Prof Avius..Really??..This is the best we can do??

[motzartmerv]

Ok. Normally, when I read our "guru's offerings in the Magazine, I either chuckle under my breath, bite my tongue or move on and pretend I didnt see it.

 

But this months offering has left me curled up in the fetal position, rocking back and forth in the corner as I stare off into the middle distance.

 

Does anyone on here have anything to do with the editing of the Mag?

 

This column has been questionable in the past, but is now bordering on cringe worthiness.

 

Im not going to go into the details, but If an Instructor offered this months column as a briefing on stalling to me in a review or as an instructor test, I would be suggesting they take up fishing.

 

Is this the best we can do?

 

 

[Yenn]

I havn't seen it yet, but I would guess that profesor Avius has a bit of a job thinking up what to say each month. In Australian Flying magazine there is a regular writer who is South African and there have been several suggestions that he should write about Australian happenings. Or even be replaced with an Aussie. The problem is that we Aussies are not coming forward with alternative articles. Does anyone here think they could do a monthly article, clear, concise and interesting?

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Im sure people would have a crack, and Ive senced the Professor has changed "actors" a few times like doctor who..

 

Its meant to be an Instructor Forum. Instructors dont need regurgitated Briefing notes or lesson plans. And if you ARE going to build an article offering advice for Instructors, then id suggest getting the terminology and facts right.. Pretty sad effort this month..

 

 

[dazza 38]

I havn't seen it yet, but I would guess that profesor Avius has a bit of a job thinking up what to say each month. In Australian Flying magazine there is a regular writer who is South African and there have been several suggestions that he should write about Australian happenings. Or even be replaced with an Aussie. The problem is that we Aussies are not coming forward with alternative articles. Does anyone here think they could do a monthly article, clear, concise and interesting?

It would be pretty hard finding somebody better than Jim Davis.

 

 

[Happyflyer]

Ok, motzartmerv, I'll bite. You've bagged the guy pretty well. For those of us who may not have your experience can you please point out some of errors or anomalies in the article?

 

 

[Ultralights]

i could think of a few others, but not many, the article seams ok to me, not sure about the rudder part though... :)

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Nah. I'm not gunna go Into it. It's rubbish. Would xpect better from a junior instructor, let alone our " guru".

 

 

[Happyflyer]

That's a pity. Many junior pilots will read the article. You stated reading the article "left me curled up in the fetal position, rocking back and forth in the corner as I stare off into the middle distance". If it is that bad there must be something very wrong with it? Surely if this is so you are duty bound to point out he errors? It may save a life! You started a thread bagging the article so I think it only fair to the author that you should put out your argument as to why.

 

 

[djpacro]

..... You started a thread bagging the article so I think it only fair to the author that you should put out your argument as to why.

In the old days, one would write a letter to the editor.(You may find a letter or two from me in magazines over the years about stalling and spinning - one tackling Jim Davis, incidentally.)

 

 

[motzartmerv]

I intend to. Have you read the article Dave?

 

 

[djpacro]

Nope. I may buy a copy of the mag, plus the next issue with your letter in it, as it seems like an interesting read.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Ok. I wasnt going to. But I will raise a few points I find ...Concerning.

 

Remember, this is a nation wide publication, and this column comes under the heading

 

"Flight Instructor's Forum"

 

Facilitated by the Aviation Guru professor Avius."

 

Im not exactly sure what the idea behind the column is to be honest. But in the past I have had to discuss at length with MY students why our methods differ from those professed by our Guru.

 

Its not helpful.

 

I will paraphrase the sections I have issue with.

 

" Major Aim- It should be stressed that an inadvertent stall should never occur. It is a big killer of pilots.

 

The first time you show a student a stall the goal should be to debunk any preconceived idea that the lesson is a frightening experience."

 

Gee, where would they get that idea from Professor? You just opened the paragraph talking about how stalling kills people.

 

"The most important thing they have to learn is that the point of stall is the time they should begin the recovery"

 

Thats the most important thing? Ok, I disagree. I wont go into the grammar.

 

" But why does a stall occur?

 

ANSWER: It is the angle formed between the chord line of an airfoil and the relative airflow"

 

Ok, the stall occurs because it is an angle? Huh? Professor. You asked WHY a stall occurs, not what angle of attack is.

