Puchaz Spinning thread that might be of interest in light of the recent accident.

In article
,
"bumper" wrote:

Some aircraft designs, given the wrong set of circumstances, can exhibit
unusual or divergent flight characteristics. They can enter a deep stall or
flat spin from which recovery is impossible or difficult. Not sure if the
Puchaz suffers from any of this, the accident numbers alone may make some
wonder.

There have got to be more Blaniks around than Pooks, and they also spin
very enthusiastically and suddenly (but with the classic warnings) off a
botched turn. But I haven't noticed them featuring in the accident
statistics.

-- Bruce

On 25 Jan 2004 01:26:39 GMT, (Edward Downham)
wrote:

If I took charge of a gliding club using Puchacz(s) for basic training, the
first thing I would do is pile them all in a heap in the corner of the field
and set fire to them.

This may come across as something of a controversial viewpoint. Let me explain.

As far as I know, we are now into double figures (in the UK alone) in terms of
fatalities when it comes to stall/spin accidents in the Puchacz. Compare this
to gliders like the twin Grob and K-21: there are far greater numbers of them
flying many times more hours with a much better record. Even older machines
such as the K-13 stand out well in comparison.

I really can't see the advantage of a training glider that spins so readily and
kills you if you get the recovery (slightly) wrong.

I think some of the instructing fraternity (in the UK) have become too focussed
on spinning as an 'exercise' and not something to be avoided. I believe that if
a significant group of pilots are having _inadvertent_ stall/spin
incidents/accidents when they are flying solo, then there is something very
very wrong with the most elementary training we are giving.

I read and hear much concerning technical details of spinning, i.e. what glider
X does after 5 turns with part aileron and that glider Y flicks when you yank
and stamp on the controls. All fairly irrelevant. If you get to the point of
having to do a full recovery one might question as to how you got there in the
first place. If you are low down (especially in machines like the Puchacz),
where most bad accidents occur, knowing how to recover from a spin is probably
not going to be of much use. Indeed, it may help to make the subsequent impact
unsurviveable.

What we seem to be failing to do is to instill a basic awareness of what the
glider is up to, and the _instinctive_ reactions required if the airframe stops
responding to your commands. Mike Cuming wrote a seminal article in S&G, some
years back, entiltled: "STOP PULLING THE STICK BACK!". This should be required
reading for all pre-solo students.

If you really want to show people full-blooded spins and recoveries, take them
up to a safe height in an aerobatic power aircraft, certified for those kind of
manoevres. You will be able to do much more for a lot less money.

Frankly, I see little point in making pilots deliberately demonstrate their
'expertise' in abusing a glider to the point it autorotates, then attempting to
do something about it. This is not the world aerobatic championships. I would
much rather see immediate instinctive corrections to any possible loss of
control.

To the experienced pilots/instructors reading this: when was the last time you
ended up (inadvertently) in a spin? Yes, you get wing drops in thermals etc.
but do you sit there, doing nothing, until the ground and sky start going round
very fast? No. I'm sure you don't, as you are alive to read this.

What drove me to stay up at night to write this post was a feeling of
anger/helplessness/sadness that yet more people have died in what I regard as a
pointless exercise. I knew the P1 in the double-fatal crash this week but not
his fifteen year old student.

Safe flying to all of you.




Thank you Edward. That is the best article on this issue I have ever
seen.

I agree 100% and particularly with the "do it in a power plane
designed for this". I did this two years ago in a Pitts S2A with an
experienced airshow pilot who is also an aerobatic instructor. We both
wore parachutes, had a proper briefing and agreed to abandon ship if
control not regained by 4000 feet AGL. All spins were begun from at
least 9000 feet. I learned more about spinning in that hour than in my
previous 35 years flying.

Now for a solution to keep everyone happy - I believe we have the
technology to build a realistic, close to full motion, spin simulator
at an affordable price.
This will allow through and complete exploration of the pre stall,
stall and spin regime for training and combine this with one real full
spin aircraft exercise at altitude with proper precautions and
briefing.

Lets do this and stop killing people in training exercises.

We lost a couple of people in Australia a few years ago in a Blanik
during an annual "spin check".
The spin turned into a spiral and the aircraft broke up in the
recovery. They weren't at high altitude nor wearing parachutes.

Many experienced pilots I know flat out refuse to do full spins during
annual checks as being an unnecessary risk. They will happily
demonstrate stalls and incipient spins.

Mike Borgelt

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 01:26:39 UTC, (Edward
Downham) wrote:

: As far as I know, we are now into double figures (in the UK alone) in terms of
: fatalities when it comes to stall/spin accidents in the Puchacz. Compare this
: to gliders like the twin Grob and K-21: there are far greater numbers of them
: flying many times more hours with a much better record.

