Another stall spin

On Tuesday, August 28, 2012 9:22:58 PM UTC-4, jack gilbert wrote:
On Sunday, August 26, 2012 12:11:45 AM UTC-4, Jp Stewart wrote: From TA's Dansville contest write-up: "Unfortunately, we were also saddened to hear of yet another apparent stall-spin fatality; Jim Rizzo, Finger Lakes club president and FAA Designated Examiner for the area was killed when his glider crashed into a farmer’s field not far from the Dansville airport. Jim was not part of the contest and was just flying locally when the accident occurred. All we know is what the farmer said (and this is 3rd hand to me) that apparently Jim was trying to thermal away from a low altitude and spun in (sound familiar? – it should – this is the 3rd almost identical fatality this season here on the east coast)." http://soaringcafe.com/2012/08/day-6...ille-region-3/ JP You all seem to "assume" that Jim was intentionally trying to execute controlled flight at a low altitude. He may,.... have experienced an extreme crisis, ie heart attack. JG

The issue of pilot incapacitation is part of this investigation. This is an appropriate part of any investigation.
That said, the sailplane was seen circling over one corner of the field, then shifted to another corner where it started to circle and subsequently departed from controlled flight.
This based upon 2 eyewitness accounts that I heard reported.
If I were in crisis, I wouldn't be circling, I'd be trying to land right now.
My personal impression, with information available at this time, leads me to believe this is a judgement error, possibly contributed to by dehydration..
It is common after accidents for people to think "he was too good a pilot to make such a mistake- it must be medical. None of us are that good so we must fly in ways that reduce the consequences of our mistakes.
Again FWIW
UH

On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 8:51:37 AM UTC-4, (unknown) wrote:
On Tuesday, August 28, 2012 9:22:58 PM UTC-4, jack gilbert wrote: On Sunday, August 26, 2012 12:11:45 AM UTC-4, Jp Stewart wrote: From TA's Dansville contest write-up: "Unfortunately, we were also saddened to hear of yet another apparent stall-spin fatality; Jim Rizzo, Finger Lakes club president and FAA Designated Examiner for the area was killed when his glider crashed into a farmer’s field not far from the Dansville airport. Jim was not part of the contest and was just flying locally when the accident occurred. All we know is what the farmer said (and this is 3rd hand to me) that apparently Jim was trying to thermal away from a low altitude and spun in (sound familiar? – it should – this is the 3rd almost identical fatality this season here on the east coast)." http://soaringcafe.com/2012/08/day-6...ille-region-3/ JP You all seem to "assume" that Jim was intentionally trying to execute controlled flight at a low altitude. He may,.... have experienced an extreme crisis, ie heart attack. JG The issue of pilot incapacitation is part of this investigation. This is an appropriate part of any investigation. That said, the sailplane was seen circling over one corner of the field, then shifted to another corner where it started to circle and subsequently departed from controlled flight. This based upon 2 eyewitness accounts that I heard reported. If I were in crisis, I wouldn't be circling, I'd be trying to land right now. My personal impression, with information available at this time, leads me to believe this is a judgement error, possibly contributed to by dehydration. It is common after accidents for people to think "he was too good a pilot to make such a mistake- it must be medical. None of us are that good so we must fly in ways that reduce the consequences of our mistakes. Again FWIW UH

I have flown with Jim for the last 15+ years. He was a CFIG that taught spin training in the Blanik l-13's and now in their L-13AC. Jim was what I would say is a conservative pilot. It is my understanding from others that he did not take water with him on the flight. It was a hot day and not sure if his judgement may have been alterted due to dehydration. I think it would be a good thing also to wait and see if the medical findings show any heart issues. Too me the spin is not cut and dry. Is their a dehydration issue? Medical issue? What would make him thermal so low at 3.5 hours into a local flight?

Tim Hanke H1

On 8/29/2012 8:23 AM, Tim Hanke wrote:

On Tuesday, August 28, 2012 9:22:58 PM UTC-4, jack gilbert wrote:

You all seem to "assume" that Jim was intentionally trying to execute
controlled flight at a low altitude. He may,.... have experienced an
extreme crisis, ie heart attack. JG


I have flown with Jim for the last 15+ years. He was a CFIG that taught
spin training in the Blanik l-13's and now in their L-13AC. Jim was what I
would say is a conservative pilot. It is my understanding from others that
he did not take water with him on the flight. It was a hot day and not sure
if his judgement may have been alterted due to dehydration. I think it
would be a good thing also to wait and see if the medical findings show any
heart issues. Too me the spin is not cut and dry. Is their a dehydration
issue? Medical issue? What would make him thermal so low at 3.5 hours into
a local flight?

