Puchaz Spinning thread that might be of interest in light of the recent accident.

"F1y1n" wrote in message
om...
"Vaughn" wrote in message
...
"F1y1n" wrote in message
om...

I once asked an instructor to demonstrate a spin in a two-seat
aircraft I was transitioning into.

Did you have chutes? In the US, the only time you are allowed to
spin
dual without chutes is when you are working on a rating that requires
spin
training. If you were asking the CFI to spin without chutes (just a
wild
guess), he was 100% correct to turn you down. I would too.

Unless you are already CFIG, you are always 'working on a rating' when
flying dual with a (current) CFIG. No parachutes needed for spinning.
And no, as I said, he did not turn me down because of the lack of a
chute.

Wrong. This is a very optimistic intrepetation of the FARs that I have
heard before, I doubt that it would fly with the FAA. If you don't have a
commercial, you are not "working on your CFI".


I would also refuse to spin a student in a glider that I had not
previously spun myself.

This begs the question: Why the hell would you instruct in an aircraft
you haven't spun yourself? Doing so would be foolish, IMHO.

It is done all the time.

Like it or not;

not

Take it up with the feds, I actually agree. (for the record, I delayed
my solo until I received spin training)


in the US, spin training is not required for the
commercial rating...

...but it is required for CFI. That does not make every CFI a
qualified acro jock.

If you read the FARs you will find that spin training is not acro.

Where?


A spin is a well-behaved, predictable flight regime...

Not necessarily true, not even true of all trainers. Some gliders
have, (or at least are reputed to have) multiple spin modes.

The spin rate, pitch angle, descent rate, and any pitch oscillation
amplitude and frequency does depend on the CG and gross weight, sure,
but a spin within the CG in an approved glider with a standard
airworthiness certificate is always benign can be recovered using the
documented procedures. As I said: 'well-behaved' and 'predictable'.

Read the rest of this thread, and then go back and google old threads
on the Puchaz.

Not all
aircraft have perfect rigging, and a certain percentage have accumulated
repairs and/or mods over years of operation that change the distribution
of
mass about the various axis and have an unknown effect on spin behavior.

Any mods that effect the CG require a new weight & balance. See my
comment above re safe flight within CG. You'd be suicidal flying a
glider with an unkown spin behavior. Instructing in one would be
border-line criminal. My point is: a spin is not some black magic.
Learn it, and instruct it. If you are afraid of spinning you shouldn't
be flying, much less teaching.

There is more to it than weight and balance, the distribution of weight
around the cg is very important to spin behaviour. My point is that the
glider on the flight line may not be the same as the glider that was
manufactured. It is idiocy to assume it will always behave the same.


Just two weeks ago, I found myself practicing stalls in a 152 that
I
wouldn't spin in a bet. It had a dent in the leading edge of one wing
and
had a nasty wing drop at every stall, but otherwise performed well.

Most 150s and 152s I have flown drop a wing at stall, as do many older
gliders. Does this make them unsafe to spin? Emphatically no! They
will spin happily in either direction.

Again; this was not the same airplane that left the factory, the
airfoils were no longer symmetrical right and left. The airplane follows
the laws of physics, it can't read the flight manual.

Have a nice life;
Vaughn

Date: 26/01/2004 00:45 GMT Standard Time
Message-id: cCUlhtvFIYkV-pn2-PiHmQrhdZUiZ@localhost

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 01:26:39 UTC, (Edward
Downham) wrote:

: As far as I know, we are now into double figures (in the UK alone) in terms
of
: fatalities when it comes to stall/spin accidents in the Puchacz. Compare
this
: to gliders like the twin Grob and K-21: there are far greater numbers of
them
: flying many times more hours with a much better record.

But you have to take an overall view: how many of the pilots who die
in solo spins accidents do so because they were trained in nice, safe,
you-have-to-do-something-special-to-get-this-to-stall two seaters.

On your hypothetical airfield, would you fit all two seaters with
elevator stops so that pupils could never stall [1]?

Ian

[1i] In the conventional nose-up-slow-down-nose-up-slow-down-whoops
way
--

Ian,

If there were many accident reports which read "...The single seater entered a
spin

at 5000' and was seen to carry on down until it hit the ground..." then I
would

agree with you.

