How Low to Spin??

I fly with the same group as you Ted and I wonder where you get the idea
that it is "routine" to fly with no landing options, even in hardcore
competition. I don't believe this to be the case and I agree with Eric. I
have found that when a pilot is relating a story of some scary situation
they got themselves into and I ask them where they would have landed, 99% of
the time they have an answer.

Barb

Barb ,

Perhaps "routine" isn't the right word, as like you, it's not something I
see our fellow (local) pilots doing. I have however heard several of them
talk about contests where the only way to a particular turnpoint was to fly
a stretch with no known landing options from the top of the lift, and I
*have* heard at least a couple of them talk about "no option" situations
they knowingly entered. (There are parts of GW's flight from Turf to
Moriarty in April where I have no idea where he could have landed without
another thermal, and I recall him mentioning something to that effect in his
discussion of that remarkable flight.)

Of course, I've participated in only one sanctioned contest, so the
frequency that competitive pilots (not to be confused with me!) actually do
this, and how they handle it, is something I have to accept at face value
from other competitors.

-ted


"BMacLean" wrote in message
news:zJMWc.60231$wo.50491@okepread06...
I fly with the same group as you Ted and I wonder where you get the idea
that it is "routine" to fly with no landing options, even in hardcore
competition. I don't believe this to be the case and I agree with Eric.
I
have found that when a pilot is relating a story of some scary situation
they got themselves into and I ask them where they would have landed, 99%
of
the time they have an answer.

Barb

Ted,
in my humble opinion you are doing one of the healthiest things you can
do for yourself for your long term survival as a sailplane pilot. Expose
your mistakes and share them. As a cross over hang glider pilot, I have made
all sorts of small mistakes, I like to think I learned from most of them.
What I am completely convinced of is the need to not evaluate your successes
or failures at this early point in your soaring by the "how high, how far,
how fast" methodology, but instead, to evaluate your process...download your
flights and determine how many of your decisions were ones that could have
had bad conclusions, and then use those as a means to improve your decision
making with each subsequent flight...I generally don't say much here, it's
more fun to simply watch the banter, but on this front I do feel compelled
to suggest that ALL cross country soaring pilots should be trying to share
more of the information we use in our own process. To me, 300 feet is WAY
too low to be trying to climb back up...once in awhile you'll get away with
it...but not every time. And the one time it kills you, the pundits here
will have more fodder for the tireless " Well anyone could see it was gonna
happen sooner or later"'s...My two cents worth ain't worth what it used to
be, but keep sharing those flights...if you aren't sure if it was dumb...ask
somebody.."Hey would YOU have done this..?" and then be prepared for the
outcome.

In this case you got away with something. We've probably ALL gotten away
with something ourselves...but if we share a bit more of what was going
through our head, we can hopefully relegate some of the future visits to
funerals...


Steve
DG-400
4-93

Thanks Steve, good feedback and I like the process evaluation you describe.
Tools like SeeYou are terrific for that.

For the record, 300 feet is way too low for me too!

-ted

"Steve Hill" wrote in message
...
Ted,
in my humble opinion you are doing one of the healthiest things you
can
do for yourself for your long term survival as a sailplane pilot. Expose
your mistakes and share them. As a cross over hang glider pilot, I have
made
all sorts of small mistakes, I like to think I learned from most of them.
What I am completely convinced of is the need to not evaluate your
successes
or failures at this early point in your soaring by the "how high, how far,
how fast" methodology, but instead, to evaluate your process...download
your
flights and determine how many of your decisions were ones that could have
had bad conclusions, and then use those as a means to improve your
decision
making with each subsequent flight...I generally don't say much here, it's
more fun to simply watch the banter, but on this front I do feel compelled
to suggest that ALL cross country soaring pilots should be trying to share
more of the information we use in our own process. To me, 300 feet is WAY
too low to be trying to climb back up...once in awhile you'll get away
with
it...but not every time. And the one time it kills you, the pundits here
will have more fodder for the tireless " Well anyone could see it was
gonna
happen sooner or later"'s...My two cents worth ain't worth what it used to
be, but keep sharing those flights...if you aren't sure if it was
dumb...ask
somebody.."Hey would YOU have done this..?" and then be prepared for the
outcome.