Tim Hanke H1


My heart goes out to all of Jim's family and friends; the soaring community is
a small, close-knit one. Each accidental death hurts in everyone's heart.
Talking about it can be a coping mechanism for some...it certainly is for me.

I can't speak for other previous contributors to this thread, but speaking for
myself I readily admit the circumstances of this particular accident may
always have very real uncertainty in my mind as to contributing factors.
(That's a common thing...)

That said, I've long tried to look at others' misfortunes by way of extracting
something(s) usefully life-enhancing for my own flying. That requires making
"working conclusions" based upon (sometimes) hidden assumptions, in the face
of uncertain facts.

Over the years I think I've encountered some "fairly well documented" glider
fatalities that did indeed involve medical incapacitation. It's always possible.

I've also encountered a whole lot more "apparent departures from controlled
flight too low for survivable reactions" that DON'T seem to have any obvious
medical connections (e.g. stroke, heart attack), to make me willing to hang my
hat on survivability always being " medically based." For me, ignoring the
many accidents that (also seem to) include intentional
risk-taking/margin-thinning just seems imprudent. Maybe that's just me. In any
event, *that's* where I've been coming from in this thread. We seem to have
a(nother) low-altitude departure from controlled flight in this instance. Why?
I don't know. We may never know with certainty. Certainly Jim Rizzo could have
made some fatally-flawed decisions. If he did, it doesn't make him a bad human
being or in any way change who he was, and from comments shared in this
thread, he seems to have been a decent, helpful person indeed...someone I
would have felt privileged to know. But given the historical litany of such
(low-altitude departure from controlled flight) fatal accidents, and given
this year's North American record of such accidents, to NOT discuss them as a
fact of aviation life might arguably be tantamount to sweeping potential
realities under the rug.

FWIW, having most of my gliding PIC experience in the
(low-humidity/sunny/evaporatively-cooling) intermountain west, I've no doubt
dehydration is: a) insidious (at multiple levels); b) potentially
life-threatening (again, at multiple levels, e.g. physiologically *and*
judgmentally); and c) easily possible for any glider pilot (and perhaps more
likely for an instructing pilot who typically must talk [respire more] a lot).

It should be no surprise to conclude dehydration-related accidents HAVE
happened. (Ref: Paul Schweizer's near-fatal committed-to-the-landing-pattern
crash in a Texas 1-26 Championships, easily found by researching the online
"Soaring" magazine files. Useful lessons therein...)

My guess is every contributor to this thread is coming from the perspective of
"trying to extract useful-to-them lessons" from Jim Rizzo's tragic accident,
and maybe (from the more experienced types, e.g. UH, John C.) to help "spread
the word about the "what's and why's" inherent to the risks of intentionally
attempting "low-altitude-saves." If it's necessary, I apologize for any
inadvertent pain occasioned by my contributions.

Sadly,

Bob W.

On 8/28/2012 7:23 PM, BobW wrote:
On 8/28/2012 11:08 AM, John Cochrane wrote:

One point not reiterated yet here -- the atmosphere down low is very
different from what you're used to at 2000 feet and above.
Snip...

A short list of what's different down low: The atmosphere is much more
turbulent. Thermals, such as they are are much smaller. In this layer,
many small punchy thermals will start. Many will die. The ones we use
up higher consist of many little parcels of hot air that have
coalesced. Most thermals are either short lived, or basically
unworkable to a modern glider. You're in the boundary layer where wind
is being affected by the ground, so there is wind-induced turbulence.
Punches of strong lift/gust followed by sink when you make a half turn
will be the norm.

The ground picture will be totally different to the pilot. If you turn
downwind at altitude, you don't notice that much. If you turn downwind
at 300 feet, all of a sudden the ground will rush by and, this being a
high stress moment, you may pull back. Just as the gust you turned in
fades, or the thermal turns to sink. And when the canopy fills with
trees going by at 70 mph, the urge to pull back will be really strong.
You may push forward to recover at altitude, but it's really really
hard to do with the ground coming up fast.

So, just because you've never unintentionally spun at altitude does
not mean your chances at 300 feet are the same.
Snip...

John Cochrane

Science now can create movies & pictures of the accuracy/reality of what John
asserts above. Roughly 10 years ago I attended a presentation that included
LIDAR movies and pictures of thermals from ground to ~1500' agl. I expect
atmospheric imaging technology has significantly advanced since then.

Apologizing for "replying" to my own post, below is an announcement for a
recent presentation - using the latest in real-time imaging technology - that
woulda likely been of interest to any soaring pilot interested in visualizing
and flying in wave conditions. Wish I coulda attended. Undoubtedly the dynamic
imagery woulda been compelling stuff...

