SZD 50-3 Puchacz Safety Alert
Thomas Knauff
50-3 Puchacz is still another in a series of reported accidents
involving this glider. Similar reports have involved double fatalities
with flight instructors in both seats.
It is suggested that owner/operators of this type of glider consider
placarding the glider against all intentional spins until
recommendations are made by the factory or government agencies.
An alternate recommendation would be to placard the glider against
intentional multi-turn spins and/or intentional spins entries below
3,000 feet above ground level.
--
Thomas Knauff
Knauff & Grove Soaring Supplies
Schempp-Hirth Sailplanes, Keystone Gliderport
Julian, Pa 16844 USA
Phone (814) 355 2483
Fax (814) 355 2633
www.glider.com/knauff
Ruud J. Holswilder
intentional spin?
Is there a international database of spin related accidents/incidents
with the Puchacz? If not, it would be worth setting one up.
On Sun, 26 Jul 1998 01:38:21 -0400, Thomas Knauff
<tkn...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>A recent double fatality involving two very experienced pilots in an SZD
>50-3 Puchacz is still another in a series of reported accidents
>involving this glider. Similar reports have involved double fatalities
>with flight instructors in both seats.
>
>It is suggested that owner/operators of this type of glider consider
>placarding the glider against all intentional spins until
>recommendations are made by the factory or government agencies.
>
>An alternate recommendation would be to placard the glider against
>intentional multi-turn spins and/or intentional spins entries below
>3,000 feet above ground level.
Ruud Holswilder.
In case of reply via email, remove the NOSPAM in the return address.
Caracole
Ruud J. Holswilder wrote in message <35bafaa...@news.multiweb.net>...
>Is there any evidence that the accident in Cal City was caused by a
>intentional spin?
>
>Is there a international database of spin related accidents/incidents
>with the Puchacz? If not, it would be worth setting one up.
>
for about three revolutions before losing view before impact.
Since it was spinning when he first saw it and there are no other witnesses,
there
is no way to know at what altitude it started or if it was intentional or
unintentional.
Does anyone have any background on rate of descent of a Puchacz in a fully
developed very nose low spin?
I have a copy of the U.S. Air Force complete spin test series for an ASK-21.
However I have no data on the Puchacz.
We are compiling available information on the known Puchacz spin related
accidents.
So far we have limited initial info on about nine fatal events.
England 4
Austria 1
Denmark 1
Italy 1
Canada 1
United States 1
Germany 1 maybe ?
Anyone with additional info on accidents or unexpected spin behavior
or unexpected recovery styles/modes/behaviors in a Puchacz, please
contact us. This information would be greatly appreciated.
With the number of Puchacz in service, we would like to prevent surprises
for
any other pilots/operators worldwide.
Marty 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
Al
Infact Mike Harbison and I regularly go up for aerobatic fests and try to
make our selves sick. The Puch recovers from flat spins just by releasing
up elevator and checking with rudder. The only "weird" spin entry was
after a stall turn failed and it snapped into a vertical high speed spin.
Again relased of back stick pressure broke the spin and it recovered in
immediatly. What was strange was the full stall situation point straight
down. The spin rate was very high, I wonder if this is what caught the guys
in CA out.
Before putting a plackard or any other kind of restriction I think we need
all the facts.
Al.
Armand A. Medeiros
> after a stall turn failed and it snapped into a vertical high speed spin.
> What was strange was the full stall situation point straight
> down. The spin rate was very high...
This is what I thought I saw one time! A VERY high speed lose of
altitude and not many more than one or two revolutions. It scared me
seeing it happen from the ground! It was like the Pouch was just a rock!
But, it recovered at what appeared to be an almost flat
standstill...very low airspeed perceived from my point on the ground but
very clean...scared the heck out of me...
This may indeed be the mode that causes the problem. Straight down high
perceived airspeed with full back stick and darn difficult to push it
forward!
If it happened at a low altitude...so much the worse...
AAM
Jean Richard
>
> I love spinning our Puch..
>
> Before putting a plackard or any other kind of restriction I think we need
> all the facts.
The facts...
I did many spins in our Puchacz and everything went right. Otherwize,
I would be here to talk about it.
But the facts...
The facts are nine known events with fatalities killing 12 to 15
people, and we don't have any stats from Eastern Europe where most
of the Puchacz are flying.
Considering that only 300 Puchacz have been built, that's a lot.
How many more do you need before you realise that there's a
safety concern ?
I agree with Mr Knauff : placarding Puchacz again intentional
spins is the best attitude we can have. Nobody want to add
himself to the Puchacz statistics.
We will continue to fly our Puchacz, but spin training won't be
done any more until we know more about what happened. Our Puchacz
will be placarded again intentional spins. You "love" you
Puchacz : we "love" our club members...
J. Richard
Toulson017
<tkn...@earthlink.net> writes:
>
>It is suggested that owner/operators of this type of glider consider
>placarding the glider against all intentional spins until
>recommendations are made by the factory or government agencies.
>
Just in case anyone does not know, Tom sells a competitive make.
Is there any evidence of aircraft problems, either mechanical or structural?
What exactly was the experience of the pilots? For example, 1000 hours cross
country flying is not necessarily good experience for spinning in a Puchacz!
Any more details?
Barney
Jean Richard
>
> In article <35BAC0CD...@earthlink.net>, Thomas Knauff
> <tkn...@earthlink.net> writes:
>
> >
> >It is suggested that owner/operators of this type of glider consider
> >placarding the glider against all intentional spins until
> >recommendations are made by the factory or government agencies.
> >
>
> Just in case anyone does not know, Tom sells a competitive make.
Which one ? A Duo Discus is in no way competitive with a Puchacz
just like a BMW or a Mercedes are not competitive with a Brabant,
a Lada or a Skoda.
I don't sell any sailplane but I don't want to stay blind face to
so many fatalities with the Puchacz. I won't stop flying it but
I will stop using it for spin training as so long we don't get
more information on the cause of all those accidents.
I'm not sure to be a better pilot or have better students than
all those people who get killed just like I'm not sure our
Puchacz received better care from factory than those involved
in accidents with technical failures.
It's the way I see it and once again, I agree with Mr Knauff.
J. Richard
Fred Blair
is a preacher of safety from the work go and that is the basis of his
comment. I hope you didn't really think he would do that.
Fred
Toulson017 wrote in message
<199807270944...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
>In article <35BAC0CD...@earthlink.net>, Thomas Knauff
><tkn...@earthlink.net> writes:
>
>>
>>It is suggested that owner/operators of this type of glider consider
>>placarding the glider against all intentional spins until
>>recommendations are made by the factory or government agencies.
>>
>
>Just in case anyone does not know, Tom sells a competitive make.
>
Dave Jeffries
>
> I love spinning our Puch..
>
> make our selves sick. The Puch recovers from flat spins just by releasing
> up elevator and checking with rudder. The only "weird" spin entry was
> immediatly. What was strange was the full stall situation point straight
> down. The spin rate was very high, I wonder if this is what caught the guys
> in CA out.
>
> all the facts.
>
"The Puch recovers from flat spins just by releasing up elevator and
checking with rudder" is a miss-leading and possibly dangerous comment.
I have flown and spun two puchs with very different spin characteristics
and would like to add to the "please, please, please be very careful"
lobby. The instructor needs to be fully aware of the spin
characteristics of the puch he is about to spin, not the one he spun in
last year. He also needs to have experienced the spin characteristics at
various C of G's and be current on that individual glider. Too many
very experienced pilots have been killed spinning the puch.
PLEASE DON'T LET THE NEXT ONE BE YOU.
--
Dave Jeffries (Cwmbran, South Wales, UK)
Al
this situation it really does plumet and the rate of spin has to be seen t be
believed. I would not even contemplate any spin manouvers in the Puch unless
at least 2500ft AGL. And that would be only for a nose way high classic
stall/spin entry. If these guys where trying to wring it out and see what the
Puch can do they might well have hit this spin mode.
Al
Raphael H. Warshaw
the Puchacz because he "sells a competitive make". Suggestions like
this are best evaluated on the merits and if there really have been 9
fatal spin related crashes in a fleet of ~300 ships as reported
elsewhere in this newsgroup, his recommendation seems conservative to
me.
A rumor circulated at Tehachapi this weekend that there was evidence of
a unilateral spoiler failure in the Cal City crash. Does anyone have
more information on this?
Ray Warshaw
The P&H Company
>
> This is my theory as to how they got caught out. From the inside view of
> this situation it really does plumet and the rate of spin has to be seen t be
> believed. I would not even contemplate any spin manouvers in the Puch unless
> at least 2500ft AGL.
I was in a Puch and the instructor told me he was going to demonstrate a spin off of a
thermalling slow turn. Slow turn followed by full rudder flipped us upside down almost
followed by the spin. We started at 1000 feet and levelled out at 600. Scared the pants off
me ! I am not by the way an experienced pilot yet so have no comments except to relate the
heights. I know an instructor and air experience passenger (on first flight) were killed
after a Puch spun in at a club I know.
J
Och lowi
I am a lawyer in Innsbruck, Austria, glider pilot and instructor and member of
Austrian glider aerobatict national team.
I am defending a instructor involved in a fatal accident in 1993 in
Schärding/Austria, which spon from about 1500 ft to the ground after trying a
half snap roll with half loop. Probably when trying the halv snap roll, the
wooden support of rudder segment were the pins of the rudder grip in is broken,
so the rudder action was not ok. The glider did not perform a roll, only the
nose came up sharply, then the glider went into a spin. But i made some own
flight tests and i am convinced that this can not be the reason that the pilots
were unable to recover the spin: the recover was on my tests always possible
without the help of the rudder, only with elevator. But i heard from a big
number of Puchacz spin accidents in the UK (there is a safety flash from BGA
dated september 1993) and everywqere in the world. (Italy/Alzate last year,
Poland 2 years ago and so on)
I want to get any experience about Puchacz spin behavior, because i think there
must be something very difficult to reproduce in flight test, causing so much
accidents even with experienced pilots. Probably the spin is difficult to stop
when provocated very dynamicaly, like by a not succesful snap roll.
I am interested on every information about that.
Christian Ortner
och...@aol.com
Och lowi
"safety flash " of BGA dated september 1993, were the altitude loss is given
300 to 400 ft /turn, depending on weight, and 120 ft/second. The recovery dive
consumes 200 ft more.
Grahame Underwood
incident in UK 6-7 years ago. The story is that there was an asymmetric
airbrake failure on a Puchacz - the first thing noticed by the instructor
was a roll started by one brake being sucked open during the tow. Sensibly,
he opened the other (=both) to restore symmetry and was high enough at that
point to pull off tow. He carried out a full-brake circuit/approach but,
during the final round-out the rogue brake dropped back in again and caused
a ground loop. The fuselage broke in front of the tail. This is all a bit
anecdotal and I don't know whether it is true.
Larry Goddard
The P&H Company wrote:
> I was in a Puch and the instructor told me he was going to demonstrate a spin off of a
> thermalling slow turn. Slow turn followed by full rudder flipped us upside down almost
> followed by the spin. We started at 1000 feet and levelled out at 600. Scared the pants off
> me ! I am not by the way an experienced pilot yet so have no comments except to relate the
> heights. I know an instructor and air experience passenger (on first flight) were killed
> after a Puch spun in at a club I know.
>
> J
Find another instructor, quickly!!! Starting a deliberate spin at 1000 feet? Close to being a
criminal act in my opinion!
On the other hand, you could just refuse to ride with this person and let natural selection set
in... this person won't be around long.
--
Larry Goddard
"01" LS-3a USA
Basil Fairston
you transfer your accidents from deliberate spin accidents to unintentional
spin accidents since no one is current in spin recovery.
Basil Fairston
Hus Bos UK
OCH
Thomas Knauff <tkn...@earthlink.net> schrieb im Beitrag
<35BAC0CD...@earthlink.net>...
>
>
> It is suggested that owner/operators of this type of glider consider
> placarding the glider against all intentional spins until
> recommendations are made by the factory or government agencies.
>
> An alternate recommendation would be to placard the glider against
> intentional multi-turn spins and/or intentional spins entries below
> 3,000 feet above ground level.
>
> --
> Thomas Knauff
> Knauff & Grove Soaring Supplies
> Schempp-Hirth Sailplanes, Keystone Gliderport
> Julian, Pa 16844 USA
> Phone (814) 355 2483
> Fax (814) 355 2633
> www.glider.com/knauff
>
>
> I think, placarding is no solution. I have a lot of experience teaching
aerobatics, with various items of Puchacz and other aerobatic gliders. my
opinion is, that not so much the intentional spin is the problem. The
"intentional" spin behavior ist tested and the pilot is not surprised. More
problem is the unintenional spin after another failed figure for ex. Of
course, there can be a problem of surprised pilot... But the number of very
experienced pilots and - aerobatic - teachers involved in Puchacz spin
accidents leads me to the theory: It could be that a very special kind of
entering the spin could provocate a behavior which is very difficult to
manage, even in low altitude. Of course, this problem could be very
difficult to investigate, because the circumstances are difficult to
reproduce.
Daniel J. Mockler
This should be placed in front of the operations administration
imediatley.
Dan Mockler
OCH
Al <c...@sierra.net> schrieb im Beitrag <35BB6C46...@sierra.net>...
>
>
> The only "weird" spin entry was
> after a stall turn failed and it snapped into a vertical high speed spin.
> ........... The spin rate was very high, I wonder if this is what caught
the guys
> in CA out.
>
>>
> It is my opinio too, that a "snapping" entry to a spin could result
recovery problems. Placarding or so is no solution, because that can happen
unintentionally when failing another figure. The mentionned stall turn is a
good example. In the case of Austrian accident a failed "half snap roll -
half loop" combination, were during the snap roll, the glider did not
really roll, probably due to a defect in rudder action, has provocated a
spin beginning at 1500 ft ca. were the pilots were unable to stop. The
instructor survived and has reported that he did not feel any pressure on
the elevator, like broken action. Myself has made some test flights trying
recovery with blocked rudder, with rudder free and so and we never had
problems to recover. But it might be different when entering by a failed
figure, were some strange impulses might provocate a very special behavior.
But, cof course, this is difficult to reproduce.
Christian Ortner (och...@aol.com)
Toulson017
<r...@event-horizonsXXSPAMXX.com.au> writes:
>Does the Puch have a "grey" area between spin and spiral dive? I have
>only ever spun a Puch once, many years ago, and I remember it being so
>docile, that I felt quite relaxed. Perhaps herein lies a trap. I have no
>authority in this area. Can anybody comment on this possibility?
>
No grey area. Either it's spinning or not. One has airspeed and the other does
not.
Barney
UK
Toulson017
pat...@NOSPAM.worldnet.att.net (Todd Pattist) writes:
>touls...@aol.com (Toulson017) wrote:
>
>>Just in case anyone does not know, Tom sells a competitive make.
>
>This is a cheap shot. Further, I can't think of a
>competitive sailplane he sells to the Puch
My club, The Soaring Centre, Husbands Bosworth, UK, where I was Chief Flying
Instructor for several years is, I believe, one of largest users of Puchacz's
for basic training. These are our only basic trainers and we have 4 which fly
7 days per week.
They have positive an negative points depending on your training strategy. We,
who train to the British Gliding Association syllabus, give spin training
extensively on the basis that whilst there are gliders that will spin we have
a duty to train people to learn recovery techniques from many different
entries. To do that you need a glider which will enter a spin predictably and
consistantly with a wide range of wing loadings and c of g positions.
Accepting this as the requirement, I know of no glider which meets this
criteria as well as the Puchacz as it is entirely predictable, and carries out
spinning exercises very well when flown by a pilot experienced in such
exercises, however, it can catch out the untrained.
Spins occur from many aspects of flight and pilots used to teaching in
aircraft that either spin unpredicably or not at all would find the envelope
of Puchacz vastly different which is why the BGA and my club have adopted a
series of stall and spin reinforcement exercises, many as demonstrations only,
to show how gliders can inadvertantly spin when "abused" by the unwary.
One example which is believed to be the cause of some accidents is an over
enthusiastic recovery from a gentle stall / spin with high G loading. A high
speed stall can occur (about 45 - 52 knots) and, with some slight rudder on,
one wing stalls before the other resulting in a sharp entry into a spin with
almost inversion occurring during entry.
Another example in the same category, also thought to have resulted in
accidents is by recovering from a spin and leaving some rudder on which can
result in a reversal of the spin to the opposite direction. Both of these
examples can cause extreme disorientation to the unsuspecting pilot.
Another example is to show that by simply over ruddering a turn and holding
the increasing bank off with aileron, with the nose only slightly above the
normal flying attitude, the glider will spin at above normal indicated flying
speed but quite often if done with the instructor flying without a briefing to
the pupil, the spin can occur before the pupil recognises the symptoms. This
demonstrates the "final turn problem", a cause of a number of accidents over
the years.
These three examples would be difficult to set up and demonstrate effectively
and sufficiently predictably to show the pupil the cause/symptom/result, in
any other training aircraft I have flown yet they can and do occur
accidentally.
On balance, therefore, we believe in the quality of training which is possible
with the Puchacz, but many of the exercises can be beyond the skill or
confidence levels of many club instructors and so are missed out completely or
done badly.
Is the Puchacz for you? I guess that is a matter of your club strategy. I can
only say that if you do buy one and learn to use it to the full extent of its
capability you will train some superbly capable and confident pilots.
Barney
John Wren
Daniel J. Mockler wrote in message <35BCD0...@scserv1.dseg.ti.com>...
Daniel J. Mockler
Let see, airobatics at 1000 ft above the ground, with a passeger
onboard.
If your not worried about the saftey issues then worry about the
liability issues.
Dan Mockler
John Wren
are required to follow our FAR's. BTW there standard of airmanship is equal
if not better than ours.
Daniel J. Mockler wrote in message <35BCEA...@scserv1.dseg.ti.com>...
A C Gillanders
(John Wren) wrote:
> The message that stated spins at 1000ft was from the UK. I don't think
> they
> are required to follow our FAR's. BTW there standard of airmanship is
> equal
> if not better than ours.
As a recent starter to gliding (in the UK) I have been taught by /all/ my
instructors that unless there's a very good reason otherwise, by the time
I'm down at 1000' AGL I should be strongly considering planning my return
to circuit and land. Granted an experienced pilot will be more successful
at finding and centring in low level thermals (no ridges at my gliding
base), but /starting/ spins at such a low level would seem to lack
imagination at the very least. Foolhardy and irresponsible are more
accurate IMHO. Glad to note your view about the UK airmanship but I must
go along with Dan's conclusion on this.
Andy Gillanders
Robert Youdan
spiral dive a glider, most of us have very little practice at recovering
from a fully developed spiral dive. Many deaths in many different glider
makes have been a result of failure to recognise the development of a spiral
dive. Does the Puch have a "grey" area between spin and spiral dive? I have
only ever spun a Puch once, many years ago, and I remember it being so
docile, that I felt quite relaxed. Perhaps herein lies a trap. I have no
authority in this area. Can anybody comment on this possibility?
Rob
--
Please remove "XXSPAMXX" before replying by e-mail
F.L. Whiteley
A C Gillanders <a...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote in article
<memo.19980727...@acg.compulink.co.uk>...
> In article <6pitk4$ogr$1...@lwnws01.ne.highway1.com>, jw...@chelmsford.com
> (John Wren) wrote:
>
> > The message that stated spins at 1000ft was from the UK. I don't think
> > they
> > are required to follow our FAR's. BTW there standard of airmanship is
> > equal
> > if not better than ours.
>
> As a recent starter to gliding (in the UK) I have been taught by /all/ my
> instructors that unless there's a very good reason otherwise, by the time
> I'm down at 1000' AGL I should be strongly considering planning my return
> to circuit and land.
Post again after your Bronze C checks;^)
F. Whiteley
Colorado
Mark Stevens
moc...@scserv1.dseg.ti.com (Daniel J. Mockler) wrote:
The UK vs US spin training discussion leaps into life again..
Neither of Dan's points are pertinent if the "passenger" was
in fact a P/UT. It's also worth pointing out that practices
differ and in the end if you guys are willing to listen to
what we have to say and vice versa, the worst that can happen
is that we agree to differ..
If the accident noted in this thread (student on first flight/instructor)
being referred to is the one I think it was did not kill the instructor
but was the result of a low level entry off of a failed winch launch.
I'm happy to see the US point of view in terms of spin training and
recoveries even if I don't agree - forgive me if I'm being
simplistic (even though I'm a full rated instructor at one of the
UK's top five training clubs) but the spins that kill are the ones
that happen close to the ground (the old air-ground interface is
usually the bit that hurts)
Spin training with a student is not aerobatics with a passenger IMHO
and the first time a pilot sees the world go green and instinctively
pulls the stick back I want to be with him (with my block) rather than
in his Ventus CT..Again IMHO spin training above 1500' is great fun
and entirely appropriate as a step in our training process from gentle
stall recoveries to completed spin training, but again I must stress we're
teaching people how not to spin rather than how to spin.
Tom is correct to point out there appear to be too many spin accidents
with Puch's. At my club we will not winch launch a Puch but are happy to
aerotow it/spin it.. A confused message, perhaps, but the CFI is the CFI
and greatly respected. I've always found it a delightful glider, but if
you apply pro-spin inputs, it will spin readily, unlike most German
training gliders..
There is a passing reference to nose high stall/spin entries in this
thread - in my opinion again teaching this is dangerous nonsense, it's
not the entry that will kill or even catch you, the insidious nose low,
speed bleeding, over ruddered/underbanked final turn or nose low spin
off a cable break are the ones that kill..
Again, in Tom's defence there has been at least one Puch
accident in the UK that seems not to have a sensible explanation
except that the high rate of descent may have caught the two instructors
out..
Bert Willing
John Wren wrote:
> The message that stated spins at 1000ft was from the UK. I don't think they
> are required to follow our FAR's. BTW there standard of airmanship is equal
> if not better than ours.
All true, but still, a spin entry at 1000 ft with a student/passenger onboard
is nuts. However, this could be explained to the instructor in question without
legal action.
Bert
Mark Stevens
As a recent starter to gliding in the UK, it might be more
appropriate not to comment on another ab-initios perception
of the start of a process..
Do you imagine that all spins start above 1000'? That there is
a magic anti-spin atmospheric component below this height? That
ground rush is not very different below 1000' than above it?
Do some research into how and when fatal spin accidents occur. If we
are not going to explore at least some elements of sub-1000' spin
issues and revert to nose-high, spiral dive demonstrations from
somewhere in the stratosphere with fat instructors and students in
warped K13's with not enough elevator travel then your first low
level spin event close to the ground is likely to be your last
as you pull the stick back because the ground seems far too close
to push the stick forward..
>
> As a recent starter to gliding (in the UK) I have been taught by /all/
> my
> instructors that unless there's a very good reason otherwise, by the
> time
> I'm down at 1000' AGL I should be strongly considering planning my
> return
Billevelyn
>Just in case anyone does not know, Tom >sells a competitive make.
I'm willing to bet you didn't write this to personally cast a dispersion in
Tom's direction. I'm also willing to bet you don't know Tom very well. It
was just in bad taste.
Everyone who knows this man will confirm he is only interested in soaring
safety, and to ensure all the risk associated with any piece of equipment is
measured.
I suggest you go to Ridge Soaring and take the opportunity to fly, meet, and
interact with both Tom and Doris.
You'll instinctively realize he cares about soaring safety and people in a big
way.
Bill Evelyn LS3A, WLE
Bert Willing
Gary O'Neill wrote:
>> I find the notion of a placard warning that
>
> the puchacz has a very fast rate of turn and descent in spin
> mode,very good, but banning them from spins is silly.
> I recall a factory test flight spinning of an open class ship ended
> with
> a bailout, so aggressive spin habits are around in other gliders.
>
I might just add that this "factory bailout" was Martin Heide (the
constructor) in an ASH 25, flaps in landing configuration, one wing
filled with 120 liters of water, one wing empty, intenional spin entry.
He was mad at the LBA because they wanted to see this in the flight test
program. So if you try really hard, you might have to exit any aircraft.
On a more general basis, I find this discussion quite fruitful. I think
that Tom Knauff is a lot interested in security issues, and beneath that
he is likely to be very interested in sailplane sales - but really, I
don't see a Puchaz to be a competitor to him ... I also think that
placarding the Puchaz against intentional spin entry before former
training would be a good thing. And as you can't placard a glider
against unintentional spin entry, you have to train people on that,
maybe somewhat higher than at 1000 ft entry altitude though.
Ciao
Bert
Jonathan Gogan
I went back to my old club
last weekend.
I was considering check flights when
a friend I trained with, now instructing
spun the K13 around 700 ft.
I commented after, that I thought
deliberate batics/spins wee not to be
started below 1500 agl and he
said that club policy was now to
deliberately train people in spins as
low as 600 agl.
This is because people (trainees & bronze and up /experienced pilots) get
their spin training 'up high'
and have no idea how frightening a low spin is
and so don't react properly when the ground is
ready to kiss them.
I wasn't too keen after that (the Puchaz was still in the hanger!)
Jonathan
was...@my-dejanews.com
Larry Goddard <lar...@crl.com> wrote:
>
>
> The P&H Company wrote:
>
> > I was in a Puch and the instructor told me he was going to demonstrate a spin off of a
> > thermalling slow turn. Slow turn followed by full rudder flipped us upside down almost
> > followed by the spin. We started at 1000 feet and levelled out at 600. Scared the pants off
> > me ! I am not by the way an experienced pilot yet so have no comments except to relate the
> > heights. I know an instructor and air experience passenger (on first flight) were killed
> > after a Puch spun in at a club I know.
> >
> > J
>
> Find another instructor, quickly!!! Starting a deliberate spin at 1000 feet? Close to being a
> criminal act in my opinion!
>
> On the other hand, you could just refuse to ride with this person and let natural selection set
> in... this person won't be around long.
>
> --
> Larry Goddard
> "01" LS-3a USA
>
>
I sh** my pants just reading about it.
Gus
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
B Lacovara
instructing spun the K13 around 700 ft. I commented after, that I thought
that club policy was now to deliberately train people in spins as low as 600
agl.>>>>
That is nuts... no instructor would ever spin a glider at that altitude with
me on board. The object is to teach people how *not* to spin, not how
terrifying very low altitude mis-handling can be. Some seriously defective
logic is taking place here....
BL
F.L. Whiteley
B Lacovara <blac...@aol.com> wrote in article
<199807281641...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
Different schools of thought perhaps. My Bronze(UK) checks included
initiating and holding a two-turn spin to the right to recovery on a
specified heading. We entered at 1100agl. This was followed by a two-turn
spin to the left, again to recover on a specified heading. Entry was from
800agl. Next exercise was to sort out a landing as both runways became
blocked. BGA instructors do a lot of spins on their way to becoming
instructors.
Might not be your cup of tea, but it impressed a couple of things on me
which have benefited my soaring over the years.
Yes, there was also extensive training on avoiding spins as well and
recognizing and responding appropriately to incipient spins.
I note that very similar comments were made about 20 years ago about the
Bocians and their spinning characteristics. They also would reportedly
flick into an opposite spin if recovery were over-controlled. Though I
don't have any data at hand, I seem to recall a spate of spinning accidents
involving them as well. An experienced aviator friend surmised that it was
in the placement of the tail feathers. Notice any similarity in the
placement between the Bocian and Puch in this regard?
F. Whiteley
A C Gillanders
("Mark Stevens") wrote:
> Andy,
>
> As a recent starter to gliding in the UK, it might be more
> appropriate not to comment on another ab-initios perception
> of the start of a process..
My apologies Mark, I didn't realise that comments were only welcomed from
experts...am I to understand that you believe novices have no opinions
worth wasting on bandwidth?
> Do you imagine that all spins start above 1000'? That there is
> a magic anti-spin atmospheric component below this height? That
> ground rush is not very different below 1000' than above it?
Of course not! However, in the context of the original posting, do you
imagine that an ab initio's early /experience/ flights provide the best
opportunity to demonstrate relative ground rush effects while spinning
down at <1000' AGL? Read J's posting again and you'll notice that he
happily admits to picking up little but his heights at the start and end
of the manoeuvre. Perhaps my more recent experience as a novice first
timer is more valid here - I feel no shame in admitting that I have
remarkably little memory of my perceptions of ground rush on that
occasion. Not to mention coordinated controls, side-slipping, speed
control in turns, circuit planning, stalls/spins and the many other
aspects of flying that are learnt (hopefully) as a consequence of a
properly structured training programme. All I remember of my first few
flights was the heat when the canopy closed, the brilliant view up top,
the fear that I would do something stupid and break my neck, thinking
"where the hell did the airfield get to?" and an inability to stop
grinning for a couple of hours after landing!
> Do some research into how and when fatal spin accidents occur. If we
> are not going to explore at least some elements of sub-1000' spin
> issues and revert to nose-high, spiral dive demonstrations from
> somewhere in the stratosphere with fat instructors and students in
> warped K13's with not enough elevator travel then your first low
> level spin event close to the ground is likely to be your last
> as you pull the stick back because the ground seems far too close
> to push the stick forward..
I quite agree with you, fatal spin incidents will tend to involve the
ground, but the point was not that instruction shouldn't be given in
recovery from low level spins and spiral dives. Just that it seems
irresponsible to demonstrate such a manoeuvre to a /recent starter/ at low
level. It would seem more sensible to instruct low hours pilots on how to
avoid getting into situations where a low level spin is on the cards.
If my views are full of cr@p then it would be more helpful to give some
gentle instructing nudges in the right direction rather than scoffing from
a lofty position atop ones logbooks. Many thanks for your attempt.
Cheers,
Andy Gillanders
(I don't believe it! Spellcheck of Puchacz = Upchuck :-) )
Mark Allen Rebuck
my apologies if this is a silly question, but:
what exactly are the *benefits* of
practicing your spins at low altitude?
i see the drawback (lack of safety margin) but i don't understand
the advantage(s). if there are no advantages, why on earth would
anyone consider taking the added risk with no return?
(thrill seekers need not reply)
Cheers,
-Mark Rebuck, rebuck_don't...@spam.me.us.ibm.com
Robert Youdan
the theory). In the heat of the moment, many pilots forget to check the ASI,
and, in their panic, many don't notice the sound building up as the airspeed
increases. What they do notice is the attitude. It is not impossible for an
aircraft to be able to spiral dive in the same attitude as it spins, and
vice-versa. This is what I was getting at.
Can the Puch spiral dive in an attidude that looks similar to a "spin
attitude"?
--
Rob
Robert Youdan
Rob
--
Caracole
Barney Toulson --
Thank you for your thoughtful posting on spin training. Since we started
this thread
10 days ago, it seems time to update the conversation.
In the USA, spin training is not required until you wish to become a flight
instructor.
The FAA position is that more pilots are killed in spin training (with CFIs)
than are lost
inadvertently after licensing. CFI spin training was reinstated about 10
yrs ago, in
response to the aviation industry.
All stalled maneuvers are required to be recovered no lower than 1500 ft agl
in USA,
hence the strong feelings expressed about "low-alt" spin training, not to
mention
liability problems here. Most training gliders in USA are "reluctant"
spinners.
BGA makes mandatory spin training. It stands to reason that they would have
more exposure to spinning accidents. This is no maligning of their pilots
or training.
Puchacz is NOT certified fully aerobatic here. Only loop, stall turn,
chandelle and lazy 8
are approved in USA.
Our pilots were not inexperienced spinners. Neither were they foolhardy
"stunters" nor
likely to wish to "wring out" the glider. Both were models of
professionalism as pilots.
One pilot was USAF retired navigator/pilot, CFI glider (expired), former
instructor for
USAF Test Pilot School glider flight handling qualities program, test pilot
for USAF
evaluation of ASK 21 spin qualities, which resulted in Scheicher amending
the ASK
flight manual. He had instructed and spun in Blanik/ASK/Grob/Lark and Puch.
The second pilot was ex-USAF, from initial pilot training through F-4s,
F-16s and F-16
instructor pilot, now flying for airlines in several transports. He was
low-time in gliders.
Should either pilot spin, they would know how to recover, if the glider was
not broken,
or not in some unusual mode of spinning. The glider was not observed to
"reverse"
nor make in change of rotation before impact.
You mention that in your experience, nothing has been more reliable through
a
wider range of entry and loading than the Puch. How many turns have you
held in the
Puch? I realize the normal choice is to illustrate and recover. We have
had very few
comments from pilots that have continued beyond two turns.
The majority of fatals have been with instructors aboard. We heard today of
the 1997
Alzate, Italy accident. "Experienced" spin instructor and pilot launched by
aerotow to
above 700 m. After release, they spin and no observed corrections until
impact
on the airfield near friends. This is too close to our friends'
situation..... and makes us
worry about our and others' complacency via ignorance of "different" Puch
behavior?
One instructor tells us he's noticed significant recovery differences from
one Puch to another,
in Great Britain.
We support voluntary discontinuance of spinning Puchs below 3000 ft agl.
At least until we can eliminate some questions. Does trim position have
any effect
in recovery, in anyone's experience?
We believe in thorough training here, including spins, spirals, full spoiler
landings,
no-spoiler slips to landing and stop. We also value our pilot's lives and
can voluntarily
avoid an action that may have an unpredictable result. This is why we
posted to r.a.s.
Some asked about spoiler extension or failure. The BGA database notes some
spoiler
failures, not always in conjunction with spinning. We cannot yet determine
whether spoilers
played any part here, due to deformation of tubing at impact. Maybe we'll
know later.
We still wish to collect any and all comments on spin behavior, and mostly
delayed recoveries or unusual recoveries or accidents. We plan to publish a
database.
We seek information on c.g. loading, seat back positions, departure modes,
control
inputs for recovery, trim positions or changes, and regrettably, any other
accidents.
There have been no direct posts from Germany or Eastern Europe?
We have the BGA "Flash" from 1993, the BGA accident data, the Soaring
Magazine
Puch spin report of June 1994.
We only want to honor our friends in death through greater learning
and better pilotage. Please help.
Cindy & Marty
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
let...@my-dejanews.com
Before you volunteer to donate your services as newly self appointed FAA
safety offical, Please take one step backward and re-evaluate your comment
that you posted here. Please remember that all of us who love this sport of
soaring are imperfect human beings, flying machines that are built by
imperfect human beings. It's a sad fact, but frighteningly true, that
accidents ( sometimes fatal ones) happen to us imperfect beings flying our
imperfect machines. I spent most of the night tonight researching back issues
of Soaring Mags. Particularly the accident report sections. It appears that
multitudes of accidents have occured in all major types and manufactures of
sailplanes. SZD has produced over 350 50-3's, The aircraft has JAA, JAR
certification, and US FAA type Cert. The glider was put through the rigorous
flight and design tests required by our FAA. The glider is Certified without
the addition of "spinn warnings" or "additional placards." One further
question Tom. Have you ever flown a Puchacz? If so how many times has it
broke into a spin unexpectedly? If you have'nt had a chance to fly one, I
invite you to have a go, for free, any time at your convienience. I feel
very sad of the loss of life that has occured in this accident, I sold the
glider to Russ Dervese, and had many a long conversation with him about the
Puch. He loved the glider. Lets wait and see the detailes of the accident
before we pass judgment, and try to fix problems that may or may not exist.
Mike Salcito \ Owner SZD Sailplanes USA
In article <35BAC0CD...@earthlink.net>,
tkn...@earthlink.net wrote:
> A recent double fatality involving two very experienced pilots in an SZD
> 50-3 Puchacz is still another in a series of reported accidents
> involving this glider. Similar reports have involved double fatalities
> with flight instructors in both seats.
>
> It is suggested that owner/operators of this type of glider consider
> placarding the glider against all intentional spins until
> recommendations are made by the factory or government agencies.
>
> An alternate recommendation would be to placard the glider against
> intentional multi-turn spins and/or intentional spins entries below
> 3,000 feet above ground level.
>
> --
> Thomas Knauff
> Knauff & Grove Soaring Supplies
> Schempp-Hirth Sailplanes, Keystone Gliderport
> Julian, Pa 16844 USA
> Phone (814) 355 2483
> Fax (814) 355 2633
> www.glider.com/knauff
>
>
let...@my-dejanews.com
Andreas Maurer
wrote:
>Different schools of thought perhaps. My Bronze(UK) checks included
>initiating and holding a two-turn spin to the right to recovery on a
>specified heading. We entered at 1100agl. This was followed by a two-turn
>spin to the left, again to recover on a specified heading. Entry was from
>800agl.
Great. A DG-505 looses about 200 ft per turn, an ASK-13 probably only
150.. This means, if you are a little bit slow (or rather cautious)
during recovery you end up very, very close to the ground.
If my instructor tried to do such a thing with me I would beat him
after the landing - in my opinion it is not only nothing less than
very dangerous but also unnecessary - the methods to recover are the
same 1000 ft higher, and the perspective doesn't change that much,,
too.
Bye
Andreas
Armand A. Medeiros
>
> Tom,
>
> Before you volunteer to donate your services as newly self appointed FAA
> safety offical,
>
> Mike Salcito \ Owner SZD Sailplanes USA
Know the history of the Piper Tomahawk? I know that's stretching it,
but, I don't necessarily trust the FAA & NTSB to do ALL things right ALL
the time. It's been my experience that they sometimes miss the obvious
point! How is it harmful to reduce risk?
AAM
Ian Johnston
: In the heat of the moment, many pilots forget to check the ASI,
Also in the heat of the moment, many pilots believe that ASI's (or, to be
precise, pitots) always tell the truth. Try a spiral dive with as much
rudder as you can manage and see if the ASI is believable then....
Ian
Ian Johnston
: I note that very similar comments were made about 20 years ago about the
: Bocians and their spinning characteristics. They also would reportedly
: flick into an opposite spin if recovery were over-controlled.
Bocians are enormous fun to spin - they do it fast and enthusiastically.
: Though I
: don't have any data at hand, I seem to recall a spate of spinning accidents
: involving them as well. An experienced aviator friend surmised that it was
: in the placement of the tail feathers. Notice any similarity in the
: placement between the Bocian and Puch in this regard?
I suspect it's more to do with their place of origin.
Ian
Ian Johnston
: No grey area. Either it's spinning or not. One has airspeed and the other does
: not.
You can spin an aircraft - in theory anyway - while still having "airspeed".
All you have to do is increase the AOA of one wing to greater than the
stalling AOA...
Ian
rob...@my-dejanews.com
The attitude may be vaguely similar and checking the ASI may not be the first
thing you do but even if you ignore the noise the G-forces are radically
different.
This is independant of the model of plane.
rob...@my-dejanews.com
I think the point is that a person who has practised deliberate spins at over
2000ft will have no trouble at all with putting the nose down and calmly
waiting for the rudder to take effect and stop the rotation. He will recover
with ease and not worry about the loss of a mere 300ft. That same person when
encountering an accidental spin at 1000ft for the first time will suddenly
find the ground rushing towards him at what seems a much faster rate and his
instincts will be to pull back rather than push forward. If he has experience
and acts at 1000ft as he did at 2000ft then he will recover with 700ft to
spare, if he panics he will hit the ground.
I would say that this is good training but it is probably still best to start
with high,safe spins then move onto a demonstration and practice of 1000ft
spins as the student nears solo standard. Yes there is a risk that can be
avoided totally but the same logic could be applied to launching the glider
in the first place. The glider is quite safe sitting in the hangar, what do
you gain from putting it up in sky ? :)
Ian Johnston
: [snip]
: my apologies if this is a silly question, but:
: what exactly are the *benefits* of
: practicing your spins at low altitude?
The bit of spins which kills people is at low altitude, and most of these
spins started low as well. The sensation of spinning near the ground is very
different from a nice easy high-up spin - all sorts of visual cue about
"up" and "down" and atitude are changed by the larger amount of ground in
the frame.
Ian
Christopher H Thorpe
>The bit of spins which kills people is at low altitude, and most of these
>spins started low as well. The sensation of spinning near the ground is
very
>different from a nice easy high-up spin - all sorts of visual cue about
>"up" and "down" and atitude are changed by the larger amount of ground in
>the frame.
>
>Ian
>
Whatever height you spin from, there is always a large amount of ground in
the frame. The closer you are to the ground, the better the definition of
ground features. However, the difference between 1,000 feet and 500 feet
(AGL) is hardly worth the risk. The height at which spin training is
commenced is dictated by the spin characteristics of the glider and "self
preservation". A K13 will lose about 250 feet in one rotation, whereas an
IS28 loses about 450 feet in one rotation.
Spin training is designed to familiarise the student with what a spin feels
like, to teach recognition of the onset, and to instil the basic recovery
action. It is not important that the student cannot deliberately enter a
spin - what is important is that the student is able to recognise the
symptoms leading to a stall/spin condition and take the appropriate recovery
action _before_ the aircraft departs into a full spin.
Whilst practice spins are carried out with full anticipation of what is
about to happen, this in no way diminishes the value of the exercise as it
helps to de-mystify the manoeuvre. However, it loses much of its effect if
the method of spin entry is incorrect. We know that no pilot ever pulls the
nose up and applies full rudder at low level - such action would be
obviously suicidal and that is not the way accidental spins happen. What
does happen is that the pilot unconsciously misuses the controls and the
glider eventually spins. The adding of awareness of this crucial fact to
conscientious spin training provides the most practical training in avoiding
the accidental spin and is covered in both the British and Australian
instructing regime.
There has been comment in this thread that the British have a propensity for
low level spinning. This is somewhat at odds with the BGA Instructor's
Manual, which advises that there is no requirement for early spin training
to be close to the ground and, that training is not compromised if it is
done at height. There is mention that in the advanced stages of training it
is necessary to introduce brief spins (half a turn)
where the ground is reasonably close but this is clarified in that only a
very experienced instructor in a docile two-seater in the right conditions
may be prepared to initiate a brief spin from as low as 800 feet AGL.
However, spin training at higher altitudes would be the norm.
This is not at odds with what we teach in Australia, although we would
generally not deliberately spin from a height that does not allow recovery
above 1,000 feet AGL.
Christopher Thorpe
http://users.netconnect.com.au/~pbuskens/
Shaber CJ
>The attitude may be vaguely similar and checking the ASI may not be the first
>thing you do but even if you ignore the noise the G-forces are radically
>different.
The attitude may look exactly the same as a spin. I spun a 2-32 that went into
a spiral and the attitude did not perseptivly change. The noise did increase
then I checked the airspeed and it was increasing.
Cheers
Craig
Mark Stevens
None of Brits here are suggesting that it's good practice to start spin
training at 800' AGL - the variability in student reaction would make this
somewhat stupid..To my knowledge most (if not all) of the instructors here
are experienced and generally fly "docile" two seaters such as the K13..
All stall/spin training is progressive and advanced training may wait
until a student is thinking of transitioning to glass.
From my own and my students reaction (I was taught the 1500' nose high
stupidity and my first sub 1000' entry meant a mental check on my part
not to pull the stick back whereas at higher altitudes I had never had
that temptation) and in the UK the spin off a cable break is an issue -
one of my instructing colleagues as an early solo pilot had an interesting
experience which he may relate here..
I generally do not allow a full spin to develop after the first demos
until the student is comfortable to demonstrate this at height - it
wastes height if nothing else - I can demo four entries, then let the
student have a go in the same height a two turn spin would consume. IMHO
the only reason to do multiple turn spins is to show the student it is
a stable mode in some gliders and/or show the difference between a spin
and spiral dive (all too common for one to become the other in a K13)..
As I said this is a rehash of many previous threads and unlikely to be
the last time this comes up here..
In article <35bf1...@139.134.5.33>, cth...@bigpond.com (Christopher H
F.L. Whiteley
Ian Johnston <engs...@sable.ox.ac.uk> wrote in article
<6pn268$rbs$3...@news.ox.ac.uk>...
> F.L. Whiteley (gre...@greeleynet.com) wrote:
>
> : I note that very similar comments were made about 20 years ago about
the
> : Bocians and their spinning characteristics. They also would reportedly
> : flick into an opposite spin if recovery were over-controlled.
>
> Bocians are enormous fun to spin - they do it fast and enthusiastically.
>
John Campbell has an interesting story about a night flight in a Bocian at
the Juniors in Leszno at the Juniors a few years back. The instructor had
John hold the flashlight so the instruments were visible, then proceeded to
spin the glider. Not many lights around Leszno for reference.
> : Though I
> : don't have any data at hand, I seem to recall a spate of spinning
accidents
> : involving them as well. An experienced aviator friend surmised that it
was
> : in the placement of the tail feathers. Notice any similarity in the
> : placement between the Bocian and Puch in this regard?
>
> I suspect it's more to do with their place of origin.
>
May be true, but a glider friend seems to recall, perhaps from "Stick and
Rudder", that the cruciform tail design is reckoned to result in partial
blanking of the elevator by the rudder and partial blanking of the rudder
by the elevator, having some effect on spin recovery. Seems plausible.
F. Whiteley
Raphael H. Warshaw
accidents is under way. Until that effort is complete and/or an explanation
for the Cal City crash which does not involve an unrecoverable spin mode is
forthcoming, a voluntary ban on intentional spinning of this aircraft seems
only sensible.
Many of us with far less skill and experience than the pilots involved in
the Cal City crash depend on the advice of experts like Mr. Knauf to keep us
out of trouble in the sailplanes that we rent and fly. I for one am
grateful for his efforts.
Ray Warshaw
John Wren
>Furthermore, I think your example of what might happen is wrong. A
>pilot who is properly trained instinctively and automatically pushes
>the stick forward when the plane stops flying. In my own experience,
>when a stall type emergency happened to me as a student pilot at about
>100 feet, that's what I did, without even having a chance think about it.
>My instincts took over when I felt the incipient stall. The way I
>acquired that instinct was by training from my instructors at safe
>heights.
I disagree, a pilot is just as likely to pull the stick back when panicked.
I have some great video of such an accident (student/instructor landing) and
you can clearly see the elevator in the full up position. "Instinctively and
automatically pushes the stick forward" can present other problems.
>I read an article some time ago (it was in the U.S. magazine _Flying_, but
>I can't remember the date) that in Canada where spin training is required
>for power pilots, more people are killed in spin training than in
>unintentional spins. If we start doing spin training at 1,000 feet
>we're going to kill a lot more students (and instructors) than we save.
I'd love to see this article. Soaring is a very small world and a lot of us
hear quickly of any fatal accidents. While a large percentage of fatal
accidents are stall/spin while landing. It is very rare to hear of a spin
accident while performing it during a training excursive no matter what the
height.
John Wren
Fred Steadman
not true that gliders certificated in the US must demonstrate recoverability
after only one turn? Technically, if you allow it to go two or three or more
turns, you are a test pilot, at least as far as US certification rules go.
Caracole wrote:
--
Fred Steadman
Dallas, Texas
Fred Steadman
spinning at or below 1000, for example. In this country (USA) we're told to abandon ship if unable
to effect recovery by about 2000 feet AGL. Also, in this country, spins are considered aerobatic,
and are not required for any private rating (glider or power). They are required for the
Instructor's ratings. I know that in other countries they are still required and I believe they
should be.
So, I suppose if spinning from 1000 feet is widespread in your country, and the general culture
amoung instructors there approves, then who am I to disapprove. OTOH, if such low altitude work is
commonplace in the UK and elsewhere, I revise my opinion that the loss of 3% of the fleet over a
several year period is a cause for concern. Perhaps under those conditions, it is not.
As you say. the Puch is lovely to fly, and I find nothing scary about it. Of course, we do all our
spins from an altitude that gives us a little room. I must say, I don't know what my reaction would
be to a spin entry close to the ground.
The P&H Company wrote:
> Fred Steadman wrote:
> >
> > I would not fly again with an instructor who feels it is ok to demonstrate spin entry and
> > recovery at 1000 feet, nor would I allow my kids to fly with him/her.
> >
> > The Puch is such a sweetheart to fly, and pops into and out of spins so easily, I hate to think
> > it might be dangerous, but 9 crashes in a population of 300 is a sobering statistic, and with
> > experienced pilots, no less. Surely they didn't all enter spins at 1000 feet. (Perhaps none of
> > them did).
>
> My instincts tell me something is not quite right. Usually I trust them !
>
> Most of my spin training was straight off the top of the launch (winch) at around 1000 ft.
> I have never thought it to be wrong as I was with instructors of course. In the UK I think
> spinning is taught very commonly at this altitude. However I would not allow an instructor
> to spin me in a PUCH again. I flew a PUCH solo a few days ago after a check flight - a
> lovely aircraft to fly but a bit scary after too much reading of accidents on this
> newsgroup!
>
> According to an instructor on this thread one UK club has stopped winch launches and
> spinning in the PUCH.
>
> Best wishes
> J
>
> (actually it is Jules. Was in incognito as discussions on the PUCH at our club might be
> frowned upoun as it is the only club trainer).
Robert Youdan
Rob
--
Please remove "XXSPAMXX" before replying by e-mail
Ian Johnston wrote in message <6pn1v2$rbs$2...@news.ox.ac.uk>...
Alan Meyer
> ...
>Do you imagine that all spins start above 1000'? That there is
>a magic anti-spin atmospheric component below this height? That
>ground rush is not very different below 1000' than above it?
>
>are not going to explore at least some elements of sub-1000' spin
>issues and revert to nose-high, spiral dive demonstrations from
>somewhere in the stratosphere with fat instructors and students in
>warped K13's with not enough elevator travel then your first low
>level spin event close to the ground is likely to be your last
>as you pull the stick back because the ground seems far too close
>to push the stick forward..
I totally disagree with this idea.
Emergency training should be designed to teach people procedures that they
can use in an emergency. It should _simulate_ an emergency. It should
never create an actual emergency just for the purpose of training.
Furthermore, I think your example of what might happen is wrong. A
pilot who is properly trained instinctively and automatically pushes
the stick forward when the plane stops flying. In my own experience,
when a stall type emergency happened to me as a student pilot at about
100 feet, that's what I did, without even having a chance think about it.
My instincts took over when I felt the incipient stall. The way I
acquired that instinct was by training from my instructors at safe
heights.
I read an article some time ago (it was in the U.S. magazine _Flying_, but
I can't remember the date) that in Canada where spin training is required
for power pilots, more people are killed in spin training than in
unintentional spins. If we start doing spin training at 1,000 feet
we're going to kill a lot more students (and instructors) than we save.
--
Alan Meyer
AM Systems, Inc
Randallstown, MD
ame...@ix.netcom.com
Robert Youdan
have lost count of the number of students I have "checked" in spins who are
happy to keep standing hard on the rudder with the stick forward whilst the
airspeed and g's build. Please stop trying to give flying lessons in this
newsgroup thread, and open your minds to *all* the questions people ask.
Hey, you just might find an answer!
Doug Haluza
F.L. Whiteley wrote in message <01bdbb09$eacdd660$0100005a@greeley>...
>May be true, but a glider friend seems to recall, perhaps from "Stick and
>Rudder", that the cruciform tail design is reckoned to result in partial
>blanking of the elevator by the rudder and partial blanking of the rudder
>by the elevator, having some effect on spin recovery. Seems plausible.
>
Yes, and note the elevator position on the Schweizer 2-32 which is often
used for spin training. The elevator is located well aft of the rudder. I'm
told this is to prevent blanking the rudder for spin recovery.
Doug Haluza
Armand A. Medeiros wrote in message <35BEF7...@concentric.net>...
Agreed. It is only prudent to voluntarily refrain from intentional spins in
this type until things sort themselves out. It is common practice for the
military to "stand down" after a series of related accidents until the
situation is examined. Civilain pilots should follow this example.
Ian Johnston
: I read an article some time ago (it was in the U.S. magazine _Flying_, but
: I can't remember the date) that in Canada where spin training is required
: for power pilots, more people are killed in spin training than in
: unintentional spins.
That statistic is only meaningful if you compare it to countries where spin
training isn't carried out. Ten people killed in training and five in
unintentional spins (per n pilots per m years) is "better" than twenty deaths
through accidental spinning in the same time. Unless, of course, a death in
training is intrinsically worse than a death post-training - which it may
be from the PR point of view, but it's not a moral point I'd care to
defend.
: If we start doing spin training at 1,000 feet
: we're going to kill a lot more students (and instructors) than we save.
Non-sequitur, at least on the Canada example.
I like your point about the unstalling reflex - mind you, that was precisely
what killed an acquaintance of mine who put a glider vertically into the
ground at 180kt or so from the top of a winch launch.
Ian
rob...@my-dejanews.com
"F.L. Whiteley" <gre...@greeleynet.com> wrote:
> >
> May be true, but a glider friend seems to recall, perhaps from "Stick and
> Rudder", that the cruciform tail design is reckoned to result in partial
> blanking of the elevator by the rudder and partial blanking of the rudder
> by the elevator, having some effect on spin recovery. Seems plausible.
>
> F. Whiteley
>
The problem with a spin attitude on a normal low tail is that the tailplane
is moving downwards and blanking the rudder and the tailfin is moving
sideways and blanking half the elevator. The high tail/T-tail is an attempt
to cure this.
rob...@my-dejanews.com
If you photographed your plane in a spin and in a spiral dive then yes you
would see a similar if not identical attitude but the difference is in the
motion of the plane through the air.
What would have changed is that during the spin you would have been pushed
sideways and felt normal G through the seat; when you entered a spiral dive
you would have felt increased G though your backside and little sideways
component.
Of course panic can overide any of these signs :}
rob...@my-dejanews.com
ame...@ix.netcom.com (Alan Meyer) wrote:
> Furthermore, I think your example of what might happen is wrong. A
> pilot who is properly trained instinctively and automatically pushes
> the stick forward when the plane stops flying. In my own experience,
> when a stall type emergency happened to me as a student pilot at about
> 100 feet, that's what I did, without even having a chance think about it.
> My instincts took over when I felt the incipient stall. The way I
> acquired that instinct was by training from my instructors at safe
> heights.
>
There is a big difference between a stall where you feel the plane run out of
airspeed and the nose drops and a spin where in a split second you change from
looking at the horizon to looking at the ground spinning. Very few pilots lack
the instinct to push forward when airspeed is insufficient but spin recovery
involves blocking the instinct to pull up when pointing at the ground.
Another point to consider is that a stall is an unstable condition and
letting go of the stick will probably allow the plane to recover (unless the
wing drops and a spin develops); a spin is a stable condition and will remain
stable until the ground stops it!
rob...@my-dejanews.com
<0D76EFC673D1B327.F3DAAC91...@library-proxy.airnews.net
>, fst...@fastlane.net wrote:
>
> As you say. the Puch is lovely to fly, and I find nothing scary about it. Of
course, we do all our
> spins from an altitude that gives us a little room. I must say, I don't know
what my reaction would
> be to a spin entry close to the ground.
>
> Fred Steadman
> Dallas, Texas
>
>
I think that was the point ;)
Jonathan Gogan
>> one of my instructing colleagues as an early solo pilot had an
interesting
>> experience which he may relate here..
I checked with my Dad (who field at KL a lot) and they discourage
Puchaz pilots from Winching, Better to Tug it up. Apparently
a few clubs now do this.
jon.,
Ian Johnston
: In this country (USA) we're told to abandon ship if unable
: to effect recovery by about 2000 feet AGL.
On the other hand, most spins in normal gliders will be recoverable, and
I trust wings more than I trust parachutes. According to the Electronic
Telegraph a glider pilot died this week when his chute failed to open
properly when he bailed out after a collison.
: So, I suppose if spinning from 1000 feet is widespread in your country, and the general culture
: amoung instructors there approves, then who am I to disapprove.
I suspect that low level spinning is particularly common here because of the
number of winch sites.
Ian
Alan Meyer
of whom has much more experience than I do and together have a great
deal more, all seem to agree that low altitude spin training is desirable.
In my subjective experience, it seems to me that most of the training I've
had in the U.S. has been oriented towards flying within my limits rather
than expanding those limits. With my limited experience I'm reluctant to
generalize and say it's like that throughout the U.S. Still, it sounds
like the UK instructors have a more aggressive approach to training.
It looks like I need to reconsider my opinions and start looking for
someone to give me some spin training.
Thank you all for the thoughtful replies.
Armand A. Medeiros
> Four pilots (Mark Stevens, John Wren, Ian Strachan and Robinhj),
Are these four alive today?
Low altitude spin training is like believing your brakes will never
fail. Brakes are super reliable and yet I lost a master cylinder on both
my vehicles! It took over ten years on each before they went out...but
it does happen. Keep it up high. Practice your low stuff by flying low
over plateaus and seeing what it is like...then you can just dump into
the valley if things get weird. I've spent ten or fifteen hours flying
low over realtively flat hills both slow and fast. It can show you what
a low level turn is like and prepare you for the spped sensations.
Just tell any instructor that your going for a CFIG rating and most
places will do spin training for you. Just do it up high! And wear a
CHUTE! Then, have a blast!
AAM
Ian Johnston
: It looks like I need to reconsider my opinions and start looking for
: someone to give me some spin training.
We had some visitors from the souther flatlands at my club (Borders GC)
recently, who brought their own K21 with them. While it was being rigged,
one of their instructos was given a site check for site checks in our
Bocian, including a spin or two. He - and the rest of them - liked it so
much that they left the K21 on the ground and hired a Bocian from us for
the day!
Quite apart from the fun, I am sure they have all learnt something...
Ian
rob...@stones.com
engs...@sable.ox.ac.uk (Ian Johnston) wrote:
>
> I like your point about the unstalling reflex - mind you, that was precisely
> what killed an acquaintance of mine who put a glider vertically into the
> ground at 180kt or so from the top of a winch launch.
>
> Ian
>
This is why many clubs insist on demonstrating that low or -ve G is not
neccessarily a symptom of a stall. Experiencing -ve G at the top of the
launch can be very disorientating if you have not been shown it before and
the more you push forward to 'unstall' the worst it gets.
rob...@stones.com
zar...@concentric.net wrote:
>
> Low altitude spin training is like believing your brakes will never
> fail.
Low altitude spin training is like believing that your brakes may fail and
that even though you have lots of practice stopping in 100 yards on Boneville
Salt Flats you would feel happier knowing you could still do it with a wall
300 yards away and approaching fast. Still plenty of safety margin but closer
to the likely real situation.
Low altitude spin training is like believing you may need to use that
parachute for more than a seat cushion one day and trying it for real with a
professional intructor to see if you can still remember the instructions when
the ground is rushing up. Jumping out of a healthy plane is dangerous and
unneccessary but an awful lot of glider pilots do it.
Dr. Christian Ortner
Christian och...@aol.com
John Wren <jw...@chelmsford.com> schrieb im Beitrag
<6poll5$5e3$1...@lwnws01.ne.highway1.com>...
>
>
> >Furthermore, I think your example of what might happen is wrong. A
> >pilot who is properly trained instinctively and automatically pushes
> >the stick forward when the plane stops flying.
>
Dr. Christian Ortner
let...@my-dejanews.com schrieb im Beitrag
<6pm1aa$t8r$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
Lets wait and see the detailes of the accident
> before we pass judgment, and try to fix problems that may or may not
exist.
>
> Mike Salcito \ Owner SZD Sailplanes USA
>
> Mike
I agree with you, we should not pass judgement about a glider before we
know all details. But we have to collect all experiences they could help to
fix the problems. I am involved in an investigation of a Puchacz accident
in Austria, were the instructor, which has survived the accident and is
accused now at the court, because the pupil died. I have to defend him. And
i am involved as type manager in Austria for MDM-1 Fox glider, were one was
involved in a similar spinning accident this year: spinning from 750m to
the ground without any change of rotation directon or whatever.
It is conceivable to me, that in spin in certain circumstances something
can happen which is not tested in flight tests and may result recovery
problems. I have no other answer to the reports of very experienced pilots
died in spin accidents.
Ruud J. Holswilder
wrote:
>We are compiling available information on the known Puchacz spin related
>accidents.
>So far we have limited initial info on about nine fatal events.
>
>England 4
>Austria 1
>Denmark 1
>Italy 1
>Canada 1
>United States 1
>Germany 1 maybe ?
>
Unfortunately also in the Netherlands we had a fatal Puchacz spin
related accident on June 24 1997, killing the student and seriously
injuring the instructor.
Aircraft entered a spin after a simulated rope brake during winch
launch at 100 meters altitude.
Accident still under investigation.
I did one flight on a Puchacz 3 years ago.
Having heard about it's spinning characteristics, I did spin it for
more than 2 full turns from 700 meters. I was very impressed by the
easy spin entry (gentle stall and applying rudder) and the fierce
rotation. After initiating the recovery, it took at least half a turn
to recover with very rapid speed build-up.
Ruud Holswilder.
In case of reply via email, remove the NOSPAM in the return address.
Al
deep stalling?
High tail or low tail they all have their own little aerodynamic traits.
Al
rob...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <01bdbb09$eacdd660$0100005a@greeley>,
> "F.L. Whiteley" <gre...@greeleynet.com> wrote:
>
> > >
> > May be true, but a glider friend seems to recall, perhaps from "Stick and
> > Rudder", that the cruciform tail design is reckoned to result in partial
> > blanking of the elevator by the rudder and partial blanking of the rudder
> > by the elevator, having some effect on spin recovery. Seems plausible.
> >
> > F. Whiteley
> >
>
> The problem with a spin attitude on a normal low tail is that the tailplane
> is moving downwards and blanking the rudder and the tailfin is moving
> sideways and blanking half the elevator. The high tail/T-tail is an attempt
> to cure this.
>
Steve Peltz
Fred Steadman <fst...@fastlane.net> wrote:
>Your mention of delayed recoveries and multiturn spins tweaked a memory. Is it
>not true that gliders certificated in the US must demonstrate recoverability
>after only one turn? Technically, if you allow it to go two or three or more
>turns, you are a test pilot, at least as far as US certification rules go.
I thought aircraft were placarded against intentional spins if they hadn't
had more thorough spin testing than the minimum...?
Neil Swinton
BAC1-11..
In article <35C1D5C9...@sierra.net>, c...@sierra.net
Jean-Marie Clément
Thomas Knauff wrote:
> A recent double fatality involving two very experienced pilots in an SZD
> 50-3 Puchacz is still another in a series of reported accidents
> involving this glider. Similar reports have involved double fatalities
> with flight instructors in both seats.
>
> It is suggested that owner/operators of this type of glider consider
> placarding the glider against all intentional spins until
> recommendations are made by the factory or government agencies.
>
> An alternate recommendation would be to placard the glider against
> intentional multi-turn spins and/or intentional spins entries below
> 3,000 feet above ground level.
>
>
Excellent idea, but I am afraid this is not sufficient. Last year, the chief
instructor of a club nearby and the front pilot were killed in an
intentional spin starting approx. 2,200 feet, right above the runway,
crashing onto the runway. Since there was no sign of recovery at all after
such a loss of altitude, it is very unlikely that things may improve if you
have 500 feet more. At the contrary, when a spin is stabilized and the
glider does not respond, it gets more and more stable. Bail out is the only
solution. So, the 3,000 feet limitation should be intended in this way: if
you cannot stop the spin after 5 turns or 1,500 feet, bail out immediately!
--
Jean-Marie Clément
Via delle Forze Armate, 26
I - 20147 Milano
Tel. +39-(0)2-4870 5377 Fax: +39-(0)2-4870 5352
Mobile +39-(0)335- 6049 302
Toulson017
writes:
>
>: In this country (USA) we're told to abandon ship if unable
>: to effect recovery by about 2000 feet AGL.
>
Low level, ie. recovery by about 1500 ft, is taught simply to demonstrate the
techniques which should be used in the event of inadvertant spinning from
winch launches. Abandoning an aiircraft at 2000 ft would be considered
unreasonable in the UK as there is plenty of time to initiate recovery from
that height assuming no mechanical failure.
Most gliders recover within one rotation. This is about 250 - 350 ft depending
of the aircraft. etc.
Barney
UK
Toulson017
writes:
>
>I checked with my Dad (who field at KL a lot) and they discourage
>Puchaz pilots from Winching, Better to Tug it up. Apparently
>a few clubs now do this.
>
We have 4 Puchacz in my club and they are our basic trainers. We winch launch
regularly. There is no reason not to winch launch them. They are superb
training gliders and perform all flight characteristice very well. Yes, they
do spin., and need proper recovery action, but I know of no other glider which
can perform the full training programme for spinning as well as tyhe Puchacz as
they are totally predictable. To restrict them to areotow only is missing a
superb training opportuniity.
Barney
UK
Toulson017
pat...@NOSPAM.worldnet.att.net (Todd Pattist) writes:
>
>Is it your conclusion, then, that the reports of instructors
>spinning in from relatively high altitudes simply were
>"untrained"? I don't know what the facts are, but over the
>years I have gained a healthy respect for the peculiarities
>and differences between the spin characteristics of
>different sailplanes.
I guess my view is based on personal experience of very many spins in Puchacz's
and other gliders.
There is a general fear or apprehension by most people during spin training,
largely brought by a certain amount of "hype" and mystery. There are no gliders
that I have flown (about 40 different types) which do not recover if the
correct recovery action is taken, within one rotation (say 250 - 350 ft.)
Therefore the conclusion has to be that the people who have accidents as a
result of spinning, either deliberate or accidental, can only be that they do
not follow the standard recovery procedure either because they fail to
recognise the symptoms of the spin or simply that they inadvertantly go into a
"panic" mode and do not initiate the necessary recovery action.
I know of no spinning accidents where the aircraft failed due to its inability
to recover within a reasonable height loss due to an inherant design fault.
Barney
UK
Toulson017
writes:
>
>You can spin an aircraft - in theory anyway - while still having "airspeed".
>All you have to do is increase the AOA of one wing to greater than the
>stalling AOA...
>
>I
To some extent I agree. The stall depends on A of A and one wing must be
stalled. The initiation of a spin can be at high speed if the wing loading is
also high, however to continue spinning one wing must be stalled which means
that it must be at a speed / wing loading such that the lift cannot support
the weight of the glider.
Barney
UK
Toulson017
<r...@event-horizonsXXSPAMXX.com.au> writes:
>Can the Puch spiral dive in an attidude that looks similar to a "spin
>attitude"?
>
Not really. The "feel " and symptoms of a spin are quire different to spiral
dive. Asi reading, noise, control effects (they work in a spiral dive but not
in a spin) etc.
barney
UK
Toulson017
<rebuckPLEASE@DON'T.SPAM.ME.us.ibm.com> writes:
>what exactly are the *benefits* of
> practicing your spins at low altitude?
>
There are some theoretical benefits including then "ground rush" effect,
however, this should only practised once higher spinnning has been carried
with confidence and the pupil is comfortable with spinning. If in doubt, stay
high"!!!
Most glider lose 250 - 350 ft per rotation plus recovery from the "dive". I see
little point in spinning where the low point is less then 1000ft as few pupils
recognise the benefits of these exercises and the risk is obviously higher.
Barney
UK
Barney UK
Toulson017
bille...@aol.com (Billevelyn) writes:
>I'm willing to bet you didn't write this to personally cast a dispersion in
>Tom's direction. I'm also willing to bet you don't know Tom very well. It
>was just in bad taste.
>Everyone who knows this man will confirm he is only interested in soaring
>safety, and to ensure all the risk associated with any piece of equipment is
>measured.
>
>I suggest you go to Ridge Soaring and take the opportunity to fly, meet, and
>interact with both Tom and Doris.
>
Actually I attended the BGA conference where Tom was guest speaker. No
question about his integrity however his views of the Puchacz do not reflect
the reality of the situation as this aircraft conforms to international
standards. His comments are therefore not supported by international
requirements regarding operational performance. (JAR22?)
Barney
UK
+
Toulson017
writes:
>
>All true, but still, a spin entry at 1000 ft with a student/passenger onboard
>is nuts.
Agreed, it serves no useful purpose.
Barney
UK
Raphael H. Warshaw
Ray Warshaw
John Wren
>In article <35C155...@concentric.net>, Armand A. Medeiros
><zar...@concentric.net> writes
>>Alan Meyer wrote:
>>> Four pilots (Mark Stevens, John Wren, Ian Strachan and Robinhj),
>>Are these four alive today?
Sorry guys, I too am alive. Thanks to great training in the UK.
When I left the US Air Force I came home and it was my hope to continue
soaring. After several months of settling in I went to a local commercial
glider operation. When I inquired to the instructor checking me out if he
needed to see a spin, he replied " It's illegal in this country and besides
a 2-33 can't spin." I rest my case.
JW
Armand A. Medeiros
What happened to all the others that are not? A shoe caught in a rudder
pedal? Not paying attention? Distractions? Questions of who the PIC was?
It is all supposition, but it leads me to believe that something more
might be going on here.
My spin training was (is) done in a Cessna 152-II and ASK-21 with lead
on the tail boom. Very fun and done at high altitudes. Granted, I have
never flown the Pooch, but from what I observed, it seemed to my novice
eyes that the rates of descent were higher than 350' turn...seemed like
1200'-1500' in 1.5 or 2 turns, then flat out in the recovery.
In any case, it is sad indeed that we don't have flight recorders
installed in these gliders when these traggic incidents occur...then we
might learn the truth.
What about a side-slipping mode of stall? I used to do this type of spin
entry with R/C airplanes. Very fast rate of descent, very high speed,
very hard to get out of...
AAM
Christopher H Thorpe
a Deep Stall, one on a trial flight during stall tests in 1966 (G-ARPY) and
one with a swag of passengers on board in 1972 (G-ARPI Bealine 548).
Christopher Thorpe
Al wrote in message <35C1D5C9...@sierra.net>...
>Does anyone remember the VC10 crash in England which was caused by the T
tail
>deep stalling?
>
Ian Strachan
<zar...@concentric.net> writes
>Alan Meyer wrote:
>> Four pilots (Mark Stevens, John Wren, Ian Strachan and Robinhj),
>Are these four alive today?
At the last check, Ian Strachan was still hanging on by a thread!
However, I am not aware that I have ever advocated "low level spin
training". I have a healthy respect for the fully-developed spin and
the associated height losses. The ground is very hard and I have no
desire to impact it at any significant rate of descent. Many gliders
have height losses of 600 feet per turn in a fully developed spin ....
All training for potentially dangerous flight modes should be done at a
safe height above ground and with due regard for a possible delayed
recovery.
In my experience of aviation, people come to grief because margins are
eroded. Such margins mean that you should have adequte height or speed
(or both) in areas of flight where problems may arise. A prudent margin
will vary with the aircraft and the circumstances. This includes
takeoff (particularly winch), turning finals, approach and landing,
aerobatics, stalling and spinning. The common thread is the hard stuff,
and I do not mean the booze!
When I used to check pilots out in spinning the Harvard, which spun
pretty well, we would start at between 7000 and 8000 feet, carry out not
more than 4 turns and recover by 4000 feet or so, leaving a good margin
for a delayed recovery. In spinning Hunters, you started at over 30,000
ft and if not recovering by 10,000 ft., a "Martin Baker let-down" was
the rule (you were also on telemetry to a ground instructor).
Translating this into gliding, you first spin a new type at a good safe
altitude, and then decide what margin you need for future spinning
exercises, in consulation with experienced pilots on the type. If in
doubt, add a bit for the wife and kids, just like airspeed on finals in
a wind gradient.
Training should be realistic but not to the extent that training
accidents exceed accidents in the area which is being trained (I was a
Canberra instructor and feel strongly about this!). But banning such
training altogether when it is allowed in the flight manual seems
overkill. What you should do is increase the margins, in the case of
spinning, the entry height, and make sure entries and recoveries are
orthodox with appropriate control movements (you can get high rotation
spins with partial control in many aircraft).
Banning training spins may seem satisfactory in the short term, but does
not allow pilots to experience the characteristics at a safe height, so
they will not be prepared for a bit of inattention or innacurate flying
later, when practice at height could save a life.
I have flown lots of glider types but unfortunatly not the Puchatz so it
is difficult for me to comment. However, the trend with modern gliders
is that many are quite spin-resistant unless grossly provoked. The
problem is that pilots get used to benign characteristics, and then are
surprised or worse by a aircraft which has other characteristics, which
in themselves are no problem if understood properly.
And even a glider thought to be benign, can bite if mis-handled enough.
Sorry, these are somewhat random thoughts, but it's late over here!
May you spin safely and recover with plenty of height ....
--
Ian Strachan
Ian Johnston
: In article <6pn1oe$rbs$1...@news.ox.ac.uk>, engs...@sable.ox.ac.uk (Ian Johnston)
: writes:
: >
: >You can spin an aircraft - in theory anyway - while still having "airspeed".
: >All you have to do is increase the AOA of one wing to greater than the
: >stalling AOA...
: To some extent I agree. The stall depends on A of A and one wing must be
: stalled. The initiation of a spin can be at high speed if the wing loading is
: also high, however to continue spinning one wing must be stalled which means
: that it must be at a speed / wing loading such that the lift cannot support
: the weight of the glider.
Stalling has nothing to do with speed - well, not directly anyway, as anyone
who has flown a glider over the top of a loop at 20kt can testify! To keep
a wing stalled in a spin, just make sure you have anough roll in the motion to
keep the inner wing at an angle of attack of 20 degrees or so. This will work
at all speeds up to Vne or beyond...
Ian
Steve Peltz
John Wren <jw...@chelmsford.com> wrote:
>When I left the US Air Force I came home and it was my hope to continue
>soaring. After several months of settling in I went to a local commercial
>glider operation. When I inquired to the instructor checking me out if he
>needed to see a spin, he replied " It's illegal in this country and besides
>a 2-33 can't spin." I rest my case.
Spinning is certainly not illegal in the US, and a 2-33 can definitely
do a spin entry without much difficulty (depending on weight and balance,
it will usually turn into a spiral dive very quickly). I did a few just
yesterday with a student.
The only talk of prohibiting spins was a suggestion to temporarily not
do spins in the Puchasz until it can be determined what's going on.
That seems quite prudent.
As for differences between US and UK flight training, I'm
undecided. Certainly we want pilots to be able to do the right thing if
they inadvertently enter a spin, whether at low or high altitudes. The
differences of opinion include:
should spins be required of students, or is it better to concentrate
on spin avoidance (note: no probibition on flight instruction in spins,
merely no requirement for it)?
when doing spin training, is there an advantage to doing low-level (below
1500-2000 feet, in a glider) spins, or do the risks outweigh any benefits?