Puchaz spin count 23 and counting

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?

Steve Hopkins 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?
Would it tell you anything? The point about statistical tests is that you
first eliminate any factors which would skew the result. So you would have
to take into account at least the following:
1. the numbers of spin exercises carried out in puch's against the number in
other types of glider (single and two pew),
2. the training history of the pilots involved in accident free spins
against those in spins where an accident occurred,
3. the flying history of the pilots involved in accident free spins against
those in spins where an accident occurred,
4. the height at which the spin was entered
5. the circumstances of the spin (e.g. deliberate as opposed to induced
6. the method of inducement if that was the method of entry
7. the repair history of the glider (just in case this changed the mass
distribution of same)
8. the weights of the pilots concerned (the mass distribution again)
I'm personally convinced that the issue here is not whether the aircraft is
safe, but whether the pilot is safe to carry out the spinning exercises
concerned - I would only feel safe carrying these exercises with an
instructor whom I knew for certain was current and experienced with carrying
these exercises whichever glider type it is that is used. It is clear that
the puch and other gliders like it can enter a full spin which requires that
the correct procedure be used to recover from it - surely this is a training
issue? And surely it requires that pilots only be allowed to fly gliders
which they have proven their ability to handle?
Rgds,
Derrick.

Mark wroteOtherwise
we can discuss how many people were moved involuntarily
from where to where in the late 18th and 19th centuries..


Mark,
How did Australia get populated with chaps that spoke english?
JJ Sinclair

Mark wroteI pointed out that the government
did not require us to do anything, and the BGA (the
SSA equivalent) made those decisions in a fully deregulated
manner unlike you guys with the FAA all over you..

Mark,
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. I believe your government (BGA) is telling you to do 2 turn
spins in both directions, on initial check-out and every spring thereafter.

Most of our instructors, exercising their freedom of choice, teach spin
recognition and spin avoidance. We feel that ANY spin accident that accured
after the glider was intentionally put into a spin, can NOT justified.
JJ Sinclair

Derrick,
I just activated my time machine and its now 1938. Now, do we DO something
about Hitler or just let him involve us in another world war?

Our recent war had more to do with removing a Hitler type threat, than anything
to do with oil.
JJ Sinclair

JJ,

Not awfully interested in this but most of them migrated
voluntarily, a significant number were transported.


It's also how a lot of the first colonies in the Eastern
US states
were populated - through indentured labour with no
return ticket.

How did most african-americans arrive in the US? Given
that
yours is apparently the land of the free etc etc, all
men equal etc etc.. And when did legal segregation
end? You're only seeing what you want to see pal..

Mark







At 15:00 09 February 2004, Jj Sinclair wrote:
Mark wroteOtherwise
we can discuss how many people were moved involuntarily
from where to where in the late 18th and 19th centuries..


Mark,
How did Australia get populated with chaps that spoke
english?
JJ Sinclair

JJ,

Again you demonstrate your somewhat tenuous grasp of
the facts and geography.. There is nothing legally
stopping someone operating and flying gliders outside
of the BGA umbrella in the UK or even the bit called
england.

I'm happy to carry on listening to you talk out of
your arse by
email, but I suspect we're boring the rest of group..

Mark




At 15:12 09 February 2004, Jj Sinclair wrote:
Mark wroteI pointed out that the government
did not require us to do anything, and the BGA (the
SSA equivalent) made those decisions in a fully deregulated
manner unlike you guys with the FAA all over you..

Mark,
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. I believe your government (BGA)
is telling you to do 2 turn
spins in both directions, on initial check-out and
every spring thereafter.

Most of our instructors, exercising their freedom of
choice, teach spin
recognition and spin avoidance. We feel that ANY spin
accident that accured
after the glider was intentionally put into a spin,
can NOT justified.
JJ Sinclair

Mark,
What's that they say about living in glass houses and throughing rocks?
JJ Sinclair

JJ,

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

What do you mean by "full blown spins"? I give three alternatives below,
please tell me which you mean, or do you mean something else?

1./ Some people say of any glider if it stalls with lateral instability
and starts to rotate, that "it span".

2./ Some people describe the manoeuvre between initial stall and a full
developed spin as an "incipient spin". Some people would say "it span".

In the U.K. we prefer to call it a "stall with wing drop", this is because
the recovery from a "stall with wing drop" is sometimes different from the
recovery from a developed full spin (e.g. the K21 at aft permitted C. of G.
position, see the Schleicher Flight Manual April 1980 as amended by
Schleicher Technical Note 23 for the K21 of Jan. 1991).

3./ Some people reserve the phrase "full spin" for genuine stable
developed autorotation which will continue until a change in control
position is made.

If, as I suspect, you mean by "full blown spins" choice 3./ above; what do
you mean by "the British requirement to teach full blown spins"?

If you have read the BGA Instructors' Manual (Second edition), and remember
what you have read, you will recall that the relevant section is "Section 5"
with two chapters, "18 Stalling" and "19 Spinning and Spiral Dives".

In chapter 19 on page 19-3 it says under the heading:

"ADVICE TO INSTRUCTORS

"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.

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

That is just the first two paragraphs of quite a long explanation.

Note that in the U.K. the highest altitude for any gliding site or airfield
is the Midland Gliding Club, Long Mynd at 1,411 ft. a.s.l. It is known
that stall/spin recovery can get worse at altitude, in particular I
understand that this can be noticeable above about 7,000 ft. a.s.l.

The manual and the revisions for the second edition were written by BGA
staff and members with no input from U.K. government authorities, neither
the Civil Aviation Authority nor the Department for Transport (who
investigate accidents). This is because the CAA and DfT recognise that
they do not have the expertise and don't particularly want to gain it, they
would far rather we were self-regulating. So far the BGA and CAA between
them have managed to keep the politicians off our backs.

The first edition of the BGA Instructors' Manual was published in 1994 and
amended in Feb. 1999, the second published in Feb. 2003. It is freely
available from the BGA; go to http://www.gliding.co.uk, "BGA Shop",
"Manuals, Log books & handbooks"
https://www.gliding.co.uk/bgashop/sh...se=&op=sc&ci=5 ,
"Instructors' Handbook".

If you have not read the manual, what in hell do you think you are doing in
pronouncing on "the British requirement"?

You state "your cure (spin training) is worse than the disease (spin
accidents)". What is your evidence for this; and how do you, how can you
know what the disease (spin accidents) would be if we did less of the cure
(spin training).

I was told yesterday evening that in Germany they reduced spin training (for
gliding) about 8 years ago, but have recently re-introduced it. I heard
this from a good source, but can anyone confirm it?

This and the other threads on spinning etc. started after news of the double
fatality in a Puchacz crash on 18th January. So far I understand that it
appears that it hit the ground spinning, but we do not know why. The
latest rumour I heard is that it might have been medical factors, in which
case it might have made no difference what type was being used or what
exercise the instructor was doing when struck by illness; you must
understand that this is what I said, RUMOUR.

Do you really need telling that you should not believe everything you read
on Rec. Aviation Soaring, and that many of the postings including some from
the U.K. are based more on emotion than on knowledge, reason and experience?

Many of the posters here are not and never have been instructors. JJ, what
is your qualification and experience as a gliding instructor?

DISCLAIMER.

I personally am not, and never have been involved in any capacity with the
BGA sub-groups who deal with Accident Investigation, Safety, Instruction or
Technical matters. I was once on the BGA Executive for four years, about
15 years ago, but never part of the sub-committee structure.

The views I express here are my own entirely.

Regards - Bill.

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


"JJ Sinclair" wrote in message
...

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 disease (spin accidents).

Your comments on the core issue?

JJ Sinclair.

Mark wroteOtherwise
we can discuss how many people were moved involuntarily
from where to where in the late 18th and 19th centuries..


Mark,
How did Australia get populated with chaps that spoke english?
JJ Sinclair

And Derrick wrote: we sent loads or Irish and Welsh there who were so
enamoured of the English that they made it the standard language for all the
other nationalities that turned up there, and then they imported the
sheep...

Rgds,

Derrick.