Though written somewhat in "scientific-ese language," a not terribly
inaccurate synopsis (for you Twitter fans) might be: Dynamic wave-n-rotor
radar movies show why the wind blows hard in different directions in Wyoming.

Sorry, no links available...

Begin cut-n-insert...
For those science inclined members here is an interesting talk coming up:

Announcement will run from Wed, 08/15/2012 to Tue, 08/28/2012
Stefano Serafin and Lukas Strauss
Department of Meteorology and Geophysics, University of Vienna

On January 26th 2006, the University of Wyoming King Aircraft (UWKA)
documented the occurrence of a wave-induced boundary-layer separation (BLS)
event in the lee of the Medicine Bow Range (Wyoming). Remote sensing
measurements with the dual-Doppler Wyoming Cloud Radar (WCR) aboard UWKA
indicate strong wave activity, downslope winds in excess of 30 m/s within 200
m above the ground and near-surface flow reversal in the lee of the mountain
range. Owing to its fine resolution, the radar is also able to capture
small-scale coherent vortical structures (subrotors) embedded within the main
rotor zone.

A distinctive feature of the observed phenomenon is its unsteadiness, as
demonstrated by the BLS line moving upstream for about 8 km in approximately
half an hour. Mesoscale simulations with the WRF model at a maximum horizontal
grid spacing of 400 m reveal the dynamic forcing leading to this rapid
evolution. The upstream motion of the BLS line and of the related rotor appear
to depend on the decreasing nonlinearity of the impinging flow, which causes
the transition from a flow regime characterized by low-level wave breaking, to
another one where trapped lee waves form as a consequence of wave reflection
at an elevated neutral level. The observed upstream drift of the rotor is
shown to be dynamically consistent with the cessation of wave breaking. The
overall evolution of the phenomenon displays striking analogies with
documented unsteady Bora events, observed in the Northern Adriatic Sea.

Model simulations are verified against airborne measurements along a number of
cross-mountain flight legs, as well as against surface data. Also, a
quantification of turbulence intensity in this BLS event, using both
high-frequency in situ and radar measurements, is attempted. Given the complex
topography and the limited period of time of the observations, measuring
turbulence proves to be a challenging task. Preliminary estimates of turbulent
kinetic energy and eddy-dissipation rate along the flight trajectory will be
presented.

Tuesday August 28, 2012, 2:00 PM – 3:00PM
End cut-n-insert...

On Aug 28, 10:26Â*pm, wrote:
On Tuesday, August 28, 2012 8:53:10 PM UTC-6, Bill D wrote:
On Tuesday, August 28, 2012 7:43:23 PM UTC-6, Duster wrote:

Bill D Â* Â*On Saturday [in part]

...If you look carefully at Bruno's video of the inadvertent, incipient spin, you will see a moment where the stick is moving progressively left even as the glider accelerates its roll to the right. That's the instant he departed from controlled flight - the glider was not 'answering' his aileron input. It should set off all the alarms in your head as it did in his.. Â*For me, it's like an electric shock.

Bruno's recovery was not textbook but it worked extremely well. Â*He unloaded the wing by moving the stick forward unstalling the wing and reentering the realm of controlled flight where his ailerons worked normally. Â*Even his narration indicated he didn't apply opposite rudder in a timely manner as the text books call for. Â*Actually, I think he did the right thing - first unload the wing then, after it unstalls, fly the glider normally.

Bill makes several good points. However, Bruno's response to the

incipient right-hand spin as viewed on his tape (

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PpJA5...feature=relmfu) and

narrated in his YouTube comments is not what happens. He does have the

stick biased to the left, but then after he enters the spin and his

reaction is to jam more opposite aileron in. Also, I do not see him

unload the wing and the stick never appears to move forward, at least

by much. His rudder input is what appears to unstall the glider. To

quote from his 70K viewed video. " I instinctively moved the stick

left after the wing dropped to the right and started spinning. It

didn't cause the spin entry because I did it after the spin started.

You are completely right though that I should have moved the stick

back to neutral or even into the turn. I thought I had at the time the

video proved I didn't.  Can't argue with video. -Bruno"

The stick doesn't have to move forward much - 3/4 of an inch will do it.. Â*I thought I saw that much. Â*The main thing is to "feel" the ailerons start "answering the helm" again - then add some airspeed and don't do it again.

I am extremely saddened to hear of Jim's accident and passing. My heart goes out to his family and close friends. In the soaring community we all are close friends and family.

I don't have a clue what happened to Jim and still don't understand why ships will spin close to the ground when they don't normally up high - other than the new to me points made by John C.

My video that has been referenced before can be a good learning tool but there are some facts that need to be known. Â*I was flying in an ASW-20BL that had some major known flight and stability issues. Â*The ship would try to spin on me at least 10 times every flight while thermalling! As you can see in the video I was able to get out of it and still stay centered in the thermal. Spinning is always a surprise but I had actually gotten used to it.

