Unintentional fully-developed spins...

On Mon, 02 Feb 2004 22:39:28 +0200, Ian Forbes
wrote:

Caracole wrote:

(JJ Sinclair) wrote in message
... SNIPPED A BIT

The brits, on the other hand, went out looking for a 2-seater that
was easy to spin and they found a GOOD one in the Puch. Mike believes
that 15 have spun-
in, world wide and the Brits are investigating their 4th Puch-in.

Hate to tell you this boys and girls,
my list,
confirmed by direct contacts, of spinning Puch impacts is now up to
23 whacks worldwide.
And I am now chasing down a story about a 24th ... which is an 'old'
one, not the January English tragedy. The unveiling of #24 came about
through these threads....

On a production run of about 200 gliders, we only have a few more low
spinning fatalities to go, to remove the fleet from service.
Macabre enough yet?

Many of these wretched losses could have been avoided, had there been
a requirement for a hard deck for recovery that would allow egress and
use of parachutes. I know I won't get the Puchacz retired from
service, but possibly, maybe, by the grace of a higher power,

I might get people to STOP spin training in the Puchacz (at the least)
at low altitudes.

With a prayer,

Cindy B
Caracole Soaring


If it is true, it is pretty damming. It also shows that the Brits record
is not out of proportion with the world fleet - so this is not due to
anything specific in their training.

Ian

Or it means the stupidity and ignorance is pandemic.
Thanks to Cindy for bringing this interesting statistic to light.
Now can we placard the damn things against intentional spins?
Research modifications?
Burn them?
I'm actually a fan of Polish gliders for their nice handling generally
but is there an excuse for this one?

Mike Borgelt

On Mon, 2 Feb 2004 20:39:28 UTC, Ian Forbes
wrote:

: If it is true, it is pretty damming. It also shows that the Brits record
: is not out of proportion with the world fleet - so this is not due to
: anything specific in their training.

I am still not sure quite what is so odd about the majority of
spinning accidents happening in a spinnable glider.

Ian

--

On 4 Feb 2004 18:48:21 GMT, "Ian Johnston"
wrote:

On Mon, 2 Feb 2004 20:39:28 UTC, Ian Forbes
wrote:

: If it is true, it is pretty damming. It also shows that the Brits record
: is not out of proportion with the world fleet - so this is not due to
: anything specific in their training.

I am still not sure quite what is so odd about the majority of
spinning accidents happening in a spinnable glider.

Ian


It isn't odd. What is odd is that people still insist on spinning the
damn things despite the horrendous statistics.


Mike Borgelt

"Mike Borgelt" wrote in message
...
On 4 Feb 2004 18:48:21 GMT, "Ian Johnston"
wrote:

On Mon, 2 Feb 2004 20:39:28 UTC, Ian Forbes
wrote:

: If it is true, it is pretty damming. It also shows that the Brits
record
: is not out of proportion with the world fleet - so this is not due to
: anything specific in their training.

I am still not sure quite what is so odd about the majority of
spinning accidents happening in a spinnable glider.

Ian


It isn't odd. What is odd is that people still insist on spinning the
damn things despite the horrendous statistics.


Mike Borgelt

It would be hard to put reliable data together, but I suspect there are
other glider types whose numbers have been depleted by fatal spins to an
even larger percentage than the Puchacz. The 2-32 and LK-10 come to mind.
I seem to recall it being said that 75% of the LK-10's original numbers were
lost in spins that killed the pilot. I also remember the IDENTICAL
discussion about the LK-10 as we are having about the Owl.

Rather than blame the glider, I would point the finger at training that
doesn't equip pilots with the skills needed to fly these gliders.

Bill Daniels

On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 15:17:07 -0700, "Bill Daniels"
wrote:


It isn't odd. What is odd is that people still insist on spinning the
damn things despite the horrendous statistics.


Mike Borgelt

It would be hard to put reliable data together, but I suspect there are
other glider types whose numbers have been depleted by fatal spins to an
even larger percentage than the Puchacz. The 2-32 and LK-10 come to mind.
I seem to recall it being said that 75% of the LK-10's original numbers were
lost in spins that killed the pilot. I also remember the IDENTICAL
discussion about the LK-10 as we are having about the Owl.

Rather than blame the glider, I would point the finger at training that
doesn't equip pilots with the skills needed to fly these gliders.

Bill Daniels


I have quite a few hours in a flat topped LK-10. It was the second
glider type I flew and the first I flew in a contest. Yes, there were
concerns about the LK-10 spinning/recovery. It was never deliberately
spun and I think all were so concerned nobody ever even let it get to
the incipient stage.
I think it met its end on an outlanding, something to do with a fence
and a ditch, no injuries, not worth repairing.

