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

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

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.

Hmmm...so gliders spinning is "non-deterministic?" Quantum spinning? :P
I don't buy it. Just because someone can't replicate it doesn't mean
it can't be replicated. I had an instructor with over 20,000 hours
of dual given in 152's. The guy was fearless. He told me he had
a student do a perfect spin, with ailerons only (no rudder), and
a recovery after a turn and a half. He spent weeks trying to do the
same thing and couldn't do it...but I bet the student could :P


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.

Sometimes it's controlled by the stick, and as some FedEx pilots
have proven, sometimes it isn't...

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.
Bill.

I believe some instructors get bored doing the same old
thing all the time, and do "extra spin training" and "repeated
engine failure" for their own amusement. I believe I have seen this
occassionally to the detriment and delay and increased
expense of the student's training...

JJ's point is very well taken. Anytime an instructor and a student die
in a sailplane accident of no other apparent cause than following the
training syllabus, you should start asking all kinds of questions.
About the aircraft, the instructor, the student, the training...

My understanding is that the Puchaz became popular only for its spin
characteristics. It's easy to put into a spin throughout its cg range.
I recall lively exchanges among those purchasing the glider for spin
training and those suggesting that having a club ship with a
disposition to autorotate was a liability for all but the most
experienced pilots. Our club spent a few weeks discussing this prior
to purchasing a Grob.

As we teach spins now, even among the most ardent advocates of hands
on training, the only people who are proficient are those who give the
training or do spins as a regular aerobatic exercise. Having seen and
done one is comforting (or not), but if it has been more than a season
between spins, then you probably aren't as capable as you may think.

As JJ points out, recognition of an imminent stall and prompt recovery
is much more important to your well being than spin recognition and
recovery. Stable aircraft do not spin without significant coaxing.
Misuse of the controls is best addressed through instruction. And
while we want to know how to recover from any spin we might enter
despite the best efforts of our instructors to keep us out of them,
the emphasis should be before the stall rather than after.

I suspect that spin training has become a rite of passage, which makes
objective analysis of its risks and benefits more difficult. But if a
low time pilot spins in, it's not a result of poor spin training,
rather it was the failure of the instructor to accurately judge the
pilot's ability to recognize the signs of an impending stall and to
react to them promptly and correctly.

Spin training will save your soft pink bottom between the altitudes of
1500 and 500 agl. Above, and you'll have time to sort things out.
Below, and the pooch awaits with love in her eyes, regardless of your
training. And since you had better keep things well sorted below 500
feet, why not extend that philosophy all the way up to cloudbase?

I'm not saying spin training has no value... but it is not a lack of
spin training that kills pilots. It's failing to recognize the
oncoming stall and displaced yaw string in the first place.

(To review the importance of coordination in spin avoidance, follow
this link: http://groups.google.com/groups?q=tu...gle.com&rnum=1.)

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....

I agree with you about the 'specialised spin training' and the possibility it
might end up as a 'detached' exercise. As an aside, many years ago we modified
a K-21 at LGC to take spinning weights. I remember going up on one of the first
sorties (as a young P2). It was horribly unpredictable, even though we had
weighed ourselves and worked out the CofG quite carefully. I don't recall many
other spinning sessions being undertaken (in that glider) after that.

: 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 think we may be arguing at slightly cross purposes. I would question the
assumption that the pupil 'will not believe it'; 'it' being a loss of control
near the ground. (You may be thinking of a more marked stall/wing drop/spin
when demonstrating high AoA flight, in which case I apologise). Some things
just have to be understood, and more importantly, put into practice. There are
regimes of flight which are difficult to reproduce with fidelity (because you
don't want to be there _for real_). OK so you can simulate a crappy final turn
at altitude but you don't get a) the compelling visual cues that made you cock
it up in the first place b) the ground rush when it all goes wrong and c) the
effects of wind shear/gradient that occur at low level. I am not able to
propose a better solution to this problem, apart from restating that the focus
in training must be to _avoid_ this situation at all costs.

If you fly (one flies) with someone who starts to demonstrate undesirable
traits low down (decaying airspeed and/or coordination mixed in with a loss of
awareness of the glider performance), is it not time for immediate prompting or
takeover of control? In this case it matters little about the _actual_
characteristics of the glider: you are teaching the art of safe flying and
trying to build mental reflexes which will allow the pilot to survive in the
future, and I do mean _survive_. This is one area where you could say "You'll
do it and you'll do it _until you get it right_".
IMHO this is _the_ most important thing you can ever teach anybody in an
aeroplane: as your workload increases and your little world becomes smaller and
smaller your primary task is to remain _in control_ (fly the glider).

