Date: 26/01/2004 00:45 GMT Standard Time
Message-id: cCUlhtvFIYkV-pn2-PiHmQrhdZUiZ@localhost

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
--

Ian,

If there were many accident reports which read "...The single seater entered a
spin

at 5000' and was seen to carry on down until it hit the ground..." then I
would

agree with you.

The point I am making is that if you make a low, slow, under-banked and

over-ruddered final turn, no amount of 'spin training' is going to protect you
from

what is going to happen next. Ejection seats have an 'envelope', outside which

survival is not assured. Helicopters have an 'avoid curve', inside which a
power

loss will cause a crash, no matter how skilful the pilot. Gliders are the same
and

if we choose to operate in this zone, we must accept the consequences.

In using modern accident prevention techniques, we try and break the 'causal
chain'

in the sequence of events leading up to the accident itself. I would put
forward

the premise that spin recovery (at low level) is beyond the end of that chain,
i.e.

you have already decided to have an accident and are now along for the ride.


I regard the ability of pilots to operate their aircraft in this manner as a

_critical failure_ in the way they have been instructed.


You do not need a snappy spinning/stalling glider to instill these most basic

airmanship/handling skills into a student. Any aircraft will do.

To instructors: do you let your P2 get away with demonstrating what I describe
in

the second paragraph?

I don't remember advocating 'non-stalling' trainers, simply that too much
effort is

going into an exercise which has a dubious risk/reward ratio. For many years we
had

no sailplanes at LGC which could be spun and there was no such training. What
we

_did_ do was concentrate on the 'old chestnuts' like: "Never low AND slow" and

properly planned and controlled approaches.

Finally, I am not 'anti' people going off spinning. Indeed, I quite enjoy a
good

thrash downwards at the end of the day. I just think the whole exercise has to
be

put in a relevant context.

Ed