Puchaz spin count 23 and counting

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.)
Having been exposed to sub 800' spins by a BGA qualified instructor - in a place
where only spin avoidance is required to be taught I can say that the experience
had great value for me.
Now I know that you can recover, without too much drama from a spin at that
height, and how to do it. Until you have done it you have no idea - the actual
spin is not different, but the scenery/experience is.

Multiple ordinary ,and accelerated and even one inverted spin in a Pitts S2 was
interesting and fun, at 3000-4000AGL. The "boring, docile" K13 was heart
stopping at 800'.

If I ever do it inadvertently, at least I have processed the mental stuff
relating to spinning this low at least twice. Got a better chance of not choking
up and making a mess of the recovery. That would be regrettable, because, as has
been noted correctly there is very little margin for error.
Was quite satisfied with the safety aspect with an instructor who has been
teaching this for 40+ years sitting in the back of an immaculate K13, in still
air. Would have my doubts about doing it with most others though...

Andreas Maurer wrote:
On 8 Feb 2004 09:59:55 -0700, (Mark James Boyd)
wrote:

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...

Sure, in some conditions. But how many people have they
killed invisibly? The guy wearing the chute for the
winch pattern tow? Not a chance he'd have enough altitude to
use the chute, but maybe the extra weight was just
enough to cause the cable break and the stall/spin?
Kinda an invisible possibility, isn't it?
No real way to determine that...

Well... at the moment I know four glider pilots in person who were
using the nylon letdown successfully.
One girl bailed out of their ASW-19 during a winch launch (elevator
not connected) [500 ft], one bailed out of his Ventus after he had
rammed another glider [5000 ft, unfortunately the other pilot was not
able to bail out], and two bailed out of their respective Ka-8(s after
they had collided at 700 ft.

Was the altitude the bailout or chute opening
altitude? Perhaps a better question is:

If I gave you a 2-22 and asked you to bail out solo,
how low would you do it?

I've static line chuted at 800 feet. The hard deck for novice
solo sport chuters is 2500ft. The firejumpers declare
500ft as "the last chance to deploy parachute and have it be effective",
and say that if the "aircraft is below 1000 feet, a decision
has to be made immediately."

The 500 ft and 700 ft are simply lucky.

www.richstowell.com/bailout.htm

was really great about the folks who had given up and started to
bail but died during impact (perhaps if they'd tried to
keep flying instead, might have survived), the canopy that
knocked a guy unconscious, and the chute on so the
pilot was too far forward.

As you can see, there are a LOT of very small disadvantages, that add up...


Note the altitudes [in brackets].

I know of not a single case where the additional weight of a parachute
caused a problem. I also have not even heard of any case where the
parachute caused a disadvantage.

As I said, no real way of determining that. How many investigators are
willing to say: "at the 23G's encountered at the moment of impact,
the 330 extra pounds exerted by the parachute on the back
of the victim were the difference between serious injuries and
fatality. We therefore conclude that the parachute was a
contributor to the fatality."

I read a recent well-worded report about why child safety seats
are not required in airplanes. In the end, the feds determined that
it would cost an additional $9 billion a year, and would save the
lives of six children a year from aviation deaths. On the other
hand, people would then fly less with their kids, and in the
150+ mile car trips, there would be 1000's of more fatalities.

I'm a big proponent of choice, especially for solo pilots.
I think the tremendous advantages of wearing a chute
happen so infrequently, and the minor disadvantages
occur so often, that we are dealing with

..83 x .0001

vs

..0002 x .41

and if any of these numbers are even a little off, the argument could
go either way. Very sketchy dealing with very big and very little
numbers...

so just let the pilots decide for themselves...


I think REQUIRING parachutes for ALL glider operations is absurd.

Any questions left?

Yes, how much does it cost ($$$) to tow an additional 15 pounds
aloft during every glider flight in the US in a year?
If this money were instead spent on flyers mailed to
every pilot about checking the elevator connection
before flight, would more lives be saved?

The child safety seat fed folks seemed to think it is best spent
increasing awareness about venetian blind cords strangling
infants...


Bye
Andreas

Robert Ehrlich wrote:
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.

Show me a single-seat car which has a miniscule chance of
injuring another person. Show me the safety statistics for
this...and perhaps you have a parallel to certain glider operations.