In this case you got away with something. We've probably ALL gotten away
with something ourselves...but if we share a bit more of what was going
through our head, we can hopefully relegate some of the future visits to
funerals...


Steve
DG-400
4-93

In the late '70s, Airlines began to examine why certain accidents occurred.
They came to the conclusion that Cockpit culture needed to change.
Thus were born courses like "Cockpit Leadership and Resource Management"
Or CLR. It is now often called CRM for "Cockpit Resource Management"

It changed the premise of Airline Cockpit management from "The Captain is
always
right" to " The Captain is responsible for the final decision but will
gratefully accept
any and all input from any source to help him/her arrive at the safest
decision".

It was a remarkable event and, in my view, is responsible for the avoidance
of many accidents.

To do this Airline Pilots had to learn and embrace the difference between
critique
and criticism. Criticism is personality based and can be perceived as a
personal
attack on an individual. Critique, on the other hand, is situation based
and can and
should be based on events as they happened and how to learn from them.

As Steve suggests, it is better to critique than to criticize.

In the instant case, the question is, could Ted have landed at his intended
Airport
on his intended runway without thermal intervention? If the answer is yes,
then
ergo, he was not too low. If the answer is no, then ergo, he should
reevaluate
his decision making process. In any case, sharing the event with us
benefits all
and no one here should forget the difference between critique and criticism.

It has been my experience here that most do know the difference and I, for
one,
am thankful for that.

Allan


"Steve Hill" wrote in message
...
Ted,
in my humble opinion you are doing one of the healthiest things you can
do for yourself for your long term survival as a sailplane pilot. Expose
your mistakes and share them. As a cross over hang glider pilot, I have
made
all sorts of small mistakes, I like to think I learned from most of them.
...Snip...

want to hear about the very experienced pilot.. who in his first season with
his NEW ASW27B, found a thermal on downwind, thought he had it hooked.. only
to get left low and dry and forced into a downwind landing.. and totaled it
when it ground looped..

that extra tow back to that "found thermal" is cheap insurance

Anyone found "thremaling out" from 300ft in the traffic pattern would not be
asked to return. How many pilots did he block in the pattern while he
climbed above pattern altitude.

BT

"Paul M. Cordell" wrote in message
...
How Low to Spin??

I was proudly shown a IGC file this weekend. This file show the aero tow
thru a thermal and a release into sink. Our proud pilot was unable to
find the thermal and started a downwind leg for a landing. As he turned
base leg, he flew into a 2-5 kt thermal. Instead of completing the
pattern and landing, he turned and climbed in this thermal. The IGC file
showed that his altitude at the time of encountering lift was 300 ft. I
asked him 1 question as he displayed this flight on See You. How Low do
you want to spin?

His response scared me silly&&..My glider does not spin and there was no
wind.

He then continued to display the same flight where he bragged of
spending a considerable amount of time in the mountains within 500 feet
of the terrain. I am doubtful as to his ability to reach a landable area
during this portion of the flight.

This pilot is in his first year of private ownership, cross county
soaring and may have almost 200 hours of total time. He has embraced
soaring completely. I left the gliderport feeling that my suggestions as
to his safety practices were just hollow words. I know that he reads RAS
and would hope that the response to this post may give him some food for
thought.

that extra tow back to that "found thermal" is cheap insurance

A good point, and not forgotten at the time. I haven't shied away from
relights in the past, but I wasn't out to volunteer for one either.

How many pilots did he block in the pattern while he
climbed above pattern altitude.

None. As I told GY and Paul (before his post), I was careful to note as I
entered the pattern that I was the only one near it.

I'd noted when I launched that the entire commercial fleet was on the
ground. In the air (when I entered the pattern) were one tow plane with
which I had visual and radio contact, a motorglider several thousand feet
higher, and another glider just off tow two miles to the west.

Also, I didn't thermal at 300 feet -- that was the low point of the
downwind leg (it was actually a little more than 300', but why split hairs).
I was more than 100 feet higher when I started my first turn, to base. When
the lift continued, I simply decided to continue the turn (over 400 feet
now), plenty of altitude, airspeed and yaw string straight. At no point was
it any more dangerous than a normal landing pattern, and if I'm wrong on
that evaluation, I'm the first person who wants to know where why and how,
because if it was a mistake for those particular circumstances, I care not
to repeat it.

