OK, I agree with what you say and I suspect that if
the glider departed at 300ft I would be straight into
recovery as well. I suppose the point I am trying to
make is that departure from flight with insufficient
distance between the glider and the ground is going
to hurt whatever we do. We spend an awful lot of time
teaching spin recovery, and rightly so. We seem to
me, to spend less time emphasising the signs and symtons
of approaching stalls/spins and this I feel needs to
be put right. The cpncentration on keeping balanced
flight when near the ground indicates that the problem
has been thought about and recognised. How many glider
pilots have thought that deeply and really understand
that lighting fast recovery techniques will not help
when close to the ground? How many are able to recognise
the onset of disaster and take recovery action before
it happens? The people who have been posting on this
thread almost certainly have but what of the silent
ones?
The final turn stall/spin claims many every year. Are
we really approaching the problem in the right way?
As an aside it is not just glider pilots who get it
wrong. I recall reading an accident report of an airliner
which had taken off from Heathrow back in the 60's
or 70's. The aircraft stalled at about 3000ft and hit
the ground in a stalled condition. There were 3 qualified
ATPL pilots in the cockpit, two of them qualified as
captain on type. None of them it would appear recognised
that the airplane was stalled.
What chance have we mere mortals got if the gods get
it wrong?


At 15:06 13 November 2003, Chris Ocallaghan wrote:
Don,

I underestand completely your concerns. It's a subject
that's troubled
me for a long time, and I seem prone to flip flopping.
The problem
isn't so much a question of energy... you'll have less
in the spin
than in the ensuing dive after recovery (both of which
are nose down),
but having a 'procedure' that you can apply without
thinking. When
close to the ground, you simply don't have time to
observe and react
to more than a few inputs. For example, if I were to
cross-control the
aircraft into a stall below 300 feet, if I were over
trees, I might
just lock up the controls, close my eyes, and get ready
for the hurt.
But to do this I would have to overcome my rote training...
that is,
if I sense a departure, I recover immediately. I'm
not sure that type
of switch would be valuable. The lesson I've taken
away from this
discussion is that in the pattern, the yaw string stays
bolt straight.
An unexpected stall can be handled if the aircraft
is coordinated. If
not, the bottom falls out quickly.

If you accept as axiomatic that a stall can happen
at any speed and at
any attitude, then I have to place priority on coordination
fist,
airspeed second, though both are clearly primary concerns
in the
pattern.

It is a virtue, or perhaps a nuissance, of our sport,
that when near
the ground, the envelope narrows significantly. Between
1000 agl and
10 agl is like climbing solo. Falling is not an option,
and we need to
attune ourselves to that.