Spinning Characteristics of a K6E
Leon Zeug
==============================================================
Posted via Glider Pilot Network > http://www.gliderpilot.net
Host: 199.199.15.1
==============================================================
Al
you sit in it and the world rovolves around you real quick as you spin down.
Al
"Leon Zeug" <REMOVE_TO_...@liesch.com> wrote in message
news:91t331$568u6$1...@ID-49798.news.dfncis.de...
Bill Dean.
A K6E was quite badly damaged at Lasham some years ago by overstressing when
recovering from a deliberate spin. First the pilot jerked the stick too
far forwards too quickly, and the glider dived beyond the vertical; then he
jerked it too far back too quickly, blacked out and overstressed it. The
pilot concerned was a current instructor.
Leon Zeug <REMOVE_TO_...@liesch.com> wrote in message
news:91t331$568u6$1...@ID-49798.news.dfncis.de...
Christopher Nicholas
ailerons are Scheicher's "zooming" type, i.e. they reduce the AoA at the tip
as the stick is moved back, so preserving aileron authority at the stall. It
seems that the tip keeps flying when the inboard area of wing stalls.
With my weight, at the top end of permitted cockpit load, it takes some
effort to make it spin in still air, and it stays in only with stick held
fully back and with neutral or into-spin aileron once it starts spinning.
Other stick positions tend to make it adopt a spiral dive. With lighter
pilots it will spin more readily. Standard recovery procedure from the spin
works fine.
As Bill Dean said, it is important not to overexert the stick during
recovery from spins or other unusual attitudes as a result of being misled
by light stick loads (or for any other reason).
To guard against inadvertent speed build up, it may be advisable to keep one
hand on the speed limiting airbrake handle, and use it if getting too near
vertical - whether during spin recovery or any other aerobatic maneouvres
which may lead to unintended near-vertical attitudes.
I would suggest discussing all this with your instructor(s), and maybe have
some 2-seater refresher flights, before doing things solo, unless you are
pretty experienced.
Chris N.
highs...@yahoo.com
you glider, you may not want to intentionally spin it.
I owned a K-6e for a number of years, while I did get familiar with
its stalling characteristics, both straight and turning, I never
intentionally spun it, in fact I never spun it at all. I really did
not want to deliberately take the chance of over stressing nearly 30
year old wood glue joints.
Janusz Kesik
[dynamic and static stalls, spins, wingovers (??? something we call it
runverse- it looks in that way: get good speed about 160-200kph and pull up
into, then hit the rudder and tirn glider as You were holding the inside
wingtip, then take the speed and recover to horizontal flight) vertical
position, spirals and combat turns] training in 30 years old Pirats, and
nothing happened since I fly gliders.
Generally I feel that the pilots from Western Europe and America are too
aware of aerobatics, and I also think that good aerobatics training will
help the pilot to get out of unusual flight situations.
Additionally, remember that in spin the forces are almost (or exactly)
lowest of all aerobatics fugures, and I don't think that every glider can go
into thousands of matches just by entering spin BUT it may be if the
[untrained] pilot will apply inappropriate recovery which is much bigger
danger IMO.
Best regards,
--
Janusz Kesik
Aero Club of Czestochowa, Poland
jant...@interia.pl
www.soaring.enter.net.pl
highs...@yahoo.com
>Don't make him frightened, boys with 35hrs are doing their basic aerobatic
>[dynamic and static stalls, spins, wingovers (??? something we call it
>runverse- it looks in that way: get good speed about 160-200kph and pull up
>into, then hit the rudder and tirn glider as You were holding the inside
>wingtip, then take the speed and recover to horizontal flight) vertical
>position, spirals and combat turns] training in 30 years old Pirats, and
>nothing happened since I fly gliders.
>
>Generally I feel that the pilots from Western Europe and America are too
>aware of aerobatics, and I also think that good aerobatics training will
>help the pilot to get out of unusual flight situations.
Good aerobatics training "will" help the pilot to get out of unusual
flight situations. But the last K-6e that I owned was still a single
seater, a little hard to get training in that particular bird.
>
>Additionally, remember that in spin the forces are almost (or exactly)
>lowest of all aerobatics fugures,
This is correct, the spin is a low g maneuver, however the recovery
if not done properly can be a very high speed and high g maneuver
and I don't think that every glider can go
>into thousands of matches just by entering spin BUT it may be if the
>[untrained] pilot will apply inappropriate recovery which is much bigger
>danger IMO.
Not every glider will "go into thousands of matches just by entering
spin" but I certainly would not want to try to teach myself spin
recovery techniques in a K-6e, being an old wooden glider it very well
might go into matches if over stressed in the recovery>
Janusz Kesik
manual task "spinning characteristics" or "aerobatics" and do-it-Yourself.
In Polish programme of training in task V - aerobatics, and excercise II -
"spins and deep circling" writes: "...All students who are allowed to start
their aerobatics training when they have at least 35hrs in their logbook...
[REM: to get an glider pil. licence we had to get 75hrs]; ...Number of
flights with instructor:2 ; Flights solo:2 ; altitude of release 1000m... ;
...Istruction of performing the excercise: Do 1 to 2 turns of spin into
both directions, the speed which You gain [when recovering] You should use
to perform the learning of combat turns. Altitude at You should stop to
perform spins is 500m, from that altitiude to alt. of 350m You may train
circling up to 45deg... ; App1! In flights with instructor, do some "spirals
onto head" and show the student how to get out of it..."
As You see the fresh pilots can do aerobatics if well trained and, believe
me there really aren't any accidents coming from that.
Additionally I can write that all "V'th" task consists of 18 flights of
which 10 are the solos, and the last 6 of 18 are the flights with joining
the figures into series and getting out of spin onto desired direction.
If You don't believe me, just get to the club when You'll maybe be ever
there.
> Good aerobatics training "will" help the pilot to get out of unusual
> flight situations. But the last K-6e that I owned was still a single
> seater, a little hard to get training in that particular bird.
> >
So try to get some training in Puchacz, first w/instructor and then solo.
(but not in Junior - it won't get into spin of if You rape it and do it then
it recovers itself). General technique of getting of spin is the same in all
gliders, You only have to feel how fast to pull the stick to not to rape the
old wood and glue which may effect in failure of construction.
Additionally if You'll get familiar with spins You'll be less surprised by
low alt stall/spin and maybe be able to prevent it in the early phase if
there won't be too late.
> Not every glider will "go into thousands of matches just by entering
> spin" but I certainly would not want to try to teach myself spin
> recovery techniques in a K-6e, being an old wooden glider it very well
> might go into matches if over stressed in the recovery>
> >
See the world like the Aussies do! Fly upside down! :))
fado...@yahoo.com
> See the world like the Aussies do! Fly upside down! :))
Raises an interesting question: does what we call "sink" in the northern
hemisphere become "lift" in the southern hemisphere? Perhaps that's the
secret to all those 2000+ km flights down there.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Markus
<REMOVE_TO_...@liesch.com> wrote:
Hi Leon,
the Ka6 will spin fine if she's brought into the spin intentionally.
With a low cockpit load it is possible to bring her into a stable
stalled condition at speeds around 60km/h and decend rate of
4-5m/s. A kick into the rudder starts a spin that remains stable
as long as the stick is kept all the way back and in neutral
aileron position. Aileron in spin direction will speed up the
rotation, whereas opposite aileron stops the spin after about three
quarters of a revolution and leaves you in uncoordinated flight
in a 45deg. dive.
Standard spin recovery stops the spin within a quarter of a
revolution, almost instantly, even after two or three revs.
No full downward elevator is required, just release the full
backpressure a little. Recovering from the dive is no problem,
the speeds stay below 150km/h, if you pull out with about 3g's.
Have fun,
Markus
George Emsden
lovely machine. I heard no unusual stories about its spinning/stalling
characteristics. The only point I had to bear in mind when flying it was
that it is an all-flying tail and the "feel" in the elevator comes from a
spring and is not aerodynamic.
My main point here is that I would advise anyone to find out about the spin
characteristics of a plane BEFORE buying it rather than afterwards. You
should be alright in a K6 though. Good job you did not buy a Phoebus.
"Leon Zeug" <REMOVE_TO_...@liesch.com> wrote in message
news:91t331$568u6$1...@ID-49798.news.dfncis.de...
Christopher Nicholas
>While it is good to solicit information on the spin characteristics of
>you glider, you may not want to intentionally spin it.
>
>I owned a K-6e for a number of years, while I did get familiar with
>its stalling characteristics, both straight and turning, I never
>intentionally spun it, in fact I never spun it at all. I really did
>not want to deliberately take the chance of over stressing nearly 30
>year old wood glue joints.
