Puchaz spin count 23 and counting

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...

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

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...

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

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).

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...

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).

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 :

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

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