Puchaz Spinning thread that might be of interest in light of the recent accident.

Repeating someone who wrote this earlier in the week :
"Sure, we should stop training landings as well because that's where the
majority of the accidents happen."

The ignorance in this particular discussion has reached a level where it's
beyond help.


"JJ Sinclair" wrote in message
...
Well, we certainly have two schools of thought on this spinning issue. I
think
the "Spinners", hearken back 60 years or more and probably have their
roots in
military training. They say things like, "Train Hard, Fight Easy" Who are
we
fighting? My God, we're killing people as we try to make them safer
pilots. I
was amazed to read that the Brits seek out sailplanes with "GOOD" spin
characteristics. Isn't that like buying a sailboat that is easily upset,
just
so we can all get dumped in the water and then set it right side up again?

The truth is, most sailplanes from the Eastern block, spin real GOOD. Put
them
in the hands of a low time pilot and we are setting up a disaster. Aren't
we
just asking for trouble when we solo a student in a Puch? We had one
spin-in,
here in California with two high time sailplane pilots on board. We had a
single place Lark spin-in from 10,000 feet with a low time pilot on board.
RIP
X 3

Here's a thought. Buy sailplanes that don't spin easily (G-103 & ASK-21)
and
enjoy this sport by teaching only spin entry and emmediate recovery.
JJ Sinclair

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 00:29:02 UTC, (JJ Sinclair)
wrote:

: Here's a thought. Buy sailplanes that don't spin easily (G-103 & ASK-21) and
: enjoy this sport by teaching only spin entry and emmediate recovery.

Which is absolutely fine as long as you never fly a single seater
which spins easily.

Ian

PS And why not put an elevator stop on while you're at it, so you
never have to bother with stalls?

--

(JJ Sinclair) wrote in message ...
Well, we certainly have two schools of thought on this spinning issue. I think
the "Spinners", hearken back 60 years or more and probably have their roots in
military training. They say things like, "Train Hard, Fight Easy" Who are we
fighting? My God, we're killing people as we try to make them safer pilots. I
was amazed to read that the Brits seek out sailplanes with "GOOD" spin
characteristics. Isn't that like buying a sailboat that is easily upset, just
so we can all get dumped in the water and then set it right side up again?

The truth is, most sailplanes from the Eastern block, spin real GOOD. Put them
in the hands of a low time pilot and we are setting up a disaster. Aren't we
just asking for trouble when we solo a student in a Puch? We had one spin-in,
here in California with two high time sailplane pilots on board. We had a
single place Lark spin-in from 10,000 feet with a low time pilot on board. RIP
X 3

Here's a thought. Buy sailplanes that don't spin easily (G-103 & ASK-21) and
enjoy this sport by teaching only spin entry and immediate recovery.
JJ Sinclair
************************************************** ******************************
JJ, if you are going to mention sailplanes that DON"T spin easily why
didn't you mention your Genesis 2? Sometime try to get it to spin. I
don't think you'll be able to.

At 17:24 28 January 2004, Ian Johnston wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 15:01:49 UTC, Tony Verhulst
wrote:

: Arnold Pieper wrote:
: Repeating someone who wrote this earlier in the
week :
: 'Sure, we should stop training landings as well
because that's where the
: majority of the accidents happen.'
:
: Bad analogy. The difference is that you HAVE to land.

Should simulated cable breaks be taught, or should
pupils just be
taught to recognize the symptoms of a cable break
and be taken up in
a special glider a couple of times as they near first
solo to
practice. I've never had a real cable break, myself,
so I know it's
not going to happen to me ...

Ian

To reinforce what Ian just said. Perhaps we ought to
consider the consequences of not training full spin
recovery. When someone who has not been so trained
has the ground do the spin recovery for them, their
estate will sue the training organisation for negligence
in not training to recover from a mode of flight which
is well known to be fatal if not correctly recovered
from. You can't just teach people to recite the spin
recovery, it has to be practiced at altitude in a glider
or it won't get properly applied when needed.

Also, you might consider that the reason large numbers
of pilots of high performance sailplanes are not hitting
the ground spinning is precisely because they have
had spin avoidance and recovery training.

To reinforce what Ian just said. Perhaps we ought to
consider the consequences of not training full spin
recovery. When someone who has not been so trained
has the ground do the spin recovery for them, their
estate will sue the training organisation for negligence
in not training to recover from a mode of flight which
is well known to be fatal if not correctly recovered
from.

Also, you might consider that the reason large numbers
of pilots of high performance sailplanes are not hitting
the ground spinning is precisely because they have
had spin avoidance and recovery training.

There is no doubt that more instructiors have been killed
in spins in the Puchacz than any other glider. One of the
reasons for these fatalities may be based on some as yet
unproven spin anomaly with the Puch. However there should
be little doubt that a good portion of these fatalities are
a result of the instructors having overconfidence in their
and the glider's ability to safely do low level spins. For
those who feel spins are a necessary part of flight training,
at least have the common sense to do it with plenty of altitude
and use a hard deck altitude of at least 2000 feet so that
you and your student have the ability to bail out.

For those who insist that spins at altitude fail to put the
proper fear of God into the student, and for those who think
it is just much more convenient to do spins off of winch launches,
aren't you being negligent if you fail to at least inform the
student of the spin accident history of the Puch, as well as
letting them know that the parachute you are requiring them
to wear will be of no use, if the spin recovery is not successful?

