Puchaz spin count 23 and counting

Mark James Boyd wrote:
...
I think REQUIRING parachutes for ALL glider operations is absurd.
...

This is what the french regulations requires. Although I can admit that
our regulations have many absurd points, I would not count this one among
them. It is the same thing for seat belts in cars: if the regulation don't
make installing and using them mandatory, the statistics prove that cases
where they should be used and are not are way over the cases where they are
used and this causes some inconvenience.

Bill,
I have been responding to posts in this thread that indicate:

1. The British are now investigating their 4th Puch spin-in with unspecified
other types that have spun-in as a result of spin-training.

2. The british require 2-turn spins (full blown) in both directions, on initial
check-out and annually thereafter.

3. Some practice spins are entered as low as pattern altitude.

If the above is not true, please disregard my postings on the subject. I do
believe that ANY accident resulting from an intentional spin entry is
unacceptable and that spin training should emphasize spin recognition and spin
avoidance with recovery within 1 turn..

I now leave the British glider training in the good hands of the British glider
instructors and will post no more on this subject.
JJ Sinclair

On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 13:51:19 -0500, Todd Pattist
wrote:

"W.J. \(Bill\) Dean \(U.K.\)."
wrote:

A very experienced instructor flying a docile two seater in
ideal conditions may be prepared to initiate a brief spin from 800'.

Wow! Even with the "docile" "ideal conditions" and "very
experienced" qualifiers, I find this 800' comment in an
officially sanctioned instructor's guide to be highly
surprising. There's not much room here for anything
unexpected from the student or the aircraft.

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


What it is Todd, is lunacy.(officially sanctioned of course)

If anyone did this to me after we landed safely(if we survived) I'd be
tempted to rip the stick out of the front cockpit and severely
chastise the "instructor" about the head and shoulders with it.

Mike Borgelt

On 9 Feb 2004 09:17:28 GMT, Mark Stevens
wrote:

In my opinion any comparison with the withdrawal of
spin training for US PPL's is invalid, power pilots
do not routinely fly at high angles of attack, and
tend not to use the rudder in most phases of flight.
They also tend not to make the number of outlandings
glider pilots do and tend not to have the same problems
to solve in the pattern..


Do you fly power?
I got my power licence after 27 years gliding.
Where do you get the idea that power pilots don't use the rudder?
Rudder is used as required. In most power planes not much rudder is
required because of the design of the ailerons and the short wings but
it is still required if you want to keep the ball in the middle. Put a
well trained power pilot in a glider and he might take a couple of
minutes to figure it out but that is about all. He probably will take
a little longer to do good coordinated continuous steep turns but that
is only because glider pilots do many more than power pilots do.
Hopefully power pilots don't do many outlandings but I was impressed
by the amount of time spent during training on forced landings and
then you have a far worse problem than in a glider.

JJ might fill you in on use of rudder at high AOA in power planes like
the F4.

Mike Borgelt

On 2/9/04 3:32 PM, in article ,
"Mike Borgelt" wrote:

JJ might fill you in on use of rudder at high AOA
in power planes like the F4.

....and in the F-100, for example, where improper rudder use will take you
out of the fight in a hurry, and not in a good way. Rudder coordination is
certainly not something with which fighter pilots, and tail-dragger pilots,
are unfamiliar.


-----
Jack
-----

On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 09:15:09 -0500, Todd Pattist
wrote:

Martin Gregorie wrote:

AFAIK the UK practise of always wearing chutes in gliders dates from
the lightning strike on an ASK-21 about 8 years ago

BTW, how often are you required to repack the chutes in the
UK?

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".

--
martin@ : Martin Gregorie
gregorie : Harlow, UK
demon :
co : Zappa fan & glider pilot
uk :

JJ,

1./ "The British are now investigating their 4th Puch spin-in with
unspecified other types that have spun-in as a result of spin-training."

In fact, unfortunately, we British are now investigating our sixth Puchacz
fatal accident. If, I repeat if, this last one turns out to be a spin-in,
it will be the fifth.

The accident in 2003 (20/03) happened when the glider was flown into the
winch-wire while another glider was being launched. From my reading of the
accident report, there was no stall or spin, and the type of glider made no
difference at all.

The accident in 1995 (82/95) was a spin entry when the pilot in command lost
control while recovering from a launch failure at about 300 ft. The pupil
was not touching the controls at any point, the stall/spin was not part of
training, nor was the launch failure itself. I am afraid that there have
been a number of similar accidents to various different types of glider.
The accident to the DG500 shown in the video on the "Spin" thread seems to
have been similar, that pilot was lucky he was already very low, it seems
clear to me that if he had been say 100ft higher when the glider departed he
would have been much worse off.

The accidents in 1993 (132/93) and 1991 (111/91) were due to failure to
recover from a spin entry at low level. It is likely that the spin entries
were inadvertent, and the pilots in command tried to recover immediately.
However, the pupils held the stick right back so the gliders span into the
ground. Hence the advice now given for pupils to be told to keep their
hands clear of the stick for first stall/spins, and for these to be done at
altitude anyway.

The accident in 1990 (114/90) was a deliberate spin for training purposes,
recovery was started too low. This is why the advice quoted in my previous
posting today at 17.07 was given in the BGA Instructors' Manual published in
1994.

2./ "The British require 2-turn spins (full blown) in both directions, on
initial check-out and annually thereafter."

We do not require 2-turn spins annually. I don't know what you mean by
initial check-out. I had annual check-outs at two clubs last year, one in
a K21 and one in a K13. With the K21 we did no spins at all (it won't at
my weight), with the K13 we did spin entries, but no 2-turn spins (again,
the K13 won't at my weight).

Individual clubs, or individual instructors may require more stringent
testing, and it will vary with the assessment of the pupil, but there is no
general requirement as far as I know for 2-turn spins in both directions (if
there is, how did I escape?). Only clubs using the Puchacz or some other
E. European gliders would be able to insist on everyone doing a 2-turn spin;
given suitable conditions and enough height this sounds quite a good idea
anyway.

I still don't know the difference between a full blown 2-turn spin, and any
other kind of 2-turn spin.

3./ "Some practice spins are entered as low as pattern altitude."

I don't know what you mean by circuit pattern altitude. This depends so
much on the nature of the site, and the conditions. I have done a lot of
flights where the normal launch height was less than 800ft., not very
satisfactory but there it is. I have also flown in conditions when it is
normal to be on finals at 1,000ft. or more.

The quotation I gave in my previous posting explains why and in what
circumstances a spin entry might be called for at 800ft, with of course an
immediate recovery. Although the manual does not say so, this would
almost certainly be done in a K13. JJ, how much flying have you done in a
K13? And I don't know how much difference it would make, flying from
Minden at 4,718ft. a.s.l. (and hot) compared with the Long Mynd at 1,411ft.
and a temperate climate.

I have not disregarded your posting because some may actually take notice of
what you say.
You say "I do believe that ANY accident resulting from an intentional spin
entry is unacceptable". What does this mean, that you think an accident
from an inadvertent spin entry is acceptable? Certainly, that could
explain why you seem to think that much of our spin training is wrong and
unnecessary.

So far as we in the U.K. are concerned, we think that any accident, from any
cause, and especially from spin entries whether deliberate or inadvertent is
unacceptable. The coaching (training) of instructors, and the training of
pupils has this aim, to prevent accidents during training, and after
training.

We firmly believe that stall/spin training is essential, and that this must
include experience of actual stalls, actual spin entries and actual spins in
order to teach avoidance, recognition and recovery. Failure to do this
during dual training will just result in a worse accident record among
pilots who are supposedly trained. All this is clearly explained in our
BGA Instructors' Manual, and much of it in the quotation I gave in my
previous posting.

Regards - Bill.

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


"JJ Sinclair" wrote in message
...

Bill,

I have been responding to posts in this thread that indicate:

1./ The British are now investigating their 4th Puch spin-in with
unspecified other types that have spun-in as a result of spin-training.

2./ The British require 2-turn spins (full blown) in both directions, on
initial check-out and annually thereafter.

3./ Some practice spins are entered as low as pattern altitude.

If the above is not true, please disregard my postings on the subject. I
do believe that ANY accident resulting from an intentional spin entry is
unacceptable and that spin training should emphasize spin recognition and
spin avoidance with recovery within 1 turn.

I now leave the British glider training in the good hands of the British
glider instructors and will post no more on this subject.

JJ Sinclair.

Mark Stevens wrote in message ...
Chris,

Some gentle reminders about reality here in the UK..


Mark, no need to be gentle. I can stand a good pummeling, so long as
its delivered with skill and panache.

Mine was an honest reaction to yet another account of a pilot being
asked to intentionally spin a glider at low altitude by a flight
instructor certified by the BGA. I would expect this of maverick
instructors in the US, but I had been given the impression that the
BGA did a much more successful job of homogonizing training practices.

Spin training is good. Stall recognition and recovery is better. The
two together, with emphasis on the latter and careful instruction in
the former is best. I think we're on the same page here.

Martin Gregorie wrote in message . ..


A question for the PPLs amongst us: just how high would you need to be
to start egress from a full 4-place GA plane for everybody to exit
with room for the chute to open?


Modern emergency parachutes are designed to be fast opening. But in
the end, the decision that is being weighed when seriously considering
whether to bail out of a broken airplane or to stay with it is this:
what are the relative probabilities of survival? If there is
absolutely zero chance of survival if the pilot elects to stay with
the airplane, then perhaps there is no real "minimum" bail out
altitude...

That issue aside, I did some research that wound up as an article in
Sport Aerobatics magazine awhile back on the subject of emergency bail
outs. In one case, one pilot successfully bailed out at about 300 feet
AGL. See http://www.richstowell.com/bailout.htm for the full article.

Rich (still leaning on the "power" crutch)
http://www.richstowell.com

BAToulson wrote:
In article 4026791b$1@darkstar, (Mark James Boyd)
writes:


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?

Hmmm...that is an interesting question. I'd love to hear
the UK answer

Simple, how many power pilots do you know do "steep" turns at 7knots above the
stall; How many deliberately fly in circles with a group of others, many in the
blind spot on a busy day, STILL 7 knots over stall speed.

Barney
UK

Hmmm...an excellent point. I think this is very agreed by
most US glider pilots. And as far as I know, in the
US chutes are required in formal competition, and I agree with
this...