Houston crash today

Kevin, your original comment referred to "a disturbing pattern
is beginning to form with the JS1c" which is the 21/18 version.
The accident that you now refer which was caused by a
severed rudder cable to was to the 18m-only JS1B.

I think that the original JS1 rudder pedal S tube design was
very poor indeed but you now report that you "can find no
recommended action on the manufacturers website". If you
had followed the link at the bottom of the report you referenced
to the fuller accident report you would find information at the
end about the TN modifications that were made to all JS1
rudder pedals.

http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief2.aspx?
ev_id=20120501X72635&ntsbno=CEN12LA265&akey=1

The relevant service bulletins and TNs regarding the rudder
pedal modifications are also in the technical support section of
the JS website but you presumably are not registered for access
to that.

All JS1s now flying will have been delivered (including all JS1-
Cs) or modified to the new rudder cable/S-tube design which I
can assure you I check routinely before flight on my glider and
can find no evidence of any cable damage at all. I can also say
for certain that the Blomfontein accident was not caused by a
severed rudder cable because Uys Jonker spoke to the
remaining pilots there (including myself) about his findings
immediately after he had inspected the wreckage the following
day.

As to whether the 2 fatal accidents this year involving the JS1-C
variant are connected in any other sort of pattern, you simply
cannot infer that yet. I would be more interested than most to
find out.

John Galloway



At 10:26 15 July 2014, Kevin Christner wrote:
Given the current unknowns about the two JS1c fatalities its
a bit of a
stretch to say that.

Beyond that rudder pedals slicing through cables

http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?
ev_id=20120501X72635&key=1

I can find no recommended action on the manufacturers
website.

Kevin, tell us how many gliders did you spin? Have you done any aerobatics in a glider? You seem to talk a lot about Puchacz tell us about your experiane. This reminds me about your arguments with Sean and how you drew conclusions prematurely. Puchacz is an aerobatic glider so don't compare it to L-13. Others already told you Puchacz spins and recovers well. Experianced pilots kill themselves many different ways. It has always been like that in the world of soaring. How did this thread become about Puchacz?
AK

Kevin, I think it's safe to spin a Puchacz under some
circumstances but not others. The reason (which is what you
asked) is that it is good training for stall and spin awareness and
recovery, and helps keep the reaction sharp to any unexpected
departure. When conducted at a safe height, it is as safe as any
unusual attitude.

The Puchacz in my limited experience, and as found by others
with far more experience, is predictable; and standard recovery
works well. It can also demonstrate how things can go wrong
with incorrect recovery technique. It is good preparation for
flying other gliders which have sudden departure modes (I fly
one such).

It is not safe to spin one close to the ground. It is particularly
unsafe to do so inadvertently and with too little training so that
reactions are not fast enough. As one pilot told his mentor after
a near-fatal crash, “I didn’t believe what you told me�. He should
have believed, and flown his final turn with more margin.

It is a truism that gliders that do not spin will not feature in
spinning accidents. Those that do sometimes will. If all spin
training and inadvertent spins are carried out in the latter type,
only those will feature in spin accident reports. There are
enough solo glider spin accidents to show that training (UK, USA
or elsewhere) is not stopping people doing it. My belief is that
only more and better training, in a glider that will spin, has any
chance of improving the statistics. Many such accidents feature
so-called experienced pilots. I wonder if log book evidence is
that they were experienced in recurrent spin etc. training and
recovery, or whether their experience is of thousands of hours
never practising spin recovery and not keeping their reactions
sharp. And it would be impossible to tell if they have developed
bad habits such as slow or over-ruddered final turns, or
thermalling low in turbulent conditions al low speeds, only just
high enough to avoid departure, leaving them vulnerable to one
day finding a bad gust just at the wrong time.

These are general comments, not related to any particular
recent accident. My sympathies are with the families and friends
of accident victims. I wish we did a better job of preventing
them happening.

Chris N

On Tuesday, July 15, 2014 3:05:44 PM UTC-4, Andy K wrote:
Kevin, tell us how many gliders did you spin? Have you done any aerobatics in a glider? You seem to talk a lot about Puchacz tell us about your experiane. This reminds me about your arguments with Sean and how you drew conclusions prematurely. Puchacz is an aerobatic glider so don't compare it to L-13. Others already told you Puchacz spins and recovers well. Experianced pilots kill themselves many different ways. It has always been like that in the world of soaring. How did this thread become about Puchacz?