M. Eiler

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 00:15:20 UTC, Mike Borgelt
wrote:

: Many experienced pilots I know flat out refuse to do full spins during
: annual checks as being an unnecessary risk. They will happily
: demonstrate stalls and incipient spins.

I would hate to have somebody as nervous about their flying skills as
that above me in a thermal.

Ian
--

On 26 Jan 2004 14:29:29 GMT, "Ian Johnston"
wrote:

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 00:15:20 UTC, Mike Borgelt
wrote:

: Many experienced pilots I know flat out refuse to do full spins during
: annual checks as being an unnecessary risk. They will happily
: demonstrate stalls and incipient spins.

I would hate to have somebody as nervous about their flying skills as
that above me in a thermal.

Ian


It is called risk management. They fly gliders to go soaring not to do
aerobatics. Most of them have thousands of hours of flying cross
country and in competition. They consider it far riskier to do spins
in gliders of uncertain history with instructors of little experience
and training who typically seem to them to demonstrate dangerous
overconfidence.

And they won't spin down on you from above.

Some of the attitudes revealed in this thread make me despair that
anything will ever happen to improve the soaring safety record.

Mike Borgelt

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 22:14:22 UTC, Mike Borgelt
wrote:

: It is called risk management. They fly gliders to go soaring not to do
: aerobatics. Most of them have thousands of hours of flying cross
: country and in competition. They consider it far riskier to do spins
: in gliders of uncertain history with instructors of little experience
: and training who typically seem to them to demonstrate dangerous
: overconfidence.

Ho yes. All good excuses. They should get their checks with
instructors they trust in gliders they trust.

: And they won't spin down on you from above.

If that blithe confidence is misplaced, though, will they be able to
stop spinning?

Though it's not really the reluctance about spinning which gets me -
it's the general nervousness about flyng skills which it reveals.

: Some of the attitudes revealed in this thread make me despair that
: anything will ever happen to improve the soaring safety record.

I agree with you there.

Ian

--

On 28 Jan 2004 01:36:38 GMT, "Ian Johnston"
wrote:

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 22:14:22 UTC, Mike Borgelt
wrote:

: It is called risk management. They fly gliders to go soaring not to do
: aerobatics. Most of them have thousands of hours of flying cross
: country and in competition. They consider it far riskier to do spins
: in gliders of uncertain history with instructors of little experience
: and training who typically seem to them to demonstrate dangerous
: overconfidence.

Ho yes. All good excuses. They should get their checks with
instructors they trust in gliders they trust.

How do you do this?
The good two seaters are in private hands and not available and some
of them are placarded against deliberate spins. That leaves you with
club heaps subject to unknown history , amateur maintenance and
unknown numbers of 20 cent pieces under the seats amonst the control
system. The instructors all have their GFA ratings. The system does
nothing to weed out the incompetent even when they demonstrate their
incompetence. We had one instructor 3 years ago spin a Puch in from
low altitude while thermalling with a student because the instructor
got out of glide range of the airfield and wishing to avoid derigging
(the tug was a hired one not to be used for field retrieves) took over
and tried to thermal away. Two serious injuries. They must be one of
the few Puch spin ins where both survived.
The instructor had been the Chief Flying Instructor of that Club in
recent history.

: And they won't spin down on you from above.

If that blithe confidence is misplaced, though, will they be able to
stop spinning?


The "blithe confidence" is based on thousands of hours where this
hasn't happened. Unlike the blithe confidence displayed by some that
they will always manage to recover from spinning Puchaczs despite the
growing evidence to the contrary.

Though it's not really the reluctance about spinning which gets me -
it's the general nervousness about flyng skills which it reveals.

If you aren't a little nervous before takeoff maybe you don't really
understand the problem. You are less than 60 seconds away from
perhaps having to demonstrate that you are mentally prepared and
skilled enough to cope with a low altitude emergency. I don't know
about you but this always gets my attention.

: Some of the attitudes revealed in this thread make me despair that
: anything will ever happen to improve the soaring safety record.

I agree with you there.

Ian

I really don't care whether you or Arnold Pieper or anyone else spin
Puch's or not as long as nobody is coerced into doing so.
There is a perfectly defensible position that says repeated full spin
demonstrations are unnecessary.

We aren't going to improve flight safety by continuing the "tick the
box" mentality that annual checks encourage. The BGA and GFA records
speak for themselves.

Mike Borgelt

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 23:15:10 UTC, Mike Borgelt
wrote:

: On 28 Jan 2004 01:36:38 GMT, "Ian Johnston"
: wrote:

: Ho yes. All good excuses. They should get their checks with
: instructors they trust in gliders they trust.
:
: How do you do this?
: The good two seaters are in private hands and not available and some
: of them are placarded against deliberate spins.

Then you yell like hell about a club or gliding federation that
doesn't insist on training aircraft of sufficient quality?

: The instructors all have their GFA ratings. The system does
: nothing to weed out the incompetent even when they demonstrate their
: incompetence.

Then it would seem that blaming the aircraft might be a wee bit over
hasty?

: The "blithe confidence" is based on thousands of hours where this
: hasn't happened. Unlike the blithe confidence displayed by some that
: they will always manage to recover from spinning Puchaczs despite the
: growing evidence to the contrary.

Most of the Puchacz accidents I've seen described involve low level
spins, like the one you discussed in your post. Recovery ain't an
option in those cases, generally speaking. Rapid conversion to an
effective religion is the only hope.

: 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.


Ian