Puchacz fatal accident 18 Jan. 2004 at Husbands Bosworth.

On 14 Jan 2005 16:13:14 GMT, Andrew Warbrick
wrote:

Have you ever spun one? I will repeat myself, it recovers
from most spins with most cockpit loads if you let
go the stick, so on the majority of occasions the instructor
has to be vigilant that the pupil applies the correct
recovery or an incorrect recovery technique will have
been learnt.

Until now I have not even seen a Puchacz in real life - but the sheer
number of spin accidents with experienced pilots suggests that
something is wrong, don't you agree?

I wonder about "letting go the stick" and letting the glider recover
itself - is this really being taught as a procedure? We teach our
student pilots to center the stick, and apply opposite rudder - in
that order. Letting go the stick is an unknown procedure for me, I
have to admit.


The DG-500 is fully compliant with JAR22 when the CofG
is within limits. When the CofG is near the aft limit
it requires the correct spin recovery to be applied,
in the correct order, or the ground will do the recovery
for you, it will continue to autorotate with the stick
on the front stop if you just heave the stick forward
without first centralising the ailerons and applying
full opposite rudder. It may be possible to recover
by applying the full opposite rudder after heaving
the stick forward but it will be a delayed recover
due to control surface masking.

Hmm... looks like the missing 80 cm of wingspan on the 505 really seem
to make a difference here - our 505 recovers nicely even at fully aft
CG positions.


A pilot who has acquired the impression from the Puch
that all is required is to let go or relax the back
pressure could be killed in this situation.

I don't think this is the problem. A typical Puchacz spin accident has
the instructor onboard, and I'm pretty sure that most of these
instructors knew about the correct spin recovery procedure.

Here in Germany we also had our share of Puchacz spin accident. One
was a successful spin recovery that went into an opposite spin - the
IP was not able to recover the second spin before impact.



Bye
Andreas

Uzytkownik "Andreas Maurer" napisal w wiadomosci
...
On 14 Jan 2005 16:13:14 GMT, Andrew Warbrick
wrote:

Have you ever spun one?


Until now I have not even seen a Puchacz in real life - but the sheer
number of spin accidents with experienced pilots suggests that
something is wrong, don't you agree?

Why doesn't it surprise me? Most of the pilots who write the worst opinions
on Puchacz never have flown it, or even seen it.

I don't think this is the problem. A typical Puchacz spin accident has
the instructor onboard, and I'm pretty sure that most of these
instructors knew about the correct spin recovery procedure.

I think that they're often crashed in spins just because they're most often
used ships for spin training. Just because they spin in a textbook way and
need a textbook recovery to get out of a spin, not only 'releasing the
stick' just like the Bocian or Junior.

Here in Germany we also had our share of Puchacz spin accident. One
was a successful spin recovery that went into an opposite spin - the
IP was not able to recover the second spin before impact.

Maybe they were too surprised by the fact that the glider entered another
spin due to inproper recovery action that they had lost a little bit too
much time.

Regards,


--
Janusz Kesik
Poland
to reply put my name.surname[at]gazeta.pl
-------------------------------------
See Wroclaw (Breslau) in photography,
The XIX Century, the Festung Breslau, and photos taken today.
http://www.wroclaw.dolny.slask.pl

I wonder about "letting go the stick" and letting the glider recover
itself - is this really being taught as a procedure?

I have not done this in glider but it works just great in a Super
Decathelon. Even a fully developed spin recovers quicky but you do add
opposite rudder. My acro instructor (placed 10th in the 2004 World
Advanced Aerobatic Championship in Sweden, FWIW) claims that most
reasonably stable aircraft will recover in this fashion. The ones that
don't are the Pitts's and Extra's - designed for acro and nothing else.
I intend to try it in an L23 when the season starts up again.

Tony V.

In article , Tony Verhulst
writes

I wonder about "letting go the stick" and letting the glider recover
itself - is this really being taught as a procedure?

This idea seems a good way to die if you are already in a full spin,
particularly at aft C of G. I do no deny that it may work in some
aircraft but to get the idea that it is a good standard technique could
cut your time short on this earth.

Of course, you may not be in a fully developed spin, just in the early
stages before full autorotation has developed. In that case, just
centralising the stick and rudder (perhaps easing the stick forward) and
levelling the wings with aileron may work, but that just shows that you
were not in a condition of full autorotation which is the "fully
developed spin".

The standard recovery procedure once a full spin has developed that
works for most aircraft is,

1. Full rudder opposite to the spin direction (make sure it really is
opposite to the rotation, I for one have applied the wrong rudder in a
spinning jet when I was caught by a surprise departure).

2. Short pause,

3. Stick centrally and progressively forward until the rotation stops.
Keeping on absolutely FULL opposite rudder is important, some people
have only applied partial rudder with disastrous effects such as getting
into a high rotation spin. "Centrally" on the stick is important too,
applied aileron can adversely affect spin recovery. Some aircraft I
have flown that were regularly used for spin training, had a white
circle painted on the middle of the instrument panel to mark the
"central aileron" stick position for use during spin recoveries.

