Puchacz spin accidents - news
Dr. Christian Ortner
spin accidents. Now, concerning the spin accident in Austria, introduced by
an intended half flirck roll-half loop, which ended in a spin that pilots
were unable to recover, the investigation by the court had as result, that
the manual (point 2.7) postulates smaller margins of allowed c.g. positions
fpr the flick roll than for other figures or normal flight. In the manual,
there is no explanation of this fact. The counrts investigation found
indeed, that the reason for that was mentionned by polish authority to
Austrian Authority and is, that with rear and for normal flight and
aerobatic except flick roll allowed c.g. position, there is a tendency that
the flick roll will end in a very dynamic spin accompaigned by big pitch
oscillations. This spin counld be difficult to recover, especially during
the time of nose-up oscillation.
In the case of Austrian accident, the pilots weight in the front cabin was
86kg, in the rear one 95kg. The c.g. should have been at the rear margin of
allowed range of c.g. for the flick roll. The weight of both pilots together
should have been 28kg too much. I nearly cant believe these results, I will
check it. But if they are right, my idea mentionned 1 1/2 years ago could
have been right: Puchacz could have severe spin recovery problems if spin is
induced very dynamically, if c.g. is on the rear part of allowed range and -
as result of this special accident - if the inertia, caused by high cockpit
load, is high, inducing probably additional tailward moments.
In comparision to the accident in Denmark (they made no intentional
aerobatics, they only tryed unnormal flight attitudes and danger training,
in low altitude) not only flick rolls could lead to the dangerous dynamic
spin situation, also the methods of spin provocation used by K-7 pilots for
example, the methods of pilots of no-spin-willing gliders can provocate a
dynamic spin with high roll rate, which is so much more difficult to stop
than a normal spin.
Christian Ortner
Vorsanger1
mentioned by Dr. Ortner are 189 lbs and 209 lbs respectively. Also, he
indicates that the total weight was 61 lbs over limit. I do not know the
circumstances of this particular accident. I did spin training recently with a
50-3. I weigh 195 lbs (89 kgs) and my instructor -- more rotund than I --
probably 10 lbs (4.5 kgs) more. He was in the back. We both wore chutes. The
plane performed superbly, and the recovery from the spin was "by the book" in
less than 1 rotation after the required controls input.
So, perhaps the flick roll will result in an attitude other than that achieved
in a conventional spin entry.
As to the accident also mentioned, that in Denmark, was the plane involved a
50-3 or a K-7 ?
Cheers (in spite of everything), Charles
OCH
behavior of puchacz, thats why I had no idea about the reasons for accident.
The instructor in the back was a very experienced competition aerobatic
pilot.
There must be really a big difference between normal spin entry and very
dynamical entry!
Christian
Vorsanger1 <vorsa...@aol.com> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
19991204122036...@ng-ff1.aol.com...
Jakob Degn Jensen
<19991204122036...@ng-ff1.aol.com>...
>As to the accident also mentioned, that in Denmark, was the plane involved
a
>50-3 or a K-7 ?
I beleive he is thinking about the accident with a 50-3, since that was a
fatal one.
I can't remember anything about an "unormal" spin. As far as i can remember
it was a normal spin.
I have flown many hours in the 50-3 and made a lot of intentional spins, but
never experienced any situation where it was difficult to recover nor any
situation where the glider went into a spin unprovocated. No doubt about the
50-3 is very easy to get into a spin, but it is just as easy to recover.
If anybody experienced otherwise they must have loaded the plane beyond it's
limits. That's my opinion.
Regards
Jakob Degn Jensen
Armand A. Medeiros
other sites (BGA etc.) comes to mind. In all cases, very experienced
pilots/instructors. There were two or three plausible explanations out of
the whole discussion.
1) A foot or shoe was stuck under the rear pilots rudder pedal
2) The plane was out of CG range
3) The 50-3 has an undocumented or unknown specific spin mode that occludes
normal airflow affecting safe recovery (and along with that the flying trim
tab being set wrong also)
#3 is very scary, #2 is preventable, and #1 is fixable if true.
One has to wonder why these accidents mostly involve very well trained
persons...ones with mucho hours in type. I fear #3 may be the answer and
that is very scary! Ignoring it will only see the "unexplainable" accidents
continue. I wonder if someone could do specific flight tests with the pitch
trim in all positions and at various unusual attitudes like the Airforce did
with the K-21...
