Don't get me wrong: I am very cautious close to the ground, even though I
did extensive spin testing with my ship. I actually very often do not come
to the conclusion that this or that low level IS safe, and then I don't do
it.
It's just statements like "never thermal below 400ft" which I don't like,
although I agree that in many (maybe most) cases it would be unsafe. "Never"
and "always" don't help people to practise actively thinking about every
single situation they're in, and I think that it this lack of active
situational awareness which is a main cause of fatal accidents.
If you keep telling that "never below x feet", some will think "well my
alti reads x+100ft, so I can safely thermal" - and that might be totally
wrong for a special situation.

--
Bert Willing

ASW20 "TW"


"Bruce Greeff" a écrit dans le message de
...
Bert Willing wrote:
Putting spin behaviour of a modern glass ship in this general way is
pure
nonsense. Spin behaviour is different for every model, and even a model
with
and without winglets enters differently. I wouldn't think about 300ft
revoveries with a Ventus b, but on my 20 w/ winglets I would at least
think
about it.
But as a general rule, I avoid flying ships in the mountains which
depart
violently and use 500ft to recover.

Sorry all - I was generalising, but even the ASW20 spins interestingly,
and will
sometimes reverse it's spin direction instead of recovering if the pilot's
technique is poor. Under the right (wrong) conditions even a K13 will
depart
violently.

My point is that you should have a very good idea of exactly how much
height
your aircraft uses in a spin, including the half second or more it takes
you to
realise you have lost it, for you to recover in. Not the absolute minimum,
in a
factory perfect example in still conditions with a test pilot at the
controls.
Winglets, repairs, control wear and slop and build variations all change
the
behaviour.

I think if you set up a logger and tested you might be a little more
conservative close to the ground.