4. Centralise the rudder when rotation can be seen to have almost
stopped (if you wait too late to centralise the rudder, you will spin
the other way).

5. Ease gently out of the resulting steep dive, taking care not to
apply too much G (too much G can lead to G-stall or flick, and make
things worse). Bear in mind that after rotation stops, some gliders are
nearly vertical or even beyond (pitch angle, say, 100 degrees where 90
degrees is vertically down).

I intend to try it in an L23 when the season starts up again.

I do not know the L23, but be very careful in experimenting with fully
developed spins in any aircraft, that is, those with the nose well down
and over about two full turns. They can catch you out unless you
approach the exercise systematically. Aft C of G is particularly
dangerous, as is not having enough height to bale out if things go wrong
.....

I do urge you to take such an exercise very seriously, as if your life
depended on it. As it does.

I speak as an ex military test pilot with much experience of stalling
and spinning in many types of aircraft, with and without engines. Any
fully developed spin is not to be taken lightly, at any altitude.

Recoveries from slow speed situations and wing-drops at the stall are
different, practise them often.

Conditions of full autorotation can be, often has been, and will
continue to be, fatal unless properly prepared for.

--
Ian Strachan

Ian Strachan wrote:

The standard recovery procedure once a full spin has developed that
works for most aircraft is,

It doesn't work in "most" aircraft, but rather in *all* aircraft which
are JAR certified. In fact, for an aircraft to get JAR certification,
this method must recover from a spin of at least five full rotations.
(If the CG is within the stated limits, of course!)

Stefan

In article , Stefan
writes
Ian Strachan wrote:

The standard recovery procedure once a full spin has developed that
works for most aircraft is,

It doesn't work in "most" aircraft, but rather in *all* aircraft which
are JAR certified. In fact, for an aircraft to get JAR certification,
this method must recover from a spin of at least five full rotations.
(If the CG is within the stated limits, of course!)

Glad to hear it. I try to be cautious in my posts and not to say things
that could be shot down and reduce the impact of the main points that I
am trying to make.

In this case that deliberate fully-developed spinning at low level below
bale-out height has questionable training value compared to spinning at
a safe height, is extremely foolish, and does no credit to our sport in
the eyes of others.

--
Ian Strachan

Ian Strachan wrote:

In this case that deliberate fully-developed spinning at low level below
bale-out height has questionable training value compared to spinning at
a safe height, is extremely foolish,

No question about this. I never start a deliberate spin (or even try the
stall behaviour of an unknown plane) below 3000 ft AGL.

Stefan

In article , Stefan
writes
Ian Strachan wrote:

In this case that deliberate fully-developed spinning at low level
below bale-out height has questionable training value compared to
spinning at a safe height, is extremely foolish,

No question about this. I never start a deliberate spin (or even try
the stall behaviour of an unknown plane) below 3000 ft AGL.

Stalling, in the sense of a cautious and gradual approach to the stall,
is another thing entirely, quite different to a full autorotative state
in a downward direction.

But you are right to be cautious, particularly with any "unknown
quantity" be it a glider, powered aircraft, high performance jet, or
whatever.

At the stall, stick forward to reduce alpha, pause for airspeed to
build, then normal use of aileron to level wings as necessary, is my
recommended action in most types of aircraft.

Note, no use of coarse rudder. Coarse rudder applied near the stall can
often lead to, guess what?

A

S ...... P ....... I ........ N

Surprise, surprise .......

Myself, in a glider environment, a slow approach to a stall and a quick
recovery, starting from 1500 ft AGL is OK. In a glider with known and
reasonable characteristics, 1000 ft. The difference to a
fully-developed spin is very marked, no comparison, really.

--
Ian Strachan

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 17:34:47 UTC, (Andreas Maurer)
wrote:

: Until now I have not even seen a Puchacz in real life - but the sheer
: number of spin accidents with experienced pilots suggests that
: something is wrong, don't you agree?

Not really. Spinnable gliders are going to be involved in more
spinning accidents than non-spinnable gliders. And I still think we
should consider all the solo spinners who die because they have been
trained - one way or another - to think that spinning is something you
have to do very deliberately. After all, that K21 wouldn't spin, so
this can't be a spin, so I'll just pull back more and

Ian


--

On 18 Jan 2005 10:16:04 GMT, "Ian Johnston"
wrote:


: Until now I have not even seen a Puchacz in real life - but the sheer
: number of spin accidents with experienced pilots suggests that
: something is wrong, don't you agree?

Not really. Spinnable gliders are going to be involved in more
spinning accidents than non-spinnable gliders.

You are correct, Ian - but here in Germany still a lot of Ka-7 and
ASK-13 are in use which do spin well and are commonly used for spin
training (not to mention other two-seaters that spin like the DG-500).
Yet I have not heard of a spin accident in one of them so far,
although their number far exceeds the number of Puchacz.



Bye
Andreas