Armand
OCH <och...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:38495c65$0$32...@SSP1NO17.highway.telekom.at...
> > As to the accident also mentioned, that in Denmark, was the plane
involved
> a
> > 50-3 or a K-7 ?
> >
RF
<zar...@concentric.net> wrote:
>Watching these threads, the accident at California City (some time back) and
>other sites (BGA etc.) comes to mind. In all cases, very experienced
>pilots/instructors.
The particular manuver mentioned is unlikely to be performed by any
other pilot. It's a rare student that pushes the flight envelope.
OCH
procedure has been performed.
My verdict is, that with any very dynamical entry procedure, for example
trying a flick roll with bad technique or using entry procedures often used
with non-spin-willing gliders with hard elevator pullback and hard rudder
push, the spin could be unnormal and difficult to stop. See advice in the
manual, were it is suggested to fly the flick roll only with two persons in
the cockpit, otherwise irregular behavior could happen.... (p. 4-24) and the
restricted c.g. range for the flick roll (0,133 to 0,204m instead of 0,092
to 0,333m for the normal flight). There is no information about the reasons
for this restriction in the manual, additionally there is a mistake in the
german manual, because the normal range is described as 0.092 to 0.333m
equal to 23.5 to 44% MAS (means medium standard chord), the restricted range
is described as 0.133 to 0,204m equal to 27,0 to 44,0% MAS! 44% can not be
together 0,333m and 0,204m under the same conditions!
If somebody uses a very dynamical and hard spin entry technique, the result
can be the same as when trying a flick roll. And there can be a problem
with - allowed - rear c.g. positions!
Christian
Jakob Degn Jensen <jak...@vip.cybercity.dk> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
82brdj$a4b$1...@news.cybercity.dk...
> Vorsanger1 skrev i meddelelsen
> <19991204122036...@ng-ff1.aol.com>...
>
> >As to the accident also mentioned, that in Denmark, was the plane
involved
> a
> >50-3 or a K-7 ?
>
>
Michael Huber
Armand A. Medeiros <zar...@concentric.net> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
82bunm$k...@chronicle.concentric.net...
> Watching these threads, the accident at California City (some time back)
and
> other sites (BGA etc.) comes to mind. In all cases, very experienced
> pilots/instructors.
California City: One ex military pilot flying for an airlines and the other
was
an active Puchacz pilot, even an instructor I
believe.
Austria: instructor in the back a very experienced competition aerobatic
pilot, student
in the front an experienced pilot, student only for
his aerobatic license.
> 1) A foot or shoe was stuck under the rear pilots rudder pedal
In Austria the rear pilot flew the half flick roll, the rudder pedals have
loops to hold the foot. Very unlikely.
> 2) The plane was out of CG range
No (see start of thread) .
> 3) The 50-3 has an undocumented or unknown specific spin mode that
occludes
> normal airflow affecting safe recovery (and along with that the flying
trim
> tab being set wrong also)
Why should the manual give specific cg tolerances for flick rolls unless
there can
be some unexpected spin behaviour, different from standard? The 50-3
recovers
easy and immediate - at least from 99.9% of all spins?
> #3 is very scary, #2 is preventable, and #1 is fixable if true.
We just don´t believe what we don´t want to believe...
Michael
Bert Willing
Jakob Degn Jensen wrote:
>
> I beleive he is thinking about the accident with a 50-3, since that was a
> fatal one.
>
> I can't remember anything about an "unormal" spin. As far as i can remember
> it was a normal spin.
> I have flown many hours in the 50-3 and made a lot of intentional spins, but
> never experienced any situation where it was difficult to recover nor any
> situation where the glider went into a spin unprovocated. No doubt about the
> 50-3 is very easy to get into a spin, but it is just as easy to recover.
> If anybody experienced otherwise they must have loaded the plane beyond it's
> limits. That's my opinion.
I do not know about the spin behaviour of a Puchaz, but in general the spin
behaviour of a sailplane is *very* much influenced by the mode of entrance.
Spin entrance under high g-load (i.e. out of a 60 deg bank 360) can be very
dramatic even for the most docile ship (I've been there once, and it was too
impressive for me to do that special game again). Flick rolls also have high
g-loads (that is, about 3 g during the half of a second before the wing
stalls).
The reason for the change in behaviour is that due to the high loads, the
intial acceleration to roll over the stalled wing is linearly increasing with
the g-load before stall. This leads to a spin with a rather high angular
momentum, can lead to a different pitch during the spin and will often lead to
a lengthy recovery.
--
Bert Willing
-----------
Caproni Calif A21S D-6600
Come fly at La Motte du Caire in the French Alps:
http://www.decollage.org/la_motte/
Caracole
In the U.S. the Puchacz is only certificated for limited aerobatics.
So the flight manual in the U.S. does not list the limited c.g. range for
flick
rolls (snap rolls).
Of the numerous gliders I have spun, the Puchacz is the only one
that demonstrated the tendency to spin out of a deep slip. It will break
over
the top wing, spinning in the opposite direction from the lowered wing.
This is
one of the most dramatic spin entries I have ever experienced.
M Eiler
snip
Nathan
busy giving spin instruction. We haven't had a two-place spinner for
several years.
We've found it to be very predictable over a wide loading range.
How is it that in the incident in Dr. Ortner's post, an over weight
condition of 28kg could result in the cg being at the rearward limit
for any maneuver?
Nathan - Memphis Soaring.
In article <38492072$0$24...@SSP1NO17.highway.telekom.at>, "Dr.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Greig Glover
1. CG is very important. We must know exactly where we stand before
takeoff.
2. A parachute recovery system would have been a big help.
I agree that more testing would be welcomed. Is there anyone out there
that has the time and expertise to do it?
Greig Glover
RF
<gloverN...@runestone.net.invalid> wrote:
>2. A parachute recovery system would have been a big help.
Ah, only if there is a release mechanism. I recently watched a video
demonstrating a hang glider ballastic parachute with an aviation
group. Groans occured all over the room as the hang glider under the
parachute was at the mercy of the wind (and headed for a big stand of
trees). Considering the local mountain winds, I'd rather see some
sort of tail drogue.
Dave Jeffries
Too many very experienced instructors have died spinning the Puch.
They have not all been out of C of G limits.
They are all DEAD. I hope your not next.
There must be a reason for so many fatalities and until we know
the reason, why take the risk. I love the sport too much to risk
following the macho line of so many "experts" on this newsgroup.
OCH
expert. Anyway, both pilots sit in front of c.g., so an over weight can not
result in a rearward c.g.
Christian
Nathan <nlemmon...@concentric.net.invalid> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
17599f0b...@usw-ex0101-004.remarq.com...
> While we've had our Puch for only a short time, it's been kept very
> busy giving spin instruction. We haven't had a two-place spinner for
> several years.
>
> We've found it to be very predictable over a wide loading range.
>
> How is it that in the incident in Dr. Ortner's post, an over weight
> condition of 28kg could result in the cg being at the rearward limit
> for any maneuver?
>
> Nathan - Memphis Soaring.
>
Martin
21 wouldn't spin. The next season they had a student in the morgue and an
instructor in the hospital.
Nathan <nlemmon...@concentric.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:17599f0b...@usw-ex0101-004.remarq.com...
Caracole
that reference the limited c.g., pilot wts, or gross wt limitations when
conducting flick rolls.
Our U.S. flight manual does not include this data because it is for limited
aerobatics only.
Looking at the numbers provided by Christian
189.2 lb front pilot
209.0 lb rear pilot
398.2 lb combined pilot wts
61.6 lb ammount pilots were overweight
336.6 lb apparent maximum allowable pilot wts for flick rolls
30.0 lb approximate wt of two parachutes (never actually indicated)
306.6 lb maximum allowable pilot wts if intending to wear parachutes
This would indicate that for flick rolls, two pilots intending to wear
parachutes would be able to weigh only 153.3 lbs each.
This does not make much sense to us and without the manual we
cannot confirm these figures. If someone could explain any discrepancy
in the above figures to us it would be greatly appreciated.
M Eiler
Caracole Soaring
22570 Airport Way
California City, Ca 93505
Phone/Fax 760-373-1019
E-mail cara...@ccis.com
http://members.aol.com/soarca/caracole.htm
Snips
>I cant believe, that its true. I am checking this statement of courts
>expert. Anyway, both pilots sit in front of c.g., so an over weight can not
>result in a rearward c.g.
>Christian
>> How is it that in the incident in Dr. Ortner's post, an over weight
>> condition of 28kg could result in the cg being at the rearward limit
>> for any maneuver?
>> Nathan - Memphis Soaring.
>> > the manual (point 2.7) postulates smaller margins of allowed c.g.
>> > positions for the flick roll than for other figures or normal flight
>> > In the case of Austrian accident, the pilots weight in the front
>> > cabin was 86kg (189.2 lb), in the rear one 95kg (209 lb). The
>> > c.g. should have been at the rear margin of allowed range of
>> > c.g. for the flick roll. The weight of both pilots together should
>> > have been 28kg (61.6 lb) too much. I nearly cant believe these
>> > results, I will check it.
>> > Christian Ortner
Pasztet
> 21 wouldn't spin. The next season they had a student in the morgue and an
> instructor in the hospital.
Hi folks,
I cant imagine how they crashed Puchacz in spin.
I made many spins in Puchacz, and I'm alive and OK.
Puchacz is excellent glider for basic and advanced training (thermal
soaring, arerobatics) It is quite good in circle manuvers at low speed
(65-70 km/h) very useful for thermal. It is also excellent spinner. I've
spin Puchacz even at 400 m altitude. In our club we have two Puchacz
gliders. More than 300 pilots made their courses in Puchacz, without
accident. You have to be very poor pilot or crazy man to crash this glider.
I can't imagine how instructor crashed in this way.
See ya on the sky
Marcin Drath /Pasztet/
pas...@spp.intertele.pl
Rzeszow Airclub, Poland
Janusz Kesik
Pasztet, nie wyzywaj ludzi, bo utrwalasz nasz stereotyp narodowy (choć sam
dziwię się jaki problem z Puchaczem - moze "po drugiej stronie kałuży"
korkociąg to jakas bardzo trudna figura). A jeżeli czytales od poczatku, to
chodzi o to, że Puchaty zwinal sie w korka przy wykonywaniu szybkiej
beczki - cos jakby wyszlo im dynamiczne wprowadzenie przy ktorym wystepuje
duze opoznienie przy wyprowadzeniu no i ... nie zdazyli)
Pozdroofki,
Janusz Kesik
lan...@polbox.com
Martin
Janusz Kesik <lan...@polbox.com> wrote in message
news:jRM34.38392$Oo3.8...@news.tpnet.pl...
Janusz Kesik
Really sorry!! It should be posted to private adress. Forgive me my
mistake...
Janusz Kesik
lan...@polbox.com
Al
Training Squadron disobey's training orders and engages the enemy. The
English flight leader keeps shouting at them "no private polish chit chat"
(great old movie BTW)
Back to the thread, i have spun the Puch many times during training and in
the odd wave session. But since the accidents with no apparent cause for the
crashes of experienced pilots spinning the Puch I do not spin it anymore.
Not until further flight testing shows whats actualy been happening.
Regards
Al
Martin <as...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1rN34.375$Jj5.108@client...
Armand A. Medeiros
the time. If there is a 1% chance of NOT being able to recover and pilot's
(in their comforting levels of denial) excuse this, then there can only be
more "un-explained" spin accidents with "highly qualified" instructors on
board.
Now, IF there IS a particular trim setting, weight, very dynamic mode entry
problem, then , IMHO, this very same characteristic can be brought about by
an airmass/flight envelope triggered event under certain conditions.
(turbulent thermals, shear etc.)
As I said before, scary as hell. I choose for myself to NOT fly one of these
gliders. Of course, I am at best a very average nothing special pilot with
no great skills.
Armand
Pasztet <pas...@spp.intertele.pl> wrote in message
news:gvK34.37786$Oo3.8...@news.tpnet.pl...
Janusz Kesik
Sorry, again...
Al napisał(a) w wiadomości: ...
>Reminds me of that scene in the movie "Battle of Britain" when the Polish
>Training Squadron disobey's training orders and engages the enemy. The
>English flight leader keeps shouting at them "no private polish chit chat"
>(great old movie BTW)
>
I've spun Puchacz many times, with and without visiblity, and had any
problems with recovery. Maybe these accidents were caused by pilots? Human
is only human,and can made mistakes.
BTW: how is Your "Acro", and Jesus - is He still grinning when upside-down?
>Back to the thread, i have spun the Puch many times during training and in
>the odd wave session. But since the accidents with no apparent cause for
the
>crashes of experienced pilots spinning the Puch I do not spin it anymore.
>Not until further flight testing shows whats actualy been happening.
>
>Regards
>
>Al
Janusz Kesik
lan...@polbox.com
JohnPegase
>I know of a gliding club that replaced their ASK-21 for a Puch because the
>21 wouldn't spin. The next season they had a student in the morgue and an
>instructor in the hospital.
>
The K21 is an extremely user-friendly aircraft, well known for the extreme
difficulty in putting it into a spin. None of the following is a
recommendation to fly a K21 this way, but.. You can get away with a rudder only
turn in a K21, knowing it will not spin. You can even turn it using the rudder
very close to the stall and very little unusual or exciting behaviour occurs.
So K21 pilots can become too relaxed in their attitude, knowing that the glider
is so very safe. Then they fly something else, something that can spin, and
they can get a bit of a shock. If your "spin recovery" action in a K21 is to
casually move the stick forward a fraction of a millimeter and then pull out of
the dive, and you try this iin a Putch, you just keep spinning. If you pull
back too hard without having applied opposite rudder, the Putch keeps spinning,
a K21 doesn't. If you carelessly leave opposite rudder on as you "recover"
from a failed attempt at spinning a K21, it recovers. Try this in a Putch, and
you spin the opposite way. K13s also come out of spins rather easily, although
they at least enter a spin a lot more easily than the K21.
A student I flew with in a Putchlast year tried to recover by twitching
forward on the stick and pulling back immediately, because that appeared to
work in the K21 he usually flew. He held the stick back for quite some time as
I repeated several times, louder each time, "Ease the stick forward" It took
an extra two turns and about four "requests" before he eventually moved the
stick, with me firmly pushing with two hands against his pull, trying to keep
it off the back stop!
Under extreme pressure we revert to the methods and movements we first learned,
even if they are wrong. Could this be what happened in the incident described
above? Training is supposed to eradicate these bad habits before they become
too firmly established. Some K21 pilots forget how forgiving it is to fly.
(Oh, and I do most of my instructing in K21s, and like them.)
John Wright, 742
Caracole
Puchacz flight manual pages as published in the fully acrobatic manual.
Shown below are some of the more pertinent information.
max mass empty glider with std equipment
370kg = 815.7lb
fuselage with tailplane
193kg = 425.5lb
max payload front cabin
normal flight
110kg = 242.5lb
twin seat inverted(or flick roll)flight
95kg = 209.4lb
max mass in flight
normal flight
570kg = 1256.6lb
inverted flight (or flick roll)
540kg = 1190.5lb
allowed c.g. range
for normal flight 0.092 to 0.333m = 3.6 to 13.1in
inverted flight 0.133 to 0.204m = 5.23 to 13.1in
flick roll 0.133 to 0.204m = 5.23 to 8.03 in
flick roll (snap roll)
Regarding the irregularities with aft c.g. positions the performance of
flick rolls is limited to 2 persons crews. The flick roll is an autorotative
turn around the longitudinal axis, induced by full stick pull with
synchronous rudder input to the direction intended. During the
autorotation occurs a big speed decrease. To avoid stall or not clean
tilt it is recommended to start the flick roll in well downward flight path.
----------------------------------------------------------
It is generally accepted that a glider should never be operated outside
the manufacturers published c.g. limits. In this case the mfg has
determined it is not only necessary to dramatically reduced the c.g.
range for snap rolls. But it was also necessary to reduce allowable
front seat load by 33.1 lbs and allowable flight weight by 66.1 lbs.
Considering the large number of spin accidents with instructors on
board. How can we be so sure that only snap roll entries should
require these special c.g., seat load and flight weight limitations?
Be safe, wear parachutes and give yourself the altitude to use one.
M Eiler
Caracole wrote in message ...
OCH
(whole) flick roll / see point 4.5.2 of manual. For normal flight and all
other aerobatic figures, the weight was within the limits, 3kg below maximum
for this glider. Sorry, my recent metion was misunderstadable.
