At 01:59 PM 20/09/04 +0800, you wrote:
>Quoting skf1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> Spinning on purpose is like out landing on purpose.
>>
>> Why ?
>>
>We need to know how to outland safely when things don't go as planned. That
>doesn't mean this knowledge is wasted on landing back at the home field
after a
>local flight. It is the same with all flying. Learning another skill can be
>applied across the board. Learning and then remaining proficient in
>spinning/recovery shouldn't be thought of as an isolated exercise to satisfy
>currency requirements.
>
>> Why ?
>
>We hear this every year during annual checks. Why is that? Could it be that
>some pilots being checked are not comfortable with being asked to
demonstrate
>an aspect of flight that they are not familiar with?
>
>Air forces of the world insist on aerobatic training because it moves the
>subject pilot out of his comfort zone. It forces him to explore the
potential
>of his aircraft and his own ability. It gives him the confidence to better
deal
>with various emergencies that an otherwise experienced pilot might not be
able
>to call on.
We aren't in the Air Force(thank God). Air forces(and the military in
general) take much higher chances of killing their people in training than
is acceptable for civilians. This is rational as the prime purpose is to
accomplish the mission and if it takes material and people to do that -
that is how it is.
However as I remember it the RAAF didn't encourage spinning the Macchi back
in the early 70's. I got to do extensive aerobatics in it but nobody talked
about spinning it. Intentional solo spinning for the students wasn't
allowed was it?(I was the base met man for 3 years and met men were
encouraged to fly)
Moving recreational pilots out of their comfort zone may move them right
out of recreational aviation.
We don't routinely outland to check people after initially teaching them how.
Spinning isn't a normal soaring manouever, you can fly for years and years
without doing one and if you do one inadvertently you have definitely not
been paying attention and your friends in the thermal below you will want
to talk to you behind the hangar later.
The issue is rational risk management - how many do you kill in training to
prevent killing people in operations?
Avweb recently mentioned that in Canada PPL training required spin training
until 1999. The US abandoned this requirement in 1949 so we have 50 years
to compare. Turns out spin training had no effect on the stall/spin
accident rate later and some were being killed in the training.
There was a huge spinning thread on r.a.s. earlier this year with something
like 400 posts. It is clear that extended spinning in our "certified"
gliders may result in some nasty surprises and yes plenty of people have
been killed in spin ins while spin training. The Puchacz spin in count
earlier this year stood at 24.
I'll stall one straight and level and off a gently banked turn but spin it
- no way.
A few years ago a friend of mine on an annual check spun the glider(Puch)
at the instructor's suggestion. When established the instructor took over,
reversed the direction of the spin and then asked for a recovery. Which
eventually happened at 250 feet AGL and they landed in the field below.
This happened at your club Daryl. Once safely on the ground I would have
been tempted to rip the stick out of the front seat and beat the instructor
severely with it. Just what the hell was being proved here?
Mike (who spent part of this morning in a CT4B doing under the hood UA
recoveries then some visual ones during a binannual)
Borgelt Instruments - manufacturers of quality soaring instruments
phone Int'l + 61 746 355784
fax Int'l + 61 746 358796
cellphone Int'l + 61 428 355784
Int'l + 61 429 355784
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
website: www.borgeltinstruments.com
_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To check or change subscription details, visit:
http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
