Re: [Aus-soaring] Re: Spining the Puchacz

[Terry Neumann]

G'day Chris (and innocent bystanders), Thanks Chris for a most enlightening (and frankly quite frightening) clarification of the event.   The thoughtful silence which it seems to have evoked on the list today is quite fascinating. I'm certainly no expert on spinning, and these days I steer clear of them.  Not that there is much alternative in a 'standard AS-K21.  (See also Leigh's comment about advancing years).    However, I have intentionally spun all the Balaklava Club aircraft I ever flown with the exception of the Hornet.   The recovery procedures seemed to have worked at the time - I'm still here.  Mind you, it could have been otherwise -  I too could have been a hole in the ground in my very early flying days.  How and why is another story for another time......    The one thing which is apparent in the discussion is that while most respondents have stated quite emphatically  that the Puch' has spinning and recovery characteristics which are "normal" and predictable, there remains the fact that there have been rare instances where this seems not to have been the case.   Chris' is one of the few cases where we still have people alive after the event to tell us about it.  For the purposes of discussion I have two observations: 1) The decision of the checking instructor to reverse the direction of the second spin goes, for mine anyway, much further than what is required or even vaguely necessary.   What does this demonstrate or prove?    2) I find myself wondering about the situation where the aircraft was still spinning and " the stick was on the front stop by now ". Many years ago, there was quite a bit of conjecture about the effects of some control inputs in spin situations which might nullify the desired effects of others.   That is to say, is it possible in some aircraft for full opposite rudder to be only marginally effective, or even ineffective if the stick is already full forward at the same time?   There was a lot of talk at the time for the necessity of correct sequence of control inputs as opposed to the "everything forward at once" reaction which some had been using - obviously with good effect in some aircraft, and somewhat less than this in others. Whatever the possibilities, it is apparent from Chris' story, and the evidence quoted elsewhere, that there are situations in which the Puch does not readily recover from a fully developed spin in the manner expected, and that what worked last time doesn't  seem to be producing the desired result in other instances. There will be a reason for this.  We (the gliding fraternity) need to find out what it is.       FWIW Terry Chris wrote: In response to Daryl McKay's posting of the two experienced pilots who had a near miss in W.A. I was the pilot in the front seat, undergoing an annual spin check,  I have been flying gliders for nearly 30 years, I have nearly 2000 hrs in gliders, am a retired level 3 instructor (what was called a NGS instructor, in other words a instructor trainer), the checking instructor had equivalent qualifications to myself with similar hours and experience. I have been monitoring this thread for the last couple of weeks and until now stayed silent, here is my considered response. 1) both pilots on this flight were around 85 kgs, no chance of a rearward C.G. with those weights on board 2) the puchacz was not that new, and had been used for general training for a couple of years or so before this incident 3) the conversion to QNH  rather then QFE has no bearing on this incident, it is just a smoke screen 4) I initiated a spin from a turn and then commenced recovery after a turn or so of rotation, the rear seat checking instructor on seeing a successful recovery, requested he have the controls and initiated a spin reversal half way through the recovery, the puchacz then flicked into a spin in the reverse direction, the checking instructor then handed back the controls for me to recover from, although the flick spin reversal had disoriented me I applied correct spin recovery , as monitored from the back seat, the A/C did not respond and continued rotating nose down, the stick was on the front stop by now as we were running out of height and options, the checking instructor commented at this time that we had better recover or we were going to dig a hole, I offered the control's to the checking instructor who declined saying that there was no time for change of pilot, either I got it out or we were stuffed, the aircraft eventually recovered either by itself or because I applied aileron in an attempt to halt the rotation, I will never know for sure why it recovered. I don't call that "predictably and quickly." 4 ) we ended up  at about 200 ft or lower AGL and had to put it on the ground quickly as we were all out of options. 5 ) the checking instructor then (over the next couple of weekends) tried to  simulate the  scenario again  in an attempt to reproduce the symptoms described above with out success. 6) we were lucky that  there was enough height to recover ( from memory the initial spin entry was just below 3000 ft AGL) but it was a close call, another 5 seconds and there would have been a hole in the ground. 7) I do not believe it was pilot error, and was unaware of the Puchacz spin history before this event. 8)  do I, or would I spin a Glider again ? yes happily and do so on any form 2 evaluation flight or annual check flight,  would I spin a Puchacz again ? no way, only to insipient stage and that's all ! I believe this is symptomatic of the Puchacz, it behaves 99.99% of the time, the other 0.01% who knows ? history says it is unpredictable. Chris Runeckles

_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To check or change subscription details, visit:
http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring