If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
|
#63
|
|||
|
|||
|
#64
|
|||
|
|||
At 07:48 10 February 2004, Mark James Boyd wrote:
BAToulson wrote: and then I'd show them the statistics for lightning strikes and prove that wearing a chute increased the chance of being hit by lightening, and this was a much greater risk than what we estimated was the risk of being the first fatal accident in the 2-33 in over 30 years, much less one that might require a chute... A short while after the then CFI of the London Gliding Club mandated all training flights will use chutes, one of our K21's was hit by a lightning strike which travelled horizontally some 3-4 miles. The glider was totaly destroyed, with the tail only attached by it's control cables. Both pilot and student bailed out and landed safely (bar a few breaks). Had this been prior to Jed's time as CFI, we would have had two more dead pilots. I think that was the first of a kind in the UK, certainly the risk of being hit in a mid-air is much greater, and we have those pretty much every season! Just because statistics show that something is unlikely, it does not mean that the next flight you make wont be the next entry into those same statistics! Your chute is your only chance. |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
Errr
Mike..in answer to your points... I don't have much power experience, but people I have flown with and coverted to gliders include an ETPS graduate, a lightning pilot and ex RAF low level aerobatics champion and a number of high hour ATPL's - and I've listened intently to what they've said during the conversion process.. Perhaps I should have excluded fighter and aerobatic pilots specifically from my comments, but I did not say spam can pilots never used the rudder nor that they never fly at high AOA.. During my own power training in the UK (again post learning to glide like you) I was not terribly impressed with the forced landing training. As has been said here before glider pilots spend most of the time flying in the lower 40% of the speed range of their airframe and power pilots (F4's, world record attempts, test flying, excursions into outer space and so on excluded) spend most of the time in the upper 40% of their speed range.. I normally respect your opinion on these sort of things, but I do wish you would read what I wrote and not what you thought I wrote.. Mark At 21:36 09 February 2004, Mike Borgelt wrote: On 9 Feb 2004 09:17:28 GMT, Mark Stevens wrote: In my opinion any comparison with the withdrawal of spin training for US PPL's is invalid, power pilots do not routinely fly at high angles of attack, and tend not to use the rudder in most phases of flight. They also tend not to make the number of outlandings glider pilots do and tend not to have the same problems to solve in the pattern.. Do you fly power? I got my power licence after 27 years gliding. Where do you get the idea that power pilots don't use the rudder? Rudder is used as required. In most power planes not much rudder is required because of the design of the ailerons and the short wings but it is still required if you want to keep the ball in the middle. Put a well trained power pilot in a glider and he might take a couple of minutes to figure it out but that is about all. He probably will take a little longer to do good coordinated continuous steep turns but that is only because glider pilots do many more than power pilots do. Hopefully power pilots don't do many outlandings but I was impressed by the amount of time spent during training on forced landings and then you have a far worse problem than in a glider. JJ might fill you in on use of rudder at high AOA in power planes like the F4. Mike Borgelt |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
15 (realy fifteen) rescue jumps from gliders were reported by the German BFU
(air accident investigation agency) in summer 2003 in Germany or out of German registered gliders abroad. 14 succeeeded. Most jumps were caused by mid air collisions, others by structural failures. Double seaters as well as single seaters were involved. One jump was directly out of a winch launch (ASK21, aileron not connected), some others were also close to ground, including the fatal one. Since there are only about 30,000 glider pilots here, roughly one of 2000 had to jump! Those who want to board a glider without a parachute should keep this in mind! (In other years only about two or three rescue jumps were registerd.) Happy flights Walter |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
|
#68
|
|||
|
|||
Bill,
So if I may summarise briefly - of the five accidents with Puch's where we're fairly certain of the causes only one occurred during spin avoidance training.. If my memory is correct was that not the one with two instructors on board? Can you summarise or comment on any other two seater accidents with serious injury or fatalities that were spin related in any way in that time period? I'm stretching to think of some.. Mark At 23:48 09 February 2004, W.J. \bill\ Dean \u.K.\. wrote: JJ, 1./ 'The British are now investigating their 4th Puch spin-in with unspecified other types that have spun-in as a result of spin-training.' In fact, unfortunately, we British are now investigating our sixth Puchacz fatal accident. If, I repeat if, this last one turns out to be a spin-in, it will be the fifth. The accident in 2003 (20/03) happened when the glider was flown into the winch-wire while another glider was being launched. From my reading of the accident report, there was no stall or spin, and the type of glider made no difference at all. The accident in 1995 (82/95) was a spin entry when the pilot in command lost control while recovering from a launch failure at about 300 ft. The pupil was not touching the controls at any point, the stall/spin was not part of training, nor was the launch failure itself. I am afraid that there have been a number of similar accidents to various different types of glider. The accident to the DG500 shown in the video on the 'Spin' thread seems to have been similar, that pilot was lucky he was already very low, it seems clear to me that if he had been say 100ft higher when the glider departed he would have been much worse off. The accidents in 1993 (132/93) and 1991 (111/91) were due to failure to recover from a spin entry at low level. It is likely that the spin entries were inadvertent, and the pilots in command tried to recover immediately. However, the pupils held the stick right back so the gliders span into the ground. Hence the advice now given for pupils to be told to keep their hands clear of the stick for first stall/spins, and for these to be done at altitude anyway. The accident in 1990 (114/90) was a deliberate spin for training purposes, recovery was started too low. This is why the advice quoted in my previous posting today at 17.07 was given in the BGA Instructors' Manual published in 1994. 