Hi Mike, I have only just realised that you had a lot more at the bottom of the post that I now feel requires a response. Sorry folks - I'm new to this group but it is definately my last post on this subject. Off list with anyone else, eventually. I have another job here. Responses burried in the text somewhere below if you are still interested.
Quoting Mike Borgelt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > 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. Refer previous response! > > 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) Refer previous response! > > Moving recreational pilots out of their comfort zone may move them right > out of recreational aviation. We introduce it very sloowwwwlllllyyy. If they are still there at the end of the ab-initio course, they probably accept the requirement. I admit there are a lot who don't like the annual check too, but again, we take it slowly, because it has to be done. Perhaps there are some that leave gliding instead and that is a shame. If they go power flying where they don't have to be spin checked, not all is lost on them. > > We don't routinely outland to check people after initially teaching them > how. Some require it, some ask for it, others clearly don't need it. > 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. Splat! Too late. This pilot definately needed better spin training. He would have noticed the stick gradually coming back with the nose maintaining position. Having entered the spin he would have recovered with the minimum of height loss. Hopefully those friends in the thermal below were 250ft away. If you haven't been training, more like 600ft. That is the point. Accidental spins in thermals or in the circuit where the ground intervenes. 250ft (or less) verses 600ft or more! > > The issue is rational risk management - how many do you kill in training to > prevent killing people in operations? Accidental spins resulting in fatalities, heaps - spin training, extremely rare in gliding in Australia. > > 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. He must have failed his out-landing check then! ;-) > > 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? I know of the incident and some pretty basic errors were made that were not entirely due to spin training. The CofG was a little more aft with the two pilots concerned. The ground raises imperceptibly to the east of Beverley (300ft) I'm not sure but I think we had just adopted QNH as opposed to QFE too and that accounts for another 720ft. (We simply nominate 2000ft QNH with AFLD Elevation of 720ft and take note of the high ground to the east in our brief - no more confusion) The Puch was new to the club and pilots were familiar with the more docile Blanik. When the Puchacz comes out of the spin it is heavier with less drag than the Blanik. That is where the problem can usually by traced. With extra training, at height, exit speeds reduce from more than 90kts to as litle as 60kts with a huge reduction in height loss. The pilots had equal shares in their LS3 and maintain there friendship to this day. I�m sure neither of them see any problem with spin training. At least one of the pilots concerned will see this and might be able to enlighten us further. The Puchacz is kitten. It is the only spin able ACFT available to our 120 members, most of whom have just met their annual spin check requirements. I would have to say that the average crew experience on these flights was a lot less than the two very experienced pilots you speak of above. We know the ACFT a lot better now and we have better procedures in place. We still spin down to a recovery by 1000ft AGL and at a similar CofG to the mishap above, the spin stops approximately 120 degrees after the standard spin recovery is initiated. At this point you are only doing 60-65kts, well below Va and you can pull as much as you like to contain the speed and reduce the height loss. Training ensures you don't stall/re-enter the spin in the pull out. I know there are a lot of variables in the spinning characteristics of the Puchacz but it has no vices. The standard recovery at a sensible height has worked thousands of times for us. I admit standardisation is very important with the recovery but this is a simple mechanical procedure. Practice at recognising the problem of accidental spin entry should be our focus but that is only giving the student half the story. Mike Valentine wrote four very good articles in AG explaining the need for a revised spin training requirement and the present instructor�s manual and Operations Directives have resulted from his work. Basically accidents were happening close to the ground from accidental insipient spins and spins, often in the circuit and sometimes with instructors on board. They were not accidents resulting from spin training at height. Mike made the statement then that there had been no spin accidents resulting from training. We also saw break ups where pilots apparently didn't recognise a spiral resulting from a simple incipient spin. Something had to be done about this developing trend once it had been identified. You are probably right to argue the case for GA type powered ACFT � here and in the USA, but we are talking chalk and cheese. Gliders pilots spend most of their time close to stalling speeds in circling flight to get the best from their thermals. We do have an accidental spin history so we must guard against it here as is done through the SSA in the USA. I think you will find that spin training in gliders in the states is a condition of the PPL issued to glider pilots by the FAA approved testing authority. > Mike (who spent part of this morning in a CT4B doing under the hood UA > recoveries then some visual ones during a binannual) That must have boosted your confidence in your ability to handle unexpected instrument failures. The CT4 spins beautifully so it is a shame that a part of your visual UA recoveries wasn't from one of those. I'm sure you would have enjoyed it. Best regards, Daryl _____________________________________________ This email (including all attachments) is confidential. It may contain personal information and is intended solely for the named addressee. Confidentiality is not waived or lost because this email has been sent to you by mistake. If you have received it in error, please let me know by reply email, delete it from your system and destroy any copies. This email is also subject to copyright. No part of it should be reproduced, adapted, or published without my written consent, as the copyright owner, or communicated or forwarded to anyone other than me. Any personal information in this email must be handled in accordance with the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth). http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/pasteact/0/157/0/PA002090.htm _______________________________________________ Aus-soaring mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
