Puchaz spin count 23 and counting

"Mark Stevens" wrote in
message ...
Chris,


Again and again the UK instructors have pointed out
here that we're not teaching spinning we're teaching
spin avoidance.. However in my and my instructors panels
view that requires us to demonstrate and then get students
to understand how spins happen and then recover from
them - from cable breaks, from underbanked, over ruddered
turns and from thermalling turns..

I tend to agree; but in the US, spin training is not required for any
glider or airplane ticket except CFI. As a student, I made the choice to
not solo any spinnable trainer without spin training. As a CFIG, I have
conformed to the "party line" and sent many students solo with only stall
avoidance, recognition and recovery training; without any hint of a problem.
I think (and suggest) that these people should seek spin training before
moving on to more demanding ships.

...
Anyone who manages to autorotate, and then spin for
one turn in a Puchasz (or any other glider for that
matter) from 800 ft AGL is clearly a lunatic..

Agree emphaticaly.

Demonstrating
a departure at somewhat higher altitude is a different
matter..

Just a quick comment on parachutes from Mark Boyds
later post you mean that in the US you do not wear
parachutes in gliders as a matter of routine?

Yes, that is true. In my experience, most owners of single-seat glass
wear parachutes, but most clubs and commercial operations using 2-seat
gliders do not. It is just part of the culture. I think part of the reason
for this is the disincentive created by the US requirement that all chutes,
regardless of technology, be repacked every 120 days. An out-of-date chute
discovered in any operating aircraft is an invitation for an expensive and
inconvenient FAA violation notice.

and it's
permitted to do aerobatics without them?

Under certain conditions...yes.

From a UK
perspective that seems criminally negligent and we
accept the cost of running parachutes for all seats
in all club gliders as simply something it would be
inconceivable to do.. And yes, they have saved lives...

I don't disagree, like helmets on motorcycles, it is (or is not) part
of the local safety culture and the majority naturally conform. That said,
is chute use normal in all small UK aircraft, or is it just gliders? If
only gliders, why?

And of course here in the UK we look with some amusement
at the social darwinism in the US that allows 40 million
people to choose not to have access to health care,

Most of those 40 million people did not make that choice for
themselves, it was made for them. I think that the European 2-tier
(public/private) model of medical care has great merit.

the preventative effect on the murder rate that widespread handgun
ownership has,

A persistant hangover from our old cowboy culture.

and the preventative affect on crime of a prison incarceration rate about
eight
times the european average..

The rate is truly astounding for young black males in the US.



Vaughn

Vaughn wrote:
"Mark Stevens" wrote in
Chris,

I tend to agree; but in the US, spin training is not required for any
glider or airplane ticket except CFI. As a student, I made the choice to
not solo any spinnable trainer without spin training. As a CFIG, I have
conformed to the "party line" and sent many students solo with only stall
avoidance, recognition and recovery training; without any hint of a problem.
I think (and suggest) that these people should seek spin training before
moving on to more demanding ships.


I gave spin training to every pilot I ever soloed, before solo.
It used to be a PPL requirement, I've been told...

Just a quick comment on parachutes from Mark Boyds
later post you mean that in the US you do not wear
parachutes in gliders as a matter of routine?

Yes, that is true. In my experience, most owners of single-seat glass
wear parachutes, but most clubs and commercial operations using 2-seat
gliders do not. It is just part of the culture. I think part of the reason
for this is the disincentive created by the US requirement that all chutes,
regardless of technology, be repacked every 120 days. An out-of-date chute
discovered in any operating aircraft is an invitation for an expensive and
inconvenient FAA violation notice.

I think it would be absurd to require parachutes for EVERY flight in
a 2-33 (a glider I've only flown ONCE above 3000 feet). 30 extra pounds
on every flight in a glider with no fatalities in 30 years, hardly
enough elevator to stall in any legal CG, and flown mostly below
3000 feet? Silly, in my opinion.


and it's
permitted to do aerobatics without them?

Under certain conditions...yes.

From a UK
perspective that seems criminally negligent and we
accept the cost of running parachutes for all seats
in all club gliders as simply something it would be
inconceivable to do.. And yes, they have saved lives...

Sure, in some conditions. But how many people have they
killed invisibly? The guy wearing the chute for the
winch pattern tow? Not a chance he'd have enough altitude to
use the chute, but maybe the extra weight was just
enough to cause the cable break and the stall/spin?
Kinda an invisible possibility, isn't it?
No real way to determine that...

I think REQUIRING parachutes for ALL glider operations is absurd.

PROVIDING them for all operations is quite civilized...
And teaching the judgement about when they are useful, and training
the eject techniques, probably has an excellent sobering effect...

I suspect this poster simply meant chutes are provided for use,
but I'd like to know if this is not just an option but a
requirement...


I don't disagree, like helmets on motorcycles, it is (or is not) part
of the local safety culture and the majority naturally conform. That said,
is chute use normal in all small UK aircraft, or is it just gliders? If
only gliders, why?

Hmmm...that is an interesting question. I'd love to hear
the UK answer.

In the US, chutes are generally only worn in aerobatic
aircraft during aerobatics as far as small aircraft go,
in my experience. A few others too (jump pilots, ferry pilots,
experimental test pilots, some tow pilots).

I've seen a lot of chutes (many legally expired) in single seat
gliders as well. The FAA seems to leave these guys alone,
recognising that since no chute at all is required,
having an expired one in a single seater is not exactly
front page news...

In article 4026791b$1@darkstar, (Mark James Boyd)
writes:


I don't disagree, like helmets on motorcycles, it is (or is not) part
of the local safety culture and the majority naturally conform. That said,
is chute use normal in all small UK aircraft, or is it just gliders? If
only gliders, why?

Hmmm...that is an interesting question. I'd love to hear
the UK answer

Simple, how many power pilots do you know do "steep" turns at 7knots above the
stall; How many deliberately fly in circles with a group of others, many in the
blind spot on a busy day, STILL 7 knots over stall speed.

Barney
UK

BAToulson wrote:
In article 4026791b$1@darkstar, (Mark James Boyd)
writes:


I don't disagree, like helmets on motorcycles, it is (or is not) part
of the local safety culture and the majority naturally conform. That said,
is chute use normal in all small UK aircraft, or is it just gliders? If
only gliders, why?

Hmmm...that is an interesting question. I'd love to hear
the UK answer

Simple, how many power pilots do you know do "steep" turns at 7knots above the
stall; How many deliberately fly in circles with a group of others, many in the
blind spot on a busy day, STILL 7 knots over stall speed.

Barney
UK

Hmmm...an excellent point. I think this is very agreed by
most US glider pilots. And as far as I know, in the
US chutes are required in formal competition, and I agree with
this...

On 8 Feb 2004 09:59:55 -0700, (Mark James Boyd)
wrote:

From a UK
perspective that seems criminally negligent and we
accept the cost of running parachutes for all seats
in all club gliders as simply something it would be
inconceivable to do.. And yes, they have saved lives...

Sure, in some conditions. But how many people have they
killed invisibly? The guy wearing the chute for the
winch pattern tow? Not a chance he'd have enough altitude to
use the chute, but maybe the extra weight was just
enough to cause the cable break and the stall/spin?
Kinda an invisible possibility, isn't it?
No real way to determine that...

Well... at the moment I know four glider pilots in person who were
using the nylon letdown successfully.
One girl bailed out of their ASW-19 during a winch launch (elevator
not connected) [500 ft], one bailed out of his Ventus after he had
rammed another glider [5000 ft, unfortunately the other pilot was not
able to bail out], and two bailed out of their respective Ka-8(s after
they had collided at 700 ft.

Note the altitudes [in brackets].

I know of not a single case where the additional weight of a parachute
caused a problem. I also have not even heard of any case where the
parachute caused a disadvantage.


I think REQUIRING parachutes for ALL glider operations is absurd.

Any questions left?

Bye
Andreas

Andreas Maurer wrote:
On 8 Feb 2004 09:59:55 -0700, (Mark James Boyd)
wrote:

From a UK
perspective that seems criminally negligent and we
accept the cost of running parachutes for all seats
in all club gliders as simply something it would be
inconceivable to do.. And yes, they have saved lives...

Sure, in some conditions. But how many people have they
killed invisibly? The guy wearing the chute for the
winch pattern tow? Not a chance he'd have enough altitude to
use the chute, but maybe the extra weight was just
enough to cause the cable break and the stall/spin?
Kinda an invisible possibility, isn't it?
No real way to determine that...

Well... at the moment I know four glider pilots in person who were
using the nylon letdown successfully.
One girl bailed out of their ASW-19 during a winch launch (elevator
not connected) [500 ft], one bailed out of his Ventus after he had
rammed another glider [5000 ft, unfortunately the other pilot was not
able to bail out], and two bailed out of their respective Ka-8(s after
they had collided at 700 ft.

Was the altitude the bailout or chute opening
altitude? Perhaps a better question is:

If I gave you a 2-22 and asked you to bail out solo,
how low would you do it?

I've static line chuted at 800 feet. The hard deck for novice
solo sport chuters is 2500ft. The firejumpers declare
500ft as "the last chance to deploy parachute and have it be effective",
and say that if the "aircraft is below 1000 feet, a decision
has to be made immediately."