It's a point of view, I suppose, but I was taught from earliest solo days to
take the opposite position; I regularly practise spins and recoveries, so
that the warning signs are always familiar and hopefully recognised before
an unintentional spin, but if it happens anyway, I'll be in practice at
recovering with as little risk as possible.
As pointed out by others, spinning and a proper recovery are not very
stressful for a K6 or for most other gliders - unlike a winch launch, for
example, or rotor while on tow, either of which can go towards the edge of
the permitted flight envelope. Incidentally, I believe that Ka6E's are
stronger in flight than many gliders - designed for +8/-4 g (+4/-2 with a
safety factor of 2) IIRC.
Chris N.
soarin...@my-deja.com
A guy in our club just bought one and seems to like it so far....
Just curious,
-Ryan
Christopher Nicholas
tried to respond your email address didn't work. Please send me another
email with advice how to contact you if you want my reply.
Martin Gregorie
<jant...@interia.pl> wrote:
>(but not in Junior - it won't get into spin of if You rape it and do it then
>it recovers itself).
Interesting. Ours spin OK from a normal entry and are spun regularly.
--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie.| Harlow
demon. | UK.
co. |
uk |
Peter Ruelke
that it is light on the controles and that the all flying tail gives little
feedback as to pitch presure. Basicly if you aren't proficient in spins, do
get instruction. I recommend 25-30 in a L-23 to start with (with instructor)
then more in same on your own. But maybe what you're really asking is does
it have any bad spin characteistics. No. Very straight forward.
Janusz Kesik
light (about 55-60kg) pilot it won't spin at all, and with heavy and
moderate pilots it will but You'll have to put much efforts to do it.
If You think that Junior is good spinner, try out Pirat. :) That's spinner!
It enters spin hard, and don't even think about self recovery, but stops
rotation immediately if You ask for it by kicking the rudder.
The second glider which do spins in great way is Cobra. Iw doesn't like to
spin, but if You put it into, then it falls almost vertically... What a fun,
when You're feel that You almost standing on the rudder's pedals still
rotating. The drawback is that it needs almost one full turn to stop
rotation but I can understand it because it's xcountry glider, not something
like Acro or Swift. (however it was allowed to do full aerobatics).
BTW Why all the pilots from the West are generally very afraid of spinning.
Just train it, it doesn't hurt (but check the altimeter before - if You
won't do it then it may be very painful :-/).
--
Janusz Kesik
Aero Club of Czestochowa, Poland
jant...@interia.pl
www.soaring.enter.net.pl
> Interesting. Ours spin OK from a normal entry and are spun regularly.
Janusz Kesik
I wonder why they all are afraid of spins? Maybe they should get some rides
in Fox?
Then maybe will know that normal spin isn't something abnormal. BTW They'll
have chance to see how loox the inverted spin, flat spin, pushed loop (or
inverted one),accented barrel, fast barrel, slip on tail by head and some
other funny tricks that may be more stressing for them than normal, gentle
and tiny spin :)
Aren't they?
:))))
--
Janusz Kesik
Aero Club of Czestochowa, Poland
jant...@interia.pl
www.soaring.enter.net.pl
Użytkownik Al <acro...@www.silentflight.com> w wiadomości do grup
dyskusyjnych napisał:t44gf4g...@news.supernews.com...
George Emsden
wing seemed to stall all at once with no warning. I have flown quite a few
gliders but this is the only one that frightened me.
<soarin...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:923c9t$s67$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Eric Greenwell
> Junior? :) It's the hardest glider to spin of all I've ever flown! With
> light (about 55-60kg) pilot it won't spin at all, and with heavy and
> moderate pilots it will but You'll have to put much efforts to do it.
Do you mean it spins more readily with a _forward_ CG? If so, this is
very unusual behaviour.
--
Remove REMOVE from my e-mail address to reply
Eric Greenwell
Richland, WA (USA)
Ian Johnston
: If You think that Junior is good spinner, try out Pirat. :) That's spinner!
: It enters spin hard, and don't even think about self recovery, but stops
: rotation immediately if You ask for it by kicking the rudder.
Personally, I love spinning the club Bocian ...
: BTW Why all the pilots from the West are generally very afraid of spinning.
Because the ideal trainer in the west is thought to be one that doesn't
spin. So a generation of pilots has grown up believing, deep down, that
spinning is
1) nasty
2) only possible in certain gliders, and as a deliberate act
3) not going to happen to them.
As, regrettably, the fatal accident statistics show.
Ian
Janusz Kesik
all. You'll be able to fly straight with the stick in complete aft position.
It will fly at about 55-60 kph (stall speed of Junior depends of pilots mass
too) at very high AOA, if You add some rudder it will do strange turn with
bank about 45deg. With heavier pilots it will spin, but You need to want to
do it or be extreme ignorant. With my mass (80kg+5kg parachute) I had to
dynamically pull up, then kick the rudder, and equally fast pull the stick
onto my belly, then it started to spin, but I wasn't able to made more than
2 turns - Junior recovered itself.
If we talk about placing of an CG, then in Junior the pilot balances glider
dependent of his mass by placing or not the pillows behind his back. There's
a placard in cockpit named "glider ballance plan" which tells how many
pillows he have to take dependent of its mass (0, thin, fat, thin+fat). It
looks it that way: the pillow shipped as an equipment of glider has two
parts thin and fat, both joined together in way that if You use thin one,
You may sit on fat, and opposite, sit on thin and have fat behind Your back.
If pilot's extremely light You may use both behind, or leave it on the
ground in case pilot's extremely heavy (115kg???)
If You read the placard and do what's written there You always get similar
placed CG.
If I'll get the owner's manual to my hands, I'll try to translate part we
talk about and contact with You by email.
Jean Richard
>
> Because the ideal trainer in the west is thought to be one that doesn't
> spin. So a generation of pilots has grown up believing, deep down, that
> spinning is
>
> 1) nasty
> 2) only possible in certain gliders, and as a deliberate act
> 3) not going to happen to them.
All those are due to training, not to trainers.
> As, regrettably, the fatal accident statistics show.
Statistics show that there's too many fatal accidents resulting from
intentional spin (including in training)...
Statistics show that in most of the accident related to spin, spin
training wouldn't have helped because not enough room to recuperate...
Statistics show that spin reluctant gliders are rarely involved in
accidents where spin is the main cause...
Statistics show that spin accidents occurence involving spin is a lot
higher with trainers that spin easily...
Then, designing gliders in the West way seem to be the best option.
Jean
highs...@yahoo.com
Those are a lot of presumptions you make.
Would you kindly provide the statistics that you base your conclusions
on?
Bill Daniels
flying. (a long time). Generally there is no conclusion. Easily spinable
trainers combined with good spin training, (my preference), seems to
inoculate trainees against accidental spins, but claims a few casualties in
the training process.
Spin resistant trainers and no spin training, except for flight instructors,
(the USA norm) reduces the overall accident rate in training at the cost of
accidents later in the trainees career - usually when flying an advanced
glider with characteristics far less docile than the basic trainer. Our
insurance rates seem to suggest this approach needs to be changed.
I'm fond of saying that, in an emergency, pilots don't so much rise to the
occasion as they revert to the habits learned in basic flight training. I'm
thankful for the spin training I had in an LK-10, 40 years ago. The first
time I flew my Lark, those LK memories came flooding back. My hands and
feet did the right thing when the Lark twitched toward autorotation.
There may be a middle ground that is the best of both approaches -
transition the student to an easily spun advanced trainer like the Lark
IS28B2 before granting a license. At least, expose them to the nastier side
of glider handling so any beliefs that gliders are always docile are shown
to be false.
On a slightly different subject, I downloaded an SGS 1-26 flight model for
the X-Plane flight simulator - it spins just like the real thing! Set the
pilot weight at 130 pounds and it spins with alacrity. I'm going to use
this with my students.
Bill Daniels
"Jean Richard" <j.ri...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3A4A37...@sympatico.ca...
Jean Richard
> Those are a lot of presumptions you make.
> Would you kindly provide the statistics that you base your conclusions
> on?
The point you missed is that designing safer gliders is the best way to
go and spin reluctant gliders are safer than the opposite.
Nobody complain because the VW Golf has a better and safer handling that
the old Beetle. Car drivers trained in old Beetle were not better nor
safer than those trained in a Golf.
Then, why should we stick to Beetle like gliders ?
Jean
Ian Johnston
: Ian Johnston a ecrit :
:> Because the ideal trainer in the west is thought to be one that doesn't
:> spin. So a generation of pilots has grown up believing, deep down, that
:> spinning is
:>
:> 1) nasty
:> 2) only possible in certain gliders, and as a deliberate act
:> 3) not going to happen to them.
: All those are due to training, not to trainers.
In part, yes, but when you have to fly in a "special" glider to do spins,
or mess around strapping weights to the back of your "normal" glider it is
inevitable that you'll get the idea that spinning is the result of deliberate
choice in a special glider.
:> As, regrettably, the fatal accident statistics show.
: Statistics show that in most of the accident related to spin, spin
: training wouldn't have helped because not enough room to recuperate...
And if the unfortunate victims had been trained to expect spins they would
maybe not have got into them in the first place.
: Statistics show that spin reluctant gliders are rarely involved in
: accidents where spin is the main cause...
Hardly surpising. But put people trained in spin-reluctant gliders into
spin-eager gliders and what do you expect?
: Statistics show that spin accidents occurence involving spin is a lot
: higher with trainers that spin easily...
Engine failure is more common in aeroplanes with engines.
: Then, designing gliders in the West way seem to be the best option.
A very satisfying belief, I am sure.
Ian
Ian Johnston
: highs...@yahoo.com a ecrit :
:> Those are a lot of presumptions you make.
:> Would you kindly provide the statistics that you base your conclusions
:> on?
: The point you missed is that designing safer gliders is the best way to
: go and spin reluctant gliders are safer than the opposite.
Which would be true only if all the single seaters pilots went on to fly
were equally spin reluctant. But they are not.
: Nobody complain because the VW Golf has a better and safer handling that
: the old Beetle. Car drivers trained in old Beetle were not better nor
: safer than those trained in a Golf.
: Then, why should we stick to Beetle like gliders ?
People of learn to drive in older cars tend to take less for granted about
road-handling, gear-changes and the like. Most people only drive modern
cars, so they might as well learn in them.
Ian
highs...@yahoo.com
>highs...@yahoo.com a écrit :
>
>> Those are a lot of presumptions you make.
>> Would you kindly provide the statistics that you base your conclusions
>> on?
>
>The point you missed is that designing safer gliders is the best way to
>go and spin reluctant gliders are safer than the opposite.
>
I did not miss the point.
You are stating an opinion, that spin reluctant gliders are safer. You
attempt to justify your position with unnamed statistics. If you want
to state a personal opinion, go ahead and do so, but if you are going
to try to substantiate your opinion based on statistics, you should be
prepared to state the specific statistics and there source.
Jean Richard
> : The point you missed is that designing safer gliders is the best way to
> : go and spin reluctant gliders are safer than the opposite.
>
> Which would be true only if all the single seaters pilots went on to fly
> were equally spin reluctant. But they are not.
If you are going to fly an (old) sailplane which is spinning easily, then
you have to get adequate spin training.
> People of learn to drive in older cars tend to take less for granted about
> road-handling, gear-changes and the like. Most people only drive modern
> cars, so they might as well learn in them.
Same is true for sailplane. There's people who have never driven cars with
manual shift gearbox. And there's pilots who have never flown sailplanes
with severe spinning characteristics.
Jean
Jean Richard
>
> And if the unfortunate victims had been trained to expect spins they would
> maybe not have got into them in the first place.
>
Spin awareness can be learned without making two dozens of three turns spins.
Nobody will want to do a real air collision to demonstrate that collision
can happen ;-))
Then, a good emphasis (and a lot of practise) on slow flight can be better
(and less hazardous) than spinning itself to learn pupils to avoid
accidental spin.
Jean
Janusz Kesik
Użytkownik Ian Johnston <engs...@sable.ox.ac.uk> w wiadomości do grup
dyskusyjnych napisał:929pba$4b5$5...@news.ox.ac.uk...
Huh.. :) The Bocian along with Junior, are always stated as the worst
spinners :), but Bocian will spin nicely if You *ask* it. It's spin is very
pleasant and it recovers itself if You leave controls. It's a lovely
trainer.
For me it's something between totally spin reluctant gliders metioned by
Jean, and normal spinners.
> Personally, I love spinning the club Bocian ...
>
It's no good IMO... In Poland every student in ab-initio course, had to
perfom al least 5 flights included by "dangerous situations" task. Every
flight starts with 1000m tow with instructor's made problems (too high and
too low, etc.), and in it's time instructor shows how to get out of spin,
deep spiral,stalls and potential dangers coming from wrong made turns
(including the slip-out turn induced spins). Additionally just before solo,
the student have to pass two checkout flights of which one is typical
dangerous situations checkout.
So, as You see all students from the first day are learnt that spin:
1) is a danger when low or thermalling
2) all gliders will spin, one better the second with more resistance
3) spin *will* happen when they do something wrong (read: allow to lost
airspeed, especially by slip-out turn when approaching the final).
> Because the ideal trainer in the west is thought to be one that doesn't
> spin. So a generation of pilots has grown up believing, deep down, that
> spinning is
>
> 1) nasty
> 2) only possible in certain gliders, and as a deliberate act
> 3) not going to happen to them.
>
:(
> As, regrettably, the fatal accident statistics show.
--
Janusz Kesik
>Spin awareness can be learned without making two dozens of three turns
spins.
That's why the pilots should be trained - to know what can happen in thermal
if they won't keep appropriate airspeed. And second - if they'll be familiar
with spins they'll be able to get out of danger in moment when the airflow
leaves the airfoil without diving inside thermal spinning.
If You train spinning You never do it in crowded thermal... Or maybe there's
another school??? ;)
> Nobody will want to do a real air collision to demonstrate that collision
> can happen ;-))
>
> Jean
Janusz Kesik
glider they would be learnt to be careful, even if they fly theoretically
spin-resistant gliders.
> All those are due to training, not to trainers.
>
In Poland it's very, very low percentage of total number, almost none. Most
of the gliders are crashed when approaching outlanding fields and doing "I
have to..." finalglides. And almost all spin accidents are included in this
last two categories.
> Statistics show that there's too many fatal accidents resulting from
> intentional spin (including in training)...
>
I don't agree. If You're aware of spin symptoms You can stop it just half a
second before it will fully apear - just when the airflow is breaking off
the wing. I've done an fatal error last year when approaching final in
Pirat. I've been flying about 80kph and without thinking too much applied
full brakes. In less than second I've felt that controls became *very* soft,
and ASI needle jumped down, below 60, and... FU**!!!! The autorotation
starts, glider is retreating right, and I see red lights in my brain,
feeling that might be my last error in my life... Fortunately implemented
instinct worked, and without thinking my reaction was: close brakes, full
left rudder, stick off me. It worked right... It was about 150m... What it
would be without many spins done before, what would be if I've had to
identify the danger for a second more... You know what, You just wrote about
it.
Additionally You'll lost in most of training gliders about 100m in full turn
of spin which allows You to get out of it even if You're approaching the
IV'th turn in circuit. If You'll react fast enough of course...
Huh... :) One of my instuctors said me when I've had 30hrs and was very
afraid of low spin that if I'll enter the full spin at 50m then better don't
recover, because if I'll do it then I'll hit the ground directly with my
face, and if I won't try to recover, the first thing which hit the Mother
Earth will be the wing which help to take some energy onto it and maybe I'll
have some time to dictate in my testament that now the house and car belongs
to my wife ;). But it was a joke, and don't take it seriously.
> Statistics show that in most of the accident related to spin, spin
> training wouldn't have helped because not enough room to recuperate...
Maybe just because they don't spin. But why *rarely* if they don't spin.
Maybe they will if *someone_will_do_mistake*?
> Statistics show that spin reluctant gliders are rarely involved in
> accidents where spin is the main cause...
So why we haven't almost any accidents with spinning students using only
Bocians and Puchaczs for ab-initio learning? Maybe because that those
students know a little about danger of spin?
> Statistics show that spin accidents occurence involving spin is a lot
> higher with trainers that spin easily...
>
Your circus, Your monkeys... Both of schools are different and both have
good and bad sides... But I still will defend the model: spinning trainers
with spin training included in ab-initio courses.
And maybe You want to believe in the only one good way?
And don't try to implicate that there aren't accidents because here are few
gliders. As I remember there are about 800 gliders flying every season in
Poland. All of them are spinners (including Bocians and Juniors which are
for me non-spinners, but there are opposite opinions).
> Then, designing gliders in the West way seem to be the best option.
Janusz Kesik
flights in trainer is Pirat. It's great spinner, used also for learning
entry level aerobatics. And... there almost aren't any problems with
spinning. Maybe due to training the've got in Bocian?
After gaining license pilots are transitioned to Cobras and Jantars which
are *much* less docile that Bocian (I think that LS-4 or Cirrus may be
similar to Jantars. It have came from similar time).
> There may be a middle ground that is the best of both approaches -
> transition the student to an easily spun advanced trainer like the Lark
> IS28B2 before granting a license.
They should know about the darker sides of gliders.
At least, expose them to the nastier side
> of glider handling so any beliefs that gliders are always docile are shown
> to be false.
Ian Johnston
: Ian Johnston a ecrit :
:> And if the unfortunate victims had been trained to expect spins they would
:> maybe not have got into them in the first place.
: Spin awareness can be learned without making two dozens of three turns spins.
Who's talking about dozens of three turn spins? And while it is quite
possible to teach spin awareness, the experience of being put in a special
aircraft (or a modified normal aircraft) which is then handled in a special
way will be teaching quite a different message. And most people will
believe the evidence of their eyes and stomachs over what they hear from
the back seat...
But still, it's a very comforting thought, is it not?
: Then, a good emphasis (and a lot of practise) on slow flight can be better
: (and less hazardous) than spinning itself to learn pupils to avoid
: accidental spin.
"Don't worry about spins. You can avoid them."
Ian
Chris Rowland
<j.ri...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>Ian Johnston a écrit :
>>
>
>> And if the unfortunate victims had been trained to expect spins they would
>> maybe not have got into them in the first place.
>>
>
>Spin awareness can be learned without making two dozens of three turns spins.
How yould you suggest that this is done? I don't think the number of
spins you mention is necessary but IMO it is important to convince
people that spinning is something that can happen to them and that it
is something to be wary of. Half to one turn is usually enough for
training purposes.
>
>Nobody will want to do a real air collision to demonstrate that collision
>can happen ;-))
Well - I think the time I _really_ learned that lookout mattered was
when I was on the approach, glanced over my shoulder and saw the tug I
had turned in front of:(
>
>Then, a good emphasis (and a lot of practise) on slow flight can be better
>(and less hazardous) than spinning itself to learn pupils to avoid
>accidental spin.
Yes, this is very important but why is slow flying a problem? It is a
problem because in some gliders you might spin!
>
>Jean
I fear that if something special has to be done to make the glider
spin then there are conflicting messages. You are saying that spinning
is a problem while the glider is saying "Don't worry, spinning isn't a
problem. It can't happen unless you do something special."
Chris Rowland.
JohnPegase
writes:
>Statistics show that there's too many fatal accidents resulting from
>intentional spin (including in training)...
Clearly even one accident is one too many, but read on.
>Statistics show that in most of the accident related to spin, spin
>training wouldn't have helped because not enough room to recuperate...
This is where you get it totally wrong. You do NOT read accident reports on
accidents that didn't occur. You do not read regular reports about pilots who,
close to the stall, make a mistake, a spin starts but is instantly recovered
from, and the rest of the flight continues as usual, because spin awareness
training has been carried out and the lessons well learned. This would be
considered a non event by all properly trained pilots, although it might be a
little bit embarassing to have to admit to making the error.
If you took 100 pilots trained in spin awareness and spin recovery and put them
into a spin at 1000', how many do you think would recover and land safely? How
about 100. If you took 100 pilots who had never been trained how to recognise
the start of a spin and recover properly, and they spun at 1000', how many of
them do you think would recover and land safely? How about zero?
If you spin below about 400' you are going to get badly hurt, no matter how
well trained you've been, unless you recover the instant the aircraft stalls
and a wing goes down. These are the accidents to which you are referring
above, and have almost no bearing on the case for spin recovery, although show
exactly why the training to avoid getting into such a situation is vitally
important. Because as already stated, you never read in the accident reports
about the spins which didn't result in an accident because the properly trained
pilot recovered.
>Statistics show that spin reluctant gliders are rarely involved in
>accidents where spin is the main cause...
Now there's a surprise!
>Statistics show that spin accidents occurence involving spin is a lot
>higher with trainers that spin easily...
Surprised?
As for the statement in other posts about spinning requiring the instructor to
do something unusual or special which would never happen to induce the spin and
therefdore spinning seeming unlikely to ever happen, if that's the case either
get another instructor who will show you how you can spin doing things that
seem normal, or fly a spinable aircraft rather than a difficult to spin
machine.
John Wright, 742
Janusz Kesik
JK
Peter Creswick
Statisticians are purveyors of the sanctimonious ostridge mentality.
If they can't see something in their figures, they deny it's
existence. How many microburst disasters were put down to "pilot
error" before someone found a new factor to consider, then count.
Worse, if they do see something in the figures that is acknowledged as
having a risk that is higher than some other risk, they decide to ban
the practice. What they then fail to ask / factor in to their
figures, is what is the subsequent risk of not having taken that
particular (in this case - training) risk. How many subsequent
accidents are actually really caused by NOT having training in
something. They conveniently forget to factor into their wonderful
lists of figures for subsequent accidents the fact that very often the
primary cause of some of those accidents is identified as (usually
attributed to a "human factor") some form of pilot failure concerning
awareness of attitude height speed angle of attack incipient stall
buffet wing drop or whatever, that was previously provided or
reinforced by the now deleted training element. Only later, after a
number of similar accidents, with pilots with similar (new) training
profiles, does someone suss what has really happened, and produces the
earth shattering revelation of a "training deficiency". It's called
reinventing the wheel, and it is happening.
We don't (just yet anyway, but we probably will soon) issue and ATPL
with ratings for a 747 to any 14 year old who walks up to the hangar
and says "I want to be an airline pilot". Even a statistician that
had never seen anything more than a keyboard mouse and monitor might
just suss that that might be risky for himself, but after a search of
the records, he can't find a 747 that crashed with a 14 year old
captain in command, so, he may not really be convinced. He will re
run his calculations, tweak his correlation coefficients, readjust his
confidence levels, even change his definitions of statistical
significance, but damm..... he still can't get a decisive answer -
does not compute - no data. Gee - I wonder why. But the point is
that modern administrators, statisticians, engineers, all professional
sorts really, are so arrogant and full of themselves and so confident
of their professional "expertness" that they think they know it all,
and can therefore confidently discard fundamental elements of a skill
simply by declaring it no longer required, or it can't happen, or
whatever. I seem to remember something about a ship some years ago.
Unsinkable they said. Apparently it went to the bottom first time
out, never was seen again, hundreds dead. Anyone heard of that ? How
many statisticians understand the dynamics of flight I wonder, let
alone the dynamics, inertial and aero, of spinning. The fundamental
laws of physics haven't changed recently, not to my knowledge anyway.
If I missed something, please advise.
Removing spin training from the syllabus and making gliders that
supposedly will not spin leads firstly to a false complacency that it
won't / can't happen in the pilot's mind, and secondly, through his
lack of experience of it, he has no actual practical knowledge,
sensation or perception, call it gut feel if you like, of the
development of a situation where it may happen (eg, low, slow turn in
turbulent or wind sheer conditions when outlanding at a strange
paddock and otherwise preoccupied) and invariably, some poor bastard
gets caught, not through his own fault really, but through the fault
of the system that told him he knew all he needed to know. The
subsequent accident investigation, after examination of the wreckage,
and taking the local farmer's daughter's statement of course, simply
reads, stall during final turn.
Consider Jeans three statements again. Quote:
1. Statistics show that in most of the accident related to spin, spin
training wouldn't have helped because not enough room to recuperate...
2. Statistics show that spin reluctant gliders are rarely involved in
accidents where spin is the main cause...
3. Statistics show that spin accidents occurrence involving spin is a
lot higher with trainers that spin easily...
Number One. I have never seen anything so stupid in print in my life.
No height for recovery is not the issue. The issue is "really know"
the signs, don't get caught. See above.
Number Two. "spin reluctant ?" Fascinating statement. I had to have
a gallon of water to stop laughing after reading that one. The fact
is, by your own admission, reluctant (whatever the hell that really
means) or not, such gliders have been known to spin, and
bite.........ie, kill.
Number Three. Hardly surprising. Gliders that do not spin easily are
rarely used for spin training. In some gliders that don't spin easily,
it is bloody difficult even for an instructor to get sufficiently
consistent entry for demonstration purposes, and students usually
can't manage it themselves sufficiently well for the entry to produce
a fully developed spin, which they can then actually (a) experience
and (b) actually practice recovery from. The net result is
frustration, so spin training is not done in those gliders if there is
a more suitable glider for the purpose available. If there is not,
even though numerous attempts may be made, you will ultimately produce
an inadequately trained, but solo rated pilot. Even worse, those
frustrating attempts may not be made at all. Our brave young pilot
now thinks he knows all he needs to know. Those gliders that do
spin, are spun, at least in those countries where the syllabus still
requires it, and, low and behold, occasionally, one does go in, so it
counts. Surprise ... surprise.
When I was a kid, we were told that the definition of a fool was one
who refused to learn from the experiences of others. The old timers
learnt the hard way. Spin training is vital - period. An
incompletely trained pilot is an inherently dangerous pilot - period.
Enjoy those secondaries, incipients and auto rotates, but if you want
to actually learn something, demand the full turn, or two.
Regards,
PC
Jean Richard
>
> This is where you get it totally wrong. You do NOT read accident reports on
> accidents that didn't occur. You do not read regular reports about pilots who,
> close to the stall, make a mistake, a spin starts but is instantly recovered
> from, and the rest of the flight continues as usual, because spin awareness
> training has been carried out and the lessons well learned.
To make a short story, I'm sure that you will agree that spin awareness is
better learned through slow flight training than through three turns spin
training.
I did some slow flying (with pupils) with easy to spin sailplanes (Puchacz,
Blaník L13 - L23) and with hard to spin sailplanes (Grob Twin II and US
Schweizer 2-22 and 2-33). Spin awareness can be learned in all those with
the same level of proficiency. But I prefer to see low time solo pilots in
Grob Twin than in Puchacz.
Slow flying training (to develop spin awareness) must not be done in still
air, but when thermals or wind are giving enough turbulence to make stall
unpredictable. In that case, and with the stick close to backstop, any
glider (spinable or not) can develop a sharp wing drop. This is the best
place to develop spin awareness, as so long the instructor (not the glider)
does his job.
I've seen many instructors who did slow flying only to demonstrate induced
roll...
I've seen many instructors who did spins just because they like the feeling...
And some who did spins just because they like to see their pupils scared...
Jean
BAToulson
(JohnPegase) writes:
>Statistics show that there's too many fatal accidents resulting from
>>intentional spin (including in training)...
After gliding most of my life and having been a Chief Flying Instructor for
several of those, I know of none in gliders and I read the accident reports
carefully. Please give your examples as we nend to know them and learn what we
can.
Barney
UK
BAToulson
>This is where you get it totally wrong. You do NOT read accident reports on
>accidents that didn't occur. You do not read regular reports about pilots
>who, close to the stall, make a mistake, a spin starts but is instantly
recovered
>from, and the rest of the flight continues as usual, because spin awareness
>training has been carried out and the lessons well learned. This would be
>considered a non event by all properly trained pilots, although it might be a
>little bit embarassing to have to admit to making the error.
>
I absolutely agree!
Training is essential to ensure the pupil becomes fully aware of the symptoms
of the onset of a spin and can take remedial action instinctively before it
develops. Typically, this is likely to occur in practise when trying to thermal
tight and slow to maximise climb rate or during the final turn when attention
is likley to be focussed more on the landing area than speed control.
In addition, the pupil needs to know the correct recovery as the spin develops
from simple wing drop to full auto-rotation as this will change depending on
the stage of the spin from simple relaxing of the back pressure to the full
recovery drill if minimum height loss is to be achieved.
Finally, and perhaps most important, he needs to know the recovery from the
resulting severe nose down attitude which is likley to occur after the rotation
has stopped. This can be extremely alarming to most pupils and they need to be
able to recognise their situation and ease out of the dive without either
overspeeding or, probably worse, recovering too violently and causing a high
speed stall. The latter can be quite entertaining (for those watching on the
ground) if there is a bit of rudder still on!
There is no way anyone can become proficient in these essential life saving
manoevres without substantial practise, however, as John Wright correctly says,
you will never know how many people have been saved because they recognised
what was happening and took the correct recovery in time, you only hear about
those who did not.
Barney
UK
Janusz Kesik
JK
Bill Daniels
that would stall and start auto-rotation with no mis-handling of the
controls. That was the Laister LK-10A. The spin would be fully developed
before the pilot could react - a full spin recovery was needed. Pilots
without rigorous spin recovery training wrote a sad history with that
machine.
There are other gliders that will bite as viciously as the LK. Some are
reputedly docile machines but acquire their viciousness from a badly done
repair. These gliders are out there, practicing a full spin recovery is the
only reasonable way to train pilots for them.
The problem is that instructors have no control over what pilots will try to
fly after they are rated. I feel a responsibility to prepare them, as best
I can, for whatever they will fly. No instructor can prepare a pilot for a
glider like the LK with a 2-33.
Bill Daniels
"Janusz Kesik" <jant...@interia.pl> wrote in message
news:92lj6f$l00$1...@news.tpi.pl...
Z Goudie
I used to talk (admittedly light weight) front seat pupils into spins off reasonably banked turns in ASK13s by talking them into flying more and more slowly. The entry could be very unexciting and pointing out that the ASI was no longer registering any airspeed and that the sink rate was rather on the high side was sometimes the only way to convince them of the truth.
Teaching pupils to rapidly recognise the symptoms of incipient through to fully developed spins and the correct actions to take in response should never be left out of any training system.
==============================================================
Posted via Glider Pilot Network > http://www.gliderpilot.net
Host: user02054.du.no.uu.net
==============================================================
Ian Johnston
: To make a short story, I'm sure that you will agree that spin awareness is
: better learned through slow flight training than through three turns spin
: training.
I wouldn't. It's no good just teaching people how to avoid spinning - you
also have to make them familiar with spins and, in particular, with spin
entries.
Ian
John Giddy
There was a fatal in a Blanik L13 in New South Wales a few
years ago which resulted from spin training.
It was hard to piece together the sequence after the event
from witness reports, but the two pilots were on the upper
end of the acceptable weight, and it was surmised that the
spin rapidly became a spiral dive, with a quick speed
increase. The over-abrupt pullout action caused the
fuselage to crumple downwards just behind the wing trailing
edge, and the resulting very large nose-down moment drove
the aircraft into the ground. Both were killed on impact.
John G.
--
John Giddy Mangalore Gliding Club Inc.
5/287 Barkers Rd. http://www.gfa.org.au/vic/mgc/
Kew, Vic. 3101
Australia
BAToulson <bato...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20001230131020...@nso-fr.aol.com...
F.L. Whiteley
spinning accident a long while back. That was given, to me, as one of the
reason's the RAF bought Blaniks as trainers, rather than IS's.
Anyone have more info on this event?
Frank Whiteley
Colorado
F.L. Whiteley
says INADV STALL/SPIN, that's just a general category. I wonder if the spin
was entered intentionally. As there was a survivor, perhaps there's more
info than the BGA online accident database offers.
Frank Whiteley
Jean Richard
>
> Barney,
> There was a fatal in a Blanik L13 in New South Wales a few
> years ago which resulted from spin training.
And two more...
Two years ago, an instructor and his pupil were killed in a Cessna 150
while doing spin training. It happened not too far from our club
airfield.
Jean
Stefan
>
> Two years ago, an instructor and his pupil were killed in a Cessna 150
> while doing spin training. It happened not too far from our club
> airfield.
I'm no expert, but I think Cessna built a series of 150 with too small a
rudder. I think this was somewhere in the sixties and has been corrected
later.
--
Stefan
Janusz Kesik
JK
Bill Daniels
it is not a glider, it is a very under-powered airplane.
The spinning characteristics are very docile and predictable. However,
spin-in crashes do occur with depressing frequency. I believe this is due
to the inexperience and incompetence of the typical flight school
instructor.
When I was taking training for my instructors rating at a local Cessna FBO,
(At this time I had several thousand hours in gliders and many spins in my
logbook.) we used a beat-up 150 to log the required spin training
requirements. I declared to my instructor (a fuzz faced kid half my age)
that I would perform a three turn spin with recovery within +- 10 degrees of
the entry heading. As the landmark I chose for the recovery heading came
around for the first time, I counted "one" (I heard my instructor mumbling
something).
As the landmark came around again I counted "two". Listening closer, I
realized that my instructor was counting turns as well, but he was up to
"five".
As the last turn reached the 180 degree lead needed to stop the spin on my
selected recovery heading, I applied anti-spin control inputs and the little
150 slowed and stopped the spin exactly on my landmark. My instructor
finished counting at "seven". He was completely disoriented by the spin and
had no idea that we had only done three turns not the seven that he thought
he had counted.
I fear this is typical of the 200 hour instructors typically found in US
flight schools. I pity their students. This situation is getting worse as
the best instructors are sucked away to the airlines leaving the least
competent to teach.
Bill Daniels
"Janusz Kesik" <jant...@interia.pl> wrote in message
news:92pumd$k2n$1...@news.tpi.pl...
Janusz Kesik
We have some in Poland too.
JK
Użytkownik Bill Daniels <wdan...@uswest.net> w wiadomości do grup
dyskusyjnych napisał:4f046.1076$mL.7...@news.uswest.net...
Christopher Nicholas
the ground still spinning. IIRC, it was this accident (which I have referred
to in some private mails to Jean and others) where the two instructors on an
instructor training flight carried a tape recorder which showed precisely
what happend.
The accident was at Usk, South Wales, on 4th August 1990.
If my recollection of a Puchaz accident was indeed this one, as I believe,
one instructor was checking out another and they apparently both
concentrated too much on talking to each other about spin character of
Puchaz and not on how much height they had lost until too late. (To
paraphrase their tape recording, IIRC it was something like " See how it
really
goes well into the spin - its going round really well - just count the
turns - it's not coming out if we don't initiate corrective act - Oh,
sh*t" - BANG.
I believe the surviving instructor may not have agreed with the accident
report conclusions, and out of sensitivity to this I have heavily qualified
my comments as recollections rather than definite facts.
Chris N.
F.L. Whiteley wrote in message ... [snip]
Jean Richard
>
> The Cessna 150/152 is a ubiquitous light aircraft trainer in the USA. While
> it is not a glider, it is a very under-powered airplane.
Underpowered ? 65 HP Champion (compared to 108 hp C152) has been succesfully
used for training in USA for many years.
> The spinning characteristics are very docile and predictable. However,
> spin-in crashes do occur with depressing frequency. I believe this is due
> to the inexperience and incompetence of the typical flight school
> instructor.
In the case of previously mentioned accident, it was a rudder linkage
failure (aging fleet of C150 has its equivalent in our clubs with aging
fleets of Blaník or Schweizer).
Jean
g oneill
near max cockpit load in virtually every aircraft that I have flown
An ASW19 got me,riding a bubble surge in a thermal in estimated
1st-2nd place on the day in a nationals climbing for final glide.
rolled opposite direction went inverted 3/4 turn rotation lost 300
feet. I flew a lot more conservative after that.news:92lj6f$l00$1...@news.tpi.pl...
Jan Waumans
for the kick
I know of one who accentuates the turning with the ailerons
(this in a SF-34 where there was a fatal accident due to spinning)
Others limit their instruction to slow flight until stall, and a spin in a
safe glider like the Ka-7
Since I do not like spinning, I try to do checks with the second category
This means I never spinned solo, not in a Ka-8, a Ka-6 or the LS-1 C I fly
now
Should I practice more ?
How safe is the LS-1 ?
"Jean Richard" <j.ri...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3A4B93...@sympatico.ca...
> Ian Johnston a écrit :
> >
>
> > And if the unfortunate victims had been trained to expect spins they
would
> > maybe not have got into them in the first place.
> >
>
> Spin awareness can be learned without making two dozens of three turns
spins.
>
> Nobody will want to do a real air collision to demonstrate that collision
> can happen ;-))
>
> Then, a good emphasis (and a lot of practise) on slow flight can be better
> (and less hazardous) than spinning itself to learn pupils to avoid
> accidental spin.
>
> Jean
JohnPegase
<mb1...@tvd.be> writes:
>From my experience the spinning-oriented instructors are the guys who do it
>for the kick
>I know of one who accentuates the turning with the ailerons
>(this in a SF-34 where there was a fatal accident due to spinning)
>
>Others limit their instruction to slow flight until stall, and a spin in a
>safe glider like the Ka-7
No. a more likely explanation is that there are some instructors who don't like
spinning with a student, who they feel are likely to make mistakes and who they
don't trust to recover properly (probably the power types with 20 glider rides
to get a gliding rating added to their commercial); and there are those who
trust the student and themselves, and are quite willing to demonstrate properly
how to spin and recover. Hence these guys (and girls) are perfectly willing to
teach you spins and you mistake this for doing it just because it's fun to
spin. (It is fun.)
As for doing spin training in a glider that had an accident while spinning,
name one that hasn't. You are simply frightened of the unknown, and hence
avoid it as much as you can, grasping at any straw to justify your lack of
experience or willingness to learn about spinning - i.e. this type has had an
accidnet spinning, therefore any instructor who doesn't appear worried about
spinning and spins in this one is out for kicks. Sorry, you're wrong. Spinning
has a place in glider training, and as such should be taught properly, not
half-heartedly. I'd avoid like the plague any instructor who didn't want to
teach spins. What else are they mising out that they personally don't like.
>Since I do not like spinning, I try to do checks with the second category
>
>This means I never spinned solo, not in a Ka-8, a Ka-6 or the LS-1 C I fly
>now
>
>Should I practice more ?
Yes, first with an instructor willing to spin, then under his/her supervision
in a "nice" glider, then after their appraisal of your ability, in your own
glider.
>How safe is the LS-1 ?
>
It's a glider.
All gliders are safe unless plackarded as no spinning. It's mainly pilots who
are the problem.
John Wright, 742
Jan Waumans
I can tell you that I did my check this weekend in a Ka-7
with spins, stalls, heavy banking turns
and it was fun
I will practice more this year
"JanLS1"
"JohnPegase" <johnp...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010109035030...@nso-mg.aol.com...
John Galloway
For what it is worth my hunch is that the type of spin training is a smaller factor in spin fatalities than the type of glider flown. I supect that the second most important factor is an internal mental one on the part of the pilot - does he/she repeatedly mentally rehearse spin recovery when not flying? - when flying does he/she mentally prepare for spin recovery when initiating every turn especially when low?
I am not arguing against spin training - just against people have dogmatic views about how it should be done unless there is good evidence. Whatever method is used it should be thorough.
Incidentally, when I began gliding (1969)I found that the correct recovery rudder to apply was not always intuitively obvious when the instructor put me in a spin. I had to go back and mentally picture the direction of the turn or the wing that dropped at spin entry rather than decide which direction was 'opposite' rudder from observing the ground whirling about. However as soon as I privately replaced the term 'full opposite rudder' with 'full TOP rudder' it did always become instantly clear to me which was the top wing during spin rotation and hence the correct top rudder to apply. I have often wondered whether some non-recoveries from spins have been by the application of into spin rudder and whether anyone else, at a time of critical stress, would find 'top' rudder more intuitive than 'opposite' rudder.
John Galloway
==============================================================
Posted via Glider Pilot Network > http://www.gliderpilot.net
Host: host62-7-63-221.btinternet.com
==============================================================
Robert Ehrlich
>
> ... -when flying does he/she mentally prepare for spin recovery when initiating every
> turn especially when low?
> ...
When initating a turn at low height, as I know that I don't have the necessary
height for spin recovery, I rather concentrate on proper airspeed and symetry.
Gerhard Wesp
John Galloway <REMOVE_TO_REPLY....@hotmail.com> wrote:
>whirling about. However as soon as I privately replaced the term 'full
>opposite rudder' with 'full TOP rudder' it did always become instantly
now that's a very good point. might even save some lives if people adhere
to it.
greetings,
-gerhard
--
The template parameters of the template parameter need to be known in
order to use the template parameter.
-- B. Stroustrup, ``The C++ Programming Language''
John Galloway
Robert,
Now I understand why I have been spinning out of all those thermals!
Seriously, what I was suggesting is, during the initiation of a turn, a split second mental preprogramming of recovery action if the nose or wing should drop unexpectedly. Special concentration on accurate flying is by definition an ongoing task for the whole duration of turning (and low speed flying generally).
John Galloway
==============================================================
Posted via Glider Pilot Network > http://www.gliderpilot.net
Host: hide212.nhs.uk
==============================================================
Jan Waumans
The LS-1 and the K6E are the gliders with the most fatal spin/stall
accidents
I allways call the LS-1 a plastic K6E, not for this potential danger but on
the contrary for their pleasant flying
Is this why they are so dangerous ?
I must say that a lot of people told me never spiral slower than 90 km/h
with the LS1
Wich I respect
But I will force myself to take some spin training in a plastic twoseater
(not a Ka7) and afterwards put the LS-1 in a spin at 1500m
No panic, but I need to know
JanLS1
"John Galloway" <REMOVE_TO_REPLY....@hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:93g4mt$9v23n$1...@ID-49798.news.dfncis.de...
Shaber CJ
>flight schools. I pity their students. This situation is getting worse as
>the best instructors are sucked away to the airlines leaving the least
>competent to teach.
I only fly with guys with grey hair. Why spend money on a kid when you can
have Moses.
Christopher Nicholas
Jan Waumans wrote in message ...[snip]
The LS-1 and the K6E are the gliders with the most fatal spin/stall
Not in my experience. Do you have statistics to show this? Is this for one
country or analysed over a wider area? Are the statistics normalised with
regard to number of flights in each glider type, or could they be influenced
by popularity and amount of use of type?
(The K6 was one of the most popular gliders for some years in the UK - I did
a survey of the BGA register once, and found it one of the two most numerous
gliders at that time - and must have accounted for a relatively high
proportion of flights over a considerable period. Most of them are still
flying, and many are flown by people trying to build up their experience so
would be expected to do a lot of launches.)
For UK, fatalities in a wide variety of types average about three or four
per year from all causes, and spin-ins are no longer the principle cause
(overtaken by collisions). The worst year I can remember had about 7
fatalities in several different types - some involved spinning, but the
principle cause from my reading of the accidents that year was poor
conversion and experience limitations - including a lack of recency in spin
practice and training - little or nothing to do with what type was flown.
Chris N.
EColeson
(Shaber CJ) writes:
Caveat emptor. What makes you so certain that...
1. This isn't typical of the 2,000 hour instructor who hasn't learned a
thing since he had 200 hours?
2. The best instructors are sucked away to the airlines?
3. The least competent are left to teach?
4. Grey hair means the instructor didn't get his CFI ticket yesterday?
5. The "kid" doesn't take what he's doing absolutely seriously?
6. "Moses" was given the right tablets by his instructor in the first place?
;-) Eric
Plan ahead. Stay alert. Never carry a package by the string.
Caracole
Jan was looking at data used by Dr. Pirker in a 1992 OSTIV report,
and they looked only at German accident data for a 5 year period (80-85,
less'82).
It is a very interesting beginning to the discussion that Galloway furthers.
The accident "numbers" are not normalized by number of flights, nor by
number of the model issued from factory. They are only measured against
all types of fatal accidents happening in one country and time period.
I am far from a statistician, but I have collected informally some
interesting
numbers on another model glider, the SZD 50-3, Puchacz.
The Polish Aero Club lists factory production, and export numbers.
211 Puch left Poland.
To date I can account for 13 accidents with fatalities, 20 people killed.
I believe 12 of those were instructors, only one flight was a solo student.
Time period 1990 - 1998.
I only have incidents from Britain (5), Italy (2), 1 each from Germany,
Denmark, Netherlands, Austria, Canada and USA.
(If you have data on other Puchacz spin fatalities, please forward it to me,
or direct me to a better contact for information.)
I am happy to pass my data into a collective for analysis on spin training
vs. spin accident results.
John, I would like to offer my hunch that I find extreme value
in teaching spins/recovery/awareness training (I am a full-time
CFIG) and do so at altitude in AS-K 21s. I don't USUALLY
think that the type of glider flown will be a big factor, but I
seriously distrust the Puchacz, which has killed supposedly
spin-experienced pilots (instructors) with 6 percent of
the produced fleet operating outside Poland.
(Anyone want to adopt a model and do the research?
Production number, and number lost spinning.
You could limit yourself to one country, and make a
data contribution.)
I've spun 2-33s, 2-32, L-13s, ASKs, Grobs, Janus A,
SZD 50-3, and many singles.
I know BGA spins Puchs low, they lost 9 souls.
I would prefer to not, unless way high, with chutes.
USA only recently (~1995?) began again requiring spin training logged for
the instructor's license. There is NO spin training required in
USA for Private or Commercial pilots. There is no 'standardization'
of glider spin training in the US.
This is a fascinating subject, which could be pursued to really
answer the question on a training issue. The data is available.
If half the fatals are spins, do we want to train for better
proficiency AND perhaps make gliders that protect us
from ourselves?
Cindy Brickner
Caracole Soaring
- - - - - - --
SNIPPED - included from Galloway... (see
www.dg-flugzeugbau.de/fatal-accident-e.htm for a very interesting paper)
that demonstrated a strong association between fatal spin accidents and type
of glider flown. Is anyone aware of any corresponding statistical study
into the relationship between likelyhood of fatal spin accident and method
of spin training or degree of currency in spin training? To be useful this
would have to have excluded the factor of glider type invloved in the fatal
spin accident and would have to be a fairly large scale study involving
several countries with different spin training methods.
> For what it is worth my hunch is that the type of spin training is a
smaller factor in spin fatalities than the type of glider flown.
- - -- - - end of snipped inclusion ------
Christopher Nicholas <ch...@cnich15000.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:93irt0$6tg$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> Jan Waumans wrote in message ...[snip]
> The LS-1 and the K6E are the gliders with the most fatal spin/stall
> >accidents [end snip].
>
> Not in my experience. Do you have statistics to show this? Is this for one
> country or analysed over a wider area? Are the statistics normalised with
> regard to number of flights in each glider type, or could they be
influenced
> by popularity and amount of use of type?
SNIP
Louis E Frank
Hadley's 'Only Seconds To Live' (Airlife Publishing Ltd.)
"EColeson" <ecol...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20010110224722...@nso-cr.aol.com...
Raphael Warshaw
Caracole <Cara...@ccis.com> wrote in message
news:Rsc76.116$ioc8.7...@news.randori.com...
Cindy,
The problem in analyzing this sort of data is usually small numbers and the
absence of a control, namely another model of glider produced in similar
number and used as extensively as the Puchaz over the same period in spin
training. There appear to be large numbers of the Duo Discus in European
Clubs but I don't know if they are used for spin training.
That said, the number of spin-related fatalities you cite for this aircraft
seem excessive. Is there any possibility that this is because the Puch is
the current ship of choice for spin training?
Are you aware of any accidents with the ASK-21 with the "spin kit"?
I was given spin training in the Blanik L23 starting at 7,000 feet but
without parachutes. My first recovery attempt left the glider pointing
straight down at high (for the Blanik) speed. Do you know if any of these
accidents were the result of overstressing the glider in the recovery (I
believe there is a current warning about cracks in Puch bulkheads)?
Ray Warshaw
Martin Gregorie
wrote:
>John, I would like to offer my hunch that I find extreme value
>in teaching spins/recovery/awareness training (I am a full-time
>CFIG) and do so at altitude in AS-K 21s. I don't USUALLY
>think that the type of glider flown will be a big factor, but I
>seriously distrust the Puchacz, which has killed supposedly
>spin-experienced pilots (instructors) with 6 percent of
>the produced fleet operating outside Poland.
>
Interesting.
I, like all those going solo in my club, did my spin training in a
Puchacz and had flown in it quite a bit prior to spinning. I thought
(and still do) that it is a good aircraft to learn to spin in, not
least because it doesn't accelerate as quick as an ASK-21, so a little
hesitation between stopping rotation and pulling out doesn't gain
quite so much speed.
I'd like to offer the thought that the fatalities could have been due
to spinning in on finals rather than spin training. I say this because
its the only glider in our all glass fleet that has the tendency to
raise its nose and slow down when the brakes come out, unlike the
ASK-21 and G 103, which both drop their nose and speed up. The Junior,
of course, changes attitude very little.
FWIW, we bought our Puch specially for spin training because it was
thought to be more similar to our single seaters in its spin
characteristics than the K21 or G103.
--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie.| Harlow
demon. | UK.
co. |
uk |
Christopher Nicholas
overstressing - all were spinning too low and/or failure to recover.
We had spin training in UK before, during, and after the spate of Puch
accidents, but the emphasis changed to become (I believe) stall and spin
AWARENESS training. Perhaps someone from current UK gliding instruction
world, who remembers and was part of the transition, would comment more
authoritatively than I can.
Chris N.
Janusz Kesik
Brave student...
Brave instructor too...
JK
Janusz Kesik
All accidents in Poland using Puchaczs were caused by wrong
decisions/actions of crew. There weren't technically caused ones I know
about.
JK
Janusz Kesik
> I'd like to offer the thought that the fatalities could have been due
> to spinning in on finals rather than spin training. I say this because
> its the only glider in our all glass fleet that has the tendency to
> raise its nose and slow down when the brakes come out, unlike the
> ASK-21 and G 103, which both drop their nose and speed up. The Junior,
> of course, changes attitude very little.
It just needs *full recover* and will spin to the ground if there won't be
proper crew's action.
> FWIW, we bought our Puch specially for spin training because it was
> thought to be more similar to our single seaters in its spin
> characteristics than the K21 or G103.
--
Janusz Kesik
Aero Club of Czestochowa, Poland
jant...@interia.pl
www.soaring.enter.net.pl
Raphael Warshaw
was legal because spin training was part of the curriculum. I assumed that
the school and the instructor knew what they were doing. With 20/20
hindsight, I agee that it was a bad idea.
A few years later, I had a rented Baby Lark spin out from under me and was
very glad to have had the training.
Ray Warshaw
Caracole
>
> The problem in analyzing this sort of data is usually small numbers and
the
> absence of a control,
Agreed.
There appear to be large numbers of the Duo Discus in European
> Clubs but I don't know if they are used for spin training.
The DUO we have here is placarded against spinning
from the manufacturer. We decline to experiment.
> That said, the number of spin-related fatalities you cite for this
aircraft
> seem excessive. Is there any possibility that this is because the Puch is
> the current ship of choice for spin training?
Ummm, can't confirm. The Puch spins willingly, is appropriate for
representing single-seater high performance ships. I still think
there is behaviour that is not known about Puch spins...
> Are you aware of any accidents with the ASK-21 with the "spin kit"?
I know of only one US "spin" ASK accident, it was not wearing
any tail ballast at the time. It was flown near terrain ridge soaring,
had a departure and no room for recovery. Do we fault the ship or
the pilot?
> I was given spin training in the Blanik L23 starting at 7,000 feet but
> without parachutes. My first recovery attempt left the glider pointing
> straight down at high (for the Blanik) speed. Do you know if any of these
> accidents were the result of overstressing the glider in the recovery (I
> believe there is a current warning about cracks in Puch bulkheads)?
Yikes. No chutes? SSA has begged a letter from the FAA to allow
spin training without chutes, mentioning training that is for other than
the CFI rating, which by reg is the only 'required" spin training in USA.
I'd hate to be the club or school waving that letter, if there was
an incident. Wear chutes. They are available.
In my data, none appear to be overstress recovery causing failures.
Two were related to "abrupt" acro maneuvers in countries where
this is permitted. Others comment, and I concur, the blunt airfoil of
the Puch tends to limit speed increase in spin recovery.
There is available info on more restrictions in payload from the SZD
manuals in Europe, than there was included in US STCed ships,
as pertains to aerobatic maneuvers.
Still -- get spin training. Get spin awareness and prevention
training. Get it at altitude, with an experienced instructor, with chutes.
Cindy B
Raphael Warshaw
default
Jorge
pd.- spanish gliding last mice
Janusz Kesik <jant...@interia.pl> escribió en el mensaje de noticias
93leuc$sgt$1...@news.tpi.pl...
Jean Richard
>
> There appear to be large numbers of the Duo Discus in European
> > Clubs but I don't know if they are used for spin training.
>
> The DUO we have here is placarded against spinning
> from the manufacturer. We decline to experiment.
I did one with an instructor (just half a turn). It's reluctant to
start. - There was no placard against it..
But there's some more beautiful things you can do with a Duo Discus
than spinning.
Jean
JohnPegase
<wars...@keyway.net> writes:
>> Huh...
>>
>> Brave student...
>> Brave instructor too...
>>
>> JK
>>
>>
>> I was given spin training in the Blanik L23 starting at 7,000 feet but
>> > without parachutes.
>>
>>
>The explanation given by the instructor for not using parachutes was that it
>was legal because spin training was part of the curriculum. I assumed that
>the school and the instructor knew what they were doing. With 20/20
>hindsight, I agee that it was a bad idea.
>
A more likely explanation for no parachutes is that parachutes cost money, as
does their regular maintainence re-packing.. Any argument involving what "the
regulations" say is just a smoke screen.
John Wright, 742
Raphael Warshaw
money so I doubt that was the reason.
Ray Warshaw
Caracole
rewarding things to do with a DUO, and we are itching
to begin with it! (Lift, lift, lift....)
Just in case anyone reading rec.soaring would
accept information here as authoritative,
I refer to the Flight Manual for the Duo,
Section 2.8 (LBA Approved) Approved Maneuvers:
"The sailplane model "Duo Discus" is certified in
category
UTILITY
for normal sailplanes.
WARNING:
Aerobatic maneuvers such as
- Spins
- Lazy Eights, Chandelles
- Positive Loops
and
- Cloud Flying
are not permitted. "
I typed in error. There is not a factory mandated
cockpit placard against spinning the Duo.
It begets a fat logbook, to know and respect the
manufacturer's limitations.
A different respected instructor embarrassed himself
bragging what wonderful things a glider would do,
only to have the manual restrictions publicly recalled.....
Seek your spin training in 2-seaters other than a DUO.
Apologies, Jean.
Cindy B
Jean Richard <j.ri...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3A5F78...@sympatico.ca...
Janusz Kesik
So it's not glider for me. I LOVE cloud flying :)
--
Janusz Kesik
Aero Club of Czestochowa, Poland
jant...@interia.pl
www.soaring.enter.net.pl
Stefan
>
> WARNING:
> Aerobatic maneuvers such as
> - Cloud Flying
Hmmm...
Furthermore, I always thought Utility would imply that Lazy Eights and
the like are allowed. Does somebody know the official definition of
caterory Utility? I can't help, but it seems to me that this restriction
is just another of those insane US liability issues. But I may be
totally wrong.
--
Stefan
Jean Richard
>
> I agree, there are more
> rewarding things to do with a DUO, and we are itching
> to begin with it! (Lift, lift, lift....)
>
> Just in case anyone reading rec.soaring would
> accept information here as authoritative,
> I refer to the Flight Manual for the Duo,
As so long it's the same for each country.
> Section 2.8 (LBA Approved) Approved Maneuvers:
>
> I typed in error. There is not a factory mandated
> cockpit placard against spinning the Duo.
>
> It begets a fat logbook, to know and respect the
> manufacturer's limitations.
I agree, I fully agree.
> A different respected instructor embarrassed himself
> bragging what wonderful things a glider would do,
> only to have the manual restrictions publicly recalled.....
>
> Seek your spin training in 2-seaters other than a DUO.
A Grob Twin III Acro with moustaches is a good choice. A well maintained
Blaník L13 too.
> Apologies, Jean.
My instructor did it, not me...
I like spin awareness training...
I hate spin training...
I have to do both and I do it.
And anyway, the closiest available Duo Discus (to me) is 5500 kilometres away ;-))
Jean
Jean Richard
>
> :((
>
> So it's not glider for me. I LOVE cloud flying :)
Too moist ! I hate 101 % relative humidity ;-))
Jean
Jean Richard
>
> I can't help, but it seems to me that this restriction
> is just another of those insane US liability issues.
The virus is spreading around the World ;-((
Jean
Martin Gregorie
<jant...@interia.pl> wrote:
>I agree. But IMO the Junior drops the nose when the airbrakes applied.
>
Sure, but less than even the ASK-21.
Dan Marotta
And by the way, spins are prohibited in the LS-6a as well. In the
landing configuration, it will snap quickly into an incipient spin as I
found out at altitude during my early years in the '6. I also observed
it happen at 200 AGL during a landing attempt. Not pretty...
Dan Marotta
LS-6a, "4"
Caracole wrote:
<snip>
>
> Section 2.8 (LBA Approved) Approved Maneuvers:
>
> "The sailplane model "Duo Discus" is certified in
> category
> UTILITY
> for normal sailplanes.
>
> WARNING:
> Aerobatic maneuvers such as
> - Spins
> - Lazy Eights, Chandelles
> - Positive Loops
> and
> - Cloud Flying
> are not permitted. "
>
> <snip>
Jim Vause
"Raphael Warshaw" <wars...@keyway.net> wrote in message
news:93kg4g$7ju$1...@madmax.keyway.net...
> >
> I was given spin training in the Blanik L23 starting at 7,000 feet but
> without parachutes. My first recovery attempt left the glider pointing
> straight down at high (for the Blanik) speed. Do you know if any of these
> accidents were the result of overstressing the glider in the recovery (I
> believe there is a current warning about cracks in Puch bulkheads)?
>
> Ray Warshaw
>
A Blanik cracked up after recovery from stall in New Zealand two or so years
ago: seems probably a lot of weight in the pilots
Jim Vause
phi...@nessie.xinqu.net
>A Blanik cracked up after recovery from stall in New Zealand two or so years
>ago: seems probably a lot of weight in the pilots
The Blanik in question was torn apart when it was overspeed. From memory
the pilot weight wasn't considered to be a factor contributing to the
accident.
Does show the dangers in a normal training flight though. Demonstrating
stalling to a pre-solo student one minute, plummetting to your death
the next.
I've been much more careful about abrupt manouevres in two seaters
since that accident.
----
Philip Plane | phi...@xinqu.net
____|____
-------------( )-------------
g oneill
to be that a large strong trainee froze and locked the stick
forward (negative g sensitivity) .A/c overspeed near vertical
then massive high speed pullout flew straight and level then
fell apart.
Inspection showed extreme tearing of rivets through wingskins
<phi...@nessie.xinqu.net> wrote in message
news:slrn9645tr...@nessie.xinqu.net...
Fred Steadman
Duo Discus owner's manual. The boy seems to do as he pleases. :-)
--
Fred Steadman
Irving, Texas
Jean Richard
>
> Well I suppose we'll not be worrying Thomas Crown with excerpts from the
> Duo Discus owner's manual. The boy seems to do as he pleases. :-)
Including opening the canopy from the wrong side. It's not an approved
modification...
Jean
Bruce Hoult
<ch...@cnich15000.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> The K6 was one of the most popular gliders for some years in the
> UK - I did a survey of the BGA register once, and found it one of
> the two most numerous gliders at that time
Until very recently the K6 was the most numerous type in New Zealand.
Now it has been overtaken by the PW-5. Latest figures from the 2001
directory:
PW-5 : 21
Ka6 : 19
Grob Twins : 16
Std Libelle: 15
Std Cirrus : 13
-- Bruce