Stalls

[djpacro]

Notes on turning stalls required for training towards an RPL at http://aerobaticsaustralia.net/?p=165

 

 

[rideandfly]

DJP,

 

Great information!

 

One of the extreme turning stalls folks wanted to learn about is the base to final stall/spin scenario.  Always discussed what led up to this situation and how to prevent it, first.

 

Used to do this maneuver in a Cessna Aerobat at altitude. We would bank at 25 degrees with almost full rudder in the direction of turn with up elevator until the stall broke in the direction of the bank, skidding under the bottom break. The airplane rolls quickly in the direction of the bank, sometimes inverted, and pitches down to almost vertical while entering the spin. When this stall happens in the Aerobat, it happens quickly. It used to take at least 500' to 700' of altitude during recovery. Have had students to enter a spin before recovery because correct control inputs were not used after the stall.

 

 

[Student Pilot]

In the olden days you have to do a full stall, not a requirement now? I have seen some hairy chested instructor types try to frighten people by doing "Extreme" stalls, not the way to train. I can understand people have given up training after that.

 

 

[SSCBD]

In the olden days you have to do a full stall, not a requirement now?

Isn't that the same as you only got a bit pregnant or I only got slightly killed.

 

And if you ever get into a real spin one day, I hope you're not carrying a pax.

 

It's only having better safety skills on your part if you are flying sport aircraft or GA to do a course in spin recovery with GA instructor.

 

Just like engine failures that you practice flying, you might be lucky and never get a real one, but you'll never know until it does happen.  

 

Will you bet your life on that?

 

 

[Garfly]

I suppose that full-straight-ahead-wings-level-eyes-forward-power-on and power-off kind of stalls (the ones normally covered in training) almost never occur in real life.

 

Anyway, they don't tend to sneak up on you and if they do they should be manageable; after all, we've practised the simple art of recovery from them heaps of times.

 

Turning stalls, on the other hand, are a very different kettle of fish. 

 

Which is what DJP is on about.

 

 

[Student Pilot]

Yes turning stalls are different to straight ahead, you can show signs of a turning stall without doing a full blown upside down white knucle recovery. The point I'm getting at is if you can recognise the approach of a stall either straight or turning then spin training is unneccesary, CASA must think the same way, that's why spin training is not required. I do think that aerobatic training including spins helps pilots with their skills but it's not for everyone.

 

Sscbd, there are times when practicing something that is unlikely to happen is dangerous, 2 engine failures on 1 wing on a 707 over Bass Straight is one example, the investigators said it was like practicing to die, you only have to do it once. 

 

 

[Garfly]

Yeah, Stude, but I do think some of the skidded-turn/flick-over aero training that rideandfly describes (above #2) would be very educational for us amateurs.  Probably an experience unlike any other for most recreational pilots ... although quite a few have got to do it once.   ;-(

 

(BTW ... what a beautiful looking Vagabond!)

 

 

[pmccarthy]

Having done stalls and spins as part of GA training many years ago I can remember nothing scary about them. They were lots of fun. The key was knowing that the aeroplane was designed for it and wouldn’t break and that you had heaps of height to recover. I would happily do them today ina suitable aeroplane.

 

 

[rideandfly]

(BTW ... what a beautiful looking Vagabond!)

Initially started an aerobatic school to teach basic aerobatics with the Aerobat later learning that many of my customers wanted extreme stall, spin, and upset recovery without aerobatic training. Even changed the name of the company to reflect the safety training given. Worked with many CFI candidates at a local CFI school giving stall/spin training.  

 

Taught how to prevent stalls, spins, and upsets, if that failed how to recover from them, too. 

 

Garfly,

 

Thanks for your kind comments about the Vag. I fly low & slow with the Vag over North Carolina and having plenty of fun with the Vag working on becoming a better tail-wheel pilot during retirement.

 

 

[Roundsounds]

The root of the problem with stalling skills sits squarely with instructor / examiner training and attitudes. Having had the opportunity to fly with a large number of instructors providing them with tailwheel endorsements, I find their level of knowledge and skill to be appalling. I always include upper air general handling as part of the type training before starting the takeoff / landing elements. Often the type used for the tailwheel training exhibits strong adverse yaw tendencies, much greater than the types they have previously flown. I have the trainee complete some coordination exercises to familiarise them with the control inputs required to maintain balance rolling into and out of turns. This often provides me with concern, then there’s the stalling exercises. A large proportion of these instructors become anxious at the thought of straight and level stalling, let alone slipping, skidding or power on stalls. The simulated skidding turn into final is the eye opener for most. I like to think some of these instructors take away some improved knowledge and seek further training around stalling. 