: 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

The short answer is I don't know. I was trained at LGC during this period
(luckily by some very good, patient instructors) and did not go on to have any
high or low level stall/spin problems, or even develop a reluctance to practice
them on my own. I don't remember lots of gliders spiralling out of the sky but
again there _were_ accidents during that time, so I suspect any data is lost in
the surrounding noise.

To get back to my original point in my first post, I see no reason in having a
everyday training glider in a club environment with such easily (and
unintentionally) demonstrable spinning characteristics. Yes, if you want to go
spinning go and do it - it all adds to your experience.

My real fear (as I have pointed out in some private emails) is that clubs who
buy a glider such as the Puchacz do it for mainly financial reasons. Because
money is still tight they end up doing trial lessons, first solos, mutual
flying and the like. I agree that in skilled hands that should make no
difference but back in the real world not everybody is proficient to that
level. A messed up cable break in one of the German glass 2-seaters might end
in an accident needing workshop attention but not a hospital/undertaker. In a
Puchacz...?

This may appear as a double post - if so, sorry!
Subject: Puchaz Spinning thread that might be of interest in light of the
recent accident.
From: "Ian Johnston"
Date: 26/01/2004 14:27 GMT Standard Time

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....

I agree with you about the 'specialised spin training' and the possibility it
might end up as a 'detached' exercise. As an aside, many years ago we modified
a K-21 at LGC to take spinning weights. I remember going up on one of the first
sorties (as a young P2). It was horribly unpredictable, even though we had
weighed ourselves and worked out the CofG quite carefully. I don't recall many
other spinning sessions being undertaken (in that glider) after that.

: 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 think we may be arguing at slightly cross purposes. I would question the
assumption that the pupil 'will not believe it'; 'it' being a loss of control
near the ground. (You may be thinking of a more marked stall/wing drop/spin
when demonstrating high AoA flight, in which case I apologise). Some things
just have to be understood, and more importantly, put into practice. There are
regimes of flight which are difficult to reproduce with fidelity (because you
don't want to be there _for real_). OK so you can simulate a crappy final turn
at altitude but you don't get a) the compelling visual cues that made you cock
it up in the first place b) the ground rush when it all goes wrong and c) the
effects of wind shear/gradient that occur at low level. I am not able to
propose a better solution to this problem, apart from restating that the focus
in training must be to _avoid_ this situation at all costs.

If you fly (one flies) with someone who starts to demonstrate undesirable
traits low down (decaying airspeed and/or coordination mixed in with a loss of
awareness of the glider performance), is it not time for immediate prompting or
takeover of control? In this case it matters little about the _actual_
characteristics of the glider: you are teaching the art of safe flying and
trying to build mental reflexes which will allow the pilot to survive in the
future, and I do mean _survive_. This is one area where you could say "You'll
do it and you'll do it _until you get it right_".
IMHO this is _the_ most important thing you can ever teach anybody in an
aeroplane: as your workload increases and your little world becomes smaller and
smaller your primary task is to remain _in control_ (fly the glider).

: 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

The short answer is I don't know. I was trained at LGC during this period
(luckily by some very good, patient instructors) and did not go on to have any
high or low level stall/spin problems, or even develop a reluctance to practice
them on my own. I don't remember lots of gliders spiralling out of the sky but
again there _were_ accidents during that time, so I suspect any data is lost in
the surrounding noise.

To get back to my original point in my first post, I see no reason in having a
everyday training glider in a club environment with such easily (and
unintentionally) demonstrable spinning characteristics. Yes, if you want to go
spinning go and do it - it all adds to your experience.

My real fear (as I have pointed out in some private emails) is that clubs who
buy a glider such as the Puchacz do it for mainly financial reasons and because
money is tight they end up doing trial lessons, first solos, mutual flying and
the like. I agree that in skilled hands that should make no difference but back
in the real world not everybody is proficient to that level. A messed up cable
break in one of the German glass 2-seaters might end in an accident needing
workshop attention but not a hospital/undertaker. In a Puchacz...?

Todd Pattist wrote:
had an oxy bottle in the nose. I've flown a Blanik in a
stable flight attitude (nose high cross controlled) that I
was only able to get into once despite at least 50 attempts
to reproduce it.