PLEASE NOTE that what got me out of the spin was that I immediately and instinctively went into negative flap. I didn't have time to press the rudder before it was already out of the spin and recovering. Yes, I reactively moved the ailerons in the wrong direction because I instinctively didn't want to turn the way the ship was turning/entering into spin. I think if most unexpected spins were caught on video you would also see the reflexive pull of the stick in the wrong direction as the nose drops and aircraft dip to the side unexpectedly. It was the moving of the flaps to negative that would always get me out of the spin before I had time and presence of mind to do the 3 right things we are all taught with unloading the sailplane, opposite rudder and neutralizing the ailerons. I had trained myself to instantly throw the flaps forward as soon as the sailplane broke and you can see that little altitude was lost.

Please note that we fixed this particular 20's spin tendency with those crazy wonderful winglets and it never tried to spin on my again. Â*I have not had a single spin either since getting a 27. My thoughts are with Jim and his loved ones and hope and pray we don't have any more of these terrible events.

Warm wishes,
Bruno - B4- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Since we have Bruno's video and comments for a "real-life" spin
(albeit at altitude), it looks like he was successful in getting out
of the spin solely by moving flaps either from positive to negative,
or from neutral to negative (you can see the flap handle position; are
they positive before the spin?). From what I gather, no opposite
rudder was inititated and he even went more opposite aileron after the
spin begins. What impresses me is that once the spin was recognized,
there was no hesitation in immediately reaching for the flap handle.
Why? Like he said, it was the most effective control input for
recovery based on his experience. I will try this in my own flap-only
ship to see if it works; however at low altitude I'm not inclined to
dump my flaps as the ship would settle and the stall speed goes up. My
question is on the ASW-20, which I've never flown, aren't the flaps
and ailerons interconnected to increase effectiveness? So, as the
flaps go to negative, lift decreases, correct?, but aileron
effectiveness becomes less also, right? Doesn't this effectively help
neutralize aileron effectiveness w/o moving the ailerons, yet be
sufficient to unspin it? Would the same technique be used at a more
critical altitude? Bruno's obviously a skilled pilot who knows his
ship; he even had the presence of mind to keep turning in the thermal.
I wish the Soaring Safety Foundation would consider archiving white
papers on flying characteristics of the different glider models, as
one recipe doesn't fit them all. A lot of good stuff gets lost in the
blogosphere. Gliderpedia anyone?
..
One lesson I learned from a master CFIG (Burt Compton) during a
simulated rope break was to avoid looking immediately back at the
airport. His point was that some stall-spins might be due to pilots
inadvertently pulling the stick back as they pivot their heads around.

On Aug 30, 2:33Â*pm, Duster wrote:
On Aug 28, 10:26Â*pm, wrote:









On Tuesday, August 28, 2012 8:53:10 PM UTC-6, Bill D wrote:
On Tuesday, August 28, 2012 7:43:23 PM UTC-6, Duster wrote:

Bill D Â* Â*On Saturday [in part]

...If you look carefully at Bruno's video of the inadvertent, incipient spin, you will see a moment where the stick is moving progressively left even as the glider accelerates its roll to the right. That's the instant he departed from controlled flight - the glider was not 'answering' his aileron input. It should set off all the alarms in your head as it did in his. Â*For me, it's like an electric shock.

Bruno's recovery was not textbook but it worked extremely well. Â*He unloaded the wing by moving the stick forward unstalling the wing and reentering the realm of controlled flight where his ailerons worked normally. Â*Even his narration indicated he didn't apply opposite rudder in a timely manner as the text books call for. Â*Actually, I think he did the right thing - first unload the wing then, after it unstalls, fly the glider normally.

Bill makes several good points. However, Bruno's response to the

incipient right-hand spin as viewed on his tape (

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PpJA5...feature=relmfu) and

narrated in his YouTube comments is not what happens. He does have the

stick biased to the left, but then after he enters the spin and his

reaction is to jam more opposite aileron in. Also, I do not see him

unload the wing and the stick never appears to move forward, at least

by much. His rudder input is what appears to unstall the glider. To

quote from his 70K viewed video. " I instinctively moved the stick

left after the wing dropped to the right and started spinning. It

didn't cause the spin entry because I did it after the spin started..

You are completely right though that I should have moved the stick

back to neutral or even into the turn. I thought I had at the time the

video proved I didn't.  Can't argue with video. -Bruno"

The stick doesn't have to move forward much - 3/4 of an inch will do it. Â*I thought I saw that much. Â*The main thing is to "feel" the ailerons start "answering the helm" again - then add some airspeed and don't do it again.