 

It may seem like splitting hairs, but a subject like stalling needs to be taught Clearly, concisely, and above all, needs to make sence.

 

He/she goes on to describe the angle between the chord line and the relative airflow being like a top and bottom jaw. Ive heard this description before and often wondered why one would need to use this description, but

 

thats not the problem. The problem is this statement.

 

" - A stall happens when you open the jaw to angle of about 16 degrees. If you close the jaw by just a couple of degrees, no more stall.."

 

A couple of degrees? I thought you said it stalls at 16 deg's? Why do I need to "close the jaw" by a couple of degrees? Im confused.

 

" What controls this bite or angle of attack?

 

ANSWER: Just one thing. The elevators."

 

Did you mean the elevator ( Singular) as in, just ONE thing. Now we have multiple elevators on the aeroplane? Which one controls the angle of attack? You said just one of them..Which one of the two or more elevators controls it?

 

"Explain what happens if a wing drops at the stall and why - (use of ailerons/ autorotation). Refer to the lesson on effects of controls ."

 

What happens if a wing drops at the stall and why??. Did you mean, explain what to do IF a wing drops. Or, explain THAT a wing MAY drop at the stall because ....

 

Again, this poor use of english by an instructor trying to teach other instructors is pretty sad.

 

Ok, so now we get to the actual stalling lesson in the aeroplane.

 

"Phase 1. Recovery without power. Control column is eased forward to the horizon. As airspeed increases, ease out of the dive"

 

First of all. I have major issues with using the horizon AT ALL while teaching recovery from a stall. The horizon has NOTHING to do with the aeroplane stalling.

 

Control column is eased forward to the horizon? Are we pushing the stick towards the horizon? Ok. What if the nose is below the horizon? Do I PULL the stick to the horizon?

 

What dive? You just said to lower the nose to the horizon? Wheres the "dive" come into it?

 

" Phase 3. Effects of power and flaps. This is one of the most important aspects of of the stalling exercise.Stalling in the landing configuration. Recap the three steps to a recovery

 

1. Full Power

 

2. Nose to the horizon

 

3. Check yaw with opposite rudder"

 

Professor. You just spent half a page explaining that "nose to the horizon" was first THEN POWER was applied. What is the correct order?

 

Further and MUCH MUCH more importantly, power should NOT be applied first as this may cause the aeroplane to either torque, or yaw aggressively and CAUSE autorotation.

 

So the stall in the landing configuration, lets look at a typical stall turning final and apply the GURU's recovery procedures shall we?

 

The pilot gets a bit too far back on the stick during the turn onto final, the nose is DOWN below the horizon, and the aeroplane is now in a stall, banked and yawing.

 

Professor says step 1. Full power. This causes yaw and (remember effects of control professor) pitch UP. Now we are really starting to stall baby!!. thats ok, lets go to step 2

 

Step 2. Nose to the horizon. Cool, ill just PULL THE NOSE up the horizon. Thats what you said to do professor. NOSE TO THE HORIZON.

 

Patter like this is not only confusing, its downright DANGEROUS. Surely the RAA can edit this sort of crap before it gets displayed in public for the whole aviation community

 

to see. No wonder we are seen as amateurish cowboys.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

The RAA has in its ranks, Instructors who one could call "experts" in this field. That certainly is NOt me, but instead of just putting up with the Professor

 

and copping his poorly written explanations on such an important subject, why not inlist OTHER instructors, to produce something meaningful.

 

I would love an A4 page "Instructor forum" article on stalling from someone like Dave Plikington, Or NEV, or any number of guys/ Girls who could, im sure offer something very substantial and meaningful.

 

This article from the GURU is nothing more than regurgitated briefing notes outlines from various sources, poorly worded and misquoted.

 

No instructor needs another copy of the CASA briefing page on stalling. We all have this already. And most should be well around the lesson plan for teaching stalling.

 

Id like to hear 'expert advice" on things like:

 

* What are some of the most common mistakes pilots make with regards to stalling

 

* What can an Instructor do to give the student a "real" feel for the stall in "real life situations" but do it safely

 

* What can we do to ease a students fears if he presents with anxiety regarding stalling etc

 

* What are the greatest DANGERS when teaching stalling, and how can we manage the risk.

 

* What patter do the "experts " use ? I have heard many different variety's.

