Puchacz fatal accident 18 Jan. 2004 at Husbands Bosworth.

The Air Accidents Investigation Branch of the Department for Trade have now
published their report on the accident at Husbands Bosworth on 18th January
2004, both pilots were killed. The report may be found at
http://www.aaib.gov.uk/sites/aaib/cms_resources/HCD.pdf , it runs to 21
pages.

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

I would urge all instructors to read the report carefully,
paying particular attention to the recomendations made
by the AAIB with regard to spin entry and abandonment
heights.

At 19:30 13 January 2005, W.J. \bill\ Dean \u.K.\.
wrote:
The Air Accidents Investigation Branch of the Department
for Trade have now
published their report on the accident at Husbands
Bosworth on 18th January
2004, both pilots were killed. The report may be
found at
http://www.aaib.gov.uk/sites/aaib/cms_resources/HCD.pdf
, it runs to 21
pages.

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

A very thorough report...don't see how the Puchasz
can be the culprit here....things that would concern
me a

1.) Spin entries are permitted at 1500', with an easy
spinning ship this does not give one a lot of leeway.

2.) Having an instructor with a bad ticker teaching
these manuevers.

3.) Combining (1) and (2) with a relatively green
trainee...who might not recognize when things head
south.

So although no blatant disregarding of rules happened,
it might be time to rethink a few issues.



At 19:30 13 January 2005, W.J. \bill\ Dean \u.K.\.
wrote:
The Air Accidents Investigation Branch of the Department
for Trade have now
published their report on the accident at Husbands
Bosworth on 18th January
2004, both pilots were killed. The report may be
found at
http://www.aaib.gov.uk/sites/aaib/cms_resources/HCD.pdf
, it runs to 21
pages.

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

Is this likely to result in JAR madical requirements for BGA instructors?


"W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.)." wrote in message
...
The Air Accidents Investigation Branch of the Department for Trade have
now
published their report on the accident at Husbands Bosworth on 18th
January
2004, both pilots were killed. The report may be found at
http://www.aaib.gov.uk/sites/aaib/cms_resources/HCD.pdf , it runs to 21
pages.

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

At 23:00 13 January 2005, T O D D P A T T I S T wrote:
Stewart Kissel
wrote:

A very thorough report...don't see how the Puchasz
can be the culprit here....

I read it and came away thinking the Puch was still
a
possible culprit.

How? As stated in the report the Puch spins readily
but recovers very easily. Quoted from the report:

'It can reasonably be concluded that the only control
mishandling of the PUCHACZ
that can lead to delay in spin exit is the retention
of full pro spin elevator…. '

It is actually difficult for us to teach proper spin
recover in the Puch simply because it recovers so easily.
You have to watch what rudder pedals are doing, common
problems a

1. Not removing pro spin rudder but moving the stick
forward (glider usually recovers).
2. Centralising the rudder and moving the stick forward
(glider pretty much always recovers).
3. Not removing opposite rudder promptly after spin
stops (danger of flicking the other way or overloading
the rudder).

The danger is that a pilot gets the impression 'all
I have to do to recover is relax the back pressure'
that'll kill you in a glider with genuinely nasty spin
recovery characteristics like the DG500.

1.) Spin entries are permitted at 1500', with an easy
spinning ship this does not give one a lot of leeway.

1500' should be enough, but the report indicated that
the
Puch was more difficult to recover than other trainers
and
implied that this might have contributed to the accident.



Eh? Where did it say that? It's easier to recover than
other trainers!

2.) Having an instructor with a bad ticker teaching
these manuevers.

Regardless of the advisability of instructing with
this
medical condition:

1) The instructor was still alive after the accident,
not
dead/incapacitated.

2) The instructor's legs were injured, and they seemed
to be
leg injuries consistent with conscious reaction to
the
imminent approach of the ground.

3.) Combining (1) and (2) with a relatively green
trainee...who might not recognize when things head
south.

The trainee's right leg was injured in a way the report
considered to be consistent with applying full opposite
rudder to the left spin.

They had made at least two successful full spin recoveries
prior to their final spin (perhaps more, the witnesses
didn't see the full flight).

Two or three full spins and recoveries down from 3000
to 1500' sounds about right, usually you have to have
at least a few seconds of debrief after each recovery
along the lines of 'you forgot this or that, try again'.
Personally I'm happy enough demonstrating a spin entry
and recovery at 1500' but I won't let the P2 initiate
the spin below 2000' except maybe if every entry and
recovery up to then has been 'textbook'. Having said
which, quite often at my club we can climb to 3200',
push out over flat ground, practice spinning down to
1800' then climb back up to 3200' on the ridge again
for another go.

Sure it's possible that they
did two correctly, and then screwed up. It's also
possible,
the instructor had a partial attack, slumped to block
the
stick, then recovered, etc. But the bottom line is
we still
don't know why.



