Puchaz spin count 23 and counting

In article ,
Steve Hopkins k wrote:
Your point regarding 'Accidents of Omission' is interesting.
If your local drug company marketed an antibiotic that
then proceeded to kill 23 patients, I'm not sure whether
the subsequent litigants would be much impressed by
the uncertain number of lives saved. Yes we need spin
training, and preferably on an annual basis so we don’t
forget what to do if, what we spent the previous year
avoiding, accidentally happens. Surely the point at
issue is whether the Puch is a safe vehicle for these
manoeuvres. And if it isn't, then should it be airborne
at all. Certainly the number of accidents involving
the Puch as against the number produced does seem to
indicate that something is amiss. Is there a statistician
out there who could look at the numbers and make a
scientific pronouncement on this? I seem to remember
in my school days, (when Queen Victoria ruled), there
was something called the Chi-squared test which allowed
one to state whether two separate groups of occurrence
were significantly different. Could we compare, for
example, the number of K-13's et al spun in relation
to the numbers built, as against the Puch in the same
manner and pronounce with a specified degree of confidence
whether the accident rate, (spin in's), was significantly
different?

I think the whole arguments on both sides are VERY
difficult to make convincingly. I myself sometimes
wonder if my spinning students was instructive, or
simply encouraged them to do it on their own without
any more training. Does my 3 hours of IFR training
for power students just make them bolder in poor weather?

The Puch quastion has a bit of a parallel to the
Piper Tomahawk spin question in the US. Some
instructors love it, some hate it, and they
do have a lot more spin accidents than Cezzna 152s...

I doubt we will find consensus, but this has been informative...

Steve Hopkins wrote:
Your point regarding 'Accidents of Omission' is interesting.
If your local drug company marketed an antibiotic that
then proceeded to kill 23 patients, I'm not sure whether
the subsequent litigants would be much impressed by
the uncertain number of lives saved. Yes we need spin
training, and preferably on an annual basis so we don't
forget what to do if, what we spent the previous year
avoiding, accidentally happens. Surely the point at
issue is whether the Puch is a safe vehicle for these
manoeuvres. And if it isn't, then should it be airborne
at all. Certainly the number of accidents involving
the Puch as against the number produced does seem to
indicate that something is amiss. Is there a statistician
out there who could look at the numbers and make a
scientific pronouncement on this? I seem to remember
in my school days, (when Queen Victoria ruled), there
was something called the Chi-squared test which allowed
one to state whether two separate groups of occurrence
were significantly different. Could we compare, for
example, the number of K-13's et al spun in relation
to the numbers built, as against the Puch in the same
manner and pronounce with a specified degree of confidence
whether the accident rate, (spin in's), was significantly
Different?
Would it tell you anything? The point about statistical tests is that you
first eliminate any factors which would skew the result. So you would have
to take into account at least the following:
1. the numbers of spin exercises carried out in puch's against the number in
other types of glider (single and two pew),
2. the training history of the pilots involved in accident free spins
against those in spins where an accident occurred,
3. the flying history of the pilots involved in accident free spins against
those in spins where an accident occurred,
4. the height at which the spin was entered
5. the circumstances of the spin (e.g. deliberate as opposed to induced
6. the method of inducement if that was the method of entry
7. the repair history of the glider (just in case this changed the mass
distribution of same)
8. the weights of the pilots concerned (the mass distribution again)
I'm personally convinced that the issue here is not whether the aircraft is
safe, but whether the pilot is safe to carry out the spinning exercises
concerned - I would only feel safe carrying these exercises with an
instructor whom I knew for certain was current and experienced with carrying
these exercises whichever glider type it is that is used. It is clear that
the puch and other gliders like it can enter a full spin which requires that
the correct procedure be used to recover from it - surely this is a training
issue? And surely it requires that pilots only be allowed to fly gliders
which they have proven their ability to handle?
Rgds,
Derrick.

want to quote some other sections from it too......
like about the rudder and boats!

At 06:18 11 February 2004, Chris Ocallaghan wrote:
I just read Bill Dean's post and the quote from the
BGA instructor's manual, to wit:

'As this training progresses, it is necessary to introduce
brief spins where
the ground is noticeably close. This is to ensure
that the trainee will
take the correct recovery action even when the nose
is down and the ground
approaching. A very experienced instructor flying
a docile two seater in
ideal conditions may be prepared to initiate a brief
spin from 800'. A
less docile two seater with a less experienced instructor,
or less than
ideal conditions, should raise the minimum height considerably.'