 

An article based on things like that, from an experienced "stalling" instructor would make its way into my kit bag straight up.

 

 

[poteroo]

An 'instructors' section in a publicly available magazine does not make any sense to me. Instructors should be discussing technique and technical stuff on a forum where RAAus Operations is well and truly leading the discussions. There will always be differing approaches to instructing any facet of flying training, but, in my opinion, this should be conducted 'privately'.

 

Now, before you all disagree with me, think about how your disparaging comments must affect low time pilots and student pilots. It can only reduce their faith that an instructor has any clue at all. Frankly, it's a dumb idea to have Prof Avius providing a public target. Indirectly, it doesn't really do credit to RAAus Ops. Save the paper, and publish stuff from well qualified people not necessarily inside RAAus.

 

I believe you should have some confidence that RAAus trained instructors are improving due to more robust initial training, and a requirement for higher flying experience - now 100 hrs PIC instead of 75. But, why stop there?

 

Why don't we level the playing field with instructor training - and set a bar exactly the same as GA? ie, min 150 hrs or maybe even 200 hrs, plus 30 hrs dual training in the course. This is the same as GA, and the only difference that I'd suggest is that we ditch the 20 hrs 'mutual' practice that is part of the GA 50 hrs 'instructing' course. If you have more TT, then you should be able to fly the aircraft skilfully enough to be a good demo instructor. This might even gain CASA acceptance and 'recognition' of RAAus instructors into GA - subject to competency of course.

 

happy days,

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Ive been quielty pushing for something similar Pots.

 

And, heaven forbid we make the senior Instructors pass some commercial exams? Aerodynamics? Meteorology?

 

As instructors we often make judgement calls on weather conditions to take PAYING students flying in. Surely a more robust knowledge base in this area is needed?

 

My 2 cents

 

 

[Happyflyer]

Thanks for taking the time to give us your thoughts motzarmerv. It will add to many peoples' understanding of this often misunderstood subject.

 

 

[moz]

I'm with you Motzartmerv on the inclusion of references to the horizon. Having done aerobatics in the past with Noel Kruse with the Sydney Aerobatic School who had a heavy emphasis on stall stick position, the article for me reflects the typical approach to stalling instruction - start straight and level, slowly raise the nose etc, and then once it stalls nose down. I remember stalling in the top of my loops a few times - I wouldn't be pushing the stick to recover.

 

The issue I have is that anyone can write anything and put it in the magazine - there is minimal editorial control over whether something described is best practice. The article about MTOW by RAAus Ops even mentioned how articles have appeared in the magazine where aircraft would potentially have been over loaded in trip reports. Not a good look if we are trying to build a safety culture.

 

In the EAA Sport Pilot magazine anyone who writes an article has a little min bio at the end stating experience, qualifications etc. I personally think RAAus Ops should be vetting any articles (it is supposed to be our official publication), and a bio should be included so that readers can decide for themselves as to the level of confidence they can have in the material being published.

 

Cheers

 

 

[Guest john]

'Professor Avius is obviously an ACADEMIC who thinks he or she is a "NOW ALL'' about aviation matters, whereas he or she knows buxxer all about aviation. He or she is apparently getting their aviation theories from an aviation text book which they don't have the capability to understand or comprehend the relevant aviation terminology, & thus they are trying to impress us humble pilots with their bullshxt, which stands outs like dogs baxxs.

 

It could even be that RAA consulted the unlearned Professor to compile the Human Factors Examination some time ago which was as useful as an ash tray on a motorbike

 

 

[dazza 38]

'Professor Avius is obviously an ACADEMIC who thinks he or she is a "NOW ALL'' about aviation matters, whereas he or she knows buxxer all about aviation. He or she is apparently getting their aviation theories from an aviation text book which they don't have the capability to understand or comprehend the relevant aviation terminology, & thus they are trying to impress us humble pilots with their bullshxt, which stands outs like dogs baxxs.It could even be that RAA consulted the unlearned Professor to compile the Human Factors Examination some time ago which was as useful as an ash tray on a motorbike

I dunno about a 'now all' but definitely a know all.

 

 

[2tonne]

I'm don't know of a dunno, but definitely a know all...

 

 

[Powerin]

I always find it interesting that a subject such as flying, which is so grounded in science, has such a wide array of myths and dogmas attached to the teaching of it.