I am extremely saddened to hear of Jim's accident and passing. My heart goes out to his family and close friends. In the soaring community we all are close friends and family.

I don't have a clue what happened to Jim and still don't understand why ships will spin close to the ground when they don't normally up high - other than the new to me points made by John C.

My video that has been referenced before can be a good learning tool but there are some facts that need to be known. Â*I was flying in an ASW-20BL that had some major known flight and stability issues. Â*The ship would try to spin on me at least 10 times every flight while thermalling! As you can see in the video I was able to get out of it and still stay centered in the thermal. Spinning is always a surprise but I had actually gotten used to it.

PLEASE NOTE that what got me out of the spin was that I immediately and instinctively went into negative flap. I didn't have time to press the rudder before it was already out of the spin and recovering. Yes, I reactively moved the ailerons in the wrong direction because I instinctively didn't want to turn the way the ship was turning/entering into spin. I think if most unexpected spins were caught on video you would also see the reflexive pull of the stick in the wrong direction as the nose drops and aircraft dip to the side unexpectedly. It was the moving of the flaps to negative that would always get me out of the spin before I had time and presence of mind to do the 3 right things we are all taught with unloading the sailplane, opposite rudder and neutralizing the ailerons. I had trained myself to instantly throw the flaps forward as soon as the sailplane broke and you can see that little altitude was lost.

Please note that we fixed this particular 20's spin tendency with those crazy wonderful winglets and it never tried to spin on my again. Â*I have not had a single spin either since getting a 27. My thoughts are with Jim and his loved ones and hope and pray we don't have any more of these terrible events.

Warm wishes,
Bruno - B4- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Since we have Bruno's video and comments for a "real-life" spin
(albeit at altitude), it looks like he was successful in getting out
of the spin solely by moving flaps either from positive to negative,
or from neutral to negative (you can see the flap handle position; are
they positive before the spin?). From what I gather, no opposite
rudder was inititated and he even went more opposite aileron after the
spin begins. What impresses me is that once the spin was recognized,
there was no hesitation in immediately reaching for the flap handle.
Why? Like he said, it was the most effective control input for
recovery based on his experience. I will try this in my own flap-only
ship to see if it works; however at low altitude I'm not inclined to
dump my flaps as the ship would settle and the stall speed goes up. My
question is on the ASW-20, which I've never flown, aren't the flaps
and ailerons interconnected to increase effectiveness? So, as the
flaps go to negative, lift decreases, correct?, but aileron
effectiveness becomes less also, right? Doesn't this effectively help
neutralize aileron effectiveness w/o moving the ailerons, yet be
sufficient to unspin it? Would the same technique be used at a more
critical altitude? Bruno's obviously a skilled pilot who knows his
ship; he even had the presence of mind to keep turning in the thermal.
I wish the Soaring Safety Foundation would consider archiving white
papers on flying characteristics of the different glider models, as
one recipe doesn't fit them all. A lot of good stuff gets lost in the
blogosphere. Gliderpedia anyone?
.
One lesson I learned from a master CFIG (Burt Compton) during a
simulated rope break was to avoid looking immediately back at the
airport. His point was that some stall-spins might be due to pilots
inadvertently pulling the stick back as they pivot their heads around.

On a correctly rigged (i.e. control surface rigging) & sealed ASW20B
with CG in the right place, it is absolutely not necessary or
desirable to change flap settings to initiate recovery. It's a simple
matter of unload, neutral aileron, opposite rudder and fly away.
FWIW, I fly my ship with M&H winglets and the CG about 90% aft.
Different wing tips and CG location will give some difference in
departure and recovery characteristics. Bruno's ship most likely had
some error of rigging, sealing or CG location. My $0.02. My ship has
*never* departed like that. To get it to depart at all takes either a
hellish gust or significant pilot abuse. But anyhow, let's not hijack
this thread.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

