ground rush effect during the dive, but not during the initial part of the recovery, I think I was too busy trying to do the correct the situation at that time.

From what I can recall, the entry to this spin was initiated at less 1000 feet above ground level (It's hard to be exact, the top of the ridge - above Whipsnade lion enclosure was my belief at the time - was higher than the launch point) - the prospect of finishing up in that enclosure certainly focused my mind at the time.

What had been drummed into me back in the 60's were the following:
1. recognition of the flight mode I was in (e.g. in a spin), I believe this is one of the factors which contributed to my safe return that day
2. the correct procedure to use and how to apply it, I believe this was the other factor
3. there was talk of incipient spins and the recovery from same (a "judicious" bootful of rudder and get the nose down - there's been some argument about that already - I'm saying this is the correct action, just reporting what I remember I was instructed to do at the time)
4. one particular thing that I noticed on my return to gliding in the late 80's was the political incorrectness of term "incipient spin", and the insistence on use of the term "stall with a wing drop" - I recall a test pilot I know telling me about his time at Edwards AFB and the political incorrectness of PIO, instead it is now termed "Pilot Aircraft Coupling" - I have to ask: does it really matter whether we call it fishpaste or salmon pate? Isn't it more important that we understand the mechanics of what is happening and what to do when it does?

Lastly: I have noticed that in human affairs, there is the adoption of "fashions" - be it clothes, mannerisms, procedures, whatever. If is often not clear to me which point of view is the correct one (maybe I'm just thick - not very, mind you, just a bit). The only thing I can be certain of is that actual experience of a situation and the effect of the actions one took to correct. It worked for me - IN A DART - that doesn't necessarily mean I would do the correct thing in a different situation, but the training I receive should ensure that I can recognize it and apply what is known to be a correct recovery procedure.

I flew the Puchacz on an instructors course in 1995 and found it to be a nice aircraft to fly - we were well instructed in it's idiosyncracies and it was noted that it was a good spin trainer. We were shown that it is possible to spin the puch such that a "proper" spin recovery procedure must be used to effect a return to normal flight. We were also shown how much K13 vary in their characteristics with regard to spinning, Lasham had 9 at the time, they were all different - some spun like a top, others were very reluctant. Personally, I wouldn't attempt to teach spins on any aircraft in which I wasn't current and very familiar with. I don't currently have an instructors rating and haven't for some years - it's a dangerous trade.

Rgds,

Derrick.

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?


In France where we must fly with chutes according to the
regulations, the repack periodicity is as determined by
each manufacturer, I don't remember of any specific data.

I have taken many 'chutes for repacking some with no
known last repack date but believed to be several years.
Bench test showed that the drogue 'chute worked there
was nothing to suggest the main would not have opened.
I heard one story of a UK jump club who's members jumped
'chutes that had not been repacked for several years
and they worked fine (Note to doubters I cannot support
this with evidence


I have very recently seen a chute where the rubber bungees had decayed to
the extent that they glued the parachute lines together ... the very upset
packer had no doubt that it would have malfuntioned .... I would suggest
that you take no chances and have your chute repacked well within the
recommended time period

Sven Olivier

In article 40288f58$1@darkstar, (Mark James Boyd)
writes:

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

Spinning through cloud!!!

Does this meet with the approval of your Chief Flying Instructor - or the rest
of the aviation world pottering about below the same cloud you are spinning
down through?

Barney
UK

Barney
UK

In article , Todd Pattist
writes:

I'd heard a few comments about English spin training from a
winch launch at 800', but I thought it was either bar-talk
or a rogue instructor.

I know different areas use different training methods, but
from my U.S. centric perspective, "officially sanctioned
lunacy" seems like an awfully good description.

This was certainly true. On my instructor finishing course in 1977 with the
then British National Coach, (and you don't get much more "official" than that)
having joined downwind at about 800 ft, he took control and demonstrated a full
spin (about 1 rotation from memory) in a Bocian.

As far as I can remember this was to demonstrate the need to overcome a strong
natural instinct to pull the stick back when the grass fills the canopy and
take full recovery action.

It may not come as a total surprise to you to learn that I have never done it
since and, when Chief Flying Instructor of my club, had a rule that all spins
must be competed by 1500ft!

Barney
UK

In article ,
Sven Olivier wrote:
I have taken many 'chutes for repacking some with no
known last repack date but believed to be several years.
Bench test showed that the drogue 'chute worked there
was nothing to suggest the main would not have opened.
I heard one story of a UK jump club who's members jumped
'chutes that had not been repacked for several years
and they worked fine (Note to doubters I cannot support
this with evidence


I have very recently seen a chute where the rubber bungees had decayed to
the extent that they glued the parachute lines together ... the very upset
packer had no doubt that it would have malfuntioned .... I would suggest
that you take no chances and have your chute repacked well within the
recommended time period

Sven Olivier


Was this chute less than six months since last repack?
I bet it wasn't...

On the other hand, if one leaves a chute packed today
inside a nice glider canopy or car for about
a month in 100 degree plus weather in Mexico or El Paso,
I bet the thing melts like a cassete tape...

For the few chutes that need repacking more frequently,
it's a handling and storage problem, not a "date" problem.

In article ,
BAToulson wrote:
In article 40288f58$1@darkstar, (Mark James Boyd)
writes:

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

Spinning through cloud!!!

Does this meet with the approval of your Chief Flying Instructor - or the rest
of the aviation world pottering about below the same cloud you are spinning
down through?

This was given in the context "better to intiate spins at 800 feet
over a cloud deck than over the ground, and would give the
same effect (canopy full of cloud, must fight urge to
pull back on stick)"

Aerobatics with less than 3 miles vis is prohibited
in the US without waiver, as far as I know...


Barney
UK

Barney
UK

I have a friend who only repacks his chute once per year, generally
around the beginning of his contest season. His plan if questioned by
the FAA is as follows:

FAA: This parachute is out of date.

Pilot: That's not a parachute; it's a seat cushion.

FAA: It clearly states it's a parachute, and I see by the repack card
that it is out of date.

Pilot: When I get it repacked, it will be a parachute again. For now,
it's a seat cushion. And if I want to jump out of an aircraft with
only a seat cushion attached to my bottom, that's my business, not
yours.

"Mark James Boyd" wrote in message
news:402bf598$1@darkstar...

Aerobatics with less than 3 miles vis is prohibited
in the US without waiver, as far as I know...

And in the US you would have to remain at least 1000' above the cloud
(assuming class E or class G 1200' agl.) but the idea still might have
merit given the theory that clouds are usually soft and empty but the ground
is invariably hard.


Vaughn