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

http://www.gliderforum.com/thread-vi...id=167&start=1

This might be of interest when discussing the Puch and its spinning.

Condolences to the family and friends of the victims of the recent crash.

Regards

Al

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

In article ,
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

With three times as many fatalities in training than flying (helicopters),
one wonders the wisdom of practicing hundreds of autorotations during
helicopter training as well.

Gee. This looks like a nice place to misbehave:

The military trains people with NO flying time for the purpose of
accomplishing a mission. Those missions are not all expected to end with a
landing back home but need to succeed in other ways. On the other hand,
commercial aviation and sport aviation quite often involve pilots with much
more flying time and each and every flight is expected to end safely.

So, while ignorance is bliss, training is the only way to improve ones
chances of completing a flight safely.

While insurance companies do not want helicopter trainees to practice full
autorotations, your only chance for walking without a cane is knowing how to
do one when you need to. So, the first time you do one is the first time you
need to. Not very smart.

Being an old geezer, I have a million examples.

If the training is killing people, then maybe the training procedures need
tweaking. But canceling training is a very bad idea. In the end, the Air
Force spun a zillion of us out of the sky in T-37's with only a few deaths
along the way. We were required to speak and perform the T-37 spin recovery
procedures with a calm voice while the little ******* started wrapping up.
But to this day, I can recite the -37 spin recovery procedure in my sleep
and perform it without thinking twice.

"Mark James Boyd" wrote in message
news:401166ad$1@darkstar...
In article ,
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

With three times as many fatalities in training than flying (helicopters),
one wonders the wisdom of practicing hundreds of autorotations during
helicopter training as well.

John Shelton wrote:
Gee. This looks like a nice place to misbehave:

So, while ignorance is bliss, training is the only way to improve ones
chances of completing a flight safely.

While insurance companies do not want helicopter trainees to practice full
autorotations, your only chance for walking without a cane is knowing how to
do one when you need to. So, the first time you do one is the first time you
need to. Not very smart.

If the training is killing people, then maybe the training procedures need
tweaking. But canceling training is a very bad idea. In the end, the Air

I guess my question is how many is enough? Teaching a spin and recovery
once? Teaching it 10 times? Teaching it 100 times?

Or is it sufficient to simply teach spin avoidance? What causes
a spin and how to not do it?

How much should we focus and teach spin avoidance vs. spin proficiency?

The same question comes up about instrument training. The IFR training
requires 3 hours of instruments for power PPL, but is silent about
the number of hours of training of how to avoid inadvertent IFR.
Some pilots are emboldened by their IFR and their spin training
and either enter these conditions on purpose, or become
bold because of their training.

I've had students do both: spins solo and intentional IFR without
a rating. Since then I have spent a LOT more time talking about the
hazards of these manuevers by low time pilots, both before and after
I give them this training. And I now spend a LOT more time teaching
about how these things develop and can be avoided, rather than teaching
the emergency procedure for recovery again and again and again.

I've done maybe a hundred spins in a dozen different aircraft,
but when I teach it to a new student, I always do it only
once (for PPL) and we spend a lot of time and take a lot of
precautions (remove all potentially flying projectiles,
wear parachutes, do an actual W&B not just paper, etc).
I don't do this for me (I know the W&B beforehand, I've
done the pre-flight myself already, I know if this
particular aircraft needs forward stick for recovery, etc).
Instead I want to show them by example that spins and instrument
flight are serious business, and that even the
professionals are extra thorough before these manuevers.

So I guess I'm saying doing these dramatic manuevers
repeatedly inadvertently may in some students convey
the wrong impression that such things are routine. They are not.

They are emergency procedures, and taught to convey
the full impact of such an emergency, to focus the student
on avoiding the emergency. As many accident reports show,
spin recovery procedures, in real life, rarely get
used when it really counts, because one is too low
(400 feet up base to final).
Spin recovery at 3000ft is just something we do after
the demonstration so we can fly some more that day.

Spin avoidance is the key, at least in my book.
Just like IFR avoidance for the power PPL.

If a pilot is looking for more, take an acro course or
get an instrument rating...or join the military :P

My two cents...

I guess my question is how many is enough? Teaching a spin and recovery
once? Teaching it 10 times? Teaching it 100 times?

I don't know. How about until the student gets it right?

Or is it sufficient to simply teach spin avoidance? What causes
a spin and how to not do it?

No. What usually causes a spin is inattention. When a student is
concentrating on a maneuver in a canned situation, you cannot possibly
simulate the circumstances that will lead them to a spin entry, that moment
of confusion when nothing seems to be working right and then a calm
recovery. There are some counter-intuitive things that must go on and they
must be taught, not talked about.

How much should we focus and teach spin avoidance vs. spin proficiency?

Not spin proficiency. We are not aerobatic pilots. Spin recovery.

When I was getting my helicopter license, I told the instructor that if we
didn't do autorotations to the ground, I would go shopping for someone who
would. In that manner, I learned before I needed it the very critical timing
required to pull it off. If I had had to guess how to transition mentally
and manually from an auto to a hover to an auto to the ground and had to bet
my spine on it, I very likely would have lost the bet. I am a firm believer
in instruction to prepare the pilot for whatever he/she may face. If we face
spins, then train us how to get out of them.

I already know how. If nobody else wants to teach it or learn it, I
shouldn't care. So I won't.