Dumb.

why dumb? the experience of ground rush is a very good
inforcement lesson as to why you dont mess with low
slow over ruddered flat turns!

At 14:06 11 February 2004, Chris Ocallaghan wrote:

ive only been reading your posts for a couple of weeks
and ive already worked out you dont know squat and
infact you are actually a threat to student/low time
glider pilots lives.

No Bill, I don't know a goddam thing.

it shows frequently.

I happened on this newsgroup
several years ago and determined it was so threadbare
that I could
post without any knowledge of the subject at all and
blend right in.

i actually wonder if you post with several different
identities.

Over the months and years, I became bolder. I read
a few books. I'm an
avid reader, and I don't really care what... Knauff,
Piggot, Welch,
Reichmann, Langeweische, et al. I now feel like I know
more about the
sport than most of the people who post to this group.


pity it does not sink in, but then you miss the whole
practical bit dont you! Reichmann is a case in point.

I guess you
could say I've become a white paper expert.

is that toilet paper?

And frankly, from the
outside looking in, this is about the dumbest exercise
I've ever seen
wrapped in the trappings of reasoned cause and effect.

so in all your reading and the huge amount of knowledge
youve gained from it, you have gained a level of understanding
normaly achieved through practical experience, of just
how sudden a glider like a puch can enter into a spin?
some how I doubt that very much.


Organizations get things wrong. My gliding association,
right or
wrong, may it always be right rings a little hollow.

actually the bga have come to the position the instructors
manual currently holds over the last 70 odd years.
its an evolving process.

Bruce Greeff wrote:

SOuth Africa is 12 Months. [parachute repack interval]

Thank you. Any other pilots want to tell me the repack
requirements in their country? I know there are lots of
non-U.S. pilots here, and most fly with chutes. When do you
repack them?

Todd Pattist - "WH" Ventus C
(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.

I go on the recommendation of the people who repack mine - the parachute
club at Sibson: they recommend no long than four months between repacks and
when they do them they unpack it, air it for a few days in their repacking
shed, and then carry out a full inspection and deployment test.

Rgds,

Derrick.

Guys...

We've had a lot of interesting conversations, some
on, and some off topic, for which I'm partly to blame,
although I would plead some provocation..

There are two central threads to this which are...

1. Is the Puchasz a safe aeroplane?

and

2. The assertion that BGA spin training routinely spins
in and kills instructors and their pupils..

A bunch of people have helpfully gone off and dug up
the accident reports and the conclusion we've come
to is that certainly since I've been gliding (a paltry,
but intense 14 years, including seven with a full category
rating, and DCFI at one of the UK's leading ab-initio
training centres) we don't appear to have been able
to dig up a single instance of a two seater spinning
in whilst performing the evolving BGA spin avoidance/training
curriculum.. There are, as Bill has said, a lot of
rumours about the recent accident, but no formal report
has yet been issued. When it is issued I have no doubt
we will take recognisance of the conclusions. The Usk
Puch accident made significant changes to the instructor
guidelines for spin training, although this was instructor
on instructor training.

I don't have enough experience in the Puchasz to determine
whether it bites at infrequent intervals, so I won't
comment on the first issue..

However, pertinent to the second point I do know of
one person at my club who has stated that they were
saved from piling in by the spin training they received.

Now we have the facts to hand, although I don't expect
people to back off, I would ask that people who have
made comments on the way we train in the UK go back
and examine their posts in this light.

Mark








At 15:24 11 February 2004, Pete Zeugma wrote:
At 14:06 11 February 2004, Chris Ocallaghan wrote:

ive only been reading your posts for a couple of weeks
and ive already worked out you dont know squat and
infact you are actually a threat to student/low time
glider pilots lives.

No Bill, I don't know a goddam thing.

it shows frequently.

I happened on this newsgroup
several years ago and determined it was so threadbare
that I could
post without any knowledge of the subject at all and
blend right in.

i actually wonder if you post with several different
identities.

Over the months and years, I became bolder. I read
a few books. I'm an
avid reader, and I don't really care what... Knauff,
Piggot, Welch,
Reichmann, Langeweische, et al. I now feel like I know
more about the
sport than most of the people who post to this group.


pity it does not sink in, but then you miss the whole
practical bit dont you! Reichmann is a case in point.

I guess you
could say I've become a white paper expert.

is that toilet paper?