On Thursday, August 30, 2012 2:33:30 PM UTC-4, Duster wrote:
On Aug 28, 10:26Â*pm, wrote: On Tuesday, August 28, 2012 8:53:10 PM UTC-6, Bill D wrote: On Tuesday, August 28, 2012 7:43:23 PM UTC-6, Duster wrote: Bill D Â* Â*On Saturday [in part] ...If you look carefully at Bruno's video of the inadvertent, incipient spin, you will see a moment where the stick is moving progressively left even as the glider accelerates its roll to the right. That's the instant he departed from controlled flight - the glider was not 'answering' his aileron input. It should set off all the alarms in your head as it did in his. Â*For me, it's like an electric shock. Bruno's recovery was not textbook but it worked extremely well. Â*He unloaded the wing by moving the stick forward unstalling the wing and reentering the realm of controlled flight where his ailerons worked normally. Â*Even his narration indicated he didn't apply opposite rudder in a timely manner as the text books call for. Â*Actually, I think he did the right thing - first unload the wing then, after it unstalls, fly the glider normally. Bill makes several good points. However, Bruno's response to the incipient right-hand spin as viewed on his tape ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PpJA5...feature=relmfu) and narrated in his YouTube comments is not what happens. He does have the stick biased to the left, but then after he enters the spin and his reaction is to jam more opposite aileron in. Also, I do not see him unload the wing and the stick never appears to move forward, at least by much. His rudder input is what appears to unstall the glider. To quote from his 70K viewed video. " I instinctively moved the stick left after the wing dropped to the right and started spinning. It didn't cause the spin entry because I did it after the spin started. You are completely right though that I should have moved the stick back to neutral or even into the turn. I thought I had at the time the video proved I didn't.  Can't argue with video. -Bruno" The stick doesn't have to move forward much - 3/4 of an inch will do it. Â*I thought I saw that much. Â*The main thing is to "feel" the ailerons start "answering the helm" again - then add some airspeed and don't do it again. I am extremely saddened to hear of Jim's accident and passing. My heart goes out to his family and close friends. In the soaring community we all are close friends and family. I don't have a clue what happened to Jim and still don't understand why ships will spin close to the ground when they don't normally up high - other than the new to me points made by John C. My video that has been referenced before can be a good learning tool but there are some facts that need to be known. Â*I was flying in an ASW-20BL that had some major known flight and stability issues. Â*The ship would try to spin on me at least 10 times every flight while thermalling! As you can see in the video I was able to get out of it and still stay centered in the thermal. Spinning is always a surprise but I had actually gotten used to it. PLEASE NOTE that what got me out of the spin was that I immediately and instinctively went into negative flap. I didn't have time to press the rudder before it was already out of the spin and recovering. Yes, I reactively moved the ailerons in the wrong direction because I instinctively didn't want to turn the way the ship was turning/entering into spin. I think if most unexpected spins were caught on video you would also see the reflexive pull of the stick in the wrong direction as the nose drops and aircraft dip to the side unexpectedly. It was the moving of the flaps to negative that would always get me out of the spin before I had time and presence of mind to do the 3 right things we are all taught with unloading the sailplane, opposite rudder and neutralizing the ailerons. I had trained myself to instantly throw the flaps forward as soon as the sailplane broke and you can see that little altitude was lost. Please note that we fixed this particular 20's spin tendency with those crazy wonderful winglets and it never tried to spin on my again. Â*I have not had a single spin either since getting a 27. My thoughts are with Jim and his loved ones and hope and pray we don't have any more of these terrible events. Warm wishes, Bruno - B4- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Since we have Bruno's video and comments for a "real-life" spin (albeit at altitude), it looks like he was successful in getting out of the spin solely by moving flaps either from positive to negative, or from neutral to negative (you can see the flap handle position; are they positive before the spin?).. From what I gather, no opposite rudder was inititated and he even went more opposite aileron after the spin begins. What impresses me is that once the spin was recognized, there was no hesitation in immediately reaching for the flap handle. Why? Like he said, it was the most effective control input for recovery based on his experience. I will try this in my own flap-only ship to see if it works; however at low altitude I'm not inclined to dump my flaps as the ship would settle and the stall speed goes up. My question is on the ASW-20, which I've never flown, aren't the flaps and ailerons interconnected to increase effectiveness? So, as the flaps go to negative, lift decreases, correct?, but aileron effectiveness becomes less also, right? Doesn't this effectively help neutralize aileron effectiveness w/o moving the ailerons, yet be sufficient to unspin it? Would the same technique be used at a more critical altitude? Bruno's obviously a skilled pilot who knows his ship; he even had the presence of mind to keep turning in the thermal. I wish the Soaring Safety Foundation would consider archiving white papers on flying characteristics of the different glider models, as one recipe doesn't fit them all. A lot of good stuff gets lost in the blogosphere. Gliderpedia anyone? . One lesson I learned from a master CFIG (Burt Compton) during a simulated rope break was to avoid looking immediately back at the airport. His point was that some stall-spins might be due to pilots inadvertently pulling the stick back as they pivot their heads around.

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

On 8/30/2012 12:33 PM, Duster wrote:

Major snip...

Since we have Bruno's video and comments for a "real-life" spin
(albeit at altitude), it looks like he was successful in getting out
of the spin solely by moving flaps either from positive to negative,
or from neutral to negative (you can see the flap handle position; are
they positive before the spin?). From what I gather, no opposite
rudder was inititated and he even went more opposite aileron after the
spin begins. What impresses me is that once the spin was recognized,
there was no hesitation in immediately reaching for the flap handle.
Why? Like he said, it was the most effective control input for
recovery based on his experience. I will try this in my own flap-only
ship to see if it works; however at low altitude I'm not inclined to
dump my flaps as the ship would settle and the stall speed goes up.