I was far more scared when my CFIG pulled the tow release at 200' without
warning in a heavily loaded trainer and I had to turn, line up on the same
runway we launched from, all while managing the airspeed, and land downwind.
(That's more than 180 degrees of turning, those of you who haven't enjoyed
this exercise before.) I had to perform that maneuver twice, once before 1st
solo and again just before my license exams. Was it safe? If so, then how is
what I did less safe, with twice the altitude and no surprises? I'm not
trying to be argumentive here -- I'm trying to understand what I should
consider next time that I did not consider this time, if there is anything.

Still I can't imagine "thermaling" at 300 feet unless there was terrain
underneath me I could imagine landing on even less. I hope that goes without
saying!

-ted

Ted Wagner wrote:
yaw string straight.

We've had this discussion on RAS before. I'm still
gonna say that yaw string straight doesn't prevent a spin
entry. Spins are when you're stalled and one wing is more
stalled than the other.

One wing is more stalled than the other if one wing
has less AOA/more airspeed than the other. With the yawstring
straight, this is still true in a steep bank, especially
with long wings. It's also true if you're in a slip and
then with a punchy foot coarsely correct it to
center.

The steeper the bank, the higher the stall speed AND
the greater the difference in wing speeds, even with a straight
yaw string.

When I teach rope breaks, I do them at 300 ft and 30-45
degrees of bank, and best L/D for that bank angle.
http://www.stolaf.edu/people/hansonr/soaring/spd2fly/
is a start. I also caution against super rapid roll rates
and coarse use of rudder.

I'm open to thoughts on this. I didn't do the math to
see how MUCH the factor affects spins (somebody else did and
came up with 3 degrees diff or so for 50 deg and 18m wings),
but it sure surprised me.

Now when I do spins in the L-13, I do them from string centered
flight, and sure enough it always spins in the direction of the
steep bank, and in a hurry too...

P.S. Of course this assumes the rigging is right. If
flaps are lower on one side than the other, hey man, there's
yet another factor...
--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

(Mark James Boyd) wrote in message news:412a9f4a$1@darkstar...
Ted Wagner wrote:
yaw string straight.

We've had this discussion on RAS before. I'm still
gonna say that yaw string straight doesn't prevent a spin
entry. Spins are when you're stalled and one wing is more
stalled than the other.

One wing is more stalled than the other if one wing
has less AOA/more airspeed than the other. With the yawstring
straight, this is still true in a steep bank, especially
with long wings. It's also true if you're in a slip and
then with a punchy foot coarsely correct it to
center.

The steeper the bank, the higher the stall speed AND
the greater the difference in wing speeds, even with a straight
yaw string.

When I teach rope breaks, I do them at 300 ft and 30-45
degrees of bank, and best L/D for that bank angle.
http://www.stolaf.edu/people/hansonr/soaring/spd2fly/
is a start. I also caution against super rapid roll rates
and coarse use of rudder.

I'm open to thoughts on this. I didn't do the math to
see how MUCH the factor affects spins (somebody else did and
came up with 3 degrees diff or so for 50 deg and 18m wings),
but it sure surprised me.

Now when I do spins in the L-13, I do them from string centered
flight, and sure enough it always spins in the direction of the
steep bank, and in a hurry too...

P.S. Of course this assumes the rigging is right. If
flaps are lower on one side than the other, hey man, there's
yet another factor...


I disagree with your conclusion about steep bank angles. It is
usually a lot harder to spin from a steep turn, and a lot easier to
recover from an incipient spin, for a simple reason (see Piggott for
more details): a properly flown steep turn is flown at a
significantly higher speed, and the elevator is limited, making it
harder to reach stalling angle of attack, and much easier to reduce
the angle of attack if needed due to the higher speed.

You mention in an earlier post about making shallow, fast turns during
a low save. Why shallow? If the thermal is narrow, you usually need
to be steep (and fast) to stay in the (probably a bit turbulent) core.
A shallow turn is asking for the classic base-to-final spin entry,
unless you fly so fast that any climb is more luck than skill!

