JJ,

I usually respect your postings, but this time you have written arrogant
nonsense, and I am afraid you have wound me up.

What do you mean by "full blown spins"? I give three alternatives below,
please tell me which you mean, or do you mean something else?

1./ Some people say of any glider if it stalls with lateral instability
and starts to rotate, that "it span".

2./ Some people describe the manoeuvre between initial stall and a full
developed spin as an "incipient spin". Some people would say "it span".

In the U.K. we prefer to call it a "stall with wing drop", this is because
the recovery from a "stall with wing drop" is sometimes different from the
recovery from a developed full spin (e.g. the K21 at aft permitted C. of G.
position, see the Schleicher Flight Manual April 1980 as amended by
Schleicher Technical Note 23 for the K21 of Jan. 1991).

3./ Some people reserve the phrase "full spin" for genuine stable
developed autorotation which will continue until a change in control
position is made.

If, as I suspect, you mean by "full blown spins" choice 3./ above; what do
you mean by "the British requirement to teach full blown spins"?

If you have read the BGA Instructors' Manual (Second edition), and remember
what you have read, you will recall that the relevant section is "Section 5"
with two chapters, "18 Stalling" and "19 Spinning and Spiral Dives".

In chapter 19 on page 19-3 it says under the heading:

"ADVICE TO INSTRUCTORS

"In the initial stages of spin training, continuous spins of two or three
turns are mainly to allow the trainee time to study the characteristics of
the spin and give confidence that the recovery action from a stabilised spin
is effective. There is no requirement for these spins to be noticeably
close to the ground, so their training value is not compromised if they are
completed very high. The majority of spin training will then involve brief
spins of about a half a turn with the primary aim of recognising the
circumstances in which the spin can occur, correctly identifying the
spin/spiral dive, and practising the correct recovery action.

"As this training progresses, it is necessary to introduce brief spins where
the ground is noticeably close. This is to ensure that the trainee will
take the correct recovery action even when the nose is down and the ground
approaching. A very experienced instructor flying a docile two seater in
ideal conditions may be prepared to initiate a brief spin from 800'. A
less docile two seater with a less experienced instructor, or less than
ideal conditions, should raise the minimum height considerably."

That is just the first two paragraphs of quite a long explanation.

Note that in the U.K. the highest altitude for any gliding site or airfield
is the Midland Gliding Club, Long Mynd at 1,411 ft. a.s.l. It is known
that stall/spin recovery can get worse at altitude, in particular I
understand that this can be noticeable above about 7,000 ft. a.s.l.

The manual and the revisions for the second edition were written by BGA
staff and members with no input from U.K. government authorities, neither
the Civil Aviation Authority nor the Department for Transport (who
investigate accidents). This is because the CAA and DfT recognise that
they do not have the expertise and don't particularly want to gain it, they
would far rather we were self-regulating. So far the BGA and CAA between
them have managed to keep the politicians off our backs.

The first edition of the BGA Instructors' Manual was published in 1994 and
amended in Feb. 1999, the second published in Feb. 2003. It is freely
available from the BGA; go to http://www.gliding.co.uk, "BGA Shop",
"Manuals, Log books & handbooks"
https://www.gliding.co.uk/bgashop/sh...se=&op=sc&ci=5 ,
"Instructors' Handbook".

If you have not read the manual, what in hell do you think you are doing in
pronouncing on "the British requirement"?

You state "your cure (spin training) is worse than the disease (spin
accidents)". What is your evidence for this; and how do you, how can you
know what the disease (spin accidents) would be if we did less of the cure
(spin training).

I was told yesterday evening that in Germany they reduced spin training (for
gliding) about 8 years ago, but have recently re-introduced it. I heard
this from a good source, but can anyone confirm it?

This and the other threads on spinning etc. started after news of the double
fatality in a Puchacz crash on 18th January. So far I understand that it
appears that it hit the ground spinning, but we do not know why. The
latest rumour I heard is that it might have been medical factors, in which
case it might have made no difference what type was being used or what
exercise the instructor was doing when struck by illness; you must
understand that this is what I said, RUMOUR.

Do you really need telling that you should not believe everything you read
on Rec. Aviation Soaring, and that many of the postings including some from
the U.K. are based more on emotion than on knowledge, reason and experience?

Many of the posters here are not and never have been instructors. JJ, what
is your qualification and experience as a gliding instructor?

DISCLAIMER.

I personally am not, and never have been involved in any capacity with the
BGA sub-groups who deal with Accident Investigation, Safety, Instruction or
Technical matters. I was once on the BGA Executive for four years, about
15 years ago, but never part of the sub-committee structure.

The views I express here are my own entirely.

Regards - Bill.

W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.).
Remove "ic" to reply.


"JJ Sinclair" wrote in message
...

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 disease (spin accidents).

Your comments on the core issue?

JJ Sinclair.