Stalls

[Yenn]

One of the first things I like to do in a new to me aircraft, is to do a straight and level stall. That gives me information on how to conduct the rest of the flight.

 

I have read tales of first flights of new planes being done without approaching the stall and that to me is foolhardy.

 

It is nice to be able to perform a falling leaf, safely in a plane and I find it enjoyable, but I am not so happy nowadays with spins.

 

 

[Manwell]

We basically agree then facthunter, except you are talking about far more advanced machinery and methods required to fly them than the ones I'm talking about.  Despite the differences in machinery, the pilots who fly them all start in aircraft with mechanical controls with props out the front.   While you're right, the same sensory perceptions we'd rely on in a bugsmasher aren't the same we'd require in a pressurised Turbofan powered aircraft, the skills learned in bugsmashers provide the foundation for all future flying, and if that's not laid right, everything built on top will be likely to develop cracks.  In other words, if a pilot learns to fly by the "seat of his pants" in a lightie, and later finds the same cues are missing in a jet, then at least he's got a sound knowledge of the fundamentals so he can work out how to handle the jet in the same scenario.   

 

You're right, seat of the pants won't work if the plane is "upset", but the whole idea is to know when it's about to get "upset" and stopping doing what we're doing to upset it.  If the plane never gets upset, and this is important, stall and spin recovery training is unnecessary, but still desirable.  

 

Your point about eyes being better than seat of the pants and being your worst enemy in some circumstances, is a throwback to training based on WW2 Military training requirements.  That war ended nearly 80 years ago, but we still use it as an excuse to teach pilots to ignore all senses except the eyes.  The rationale is that early integration of instrument interpretation would accelerate transition onto instrument flying so they could throw pilots in the deep end and watch to see how many sunk.  It's quite likely that the high accident rate was more a factor of poor training than difficult conditions.  The poor bastards most likely wouldn't have known how to fly properly from the start.  Anyhow, the emphasis on instruments and sight is due to the ease of getting disorientated while on instruments if you didn't understand what they really were telling you in simple terms of power and attitude.  It's a form of motion sickness, which is due to the eyes receiving conflicting information that doesn't agree with the middle ear and balance organs.  If you're watching the AH and not visualising a distant horizon through it, especially while scanning rapidly like a deranged lunatic, then it is likely you'd become motion sick, and disorientated, especially in turbulence.  

 

However, if you've learned to fly power and attitude right, before being properly transitioned to IF, which is simply a transfer from using the big wide horizon out the front, and imagining it's condensed into a little 2 or 3 inch window instead, then the transition to IF isn't any more difficult, in fact, it's probably easier.  

 

I've thought this through Nev, and I can assure you the way we train pilots is fatally flawed, but we're prevented from improving things by regulatory "authorities" which are no more an authority on the subject than Mickey Mouse, as we should all know well.

 

 

[facthunter]

 People still believe they will always KNOW where "down" is whereas you can't sense it at all. Your middle ear and dynamic loading lead you astray as soon as you start turning or you accelerate /decelerate. To fly in IMC you must learn to trust the instruments and not what you feel. That's basic. Attitude flying is what the basic thing commenced with and Straight and level through the speed range is all about pitch attitude and retrimming as the speed changes.. The transition to using an AH was just an extension of that "attitude flight " concept and that was how it was taught,. You haven't read all my posts. If you had you would see that we are basically on the same tram. If we don't do a better job, the lives of many pilots are on our heads. Airlines these days encourage their pilots to fly aeros and  do basic  stuff. Falling out of an altitude is a lot easier than passengers realise at high cruise levels.

 

   ALL aeroplanes fly similarly (3 axis & powered) and the difference between little and big stuff is training. You are only an ab-initio pilot ONCE and that's the foundation of what comes later. IF it's not sound you will suffer unless it's picked up at some stage.  A plane is a plane, is a plane ... Nev

 

 

[Manwell]

Agreed Facthunter, people would believe they know where down is, but it isn't so easy in an aircraft where the horizon isn't visible which gives a datum of perception.  We're also in agreement about trusting instruments in IMC, but the way IF is taught is the problem because by encouraging pilots to rapidly scan between AH, ASI, ALT, DI, and T&B, the fundamental importance of Attitude control is obscured.  This point wasn't apparent to me until I asked an old CFI how he scanned instruments, and he said he didn't - he just looked at them all as one picture.  It took a while for me to comprehend what he meant, but it's basically this - instead of seeing one instrument at a time, and trying to piece a total picture of performance from each instrument, he sat back and saw them all, which enabled the whole performance picture to be seen at once.  This prevented small deviations of attitude to alter performance in pitch, roll, or yaw before they showed up on performance instruments.  This just happens to be the exact same technique pilots use in VMC only with a much larger AI - the windows in front and on the sides.  Once this level of perception is achieved, the pilot becomes truly Pilot In Command, able to control power and attitude precisely, which controls performance precisely with less effort, and it enables him to become aware of the bigger picture still - navigation, or position in space.  The way I taught pilots to look at the AI may help.  Imagine you're looking at your aircraft from a distance behind so instead of seeing a small 2 or 3 inch window, you're seeing the whole aircraft relative to the horizon.  This broadens focus and enables them to see the other performance instruments at the same time, enabling perception of performance as well, but knowing the little airplane in the window must be held still, otherwise the performance instruments would eventually reflect that when they caught up.  This way of looking at the instruments also enables the pilot to clearly see the horizon, which prevents disorientation, aka motion sickness, as mentioned previously.

 

You'll hear no argument from me that the lives of pilots and their pax are on our heads if we don't do a better job either.  We're in agreement about ab-initio training too.  That is the foundation of a pilot's thinking and skills, and if that's not sound, he's effectively building on sand. 

 

The interesting thing to consider is that it's intentional.  It's not a mistake.  If pilots knew how to fly properly, there would be no incentive to fund an army of parasites to ensure safety, and no interest in letting a machine take over our jobs.

 

 

[Soleair]

Yes, it's a shame new pilots are not taught to recover from extreme unusual attitudes, including fully developed 2 or 3 turn spins. I believe I benefitted from such training, back in the 80's in a Cessna Aerobat.

 

But there is a (relatively) low cost solution for any pilot, trainee or qualified, to experience spins and many other skills useful for when the donkey quits.

 

It's called gliding.  I think it would be an excellent idea for all power pilots to spend an hour or more in a glider, to experience these regimes, maybe as part of their licence requirement. They would almost certainly enjoy it, plus learn about the ultimate in power off landings (no go-arounds in a glider!).

 

But then I also believe most car drivers would benefit from a compulsory period on a motorbike before being granted a car licence. I don't suppose that's going to happen either.

 

Bruce

 

 

[mnewbery]

I'm going gliding this weekend ... If it doesn't snow. If it does snow, I'm going to the pub so I can enjoy the view from there instead

 

 

[kaz3g]

I did more than 500 hours in gliders including instructing and cross-country. Winch club so more launches than hours in the air.  

 

I shudder a tad when I think of the “aeros” we did in those poor Blaniks we thought were stressed for massive g’s. Regular spin checks were required. I also flew aerobatic Pilatus and Salto machines among a number of single seaters but my favourite was the ASW 19 which was quite a speed machine way back when...

 

 

[turboplanner]

Yes, it's a shame new pilots are not taught to recover from extreme unusual attitudes, including fully developed 2 or 3 turn spins. I believe I benefitted from such training, back in the 80's in a Cessna Aerobat.

 

But there is a (relatively) low cost solution for any pilot, trainee or qualified, to experience spins and many other skills useful for when the donkey quits.

 

It's called gliding.  I think it would be an excellent idea for all power pilots to spend an hour or more in a glider, to experience these regimes, maybe as part of their licence requirement. They would almost certainly enjoy it, plus learn about the ultimate in power off landings (no go-arounds in a glider!).

 

But then I also believe most car drivers would benefit from a compulsory period on a motorbike before being granted a car licence. I don't suppose that's going to happen either.