I liked Rod Machado's quote from Feb 2004 AOPA pilot:

"So the next time you hear the word always, only or never
used in an aviation sentence, think about asking the
question: So what?"

"Sorry, but no cigar today."

Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 15:54:18 GMT, "Vaughn"
wrote:

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?

Helmets, like much safety equipment, can increase the chance
of an accident but usually reduce the injury when one happens.
Somewhere in there is a good balance...


AFAIK the UK practise of always wearing chutes in gliders dates from
the lightning strike on an ASK-21 about 8 years ago. Its occupants
were wearing chutes and both survived. They would not have done so
without them. Having said that, chute use is not entirely universal:
we never wear them in our T-21b, but that's the only exception I know.
I'm not clear on the reason for this.

Aha! Chute use is NOT mandatory for ALL UK glider operations!
Excellent! Very civilized. And I think a much better way
since at least to some extent now pilots need to ask
themselves "why should I wear a chute" which is MUCH more
important a mental exercise than the rote donning of the
silk...

I've never worn a chute in a light plane, and that includes SF-25s, or
even seen one in the cabin on the relatively few occasions I've flown
in GA aircraft in the UK. I'd always assumed that had a lot to do with
the relative difficulty of getting out of a GA plane in a hurry
compared with a glider. That has to make the chute much less useful.

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?

C'mon Martin, it's a glider newsgroup. How about, how high would
YOU voluntarily exit a glider with a chute.

For me, somewhere between 1500-2500 feet AGL sounds right.
Below that, I'd rather think I'd try to fly and perhaps
bugger it in...

BAToulson wrote:

Another good reason to always wear chutes when instructing. What would you say
at an inquest or to your insurance company when a pupil died because he could
not bale out as he did not have a 'chute? I have little doubt you and or cyour
club could be successfully sued for negligence.

I'd never wear a chute and not give one to a student. If it isn't
a dual flight, then I'd refer them to the PIC (solo) for the flight
(oops, he's dead), and then I'd show them the statistics for
lightning strikes and prove that wearing a chute increased the
chance of being hit by lightening, and this was a much
greater risk than what we estimated was the risk of
being the first fatal accident in the 2-33 in over 30 years,
much less one that might require a chute...

Then I'd take them for a flight with chutes, and at a nice high
altitude ask them if they'd rather jump out, or land with me...


Duty of care in a big issue over here.

As an instructor of nearly 30 years I would not fly with a pupil in any glider
without a chute if it were possible to fit one in. Additionally, all of our
club aircraft are fitted with impact absorbing cushions for the same reason.

Cushions are useful for EVERY landing...well, at least the ones
I make :P An excellent, low cost, high benefit idea...

And having flown with many instructors, there are certainly a few
I'd rather wear chutes with... :PPPPP


Barney
UK

Andreas Maurer wrote:

Ahh.. I have to apologize. In my other reply I forgot to mention the
guy who bailed out of his Lo-100 that had lost a wing inflight while
doing aerobatics.
He started to leaeve the glider at 3.000 ft, the chute opened less
than 100 ft above the ground.

That's about what I'd expect. I had a good friend who was to
ferry a very sketchy speed canard several thousand miles.
I begged her to borrow a chute for the trip, and
fly above 5000ft AGL, and if the engine burped,
eject that nice big canopy and hit the silk.

The damn thing with those tiny wings landed at 70+ knots, and
with those shopping-cart wheels it would've been no
fun off field...

She wore a chute for the ferry, and had no problems...
But our conversation about the risks really helped
her be more demanding of the mechanics...

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

"In the initial stages of spin training, continuous spins of two or three
turns are mainly to allow the trainee time to study the characteristics of
the spin and give confidence that the recovery action from a stabilised spin
is effective. There is no requirement for these spins to be noticeably
close to the ground, so their training value is not compromised if they are
completed very high. The majority of spin training will then involve brief
spins of about a half a turn with the primary aim of recognising the
circumstances in which the spin can occur, correctly identifying the
spin/spiral dive, and practising the correct recovery action.

Spins for license training used to be required in the
US also. Perhaps not a bad way to show what NOT to do.
I don't have a problem with this too much...


"As this training progresses, it is necessary to introduce brief spins where
the ground is noticeably close.

EEEEEEeeeeek!!! Not with ME on board. 33% of dual fatalities in the
US are failed emergency "procedures." A LOT of those are caused by the
ground. I'm not afraid of heights, I'm afraid of LACK of heights...

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."

Egads! Below 1500 AGL for recovery even, in the US one would
need an aerobatic waiver. And I doubt it would allow
passengers.

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

This is a huge difference between US and UK glider training...
very interesting...

Bruce Greeff wrote:
Todd Pattist wrote:
Now I know that you can recover, without too much drama from a spin at that
height, and how to do it. Until you have done it you have no idea - the actual
spin is not different, but the scenery/experience is.

Multiple ordinary ,and accelerated and even one inverted spin in a Pitts S2 was
interesting and fun, at 3000-4000AGL. The "boring, docile" K13 was heart
stopping at 800'.

If I ever do it inadvertently, at least I have processed the mental stuff
relating to spinning this low at least twice. Got a better chance of not choking
up and making a mess of the recovery. That would be regrettable, because, as has
been noted correctly there is very little margin for error.
Was quite satisfied with the safety aspect with an instructor who has been
teaching this for 40+ years sitting in the back of an immaculate K13, in still
air. Would have my doubts about doing it with most others though...

Full deflection of controls at low altitude, and jamming possibly caused by
negative G's (and some flying object) makes me nervous...

"little margin for error" indeed...

Judy Ruprecht wrote:
At 18:00 08 February 2004, Mark James Boyd wrote:
I've seen a lot of chutes (many legally expired) in
single seat
gliders as well. The FAA seems to leave these guys
alone,
recognising that since no chute at all is required,
having an expired one in a single seater is not exactly
front page news...

Geez, I don't know any FAA types ignoring 61.307(a)...
whenever a parachute is carried in any aircraft and
made 'available for emergency use,' it must be in current
pack.

Er...I wasn't suggesting they are ignoring 61.307(a),
just that their investigation of:

recurring complaints
suspected violations of FARs
and special emphasis areas

keeps them pretty busy with more obvious dangers,

and since it is rare that an inspector
will observe it unsafe, be notified by ATC of
it being unsafe, or find it in a routine inspection
are low (given the part 91 Ramp Inspection Checklist
doesn't even note this item)

Chapter 56, Conduct a FAR Part 91 Ramp Inspection

www1.faa.gov/avr/afs/faa/8700/8700_vol2/2_056_00.pdf

I'd say the chances of being violated for this in
a single seat experimental glider are about equivalent
to violations for missing static wicks or
flammable data plates.

Since solo parachutes aren't generally required,
for safety, I personally don't think parachutes worn in
single seat aircraft should have any expiration, and
I think the pilot should be able to pack it him/her self,
if he/she wants.

Passengers, on the other hand, don't have any idea
what's going on, and regs for them seem like a good idea...

In article ,
Steve Hopkins k wrote:
Your point regarding 'Accidents of Omission' is interesting.
If your local drug company marketed an antibiotic that
then proceeded to kill 23 patients, I'm not sure whether
the subsequent litigants would be much impressed by
the uncertain number of lives saved. Yes we need spin
training, and preferably on an annual basis so we don’t
forget what to do if, what we spent the previous year
avoiding, accidentally happens. Surely the point at
issue is whether the Puch is a safe vehicle for these
manoeuvres. And if it isn't, then should it be airborne
at all. Certainly the number of accidents involving
the Puch as against the number produced does seem to
indicate that something is amiss. Is there a statistician
out there who could look at the numbers and make a
scientific pronouncement on this? I seem to remember
in my school days, (when Queen Victoria ruled), there
was something called the Chi-squared test which allowed
one to state whether two separate groups of occurrence
were significantly different. Could we compare, for
example, the number of K-13's et al spun in relation
to the numbers built, as against the Puch in the same
manner and pronounce with a specified degree of confidence
whether the accident rate, (spin in's), was significantly
different?

I think the whole arguments on both sides are VERY
difficult to make convincingly. I myself sometimes
wonder if my spinning students was instructive, or
simply encouraged them to do it on their own without
any more training. Does my 3 hours of IFR training
for power students just make them bolder in poor weather?

The Puch quastion has a bit of a parallel to the
Piper Tomahawk spin question in the US. Some
instructors love it, some hate it, and they
do have a lot more spin accidents than Cezzna 152s...

I doubt we will find consensus, but this has been informative...