But you have to take an overall view: how many of the pilots who die
in solo spins accidents do so because they were trained in nice, safe,
you-have-to-do-something-special-to-get-this-to-stall two seaters.

On your hypothetical airfield, would you fit all two seaters with
elevator stops so that pupils could never stall [1]?

Ian

[1i] In the conventional nose-up-slow-down-nose-up-slow-down-whoops
way
--

"Mike Borgelt" wrote in message
news
On 25 Jan 2004 01:26:39 GMT, (Edward Downham)
wrote:

If I took charge of a gliding club using Puchacz(s) for basic training,
the
first thing I would do is pile them all in a heap in the corner of the
field
and set fire to them.

This may come across as something of a controversial viewpoint. Let me
explain.

As far as I know, we are now into double figures (in the UK alone) in
terms of
fatalities when it comes to stall/spin accidents in the Puchacz. Compare
this
to gliders like the twin Grob and K-21: there are far greater numbers of
them
flying many times more hours with a much better record. Even older
machines
such as the K-13 stand out well in comparison.

I really can't see the advantage of a training glider that spins so
readily and
kills you if you get the recovery (slightly) wrong.

I think some of the instructing fraternity (in the UK) have become too
focussed
on spinning as an 'exercise' and not something to be avoided. I believe
that if
a significant group of pilots are having _inadvertent_ stall/spin
incidents/accidents when they are flying solo, then there is something
very
very wrong with the most elementary training we are giving.

I read and hear much concerning technical details of spinning, i.e. what
glider
X does after 5 turns with part aileron and that glider Y flicks when you
yank
and stamp on the controls. All fairly irrelevant. If you get to the point
of
having to do a full recovery one might question as to how you got there
in the
first place. If you are low down (especially in machines like the
Puchacz),
where most bad accidents occur, knowing how to recover from a spin is
probably
not going to be of much use. Indeed, it may help to make the subsequent
impact
unsurviveable.

What we seem to be failing to do is to instill a basic awareness of what
the
glider is up to, and the _instinctive_ reactions required if the airframe
stops
responding to your commands. Mike Cuming wrote a seminal article in S&G,
some
years back, entiltled: "STOP PULLING THE STICK BACK!". This should be
required
reading for all pre-solo students.

If you really want to show people full-blooded spins and recoveries, take
them
up to a safe height in an aerobatic power aircraft, certified for those
kind of
manoevres. You will be able to do much more for a lot less money.

Frankly, I see little point in making pilots deliberately demonstrate
their
'expertise' in abusing a glider to the point it autorotates, then
attempting to
do something about it. This is not the world aerobatic championships. I
would
much rather see immediate instinctive corrections to any possible loss of
control.

To the experienced pilots/instructors reading this: when was the last
time you
ended up (inadvertently) in a spin? Yes, you get wing drops in thermals
etc.
but do you sit there, doing nothing, until the ground and sky start going
round
very fast? No. I'm sure you don't, as you are alive to read this.

What drove me to stay up at night to write this post was a feeling of
anger/helplessness/sadness that yet more people have died in what I
regard as a
pointless exercise. I knew the P1 in the double-fatal crash this week but
not
his fifteen year old student.

Safe flying to all of you.




Thank you Edward. That is the best article on this issue I have ever
seen.

I agree 100% and particularly with the "do it in a power plane
designed for this". I did this two years ago in a Pitts S2A with an
experienced airshow pilot who is also an aerobatic instructor. We both
wore parachutes, had a proper briefing and agreed to abandon ship if
control not regained by 4000 feet AGL. All spins were begun from at
least 9000 feet. I learned more about spinning in that hour than in my
previous 35 years flying.

Now for a solution to keep everyone happy - I believe we have the
technology to build a realistic, close to full motion, spin simulator
at an affordable price.
This will allow through and complete exploration of the pre stall,
stall and spin regime for training and combine this with one real full
spin aircraft exercise at altitude with proper precautions and
briefing.

Lets do this and stop killing people in training exercises.

We lost a couple of people in Australia a few years ago in a Blanik
during an annual "spin check".
The spin turned into a spiral and the aircraft broke up in the
recovery. They weren't at high altitude nor wearing parachutes.

Many experienced pilots I know flat out refuse to do full spins during
annual checks as being an unnecessary risk. They will happily
demonstrate stalls and incipient spins.

Mike Borgelt

I did an annual check of a ATP pilot who owns a glider. He had also been
flying aerobatic aircraft such as the Citabria and PItts. The annual check
was in a Blanik L-23. We decided on a two turn spin so that I could know
when to expect a recovery attempt.

At two turns, I saw the rear pedals shift to their anti-spin position but
the stick remained aft of center and the L-23 continued to spin as if
nothing had been done to stop it. I said, "two turns" to remind him of our
bargain. Then the stick moved forward and the glider stopped rotating and
entered the recovery dive.

Asked about the delay in recovery, the pilot said that the standard recovery
technique used in the powered aircraft he had been flying was just to
reverse the rudder and to keep the stick aft of center. I pointed out that
every glider I knew of required forward stick for a sure recovery. (We did
several more spins until we both were comfortable with his spin recovery
technique.)

I think the take-home lesson is that airplanes can spin more benignly than
gliders. Relying on spin training in airplanes is just not always
appropriate and can leave the pilot with misconceptions about glider spin
recovery.

I think that, if you fly gliders that will spin, it is wise to experience
the spin recovery at least once and preferably more often than that.

That said, there is nothing wrong with basic training that emphasizes
recognition of an incipient spin over spin recovery. Recognition that a
spin is imminent, and knowledge of the technique to prevent it, will save
more lives than expert spin recovery.

So, is spin training dangerous? Yes, but much less dangerous than not doing
spin training. The path from novice to expert is sometimes fraught with
peril but remaining a novice is more dangerous still. The Puch, Blanik, and
Lark spin more like the glass gliders most of us fly. As such, they are
excellent trainers. Just choose an instructor that is very experienced with
them.

Bill Daniels

Bill Daniels

"Vaughn" wrote in message ...
"F1y1n" wrote in message
om...

I once asked an instructor to demonstrate a spin in a two-seat
aircraft I was transitioning into.

Did you have chutes? In the US, the only time you are allowed to spin
dual without chutes is when you are working on a rating that requires spin
training. If you were asking the CFI to spin without chutes (just a wild
guess), he was 100% correct to turn you down. I would too.

Unless you are already CFIG, you are always 'working on a rating' when
flying dual with a (current) CFIG. No parachutes needed for spinning.
And no, as I said, he did not turn me down because of the lack of a
chute.

I would also refuse to spin a student in a glider that I had not
previously spun myself.

This begs the question: Why the hell would you instruct in an aircraft
you haven't spun yourself? Doing so would be foolish, IMHO.

Like it or not;

not

in the US, spin training is not required for the
commercial rating...

...but it is required for CFI. That does not make every CFI a
qualified acro jock.

If you read the FARs you will find that spin training is not acro.

A spin is a well-behaved, predictable flight regime...

Not necessarily true, not even true of all trainers. Some gliders
have, (or at least are reputed to have) multiple spin modes.

The spin rate, pitch angle, descent rate, and any pitch oscillation
amplitude and frequency does depend on the CG and gross weight, sure,
but a spin within the CG in an approved glider with a standard
airworthiness certificate is always benign can be recovered using the
documented procedures. As I said: 'well-behaved' and 'predictable'.

Not all
aircraft have perfect rigging, and a certain percentage have accumulated
repairs and/or mods over years of operation that change the distribution of
mass about the various axis and have an unknown effect on spin behavior.

Any mods that effect the CG require a new weight & balance. See my
comment above re safe flight within CG. You'd be suicidal flying a
glider with an unkown spin behavior. Instructing in one would be
border-line criminal. My point is: a spin is not some black magic.
Learn it, and instruct it. If you are afraid of spinning you shouldn't
be flying, much less teaching.

Just two weeks ago, I found myself practicing stalls in a 152 that I
wouldn't spin in a bet. It had a dent in the leading edge of one wing and
had a nasty wing drop at every stall, but otherwise performed well.

Most 150s and 152s I have flown drop a wing at stall, as do many older
gliders. Does this make them unsafe to spin? Emphatically no! They
will spin happily in either direction.

"F1y1n" wrote in message

snip
amplitude and frequency does depend on the CG and gross weight, sure,
but a spin within the CG in an approved glider with a standard
airworthiness certificate is always benign can be recovered using the
documented procedures. As I said: 'well-behaved' and 'predictable'.

Up to the two turn JAR 22 test standard for modern gliders. Beyond that,
you are a test pilot.

If all you are planning to fly is well behaved and you are a cautious
pilot who never competes, or flies till fatigue set in that is fine.

