![]() |
| 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 |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bruce,
I do not think there have been any fatal accidents in the U.K. where a spin was deliberately entered below 1,000 ft. If you know different, could you please tell us about it. I know of one fatal accident where a spin was deliberately started at about 1,400 ft., this was during instructor training and it is known that recovery was started too low. The report on the accident last January where both pilots were killed has not yet been published. However, it is known that the spin was started above 1,000 ft. In practice, some clubs and some instructors never did this low spin entry exercise; the wording in the BGA Instructors' Manual meant that in fact it was optional, since it was open to any instructor to judge that not all the caveats were met. The relevant wording was: "As this training progresses, it is necessary to introduce _brief_ spins where the ground is noticeably close. This is to ensure that the trainee will take the correct recovery action even when the nose is down and the ground approaching. A very experienced instructor flying a docile two seater in ideal conditions may be prepared to initiate a _brief_ spin from 800'. A less docile two seater with a less experienced instructor, or less than ideal conditions, should raise the minimum height considerably." Unfortunately, there have been many fatalities in the U.K. from an inadvertent stall/spin entered below 1,000 ft. The belief was that the low height spin entry exercise, done correctly under the right conditions (type of glider, C. of G. position, weather etc. conditions, experience skill and currency of instructor) would help to reduce the number of these accidents. W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.). Remove "ic" to reply. "Bruce Greeff" wrote in message ... snip Just because it was standard procedure some years ago, with a glider that had design faults with inadequate drag controls does not mean it should still be standard practice. The discussion about spin demonstration in the circuit is an example. Eventually the BGA dropped this after a number of fatal accidents. Why do people have to die demonstrating something that is marginally useful, and has so low probability of happening, relative to the probability of injury demonstrating it? Imagine a fighter pilot having to demonstrate a successful ejection at each flight review. Same question, why on earth would you expect that? |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Tamed by the Tailwheel | [email protected] | Piloting | 84 | January 18th 05 05:08 PM |
| VW-1 C-121J landing with unlocked nose wheel | Mel Davidow LT USNR Ret | Military Aviation | 1 | January 19th 04 06:22 AM |
| "I Want To FLY!"-(Youth) My store to raise funds for flying lessons | Curtl33 | General Aviation | 7 | January 10th 04 12:35 AM |
| FAA Knowledge Test Results | Richard Moore | Instrument Flight Rules | 4 | October 12th 03 08:10 AM |
| FAA Knowledge Test Results | Richard Moore | Simulators | 3 | October 12th 03 05:48 AM |