AK

Without going through my log book I think the number is four.

L-13 and Puchacz both spin. Why one being an acrobatic glider and the other not has anything to do with whether the Puch is safe to spin seems irrelevant. Furthermore the Puch is not certified fully aerobatic in the US.

I brought up the Puch because its an example of a glider that has a trend of accidents that some people want to deny as being a serious safety issue.

From Tom Knauff in a previous post:

"A recent double fatality involving two very experienced pilots in an SZD
50-3 Puchacz is still another in a series of reported accidents
involving this glider. Similar reports have involved double fatalities
with flight instructors in both seats.

It is suggested that owner/operators of this type of glider consider
placarding the glider against all intentional spins until
recommendations are made by the factory or government agencies.

An alternate recommendation would be to placard the glider against
intentional multi-turn spins and/or intentional spins entries below
3,000 feet above ground level."

Someone may have spun and recovered the Puch 999 times. That doesn't mean that the 1000th spin won't result in an unrecoverable situation.

As for Sean, I'll let his posts speak for themselves.

Kevin, do you know of any evidence that P. Spin fatalities
include any, at all, where it was the 1000th that failed to recover
when high enough and correct recovery was applied?

I have read several P. fatal spin reports, and none were like
that. Almost all were too low for recovery. (But there are
several for which I don’t know details, so if you do, please
elaborate.)

I know details of only one where 2 instructors went in. (Chris
Rollings has written it up in greater detail.) Briefly, they held it
into the spin too long, while one was training the other in the
patter, and realised too late to recover. Human error, nothing to
do with P’s spin or recovery characteristics except that, yes, it
will spin when commanded to.

I don’t know details of the other 2-instructor accidents – but I
doubt if they involved anyone well practised in spin recovery
while at a sufficient height to recover. Again, if you do know
some, please elaborate – or point to the accident reports
supporting your assertion.

I have great respect for Tom K. and his safety work, but I don’t
agree with him that P.s should not be spun until modified. They
do what they are designed to do – act as a trainer, which will
spin, and will recover, and can be used to demonstrate correct
and incorrect techniques safely (if flown properly and at suitable
heights) and repeatably.

What is your evidence for the contrary, with fact from accidents,
not just numbers involved?

And if you can, please answer the dilemma that I mentioned
previously – how to stop so-called experienced pilots from
inadvertent spins when thermalling or final turning low down? Do
you really thing that training everyone in unspinnable gliders will
cure it? If so, how?

Genuine questions – seeking sensible answers.

Chris N

I have carried out many thousands of spins in a number of Puchacz,
including the 5 turn, extended aft C of G spins required for UK
certification when the type was first introduced aound 1980. During the
late 80's and 90's a large part of my job was running instructor courses
and I largely used the Puchacz for the spin training required (far more in
the UK than the USA, each instructor probably did about 40 spin entries and
recoveries on the course). I never once experienced a delay on recovery,
centralise airlerons, full opposite rudder and move the stick forward and
it was out in less than a turn.

I did quite a lot of experimenting ( some of it to assist with accident
investigations). Not applying opposite rudder delayed the recovery a
little but never prevented it. Applying opposite rudder and aileron but
keeping the stick hard back ( the natural reaction of a pilot who has not
realised he is spinning) sometimes resulted in a rapid flick into a spin in
the opposite direction, sometimes just flattened the spin and slowed the
rate of rotation a little. Out-spin aileron with the stick still back and
full in-spin rudder caused slight flattening and slowing of rotation, in
spin aileron slight steepening and a slight increase in rate of rotation.

More to follow on the accidents recorded in the UK, next time it rains,
busy now.

At 12:09 16 July 2014, Kevin Christner wrote:
On Tuesday, July 15, 2014 3:05:44 PM UTC-4, Andy K wrote:
Kevin, tell us how many gliders did you spin? Have you done any
aerobatic=
s in a glider? You seem to talk a lot about Puchacz tell us about your
expe=
riane. This reminds me about your arguments with Sean and how you drew
conc=
lusions prematurely. Puchacz is an aerobatic glider so don't compare it
to=
L-13. Others already told you Puchacz spins and recovers well.
Experianced=
pilots kill themselves many different ways. It has always been like that
i=
n the world of soaring. How did this thread become about Puchacz?
=20
AK

Without going through my log book I think the number is four.

