The Aviation Safety Network website lists 77 occurences with Puchaczs with the first spinning fatality on July 01 1982 in Poland, the latest March 17 2016 in Japan. In between there are numerous spinning accidents.
On 2016-05-09 17:00, Mike Borgelt wrote: > 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. > > 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 [1] Links: ------ [1] http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
_______________________________________________ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