As the LK-10 was designed as a military training glider in wartime I
can believe it may have had less than ideal flight characteristics
and it may well have killed many inexperienced, hastily trained
cadets. This may be regarded as acceptable by the military in wartime.

Is this acceptable for civilians in peacetime?

I just re-read the chapter by Leighton Collins at the back of "Stick
and Rudder". It is called "The Dangers of the Air". Highly relevant to
these spin threads and training. It was written in 1946 and we seem to
have learned little.

Given that the dangers of spinning from a failed launch, on base or
final, from low thermalling or in a gaggle are all well known and
understood and we all agree that this shouldn't be done ever then the
problem becomes not spin recovery but absolute prevention of
unintentional spins.

Most pilots seem to manage this at least with most modern gliders.
What is it about either some gliders or the training that results in
some not "getting it"?

Mike Borgelt

"Mike Borgelt" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 15:17:07 -0700, "Bill Daniels"
wrote:


It isn't odd. What is odd is that people still insist on spinning the
damn things despite the horrendous statistics.


Mike Borgelt

It would be hard to put reliable data together, but I suspect there are
other glider types whose numbers have been depleted by fatal spins to an
even larger percentage than the Puchacz. The 2-32 and LK-10 come to
mind.
I seem to recall it being said that 75% of the LK-10's original numbers
were
lost in spins that killed the pilot. I also remember the IDENTICAL
discussion about the LK-10 as we are having about the Owl.

Rather than blame the glider, I would point the finger at training that
doesn't equip pilots with the skills needed to fly these gliders.

Bill Daniels


I have quite a few hours in a flat topped LK-10. It was the second
glider type I flew and the first I flew in a contest. Yes, there were
concerns about the LK-10 spinning/recovery. It was never deliberately
spun and I think all were so concerned nobody ever even let it get to
the incipient stage.
I think it met its end on an outlanding, something to do with a fence
and a ditch, no injuries, not worth repairing.

As the LK-10 was designed as a military training glider in wartime I
can believe it may have had less than ideal flight characteristics
and it may well have killed many inexperienced, hastily trained
cadets. This may be regarded as acceptable by the military in wartime.

Is this acceptable for civilians in peacetime?

I just re-read the chapter by Leighton Collins at the back of "Stick
and Rudder". It is called "The Dangers of the Air". Highly relevant to
these spin threads and training. It was written in 1946 and we seem to
have learned little.

Given that the dangers of spinning from a failed launch, on base or
final, from low thermalling or in a gaggle are all well known and
understood and we all agree that this shouldn't be done ever then the
problem becomes not spin recovery but absolute prevention of
unintentional spins.

Most pilots seem to manage this at least with most modern gliders.
What is it about either some gliders or the training that results in
some not "getting it"?

Mike Borgelt


Interesting. There aren't many of us left who flew the LK-10. Did you fly
one in OZ or in the US? My primary trainer was a "double-bubble" flat
topped LK-10. N22U once graced the cover of the cross country chapter of
the SSA soaring handbook.

I once heard Jack Laister tell that the LK-10 was itself a modification of
his "Yankee Doodle" single place competition glider designed while he was a
teenager. The US military asked him to design a two-place trainer in the
early 1940's. Jack said he just straightened out the gull wings and
stretched the fuselage behind the wing to make room for a rear cockpit and
the Yankee Doodle became the military LK-10 or TG-4.

I spun both N22U and another LK-10 still in the original configuration.
Both left no doubt that mis-handling them would kill. I sometimes had the
hair-raising feeling that the glider was actively trying to kill me. That
experience left me with a wariness of low and slow flying that is still with
me. I'd like to see that wariness passed along to a new generation of
pilots. I think it saved my life on several occasions and might save some
of theirs too.

Bill Daniels

"Bill Daniels" wrote in message ...
It would be hard to put reliable data together, but I suspect there are
other glider types whose numbers have been depleted by fatal spins to an
even larger percentage than the Puchacz. The 2-32 and LK-10 come to mind.
I seem to recall it being said that 75% of the LK-10's original numbers were
lost in spins that killed the pilot. I also remember the IDENTICAL
discussion about the LK-10 as we are having about the Owl.

Rather than blame the glider, I would point the finger at training that
doesn't equip pilots with the skills needed to fly these gliders.

Bill Daniels

Interesting. I did a little research with the NTSB accident database.
I found 7 fatal spin-related 2-32 crashes. With a production run of
87, 8% of aircraft produced were taken out by fatal spins.