I'm sorry, 'slumped to block the stick', the last time
I flew HCD (a long time ago admittedly) I'm pretty
sure it had a five point harness, how the heck do you
'slump to block the stick' wearing a five point harness?

I do, however, have to agree, we will never know exactly
what happened in this awful tragedy and any further
speculation over it is probably counter productive.

Andrew Warbrick wrote:
At 23:00 13 January 2005, T O D D P A T T I S T wrote:
Stewart Kissel
wrote:

A very thorough report...don't see how the Puchasz
can be the culprit here....

I read it and came away thinking the Puch was still
a
possible culprit.

How? As stated in the report the Puch spins readily
but recovers very easily. Quoted from the report:

'It can reasonably be concluded that the only control
mishandling of the PUCHACZ
that can lead to delay in spin exit is the retention
of full pro spin elevator.... '

It is actually difficult for us to teach proper spin
recover in the Puch simply because it recovers so easily.
You have to watch what rudder pedals are doing, common
problems a

1. Not removing pro spin rudder but moving the stick
forward (glider usually recovers).
2. Centralising the rudder and moving the stick forward
(glider pretty much always recovers).
3. Not removing opposite rudder promptly after spin
stops (danger of flicking the other way or overloading
the rudder).

The danger is that a pilot gets the impression 'all
I have to do to recover is relax the back pressure'
that'll kill you in a glider with genuinely nasty spin
recovery characteristics like the DG500.

1.) Spin entries are permitted at 1500', with an easy
spinning ship this does not give one a lot of leeway.

1500' should be enough, but the report indicated that
the
Puch was more difficult to recover than other trainers
and
implied that this might have contributed to the accident.



Eh? Where did it say that? It's easier to recover than
other trainers!

2.) Having an instructor with a bad ticker teaching
these manuevers.

Regardless of the advisability of instructing with
this
medical condition:

1) The instructor was still alive after the accident,
not
dead/incapacitated.

2) The instructor's legs were injured, and they seemed
to be
leg injuries consistent with conscious reaction to
the
imminent approach of the ground.

3.) Combining (1) and (2) with a relatively green
trainee...who might not recognize when things head
south.

The trainee's right leg was injured in a way the report
considered to be consistent with applying full opposite
rudder to the left spin.

They had made at least two successful full spin recoveries
prior to their final spin (perhaps more, the witnesses
didn't see the full flight).

Two or three full spins and recoveries down from 3000
to 1500' sounds about right, usually you have to have
at least a few seconds of debrief after each recovery
along the lines of 'you forgot this or that, try again'.
Personally I'm happy enough demonstrating a spin entry
and recovery at 1500' but I won't let the P2 initiate
the spin below 2000' except maybe if every entry and
recovery up to then has been 'textbook'. Having said
which, quite often at my club we can climb to 3200',
push out over flat ground, practice spinning down to
1800' then climb back up to 3200' on the ridge again
for another go.

Sure it's possible that they
did two correctly, and then screwed up. It's also
possible,
the instructor had a partial attack, slumped to block
the
stick, then recovered, etc. But the bottom line is
we still
don't know why.



I'm sorry, 'slumped to block the stick', the last time
I flew HCD (a long time ago admittedly) I'm pretty
sure it had a five point harness, how the heck do you
'slump to block the stick' wearing a five point harness?

I do, however, have to agree, we will never know exactly
what happened in this awful tragedy and any further
speculation over it is probably counter productive.

Three statistics would be interesting to compare, although I doubt if
there is data for all of them.

1. Number of accidents and/or fatalities resulting from spin training.

2. Number of accidents and/or fatalities from accidents in which pilots
had previously undergone the above-mentioned spin training.

3. Number of spin recoveries resulting in accident avoidance from
pilots who had previously undergone the above-mentioned spin training.

I'm hoping that the lives saved through the spin recovery training far
exceeds the lives lost.

On 14 Jan 2005 09:44:06 GMT, Andrew Warbrick
wrote:

How? As stated in the report the Puch spins readily
but recovers very easily.

It is actually difficult for us to teach proper spin
recover in the Puch simply because it recovers so easily.

Considering the sheer number of spin accidents with instructors on
board of Puchacz I dare to doubt that statement.

The danger is that a pilot gets the impression 'all
I have to do to recover is relax the back pressure'
that'll kill you in a glider with genuinely nasty spin
recovery characteristics like the DG500.

DG500 nasty spin recovery characteristics?
Which ones? I'm doing a lot of spin training in the DG-505 with 17.2m
wingtips and the spin behaviour is really nice.


Bye
Andreas

At 15:00 14 January 2005, Andreas Maurer wrote:
On 14 Jan 2005 09:44:06 GMT, Andrew Warbrick
wrote:

How? As stated in the report the Puch spins readily
but recovers very easily.