Conversely a lot of the aircraft out there, and particularly the glass
single seaters will depart into a spin with little warning in the right
circumstances. Recovery attitude is often nearly vertical and the entry
violent. This is especially true of high performance single seaters with
high wingloadings. (lots of water in the wings)

We are also in part of the world that preaches spin identification and
avoidance. I fly a 33 year old glass plane (Standard Cirrus) that has
delightful handling and is relatively easy to fly, up to a point. Beyond
that point the alacrity with which she drops a wing prompted me to go
out and get some real spin training, so at least I have a chance. Maybe
I am just a mediocre pilot, but I am not sure I will not cross the line
some day. Even in a docile K13 the first couple were disorienting and I
recovered more because of the K13's behavior than correct procedure -
and I did this post solo.

Now I am a lot more relaxed in situations where it is possible I might
spin inadvertently like turbulent thermals.

Bruce

Arnold Pieper wrote:
That full-blown glider pilots would question the need for spin training is
unbelievable.
But all the oppinions I read on this tread just shows how much ignorance
there is on the subject, it's really sad.

What nobody seems to realize is that the Puchacz is used more extensively in
SNIP

Chris,

No, I don't think you have to spin below 1500agl, I don't agree with that
practice.

By "doing it time and again until the student realizes...." I just meant
practicing spins repeatedly during the training syllabus, not just once for
demonstration.



"Chris OCallaghan" wrote in message
om...
A year or two ago, there were people suggesting that low spins, say
below 1500 agl, were an important training exercise since they let the
student experience the shock of a canopy full of earth coming on
quickly. By having experienced this, the pilot would be able to react
more quickly to the accidental stall/spin in the pattern and thus
effect a faster, safer recovery.

Are you saying that you agree with this, that you practice it, and
that it has become common practice in the UK?

(You note that you start your training at 3000 agl, then imply that
once the student is acclimated, you bring the entry altitude down.)

Read the previous treads.

The Puchacz is used for low altitude spin training more than anything else
because it is that well trusted.

Being subject to that more than other/older designs, it is just more
exposed.
Where people don't spin gliders at low altitudes, the Puchacz has as clean
(or cleaner) a record as any other training glider.

If you don't know what's going on, check the www.ssa.org website, click on
Magazines, then on "Dick Johnson" and find his flight evaluation of the
Puchacz and the specific "spin characteristics evaluation" of the Puchacz,
in which Dick gives the Puchacz a clean bill of health.


"bumper" wrote in message
...
Some aircraft designs, given the wrong set of circumstances, can exhibit
unusual or divergent flight characteristics. They can enter a deep stall
or
flat spin from which recovery is impossible or difficult. Not sure if the
Puchaz suffers from any of this, the accident numbers alone may make some
wonder. Being your basic coward, I wouldn't spin one without knowing for
sure what's going on . . . and I'll admit I don't.
--
bumper ZZ (reverse all after @)
"Dare to be different . . . circle in sink."


"Dave Martin" wrote in message
...
Why is it when there is a fatality we set off on a
chest beating exercise? The poor old Puchacz.

It is built to do a job, which it does excellently.
It can be used effectively to teach all aspects of
the glider pilots training syllabus without adding
weights, spin whiskers or other fancy gismos. It does
not have to be provoked into performing some of the
exercises, it does them as it should, correctly and
on command.

Yes it spins. It is designed to do that! OK it suffers
from some of its build quality.

It gives plenty of warning of the approaching stall,
it also gives plenty of warning that it is about to
spin. It can be flown very badly on or about the stall
and provided the pilot is aware of the circumstance
merely regaining flying speed generally solves the
problems.

Capable instructors can teach the whole range of stalling
and further stalling exercises. Unfortunately it allows
those not familiar with it into some dangerous areas

Like all gliders, instructors should be taught what
the glider is capable of, its qualities and how to
get the best out of the glider. I have been teaching
on Puchacz gliders for over 10 years and the more I
fly them the more I realise what a superb training
tool they are.

Other two seaters do some jobs better, but overall
the Puchacz is perhaps best all round training glider
in production today. It is a training tool and should
be used as such.

Having said that it is not a glider to get complacent
with. Like many gliders even those with alleged docile
characteristics if flown badly it will bite the unwary.


Dave

We get more heavy landing accidents in training than
in post solo flying, so by that argument we shouldn't
be teaching people to land either!

At 18:12 23 January 2004, Jj Sinclair wrote:
It's winter, I'm bored and I haven't started any good
controversies (this year)
so here goes:

In the early 50's the USAF had a policy to give jump
training to all aircrew
personnel. They soon learned that they were getting
twice the injuries in
training that they were experiencing in real bail-outs.
They decided to stop
the actual jump training and just give PLF and kit
deployment, etc training.

So, JJ asks, In light of recent events that show its
been reining Puchaz's, Do
we really want to teach full blown spins? Isn't spin
entry and immediate
recovery, all we should be doing?

JJ Sinclair