![]() |
| 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 |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
I also have wondered how an experienced pilot can spin in from
low thermalling. It must be a full spin, with the resulting steep recovery dive, that causes a spin-in accident: a stall doesn't lose much height. Even the most spin-eager gliders I've flown (Dart 17 and Puchacz) always signalled an approaching stall in plenty of time to stop an unintended spin developing. I've never accidentally spun while thermalling at normal altitudes, not once in my several thousand hours of gliding, so I wonder why it would be more likely to happen low down. One explanation might be that pilots are very stressed when circling low, and simply don't fly as well as usual. Or maybe they are circling unusually tightly, perhaps in a small thermal. I suspect experienced pilots would not make these mistakes. So I think that John Cochran's comment of August 28th may be right. There may some unknown, unexpected risk when low-and- slow that catches pilots out, even the best ones. Maybe small, strong, bubbly thermals exist low down, that can perhaps suddenly stall one wing? That would produce an immediate, uncontrollable, violent roll, somewhat like a flick manoever, without any advance warning signals. Not technically a spin, but probably ending the same way: a steep dive with insufficient height. If true, that's a risk that no amount of pilot skill can prevent, except by adopting the sensible rules I was trained with: 1. never thermal below pattern altitude, and 2. always fly at approach speed below pattern altitude. I have had one personal experience that supports John's suggestion: after a normal thermal flight in the midwest, on a day with light winds, I was on a normal final approach with wings level, at normal approach speed (60kts). At about 100ft agl, without any warning, my starboard wing was pushed rapidly and smoothly upwards, and despite immediate full opposite control input, I was put into a steep bank, I'd estimate close to 45 degrees. The surge vanished as fast as it had arrived. After it stopped, I was able to level the wings, correct the heading, and made a normal landing further down the runway. It totally surprised me. I assume a narrow thermal bubble lifted off under the starboard wing just as I passed. I estimate the surge lasted about three seconds, so at 60kts it must have been about 300ft long. I would not have believed it, except that it happened to me. I'm sure it would have been much harder to cope with, if I had not been flying at approach speed. Perhaps if I'd been flying slowly, at a higher angle of attack, the surge might have stalled the starboard wing. This roll event was also seen by an experienced pilot observer on the ground, who said he was astonished to see it, and inquired about it after I landed. A roll upset like this has only happened to me once, so (thankfully) its clearly a very rare occurrence, and maneageable at approach speed. If such bubbles are baby thermals, they are probably only in small areas, miles apart, and short lived, so would also be rarely encountered. However a pilot who is attempting to thermal low is presumably intentionally over an area where baby thermals are forming, so may have a higher chance of encountering such an effect. At 17:08 28 August 2012, John Cochrane wrote: One point not reiterated yet here -- the atmosphere down low is very different from what you're used to at 2000 feet and above. It's easy to say "I haven't unintentionally stalled /spun in a thermal in a thousand hours. How much of a dope do you have to be?" A short list of what's different down low: The atmosphere is much more turbulent. Thermals, such as they are are much smaller. In this layer, many small punchy thermals will start. Many will die. The ones we use up higher consist of many little parcels of hot air that have coalesced. Most thermals are either short lived, or basically unworkable to a modern glider. You're in the boundary layer where wind is being affected by the ground, so there is wind-induced turbulence. Punches of strong lift/gust followed by sink when you make a half turn will be the norm. The ground picture will be totally different to the pilot. If you turn downwind at altitude, you don't notice that much. If you turn downwind at 300 feet, all of a sudden the ground will rush by and, this being a high stress moment, you may pull back. Just as the gust you turned in fades, or the thermal turns to sink. And when the canopy fills with trees going by at 70 mph, the urge to pull back will be really strong. You may push forward to recover at altitude, but it's really really hard to do with the ground coming up fast. So, just because you've never unintentionally spun at altitude does not mean your chances at 300 feet are the same. Not to raise a tired subject, but why we give out contest points for thermaling at 300 feet or below remains a puzzling question to me. John Cochrane |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 03:26 PM |
| It's Da' Spin,Boss! Da' Spin! | [email protected] | Home Built | 8 | November 19th 08 11:28 PM |
| Stall/ Spin testing the RV-12 | cavelamb himself[_4_] | Home Built | 3 | May 14th 08 08:01 PM |
| Glider Stall Spin Video on YouTube | ContestID67 | Soaring | 13 | July 5th 07 09:56 AM |
| AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Piloting | 25 | September 11th 03 02:27 PM |