2./ 'The British require 2-turn spins (full blown) in both directions, on initial check-out and annually thereafter.' We do not require 2-turn spins annually. I don't know what you mean by initial check-out. I had annual check-outs at two clubs last year, one in a K21 and one in a K13. With the K21 we did no spins at all (it won't at my weight), with the K13 we did spin entries, but no 2-turn spins (again, the K13 won't at my weight). Individual clubs, or individual instructors may require more stringent testing, and it will vary with the assessment of the pupil, but there is no general requirement as far as I know for 2-turn spins in both directions (if there is, how did I escape?). Only clubs using the Puchacz or some other E. European gliders would be able to insist on everyone doing a 2-turn spin; given suitable conditions and enough height this sounds quite a good idea anyway. I still don't know the difference between a full blown 2-turn spin, and any other kind of 2-turn spin. 3./ 'Some practice spins are entered as low as pattern altitude.' I don't know what you mean by circuit pattern altitude. This depends so much on the nature of the site, and the conditions. I have done a lot of flights where the normal launch height was less than 800ft., not very satisfactory but there it is. I have also flown in conditions when it is normal to be on finals at 1,000ft. or more. The quotation I gave in my previous posting explains why and in what circumstances a spin entry might be called for at 800ft, with of course an immediate recovery. Although the manual does not say so, this would almost certainly be done in a K13. JJ, how much flying have you done in a K13? And I don't know how much difference it would make, flying from Minden at 4,718ft. a.s.l. (and hot) compared with the Long Mynd at 1,411ft. and a temperate climate. I have not disregarded your posting because some may actually take notice of what you say. You say 'I do believe that ANY accident resulting from an intentional spin entry is unacceptable'. What does this mean, that you think an accident from an inadvertent spin entry is acceptable? Certainly, that could explain why you seem to think that much of our spin training is wrong and unnecessary. So far as we in the U.K. are concerned, we think that any accident, from any cause, and especially from spin entries whether deliberate or inadvertent is unacceptable. The coaching (training) of instructors, and the training of pupils has this aim, to prevent accidents during training, and after training. We firmly believe that stall/spin training is essential, and that this must include experience of actual stalls, actual spin entries and actual spins in order to teach avoidance, recognition and recovery. Failure to do this during dual training will just result in a worse accident record among pilots who are supposedly trained. All this is clearly explained in our BGA Instructors' Manual, and much of it in the quotation I gave in my previous posting. Regards - Bill. W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.). Remove 'ic' to reply. 'JJ Sinclair' wrote in message ... Bill, I have been responding to posts in this thread that indicate: 1./ The British are now investigating their 4th Puch spin-in with unspecified other types that have spun-in as a result of spin-training. 2./ The British require 2-turn spins (full blown) in both directions, on initial check-out and annually thereafter. 3./ Some practice spins are entered as low as pattern altitude. If the above is not true, please disregard my postings on the subject. I do believe that ANY accident resulting from an intentional spin entry is unacceptable and that spin training should emphasize spin recognition and spin avoidance with recovery within 1 turn. I now leave the British glider training in the good hands of the British glider instructors and will post no more on this subject. JJ Sinclair. |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
Kirk,
These are my experiences as a trainee... When I learnt to glider, all my spin training was done from straight from 2000' aerotows. My instructor pulled the nose up booted the rudder in and over we went.. Over time he allowed me to do the same. My thoughts at the time were that if for some reason I pulled the nose up hard I would not boot the rudder in and wondered why anyone would.. A few months later I had changed clubs and was flying with an instructor who first demonstrated how nose low spins could happen.. The first time we did this at 1000' ft I had an almost irresitable urge as the world went green/brown to pull back on the stick.. That was one of the most memorable moments of being instructed.. Mark At 14:18 10 February 2004, Kirk Stant wrote: (Mark James Boyd) wrote in message news:... W.J. \(Bill\) Dean \(U.K.\). wrote: 'As this training progresses, it is necessary to introduce brief spins where the ground is noticeably close. This reminds me of the old FAA requirement to practice twin engine-out procedures (Vmc demonstration) at low altitudes during multiengine training, the reasoning being the low performance of the existing twin-engined trainers required a low altitude in order to have any single-engine climb available to show. Apparently, this killed a LOT of pilots due to stall spins at low altitude in light twins - not fun with an engine caged! - until the FAA decided that the cure was a lot worse than the disease. Sure, with a really experienced instructor, and a really trusted glider, a low altitude spin could be 'safely' demonstrated. But I'm not totally convinced that it is necessary for the lesson to sink in. OTOH, in the context of spin training, it is absolutely vital to beat into the students head the nasty impact (pun intended) of a surprise low altitude departure. You guys (the Brits) can possibly get away with it, due to much more standardization (a good thing). I would hate to see it adopted in the US, where standardization is a one of dem big woids we aint learnd in skool. How about our French, German, Dutch, etc. colleagues - How low do you teach (or demonstrate; not necessarily the same thing) low altitude spin entries? BTW, don't forget 1812 (we still need to burn 10 Downling Street) and Suez (Now there was a virtuous war!). Just joking, we love you man! Kirk |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
I liked Rod Machado's quote from Feb 2004 AOPA pilot: "So the next time you hear the word always, only or never used in an aviation sentence, think about asking the question: So what?" And the following month he said that landing anywhere in the first third of the runway was just fine. Tony V. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Inside A U.S. Election Vote Counting Program | Peter Twydell | Military Aviation | 0 | July 10th 03 08:28 AM |