Christian
Caracole <cara...@ccis.com> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
kyw34.2503$Z9....@news2.randori.com...
> Could someone e-mail or fax us a copy of the European flight manual pages
> that reference the limited c.g., pilot wts, or gross wt limitations when
> conducting flick rolls.
>
OCH
training camps in Poland (Zar) 1993 to 1995 together with Jerzy Makula and
Christian Kopff. And I know the instructor who has crashed the glider in
Austria. He was member of Austrian Aerobatic team on world championships
1985 up to 1989 and very experienced. Not a very poor pilot. Thats why we
have this discuss!
Christian
Pasztet <pas...@spp.intertele.pl> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
gvK34.37786$Oo3.8...@news.tpnet.pl...
> > I know of a gliding club that replaced their ASK-21 for a Puch because
the
> > 21 wouldn't spin. The next season they had a student in the morgue and
an
> > instructor in the hospital.
>
ChrisAtUpw
You only need a small drogue tail chute to pull you out of a spin. They used to
be used when testing gliders for spinning characteristics. Ref: August Raspet?
Mike Lindsay
<lan...@polbox.com> writes
that if (a) you enter the spin off a turn, and (b) you try and do the
standard recovery of full opposite rudder, pause, ease stick forward
until spinning stops the spin is likely to suddenly reverse.
So, if you are not expecting it to behave like this it could be nasty.
My 2p
--
Mike Lindsay
Chris Rowland
seaters? IMO a lot of single seater gliders spin just as readily as
the Puchacz - and people are killed flying them.
It seems important to me that pupils see what a spin looks like dual,
it cannot be a good thing that the first time they experience a spin
is on their own.
With a spin resistant two seater like a K21, or even a K13, it is
difficult to convince a pupil that an accidental spin is possible,
most pupils can't make a K13 spin at all.
It is abvious that spinning accidents dual are not a good thing, the
question is why do instructors spin in?
Partly it is because the Puchacz will spin.
There were comments in previous messages about the Puchacz having
delayed recovery from accelerated spin entries and that a factor might
be instructors using spin entry techniques more suited to gliders that
are reluctant to spin. I wonder why instructore are using those
techniques? Surely they know that the Puchacz does not need them?
Perhaps in 0.01% of cases the Puchacz can get into a state where it is
reluctant to recover. I have heard anecdotes about other gliders
where this could happen. IIRC this was in various Astirs. The K21 is
reputed to be unreliable at very aft C of G positions. A two seater
will do so much more spinning than a single seater and so the 0.01%
case will matter while in a single seater it may not. I suspect that
most pilots do very little solo spinning.
Perhaps the recovery was not initiated - or not until the glider was
too low. I believe that this was a factor in some of the Puchacz
accidents.
Chris Rowland
On Tue, 07 Dec 1999 15:35:47 +0000, Dave Jeffries
<dave.j...@bt.com> wrote:
>Nathan
>
>Too many very experienced instructors have died spinning the Puch.
>They have not all been out of C of G limits.
>They are all DEAD. I hope your not next.
>There must be a reason for so many fatalities and until we know
>the reason, why take the risk. I love the sport too much to risk
>following the macho line of so many "experts" on this newsgroup.
>
>
>
>Nathan wrote:
>>
>> While we've had our Puch for only a short time, it's been kept very
>> busy giving spin instruction. We haven't had a two-place spinner for
>> several years.
>>
>> We've found it to be very predictable over a wide loading range.
>>
Chris Rowland
>In article <fmr34.426$O15.36@client>, "Martin" <as...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>>I know of a gliding club that replaced their ASK-21 for a Puch because the
>>21 wouldn't spin. The next season they had a student in the morgue and an
>>instructor in the hospital.
>>
>
I wonder if it is worth while telling pupils that if they think the
glider is out of control then try letting go. I haven't tried it in
the Puchacz but the SZD 55 will recover from a spin instantly if you
let go (a bit too instantly if anything:-)
This might help to avoid the problem with pilots hanging on and doing
the wrong thing.
I realise this is a councel of desperation but I also remember that in
the (good old?) days when we taught ourselves to fly in cloud it was
recommended that if you lost control the the best thing was to open
the brakes and let go.
Chris Rowland