Another stall spin

My $0.20c worth:
Practice at altitude in your glider. Some new gliders are "interesting" in
a full spin.
You will most likely find that the standard recovery is best.
Do not put yourself in the low save situation, especially when windy. Look
at the winners IGC files from Uvalde [or any other contest], you will find
the winners used lesser thermals at times to stay high, smarter flying.
If you do get below your safe level then do a safe outlanding, [this also
needs a little spare altitude to set up!].
Tom


At 20:19 30 August 2012, Sean F F2 wrote:
Great post. I should spin more. We all should. It might sound wimpy
but
=
my personal limit (post Ionia R6N and Tim's accident) is 800ft (see last
da=
y trace). I have not been below 1100 AGL since except at Parowan which
it
=
was unavoidable. Im just not that good and to fight lower, even in
competi=
tion, is simply not worth it to me any longer (as has been aptly
demonstrat=
ed this summer). I actually figure eighted alot in Parowon near the
hills
=
in turbulent gusty thermals during the contest (my first flying ever in
the=
mountains...) and didn't lose much. It was much more comfortable. I
actu=
ally felt great about being cautious.

I also pulled aside from launching in 20-35+ kts of wind. Just too much
wi=
nd for me knowing the drop off was going to be 200 ft over the mountains
in=
most cases.

Sure has been a tough year...and unfortunately I see little real change
(pe=
rsonally with pilots or in rules or regulation or procedure). Lots of
pilo=
ts regularly down to and below 500 ft (the red zone). =20

Simply put, we are each are 100% responsible for ourselves and our
passenge=
rs whenever we waggle the rudder and start to roll. That's all there is
to=
o it. If you choose to circle below the altitude by which you can
recover
=
100% of the time (if you really know this altitude as UH seems too) the
ris=
ks are suddenly EXTREME. You are in the "red zone" and mistakes are
potent=
ially absolutely deadly. We have all gone into the red zone. We are
there=
every time we launch and land. We are there every time we get low and
fig=
ht. Some of us well into it...200ft or so circling... I have done this
se=
veral times... And I was stupid.=20

Ridge pilots often spend the whole damn day in the red zone. Many of us
ta=
ke huge risk so regularly we seem to get used to it. Some thrive on it.

The problem might be that the soaring culture (has/had/did/does?)
respects
=
low saves more than sensible land outs. This has been my experience.
Not
=
alot of atta boys for landing out. At least a few for "digging out" at
400=
ft.

Unless rules are put in place to penalize low flying (in clubs, contests,
e=
tc) expect these accidents to continue... The stick is a useful tool but
w=
ill it be used? Can it be used?

F2

On Monday, August 27, 2012 7:08:30 PM UTC-4, (unknown) wrote:
On Monday, August 27, 2012 6:40:42 PM UTC-4, Ramy wrote:
=20
On Monday, August 27, 2012 1:08:49 PM UTC-7, Brian wrote: So I am
see=
ing the why do we still thermal low comment, but no one is says how low.
I
=
suspect these accidents may not be a low as some of us think. But have no
d=
ata to back it up. With so many of us using flight recorders it
should
=
be pretty easy to look a few of these accidents and see, but somehow this
d=
ata never seems to reach us. I can understand some liability issues but
it
=
seems like it would be pretty easy to reproduce the data into a generic
for=
mat that didn't give away the location or ID of what happened but would
sti=
ll allow us to review the flight path of an actual flight that led to the
a=
ccident. Brian My thoughts exactly. we need the actual data to
lear=
n something from those accidents, but it is almost never provided. We
shoul=
d have enough statistics to be able to determine how low is too low to
reco=
ver, so we can adjust our threshold. This is what safety culture is all
abo=
ut. If we keep this info to ourselves, no much can be learned. Ramy
=20
=20
=20
I do not agree.
=20
There is nothing new to learn from Jim's accident.
=20
People just keep repeating the same stupid stuff they know better than
to=
do.
=20
A handful of folks on this forum seem to want to study the crap out of
ac=
cidents like this in the hope that they will learn something new.
=20
There are no new lessons to be learned here guys. It is very simple.
You
=
can't circle at low altitude without an unaceptable risk of a(commonly
gust=
induced) stall spin. And these spins do NOT happen like the ones we
practi=
ce. They happen much more quickly and violently. I have a personal hard
dec=
k of 500 feet where circling is cancelled. The only exception is ridge
flyi=
ng where a whole group of additional variables come into play.
=20
If you want data, go spin your glider in the configuration you fly it
all=
the time. Let it start to spin, not just catch it when it departs. See
how=
much altitude you lose, then throw in another 1-200 feet for the
surprise
=
factor.
=20
I spin sailpalnes probably 60-80 times a year and my contest gliders a
do=
zen time a year. From that, I've developed my personal limits. =20
=20
Note that gliders with winglets commonly may be more benign in stall
than=
ones without, but may well be uglier in a true spin.
=20
As instructors, mentors, and friends, we need to embrace and promote
the
=
concept that we all need a limit where we STOP SOARING AND START LANDING
wi=
th NO exceptions.
=20
Sorry to rant, but I've lost 3 friends this year, all for the same damn
r=
eason and all knew better.
=20
UH