 

Bruce

 

New pilots, old pilots and for that matter members of the public can go to an airfield which has an aerobatic aircraft and hire the aircraft and a suitably qualified Instructor for an hour's demonstration of Recovery from Unusual Attitude. If you are doing it because you think it may save your skin down the track, you can do it any time. You don't have to go thourgh a full course, you're just doing this for your own interest. Perhaps an Instructor on here could suggest what formal training is available and the cost. 

 

I'm not taking anything away from your gliding idea, I certainly learnt a lot from my few hours, but not much of it transferred across because getting into trouble with a heavy engine which is beating it's heart out and picking up revs in an aircraft which flies like a brick compared to a glider is a whole different ball game.

 

 

[M61A1]

I'm going gliding this weekend ... If it doesn't snow. If it does snow, I'm going to the pub so I can enjoy the view from there instead

 

Don't forget your terry toweling hat and drawstring pants.....

 

 

[Frankus1aust]

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

 

And here is something else worth a look.

 

 

 

 

[Thruster88]

 

Even someone as experienced and knowledgeable as Wayne Handley can stuff it up.

 

 

[Frankus1aust]

2 hours ago, Thruster88 said:

 

 

 

 

 

Do we know what happened? Texting while flying?

 

 

[Manwell]

And here is something else worth a look.

 

I've had a look at both Frank, and to be perfectly frank, both are overcomplicating the issue.  If a pilot knows when an aircraft is about to stall, and is still able to fly it when it's on the edge, then it doesn't really make any sense to make them put an aircraft into such a ridiculous configuration that they think they'd never be stupid enough to do that.

 

Pilots stall and spin when they're in familiar flight conditions, but something distracts them or takes them by surprise and they have been filled with so much bullshit they aren't clear what to do. 

 

When I was a new instructor, I wanted to give my students value for money, so I tried to give them more.  More fancy ways to stall, more fancy ways to practice emergencies, all of which are attempts to substitute quantity for quality.    The RAAF definition of airmanship is "The safe and efficient operation of an aircraft, both in the air, and on the ground."  Note the fact that safe and efficient are given equal billing, and also note that too much of either will compromise the other and vice versa.  In other words, safety and efficiency have to be balanced to ensure both are optimized.  Yes, you can get too much of a good thing, that's what "too much" means...

 

The simplest way to teach stall and spin recovery is to teach pilots how to control an aircraft at stall, and how to keep it balanced without needing a balance ball to tell them what to do.   If that foundation is laid correctly, all the crazy permutations and combinations of stall and spin recovery training are a complete waste of time.   In fact, they'd only serve to confuse the pilot when the SHTF.  Remember the old adage, KISS?  A lot of instructors know it, but very few apply it.

 

 

[Student Pilot]

7 hours ago, Thruster88 said:

 

 

 

Part of his show routine was using beta for a vertical descent, through a mechanical failure he couldn't return prop back into fine. A turbine in beta is only going one direction, down and fast.

 

 

[Manwell]

That explains it well Student Pilot.  I was curious how an experienced aerobatics pilot could stall unintentionally, but with the prop in reverse pitch, it would be difficult to recover enough speed to land smoothly.  Considering that, he did a great job to walk away.

 

 

[Manwell]

Manwell,

 

Sticks and stones? I thought we had gotten beyond such primary school sayings in modern life.

 

"The pen is mightier than the sword"

 

And thus words are strong.

 

I will leave it at that and others can reflect and make up their mind. 

 

I'm glad you are a thinker Litespeed, so let's contemplate your last comment and work backwards.

 

It is up to others to make up their mind, as you say, but we share the responsibility if they get it wrong.  Therefore, it's in our collective best interests to persevere especially when the going gets tough.

 

The Pen IS mightier than the sword, but that was used in a completely different context.  That adage refers to books, letters, legislation, the written word widely disseminated, not comments made in person, or on social media that won't have a wide audience. 

