Hi Derek This is consistent with a briefing that the late Mike Valentine gave in South Australia when the Puchacz first came on the market.
He commented that it loses 300 plus feet in a single rotation and becomes a "widow maker" if spins are allowed to develop below 1000 ft AGL. The most frightening aspect is that most of the known 26 fatal spin accidents to date have occurred with an instructor on board. Food for thought and perhaps another very good reason for docile trainers. It is hard to imagine that the same number of pilots had lost their lives if they hadn’t been subjected to spin training in a Puchacz. Bernard PS: Widow maker is a term Mike Valentine used repeatedly almost 20 years ago. What conclusion have we drawn from it? > On 28 Dec 2014, at 9:34 am, Derek Ruddock <drudd...@iinet.net.au> wrote: > > From > http://www.bst-tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/aviation/2005/a05o0204/a05o0204.asp > > <http://www.bst-tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/aviation/2005/a05o0204/a05o0204.asp> > “In 1990, a Puchacz spinning accident that resulted in two fatalities was > investigated by the Transportation Safety Board of Canada (TSB). It was > determined that the glider had inadvertently entered a spin at an altitude > that was too low to allow for recovery. In 2004, the United Kingdom Air > Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) investigated a Puchacz spinning > accident that resulted in two fatalities. The AAIB report1 > <http://www.bst-tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/aviation/2005/a05o0204/a05o0204.asp#N_1> > noted that Puchacz gliders had been involved in five previous spinning > accidents in the United Kingdom, four of which resulted in fatalities, and > the majority of which were the result of inadvertent spins. > > The AAIB report made reference to a British Gliding Association (BGA) - > sponsored low-speed handling trial of the Puchacz that was conducted in 1994 > in response to three fatal Puchacz spinning accidents between 1990 and 1993. > The trial was flown by test pilots and instructors. The Puchacz spin recovery > was judged against the following standard spin-recovery technique, as > outlined in Joint Aviation Regulation (JAR) 22, Acceptable Means of > Compliance: > Check ailerons neutral. > Apply rudder opposite spin. > Ease control column forward until rotation ceases. > Centralise rudder and ease out of ensuing dive. > > The Canadian equivalent to JAR 22 is the Canadian Aviation Regulations > (CARs), Part V - Airworthiness, Standards, Airworthiness Manual Chapter 522, > which covers airworthiness standards for gliders and powered gliders. > The trial confirmed that the glider was compliant with JAR 22; however, it > considered two areas worthy of additional comment. The glider was considered > only marginally compliant in respect of stalls during turns, and it was noted > that avoidance of uncontrolled rolling and spinning off a turn was reliant on > pilot awareness and skill. The trial also noted that the height loss in a > spin was significantly greater than on other glider types and that this was > largely due to the steep attitude (70º nose down) of the developed spin.” > > > From: aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net > <mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net> > [mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net > <mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net>] On Behalf Of stephenk > Sent: Sunday, 28 December 2014 1:06 AM > To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. > Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] ASK21 spinning was Re: Spin training > > Mike, > you've made this claim before. I assume it is another incident, not the > Caracole one (because they weren't that high, nor were they ex test pilots) > But I've never been able to find any other references to an accident like > this and the NTSB database only seems to show up 4 Puchacz accidents in total > > EventId > InvestigationType > AccidentNumber > EventDate > Location > Country > Latitude > Longitude > AirportCode > AirportName > InjurySeverity > AircraftDamage > AircraftCategory > RegistrationNumber > Make > Model > 20040730X01116 > Accident > LAX04CA270 > 07/18/2004 > Lone Pine, CA > United States > 36.588333 > -118.051944 > O26 > Lone Pine > Non-Fatal > Substantial > N19SZ > PDPS PZL-BIELSKO > SZD-50-3 > 20040406X00422 > Accident > FTW04LA103 > 04/04/2004 > Cherry Valley, AR > United States > 35.370834 > -90.750556 > Non-Fatal > Substantial > N18SZ > PDPS PZL-Bielsko > SZD-50-3 > 20030605X00794 > Accident > LAX03LA165 > 05/26/2003 > Minden, NV > United States > 39.000278 > -119.750833 > MEV > Minden-Tahoe Airport > Non-Fatal > Substantial > N503HC > PZL-Bielsko > SZD-50-3 > 20001211X10620 > Accident > LAX98FA235 > 07/17/1998 > CALIFORNIA CITY, CA > United States > Fatal(2) > Destroyed > N7215L > PZL-Bielsko > SZD 50-3 > > Do you have any other references? > > Regards > SWK > > > On 27/12/2014 10:22 PM, Mike Borgelt wrote: >> Well one was two USAF test pilot school graduates from at least 3500 feet >> AGL. >> >> Mike >> >> >> >> On 27 Dec 2014, at 7:03 pm, Paul Bart <pb2...@gmail.com >> <mailto:pb2...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >>> I wonder how many of them were off a winch from 1200 ft? >>> >>> Cheers >>> >>> Paul >>> >>> On Dec 27, 2014 8:29 PM, "druddock" <drudd...@iinet.net.au >>> <mailto:drudd...@iinet.net.au>> wrote: >>> From memory there have been about 26 fatalities as a result of spin >>> training in the Puchaz. >>> If you want to release the controls in a spin go ahead but please don't >>> take anyone with you >>> >>> >>> > > _______________________________________________ > Aus-soaring mailing list > Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net <mailto:Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net> > To check or change subscription details, visit: > http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring > <http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring>
_______________________________________________ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
