JJ,

1./ "The British are now investigating their 4th Puch spin-in with
unspecified other types that have spun-in as a result of spin-training."

In fact, unfortunately, we British are now investigating our sixth Puchacz
fatal accident. If, I repeat if, this last one turns out to be a spin-in,
it will be the fifth.

The accident in 2003 (20/03) happened when the glider was flown into the
winch-wire while another glider was being launched. From my reading of the
accident report, there was no stall or spin, and the type of glider made no
difference at all.

The accident in 1995 (82/95) was a spin entry when the pilot in command lost
control while recovering from a launch failure at about 300 ft. The pupil
was not touching the controls at any point, the stall/spin was not part of
training, nor was the launch failure itself. I am afraid that there have
been a number of similar accidents to various different types of glider.
The accident to the DG500 shown in the video on the "Spin" thread seems to
have been similar, that pilot was lucky he was already very low, it seems
clear to me that if he had been say 100ft higher when the glider departed he
would have been much worse off.

The accidents in 1993 (132/93) and 1991 (111/91) were due to failure to
recover from a spin entry at low level. It is likely that the spin entries
were inadvertent, and the pilots in command tried to recover immediately.
However, the pupils held the stick right back so the gliders span into the
ground. Hence the advice now given for pupils to be told to keep their
hands clear of the stick for first stall/spins, and for these to be done at
altitude anyway.

The accident in 1990 (114/90) was a deliberate spin for training purposes,
recovery was started too low. This is why the advice quoted in my previous
posting today at 17.07 was given in the BGA Instructors' Manual published in
1994.

2./ "The British require 2-turn spins (full blown) in both directions, on
initial check-out and annually thereafter."

We do not require 2-turn spins annually. I don't know what you mean by
initial check-out. I had annual check-outs at two clubs last year, one in
a K21 and one in a K13. With the K21 we did no spins at all (it won't at
my weight), with the K13 we did spin entries, but no 2-turn spins (again,
the K13 won't at my weight).

Individual clubs, or individual instructors may require more stringent
testing, and it will vary with the assessment of the pupil, but there is no
general requirement as far as I know for 2-turn spins in both directions (if
there is, how did I escape?). Only clubs using the Puchacz or some other
E. European gliders would be able to insist on everyone doing a 2-turn spin;
given suitable conditions and enough height this sounds quite a good idea
anyway.

I still don't know the difference between a full blown 2-turn spin, and any
other kind of 2-turn spin.

3./ "Some practice spins are entered as low as pattern altitude."

I don't know what you mean by circuit pattern altitude. This depends so
much on the nature of the site, and the conditions. I have done a lot of
flights where the normal launch height was less than 800ft., not very
satisfactory but there it is. I have also flown in conditions when it is
normal to be on finals at 1,000ft. or more.

The quotation I gave in my previous posting explains why and in what
circumstances a spin entry might be called for at 800ft, with of course an
immediate recovery. Although the manual does not say so, this would
almost certainly be done in a K13. JJ, how much flying have you done in a
K13? And I don't know how much difference it would make, flying from
Minden at 4,718ft. a.s.l. (and hot) compared with the Long Mynd at 1,411ft.
and a temperate climate.

I have not disregarded your posting because some may actually take notice of
what you say.
You say "I do believe that ANY accident resulting from an intentional spin
entry is unacceptable". What does this mean, that you think an accident
from an inadvertent spin entry is acceptable? Certainly, that could
explain why you seem to think that much of our spin training is wrong and
unnecessary.

So far as we in the U.K. are concerned, we think that any accident, from any
cause, and especially from spin entries whether deliberate or inadvertent is
unacceptable. The coaching (training) of instructors, and the training of
pupils has this aim, to prevent accidents during training, and after
training.

We firmly believe that stall/spin training is essential, and that this must
include experience of actual stalls, actual spin entries and actual spins in
order to teach avoidance, recognition and recovery. Failure to do this
during dual training will just result in a worse accident record among
pilots who are supposedly trained. All this is clearly explained in our
BGA Instructors' Manual, and much of it in the quotation I gave in my
previous posting.

Regards - Bill.

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


"JJ Sinclair" wrote in message
...

Bill,

I have been responding to posts in this thread that indicate:

1./ The British are now investigating their 4th Puch spin-in with
unspecified other types that have spun-in as a result of spin-training.

2./ The British require 2-turn spins (full blown) in both directions, on
initial check-out and annually thereafter.

3./ Some practice spins are entered as low as pattern altitude.

If the above is not true, please disregard my postings on the subject. I
do believe that ANY accident resulting from an intentional spin entry is
unacceptable and that spin training should emphasize spin recognition and
spin avoidance with recovery within 1 turn.

I now leave the British glider training in the good hands of the British
glider instructors and will post no more on this subject.

JJ Sinclair.