Puchaz spin count 23 and counting

Bill,

So if I may summarise briefly - of the five accidents
with Puch's where we're fairly certain of the causes
only one occurred during spin avoidance training..
If my memory is correct was that not the one with two
instructors on board?

Can you summarise or comment on any other two seater
accidents with serious injury or fatalities that were
spin related in any way in that time period? I'm stretching
to think of some..

Mark








At 23:48 09 February 2004, W.J. \bill\ Dean \u.K.\.
wrote:
JJ,

1./ 'The British are now investigating their 4th
Puch spin-in with
unspecified other types that have spun-in as a result
of spin-training.'

In fact, unfortunately, we British are now investigating
our sixth Puchacz
fatal accident. If, I repeat if, this last one turns
out to be a spin-in,
it will be the fifth.

The accident in 2003 (20/03) happened when the glider
was flown into the
winch-wire while another glider was being launched.
From my reading of the
accident report, there was no stall or spin, and the
type of glider made no
difference at all.

The accident in 1995 (82/95) was a spin entry when
the pilot in command lost
control while recovering from a launch failure at about
300 ft. The pupil
was not touching the controls at any point, the stall/spin
was not part of
training, nor was the launch failure itself. I am
afraid that there have
been a number of similar accidents to various different
types of glider.
The accident to the DG500 shown in the video on the
'Spin' thread seems to
have been similar, that pilot was lucky he was already
very low, it seems
clear to me that if he had been say 100ft higher when
the glider departed he
would have been much worse off.

The accidents in 1993 (132/93) and 1991 (111/91) were
due to failure to
recover from a spin entry at low level. It is likely
that the spin entries
were inadvertent, and the pilots in command tried to
recover immediately.
However, the pupils held the stick right back so the
gliders span into the
ground. Hence the advice now given for pupils to
be told to keep their
hands clear of the stick for first stall/spins, and
for these to be done at
altitude anyway.

The accident in 1990 (114/90) was a deliberate spin
for training purposes,
recovery was started too low. This is why the advice
quoted in my previous
posting today at 17.07 was given in the BGA Instructors'
Manual published in
1994.

2./ 'The British require 2-turn spins (full blown)
in both directions, on
initial check-out and annually thereafter.'

We do not require 2-turn spins annually. I don't
know what you mean by
initial check-out. I had annual check-outs at two
clubs last year, one in
a K21 and one in a K13. With the K21 we did no spins
at all (it won't at
my weight), with the K13 we did spin entries, but no
2-turn spins (again,
the K13 won't at my weight).

Individual clubs, or individual instructors may require
more stringent
testing, and it will vary with the assessment of the
pupil, but there is no
general requirement as far as I know for 2-turn spins
in both directions (if
there is, how did I escape?). Only clubs using the
Puchacz or some other
E. European gliders would be able to insist on everyone
doing a 2-turn spin;
given suitable conditions and enough height this sounds
quite a good idea
anyway.

I still don't know the difference between a full blown
2-turn spin, and any
other kind of 2-turn spin.

3./ 'Some practice spins are entered as low as pattern
altitude.'

I don't know what you mean by circuit pattern altitude.
This depends so
much on the nature of the site, and the conditions.
I have done a lot of
flights where the normal launch height was less than
800ft., not very
satisfactory but there it is. I have also flown in
conditions when it is
normal to be on finals at 1,000ft. or more.

The quotation I gave in my previous posting explains
why and in what
circumstances a spin entry might be called for at 800ft,
with of course an
immediate recovery. Although the manual does not
say so, this would
almost certainly be done in a K13. JJ, how much flying
have you done in a
K13? And I don't know how much difference it would
make, flying from
Minden at 4,718ft. a.s.l. (and hot) compared with the
Long Mynd at 1,411ft.
and a temperate climate.

I have not disregarded your posting because some may
actually take notice of
what you say.
You say 'I do believe that ANY accident resulting from
an intentional spin
entry is unacceptable'. What does this mean, that
you think an accident
from an inadvertent spin entry is acceptable? Certainly,
that could
explain why you seem to think that much of our spin
training is wrong and
unnecessary.

So far as we in the U.K. are concerned, we think that
any accident, from any
cause, and especially from spin entries whether deliberate
or inadvertent is
unacceptable. The coaching (training) of instructors,
and the training of
pupils has this aim, to prevent accidents during training,
and after
training.

We firmly believe that stall/spin training is essential,
and that this must
include experience of actual stalls, actual spin entries
and actual spins in
order to teach avoidance, recognition and recovery.
Failure to do this
during dual training will just result in a worse accident
record among
pilots who are supposedly trained. All this is clearly
explained in our
BGA Instructors' Manual, and much of it in the quotation
I gave in my
previous posting.

Regards - Bill.

W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.).
Remove 'ic' to reply.


'JJ Sinclair' wrote in message
...

Bill,

I have been responding to posts in this thread that
indicate:

1./ The British are now investigating their 4th
Puch spin-in with
unspecified other types that have spun-in as a result
of spin-training.

2./ The British require 2-turn spins (full blown)
in both directions, on
initial check-out and annually thereafter.

3./ Some practice spins are entered as low as pattern
altitude.

If the above is not true, please disregard my postings
on the subject. I
do believe that ANY accident resulting from an intentional
spin entry is
unacceptable and that spin training should emphasize
spin recognition and
spin avoidance with recovery within 1 turn.

I now leave the British glider training in the good
hands of the British
glider instructors and will post no more on this subject.

JJ Sinclair.

Mark,

So far as I know you are correct.

The accident in 1990 at the South Wales Gliding club, Usk was a deliberate
spin where the Chief Flying instructor in the front seat was coaching
(training) a candidate for an assistant instructor rating. The spin was
therefore a deliberate spin for training purposes. The BGA
Instructors' Manual first published in 1994 states "There is no requirement
for these spins to be noticeably close to the ground, so their training
value is not compromised if they are completed very high".

The accident on 18th January 2004 at The Soaring Center, Husbands Bosworth
is still being investigated, and all I know is rumour.

These accidents apart, none of the Puchacz spin accidents was a deliberate
spin for training or any other purpose.

I have been having a fair amount of correspondence off-board, and none of us
can recall a fatal accident, other than above, involving a deliberate spin
for training purposes dual. However we can recall many spin accidents solo
both fatal and lucky not to be, where it seems likely that faulty or
inadequate training was a factor. This is why the low level spin entry
exercises were introduced.

Of course, this type of training depends for safety on careful selection and
good training and checking of instructors, including good supervision in the
clubs. We pay a lot of attention to this, and the BGA (to which the
government authorities are happy to delegate instructor training,
certification, renewal etc.) keep a tight control on this. How are these
things done in the U.S.A.?

I will repeat the quote from the Manual (copy & paste is easy):

If you read the BGA Instructors' Manual (Second edition), the relevant
section is "Section 5" with two chapters, "18 Stalling" and "19 Spinning and
Spiral Dives".

In chapter 19 on page 19-3 it says under the heading:

"ADVICE TO INSTRUCTORS

"In the initial stages of spin training, continuous spins of two or three
turns are mainly to allow the trainee time to study the characteristics of
the spin and give confidence that the recovery action from a stabilised spin
is effective. There is no requirement for these spins to be noticeably
close to the ground, so their training value is not compromised if they are
completed very high. The majority of spin training will then involve brief
spins of about a half a turn with the primary aim of recognising the
circumstances in which the spin can occur, correctly identifying the
spin/spiral dive, and practising the correct recovery action.

"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."

That is just the first two paragraphs of quite a long explanation.

W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.).
Remove "ic" to reply.


"Mark Stevens" wrote in
message ...

Bill,

So if I may summarise briefly - of the five accidents with Puch's where
we're fairly certain of the causes only one occurred during spin avoidance
training. If my memory is correct was that not the one with two
instructors on board?

Can you summarise or comment on any other two seater accidents with
serious injury or fatalities that were spin related in any way in that
time period? I'm stretching to think of some..

Mark