Puchacz fatal accident 18 Jan. 2004 at Husbands Bosworth.

I am intrigued by the concept that dying is fun, do
you know something that I do not? Please share if you
do.

At 14:07 17 January 2005, Stefan wrote:
Ian Strachan wrote:

But why try it in the first place?

Well, how about ... curiosity? After all, gliding is
about fun and not
rationalism.

Stefan

Don Johnstone wrote:

I am intrigued by the concept that dying is fun, do
you know something that I do not?

Obviously yes. I know how to recover from a spin.

Please share if you do.

No, I won't. But I advise you to meet a good instructor immediately.

Stefan

At 13:00 18 January 2005, Don Johnstone wrote:
At 11:00 18 January 2005, Ian Johnston wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 19:41:29 UTC, Don Johnstone
wrote:

: Spot on Ian. The rules for the Air Cadets in the
UK,
: RAF rules, prohibit intentional spinning below 2500ft
: in a glider. If you are still spinning you abandon
: at this height

How many gliders will not recover from a spin with
2,500' to spare?
Nobody living can answer that question

What are the injury rates for parachute jumps from
gliders?

How many people survive spinning in?


Don't know, but it is a measurable percentage. Probably
about 5%, maybe less.

Don Johnstone writes
: Spot on Ian. The rules for the Air Cadets in the
UK,
RAF rules, prohibit intentional spinning below 2500ft
in a glider. If you are still spinning you abandon
at this height

How many gliders will not recover from a spin with
2,500' to spare?
Nobody living can answer that question

But by far the greater weight of living people can demonstrate that the
glider will recover from a spin if you have 2500' to spare. In my case,
for example, all of my own spin training and personal practice has been
done from a height somewhat less than this.

What are the injury rates for parachute jumps from
gliders?

How many people survive spinning in?

How many recorded instances are there of gliders spinning in from 2500'
? In how many of those cases was there absolutely no suggestion that
something else had put the glider into an untenable position and so
prevented recovery?

Although I fully appreciate ill-founded wisdom of initiating a low spin
even for training purposes, surely nobody would argue that demonstration
of spinning and tuition and practice in recovering from such an event
isn't a vital part of ab-inito training?

Yet my own ab-inito training was from a winch site across a British
winter, so the vast majority of my training flights never exceeded 2000'
agl, and they only made that on an especially good day. All of my spin
practice occurred between 1000' and 1600'. And still does, for the most
part.

I just can't imagine abandoning a glider at 2500' because of a spin, at
least not without other contributing factors. Perhaps if I'd initiated
the spin at such a height that I'd had a few rotations of being unable
to recover by that stage and I was convinced that further attempts to
recover would be futile? But I'd be jumping on the assumption that the
glider was broke, not because it was spinning.


--
Bill Gribble

/---------------------------------------\
| http://www.ingenuitytest.co.uk |
| http://www.cotswoldgliding.co.uk |
| http://www.scapegoatsanon.demon.co.uk |
\---------------------------------------/

On 18 Jan 2005 10:16:04 GMT, "Ian Johnston"
wrote:


: Until now I have not even seen a Puchacz in real life - but the sheer
: number of spin accidents with experienced pilots suggests that
: something is wrong, don't you agree?

Not really. Spinnable gliders are going to be involved in more
spinning accidents than non-spinnable gliders.

You are correct, Ian - but here in Germany still a lot of Ka-7 and
ASK-13 are in use which do spin well and are commonly used for spin
training (not to mention other two-seaters that spin like the DG-500).
Yet I have not heard of a spin accident in one of them so far,
although their number far exceeds the number of Puchacz.



Bye
Andreas

I too know how to recover from a spin, and I don't
need to find an instructor, I were one.

The points Ian was making was why try something that
had no useful purpose in teaching a speedy recovery
from a spin. His other point was that perhaps test
flying would be best left to test pilots who have been
trained for that task and not carried out by people
who are self taught and do not have the necessary skills
and expertise. You do not know that you have exceeded
the limits of your ability until you have and when
it happens it is nice to have someone with you who
has not. Thats what training is all about, finding
your own limits. Flying is meant to be fun and it will
be if you leave test flying to those who know what
they are doing.


At 13:00 18 January 2005, Stefan wrote:
Don Johnstone wrote:

I am intrigued by the concept that dying is fun, do
you know something that I do not?

Obviously yes. I know how to recover from a spin.

Please share if you do.

No, I won't. But I advise you to meet a good instructor
immediately.

Stefan

Don Johnstone wrote:

I too know how to recover from a spin, and I don't
need to find an instructor, I were one.

Then I'm even more puzzled that you consider exploring spins in a
certified glider, which's spin recovery procedures are described in
detail in the POH, as test piloting. I always thought test piloting was
about exploring things which are not described in the POH. But then, I'm
not an instructor.

The points Ian was making was why try something that
had no useful purpose

I surely hope you don't ever make love to your wife whithout producing
children, because this would not have any useful purpose.

Stefan

At 11:00 18 January 2005, Ian Johnston wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 19:41:29 UTC, Don Johnstone
wrote:

: Spot on Ian. The rules for the Air Cadets in the
UK,
: RAF rules, prohibit intentional spinning below 2500ft
: in a glider. If you are still spinning you abandon
: at this height

How many gliders will not recover from a spin with
2,500' to spare?
What are the injury rates for parachute jumps from
gliders?

Ian
--

I'm guessing that this 2500ft rule has nothing to do
with glider spin recovery and altitude loss. It
seems more logical that it is the altitude needed to
deploy canopy, get out, have the chute open and slow
down the not yet dead weight of the pilot.

The US rule is that the spin must be stopped above
1500ft.

Interesting........how is the information in the POH
obtained, yes the answer is test flying. But what is
tested? There are requirements laid down that gliders
must conform to in spin recovery. There are two ways
of approaching testing.
1. Test to see if the glider complies with the requirements
during the test flights. If it does it has passed.
2. Fly in all possible configuarations and allowable
C of G positions and see how the glider behaves. Fly
in configurations which are most unlikely to be met
in normal service and with the C of G right on the
theoretical limits and maybe beyond and assess the
behaviour.
Which approach do you think a glider manufacturer test
pilot takes. Prove that the glider complies with the
requirements or test right to the limits. The latter
is the way that military aircraft are tested at great
expense, do you honestly think that glider manufacturers
can go to that expense.
It has been said that the Puch has featured in several
fatal spin ins. What was the cause? In the absence
of any mechanical failure it is assumed that the failure
to recover was caused by pilot mishandling, and that
may be the case. We can never know that, the only person
who could prove or disprove that is very difficult
to communicate with unless you happen to know a medium.

We do not KNOW that there is not a configuration or
combination of configuration and airframe loading which
will make a spin recovery impossible or more difficult
and until someone survives such an occurrence we will
not KNOW. We do know that no-one has found such a configuration
and survived to tell anyone about it, which is not
the same as saying it has never or cannot happen.
You may think that my scenario is unlikely, I freely
admit that I do but I do not intend to find out the
hard way. Spinning below safe abandonment height leaves
no option if it all goes to rats.

What is a safe abandonment height, that is another
question. I know what I think mine is. Do you know
what yours is? I pray that I never have to find out
if I am right.

Make love to the wife.........do people still do that?
:-)

At 16:31 19 January 2005, Stefan wrote:
Don Johnstone wrote:

I too know how to recover from a spin, and I don't
need to find an instructor, I were one.

Then I'm even more puzzled that you consider exploring
spins in a
certified glider, which's spin recovery procedures
are described in
detail in the POH, as test piloting. I always thought
test piloting was
about exploring things which are not described in the
POH. But then, I'm
not an instructor.

The points Ian was making was why try something that
had no useful purpose

I surely hope you don't ever make love to your wife
whithout producing
children, because this would not have any useful purpose.

Stefan

Don Johnstone wrote:

Which approach do you think a glider manufacturer test
pilot takes. Prove that the glider complies with the
requirements or test right to the limits. The latter
is the way that military aircraft are tested at great
expense, do you honestly think that glider manufacturers
can go to that expense.

JAR-22 certification requires exactly this.

What is a safe abandonment height, that is another
question. I know what I think mine is. Do you know
what yours is?

If you'd read my previous posts, you'd have seen that I wrote I'd never
start a deliberate spin below 3000 ft AGL, nor would I explore stalls
and control abuse in an unknown glider below this altitude. (This was
the post Ian replied to.) I consider this quite conservative.

Stefan