L-13 and Puchacz both spin. Why one being an acrobatic glider and the
othe=
r not has anything to do with whether the Puch is safe to spin seems
irrele=
vant. Furthermore the Puch is not certified fully aerobatic in the US.

I brought up the Puch because its an example of a glider that has a trend
o=
f accidents that some people want to deny as being a serious safety
issue.
=
=20

From Tom Knauff in a previous post:

"A recent double fatality involving two very experienced pilots in an SZD
50-3 Puchacz is still another in a series of reported accidents
involving this glider. Similar reports have involved double fatalities
with flight instructors in both seats.

It is suggested that owner/operators of this type of glider consider
placarding the glider against all intentional spins until
recommendations are made by the factory or government agencies.

An alternate recommendation would be to placard the glider against
intentional multi-turn spins and/or intentional spins entries below
3,000 feet above ground level."

Someone may have spun and recovered the Puch 999 times. That doesn't
mean
=
that the 1000th spin won't result in an unrecoverable situation.

As for Sean, I'll let his posts speak for themselves.

I have great respect for Tom K. and his safety work, but I don't

agree with him that P.s should not be spun until modified. They

do what they are designed to do - act as a trainer, which will

spin, and will recover, and can be used to demonstrate correct

and incorrect techniques safely (if flown properly and at suitable

heights) and repeatably.


Others may feel free to take their chances. Personally I'll take Tom's advice.


What is your evidence for the contrary, with fact from accidents,

not just numbers involved?


Since typically no one knows what actually happened, we have to rely on statistics, which say there is some sort of issue.


And if you can, please answer the dilemma that I mentioned

previously - how to stop so-called experienced pilots from

inadvertent spins when thermalling or final turning low down? Do

you really thing that training everyone in unspinnable gliders will

cure it? If so, how?

Plenty of pilots, including the instructors that you mentioned that put the P. in, have had the training and have still failed to do so. I highly doubt anyone could recover from a spin turning final at 400 feet.

Genuine questions - seeking sensible answers.

Fair enough. Hope I've obliged.

OK Kevin, if you're keen on statistics...

In the 30 or so years that the Puchacz has been available how many solo
pilots have died in stall spin accidents?
What 2-seater did they do most of their training in?

It's a relatively small sample so should be fairly easy to obtain the data

Regards

T'other Kevin

At 18:47 16 July 2014, Kevin Christner wrote:

I have great respect for Tom K. and his safety work, but I don't

agree with him that P.s should not be spun until modified. They

do what they are designed to do - act as a trainer, which will

spin, and will recover, and can be used to demonstrate correct

and incorrect techniques safely (if flown properly and at suitable

heights) and repeatably.


Others may feel free to take their chances. Personally I'll take Tom's
advice.


What is your evidence for the contrary, with fact from accidents,

not just numbers involved?


Since typically no one knows what actually happened, we have to rely on
statistics, which say there is some sort of issue.


And if you can, please answer the dilemma that I mentioned

previously - how to stop so-called experienced pilots from

inadvertent spins when thermalling or final turning low down? Do

you really thing that training everyone in unspinnable gliders will

cure it? If so, how?

Plenty of pilots, including the instructors that you mentioned that put
the
P. in, have had the training and have still failed to do so. I highly
doubt anyone could recover from a spin turning final at 400 feet.

Genuine questions - seeking sensible answers.

Fair enough. Hope I've obliged.

Sorry, you haven't.

Chris N

On Wednesday, July 16, 2014 3:42:12 PM UTC-4, Chris Nicholas wrote:
Sorry, you haven't.



Chris N

Some reasonable questions:

Are there over 25 known accidents (likely more than 50 fatalities) from stall / spin accidents in the Puchacz?

Have very experienced advocates of safety (Tom Knuaff, Cindy Brickner) opined that they have serious concerns about the P. and do not feel it is safe to spin?

Is there any other glider type that has lost ~10% of its production in spin / stall accidents?

If the answer to these questions is yes, it is very irrational to continue putting people at the risk of death. Sorry but think that is arguable.