And frankly, from the
outside looking in, this is about the dumbest exercise
I've ever seen
wrapped in the trappings of reasoned cause and effect.

so in all your reading and the huge amount of knowledge
youve gained from it, you have gained a level of understanding
normaly achieved through practical experience, of just
how sudden a glider like a puch can enter into a spin?
some how I doubt that very much.


Organizations get things wrong. My gliding association,
right or
wrong, may it always be right rings a little hollow.

actually the bga have come to the position the instructors
manual currently holds over the last 70 odd years.
its an evolving process.

Mark Stevens wrote:

There are two central threads to this which are...

1. Is the Puchasz a safe aeroplane?

and

2. The assertion that BGA spin training routinely spins
in and kills instructors and their pupils..

I can't answer either. I will say that I personally
wouldn't consider initiating a spin entry at 800 ft, and I don't
know anyone who would.

That said, there are those in this country with aerobatic
waivers for very low aerobatics. Perhaps the UK standards
for CFI's who do 800 ft spin entries are the
equivalent...I don't know so I can't make judgements
about whether BGA practices are safe...

I still wonder why one wouldn't just do it 800 ft above
a cloud deck instead...

At 14:42 11 February 2004, Todd Pattist wrote:
Bruce Greeff wrote:

SOuth Africa is 12 Months. [parachute repack interval]

Thank you. Any other pilots want to tell me the repack
requirements in their country? I know there are lots
of
non-U.S. pilots here, and most fly with chutes. When
do you
repack them?
Todd Pattist - 'WH' Ventus C
(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)

Todd

Until I am shot down, in the UK there are no government
regulations on repacking dates for glider pilots personal
reserve parachutes.

About 15 years ago my own club went through the clubs
parachutes and found a moltley collection on chutes
in a wide variety of cases, with unknown repack dates.


After careful research it was found that the repack
recommendations varied from manufacturer to manufacture
and was dependant on the type of 'chute.

As a result we approached one UK manufacturer Thomas
Sports who specialise in sports parachutes. We agreed
a 6 months repack for all club owned parachutes. This
is strictly observed and any 'chute that is damaged
or suspect is sent earlier.

Cases and contents are changed in line with the manufacterers
recommended life, generally 20 or 25 years dependant
on material.

18 months ago one club member found reason to jump
from about 1000feet and the 'chute worked. He landed
without a scratch.

My own personal 'chute is repacked every 12 months,
but I know its history.

I have taken many 'chutes for repacking some with no
known last repack date but believed to be several years.
Bench test showed that the drogue 'chute worked there
was nothing to suggest the main would not have opened.
I heard one story of a UK jump club who's members jumped
'chutes that had not been repacked for several years
and they worked fine (Note to doubters I cannot support
this with evidence). They did have recently packed
reserves

I believe that where 'chutes are given to first time
pilots and club members, the club has a duty to ensure
they are servicable.

Our club system has been proven to be satisfactory.


Hope this helps

Dave

I have taken many 'chutes for repacking some with no
known last repack date but believed to be several years.
Bench test showed that the drogue 'chute worked there
was nothing to suggest the main would not have opened.
I heard one story of a UK jump club who's members jumped
'chutes that had not been repacked for several years
and they worked fine (Note to doubters I cannot support
this with evidence


I have very recently seen a chute where the rubber bungees had decayed to
the extent that they glued the parachute lines together ... the very upset
packer had no doubt that it would have malfuntioned .... I would suggest
that you take no chances and have your chute repacked well within the
recommended time period

Sven Olivier

In article ,
Sven Olivier wrote:
I have taken many 'chutes for repacking some with no
known last repack date but believed to be several years.
Bench test showed that the drogue 'chute worked there
was nothing to suggest the main would not have opened.
I heard one story of a UK jump club who's members jumped
'chutes that had not been repacked for several years
and they worked fine (Note to doubters I cannot support
this with evidence


I have very recently seen a chute where the rubber bungees had decayed to
the extent that they glued the parachute lines together ... the very upset
packer had no doubt that it would have malfuntioned .... I would suggest
that you take no chances and have your chute repacked well within the
recommended time period

Sven Olivier


Was this chute less than six months since last repack?
I bet it wasn't...

On the other hand, if one leaves a chute packed today
inside a nice glider canopy or car for about
a month in 100 degree plus weather in Mexico or El Paso,
I bet the thing melts like a cassete tape...

For the few chutes that need repacking more frequently,
it's a handling and storage problem, not a "date" problem.