The 500 ft and 700 ft are simply lucky.

www.richstowell.com/bailout.htm

was really great about the folks who had given up and started to
bail but died during impact (perhaps if they'd tried to
keep flying instead, might have survived), the canopy that
knocked a guy unconscious, and the chute on so the
pilot was too far forward.

As you can see, there are a LOT of very small disadvantages, that add up...


Note the altitudes [in brackets].

I know of not a single case where the additional weight of a parachute
caused a problem. I also have not even heard of any case where the
parachute caused a disadvantage.

As I said, no real way of determining that. How many investigators are
willing to say: "at the 23G's encountered at the moment of impact,
the 330 extra pounds exerted by the parachute on the back
of the victim were the difference between serious injuries and
fatality. We therefore conclude that the parachute was a
contributor to the fatality."

I read a recent well-worded report about why child safety seats
are not required in airplanes. In the end, the feds determined that
it would cost an additional $9 billion a year, and would save the
lives of six children a year from aviation deaths. On the other
hand, people would then fly less with their kids, and in the
150+ mile car trips, there would be 1000's of more fatalities.

I'm a big proponent of choice, especially for solo pilots.
I think the tremendous advantages of wearing a chute
happen so infrequently, and the minor disadvantages
occur so often, that we are dealing with

..83 x .0001

vs

..0002 x .41

and if any of these numbers are even a little off, the argument could
go either way. Very sketchy dealing with very big and very little
numbers...

so just let the pilots decide for themselves...


I think REQUIRING parachutes for ALL glider operations is absurd.

Any questions left?

Yes, how much does it cost ($$$) to tow an additional 15 pounds
aloft during every glider flight in the US in a year?
If this money were instead spent on flyers mailed to
every pilot about checking the elevator connection
before flight, would more lives be saved?

The child safety seat fed folks seemed to think it is best spent
increasing awareness about venetian blind cords strangling
infants...


Bye
Andreas

In article 4028832a$1@darkstar,
(Mark James Boyd) wrote:

Was the altitude the bailout or chute opening
altitude? Perhaps a better question is:

If I gave you a 2-22 and asked you to bail out solo,
how low would you do it?

Weeeell, after you gave me the $10k in cash I expect I'd get a tow to
5000 ft or more...

You make some good points.

And I note that although I spend quite a lot of time flying at more than
2000 feet above the airfield, I probably don't spend very much of it
more than 2000 ft above the *terrain*. Which is what counts for
parachute opening.

-- Bruce

On 9 Feb 2004 23:07:22 -0700, (Mark James Boyd)
wrote:

Was the altitude the bailout or chute opening
altitude? Perhaps a better question is:
Bailout altitude. If the plane is still in a halfways level flight,
it's possible.


If I gave you a 2-22 and asked you to bail out solo,
how low would you do it?
Depends.
On the other hand: If you gave me a 2-22 on a really great day, I
would rather enjoy the Cumulus clouds from the ground...


The 500 ft and 700 ft are simply lucky.
Sure they are. But without the chute the pilots would have needed a
lot more luck.


As I said, no real way of determining that. How many investigators are
willing to say: "at the 23G's encountered at the moment of impact,
the 330 extra pounds exerted by the parachute on the back
of the victim were the difference between serious injuries and
fatality. We therefore conclude that the parachute was a
contributor to the fatality."

I never heard of such a case I have to admit.


Yes, how much does it cost ($$$) to tow an additional 15 pounds
aloft during every glider flight in the US in a year?
If this money were instead spent on flyers mailed to
every pilot about checking the elevator connection
before flight, would more lives be saved?

How much does the life insurance fee cost that covers the dead pilots
who did not wear a chute?

Bye
Andreas

Mark James Boyd wrote:
...
I think REQUIRING parachutes for ALL glider operations is absurd.
...

This is what the french regulations requires. Although I can admit that
our regulations have many absurd points, I would not count this one among
them. It is the same thing for seat belts in cars: if the regulation don't
make installing and using them mandatory, the statistics prove that cases
where they should be used and are not are way over the cases where they are
used and this causes some inconvenience.

Robert Ehrlich wrote:
Mark James Boyd wrote:
...
I think REQUIRING parachutes for ALL glider operations is absurd.
...

This is what the french regulations requires. Although I can admit that
our regulations have many absurd points, I would not count this one among
them. It is the same thing for seat belts in cars: if the regulation don't
make installing and using them mandatory, the statistics prove that cases
where they should be used and are not are way over the cases where they are
used and this causes some inconvenience.

Show me a single-seat car which has a miniscule chance of
injuring another person. Show me the safety statistics for
this...and perhaps you have a parallel to certain glider operations.

I liked Rod Machado's quote from Feb 2004 AOPA pilot:

"So the next time you hear the word always, only or never
used in an aviation sentence, think about asking the
question: So what?"

"Sorry, but no cigar today."