It makes sense to me to pay attention to the experience of
others, particularly when that experience led them into an
unrecoverable flight mode - and to recognize that I may not
be all that much better a pilot than they were.
Todd Pattist - "WH" Ventus C
(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)

Just for fun, maybe try to figure out how many different
ways you could design/modify an aircraft so that it
would spin all the way into the ground despite fully
functioning controls.

How about one that spins and recovers to the left great, but
to the right it goes into the ground?

Now do this once using aerodynamics, and once not using
aerodynamics. Now do it with a pylon/retract engine.
Now do it so it doesn't show up on the weight and balance that
the pilot calculates. Now do it so the mechanics weight and
balance doesn't catch it. Now do it so the lateral balance
doesn't catch it. Now do it so that a specially designed
test for roll momentum doesn't catch it, and it spins uncontrollably
into the ground anyway. Now do it so the yaw string is
perfectly straight all the way until the spin is
unrecoverable.

Assume you did this with all the weight fixed (not moving).
Now let the weight move. Now figure out what weights
in a glider move and how you can design it so that they cause
an unrecoverable spin without anyone noticing.

Now figure out how, in unaccelerated flight, you can make
it spin only if you have MORE airspeed.

Fuel in one wing of a Grumman AA-1, perfectly input adverse yaw,
wings with slightly different AOA, cargo that isn't secured and
rolls back, a sudden pylon engine stoppage, weighty repairs in
interesting places, dirt in the belly, weights at the top of
the rudder, leaky ballast bags, elevator airflow interruption
by an open canopy or flaps, movie cameras on the wingtips,
water condensing in one "tuna tank" on a wingtip, more
weight above the C.G. than below it, elevator/C.G./trim
in a way that only a prop makes the elevator effective,
higher aspect ratio wings, asymmetric debris on the wing,
blah blah blah...

But for the most part, near the ground, fly fast, mostly level,
smooth/slow/light on the stick and smile...

For you cowboys at a bijillion feet at 25% from aft C.G.
torquing it up tight in a thermal way over gross with ballast
in your schmancy gliders without a hint of stall warning...

GOOD LUCK! :PPPPPP

and I hope that pooch with those loving eyes is
a girl... ROFLMAO

None of what I write here has anything to do with any accidents for
which the investigation is ongoing, analysis is incomplete, or reports
not yet published. My views have largely been made known before, at
times when no fatal accidents were in the news.

Another caveat - I am no longer a gliding instructor and my views have
no official place in the scheme of things.

First, there is now, rightly I believe, much more pre-solo emphasis on
awareness of the imminence of a stall or spin and recognition in time to
prevent it happening. I suspect even more training there would be a good
thing.

Second, I think there should be enough training in actual full spins and
recoveries that it becomes automatic to recognise it and correctly
recover. I do not think that happens generally at present.

Thirdly , I think that spin training and practice in recovery, in
suitable gliders, should continue post solo, for as long as the pilot
keeps flying, to keep the automatic recovery reflex in good nick. I am
convinced that for most, that does not happen today. The reason in part
for all three points so far, is that spinning into the ground solo, or
while pilot in command, has remained one of the top UK killers. I cannot
see how stopping spin training could reduce the incidence of such solo
accidents, and the small number while training which might be prevented
are surely likely to be more than offset by yet more inadvertent spins
if training were stopped altogether.

Fourth, note "suitable" in my third point - I would rather not have
early solo pilots doing solo spin practice in a Puchaz, for instance,
though I am willing to listen to arguments otherwise from those with
more experience.



The reason I believe that full spin training should be maintained AS
WELL AS, not instead of avoidance/recognition training, is that there
continue to be accidents originating at heights where recovery is
possible - if only the pilot would recognise it.

A typical gliding accident, though with an atypically happy ending, was
like this. The pilot's survival and hence first-hand account gives a
rare insight to one's thought processes when such an accident is
happening.

A solo glider pilot had a winch launch. Cable broke at about 4-600 feet.
Pilot heard bang and felt jerk of cable breaking, forgot all training,
and concluded tail falling off or similar. He lowered nose of glider
from climb attitude to attempt to maintain (or regain) normal attitude
and flying speed - only thing done right in the whole event.

He thought he had enough height to to an abbreviated circuit, and
initiated a turn, without checking speed was sufficient.

Observers say he did two full turns or more of a spin. He said he saw
the ground spinning which seemed to confirm to him that the glider was
out of control as tail had fallen off or whatever, so he pulled back on
the stick hoping to get the nose up. It didn't work, and he concluded he
was going to die.

He can't remember the next bit for certain, but thinks he let go of
everything and covered his face. Benign glider then recovered from spin
into steep dive. (The end result was a landing with some damage but no
major injury to the pilot.)

To me, a key element is that he saw the ground spinning but never
considered that the glider was in a spin. That can only be put down to
lack of familiarity if all the other steps in avoidance have been
missed. Yes, he also needed (imho) better cable break training, better
flight situation awareness, better recognition of onset of stall/spin,
but in the end when all those failed the one last thing to save him
might have been familiarity with a full spin and the correct reaction to
it. What actually saved him was the glider design. Not all would.

Chris N.

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 17:15:34 UTC, (Edward
Downham) wrote:

: I agree with you about the 'specialised spin training' and the possibility it
: might end up as a 'detached' exercise. ...
: I think we may be arguing at slightly cross purposes.

I think maybe we are - lots of agreement, anyway!

: I would question the
: assumption that the pupil 'will not believe it'; 'it' being a loss of control
: near the ground.

I think the pupil ends up simply not believing that a spin will
happend at any time, because during training it so obviously - in the
average K21-equipped club - had to be very carefully and unusually
prepared for. I'm not in favour of pupils practicing spins in the
circuit!

: Some things
: just have to be understood, and more importantly, put into practice.

My introduction to spinning was in my fairly early days at Portmoak.
Said Bob: "You are flying too slowly and over-ruddering your turns. If
you do that a bit more, you will scare yourself ****less - if you're
lucky. I have control." With that he flew the Bocian out over the loch
- at about 2,500 feet, did coupleof clearing turns and flew too slowly
while overruddering the turn. And scared me ****less.

If he'd said "I'll show you what will happen when we next get the
chance to fly a different glider" or, worse "I'll tell you what will
happen" then I just wouldn't have believed him at that deep physical
oh-****-I-don't-want-to-die self preservation level.

: If you fly (one flies) with someone who starts to demonstrate undesirable
: traits low down (decaying airspeed and/or coordination mixed in with a loss of
: awareness of the glider performance), is it not time for immediate prompting or
: takeover of control?

Absolutely (caveat: I'm not a gliding instructor). But I think it's
essential to explain why these traits are so undesirable. It's a
different thing from just flying with the string all over the place:
hat just gets you down a bit sooner...

: To get back to my original point in my first post, I see no reason in having a
: everyday training glider in a club environment with such easily (and
: unintentionally) demonstrable spinning characteristics.

I think that's where we diverge. I think all training gliders should
spin like single seat gliders. I reckon the fact that they don't must
be considered as a prime candidate for the reason that so many pilots
continue to die in spins. They just don't think it'll happen to them.

: A messed up cable break in one of the German glass 2-seaters might end
: in an accident needing workshop attention but not a hospital/undertaker. In a
: Puchacz...?

If the instructor's any good ...

Ian

--

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 17:40:38 UTC, Chris Nicholas
wrote:

: Thirdly , I think that spin training and practice in recovery, in
: suitable gliders, should continue post solo, for as long as the pilot
: keeps flying, to keep the automatic recovery reflex in good nick.

My club - Borders GC - insists on comprehensive spin checks for all
pilots as part of the annual checks. I rather enjoy those flights,
particularly when I can persuade a light instructor to go in the front
of a Bocian while I fly from the back...

Ian


--

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 15:10:56 UTC, Todd Pattist
wrote:

: "Chris Reed" wrote:
:
: Are those of you who don't want to spin sure that you would recognise the
: imminence of a spin in your single seater?
:
: Are those of you that advocate dual spin training in this
: aircraft sure that you are a better pilot than the CFI's
: who've died?

There could be other reasons: pupils frozen on the controls,
instructor late taking over. But fundamentally, sorry, I don't believe
that Puchacz's - or any other certified gliders - kill competent
instructors. It's a hell of a way to find out, though, that you are
not - or the guy behind you is not - a competent instructor.

I once had a full cat instructor at a UK club nag me at the top of my
check flight winch launch to "pull back harder ... pull back harder".
We were in a) a Puchacz and b) pre stall buffet. It was two weeks
after a fatal spin off a winch launch at that club. I never have flown
there again, and I never will fly there again.

Ian

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 16:59:56 UTC, (Chris
OCallaghan) wrote:

: To review the importance of coordination in spin avoidance

Personally I rather like the spin entries from balanced flight. Very
thrilling.

Ian

--