Indeed, assuming no other changes/inputs, reducing flap deflection reduces
lift, the glider will settle (increasing the AoA, as - thanks to gravity and
trim forces - the plane/wing tries to regenerate the lost lift and return to a
non-changing-acceleration state), and the stall speed (assuming no change in G
load) increases. Kinda makes for a strong argument to not put oneself in the
position of NEEDing to dump flaps (reducing the wing's camber and effective
AoA) to prevent a spin when close to the ground, eh? :-)
- - - - - -

My
question is on the ASW-20, which I've never flown, aren't the flaps
and ailerons interconnected to increase effectiveness? So, as the
flaps go to negative, lift decreases, correct?,

A partial response to the first question is, "tip-to-tip" interconnection is
generally done hoping to remain as close to the ideal (lowest induced drag)
lift distribution as possible, in the absence of roll-inducing aileron inputs.
"Roll interconnection" gets into additional aerodynamic reasoning...

To the 2nd question: "Yes"...ignoring short-time-constant changes that begin
the instant wing profile is changed. That said, "at speed" and away from any
ground reference, Joe Pilot will likely not be able to detect anything more
than a (fairly rapid/"short time constant") change in pitch attitude and
(possibly) a brief sensation (assuming he holds the same stick position) of
settling. In the real world, few pilots probably change ONLY the T.E. flap
setting; I'd bet most simultaneously are tweaking their stick position, too,
even if they don't realize it.
- - - - - -

but aileron
effectiveness becomes less also, right?

Now THAT's a seemingly simple question...having considerable complexity in its
answer(s)! Rather than attempting a direct response, I'll toss out a few
related questions...

So why do many flap-equipped drivers start their T.O. rolls with negative
flaps? (Hint: the answer has to do with better low-speed aileron effectiveness
in T.O. configuration/attitude...easily tested in a reasonably steady ground
breeze with a friendly wingtip holder's brief assistance.)

Are every ships' ailerons rigged with the same (if any) differential?

Have you measured 45-to-45 rolls in your ship at (say) the same (thermalling)
speed in your ship, at different flap/aileron settings?
- - - - - -

Doesn't this effectively help
neutralize aileron effectiveness w/o moving the ailerons, yet be
sufficient to unspin it? Would the same technique be used at a more
critical altitude?

I'm not sure I understand the first question, but at its essence, "unspinning"
a glider "merely" requires re-achieving flight. Most "unspinning instructions"
for fully-developed-spins presume rudder input will be desirable, along with
reduced AoA, but simply unstalling the wing will be sufficient. Reason for the
rudder input is (most likely - this is why they pay test pilots!) to minimize
subsequent altitude loss.

As to the "same technique" question, never forget the key to unstalling a wing
is reducing AoA. Someone will surely point out that unloading the wing will
also reduce the stall speed to zero, which is correct, but "unloading the
wing" is really a specific flavor of reduced AoA, and, is something Joe Pilot
has limited ability to do at thermalling speeds (though gravity is always
willing to help if he's out of elevator authority!). Trailing edge flaps
somewhat complicate (add to) the means of reducing AoA, compared to unflapped
wings.

Also, never forget that SOMEthing has to also initiate rotation; simply
stalling a wing symmetrically (if possible) won't by itself achieve rotation.
Possible initiators of rotation: non-symmetrical rudder input; untimely gust;
unbalanced bug accumulation (leading to unbalanced/asymmetric flow
separation/lifting forces); heavy wing; use your imagination...

If you feel OK betting your life on always achieving symmetrical flow
separation across your ship's span, then thermal away as low as you'd like,
while maintaining a hair trigger on forward stick motion! :-)
- - - - - -

Bruno's obviously a skilled pilot who knows his
ship; he even had the presence of mind to keep turning in the thermal.
I wish the Soaring Safety Foundation would consider archiving white
papers on flying characteristics of the different glider models, as
one recipe doesn't fit them all. A lot of good stuff gets lost in the
blogosphere. Gliderpedia anyone?
.
One lesson I learned from a master CFIG (Burt Compton) during a
simulated rope break was to avoid looking immediately back at the
airport. His point was that some stall-spins might be due to pilots
inadvertently pulling the stick back as they pivot their heads around.


Kids, can you spell "John Denver"? (Meaning, Burt is almost certainly right in
this particular surmise...)

Bob W.

