If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Mark Stevens wrote:
Just a quick comment on parachutes from Mark Boyds later post you mean that in the US you do not wear parachutes in gliders as a matter of routine? and it's permitted to do aerobatics without them? 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... A coupla things. No pilot is required to wear parachutes if he is the sole occupant. Next, aerobatics is a little ambiguous. 91.303 says "an intentional maneuver involving an abrupt change in an aircraft's attitude, an abnormal attitude, or abnormal acceleration, not necessary for normal flight." In 91.307(c), every occupant must wear a parachute to execute an intentional manuever that exceeds 60 degrees of bank or 30 degrees nose-up or down attitude relative to the horizon. So "aerobatics" (including stalls, chandelles, lazy-8s, steep turns 50 degrees, etc.) can be done without parachutes (although there are still requirements to stay away from airways, cities, airport airspace, low vis, above 1500 ft AGL, etc.). Severe pitch and bank, on the other hand (which many in other countries would consider the "true" definition of aerobatics) do generally require parachutes. The exception is that CFI's may teach spins and recoveries to students without anyone wearing a parachute if the spin training is "required for certificate or rating." This has been twisted to mean that anyone, including one who's never flown before, might want to someday be a CFI (the only rating that specifically requires spins, and instructional proficiency in spins), so we can give anyone spin instruction. By reg, US CFI's are required by 61.183(i)(2) to "demonstrate instructional proficiency in stall awareness, spin entry, spins, and spin recovery procedures." I took an aerobatics course to do this, but presumably, if ALL US CFI's have instructional proficiency in this particular manuever (as the reg demands) then they can teach this locally. Doing this without parachutes to pilots who don't even have a license yet? Well, that's a pretty tight twisting of these rules. But the FAA is clear about STRONGLY encouraging use of chutes during instructional spins as well, just not to the point of requiring it. As far as solo chutes go, Darwinism at its finest. Same for the solo requirements before license. I think pilots should be encouraged to do all the silly things they've ever thought of, solo, over somewhere deserted, without a chute. Get it out of one's system before endangering others, I think... Better that he die alone due to poor judgement, than take his wife and her sister with him to a dark, watery grave... Of course, I also think all the auto driver's side seat belts and airbags should be replaced with a sharp, rusty metal spike right in the middle of the steering wheel. Within about a year, everyone would drive the speed limit, nobody would drive drunk, lots of people would get remedial training before any accident ever happened, and we'd all wave each other through stop signs with a nod and a smile... And a lot of people would switch to bicycles... :P So my opinions should be justifiably suspect in this area... |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Mark,
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. You Brits collect all the guns and us Yanks allow our citizens to protect themselves. You Brits force everyone into a state health care system and us Yanks allow our citizens to choose. It all comes down to a matter of freedom to choose, didn't we fight a war with you chaps over this? Chris, Some gentle reminders about reality here in the UK.. The vast majority of the UK training fleet does not comprise of Puchasz's. Indeed you find clubs that solely use them for ab-initio training (not many) and clubs that have one as a spin/aerobatic trainer. Indeed the BGA operates one (99) partly for this purpose. All the other clubs have to soldier on with dull old K13's for spin/stall awareness/avoidance training.. On the other hand some clubs have taken the view that where there is smoke there is fire, and although no one analytically has managed to determine why these accidents seem to follow the Puchasz in the UK, these clubs take an avoidance strategy. My own view for what it's worth is that it is an aircraft with a big elevator and a big rudder that loses more height per turn in a spin than a K7/13, and if you screw up the recovery will reverse. But it's an honest aircraft and from my experience does what it's told to do. I would be happy to operate one from my own club from aerotow, but remain to be convinced it's an aircraft I would want to be used on the wire. It's also worth understanding that the Puch has acquired a somewhat hairy chested reputation and bar stories tend to grow in scariness like fishing stories increase the size of the fish.. For instance our airfield is situated on top of a small ridge.. When we spin train we try and spin over the valley, which gives us about another 300 ft.. Guess how many people actually factor this into their post spin exercise in bar debrief.. ? Again and again the UK instructors have pointed out here that we're not teaching spinning we're teaching spin avoidance.. However in my and my instructors panels view that requires us to demonstrate and then get students to understand how spins happen and then recover from them - from cable breaks, from underbanked, over ruddered turns and from thermalling turns.. People who don't train in spin avoidance often tend to get confused about the different phases of spinning. Anyone who manages to autorotate, and then spin for one turn in a Puchasz (or any other glider for that matter) from 800 ft AGL is clearly a lunatic.. Demonstrating a departure at somewhat higher altitude is a different matter.. Just a quick comment on parachutes from Mark Boyds later post you mean that in the US you do not wear parachutes in gliders as a matter of routine? and it's permitted to do aerobatics without them? 