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

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

Ian Johnston wrote:


: 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.

Do these accidents show an inability to: 1) recover from full spins, 2)
from incipient spins, 3) detect the signs of an impending (but not yet
incipient) spin, 4) avoid spin precursors entirely? If the answer is 1),
doesn't that mean three opportunities have been missed to avoid the need
for #1? And perhaps suggests it is better to spend training time on 4,
3, and 2 instead? Since low level spins don't leave much room for
recovering anyway, being skilled at 4, 3, and 2 seems more useful.

--
-----
change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

Eric Greenwell wrote:
Ian Johnston wrote:


: 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.


Do these accidents show an inability to: 1) recover from full spins, 2)
from incipient spins, 3) detect the signs of an impending (but not yet
incipient) spin, 4) avoid spin precursors entirely? If the answer is 1),
doesn't that mean three opportunities have been missed to avoid the need
for #1? And perhaps suggests it is better to spend training time on 4,
3, and 2 instead? Since low level spins don't leave much room for
recovering anyway, being skilled at 4, 3, and 2 seems more useful.

Very true - It is far better to have the skills and training in numbers
4,3 and 2 so that you never get there inadvertently - but 1 is what
sometimes happens while planning or practising other things...
A pilot can manage his or her own performance and what the aircraft is
doing with skills and best practice - the air we fly in can be
unpredictable and difficult to judge. Sometimes other aircraft do things
that force a choice between collision and flying outside the parameters
that 4,3,and 2 have taught you. Sometimes people get so focussed on the
task at hand they don't notice the risks they are taking. Thats how "1"
happens.

Personally I like to cover all the bases.

Even if the spin experience just reminds you of what you can't get away
with the next time you even think about taking that thermal to prevent a
landing. I know of one fatal accident that might have been prevented if
the pilot had ever intentionally spun his Ventus 2cx with full water.
The expeience would possibly have changed his decision making in taking
a thermal at less than spin recovery height. Point is - he did not know
what his recovey height was.

I understand that most modern European single seaters exhibit a violent
spin entry, progressing to an approximately vertical attitude with
airspeed approaching VNE on recovery in this configuration. Even if you
have the height there is very little margin for error, in these
conditions I can't help thinking that experience in recovery might save
the fractions of a second that can make the difference between a topic
for discussion after the flight and an unrecoverable situation.
JAR 22 certification does not mean docility, only that it will recover
with conventional control inputs, under specific conditions.

Whether intentionally spinning a Puchacz (or anything else for that
matter) at low altitude is advisable is a seperate matter. Our club as a
2000" base for recovery - seems reasonable, at least you have a chance
if things go wrong.

On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 00:07:35 UTC, Eric Greenwell
wrote:

: Ian Johnston wrote:


: Personally, I think the tail ends of single seaters sticking out of
: fields and hill sides makes a pretty good attack on that position.
:
: Do these accidents show an inability to: 1) recover from full spins, 2)
: from incipient spins, 3) detect the signs of an impending (but not yet
: incipient) spin, 4) avoid spin precursors entirely?

5) Take spins seriously as a threat.

Ian

Ian,

I couldn't agree more.
Blaming the Puchacz or the practice of spin training is very short sighted
indeed.

What bothers me is that some of the people who express oppinions here really
talk like those trial lawyers.
Man, they can talk the talk.
But in most cases they don't have much experience (if any), are still
students or are just enthusiasts.
You wouldn't know that by the way they express their oppinions.

What you "think" as a student is obviously very important, but sometimes you
have to learn to listen and practice, as opposed to trying to lecture your
instructor as to why you think this way or that (is that lawyer thing
again).
Just sit down, follow along, listen, open your eyes and mind to the
experience, let it sink in, think about it in the comfort of the house, then
come back for more.

Many of the concepts involved in flying are not intuitive. You should always
read many sources, practice, until you understand.
When I see this many people creating all sorts of excuses for not doing
spins, all I can think is that all of them are at the very early stages of
their flying careers, when stalls are this big monster ready to bite and
scare the living daylights out of you.
This will eventually pass and the pilot will become more mature and more
secure as he understands.

I once had a student, a Heart Surgeon, who after the first lesson with
Stalls started to give me this lecture about the health (or heart) risks
related to practicing this maneuver. He thought the fear could cause the
heart to spasm or whatever that was...
He basically was so affraid to die that it took him many months (and the
love of flying) to actually complete those very few first hours of
instruction. Always with that lecture, always feeling tense before
practicing stalls and spins.
He follow the advise to read more and more sources, understand the
importance of it, and he is today one of the safest pilots I know, even
instructing spins these days.

Anyway, I remember not that long ago many people hastily condemning the
Piper Malibu, as a result of several high-altitude accidents.
All kinds of crazy posibilities were hastily suggested, bad design, bad
tail, bad structure, this, that and the other.
Public pressure was so big that the FAA did an unprecedented
"re-certification" process with the airplane, as if they were not 100%
certain that all the bases were covered in the original certification.

The aircraft (Piper Malibu) came out of it as clean as before, with flying
colors.
It was then discovered that traning was the biggest issue. The airplane was
being flown at high-altitudes and speeds by pilots who were not used to
those conditions.
The Malibu is in fact a safer, more honest airplane than many older designs.


: 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