In article . net, John
Shelton writes
If the training is killing people, then maybe the training procedures need
tweaking. But canceling training is a very bad idea. In the end, the Air
Force spun a zillion of us out of the sky in T-37's with only a few deaths
along the way. We were required to speak and perform the T-37 spin recovery
procedures with a calm voice while the little ******* started wrapping up.
But to this day, I can recite the -37 spin recovery procedure in my sleep
and perform it without thinking twice.

A long time ago Ray Stafford Allen of the London GC invented something
he called The Clots Spin.

It simulated the thoughts of a recently soloed pilot doing an approach.

It went something like this;

I'm downwind now, I must turn about there to land THERE. Oh, I am a bit
too low. I'll hold the nose up. I'm still too low, I'd better not put
too much bank on. But I'm not turning quick enough, I'll rudder it
round......

We were required to recite before going solo.

Seems to me a very good idea, it gets it into your mind how to avoid the
problem.
--
Mike Lindsay

(Mark James Boyd) wrote in message news:401166ad$1@darkstar...
In article ,
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

With three times as many fatalities in training than flying (helicopters),
one wonders the wisdom of practicing hundreds of autorotations during
helicopter training as well.

I once asked an instructor to demonstrate a spin in a two-seat
aircraft I was transitioning into. His answer: "I'd rather not to."
After some discussion he absolutely refused to do any spins,
apparently out of fear. In my opinion this guy should have been
stripped of his FAA ratings. Somebody who hasn't spun a glider and
recovered should not be allowed to carry passangers, much less to
instruct. A spin is a well-behaved, predictable flight regime that is
documented in the aircraft manual (of most gliders). Somebody unable
or unwilling to enter this flight regime is incompetent and can not
call himself a pilot in my opinion.

"F1y1n" wrote in message
om...

I once asked an instructor to demonstrate a spin in a two-seat
aircraft I was transitioning into.

Did you have chutes? In the US, the only time you are allowed to spin
dual without chutes is when you are working on a rating that requires spin
training. If you were asking the CFI to spin without chutes (just a wild
guess), he was 100% correct to turn you down. I would too.

I would also refuse to spin a student in a glider that I had not
previously spun myself.

...In my opinion this guy should have been
stripped of his FAA ratings. Somebody who hasn't spun a glider and
recovered should not be allowed to carry passangers,

Like it or not; in the US, spin training is not required for the
commercial rating...

much less to instruct.

...but it is required for CFI. That does not make every CFI a
qualified acro jock.

A spin is a well-behaved, predictable flight regime...

Not necessarily true, not even true of all trainers. Some gliders
have, (or at least are reputed to have) multiple spin modes. Not all
aircraft have perfect rigging, and a certain percentage have accumulated
repairs and/or mods over years of operation that change the distribution of
mass about the various axis and have an unknown effect on spin behavior.

Just two weeks ago, I found myself practicing stalls in a 152 that I
wouldn't spin in a bet. It had a dent in the leading edge of one wing and
had a nasty wing drop at every stall, but otherwise performed well.

Vaughn



that is
documented in the aircraft manual (of most gliders). Somebody unable
or unwilling to enter this flight regime is incompetent and can not
call himself a pilot in my opinion.

"Vaughn" wrote in message ...
"F1y1n" wrote in message
om...

I once asked an instructor to demonstrate a spin in a two-seat
aircraft I was transitioning into.

Did you have chutes? In the US, the only time you are allowed to spin
dual without chutes is when you are working on a rating that requires spin
training. If you were asking the CFI to spin without chutes (just a wild
guess), he was 100% correct to turn you down. I would too.

Unless you are already CFIG, you are always 'working on a rating' when
flying dual with a (current) CFIG. No parachutes needed for spinning.
And no, as I said, he did not turn me down because of the lack of a
chute.

I would also refuse to spin a student in a glider that I had not
previously spun myself.

This begs the question: Why the hell would you instruct in an aircraft
you haven't spun yourself? Doing so would be foolish, IMHO.

Like it or not;

not

in the US, spin training is not required for the
commercial rating...

...but it is required for CFI. That does not make every CFI a
qualified acro jock.

If you read the FARs you will find that spin training is not acro.

A spin is a well-behaved, predictable flight regime...

Not necessarily true, not even true of all trainers. Some gliders
have, (or at least are reputed to have) multiple spin modes.

The spin rate, pitch angle, descent rate, and any pitch oscillation
amplitude and frequency does depend on the CG and gross weight, sure,
but a spin within the CG in an approved glider with a standard
airworthiness certificate is always benign can be recovered using the
documented procedures. As I said: 'well-behaved' and 'predictable'.

Not all
aircraft have perfect rigging, and a certain percentage have accumulated
repairs and/or mods over years of operation that change the distribution of
mass about the various axis and have an unknown effect on spin behavior.

Any mods that effect the CG require a new weight & balance. See my
comment above re safe flight within CG. You'd be suicidal flying a
glider with an unkown spin behavior. Instructing in one would be
border-line criminal. My point is: a spin is not some black magic.
Learn it, and instruct it. If you are afraid of spinning you shouldn't
be flying, much less teaching.

Just two weeks ago, I found myself practicing stalls in a 152 that I
wouldn't spin in a bet. It had a dent in the leading edge of one wing and
had a nasty wing drop at every stall, but otherwise performed well.

Most 150s and 152s I have flown drop a wing at stall, as do many older
gliders. Does this make them unsafe to spin? Emphatically no! They
will spin happily in either direction.