 

Yes, words are indeed potentially powerful, as inferred by the term spelling.  That implies a form of magic spell is possible with the right "spelling".  Note that scam emails usually have poor spelling in the text, which is a subtle warning to those aware enough to notice.  However, criticism shouldn't be confused with magic spells that intend to curse someone by watering a seed of doubt, or guilt, that's already in their mind.  

 

There are three adages that combined, provide guidance.  "Talk is cheap"  "Actions speak louder than words"  but "It's the thought that counts".  Taken together, these suggest that the thought behind the action or word is most important, and also the underlying thoughts that colour, or distort the intended meaning have an effect.  This is great news, because it means we have the power to decide whether to take something as a meaningless insult, or as constructive criticism.    The hardest bit is being able to decide which is which without fear or favour.

 

 

[Litespeed]

Engine or not, I back a pilot who started in gliders over on who has only flown a normal aircraft.

 

Glider pilots tend to have a much better feel for the air. 

 

Nothing wrong with a terry hat, though more needed by power pilots to absorb the moisture. When that fan stops, pilots tend to sweat.

 

 

[Litespeed]

Manwell,

 

I think you are trying to justify your ability to offend with a belief that your words have no power. Thus you can use anything you like and the insulted party chooses their feelings. So it is always the recipitents fault .

 

A view I do not share. 

 

 

[spacesailor]

Only takes a few unkind words to make certain people depressed !.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[Manwell]

Manwell,

 

I think you are trying to justify your ability to offend with a belief that your words have no power. Thus you can use anything you like and the insulted party chooses their feelings. So it is always the recipitents fault .

 

A view I do not share. 

 

You can think whatever you like Litespeed, it's your life, but adult conversation is not just for polite chit chat.   The only reason anyone would think words have power is if they highlighted a truth they'd rather not accept.  Then, as a means of deflecting attention onto the messenger, the latest tactic is to play the victim, acting as if feelings have been "hurt".   My sister used that ploy on me years ago, so I learned it well.   She's much better at it than you are.

 

I never said it's always the recipient's fault either, in fact, the only time it becomes the recipient's fault is when they have been made aware of a problem and chosen to ignore it.

 

It's entirely your prerogative to not share my view too, litespeed.   In fact, I'm glad you don't, but I do wish you'd justify yours instead of simply attacking me or mine.

 

 

[Litespeed]

Manwell,

 

To insult someone means to say something the receiver finds offensive.

 

Pretty simple really.

 

Now can we get back to the thread topic.

 

 

[Manwell]

Manwell,

 

To insult someone means to say something the receiver finds offensive.

 

Pretty simple really.

 

Now can we get back to the thread topic.

 

I'd be glad to get back to the topic litespeed.   If you recall, the whole reason for this diversion is because a few decided to be insulted because I called one a great guy and I refused to accept one important element in an insult - that it was intentional.   Then you decided to weigh in on the action and start insulting me, none of which I've taken to heart simply because none of it is accurate.  And now, you're trying to justify your actions rather than apologize like a man.   

 

Yes, it is pretty simple really...  If people choose to take offence easily and aren't pulled up on it by their friends, eventually they will take offence at everything.  If, and when it gets to that stage, it would be classified as a mental illness, but it's simply a case of flawed thinking that hasn't been corrected early enough by their friends.   The next person to try is their enemy, and if that doesn't work, then the last resort is the worst of all - the psychiatrist.    

 

 

[facthunter]

 This has NOTHING to do with the topic and won't be productive. Nev

 

 

[Manwell]

That depends how you define productive Nev.  The sky, like the sea, is cruelly unforgiving of folly, and human factors are without doubt the largest known cause of accidents.  Learning skills and knowledge is easy, but learning the right mindset can be more difficult, especially if people refuse to accept fault.  This conversation may seem unproductive in terms of aviation knowledge, but it's invaluable in terms of adopting the right attitude toward criticism.  Any old pilot would know that, but fewer would accept criticism graciously, in the manner it's intended.  That quality is priceless.   

 

 

[facthunter]

When we get personal many are not comfortable with that and will turn off or not contribute . Good vibes make more feel  comfortable and more ready to see "their contribution" as worthy of consideration.  as most are .. Nev