The point I am making is that if you make a low, slow, under-banked and

over-ruddered final turn, no amount of 'spin training' is going to protect you
from

what is going to happen next. Ejection seats have an 'envelope', outside which

survival is not assured. Helicopters have an 'avoid curve', inside which a
power

loss will cause a crash, no matter how skilful the pilot. Gliders are the same
and

if we choose to operate in this zone, we must accept the consequences.

In using modern accident prevention techniques, we try and break the 'causal
chain'

in the sequence of events leading up to the accident itself. I would put
forward

the premise that spin recovery (at low level) is beyond the end of that chain,
i.e.

you have already decided to have an accident and are now along for the ride.


I regard the ability of pilots to operate their aircraft in this manner as a

_critical failure_ in the way they have been instructed.


You do not need a snappy spinning/stalling glider to instill these most basic

airmanship/handling skills into a student. Any aircraft will do.

To instructors: do you let your P2 get away with demonstrating what I describe
in

the second paragraph?

I don't remember advocating 'non-stalling' trainers, simply that too much
effort is

going into an exercise which has a dubious risk/reward ratio. For many years we
had

no sailplanes at LGC which could be spun and there was no such training. What
we

_did_ do was concentrate on the 'old chestnuts' like: "Never low AND slow" and

properly planned and controlled approaches.

Finally, I am not 'anti' people going off spinning. Indeed, I quite enjoy a
good

thrash downwards at the end of the day. I just think the whole exercise has to
be

put in a relevant context.

Ed

From: "Ian Johnston"
Date: 26/01/2004 00:45 GMT Standard Time
Message-id: cCUlhtvFIYkV-pn2-PiHmQrhdZUiZ@localhost

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 01:26:39 UTC, (Edward
Downham) wrote:

: As far as I know, we are now into double figures (in the UK alone) in terms
of
: fatalities when it comes to stall/spin accidents in the Puchacz. Compare
this
: to gliders like the twin Grob and K-21: there are far greater numbers of
them
: flying many times more hours with a much better record.

But you have to take an overall view: how many of the pilots who die
in solo spins accidents do so because they were trained in nice, safe,
you-have-to-do-something-special-to-get-this-to-stall two seaters.

On your hypothetical airfield, would you fit all two seaters with
elevator stops so that pupils could never stall [1]?

Ian

[1i] In the conventional nose-up-slow-down-nose-up-slow-down-whoops
way
--

Ian,

If there were many accident reports which read "...The single seater entered a
spin at 5000' and was seen to carry on down until it hit the ground..." then I
would agree with you.

The point I am making is that if you make a low, slow, under-banked and
over-ruddered final turn, no amount of 'spin training' is going to protect you
from what is going to happen next. Ejection seats have an 'envelope', outside
which survival is not assured. Helicopters have an 'avoid curve', inside which
a power loss will cause a crash, no matter how skilful the pilot. Gliders are
the same and if we choose to operate in this zone, we must accept the
consequences.

In using modern accident prevention techniques, we try and break the 'causal
chain' in the sequence of events leading up to the accident itself. I would put
forward the premise that spin recovery (at low level) is beyond the end of that
chain, i.e. you have already decided to have an accident and are now along for
the ride.


I regard the ability of pilots to operate their aircraft in this manner as a
_critical failure_ in the way they have been instructed.


You do not need a snappy spinning/stalling glider to instill these most basic
airmanship/handling skills into a student. Any aircraft will do.

To instructors: do you let your P2 get away with demonstrating what I describe
in the second paragraph?

I don't remember advocating 'non-stalling' trainers, simply that too much
effort is going into an exercise which has a dubious risk/reward ratio. For
many years we had no sailplanes at LGC which could be spun and there was no
such training. What we _did_ do was concentrate on the 'old chestnuts' like:
"Never low AND slow" and properly planned and controlled approaches.

Finally, I am not 'anti' people going off spinning. Indeed, I quite enjoy a
good thrash downwards at the end of the day. I just think the whole exercise
has to be put in a relevant context.

Ed

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 12:30:13 UTC, (Edward
Downham) wrote:
: The point I am making is that if you make a low, slow, under-banked and
: over-ruddered final turn, no amount of 'spin training' is going to protect you
: from what is going to happen next.

Indeed. But spin training may have given you the idea that something
nasty might happen in those circumstances. As it is, I remain very
worried indeed by the training regime in many, many clubs which says
"Today we will spin. We will use a special glider, or we will add
unusual bits to the glider you normally fly". The result is an
overwhelming impression that it can't happen to me....

: In using modern accident prevention techniques, we try and break the 'causal
: chain' in the sequence of events leading up to the accident itself. I would put
: forward the premise that spin recovery (at low level) is beyond the end of that
: chain, i.e. you have already decided to have an accident and are now along for
: the ride.

I agree completely.

: You do not need a snappy spinning/stalling glider to instill these most basic
: airmanship/handling skills into a student. Any aircraft will do.

I don't agree. You (one) can give all the lectures one likes, but if
the training glider doesn't do it, the pupil will not believe it.

: I don't remember advocating 'non-stalling' trainers, simply that too much
: effort is going into an exercise which has a dubious risk/reward ratio. For
: many years we had no sailplanes at LGC which could be spun and there was no
: such training. What we _did_ do was concentrate on the 'old chestnuts' like:
: "Never low AND slow" and properly planned and controlled approaches.

Did it work?

Ian

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 00:15:20 UTC, Mike Borgelt
wrote:

: Many experienced pilots I know flat out refuse to do full spins during
: annual checks as being an unnecessary risk. They will happily
: demonstrate stalls and incipient spins.

I would hate to have somebody as nervous about their flying skills as
that above me in a thermal.

Ian
--

Ed,

You have got several things exactly right.

1. Before a glider can be in an inadvertent full spin, the pilot has to
get the following things wrong:

Fail to avoid the stall/spin altogether,
Fail to recognise that the glider is starting to stall/spin,
Or fail to use the correct recovery after recognising that it
has started to stall/spin.

2. There are times in every flight when a failure to avoid will be
disaster, and recovery is academic.

3. The standard BGA instruction does not give enough emphasis on or
satisfactory methods for avoiding altogether.

Ask most pilots and most instructors how to avoid, and they will give
the symptoms for recognising that the glider is already too close to
the stall and recovery action is already required.

Most pilots and instructors just do not understand the difference
between avoidance and recognition.

4. Gliders can depart into a spin entry without any of the symptoms
normally taught for recognising the approaching stall , except for
stick movement and position.

For the pilot, one moment it is flying normally, the next it is
pointing at the ground and rotating.

This can happen inadvertently to a glider which cannot be made to do
this deliberately.

5. The stall/spin occurs whenever, and only when, the angle of attack is
too high. The angle of attack is controlled by the elevator i.e. the
stick.

Moving the stick back, increasing angle of attack:
A long way back, angle of attack is high;
On the back stop, stall position.

Recovery depends on reducing the angle of attack, no reduction, no
recovery. Without a forward movement of the stick, recovery may not
be possible.

6. It should be a standard part of all handling instruction to teach
pupils to monitor stick position and movement.

This can and should be taught ahead of and parallel to monitoring
attitude and change of attitude This must be kept to the forefront
of the pupil's mind throughout training.

Only collision avoidance is more important than angle of attack (and
loss of control due to a stall/spin can lead to a collision).

7. Spinning is an aerobatic manoeuvre, some pilots do them for fun.
Instructors should only spin as required for instruction, and not use
instruction as an excuse for aerobatics. Aerobatic instruction is a
different thing altogether.

8. Whenever there is an accident or incident involving a stall/spin, the
first questions which should be asked a

If inadvertent, why did the pilot fail to avoid?
If deliberate, why was this exercise in this manner necessary?

Fly safe, avoid stalling!

Bill.

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


"Edward Downham" wrote in message
...

If I took charge of a gliding club using Puchacz(s) for basic training,
the first thing I would do is pile them all in a heap in the corner of the
field and set fire to them.

This may come across as something of a controversial viewpoint. Let me
explain.

As far as I know, we are now into double figures (in the UK alone) in
terms of fatalities when it comes to stall/spin accidents in the Puchacz.
Compare this to gliders like the twin Grob and K-21: there are far greater
numbers of them flying many times more hours with a much better record.
Even older machines such as the K-13 stand out well in comparison.

I really can't see the advantage of a training glider that spins so
readily and kills you if you get the recovery (slightly) wrong.

I think some of the instructing fraternity (in the UK) have become too
focussed on spinning as an 'exercise' and not something to be avoided. I
believe that if a significant group of pilots are having _inadvertent_
stall/spin incidents/accidents when they are flying solo, then there is
something very very wrong with the most elementary training we are giving.

