Another stall spin

On Thursday, August 30, 2012 2:13:31 PM UTC-6, (unknown) wrote:
e
This is an example of where RAS can be really scary.

We see a video of a non standard recovery to am incipient spin and my impression is that this writer may well embrace this as a viable alternative to the long proven and taught spin recovery technique of applying opposite rudder, neutralizing aileron, and reducing the angle of attack by moving the stick forward.

I like Bruno and his videos, but some of what he does and shows do not reflect examples of how we should all fly. This is such an example.

So- what does Crabby UH say he did wrong?

1- Obviously exceeded the critical angle of attack of the inboard wing- gust likely a factor- could happen to any of us, and does.

2- As the wing starts to drop, adds top aileron, obviously as an automatic and likely habitual reaction. This has the effect of increasing the angle of attack on the most critical portion of the wing at exactly the wrong time.

3- No obvious use of opposite rudder.

4- No forward stick to reduce angle of attack, in fact it appears the stick is positively held back.

The dumping of flaps seems to be well practiced in recovering from this maneuver- I wonder who taught him this.

Bruno seems more worried about staying in the thermal than getting control of the glider. Maybe these techniques were why he spun it so much. Luckily not at low altitude.

The danger is when these habits are applied in a more critical situation, a tragedy can result.

PLEASE- Nobody follow this example.

Follow the training you were(I hope) given and proven techniques.

1 Opposite rudder immediately

2 Neutralize the stick to reduce angle of attack and eliminate any extra angle of attack on the inside wing which is already the slowest and at the highest angle of attack.

3 Recover smoothly from the ensuing post recovery attitude.

This should be automatic and instinctive.

Bruno- not personal
UH

UH,
I kinda have to laugh because Bruno was drug into this thread only because someone posted a link to one of his videos. I think you have obviously missed the fact B4 posts alot of these "Examples" to foster input and discussion and possibly keep others from harm someday. He is one of the few pilots that I know who does this and it is out of passion for the sport and a desire to make it safer. Ive flown the ship in the video and I can attest to its squirrelyness at thermal speed. If you can set your conjecture aside for a minute and rewatch the video B4 makes an off the cuff comment "Enter a spin" but all that happened is a wing dropped after he stalled in a gust. In the vid he even recited the recovery procedure per the POH verbatim (The reduction of flaps is in the POH as well). And, I am 100% certain that if this stall was low to the ground Bruno would not have been inclined to remain in this thermal. Lastly, Why would you make a harsh character assessment about the guy and his videos and then state "Nothing Personal"? That's whacked..
Kirk

On Wednesday, September 12, 2012 2:23:49 PM UTC-4, K wrote:
On Thursday, August 30, 2012 2:13:31 PM UTC-6, (unknown) wrote: e This is an example of where RAS can be really scary. We see a video of a non standard recovery to am incipient spin and my impression is that this writer may well embrace this as a viable alternative to the long proven and taught spin recovery technique of applying opposite rudder, neutralizing aileron, and reducing the angle of attack by moving the stick forward. I like Bruno and his videos, but some of what he does and shows do not reflect examples of how we should all fly. This is such an example. So- what does Crabby UH say he did wrong? 1- Obviously exceeded the critical angle of attack of the inboard wing- gust likely a factor- could happen to any of us, and does. 2- As the wing starts to drop, adds top aileron, obviously as an automatic and likely habitual reaction. This has the effect of increasing the angle of attack on the most critical portion of the wing at exactly the wrong time. 3- No obvious use of opposite rudder. 4- No forward stick to reduce angle of attack, in fact it appears the stick is positively held back. The dumping of flaps seems to be well practiced in recovering from this maneuver- I wonder who taught him this. Bruno seems more worried about staying in the thermal than getting control of the glider. Maybe these techniques were why he spun it so much. Luckily not at low altitude. The danger is when these habits are applied in a more critical situation, a tragedy can result. PLEASE- Nobody follow this example. Follow the training you were(I hope) given and proven techniques. 1 Opposite rudder immediately 2 Neutralize the stick to reduce angle of attack and eliminate any extra angle of attack on the inside wing which is already the slowest and at the highest angle of attack. 3 Recover smoothly from the ensuing post recovery attitude. This should be automatic and instinctive. Bruno- not personal UH UH, I kinda have to laugh because Bruno was drug into this thread only because someone posted a link to one of his videos. I think you have obviously missed the fact B4 posts alot of these "Examples" to foster input and discussion and possibly keep others from harm someday. He is one of the few pilots that I know who does this and it is out of passion for the sport and a desire to make it safer. Ive flown the ship in the video and I can attest to its squirrelyness at thermal speed. If you can set your conjecture aside for a minute and rewatch the video B4 makes an off the cuff comment "Enter a spin" but all that happened is a wing dropped after he stalled in a gust. In the vid he even recited the recovery procedure per the POH verbatim (The reduction of flaps is in the POH as well). And, I am 100% certain that if this stall was low to the ground Bruno would not have been inclined to remain in this thermal. Lastly, Why would you make a harsh character assessment about the guy and his videos and then state "Nothing Personal"? That's whacked. Kirk

I've communicated with Bruno and he understands my comment. I don't think I attacked his character, nor does he seem to think I did.
What I've taken him to task, is that his response is an example of how one could make the situation much worse. ie adding top aileron.
The point I have tried to get across is that, just because it worked here doesn't make it a good practice, mostly because if adding aileron in the early departure becomes a habit, it could lead to really bad results in other ships, for example a flapped ship that does not have interconnects to raise the flaps of maybe an unflapped ship.
What is personal are the dead guys that result from nad technique and bad judgement.
Cheers
UH