Ian,

I couldn't agree more.
Blaming the Puchacz or the practice of spin training is very short sighted
indeed.

What bothers me is that some of the people who express oppinions here really
talk like those trial lawyers.
Man, they can talk the talk.
But in most cases they don't have much experience (if any), are still
students or are just enthusiasts.
You wouldn't know that by the way they express their oppinions.

What you "think" as a student is obviously very important, but sometimes you
have to learn to listen and practice, as opposed to trying to lecture your
instructor as to why you think this way or that (is that lawyer thing
again).
Just sit down, follow along, listen, open your eyes and mind to the
experience, let it sink in, think about it in the comfort of the house, then
come back for more.

Many of the concepts involved in flying are not intuitive. You should always
read many sources, practice, until you understand.
When I see this many people creating all sorts of excuses for not doing
spins, all I can think is that all of them are at the very early stages of
their flying careers, when stalls are this big monster ready to bite and
scare the living daylights out of you.
This will eventually pass and the pilot will become more mature and more
secure as he understands.

I once had a student, a Heart Surgeon, who after the first lesson with
Stalls started to give me this lecture about the health (or heart) risks
related to practicing this maneuver. He thought the fear could cause the
heart to spasm or whatever that was...
He basically was so affraid to die that it took him many months (and the
love of flying) to actually complete those very few first hours of
instruction. Always with that lecture, always feeling tense before
practicing stalls and spins.
He follow the advise to read more and more sources, understand the
importance of it, and he is today one of the safest pilots I know, even
instructing spins these days.

Anyway, I remember not that long ago many people hastily condemning the
Piper Malibu, as a result of several high-altitude accidents.
All kinds of crazy posibilities were hastily suggested, bad design, bad
tail, bad structure, this, that and the other.
Public pressure was so big that the FAA did an unprecedented
"re-certification" process with the airplane, as if they were not 100%
certain that all the bases were covered in the original certification.

The aircraft (Piper Malibu) came out of it as clean as before, with flying
colors.
It was then discovered that traning was the biggest issue. The airplane was
being flown at high-altitudes and speeds by pilots who were not used to
those conditions.
The Malibu is in fact a safer, more honest airplane than many older designs.


: The instructors all have their GFA ratings. The system does
: nothing to weed out the incompetent even when they demonstrate their
: incompetence.

Then it would seem that blaming the aircraft might be a wee bit over
hasty?

: The "blithe confidence" is based on thousands of hours where this
: hasn't happened. Unlike the blithe confidence displayed by some that
: they will always manage to recover from spinning Puchaczs despite the
: growing evidence to the contrary.

Most of the Puchacz accidents I've seen described involve low level
spins, like the one you discussed in your post. Recovery ain't an
option in those cases, generally speaking. Rapid conversion to an
effective religion is the only hope.

: There is a perfectly defensible position that says repeated full spin
: demonstrations are unnecessary.

Personally, I think the tail ends of single seaters sticking out of
fields and hill sides makes a pretty good attack on that position.


Ian