 

I haven't read the latest Prof. Avius article but I must agree it's hard to see the point behind a so called instructor's article...at least in the way in which it is presented. It appears to be a mix of articles which seem to have an identity crisis. On the one hand the information covered seems to be basic aviation 101 that every pilot should know. Is the knowledge standard of RAAus instructors so low that they need a magazine article to explain the basics of angle of attack and stall recovery to them?? This surely is the most basic knowledge that an instructor should be required to have.

 

On the other hand, because it is aimed at instructors, the basic information is presented in a somewhat convoluted way which makes it inaccessible to students. So we end up with an article which covers very basic topics that every instructor should know presented in a way that doesn't really help non-instructors.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Yea Deborah, it's a death by many cuts as far as I'm concerned.

 

But I disagree , it's not just a difference in wording . A stall is NOT .. I repeat... A stall is NOT the angle between the chord and the relative airflow.

 

That's angle of attack. An instructor can simply not stiff a definition like that in a national publication. It's not wording. It's just plain wrong.

 

 

[old man emu]

Correct me if I'm wrong, and I don't mind at all, but, in relation to low speed stalls, I thought that the first action when the signs of an imminent stall manifest themselves is to regain airspeed by lowering the nose. This has the effect of not only gaining lift by decreasing the AoA, but thereafter, increasing the speed of the wing through the air. I was also taught the mnemonic APT - Attitude; Power; Trim. So on approaching the stall the sequence would be:

 

Attitude: Lower the nose to reduce AoA

 

Power: Increase power until Straight and Level flight is attained

 

Trim: Adjust trim (via elevator) for S&L flight.

 

By now control of the airplane has been established; you can breathe again, and fly back to where you were before you cocked things up.

 

 

 

Actually, I believe that the practical exercises in stalling are taught incorrectly. How many of you are were lead to believe that STALL was the Word of the Beast? Don't like to stall? How the hell do you stop your plane flying when you want to put it on the ground?

 

 

 

The most enjoyable experience I've ever had in relation to stalling was a time when my instructor told me to fly to the point of imminent stall (shudder and whistles and bells) and fly the airplane in that condition for as long as I could without going stalling, and without using power. Man! I was pumping that control column back and forth like a wood chopper in one of those wind-driven toys. What did I learn? That an airplane will fly all the way up to the stall and remain under control.

 

 

 

(I should add that in this configuration, with power off, Lift may not be equal to or greater than Weight and the airplane will descend. So you go from SkyCatcher to Sky-Diver - unable to navigate easily from A to B, but not falling from the sky out of control).

 

 

 

So next time you go up with an instructor, spend some time doing very low speed flight and see how long you can keep flying at the point of stall. Bet you reach Lowest Safe Altitude before the wing stalls.

 

 

[kasper]

Nope. I may buy a copy of the mag, plus the next issue with your letter in it, as it seems like an interesting read.

Not quite so easy to buy - the mag was pulled from newsagents a couple of months ago ...

 

 

[kasper]

I am yet to get the mag but from whats been quoted I am probably going to be in the camp of instructors/former instructors shaking their head.

 

And I have had a personal issue with the level of the articles by said professor for as long as they have existed

 

The basic issue I don't get with the column is what are we attempting to do through the column and who is the audience?

 

If the audience is instructors and the intention to bring about a more unified method of instruction I am appalled at the basic level of assumed knowledge the authour has of instructors - we KNOW that stalls are an aerodynamic effect resulting from flow seperation and loss of lift - its an angle of attack issue. We KNOW that they are neither speed specific or attitude of aircraft with reference to the world dependant. So talking to us in the manner described above (I'll hold final contempt until I see the mag) is not going to engage us positively to listen to anything you want to then say about methods of instruction (theoretic or practical).

 

If its audience is intended to be Jack or Jill weekend RAA pilot then refence to recovery or management of stall that is factually wrong (based on above report - I'll hold condemnation until I read it) is even worse because its given a cloak of authority being 1. in the official RAA mag, and 2. being presented as what the instructors need to know.

 

I am truely and honestly trying NOT to be a grumpy old man and mutter something about missing Middos ops manager columns, truely I am but the level of the past articles and the reported level within this one is making it hard, really hard not to.