Puchacz fatal accident 18 Jan. 2004 at Husbands Bosworth.

In article , Stefan
writes
Ian Strachan wrote:

The standard recovery procedure once a full spin has developed that
works for most aircraft is,

It doesn't work in "most" aircraft, but rather in *all* aircraft which
are JAR certified. In fact, for an aircraft to get JAR certification,
this method must recover from a spin of at least five full rotations.
(If the CG is within the stated limits, of course!)

Glad to hear it. I try to be cautious in my posts and not to say things
that could be shot down and reduce the impact of the main points that I
am trying to make.

In this case that deliberate fully-developed spinning at low level below
bale-out height has questionable training value compared to spinning at
a safe height, is extremely foolish, and does no credit to our sport in
the eyes of others.

--
Ian Strachan

Ian Strachan wrote:

In this case that deliberate fully-developed spinning at low level below
bale-out height has questionable training value compared to spinning at
a safe height, is extremely foolish,

No question about this. I never start a deliberate spin (or even try the
stall behaviour of an unknown plane) below 3000 ft AGL.

Stefan

In article , Stefan
writes
Ian Strachan wrote:

In this case that deliberate fully-developed spinning at low level
below bale-out height has questionable training value compared to
spinning at a safe height, is extremely foolish,

No question about this. I never start a deliberate spin (or even try
the stall behaviour of an unknown plane) below 3000 ft AGL.

Stalling, in the sense of a cautious and gradual approach to the stall,
is another thing entirely, quite different to a full autorotative state
in a downward direction.

But you are right to be cautious, particularly with any "unknown
quantity" be it a glider, powered aircraft, high performance jet, or
whatever.

At the stall, stick forward to reduce alpha, pause for airspeed to
build, then normal use of aileron to level wings as necessary, is my
recommended action in most types of aircraft.

Note, no use of coarse rudder. Coarse rudder applied near the stall can
often lead to, guess what?

A

S ...... P ....... I ........ N

Surprise, surprise .......

Myself, in a glider environment, a slow approach to a stall and a quick
recovery, starting from 1500 ft AGL is OK. In a glider with known and
reasonable characteristics, 1000 ft. The difference to a
fully-developed spin is very marked, no comparison, really.

--
Ian Strachan

Ian Strachan wrote:

Stalling, in the sense of a cautious and gradual approach to the stall,
is another thing entirely, quite different to a full autorotative state
in a downward direction.

Yes. But part of my stall behaviour exploring is if, and if yes, when
and how does the glider drop a wing? Can it be held, fully stalled, with
the rudder? If yes, I push the stick forward and everyting is fine. If
no, guess what happens?

Stefan

In article , Stefan
writes

snip

when and how does the glider drop a wing? Can it be held, fully
stalled, with the rudder?

But why try it in the first place? Of what benefit does it have to
training people in rapid recovery from the stall situation?

What are we trying to achieve? I would suggest that primarily it is
training for rapid stall RECOVERY. Not playing around with whether or
not we can hold the aircraft in the stall with a combination of unusual
control positions. That is test flying, not legitimate instruction of
less experienced pilots for their future benefit.

Surely, we are discussing how best to teach early gliding students, both
pre-solo and just after solo. That is the critical area. You and I can
no doubt do all sorts of interesting things at the stall and into the
fully developed spin. Hopefully we may know what we are doing and will
not come to disaster. But this is experienced-pilot-academia, not how
the less experienced people in our sport should be taught how to avoid
potentially dangerous situations.

"Stories about what the highly experienced pilot can get away with are
often dangerous to those that are less experienced".

--
Ian Strachan

Yes, that's true.
And, highly experienced pilots don't always get away with it either.
Recalling a tragic loss of two well known and respected pilots in a Nimbus 4
a few years ago.

"Ian Strachan" wrote in message
...
In article , Stefan
writes

snip

when and how does the glider drop a wing? Can it be held, fully
stalled, with the rudder?

But why try it in the first place? Of what benefit does it have to
training people in rapid recovery from the stall situation?

What are we trying to achieve? I would suggest that primarily it is
training for rapid stall RECOVERY. Not playing around with whether or
not we can hold the aircraft in the stall with a combination of unusual
control positions. That is test flying, not legitimate instruction of
less experienced pilots for their future benefit.

Surely, we are discussing how best to teach early gliding students, both
pre-solo and just after solo. That is the critical area. You and I can
no doubt do all sorts of interesting things at the stall and into the
fully developed spin. Hopefully we may know what we are doing and will
not come to disaster. But this is experienced-pilot-academia, not how
the less experienced people in our sport should be taught how to avoid
potentially dangerous situations.

"Stories about what the highly experienced pilot can get away with are
often dangerous to those that are less experienced".

--
Ian Strachan

Ian Strachan wrote:

But why try it in the first place?

Well, how about ... curiosity? After all, gliding is about fun and not
rationalism.

Stefan

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 17:34:47 UTC, (Andreas Maurer)
wrote:

: Until now I have not even seen a Puchacz in real life - but the sheer
: number of spin accidents with experienced pilots suggests that
: something is wrong, don't you agree?

Not really. Spinnable gliders are going to be involved in more
spinning accidents than non-spinnable gliders. And I still think we
should consider all the solo spinners who die because they have been
trained - one way or another - to think that spinning is something you
have to do very deliberately. After all, that K21 wouldn't spin, so
this can't be a spin, so I'll just pull back more and

Ian


--

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 19:41:29 UTC, Don Johnstone
wrote:

: Spot on Ian. The rules for the Air Cadets in the UK,
: RAF rules, prohibit intentional spinning below 2500ft
: in a glider. If you are still spinning you abandon
: at this height

How many gliders will not recover from a spin with 2,500' to spare?
What are the injury rates for parachute jumps from gliders?

Ian
--

At 11:00 18 January 2005, Ian Johnston wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 19:41:29 UTC, Don Johnstone
wrote:

: Spot on Ian. The rules for the Air Cadets in the
UK,
: RAF rules, prohibit intentional spinning below 2500ft
: in a glider. If you are still spinning you abandon
: at this height

How many gliders will not recover from a spin with
2,500' to spare?
Nobody living can answer that question

What are the injury rates for parachute jumps from
gliders?

How many people survive spinning in?

Ian
--