Another stall spin

Just a comment about stall - spin recoveries and practice:

These have to be practiced in the glider you are going to be potentially "spinning" - and often the recovery process will NOT be a spin recovery, it will be a spiral dive recovery; not at all the same thing at low altitude!

My LS6 is very spin resistant, but can be forced to depart/drop a wing (simulating turbulence, etc). However, it transitions to a spiral dive immediatly (speed increasing is obvious cue). If the classic spin recovery is started, like practiced in the local club 2-seater, the forward stick will result in a vertical high speed dive and a lot of altitude loss - possibly beyond Vne. The correct recovery is to roll wings level(full aileron and rudder) then pull hard - speed is not a problem by the time the wings are leveled!

At low altitude, the wrong recovery procedure can result in insufficient altitude to recover.

PRACTICE IN YOUR OWN GLIDER!

Kirk
66

On Monday, August 27, 2012 4:08:49 PM UTC-4, Brian wrote:
So I am seeing the why do we still thermal low comment, but no one is says how low. I suspect these accidents may not be a low as some of us think. But have no data to back it up. With so many of us using flight recorders it should be pretty easy to look a few of these accidents and see, but somehow this data never seems to reach us. I can understand some liability issues but it seems like it would be pretty easy to reproduce the data into a generic format that didn't give away the location or ID of what happened but would still allow us to review the flight path of an actual flight that led to the accident. Brian

I'll jump in and define low as that altitude from which you are not likely to recover from a spin and save your life.
From what I heard about the observed departure from controlled flight to impact was a portion of a turn.
After the FAA seizes the recorder, if there is one, it seems to be very hard to ever get it back. Also, sometimes the last few seconds before impact may be missing based on a few accidents I've seen the logs of. No idea why this might be.
Again FWIW
UH

On Monday, August 27, 2012 2:30:30 PM UTC-6, (unknown) wrote:
On Monday, August 27, 2012 4:08:49 PM UTC-4, Brian wrote:

So I am seeing the why do we still thermal low comment, but no one is says how low. I suspect these accidents may not be a low as some of us think.. But have no data to back it up. With so many of us using flight recorders it should be pretty easy to look a few of these accidents and see, but somehow this data never seems to reach us. I can understand some liability issues but it seems like it would be pretty easy to reproduce the data into a generic format that didn't give away the location or ID of what happened but would still allow us to review the flight path of an actual flight that led to the accident. Brian



I'll jump in and define low as that altitude from which you are not likely to recover from a spin and save your life.

From what I heard about the observed departure from controlled flight to impact was a portion of a turn.

After the FAA seizes the recorder, if there is one, it seems to be very hard to ever get it back. Also, sometimes the last few seconds before impact may be missing based on a few accidents I've seen the logs of. No idea why this might be.

Again FWIW

UH

From what I've seen, logger data appears to be buffered in memory before being written to the log file. If the power is interrupted by impact, the last 15 seconds or so isn't written to the log. A similar experience is driving into a tunnel with a SiriusXM radio. The buffered content plays for 10-15 seconds before quitting due to loss of signal.

Through the few phone calls, e-mails, and conversations I had with Jim through SSA committee work, I found him to be amicable, personal, and helpful. Sad loss to soaring, his region, and many friends.

Frank Whiteley

On Sunday, August 26, 2012 12:11:45 AM UTC-4, Jp Stewart wrote:
From TA's Dansville contest write-up:

"Unfortunately, we were also saddened to hear of yet another apparent stall-spin fatality; Jim Rizzo, Finger Lakes club president and FAA Designated Examiner for the area was killed when his glider crashed into a farmer’s field not far from the Dansville airport. Jim was not part of the contest and was just flying locally when the accident occurred. All we know is what the farmer said (and this is 3rd hand to me) that apparently Jim was trying to thermal away from a low altitude and spun in (sound familiar? – it should – this is the 3rd almost identical fatality this season here on the east coast)."

http://soaringcafe.com/2012/08/day-6...ille-region-3/



JP




I’m very sad to hear of Jim’s accident. It sends a clear message that this can happen to anyone including me! Having been CFIGing for many years, I know that I have not adequately trained my students in spins. The equipment just doesn’t allow.

I also know that the late Kai Gertsen wrote a series of instructional publications including what I deem most valuable, “Why Spin Training”. This well written report about Spins is written for glider pilots and we all need to read, digest and read again to help us understand how we can be better prepared to deal with a spin situation. I require every pilot to read Kai’s Spin report as part of their BFR.

Quoting the first chapter on of the latest edition of “Why Spin Training” from Kai Gertsen’s just published book, “Desperate to Fly”….

“Spinning is the biggest cause of gliding fatalities. Every year we lose a handful of our fellow glider pilots in this country to spin-ins. This is truly tragic, as I am certain these accidents would not occur if all pilots received adequate spin training. I know of several cases where spin training saved the day. Pilots who are not prepared are not likely to take proper action when the time comes”.

Please buy this book from Wings and Wheels or the publisher, BTLinkpublishing.com. This is the really good information that we need to understand. Lets put an end to this tragic accident.

I send my deepest condolences to Jim Rizzo’s family and friends.

Bill Batesole

Responding to Noel. Excellent post. Indeed, currency and experience are two very different things. It only takes weeks for the sharp edge of flying skill to start to rust.

It doesn't matter why if, when the moment comes, the pilot lacks the skills to deal with the situation. I always make me wonder why some people spend a lot to acquire the skills to get a rating and then do nothing to maintain those skills. I'm thinking of "highly skilled" contest pilots who make only 20 landings a year - sometimes for decades on end. At some point, they have very little of their skill-set left.

On Monday, August 27, 2012 1:08:49 PM UTC-7, Brian wrote:
So I am seeing the why do we still thermal low comment, but no one is says how low. I suspect these accidents may not be a low as some of us think. But have no data to back it up.

With so many of us using flight recorders it should be pretty easy to look a few of these accidents and see, but somehow this data never seems to reach us. I can understand some liability issues but it seems like it would be pretty easy to reproduce the data into a generic format that didn't give away the location or ID of what happened but would still allow us to review the flight path of an actual flight that led to the accident.



Brian

My thoughts exactly. we need the actual data to learn something from those accidents, but it is almost never provided. We should have enough statistics to be able to determine how low is too low to recover, so we can adjust our threshold. This is what safety culture is all about. If we keep this info to ourselves, no much can be learned.

Ramy

On Monday, August 27, 2012 6:40:42 PM UTC-4, Ramy wrote:
On Monday, August 27, 2012 1:08:49 PM UTC-7, Brian wrote: So I am seeing the why do we still thermal low comment, but no one is says how low. I suspect these accidents may not be a low as some of us think. But have no data to back it up. With so many of us using flight recorders it should be pretty easy to look a few of these accidents and see, but somehow this data never seems to reach us. I can understand some liability issues but it seems like it would be pretty easy to reproduce the data into a generic format that didn't give away the location or ID of what happened but would still allow us to review the flight path of an actual flight that led to the accident. Brian My thoughts exactly. we need the actual data to learn something from those accidents, but it is almost never provided. We should have enough statistics to be able to determine how low is too low to recover, so we can adjust our threshold. This is what safety culture is all about.. If we keep this info to ourselves, no much can be learned. Ramy

I do not agree.
There is nothing new to learn from Jim's accident.
People just keep repeating the same stupid stuff they know better than to do.
A handful of folks on this forum seem to want to study the crap out of accidents like this in the hope that they will learn something new.
There are no new lessons to be learned here guys. It is very simple. You can't circle at low altitude without an unaceptable risk of a(commonly gust induced) stall spin. And these spins do NOT happen like the ones we practice.. They happen much more quickly and violently. I have a personal hard deck of 500 feet where circling is cancelled. The only exception is ridge flying where a whole group of additional variables come into play.
If you want data, go spin your glider in the configuration you fly it all the time. Let it start to spin, not just catch it when it departs. See how much altitude you lose, then throw in another 1-200 feet for the surprise factor.
I spin sailpalnes probably 60-80 times a year and my contest gliders a dozen time a year. From that, I've developed my personal limits.
Note that gliders with winglets commonly may be more benign in stall than ones without, but may well be uglier in a true spin.
As instructors, mentors, and friends, we need to embrace and promote the concept that we all need a limit where we STOP SOARING AND START LANDING with NO exceptions.
Sorry to rant, but I've lost 3 friends this year, all for the same damn reason and all knew better.
UH

On Monday, August 27, 2012 6:40:42 PM UTC-4, Ramy wrote:
we need the actual data to learn something from those accidents, but it is almost never provided.

I suggest that you take your glider to 2500 AGL or so, fly it like you normally do, circle in a weak thermal, record the 'start altitude', put it into a spin and record the altitude of the low point in your spin recovery.

Do this ten times. Take the worst case altitude loss and add a 'safety factor'.

The results will help you set a "personal minimum circling altitude'.

Why would actual flight path accident data (for a different pilot in a different glider) give you a better number?

On Monday, August 27, 2012 4:08:30 PM UTC-7, (unknown) wrote:
On Monday, August 27, 2012 6:40:42 PM UTC-4, Ramy wrote:

On Monday, August 27, 2012 1:08:49 PM UTC-7, Brian wrote: So I am seeing the why do we still thermal low comment, but no one is says how low. I suspect these accidents may not be a low as some of us think. But have no data to back it up. With so many of us using flight recorders it should be pretty easy to look a few of these accidents and see, but somehow this data never seems to reach us. I can understand some liability issues but it seems like it would be pretty easy to reproduce the data into a generic format that didn't give away the location or ID of what happened but would still allow us to review the flight path of an actual flight that led to the accident. Brian My thoughts exactly. we need the actual data to learn something from those accidents, but it is almost never provided. We should have enough statistics to be able to determine how low is too low to recover, so we can adjust our threshold. This is what safety culture is all about. If we keep this info to ourselves, no much can be learned. Ramy



I do not agree.

There is nothing new to learn from Jim's accident.

People just keep repeating the same stupid stuff they know better than to do.

A handful of folks on this forum seem to want to study the crap out of accidents like this in the hope that they will learn something new.

There are no new lessons to be learned here guys. It is very simple. You can't circle at low altitude without an unaceptable risk of a(commonly gust induced) stall spin. And these spins do NOT happen like the ones we practice. They happen much more quickly and violently. I have a personal hard deck of 500 feet where circling is cancelled. The only exception is ridge flying where a whole group of additional variables come into play.

If you want data, go spin your glider in the configuration you fly it all the time. Let it start to spin, not just catch it when it departs. See how much altitude you lose, then throw in another 1-200 feet for the surprise factor.

I spin sailpalnes probably 60-80 times a year and my contest gliders a dozen time a year. From that, I've developed my personal limits.

Note that gliders with winglets commonly may be more benign in stall than ones without, but may well be uglier in a true spin.

As instructors, mentors, and friends, we need to embrace and promote the concept that we all need a limit where we STOP SOARING AND START LANDING with NO exceptions.

Sorry to rant, but I've lost 3 friends this year, all for the same damn reason and all knew better.

UH

The point was to qualify what is too low. I agree about 500 feet. This is also my threshold. But some will consider below 1000 feet as low, while others will consider 200 feet... As such, would be helpful to know how low they were thermaling, if the data is available.

Ramy

Ramy

On Sunday, August 26, 2012 12:11:45 AM UTC-4, Jp Stewart wrote:
From TA's Dansville contest write-up:

"Unfortunately, we were also saddened to hear of yet another apparent stall-spin fatality; Jim Rizzo, Finger Lakes club president and FAA Designated Examiner for the area was killed when his glider crashed into a farmer’s field not far from the Dansville airport. Jim was not part of the contest and was just flying locally when the accident occurred. All we know is what the farmer said (and this is 3rd hand to me) that apparently Jim was trying to thermal away from a low altitude and spun in (sound familiar? – it should – this is the 3rd almost identical fatality this season here on the east coast)."

http://soaringcafe.com/2012/08/day-6...ille-region-3/



JP
I believe it is all based in denial.

I've come to believe that pilots simply do not recognize or admit to themselves (in the "applies to me today, on this flight, in this thermal" sense) that below a specific AGL, regardless of their skill as pilots, if an incipient spin happens for whatever reason, they WILL hit the ground. Thus they (we) do not recognize that below that AGL, we have chosen to change the nature of the game to one of betting our lives.

For what reason are you (me) betting our life on the flight today?

If you do not know this AGL number empirically for you in your aircraft, you need to figure it out. It would seem unlikely that it could ever be below 500 feet, allowing for the fact that few of us are perfect pilots with negligible reaction times.

It doesn't matter that we are "over a good field" or "in the pattern" or whatever, the ground is just as hard.

Again, for what reason is your life worth betting today, and do you know when you have placed the bet?

With deepest heartfelt sympathy for this and the other tragic losses this year.

QT