“The aircraft is described as having “departed” (from controlled flight).”

I would suggest that the phrase means that the aircraft has departed from normal flight. If the aircraft were “out of control” then, by definition it would be impossible to recover.

“Also you are never 100% sure that the aircraft will recover. Each spin is different. During my Instructor rating training we did quite a few spins. On one or two the aircraft was a little sluggish coming out. In most it came out fairly promptly. But each was different. “

Have you calculated the C of G position for each flight. The fuel state of the aircraft, pilots weights etc could have contributed to different recovery characteristics i.e. an aft Cof G will generally lead to a more unstable aircraft and require a more sustained recovery action. At forward C of G the aircraft will recover promptly.
Altitude – i.e. air density also has an effect on the speed of recovery. An aircraft which recovers within one turn at 3,000 feet may take two to four turns or more at 10,000 feet.
I can easily demonstrate the effect of varying Cof G positions on spin characteristics and recovery speed using our Gliding Club,s DG505. This glider has the benefit of a ballast tank in the fin to compensate for pilot weight. By ballasting the glider to various C of G positions it is possible to demonstrate the effects that these changes have on both spin characteristics and recovery rates.

Also some aircraft are certificated for one turn of a spin for demonstration purposes as prolonged spins may require full recovery action to be held for several turns before it is effective.

My understanding of modern military aircraft is that they are inherantly unstable to provide the high maneouverability required of them. Small wonder that they then behave as they do when spun.

Have to agree with WD on this one. When undertaking biennial checks with single engine pilots I would expect recovery from the stall warning or buffet within 50 – 100 ft maximum using standard power recovery. From the point of nose drop occurring it should still be possible to not lose any more height than this. I regularly demonstrate this recovery on these flights. 200 – 300 feet height loss is typical of pupils/candidates who have not been shown or remember how to effect the correct recovery action.
If recovery is done glider fashion without power then the height loss will cetainly be in the order of 300 – 500 ft.
Stall and spin awareness training certainly has its part to play in installing awareness of the symptoms of the approaching stall or spin under normal flight conditions. How many instructors demonstrate accelerated or high “g” stalls and the fact that some of the normal symptoms are then absent?
What normally causes many stall and spin accidents is the failure of the pilot to notice the initial symptoms because of high workload such as in the circuit and on approach. Another cause is the possibility of accelerated or high speed stalls due to sharp edged gusts or mishandling of the aircraft.
The ability to recognise the start of a stall or spin is equally as important as recognising the symptoms of the approaching item.
If the latter is recognised then the recovery can still be achieved with minimum height loss.
It is the failure to recognise both of these types of symptoms that inevitably leads to a stall or more probably a full spin developing.
It has been said that aircraft are less prone to drop a wing with landing flap selected. The Super Cub is one aircraft that has not heard of this suggestion and with full landing flap selected will readily drop the inside wing in a turn if the speed is allowed to bleed off – not the right time to learn of this particular quirk.
As wise pilots would say learn the characteristics of your aircraft at a safe altitude and preferably with an instructor who is fully familiar with the type.:rolleyes:

PS I forgot to mention that I own a share in a motor glider as well as a share in a pure glider so do know what each is capable of.

Each to his or her own however – clubs in the states vary greatly with a considerable number of glider ports? being run professionally. These is also a great interest in cross country soaring where I do not think that the motor gliders that you mention would be of much use except for ab initio training and field landing exercises.

As you say we are all entitled to our own opinions.

There is no requirement to hold a glider pilots licence to fly gliders,
hence there is no cross over in respect of experience.
You will have to convince the instructor that you are capable of safely flying the glider and dealing with emergencies such as launch failures etc.

Curent touring motor gliders (fixed engines) have some way to go to match pure gliders unles you consider the Stemme. Self launching gliders are however pure gliders but with a pop up engine that permits them to self launch. The latter are not practical for intensive training at this time due to the high work loads involved in extending, starting, stopping and retracting the engine.

If you want to achieve solo flying in a glider best way is to book a weeks course at a gliding club. If your power flying is up to speed you should be able to solo in a glider within this time.
If you simply want a flight to see what it is like then most clubs offer half hour introductory lesons similear to power clubs although they tend to be expensive compared to normal club member flying..

If you want to know more let me know.