I read and hear much concerning technical details of spinning, i.e. what
glider X does after 5 turns with part aileron and that glider Y flicks
when you yank and stamp on the controls. All fairly irrelevant. If you
get to the point of having to do a full recovery one might question as to
how you got there in the first place. If you are low down (especially in
machines like the Puchacz), where most bad accidents occur, knowing how to
recover from a spin is probably not going to be of much use. Indeed, it
may help to make the subsequent impact unsurviveable.

What we seem to be failing to do is to instil a basic awareness of what
the glider is up to, and the _instinctive_ reactions required if the
airframe stops responding to your commands. Mike Cuming wrote a seminal
article in S&G, some years back, entitled: "STOP PULLING THE STICK
BACK!". This should be required reading for all pre-solo students.

If you really want to show people full-blooded spins and recoveries, take
them up to a safe height in an aerobatic power aircraft, certified for
those kind of manoeuvres. You will be able to do much more for a lot
less
money.

Frankly, I see little point in making pilots deliberately demonstrate
their 'expertise' in abusing a glider to the point it autorotates, then
attempting to do something about it. This is not the world aerobatic
championships. I would much rather see immediate instinctive corrections
to any possible loss of control.

To the experienced pilots/instructors reading this: when was the last time
you ended up (inadvertently) in a spin? Yes, you get wing drops in
thermals etc. but do you sit there, doing nothing, until the ground and
sky start going round very fast? No. I'm sure you don't, as you are
alive to read this.

What drove me to stay up at night to write this post was a feeling of
anger/helplessness/sadness that yet more people have died in what I regard
as a pointless exercise. I knew the P1 in the double-fatal crash this
week but not his fifteen year old student.

Safe flying to all of you.

"Arnold Pieper" writes:


The Puchacz is used for low altitude spin training more than
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

What is this? Below 10,000 feet?

--
Paul Repacholi 1 Crescent Rd.,
+61 (08) 9257-1001 Kalamunda.
West Australia 6076
comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot
Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.
EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.

Stewart Kissel wrote:

'Pull back, Pull back, okay kick in full rudder'-and
the thinking might go-'Gee, how does anyone get into
a spin, this is way to much work'

Yeah, this is pretty useless and I don't do that. Here's something I
posted about 3 years agog.

--------------------


I became a learn to spin convert after
unintentionally spinning on my very first flight in a single seat
glider. I was thermalling and (presumably) got too slow and
uncoordinated and, over she went. I'd had spin training and the recovery
was a no brainer.

I totally agree that teaching spins by pulling the nose up and then
stomping on the rudder is not particularly useful (fun though . I do
demonstrate this technique first so that the student feels what the spin
feels like. Then he won't be surprised and can pay more attention to
what I'm trying to teach.

After the "yank and stomp" spin, I explain that that isn't the spin that
will kill you. At altitude, I simulate a slow base to final spin,
gradually slowing the glider down, pretending that we're over shooting
the runway center line and then "helping" the turn along by adding
inside rudder. As I'm adding rudder, the glider enters the spin AND THE
NOSE WAS NEVER ABOVE THE HORIZON. After about 1/2 a rev, I'll mention
to the student that if this had happened at 400 feet, we'd be dead about
now. It's a real eye opener.



Tony V.

Thanks Arnold, for the clarification.

Do you supplement your spin training with conditioning exercises to
reinforce the prompt movement forward of the stick at the first sign
of an iminent stall? Repeated spin entries could condition a student
to await the stall break, since we are intentionally trying to develop
a spin, recognize it, and recover. "Hold it back. Good. Feed in some
rudder to skid the turn. Good. Now try to pick up the dropping wing.
Good..." This could unintentionally program a student to await the
stall break rather than reacting instinctively to a prestall by
immediately lowering angle of attack.

Where do you put your spin training in the syllabus? And do you demand
stall onset recognition before and revisit after?

I agree that it is wise to expose a student to spins, to the point
where it is recognized and the student demonstrates appropriate
recovery, but I think it is more important to teach onset recognition
and recovery. I'm just trying to get a sense of where in the syllabus
instructors put this skill and why.

Thanks again,

Chris OC

F.L. Whiteley wrote:

"F1y1n" wrote in message

snip
amplitude and frequency does depend on the CG and gross weight, sure,
but a spin within the CG in an approved glider with a standard
airworthiness certificate is always benign can be recovered using the
documented procedures. As I said: 'well-behaved' and 'predictable'.

Not true. The official procedures for weight and balance
miss a lot of subtlety. There are those who believe
this is what killed Art Scholl...

Think about it...