Great post. I should spin more. We all should. It might sound wimpy but my personal limit (post Ionia R6N and Tim's accident) is 800ft (see last day trace). I have not been below 1100 AGL since except at Parowan which it was unavoidable. Im just not that good and to fight lower, even in competition, is simply not worth it to me any longer (as has been aptly demonstrated this summer). I actually figure eighted alot in Parowon near the hills in turbulent gusty thermals during the contest (my first flying ever in the mountains...) and didn't lose much. It was much more comfortable. I actually felt great about being cautious.

I also pulled aside from launching in 20-35+ kts of wind. Just too much wind for me knowing the drop off was going to be 200 ft over the mountains in most cases.

Sure has been a tough year...and unfortunately I see little real change (personally with pilots or in rules or regulation or procedure). Lots of pilots regularly down to and below 500 ft (the red zone).

Simply put, we are each are 100% responsible for ourselves and our passengers whenever we waggle the rudder and start to roll. That's all there is too it. If you choose to circle below the altitude by which you can recover 100% of the time (if you really know this altitude as UH seems too) the risks are suddenly EXTREME. You are in the "red zone" and mistakes are potentially absolutely deadly. We have all gone into the red zone. We are there every time we launch and land. We are there every time we get low and fight. Some of us well into it...200ft or so circling... I have done this several times... And I was stupid.

Ridge pilots often spend the whole damn day in the red zone. Many of us take huge risk so regularly we seem to get used to it. Some thrive on it.

The problem might be that the soaring culture (has/had/did/does?) respects low saves more than sensible land outs. This has been my experience. Not alot of atta boys for landing out. At least a few for "digging out" at 400 ft.

Unless rules are put in place to penalize low flying (in clubs, contests, etc) expect these accidents to continue... The stick is a useful tool but will it be used? Can it be used?

F2

On Monday, August 27, 2012 7:08:30 PM UTC-4, (unknown) wrote:
On Monday, August 27, 2012 6:40:42 PM UTC-4, Ramy wrote:

On Monday, August 27, 2012 1:08:49 PM UTC-7, Brian wrote: So I am seeing the why do we still thermal low comment, but no one is says how low. I suspect these accidents may not be a low as some of us think. But have no data to back it up. With so many of us using flight recorders it should be pretty easy to look a few of these accidents and see, but somehow this data never seems to reach us. I can understand some liability issues but it seems like it would be pretty easy to reproduce the data into a generic format that didn't give away the location or ID of what happened but would still allow us to review the flight path of an actual flight that led to the accident. Brian My thoughts exactly. we need the actual data to learn something from those accidents, but it is almost never provided. We should have enough statistics to be able to determine how low is too low to recover, so we can adjust our threshold. This is what safety culture is all about. If we keep this info to ourselves, no much can be learned. Ramy



I do not agree.

There is nothing new to learn from Jim's accident.

People just keep repeating the same stupid stuff they know better than to do.

A handful of folks on this forum seem to want to study the crap out of accidents like this in the hope that they will learn something new.

There are no new lessons to be learned here guys. It is very simple. You can't circle at low altitude without an unaceptable risk of a(commonly gust induced) stall spin. And these spins do NOT happen like the ones we practice. They happen much more quickly and violently. I have a personal hard deck of 500 feet where circling is cancelled. The only exception is ridge flying where a whole group of additional variables come into play.

If you want data, go spin your glider in the configuration you fly it all the time. Let it start to spin, not just catch it when it departs. See how much altitude you lose, then throw in another 1-200 feet for the surprise factor.

I spin sailpalnes probably 60-80 times a year and my contest gliders a dozen time a year. From that, I've developed my personal limits.

Note that gliders with winglets commonly may be more benign in stall than ones without, but may well be uglier in a true spin.

As instructors, mentors, and friends, we need to embrace and promote the concept that we all need a limit where we STOP SOARING AND START LANDING with NO exceptions.

Sorry to rant, but I've lost 3 friends this year, all for the same damn reason and all knew better.

UH

On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 13:13:31 -0700, unclhank wrote:

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

Its the recommended first action according to the ASW-20 POH, which goes
on to say that this action alone will often cause spin recovery, but that
if it doesn't, follow the standard procedure AFTER you've set the flaps
fully negative. The POH says the flap movement is to avoid exceeding VNE:
for positive flap settings VNE is quite low.

I'd also point out that sharply selecting fully negative flap reduces AOA
relative to the fuselage and airflow and so, as the POH says, may
initiate recovery by unstalling the wing.

Two points for those who haven't flown an ASW-20:

- ailerons and flaps are interconnected so that ailerons deflect with
the flaps as the flap lever is moved except when selecting landing
flap, when the ailerons go to a negative setting. This "crow mode"
increases drag and helps to prevent tip stalling.

- the POH recommends always starting an aerotow with the flaps in
position #2 (-6 degrees) for better low-speed control.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |