At 01:52 PM 5/9/2016, you wrote:
"I would never, ever get into a Puchacz to spin
it, especially off a winch launch. We need to retain all the pilots we have."
Here we go again, lets get into the the Puch, to
be honest I would not get into a Puch and spin
of a 900 ft winch either, but that does not mean
I would not do it at an altitude that allows me to recover by 1000 ft.Â
Quite a number of people around the world have
done that and NOT managed to recover. One
experienced instructor, flying with another,
shared his Puch spin recovery experience with us
here. Another experienced instructor was happy to
spin it until one day it didn't immediately
recover. BTW what are you going to when it is
passing through 1000 feet and hasn't recovered?
Does anyone has any stats on how many fatalities
there were in Australia in Puch spin training
accidents? It would be nice to have some data
before we go and sully the Puch reputation.
I know of at least one in the UK after reading a
despairing Brit's critique of BGA spin training
after a 15 year old student was killed in a Puch.
Also one instance of two bad injuries after the
instructor, a former CFI, spun herself and
student into the ground in one . Then there was
Maurie Little and student at Ararat. It seems GFA
instructors spin in just as much as anyone.
Personally I am much happier spinning Puch than
K21 with 12 KG of lead attached to its tail.
Personally I think the Puch should be placarded
against intentional spinning. I wouldn't ever
spin one. Interesting that on a check flight in
NZ in one the instructor didn't want a spin, just a stall.
I wouldn't spin any glider that had been jiggered
so it would spin with extra tail ballast or
aerodynamic cripples to make it spin.
It is called risk management. Don't take
avoidable risks and always balance risk against quantifiable benefit.
I'm not aware of ANY data that suggest spin
training actually prevents people from spinning
in when the spin is entered inadvertently at low
altitude. The USA gave up compulsory spins in
about 1947 for private certificates for that
reason. Smart instructors had the student do the
spins solo for the checkride and observed from
the ground (see Scott Crossfield's book "Always
Another Dawn"). The Canadians gave it up about 50
years later when they found, in a similar
aviation culture and environment to the US, the
spin in stats were no better for licensed pilots
and they were killing students and instructors
teaching and practicing spins. They couldn't in
all conscience continue with the requirement.
I personally do believe you should know how to
recover from a spin. An hour in a two seat Pitts
or Decathlon with a proper aerobatics instructor
will do it nicely. You'll learn more about spins
in that hour than in a lifetime of flying
gliders. Wear parachutes, start the spins at
10,000 feet and have a decision height where you'll bail out.
Ridding people of the "just pull the stick back"
reaction is probably better served by unusual
attitude recovery training. Probably better done
in an aerobatic powered aircraft also so as to
minimise the risk of overstressing or breaking the aircraft.
All the talk here about safe speed near the
ground etc etc misses the real issue. DON'T STALL
THE GLIDER INADVERTENTLY. Speed has little to do
with it. It is about ANGLE OF ATTACK which is
controlled by the pilot by how far he or she
PULLS THE STICK BACK. So DON'T PULL IT BACK SO
FAR. (the despairing Brit mentioned earlier had the same message)
Compulsory spinning every year is a lot of risk
exposure for dubious to zero benefit on the
accidental spin in stats. It will no doubt cause
some people to simply give up gliding.
Chris Thorpe's stats are spurious. I'm not a
statistician but I know when comparing rates of
relatively rare events you must be very careful
when making assertions about significance. Thorpe
simply took raw numbers over two 25 year periods
without correcting for numbers of participants,
hours flown and other possible confounding
factors. Not impressive. Such is the quality of
the decision making in the GFA control group.
More about covering THEIR backsides than protecting you.
Lastly, if you or anyone else wants to spin for
practice, be my guest. Go to it. That isn't the
issue. The issue is whether experienced pilots
who believe intentional spinning is a an
avoidable risk they do not wish to take, should
be COERCED into doing so in order to continue
gliding. Think about it. It is no longer a
voluntary assumption of risk by an informed, consenting adult.
Mike
Borgelt Instruments - design & manufacture of
quality soaring instrumentation since 1978
www.borgeltinstruments.com
tel: 07 4635 5784 overseas: int+61-7-4635 5784
mob: 042835 5784 : int+61-42835 5784
P O Box 4607, Toowoomba East, QLD 4350, Australia
_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