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... And of course here in the UK we look with some amusement at the social darwinism in the US that allows 40 million people to choose not to have access to health care, the preventative effect on the murder rate that widespread handgun ownership has, and the preventative affect on crime of a prison incarceration rate about eight times the european average.. At 16:06 07 February 2004, Chris Ocallaghan wrote: '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. There is no room for error if you are deliberately initiating a full spin at such a low level.' Wouldn't it be better to initiate the practice spin at 3,000 feet, then check the altitude at the bottom of the recovery? I am very confident in my ability to recognize and recover from a spin, but I would NEVER, NEVER, NEVER enter one intentionally at 800 feet AGL, if for no other reason than spinning in the pattern would be frowned on at most airports I frequent. Nor would I put my life into someone else's hands quite so readily. From 800 feet there is very little opportunity to take control and sort out a recovery gone awry. 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). But clearly there are training practices in place in Britain that should be scrutinized. Frankly, if a CFI asked me to spin from 800 agl, I'd consider it a test of my judgment, the only appropriate response being, 'Let's land and take another tow.' I've always thought the Brits pretty sensible. Is this a form of hazing among the fraternity of BGA flight instructors? It is very difficult to justify such extreme measures for the sake of proficiency. (Will he keep his head on straight when the ground is rushing madly at him? And if he doesn't, then what?) Or is it a vestige left over from a time when aircraft design was less regulated and spin entries were common? Or both? You've heard of social Darwinism? Perhaps this is organizational Royalism: training philosophies shaped by too many generations of inbreeding.... I have to say, from outside looking in, it's just a little frightening. JJ Sinclair |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Vaughn wrote:
"Mark Stevens" wrote in Chris, I tend to agree; but in the US, spin training is not required for any glider or airplane ticket except CFI. As a student, I made the choice to not solo any spinnable trainer without spin training. As a CFIG, I have conformed to the "party line" and sent many students solo with only stall avoidance, recognition and recovery training; without any hint of a problem. I think (and suggest) that these people should seek spin training before moving on to more demanding ships. I gave spin training to every pilot I ever soloed, before solo. It used to be a PPL requirement, I've been told... Just a quick comment on parachutes from Mark Boyds later post you mean that in the US you do not wear parachutes in gliders as a matter of routine? Yes, that is true. In my experience, most owners of single-seat glass wear parachutes, but most clubs and commercial operations using 2-seat gliders do not. It is just part of the culture. I think part of the reason for this is the disincentive created by the US requirement that all chutes, regardless of technology, be repacked every 120 days. An out-of-date chute discovered in any operating aircraft is an invitation for an expensive and inconvenient FAA violation notice. 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. and it's permitted to do aerobatics without them? Under certain conditions...yes. 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... I think REQUIRING parachutes for ALL glider operations is absurd. PROVIDING them for all operations is quite civilized... And teaching the judgement about when they are useful, and training the eject techniques, probably has an excellent sobering effect... I suspect this poster simply meant chutes are provided for use, but I'd like to know if this is not just an option but a requirement... 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. In the US, chutes are generally only worn in aerobatic aircraft during aerobatics as far as small aircraft go, in my experience. A few others too (jump pilots, ferry pilots, experimental test pilots, some tow pilots). 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... |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
JJ,
Strangely enought it's nothing to do with the government (well not yet at the moment) - the BGA decides these things as a movement.. It's not always transparent, and not always accountable but it's certainly better than letting the CAA decide these things.. We can argue about gun control all we want but simply compare the rates of gun deaths between switzerland where there is an assault rifle in most houses against that of the US.. But that would be because they still have a militia. The UK has a thriving private health care sector as do most European countries.. So I suspect we do have some choices whereas a significant proportion of US citizens have no choice at all in accessing healthcare. Again labelling things as 'socialist' is not very helpful - is the US public school system 'socialist' as well? My real point was to point out that different viewpoints can be equally valid and that there is rarely one right answer.. I've spent a lot of time in the US, and there are things I like about it and things I don't. When I'm there I tend to comment on the positive and refrain from being negative.. PS A couple of years ago a friend and I were sitting in a bar on the 4th of July in Houston and got chatting to some of the locals.. They gleefully reminded us what they were celebrating... We commented we had come over for that very purpose.. At 16:00 08 February 2004, Jj Sinclair wrote: Mark, 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. You Brits collect all the guns and us Yanks allow our citizens to protect themselves. You Brits force everyone into a state health care system and us Yanks allow our citizens to choose. It all comes down to a matter of freedom to choose, didn't we fight a war with you chaps over this? Chris, Some gentle reminders about reality here in the UK.. The vast majority of the UK training fleet does not comprise of Puchasz's. Indeed you find clubs that solely use them for ab-initio training (not many) and clubs that have one as a spin/aerobatic trainer. Indeed the BGA operates one (99) partly for this purpose. All the other clubs have to soldier on with dull old K13's for spin/stall awareness/avoidance training.. On the other hand some clubs have taken the view that where there is smoke there is fire, and although no one analytically has managed to determine why these accidents seem to follow the Puchasz in the UK, these clubs take an avoidance strategy. My own view for what it's worth is that it is an aircraft with a big elevator and a big rudder that loses more height per turn in a spin than a K7/13, and if you screw up the recovery will reverse. But it's an honest aircraft and from my experience does what it's told to do. I would be happy to operate one from my own club from aerotow, but remain to be convinced it's an aircraft I would want to be used on the wire. It's also worth understanding that the Puch has acquired a somewhat hairy chested reputation and bar stories tend to grow in scariness like fishing stories increase the size of the fish.. For instance our airfield is situated on top of a small ridge.. When we spin train we try and spin over the valley, which gives us about another 300 ft.. Guess how many people actually factor this into their post spin exercise in bar debrief.. ? Again and again the UK instructors have pointed out here that we're not teaching spinning we're teaching spin avoidance.. However in my and my instructors panels view that requires us to demonstrate and then get students to understand how spins happen and then recover from them - from cable breaks, from underbanked, over ruddered turns and from thermalling turns.. People who don't train in spin avoidance often tend to get confused about the different phases of spinning. Anyone who manages to autorotate, and then spin for one turn in a Puchasz (or any other glider for that matter) from 800 ft AGL is clearly a lunatic.. Demonstrating a departure at somewhat higher altitude is a different matter.. Just a quick comment on parachutes from Mark Boyds later post you mean that in the US you do not wear parachutes in gliders as a matter of routine? and it's permitted to do aerobatics without them? 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... And of course here in the UK we look with some amusement at the social darwinism in the US that allows 40 million people to choose not to have access to health care, the preventative effect on the murder rate that widespread handgun ownership has, and the preventative affect on crime of a prison incarceration rate about eight times the european average.. At 16:06 07 February 2004, Chris Ocallaghan wrote: '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. There is no room for error if you are deliberately initiating a full spin at such a low level.' Wouldn't it be better to initiate the practice spin at 3,000 feet, then check the altitude at the bottom of the recovery? I am very confident in my ability to recognize and recover from a spin, but I would NEVER, NEVER, NEVER enter one intentionally at 800 feet AGL, if for no other reason than spinning in the pattern would be frowned on at most airports I frequent. Nor would I put my life into someone else's hands quite so readily. From 800 feet there is very little opportunity to take control and sort out a recovery gone awry. 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). But clearly there are training practices in place in Britain that should be scrutinized. Frankly, if a CFI asked me to spin from 800 agl, I'd consider it a test of my judgment, the only appropriate response being, 'Let's land and take another tow.' I've always thought the Brits pretty sensible. Is this a form of hazing among the fraternity of BGA flight instructors? It is very difficult to justify such extreme measures for the sake of proficiency. (Will he keep his head on straight when the ground is rushing madly at him? And if he doesn't, then what?) Or is it a vestige left over from a time when aircraft design was less regulated and spin entries were common? Or both? You've heard of social Darwinism? Perhaps this is organizational Royalism: training philosophies shaped by too many generations of inbreeding.... I have to say, from outside looking in, it's just a little frightening. JJ Sinclair |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Mark Stevens wrote:
A couple of years ago a friend and I were sitting in a bar on the 4th of July in Houston and got chatting to some of the locals.. They gleefully reminded us what they were celebrating... We commented we had come over for that very purpose.. LOL. Even the wife thought that one was witty... (she usually only laughs when I trip over something). |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Mark,
We don't require parachutes for all operations, but we provide them, and I don't know a private pilot who flies without one. We do require the use of parachutes for all club gliders. Pilots in the UK are routinely saved by parachutes, both from two seaters and single seaters..And they're used at altitudes rather less than you imagine, including bailing out at the top of a wire launch due to a incorrectly rigged tailplane.. Mark At 18:00 08 February 2004, Mark James Boyd wrote: Vaughn wrote: 'Mark Stevens' wrote in Chris, I tend to agree; but in the US, spin training is not required for any glider or airplane ticket except CFI. As a student, I made the choice to not solo any spinnable trainer without spin training. As a CFIG, I have conformed to the 'party line' and sent many students solo with only stall avoidance, recognition and recovery training; without any hint of a problem. I think (and suggest) that these people should seek spin training before moving on to more demanding ships. I gave spin training to every pilot I ever soloed, before solo. It used to be a PPL requirement, I've been told... Just a quick comment on parachutes from Mark Boyds later post you mean that in the US you do not wear parachutes in gliders as a matter of routine? Yes, that is true. In my experience, most owners of single-seat glass wear parachutes, but most clubs and commercial operations using 2-seat gliders do not. It is just part of the culture. I think part of the reason for this is the disincentive created by the US requirement that all chutes, regardless of technology, be repacked every 120 days. An out-of-date chute discovered in any operating aircraft is an invitation for an expensive and inconvenient FAA violation notice. 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. and it's permitted to do aerobatics without them? Under certain conditions...yes. 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... I think REQUIRING parachutes for ALL glider operations is absurd. PROVIDING them for all operations is quite civilized... And teaching the judgement about when they are useful, and training the eject techniques, probably has an excellent sobering effect... I suspect this poster simply meant chutes are provided for use, but I'd like to know if this is not just an option but a requirement... 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. In the US, chutes are generally only worn in aerobatic aircraft during aerobatics as far as small aircraft go, in my experience. A few others too (jump pilots, ferry pilots, experimental test pilots, some tow pilots). 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... |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Mark,
Along the lines of - 'why is divorce so expensive? because it's worth it' ..:-) Mark. At 18:12 08 February 2004, Mark James Boyd wrote: Mark Stevens wrote: A couple of years ago a friend and I were sitting in a bar on the 4th of July in Houston and got chatting to some of the locals.. They gleefully reminded us what they were celebrating... We commented we had come over for that very purpose.. LOL. Even the wife thought that one was witty... (she usually only laughs when I trip over something). |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
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? 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. I wasn't in gliding when that accident happened though I have read the report, but by the time I started in 2000 chutes had become universal. It think its the view that it would be silly to need one and not have it that tipped the balance and all clubs quietly started using chutes virtually all the time. Apart from that, all training gliders routinely thermal or run ridges near the field, often in gaggles, often up to 4000+ ft AGL, so wearing chutes makes sense to me. 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? -- martin@ : Martin Gregorie gregorie : Harlow, UK demon : co : Zappa fan & glider pilot uk : |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Mark,
We have had a pleasant little discussion of parachutes, gun control and socialized medicine, however you have failed to address the core issue of the British requirement to teach full blown spins. You feel that those who survive the spin training will be better for it. This position fails to address the fact that you Brits are screwing students and instructors into the ground on a fairly regular basis. Some of us feel your cure (spin training) is worse than the desease (spin accidents). Your comments on the core issue? JJ Sinclair |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Martin Gregorie
writes: I wasn't in gliding when that accident happened though I have read the report, but by the time I started in 2000 chutes had become universal. It think its the view that it would be silly to need one and not have it that tipped the balance and all clubs quietly started using chutes virtually all the time. Apart from that, all training gliders routinely thermal or run ridges near the field, often in gaggles, often up to 4000+ ft AGL, so wearing chutes makes sense to me. 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. 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. Barney UK |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Inside A U.S. Election Vote Counting Program | Peter Twydell | Military Aviation | 0 | July 10th 03 08:28 AM |