 

 

[facthunter]

  IF being upside down is "off your radar" don't fly a plane. You don't have to  desire or do aerobatics but you can get into an unusual attitude due gusts etc in U/L's or even large planes.. It's a part of being in the air and staying there by reacting aerodynamically with it.. You are not on rails.. or on a flat surface on wheels. Your plane operates in 3 axis and in any attitude and can and must be competently controlled whatever situation it's in.

 

  The INSTRUCTOR at least, as a bare minimum must be adequately trained  to get out of any situation he/she may reasonably be expected to encounter  as a minimum standard to do the job... This can only be demonstrated in a suitable aircraft, of course. That's a slight complication but should not be an insuperable obstacle, if we are fair dinkum about all of this. Nev

 

 

[robinsm]

On a biannual recently, my instructor had me doing stall recovery when the aircraft stalled in a  steep turn.   Grteat to do, great to learn.   Doping successfully removed the fear and increases confidence in your flying ability in adverse situations.   Very valuable.

 

 

[facthunter]

 Your plane is not certified for that if it's an RAAus type. The plane may flick and that puts extra loads on the airframe, and will certainly get your attention if you are not anticipating it, With power on and dynamically loaded it's a very different animal. It won't stall unless you pull the stick back, (too much). With height and the right plane you are OK.. You must be confident in the plane and your instructor. If you are both learning at the same time, it's not optimal.  Nev

 

 

[Manwell]

...without doing a full blown upside down white knucle recovery. The point I'm getting at is if you can recognise the approach of a stall either straight or turning then spin training is unneccesary, CASA must think the same way....

 

Sscbd, there are times when practicing something that is unlikely to happen is dangerous, 

 

Student Pilot, I'm getting the distinct impression that flying isn't really your cup of tea.   Flying can be dangerous, and that's exactly why we fly.   Practicing something that's unlikely to happen might save your life and the lives of your pax one day.   Consider it insurance that pays off each time you fly.

 

 

[kaz3g]

DJP,

 

Great information!

 

One of the extreme turning stalls folks wanted to learn about is the base to final stall/spin scenario.  Always discussed what led up to this situation and how to prevent it, first.

 

Used to do this maneuver in a Cessna Aerobat at altitude. We would bank at 25 degrees with almost full rudder in the direction of turn with up elevator until the stall broke in the direction of the bank, skidding under the bottom break. The airplane rolls quickly in the direction of the bank, sometimes inverted, and pitches down to almost vertical while entering the spin. When this stall happens in the Aerobat, it happens quickly. It used to take at least 500' to 700' of altitude during recovery. Have had students to enter a spin before recovery because correct control inputs were not used after the stall.

 

Off topic but I like your Vagabond...close similarity to my AUSTER.

 

 

[Student Pilot]

Student Pilot, I'm getting the distinct impression that flying isn't really your cup of tea.   Flying can be dangerous, and that's exactly why we fly.   Practicing something that's unlikely to happen might save your life and the lives of your pax one day.   Consider it insurance that pays off each time you fly.

 

I have a passion for flying and been flying low level for a living for 40 years next year, I do know what a stall is. What I was saying is that if your aware of a stall and know how to prevent one then there is no need for "Extreme" stall practice. Pushing of "Extreme" stall practice by hairy chested instructors showing students how brave they are can actually discourage students who could go on to further their flying.

 

 

[Manwell]

Thanks for clarifying that Student Pilot. 

 

Now my thinking is able to be aligned with yours, and I agree that "extreme" stall practice can be nothing more than an instructor's vain attempt to justify themselves.    I've experienced the type of training you've described, and it could also be nothing more than an instructor trying to teach what they've learned, even though they didn't see any real sense in the exercise themselves.  They are usually such contrived events that the student becomes convinced that they'd have more chance of getting hit by lightning, and therefore, doesn't put much importance on learning it well.  Perfunctory training at any point - training for training's sake - must be avoided unless the goal is to shout wolf so often we want our students to ignore our instruction. This is another potentially fatal flaw in modern training that is so far removed from the scene of the accident that it never gets blamed.   Thanks for pointing that out. 

 

 

[mnewbery]

 This is very interesting. There are a number of well documented historical reasons why full stall and recovery from a fully developed spin are no longer taught or examined. One of them is "training areas often barely have 3000 feet between the top bit and the ground ... usually because the top is either 5000 feet MSL or under a CTA step"

 

Do I need upset recovery, fully developed stall and recovery or spin training and be able to demonstrate these to pass a PPL exam? No. Do I need to be able to recognize stall indications (pre-staff buffet, stall horn/light, a lack of airframe wind noise) in my particular type, recognize pro-spin inputs such as appears in a skidding turn, fly coordinated turns such as base to final ... and be able to explain these things plus what to do next to the examiner on the day?

 

That's a different question, innit.

 

Also of note, instructors are notoriously tightfisted when it comes to spending their own money so good luck finding one that has recently gone out solo in an aerobat or a training aircraft certified for spins and put themselves through a few recoveries.

 

Pretty much everything I have flown I have done more than one straight and level stall from as high as I needed to be comfortable and legal. I worked up to it from slow flight then incipient stall and so-on. Each example is a different beast depending on whether its me or me and an instructor. The Piper warriors I flew rarely excited their stall horn during an incipient stall or on landing.

 

I received spin training a while ago. Its tough on the tummy and expensive to get comfortable up to the point where I would be happy going through it solo. I don't need to do that but its my choice. I have that choice again because someone parked an aerobat at my home field and happily, its for rent!

 

 

[Manwell]

The thing about stall and spin recovery training is that it's completely superfluous if a pilot knows how to fly.  By that I mean knows how to fly in all conditions, especially below stall speed, and how to use the rudder without looking inside.   Those well documented historical reasons for discontinuing stall and spin recovery training are what you'd call excuses.  Justification for doing or not doing something that isn't the real reason.  The real reason is that the powers that be actually want us to have more accidents and be less competent, because their job relies on it.  

 

 

[mnewbery]

The real reason is that

 

... a lot of instructors and students died because they didn't recover from their UA before hitting the ground

 

 

[M61A1]

I quite certain that is the wrong tornado in your avatar.....Maybe you meant this one?

 

[mnewbery]

Going back to post #1 of this thread, yes the form 61-1488 has items 80-81 which refer to stalls and  incipient spins.

 

CAAP 155 suggests that stalls from straight and level are not aerobatic as per section 5.1 of that document. From this I am implying that a pilot can perform straight and level stalls where one might not do aerobatics - this includes below 3000 feet AGL and over populated areas. I'm not suggesting that this is a good idea, just that its not illegal if the interpretation is correct. An instructor who has since moved on tried to convince me of the obverse - that I shall not be performing straight and level stalls in the training area below 3000 feet AGL - even though I was happily recovering with a 100 foot altitude loss. I just shrugged and took it up with his manager. I never got a straight answer.

 

 

[mnewbery]

I quite certain that is the wrong tornado in your avatar.....Maybe you meant this one?

 

[ATTACH]40149[/ATTACH]

 

Man, that would be some serious curry! 

 

 

[Manwell]

... a lot of instructors and students died because they didn't recover from their UA before hitting the ground

 

A lot means how many mnewbery?   I recall one accident in the BK training area where the student was doing solo forced landing practice and stalled.  One isn't a lot.  There may have been more, but not "a lot". 

 

Your post reminds me of the excuses used to justify all the rules that strangle us today.  Rather than fixing the problem, they always attack the symptom rather than the cause.

 

 

[mnewbery]

I think you missed my point. I sought out and completed UA and spin recovery training. In America "a lot" means:

 

I did a search of the National Transportation Safety Board’s records and found that since January 2001, there have been more than 80 stall/spin accidents in general aviation in the United States. And last year, Pat Veillette, an instructor in the personnel training department of a major air carrier, did a formal study of the NTSB’s records and found that between 1994 and 2000, there were 394 spin-related accidents in this country. Fatal accidents numbered 324, including one on May 25, 1997, when a Cessna 205 crashed in Homestead, Florida, during a skydiving outing, killing all but one of the seven persons on board.

 

How many of those occurred during training? How many occurred in Australia over a similar time? ATSB covers about 10% of the data required to objectively provide an answer. That is to say the data to identify and report on fatal dual or solo training accidents that were directly attributable to stall, spin or UA training does not exist. The query exists for the ATSB database down to single engine land aeroplane dual or solo training but the detail of each report does not specifically identify "spin training was being taught then people died". Also ATSB public records go back to about 2003 only. ICAO goes back to 2008. NTSB had woeful recording prior to 1960. Therefore the publicly available data does not prove or disprove that "Spin training at the Sport Pilot, RPL and PPL level increased the number of fatalities". One of the issues is that when people die in training accidents, its hard to tell exactly what they were trying to do at the time and ATSB don't report things that they can't point at objectively.

 

So ... people died in training accidents mostly in the US. Their aviation operations are roughly 10 x Australia's so when people die/d in training accidents there and make changes, people in Australia take/took note and make/made changes here. This isn't my opinion. Also I don't care if its a good idea or not. Its just what happened. People decided to change something in reaction to something else bad happening in the expectation that it was the right change and bad things would stop happening.

 

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.830.1760&rep=rep1&type=pdf Page 15

 

While verified pre-1960 data are difficult to obtain, it is not impossible to find a few statistics (especially from those opposed to mandatory spin training, since the general aviation accident rate has improved over the years). One source stated, 8 I I I "Some 30 years after spin training was dropped for all but CFI applicants, the incidence of fatal stall/spin accidents, as a I I percentage of all accidents, had declined seventy-five percent" (Twombly, 1989).

 

The same document says the NTSB and the FAA are at odds regarding spin training.

 

Hell of a way to start a bar fight @Manwell