Puchaz spin count 23 and counting

In article 4026791b$1@darkstar, (Mark James Boyd)
writes:


I don't disagree, like helmets on motorcycles, it is (or is not) part
of the local safety culture and the majority naturally conform. That said,
is chute use normal in all small UK aircraft, or is it just gliders? If
only gliders, why?

Hmmm...that is an interesting question. I'd love to hear
the UK answer

Simple, how many power pilots do you know do "steep" turns at 7knots above the
stall; How many deliberately fly in circles with a group of others, many in the
blind spot on a busy day, STILL 7 knots over stall speed.

Barney
UK

On 8 Feb 2004 09:59:55 -0700, (Mark James Boyd)
wrote:

From a UK
perspective that seems criminally negligent and we
accept the cost of running parachutes for all seats
in all club gliders as simply something it would be
inconceivable to do.. And yes, they have saved lives...

Sure, in some conditions. But how many people have they
killed invisibly? The guy wearing the chute for the
winch pattern tow? Not a chance he'd have enough altitude to
use the chute, but maybe the extra weight was just
enough to cause the cable break and the stall/spin?
Kinda an invisible possibility, isn't it?
No real way to determine that...

Well... at the moment I know four glider pilots in person who were
using the nylon letdown successfully.
One girl bailed out of their ASW-19 during a winch launch (elevator
not connected) [500 ft], one bailed out of his Ventus after he had
rammed another glider [5000 ft, unfortunately the other pilot was not
able to bail out], and two bailed out of their respective Ka-8(s after
they had collided at 700 ft.

Note the altitudes [in brackets].

I know of not a single case where the additional weight of a parachute
caused a problem. I also have not even heard of any case where the
parachute caused a disadvantage.


I think REQUIRING parachutes for ALL glider operations is absurd.

Any questions left?

Bye
Andreas

On 8 Feb 2004 08:54:58 -0700, (Mark James Boyd)
wrote:

A coupla things. No pilot is required to wear parachutes
if he is the sole occupant.

Next, aerobatics is a little ambiguous. 91.303 says
"an intentional maneuver involving an abrupt change
in an aircraft's attitude, an abnormal attitude, or abnormal
acceleration, not necessary for normal flight."

In 91.307(c), every occupant must wear a parachute
to execute an intentional manuever that exceeds 60 degrees
of bank or 30 degrees nose-up or down attitude relative to
the horizon.

So "aerobatics" (including stalls, chandelles, lazy-8s, steep
turns 50 degrees, etc.) can be done without parachutes (although
there are still requirements to stay away from airways, cities,
airport airspace, low vis, above 1500 ft AGL, etc.).

Ahh.. I have to apologize. In my other reply I forgot to mention the
guy who bailed out of his Lo-100 that had lost a wing inflight while
doing aerobatics.
He started to leaeve the glider at 3.000 ft, the chute opened less
than 100 ft above the ground.


Bye
Andreas

JJ Sinclair wrote in article
...
Mark,
I guess it comes down to a matter of government control, doesn't it? You
Brits
require fully developed spins and us Yanks allow our instructors to
demonstrate
and instruct as they see fit.

You Brits collect all the guns and us Yanks allow our citizens to protect
themselves.

You Brits force everyone into a state health care system and us Yanks
allow our
citizens to choose.

It all comes down to a matter of freedom to choose, didn't we fight a war
with
you chaps over this?


Chris,

Some gentle reminders about reality here in the UK..

RIGHT ON, JJ!!!!
Well said.
They may be the epitome of civility, but then, they don't have a choice.
Cheers! , Pete

At 18:00 08 February 2004, Mark James Boyd wrote:
I've seen a lot of chutes (many legally expired) in
single seat
gliders as well. The FAA seems to leave these guys
alone,
recognising that since no chute at all is required,
having an expired one in a single seater is not exactly
front page news...

Geez, I don't know any FAA types ignoring 61.307(a)...
whenever a parachute is carried in any aircraft and
made 'available for emergency use,' it must be in current
pack.

Judy

JJ,

The only point your original post made about spin avoidance
training was that the UK government required us to
do whereas in the land of the free etc you could do
what you damn well wanted. I pointed out that the government
did not require us to do anything, and the BGA (the
SSA equivalent) made those decisions in a fully deregulated
manner unlike you guys with the FAA all over you..
My original tetchy response was to a post that suggested
that we did not try and look objectively at every accident
and disseminate conclusions from that..

Now you've decided to address the substantive issue,
my view is as follows..

1. We do not 'routinely' spin students in during training.
Guess what, not all Puch spin accidents occurred during
instructor led spin exercises.

2. I've suggested there are some reservations about
the
specific use of the Puch amongst our instructor community


3. My understanding is that our accident rates overall
compare favourably with elsewhere in the world - this
was confirmed by our regional examiner at a CFI and
coach meeting on Saturday.

The problem with your analysis is that you focus on
accidents of commission, but not accidents of omission..
we don't know how many lives have been saved by spin
avoidance training, we do know how many have been lost.
What we do know is that the number of spin related
deaths has decreased. So I guess my answer is that
in my view the cure is better than the disease, although
we'd rather that noone died or was injured at any point
during their flying career..

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..

I hope this answers your question on where I stand..

At 21:18 08 February 2004, Jj Sinclair wrote:
Mark,
We have had a pleasant little discussion of parachutes,
gun control and
socialized medicine, however you have failed to address
the core issue of the
British requirement to teach full blown spins. You
feel that those who survive
the spin training will be better for it. This position
fails to address the
fact that you Brits are screwing students and instructors
into the ground on a
fairly regular basis. Some of us feel your cure (spin
training) is worse than
the desease (spin accidents).
Your comments on the core issue?
JJ Sinclair

On 2/8/04 5:18 AM, in article ,
"Mark Stevens" wrote:

And of course here in the UK we look with some amusement
at...the preventative affect on crime of a prison incarceration
rate about eight times the european average.

If we just had a distant land, peopled only by a few aboriginals, to which
we could send those misfits, I am sure it would be much more economical than
sheltering and feeding them here at our expense. Our surrounding moat is
also a bit narrow, in some places non-existent, and I'm sure that reflects
badly somehow on our judgment and character. Perhaps you Brits would be
willing to take on a few of tens of thousands of these excessively
incarcerated individuals. Surely, you can make peaceful productive citizens
of them simply by offering free medical care and an environment in which
their potential victims have almost no means of defending themselves.

If there were any imperfections or glaring anachronisms in UK culture, I'm
sure I would be not only unqualified to criticize them but also totally
uninterested, since I neither live, vote, nor pay taxes there. Your
expertise on matters social has been noted however, and I trust you won't
mind our calling on you to help us find our footing in the swamp of
inadequacy and despair in which we find ourselves.

When you have taken a goodly number of those unfortunates (whom we have so
obviously failed) and made them welcome as members of your glider syndicate,
perhaps you would be so kind as to report on your progress in teaching them
to spin Puchaz, and thereby draw this thread back on topic.


-----
Jack
-----

Jack,

What a delicious use of irony... However, I was merely
responding to a comment made by one of your fellow
countrymen who clearly had neither your delicacy of
touch or restraint.

Given the fact I'm about 20% english I don't really
give a toss what happened 160 years ago, although I
understand we're not the people these days shipping
people to a far away island and holding them prisoner..:-)
And it's today I'm mainly interested in.. Otherwise
we can discuss how many people were moved involuntarily
from where to where in the late 18th and 19th centuries..


Mark












At 09:24 09 February 2004, Jack wrote:
On 2/8/04 5:18 AM, in article -be
rlin.de,
'Mark Stevens' wrote:

And of course here in the UK we look with some amusement
at...the preventative affect on crime of a prison
incarceration
rate about eight times the european average.

If we just had a distant land, peopled only by a few
aboriginals, to which
we could send those misfits, I am sure it would be
much more economical than
sheltering and feeding them here at our expense. Our
surrounding moat is
also a bit narrow, in some places non-existent, and
I'm sure that reflects
badly somehow on our judgment and character. Perhaps
you Brits would be
willing to take on a few of tens of thousands of these
excessively
incarcerated individuals. Surely, you can make peaceful
productive citizens
of them simply by offering free medical care and an
environment in which
their potential victims have almost no means of defending
themselves.

If there were any imperfections or glaring anachronisms
in UK culture, I'm
sure I would be not only unqualified to criticize them
but also totally
uninterested, since I neither live, vote, nor pay taxes
there. Your
expertise on matters social has been noted however,
and I trust you won't
mind our calling on you to help us find our footing
in the swamp of
inadequacy and despair in which we find ourselves.

When you have taken a goodly number of those unfortunates
(whom we have so
obviously failed) and made them welcome as members
of your glider syndicate,
perhaps you would be so kind as to report on your progress
in teaching them
to spin Puchaz, and thereby draw this thread back on
topic.


-----
Jack
-----

At 18:00 08 February 2004, Mark James Boyd wrote:

At 16:00 08 February 2004, Jj Sinclair wrote:
Mark,
I guess it comes down to a matter of government control,
doesn't it? You Brits
require fully developed spins and us Yanks allow our
instructors to demonstrate
and instruct as they see fit.

You Brits collect all the guns and us Yanks allow our
citizens to protect
themselves.

You Brits force everyone into a state health care system
and us Yanks allow our
citizens to choose.

It all comes down to a matter of freedom to choose,
didn't we fight a war with
you chaps over this?

I'm sorry, but I can't resist this even though it's a bit off-topic: (deliberate misinterpretation) the only war we fought with you (the one about independence) we lost. The other one involved the UK in conflict that was more about securing middle eastern resources and oil for the west and protecting a bunch of magpies living on the coast of the mediteranean sea than it was about protecting us from WMD's. The arguments being presented now about how wonderful it is that a despotic regime has been removed ignore the fact that the same regime was heartily supported through the 80's by the US and the UK, amonst others.

Bring it on...

Rgds,

Derrick.