Eric Greenwell wrote:
Ian Johnston wrote:


: 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.


Do these accidents show an inability to: 1) recover from full spins, 2)
from incipient spins, 3) detect the signs of an impending (but not yet
incipient) spin, 4) avoid spin precursors entirely? If the answer is 1),
doesn't that mean three opportunities have been missed to avoid the need
for #1? And perhaps suggests it is better to spend training time on 4,
3, and 2 instead? Since low level spins don't leave much room for
recovering anyway, being skilled at 4, 3, and 2 seems more useful.

Very true - It is far better to have the skills and training in numbers
4,3 and 2 so that you never get there inadvertently - but 1 is what
sometimes happens while planning or practising other things...
A pilot can manage his or her own performance and what the aircraft is
doing with skills and best practice - the air we fly in can be
unpredictable and difficult to judge. Sometimes other aircraft do things
that force a choice between collision and flying outside the parameters
that 4,3,and 2 have taught you. Sometimes people get so focussed on the
task at hand they don't notice the risks they are taking. Thats how "1"
happens.

Personally I like to cover all the bases.

Even if the spin experience just reminds you of what you can't get away
with the next time you even think about taking that thermal to prevent a
landing. I know of one fatal accident that might have been prevented if
the pilot had ever intentionally spun his Ventus 2cx with full water.
The expeience would possibly have changed his decision making in taking
a thermal at less than spin recovery height. Point is - he did not know
what his recovey height was.

I understand that most modern European single seaters exhibit a violent
spin entry, progressing to an approximately vertical attitude with
airspeed approaching VNE on recovery in this configuration. Even if you
have the height there is very little margin for error, in these
conditions I can't help thinking that experience in recovery might save
the fractions of a second that can make the difference between a topic
for discussion after the flight and an unrecoverable situation.
JAR 22 certification does not mean docility, only that it will recover
with conventional control inputs, under specific conditions.

Whether intentionally spinning a Puchacz (or anything else for that
matter) at low altitude is advisable is a seperate matter. Our club as a
2000" base for recovery - seems reasonable, at least you have a chance
if things go wrong.