Also, according the the sailplane directory online, the production run
for the Puchacz was 300, not 200. If true, that means a fatal spin
rate of 24/300= 8%, exactly the same rate as the 2-32.

That assumes all fatal 2-32 crashes were in the US, which is probably
a fair assumption. Otherwise the 2-32 rate would be even higher than
the Puch.

Of course, the 2-32 has been around alot longer than the Puchacz. The
interesting thing is, the 2-32 spins were all in a period from the
late 60's to early 80's, last one in 1982. Then they all stopped. If
this were 1982, we'd presumably be calling for the 2-32 to be taken
out of service.

What happened that we have gone 22 years without any additional 2-32
spin fatalities?

I too am astounded that more is not done by the worthy's in our sport.
Between 1987 and 1997 there were 34 fatal accidents in the UK. 4 in Puch's
and 3 in Pirats. That's one in five! There are many ways to dismiss the
figures but like it or not, these airplanes are killing people and out of
all proportion.

"Caracole" wrote in message
om...
(JJ Sinclair) wrote in message
...
SNIPPED A BIT

The brits, on the other hand, went out looking for a 2-seater that was
easy to
spin and they found a GOOD one in the Puch. Mike believes that 15 have
spun-
in, world wide and the Brits are investigating their 4th Puch-in.

Hate to tell you this boys and girls,
my list,
confirmed by direct contacts, of spinning Puch impacts is now up to
23 whacks worldwide.
And I am now chasing down a story about a 24th ... which is an 'old'
one, not the January English tragedy. The unveiling of #24 came about
through these threads....

On a production run of about 200 gliders, we only have a few more low
spinning fatalities to go, to remove the fleet from service.
Macabre enough yet?

Many of these wretched losses could have been avoided, had there been
a requirement for a hard deck for recovery that would allow egress and
use of parachutes. I know I won't get the Puchacz retired from
service, but possibly, maybe, by the grace of a higher power,

I might get people to STOP spin training in the Puchacz (at the least)
at low altitudes.

With a prayer,

Cindy B
Caracole Soaring

I too am astounded that more is not done by the worthy's in our sport.
Between 1987 and 1997 there were 34 fatal accidents in the UK. 4 in Puch's
and 3 in Pirats. That's one in five! There are many ways to dismiss the
figures but like it or not, these airplanes are killing people and out of
all proportion.

"Caracole" wrote in message
om...
(JJ Sinclair) wrote in message
...
SNIPPED A BIT

The brits, on the other hand, went out looking for a 2-seater that was
easy to
spin and they found a GOOD one in the Puch. Mike believes that 15 have
spun-
in, world wide and the Brits are investigating their 4th Puch-in.

Hate to tell you this boys and girls,
my list,
confirmed by direct contacts, of spinning Puch impacts is now up to
23 whacks worldwide.
And I am now chasing down a story about a 24th ... which is an 'old'
one, not the January English tragedy. The unveiling of #24 came about
through these threads....

On a production run of about 200 gliders, we only have a few more low
spinning fatalities to go, to remove the fleet from service.
Macabre enough yet?

Many of these wretched losses could have been avoided, had there been
a requirement for a hard deck for recovery that would allow egress and
use of parachutes. I know I won't get the Puchacz retired from
service, but possibly, maybe, by the grace of a higher power,

I might get people to STOP spin training in the Puchacz (at the least)
at low altitudes.

With a prayer,

Cindy B
Caracole Soaring

(Mark James Boyd) wrote in message news:401ec4d0$1@darkstar...
As a sidebar to this discussion I noticed one person posted that he is
constantly on the edge of stalling his glider during thermaling. I would
argue that he is flying very inefficiently if that is in fact the case. To
convince yourself try thermaling (when alone) at the buffet speed vs adding
5-10 kts at differing angles of bank and focus on the VSI and see what the
results are. Look at any polar as well.

Casey Lenox
KC
Phoenix

I haven't seen polars that take into effect bank angle, but
from doing the calculations of turn radius and angles of
bank, I'm convinced that in very long wing gliders at
high angles of bank and slow speeds (and ergo light weights too),
the inner wing is significantly slower than the
outer wing, and tacking on some knots is most
efficient (to keep the length of the inner wing nicely above stall)...

Mark Boyd

I don't believe your argument is correct. What determines the lift and
drag coefficients is angle of attact, NOT airspeed. The inner wing is
flying at the same angle of attack as the outer wing, think about it.
Speeding up won't make you climb better.