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

"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.

Very funny Paul. I heard they do it at 500-1000 ft (for rope
breaks)...Which is confirmed by the accident reports.
Always resulting from one of these low altitude spins.


"Paul Repacholi" wrote in message
...
"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.

We get more heavy landing accidents in training than
in post solo flying, so by that argument we shouldn't
be teaching people to land either!

At 18:12 23 January 2004, Jj Sinclair wrote:
It's winter, I'm bored and I haven't started any good
controversies (this year)
so here goes:

In the early 50's the USAF had a policy to give jump
training to all aircrew
personnel. They soon learned that they were getting
twice the injuries in
training that they were experiencing in real bail-outs.
They decided to stop
the actual jump training and just give PLF and kit
deployment, etc training.

So, JJ asks, In light of recent events that show its
been reining Puchaz's, Do
we really want to teach full blown spins? Isn't spin
entry and immediate
recovery, all we should be doing?

JJ Sinclair

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 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

--

[countertroll]

Ian,

the point of my link was to show that you will not spin from
coordinated flight. If you want to spin, at some point you'll need to
make a yaw movement, either with rudder or aileron, and for most
gliders, some of each. If the yaw string stays straight throughout the
stall break, there isn't enough yaw motion to achieve autorotation.

I suspect those who think they can enter a spin from balanced flight
have one of two things happening:

1. They are misusing the controls at the moment of the stall break,
creating yaw through aileron drag by instinctively trying to lift the
dropping wing, or by feeding in rudder. In either case, these are very
bad habits if done unconsciously.

2. They are entering spiral dives and misidentifying them as insipient
spins. Since the insipient phase looks much the same this isn't
surprising, and one can recover early in the spiral dive with the same
control inputs used for spin recovery; however, recognition and
appropriate response will save many feet of altitude loss.

This is worth thinking through. If a sailplane can spin from
coordinated flight, then at any given moment you are at risk of losing
500 to 1000 feet in a matter of seconds. This is based on the notion
that you have absolutely no control over the process save recognition
and recovery. But your use of the controls are of paramount importance
during an unexpected stall, the result of turbulence or distraction.
If your instinctive reaction is to nuetralize the controls, you've
removed the aggrevation that will take an aircraft past its "tipping"
point into autorotation. This is the classic compromise between
stability and controlability.

If we flew aircraft so unstable they could enter a spin without
control inputs, we'd all be hard pressed to justify the risks we would
face while flying.

"Ian Johnston" wrote in message news:cCUlhtvFIYkV-pn2-O04tsSrmcyTw@localhost...
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

--

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 12:35:43 UTC, (Chris
OCallaghan) wrote:

: the point of my link was to show that you will not spin from
: coordinated flight.

Tight turn. Slow speed. String in the middle. Pull up sharply as if
another glider has just cut into the thermal. Whoops. Well, it works
in a Bocian, anyway.

Ian
--

U=BFytkownik Chris OCallaghan w wiadomooci do =
grup dyskusyjnych =
gle.com...

My understanding is that the Puchaz became popular only for its spin
characteristics.=20

Not only, it's just a very good trainer.

It's easy to put into a spin throughout its cg range.

Because it was designed for that.


--=20
Janusz Kesik

visit www.leszno.pl - home of the www.css-leszno.it.pl

I was taught this 'pause' between full opposite rudder
and stick forward and the wind 'shadow' effect was
the reason; However, since it has been proven that
even a Puchacz, which has a low(ish) tailplane, will
recover faster without the pause (Dick Johnson) and
most gliders have 'T' tails to which it doesn't apply
at all, I for one will not be teaching the 'pause'
to my students.
Rob John
Duo 'Si' K6 '350'

In a fully developed spin the tail surfaces can see
an
airflow that has a significant component coming from
underneath the tail surfaces. If the tail surfaces
are
'conventional,' (i.e. not a T-tail), and the elevator
and
horizontal stabilizer are on the fuselage, below the
rudder,
then forward stick produces a 'shadow' in this airflow
which
can block the lower portion of the rudder near the
elevator.
This 'shadow' is reduced when the stick is back. If
you
stand below the elevator and look upward (difficult,
I know)
and move the stick forward in a 1-26, for example,
this
'shadow' effect can be seen. Thus, I was told there
are
some POH's for conventional tail aircraft that recommend
using rudder *before* forward stick in the full spin
to
maximize the effectiveness of the anti-spin rudder.


At least this is what I recall as being the explanation
received from my first flight instructor. Does anyone
else
recall this 'explanation?'


Todd Pattist - 'WH' Ventus C
(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)

Robert John wrote in message ...
I was taught this 'pause' between full opposite rudder
and stick forward and the wind 'shadow' effect was
the reason; However, since it has been proven that
even a Puchacz, which has a low(ish) tailplane, will
recover faster without the pause (Dick Johnson) and
most gliders have 'T' tails to which it doesn't apply
at all, I for one will not be teaching the 'pause'
to my students.
Rob John
Duo 'Si' K6 '350'


Then I hope you will read the revision to the AS-K 21 POH,
which updated/changed the spin recovery protocol to include the
'pause' based on flight testing, after a spinning fatality
in the K-21.
No pause, slower recovery.
Pause, more prompt recovery.
K-21 is a T-tail.

Beware broad judgments.
Please know your POH and its recommended procedures.
If you teach/deliberately enter spins, have a predetermined exit
altitude for non-responsive behavior, or don't bother wearing the chutes.

If there was on line access for the USAF Spin Eval report for the K-21,
I would make it available... but I have no electronic source.

Cindy B
www.caracolesoaring.com