It is actually difficult for us to teach proper spin
recovery in the Puch simply because it recovers so
easily.

Considering the sheer number of spin accidents with
instructors on
board of Puchacz I dare to doubt that statement.

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.


The danger is that a pilot gets the impression 'all
I have to do to recover is relax the back pressure'
that'll kill you in a glider with genuinely nasty spin
recovery characteristics like the DG500.

DG500 nasty spin recovery characteristics?
Which ones? I'm doing a lot of spin training in the
DG-505 with 17.2m
wingtips and the spin behaviour is really nice.


Bye
Andreas


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.

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.

At 16:00 14 January 2005, T O D D P A T T I S T wrote:
Andrew Warbrick
wrote:

I read it and came away thinking the Puch was still
a possible culprit.

How? As stated in the report the Puch spins readily
but recovers very easily. Quoted from the report:

'It can reasonably be concluded that the only control
mishandling of the PUCHACZ
that can lead to delay in spin exit is the retention
of full pro spin elevator…. '

I was referring to these parts of the report:

'The trial confirmed that the glider was compliant
with JAR
22; however, it considered that two areas
were worthy of additional comment. The trial considered
the
aircraft to be only marginally compliant in respect
of
stalls during turns and noted that avoidance of uncontrolled
rolling and spinning off a turn was reliant on pilot
awareness and skill. The trial also noted that height
loss
in a spin was significantly greater than on other types
and
that this was largely due to the steep attitude
(70 ° nose down) of the developed spin.'


The turning stall characteristics of the Puch would
seem to be irrelevant in this case since the accident
was apparently as a result of an intentional spin initiated
at an altitude where recovery should have been 100%
guaranteed by 800ft at the lowest.

And this part:
'The JAR recovery procedure first introduces full opposite
rudder to counter the yaw rate. This use of rudder
on the
Puchacz leads (to) a pitch down in the spin which reduces
incidence sufficient to facilitate auto recovery at
forward
CG where recovery then occurs. As the established spin
is
already estimated at 60-70 degrees, this pitch down
gives a
very steep exit, perceived to be over vertical but
probably
not so. It also contributes to the extensive height
loss
during exit. In a tense or panic situation, particularly
at
low level, the involuntary reaction could be expected
to be
retention of full aft stick. This will sustain a spin
against full opposite rudder at CG aft of 6.0 inches
aft
of datum.'

The CG of the accident aircraft was behind '6.0 inches
aft
of datum'


I really don't see where you're going, if you're saying
all gliders should recover from spins with the stick
held fully aft just using full opposite rudder, then
don't fly practically any single seater or any two
seater less docile than a K21.

I also noted the fact that including this accident
there
were six Puch spin accidents in the U.K. and five included
fatals. There are many more in the U.S.


The Puch seems to me to be the most common glider in
the UK for teaching all aspects of spin recognition
and recovery. So it's natural that, since many clubs
operate the Puchacz, some solely for spin training,
if a spin training related accident happens there's
a good chance it will be in a Puch. It's a question
of exposure, there are less spin training accidents
in other gliders because they fly less spin training
sorties.

I do, however, have to agree, we will never know exactly
what happened in this awful tragedy and any further
speculation over it is probably counter productive.

We agree it was an awful tragedy, but as I'm sure you
know,
there is concern over the number of fatal spin accidents
in
the Puch by relatively experienced pilots. A discussion
of
reports like this is how future tragedies are avoided.
I
was concerned by your comment that implied the report
exonerated the Puch, when I didn't read it that way.
At the
very least, I would think Puch operators would want
to make
sure they keep the CG of the Puch forward of the '6'
aft of
datum' point per the recommendation discussed in the
report, and adhere to the spin altitude limits.





I didn't make the original comment.

I am not sure if the Puch can be fully exonerated,
I have seen the video of a spinning Puch going flat
and eventually recovering, it gives me the heebie jeebies.
It wasn't mentioned in the report, but I understand
it happened at a very high density altitude, this accident
was at an airfield elevation of 500' on a cold winters
day.

However, I see nothing in the report to suggest that
the characteristics of the Puch were a contributory
factor. A phrase in the text you quoted was 'In a tense
or panic situation, particularly at low level, the
involuntary reaction could be expected to be retention
of full aft stick.' This is precisely why we do spin
recovery training, we're trying to create muscle memory
that if the world is going round but the G and airspeed
are not increasing you apply the full spin recovery,
you don't sit there with the stick on the back stop
trying to level the wings with the ailerons.

Actually, we try to put more emphasis on stall recognition,
if your involuntary response to a stall symptom is
to relax back pressure then you likely will not stall
or spin (this has saved me before in a high pressure
situation).

And yes, when flying the Puch I do try to keep the
CofG well forward of the aft limit and, as I said before,
I won't let a spin demo go beyond the incipient stage
below 1500', but then, I'm a wimp.

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