Puchaz spin count 23 and counting

On 9 Feb 2004 23:07:22 -0700, (Mark James Boyd)
wrote:

Was the altitude the bailout or chute opening
altitude? Perhaps a better question is:
Bailout altitude. If the plane is still in a halfways level flight,
it's possible.


If I gave you a 2-22 and asked you to bail out solo,
how low would you do it?
Depends.
On the other hand: If you gave me a 2-22 on a really great day, I
would rather enjoy the Cumulus clouds from the ground...


The 500 ft and 700 ft are simply lucky.
Sure they are. But without the chute the pilots would have needed a
lot more luck.


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 never heard of such a case I have to admit.


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?

How much does the life insurance fee cost that covers the dead pilots
who did not wear a chute?

Bye
Andreas

(Edward Colver) wrote in message .co.uk...

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.

I trust s/he said "No" and that this was the correct response.

If s/he said "yes" then s/he should not be instructing.

If the correct response was "yes" then the check pilot should not be instructing.

Ian

(Chris OCallaghan) wrote in message . com...
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).

Maybe there are instructors who, used to a gentle wing drop at the
stall in other gliders, forget that a spin might take up just a wee
bit more height ...

I've had BGA instructors ask me to do stupid or dangerous things (I
have never complied and never flown with the same instructor again)
but very seldom, and I don't think the preence of a few nutters can
fairly be blamed on the BGA.

Ian

(Mark James Boyd) wrote in message news:4026791b$1@darkstar...

I think it would be absurd to require parachutes for EVERY flight in
a 2-33 (a glider I've only flown ONCE above 3000 feet). 30 extra pounds
on every flight in a glider with no fatalities in 30 years, hardly
enough elevator to stall in any legal CG, and flown mostly below
3000 feet? Silly, in my opinion.

People have died because their parachutes failed to open.

Parachutes have been found damaged - sufficient to prevent them
opening - on inspection.

If, as seems likely, the probability of parachute damage increases
with each use, wearing them for winch circuits may well increase the
overall danger of a gliding operation.

Fun stuff, safety statistics.

Ian

(JJ Sinclair) wrote in message ...

I guess it comes down to a matter of government control, doesn't it? You Brits
require fully developed spins and us Yanks allow our instructors to demonstrate
and instruct as they see fit.

I'm sorry, is that someone from a country where they worry about
what's legally mandated in rule 91.307(b) telling those of us in a
country where almost every aspect of gliding is run by the gliding
community telling us that we're less controlled?

Just checking.

Ian

(JJ Sinclair) wrote in message ...

The BGA IS the government, you just don't realize it. You MUST do what the BGA
says, if you wish to fly gliders in England. We don't have to do ANYTHING the
SSA tells us to do.

And you are free to ignore the FAA completely, are you?

And, by the ay, I don't have to do what the BGA tells me. By and
large, I must if I want a BGA club to launch me, but if I can arrange
my own launch, and keep out of a few bits of airspace, I can legally
do more or less what I damn well want in a glider.

Ian

In article ,
Todd Pattist wrote:
Martin Gregorie wrote:

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".

In the U.S. it's independent of chute make (unless it's made
of material like silk - which none are) and it must be
repacked every 120 days. I was just wondering if this is
variable around the world. I've heard repackers tell me
they believe the 120 day period is extremely conservative.
I wondered if the other regulating bodies around the world
use that interval. Anyone?

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

I'd bet that I could take a dozen emergency chutes, varying in
date of most recent packing over the past year,
and give them to a master rigger with over 5000 chutes
packed, and have him line them up, inspect them, and order them
by the age HE thinks they were repacked, and have him
do no better than a random ordering.

This is assuming there were no AD's over the year of course

120 days is quite the overkill...

http://www.afn.org/skydive/equip/repack-cycle.html

http://www.pia.com/piapubs/pia_posit...day_repack.htm

There have been attempts to get this to 180 days (which
is internationally and in the military a fairly common standard).

In article ,
Pete Zeugma wrote:
At 07:48 10 February 2004, Mark James Boyd wrote:
BAToulson wrote:

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...

A short while after the then CFI of the London Gliding
Club mandated all training flights will use chutes,
one of our K21's was hit by a lightning strike which
travelled horizontally some 3-4 miles. The glider was
totaly destroyed, with the tail only attached by it's
control cables. Both pilot and student bailed out and
landed safely (bar a few breaks). Had this been prior
to Jed's time as CFI, we would have had two more dead
pilots.

SEE!! Wearing a parachute attracts lightning strikes!
Who wants that?

OK JUST KIDDING!!! :PPPP

Mark James Boyd wrote:
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...


Hardly full control deflection - that's the point. Slow, wide turn close to
stall only takes a little nudge to get the canopy full of brown stuff.

This, quite possibly, is the dumbest thing I have ever read. To wit:

ADVICE TO INSTRUCTORS

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

A very experienced instructor initiating any type of spin with a student
in
any type of glider at 800' AGL ought to have his or her head examined. In
addition,
one hopes that one's will is up to date.

Allan



"W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.)." wrote in message
...
JJ,

I usually respect your postings, but this time you have written arrogant
nonsense, and I am afraid you have wound me up.