Puchaz spin count 23 and counting

Mark Stevens wrote:

A couple of years ago a friend and I were sitting in
a bar on the 4th of July in Houston and got chatting
to some of the locals.. They gleefully reminded us
what they were celebrating... We commented we had come
over for that very purpose..

LOL. Even the wife thought that one was witty...
(she usually only laughs when I trip over something).

Mark,
We have had a pleasant little discussion of parachutes, gun control and
socialized medicine, however you have failed to address the core issue of the
British requirement to teach full blown spins. You feel that those who survive
the spin training will be better for it. This position fails to address the
fact that you Brits are screwing students and instructors into the ground on a
fairly regular basis. Some of us feel your cure (spin training) is worse than
the desease (spin accidents).
Your comments on the core issue?
JJ Sinclair

JJ,

I usually respect your postings, but this time you have written arrogant
nonsense, and I am afraid you have wound me up.

What do you mean by "full blown spins"? I give three alternatives below,
please tell me which you mean, or do you mean something else?

1./ Some people say of any glider if it stalls with lateral instability
and starts to rotate, that "it span".

2./ Some people describe the manoeuvre between initial stall and a full
developed spin as an "incipient spin". Some people would say "it span".

In the U.K. we prefer to call it a "stall with wing drop", this is because
the recovery from a "stall with wing drop" is sometimes different from the
recovery from a developed full spin (e.g. the K21 at aft permitted C. of G.
position, see the Schleicher Flight Manual April 1980 as amended by
Schleicher Technical Note 23 for the K21 of Jan. 1991).

3./ Some people reserve the phrase "full spin" for genuine stable
developed autorotation which will continue until a change in control
position is made.

If, as I suspect, you mean by "full blown spins" choice 3./ above; what do
you mean by "the British requirement to teach full blown spins"?

If you have read the BGA Instructors' Manual (Second edition), and remember
what you have read, you will recall that 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.

Note that in the U.K. the highest altitude for any gliding site or airfield
is the Midland Gliding Club, Long Mynd at 1,411 ft. a.s.l. It is known
that stall/spin recovery can get worse at altitude, in particular I
understand that this can be noticeable above about 7,000 ft. a.s.l.

The manual and the revisions for the second edition were written by BGA
staff and members with no input from U.K. government authorities, neither
the Civil Aviation Authority nor the Department for Transport (who
investigate accidents). This is because the CAA and DfT recognise that
they do not have the expertise and don't particularly want to gain it, they
would far rather we were self-regulating. So far the BGA and CAA between
them have managed to keep the politicians off our backs.

The first edition of the BGA Instructors' Manual was published in 1994 and
amended in Feb. 1999, the second published in Feb. 2003. It is freely
available from the BGA; go to http://www.gliding.co.uk, "BGA Shop",
"Manuals, Log books & handbooks"
https://www.gliding.co.uk/bgashop/sh...se=&op=sc&ci=5 ,
"Instructors' Handbook".

If you have not read the manual, what in hell do you think you are doing in
pronouncing on "the British requirement"?

You state "your cure (spin training) is worse than the disease (spin
accidents)". What is your evidence for this; and how do you, how can you
know what the disease (spin accidents) would be if we did less of the cure
(spin training).

I was told yesterday evening that in Germany they reduced spin training (for
gliding) about 8 years ago, but have recently re-introduced it. I heard
this from a good source, but can anyone confirm it?

This and the other threads on spinning etc. started after news of the double
fatality in a Puchacz crash on 18th January. So far I understand that it
appears that it hit the ground spinning, but we do not know why. The
latest rumour I heard is that it might have been medical factors, in which
case it might have made no difference what type was being used or what
exercise the instructor was doing when struck by illness; you must
understand that this is what I said, RUMOUR.

Do you really need telling that you should not believe everything you read
on Rec. Aviation Soaring, and that many of the postings including some from
the U.K. are based more on emotion than on knowledge, reason and experience?

Many of the posters here are not and never have been instructors. JJ, what
is your qualification and experience as a gliding instructor?

DISCLAIMER.

I personally am not, and never have been involved in any capacity with the
BGA sub-groups who deal with Accident Investigation, Safety, Instruction or
Technical matters. I was once on the BGA Executive for four years, about
15 years ago, but never part of the sub-committee structure.

The views I express here are my own entirely.

Regards - Bill.

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


"JJ Sinclair" wrote in message
...

Mark,

We have had a pleasant little discussion of parachutes, gun control and
socialized medicine, however you have failed to address the core issue of
the British requirement to teach full blown spins. You feel that those
who survive the spin training will be better for it. This position fails
to address the fact that you Brits are screwing students and instructors
into the ground on a fairly regular basis. Some of us feel your cure
(spin training) is worse than the disease (spin accidents).

Your comments on the core issue?

JJ Sinclair.

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

W.J. \(Bill\) Dean \(U.K.\). wrote:

"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.

Spins for license training used to be required in the
US also. Perhaps not a bad way to show what NOT to do.
I don't have a problem with this too much...


"As this training progresses, it is necessary to introduce brief spins where
the ground is noticeably close.

EEEEEEeeeeek!!! Not with ME on board. 33% of dual fatalities in the
US are failed emergency "procedures." A LOT of those are caused by the
ground. I'm not afraid of heights, I'm afraid of LACK of heights...

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."

Egads! Below 1500 AGL for recovery even, in the US one would
need an aerobatic waiver. And I doubt it would allow
passengers.

You guys have some real solid brass ones. Couldn't you just
start at a higher altitude and use a cloud deck below you?
Quite a thrill spinning through a cloud deck (so I'm told
There ARE clouds over the pond right? :PPP

This is a huge difference between US and UK glider training...
very interesting...

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.

This, quite possibly, is the dumbest thing I have ever read. To wit:

ADVICE TO INSTRUCTORS

"A very experienced instructor flying a docile two seater in
ideal conditions may be prepared to initiate a brief spin from 800'."

A very experienced instructor initiating any type of spin with a student
in
any type of glider at 800' AGL ought to have his or her head examined. In
addition,
one hopes that one's will is up to date.

Allan



"W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.)." wrote in message
...
JJ,

I usually respect your postings, but this time you have written arrogant
nonsense, and I am afraid you have wound me up.

JJ,

The only point your original post made about spin avoidance
training was that the UK government required us to
do whereas in the land of the free etc you could do
what you damn well wanted. I pointed out that the government
did not require us to do anything, and the BGA (the
SSA equivalent) made those decisions in a fully deregulated
manner unlike you guys with the FAA all over you..
My original tetchy response was to a post that suggested
that we did not try and look objectively at every accident
and disseminate conclusions from that..

Now you've decided to address the substantive issue,
my view is as follows..

1. We do not 'routinely' spin students in during training.
Guess what, not all Puch spin accidents occurred during
instructor led spin exercises.

2. I've suggested there are some reservations about
the
specific use of the Puch amongst our instructor community


3. My understanding is that our accident rates overall
compare favourably with elsewhere in the world - this
was confirmed by our regional examiner at a CFI and
coach meeting on Saturday.

The problem with your analysis is that you focus on
accidents of commission, but not accidents of omission..
we don't know how many lives have been saved by spin
avoidance training, we do know how many have been lost.
What we do know is that the number of spin related
deaths has decreased. So I guess my answer is that
in my view the cure is better than the disease, although
we'd rather that noone died or was injured at any point
during their flying career..

In my opinion any comparison with the withdrawal of
spin training for US PPL's is invalid, power pilots
do not routinely fly at high angles of attack, and
tend not to use the rudder in most phases of flight.
They also tend not to make the number of outlandings
glider pilots do and tend not to have the same problems
to solve in the pattern..

I hope this answers your question on where I stand..

At 21:18 08 February 2004, Jj Sinclair wrote:
Mark,
We have had a pleasant little discussion of parachutes,
gun control and
socialized medicine, however you have failed to address
the core issue of the
British requirement to teach full blown spins. You
feel that those who survive
the spin training will be better for it. This position
fails to address the
fact that you Brits are screwing students and instructors
into the ground on a
fairly regular basis. Some of us feel your cure (spin
training) is worse than
the desease (spin accidents).
Your comments on the core issue?
JJ Sinclair

Mark wroteI pointed out that the government
did not require us to do anything, and the BGA (the
SSA equivalent) made those decisions in a fully deregulated
manner unlike you guys with the FAA all over you..

Mark,
The BGA IS the government, you just don't realize it. You MUST do what the BGA
says, if you wish to fly gliders in England. We don't have to do ANYTHING the
SSA tells us to do. I believe your government (BGA) is telling you to do 2 turn
spins in both directions, on initial check-out and every spring thereafter.

Most of our instructors, exercising their freedom of choice, teach spin
recognition and spin avoidance. We feel that ANY spin accident that accured
after the glider was intentionally put into a spin, can NOT justified.
JJ Sinclair

(JJ Sinclair) wrote in message ...

The BGA IS the government, you just don't realize it. You MUST do what the BGA
says, if you wish to fly gliders in England. We don't have to do ANYTHING the
SSA tells us to do.

And you are free to ignore the FAA completely, are you?

And, by the ay, I don't have to do what the BGA tells me. By and
large, I must if I want a BGA club to launch me, but if I can arrange
my own launch, and keep out of a few bits of airspace, I can legally
do more or less what I damn well want in a glider.

Ian