Methinks your power background is showing (all those shallow turns!).
Even though I also have a power past going way back, I now find my
glider bias showing when I fly a stinkpot; I find myself whipping into
nice 45 to 60 degree banks, scaring the daylights out of my power-only
friends...

Kirk

Kirk Stant wrote:

I disagree with your conclusion about steep bank angles. It is
usually a lot harder to spin from a steep turn, and a lot easier to
recover from an incipient spin, for a simple reason (see Piggott for
more details): a properly flown steep turn is flown at a
significantly higher speed, and the elevator is limited, making it
harder to reach stalling angle of attack, and much easier to reduce
the angle of attack if needed due to the higher speed.

Not always true. An aircraft that has done a complete 180 during the
spin still has momentum, and is now to some degree flying backwards.
The excess forward momentum translates into excess reduction of airspeed.

Think about it for a minute. If you're going 50 knots in one direction,
and then one-half second later the nose of the glider is 180 degrees
pointed the other way, does this mean you are doing 50 knots in the other
direction? That's some G's, and I don't feel them in a spin.

This is why aircraft oscillate pitch up and down for a few turns before
stabilizing in a spin. For the first few turns, the aircraft momentum
is still slogging through the air.

But some of what you point out is true. Aircraft without enough
elevator authority to stall, and with forward CG, won't have the
ability to stall in a steep bank. But if the CG is back a bit, the
elevator has a lot of authority because the glider is designed for a
wide range of speeds, and the pilot has in aileron to resist overbanking,
then whoa nellie!

A properly flown steep turn at higher speed isn't what I'm talking about.
I'm considering a 30-45 degree bank turn at low speed.

You mention in an earlier post about making shallow, fast turns during
a low save. Why shallow? If the thermal is narrow, you usually need
to be steep (and fast) to stay in the (probably a bit turbulent) core.

This thermal was very smooth and regular and wide. I was feeling it
out on the first turn, and was not eager to make any coarse inputs or
lose sight of my landing site or get vertigo during the circle.

A shallow turn is asking for the classic base-to-final spin entry,
The classic spin entry from a shallow bank is uninteresting.
I won't be jamming in the rudder for a skid at some obviously
low speed close to the ground. I think the focus on the classic case
is niave and dangerous. Yes, it's easy to teach and demonstrate,
but it ignores too much. The more complex, less discussed
spin entry is the one in the accident reports: tight pattern,
higher speed, steep bank, lots of inside rudder, pilot focussed on
keeping the yaw string straight, quite a bit of opposite aileron
in the steep bank, in vertigo, pulling stick back to tighten up the
turn, and then wham! I'll look back through the accident reports, but
the ones I recall, and the B-52 and the DG spin I saw on video, involved
stabilized, 30-45 deg bank turns before each of the spins. In each,
it looked like the craft was overbanking, and the pilot put in more
opposite aileron and more elevator and WHAM! Instant spin...

Too much rudder, maybe, but it wasn't because he moved it. It was
because the pilot put in more dragging aileron without RELEASING
inside rudder.

unless you fly so fast that any climb is more luck than skill!

This is usually the case for me on cloudless days (like that one).
High over the terrain, I usually just bump into a thermal. Of course,
at altitude, while thermalling, slow is good, and trim is your friend...

Methinks your power background is showing (all those shallow turns!).

Shallow turns in power? Why? Just jam the throttle all the way in,
full flaps, and yo-yo base to final at 60 degrees. Gas is a good
substitute for brains ;PPPP

Power planes (except maybe the DA-20) often have lower
aspect ratios. Some even have frieze ailerons. And if the left turns
are flown with power off, there's even a little slip provided by the
P-factor of the prop. There's enough differences between the two
that the USA CFI practical tests require training and evaluation in each
category seperately (CFI transition from one to the other requires
spin training in the new class, except for Sport Pilots, but that's
another thread).

Even though I also have a power past going way back, I now find my
glider bias showing when I fly a stinkpot; I find myself whipping into
nice 45 to 60 degree banks, scaring the daylights out of my power-only
friends...

Power flying can be boring. If an autopilot can do it, why do they
need me?

Anyway Kirk, I welcome some more discussion. As you can see, there
are quite a few points where we agree, and a few nuanced ones where
we don't. I hope you have time to continue another response...
--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA