I have been watching this thread with interest and simply must speak before another pair die.
My thoughts on spin training were printed in AG in about 1988. We spend our lives trying to gain height, not do risky manoeuvres. Spinning has almost been designed out of gliders, the stall is now a mush and can easily be avoided. Spinning is a throwback to Farmer and WW1 where pilots either froze on controls, or tried to lift the nose by back stick as they had been rote taught. Aviation has moved on, lets go with it. I can also add my name to the list of pilots that have used a valuable [cats] life spinning a Puchacz. On 26 OCT 97 as a pre-solo instructional exercise a spin was initiated. The glider stayed in probably 3 more full turns than I wanted, and I was kissing my a... goodbye! Now I DON'T like spinning the Puchacz even more. I have reflected on this many times and put it down to: 1. Spinning is probably more dangerous than other possible instructional options. [i.e. avoid it at the incipient stage, insist on safe speed in circuit etc] 2. The front pilot was probably light, about 65 kg my guess so aft cofg may be involved. 3. [I suspect] Some out-of-spin aileron in some recovery attempts. Spinning left, full forward right stick served to keep the glider spinning. I have paid for some 3,000 hours airborne and want to double that. I will only spin when absolutely necessary, and that is to give the pupil the one experience so he will avoid it forever. Spinning every 6 months or annual check for mine is more dangerous than other options in a check flight. viz., Maintaining a safe speed near the ground [and in final turns] conversely is absolutely necessary. Also, doing more than 3 turns I question. Did I read 20 turns. That is at the extreme high risk end of the spectrum! Bloody dangerous!!! Things happen behind the eyeball and in ears that stabilise in a even more dangerous positions where normal senses fail. And you need all your normal senses in flight and they cannot be maintained in a long term spin. Will we kill more in Australia before gliding gets the message. I hope not. Question carefully and seriously whether the spin exercise is absolutely necessary. And then be very careful with spin exercises, have a forward cofg and plenty of height. Alan Wilson Caveat. My personal views not necessarily shared within my club. Ph 02 62316404 or Mobile 0416 231641 PS. Intentional rope breaks are in the same category. In 35 years of aero tow at both ends of the rope, I have NEVER had a rope break, so why do some purposefully and dangerously create such a rare natural event. On winch I often had cable failures and now am more gentle on winch climbs when below 300 feet. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of John Parncutt Sent: Thursday, 9 December 2004 6:33 PM To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. Subject: RE: [Aus-soaring] Accident in Barossa valley Mike, Having read the cal city accident report which was posted on this list today, there is nothing in the report to suggest that the accident was due to the flight characteristics of the Puchacz. There was also nothing in the report to suggest that the spin was initiated at 3500ft AGL, in fact with only 3 rotations observed prior to impact the spin may have commenced well below 1500ft agl. The extensive experience of the pilots involved does not automatically mean the aircraft was at fault, there have been countless accidents involving very experienced pilots, in aircraft other than Puchacz. As Emilis Prelgauskas points out in todays posting the number of accidents need to be compared with overall statistics of the number of Puchatz actually in training service world wide and with that of similar aircraft. It is easy to put a positive or negative "spin" on the figures when not all the stats are available (pun fully intended). Both Geelong Gliding Club and VMFG have trained many pilots over the past six years or so in Puchacz gliders. Both clubs will continue to train pilots proper spin recovery techniques using Puchacz gliders. Your comments at the end of your recent posting "quote" I really don't care what you guys do re spinning Puchs, just do it where you won't hurt anyone on the ground, make sure any of your students are fully informed of the Puch history and don't expect me to join you in this activity or attend your funerals. "unquote" Are really not helpful to the gliding movement, raising un-necessary concerns in the minds students. By the way, how much flying have you done in Puchacz gliders and how many times have you spun them? John Parncutt VMFG -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Mike Borgelt Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2004 5:46 PM To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. Subject: RE: [Aus-soaring] Accident in Barossa valley At 05:03 PM 8/12/04 +1100, you wrote: >I fully agree with Kevin, My own club, the VMFG has had a Puchacz for almost >as long as Kevin's club (Geelong gliding club) and I and to my knowledge non >of the other instructors have ever had any problems with the spin >characteristics (unlike the IS28's we had prior to the Puchacz which could >be very unpredictable). > >The Puchacz is in my view an excellent training glider with predictable >characteristics. It is my understanding that the accidents that have >occurred during spinning in the UK have been the result of commencing the >spin at relatively low altitude ie. from the top of a winch launch. >Personally I would never deliberatly initiate a spin at 1000 ft AGL IN ANY >GLIDER, to do so is asking for trouble, let alone quite illegal since all >aerobatics must be carried out above 1500 ft AGL. > >The suggestion that the importation of the Puchacz should be banned as >unsafe is absolute and utter nonsense. > >John parncutt >VMFG > >-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Kevin >McGowan >Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2004 1:19 PM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: RE: [Aus-soaring] Accident in Barossa valley > > >My club has also safely flown a Puchacz for many years, its spinning >charachteristics are as good or better that most if not all two seat >gliders, it is started and stopped exactly as stated in "the book" The thing >that is different with the Pooch is that it will lose more height than most >two seat gliders when spinning and recovering. I suspect that the Poms would >spin from a 1000Ft or lower winch launch, as they would do with a K13 or >similar, and would have insufficient height to recover. The cure is simple >start higher. Some years ago to speed up a decent a couple of our >instructors did over twenty (20) rotations in our Pooch with no ill affects >to themselves or the aircraft. > >McG Before you all get carried away by what the Brits were doing wrong you should be aware that: a)the Puch spin ins weren't just in the UK(5 in the UK, AFAIK) b) According to Cindy Brickner at Caracole Soaring (California City)there were by early this year 24 cases worldwide. She had confirmed 23 by personal contact with people who were there. c) One of the cases was near Cal City and involved two professional pilots who were glider pilots, one was currently airline. Both were ex fighter pilots, USAF test pilot school grads and one had done an extensive series of spin trials on the ASK21, including inverted spins at the test pilot school. They spun in from 3500 feet above the ground. d) even the Brits have seen the error of their ways and amended their instructor handbook re spinning from low altitudes. This followed an extensive discussion on r.a.s. earlier this year where some asked "what do you call that" in response to a UK poster who described doing one turn spins from as low as 800 feet. I called it "lunacy, officially sanctioned, of course" and got some agreement. The Brits seem to have shown some commendable willingness to reconsider their doctrine. e) There seems to be some entirely misplaced overconfidence that gliders will always do what they did when the prototype was certified. A little thought will reveal many things that may have changed. As for 20 turn spins, better check the spin recovery requirement in JAR22. f) When considering the performance of complex systems (Gliding activity with its engineering, technical, meteorological and human factors is a complex system) it isn't how well it works when all the parts are (rarely) working that matters, it is the performance when some of the subsystems are not performing optimally that dictates how well the overall system performs over time. Particularly, the human component is vulnerable to less than optimal functioning so it really doesn't make much sense to claim that all will be OK so long as the glider is flown inside the envelope and people always do the right thing and are on the ball. I really don't care what you guys do re spinning Puchs, just do it where you won't hurt anyone on the ground, make sure any of your students are fully informed of the Puch history and don't expect me to join you in this activity or attend your funerals. Mike 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 _______________________________________________ Aus-soaring mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring _______________________________________________ Aus-soaring mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
