HOW TO FLY - No Really!

[facthunter]

 I've used the pre stall buffet where it applies. On some planes it's not very noticeable. We used to do balloon busting ,toilet  roll cutting and dog fights where you turn right on the stall. The sharpest (least turn radius) so you get a sight on the other plane is the aim. Once you get the plane set up the stall stick position if pretty constant.  You only do this in aerobatic rated aircraft and at a suitable height. Why? well because if you hit a gust or pull too much "G" you might just flick roll it if the rigging is out or you are not flying in balance. and you may need more height than you have.

 

   When someone asks what the stall speed of a particular plane is, (to determine a safe approach speed etc ) that is normally at max weight full nose heavy CofG limit and power off. Any variation from that will come out with a different  lesser figure and of course if you make the wing work harder by dynamically loading it like in a steep turn or a loop recovery the stall speed can be way higher...

 

    When the scene changed to most planes being non stressed for aeros  early 60's, this and spin recovery training virtually disappeared.

 

  Using the ONE stall speed for all conditions may result in a long landing or a too much weight on the nosewheel wheelbarrow effect with sometimes spectacular results of loss of directional control. Nev

 

 

[Manwell]

Stall speed, as facthunter describes above, is a representative number for stall AoA.  If pilots knew how to fly properly, they'd become immune to loss of control accidents.  The fact that pilots are still losing control of aircraft should tell us that we're doing something wrong.  The orthodox solution is to do the same thing, only harder, in the hope it will finally work.

 

So, how could pilots be taught to fly so they became instinctively aware of impending stalls as Chuck suggests? 

 

 

[Thruster88]

Stall speed, as facthunter describes above, is a representative number for stall AoA.  If pilots knew how to fly properly, they'd become immune to loss of control accidents.  The fact that pilots are still losing control of aircraft should tell us that we're doing something wrong.  The orthodox solution is to do the same thing, only harder, in the hope it will finally work.

 

So, how could pilots be taught to fly so they became instinctively aware of impending stalls as Chuck suggests? 

 

looking forward to the correct answer, hope we all learn somthing.  

 

 

[facthunter]

You are correct in the recent number of pilots losing control on turn to final. A turn needs extra energy to compensate for the extra drag and you either put enough extra power on or lower the nose to increase the rate of height loss, or a combination of both..  The potential energy of height and the extra power from the engine. Your choice and IF you can't afford the height loss it's power on without delay. Power on and off going into and after exiting turns should be automatic and instinctive.. Ultra lights have tended to do Power OFF approaches (traditionally) from an overshooting position. The limits of this should be obvious. An unpowered high drag plane can reverse direction fairly quickly only if the bank is accompanied by a very low (steep) nose down attitude. SO you must have the height up your sleeve. Nev

 

 

[Manwell]

It's not just a recent phenomenon either.  Imagine, if you will, that everything we had to learn to qualify for a license was wrong.  How is that possible, you ask?  I'm glad you asked, because it's a damn good question that demands a damn good answer. 

 

The short and simple answer is that it's easy.  If just a couple of essential elements of basic training are wrong, then everything that follows reinforces those flawed elements, and the keener the instructor, the harder he'll push them.  Then, after thousands of hours of experience, most keen pilots would reinforce the same flawed concepts themselves, because that's all they know, and it's all anyone else they know knows.

 

Your turn now.   Which elements must be flawed for pilots to stall and/or spin unintentionally? 

 

 

[facthunter]

The "instinct " to pull the stick back when the nose drops. and to "rudder" the turn when you overshoot final... But I don't want to hog the discussion here, though. Better MORE ask questions as we go so there's no misunderstanding of  a critical subject. I'd rather DO this on front of people face to face but we have what we have. Nev

 

 

[M61A1]

Which elements must be flawed for pilots to stall and/or spin unintentionally? 

 

The very idea that you tell someone how to do something but not actually allow them to do it. 

 

Pulling up ( To avoid the ground in a stall) and turning back  (EFATO) seem to be quite instinctive, and people still seem to do it despite being taught otherwise. The correct action needs to be instinctive, and to do that I think the training in this respect needs to be repetitive hands on. not on a whiteboard.

 

 

[Garfly]

Yes, on the "Don't pull back" theme, this has been posted here a few times already, but I reckon it's always worth a re-view: 

 

 

 

 

[facthunter]

 The USUAL way of teaching stalling sucks. and is near useless. If and when you do inadvertently stall a plane It will be nothing like holding the height with progressive back stick.  Stalling is a BIG topic. SOME  planes are very benign generally, until one bites you . A load in the rear seat and some in the rear locker and you have a completely new ball game. Nev

 

 

[Manwell]

The very idea that you tell someone how to do something but not actually allow them to do it. 

 

Pulling up ( To avoid the ground in a stall) and turning back  (EFATO) seem to be quite instinctive, and people still seem to do it despite being taught otherwise. The correct action needs to be instinctive, and to do that I think the training in this respect needs to be repetitive hands on. not on a whiteboard.

 

Excellent M61!  Repetition is definitely one of the essentials missing in how flying is taught.  Repetition enables the desired action to be established in muscle memory along with all the other sensory clues that always inform us that the aircraft is approaching stall/spin.  This is exactly what Chuck implied when he said if a pilot doesn't know his AoA he shouldn't be flying. 

 

One of the principles of learning is Primacy and Recency, which is based on human psychological studies that show that, under stress, a human being will usually respond according to either the first learned response, or the last, depending on which was learned most effectively.  Obviously, if the exercise was repeated enough for all the various sensory perceptions to become ingrained in memory, that's the response they'll use under stress.

 

Considering the above, if stall training exposes the student to those sensory perceptions very briefly - either because the instructor fears it, or that's how they were taught - then they won't develop a recognition for the combination of stick position and stick pressure, wind noise, slight sink felt in the seat of the pants, and engine noise, that together let a pilot KNOW AoA is close to stall.

 

Therefore, repeated prolonged exposure to pre-stall conditions is essential to enable a pilot to instinctively know when it's approaching stall.  Then, they need repeated practice at controlling power and attitude at or below stall speed, so the aircraft can still be flown under his control.   By ensuring the student gains confidence in maintaining control of the aircraft even in the stall, the pilot's basic need for security is satisfied, enabling them to pursue higher needs as listed in Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.  If this step is missing, that need will remain unsatisfied, preventing their progress up the pyramid.  When understood fully, this explains a lot. 

 

[Manwell]

Stall training is one of the training elements that must be flawed to cause pilots to stall or spin unintentionally, but there are others.   They are all included in ab initio training, so that narrows it down a bit.  Any more suggestions?

 

 

[facthunter]

I can only suggest it's" or what's NOT included in the training" that is more the issue. I'm lucky I got the full DEAL  in a Chipmunk before I soloed. A great training aircraft. Then IFR recovery from unusual attitudes on limited panel. The gyro's had to be caged anyhow. to stop them hurting themselves. I'm not skiting about this I WAS LUCKY and feel sorry for others who didn't get the opportunity. That's why I've been constantly ratting on about doing these things in a "suitable plane with a suitable instructor" initially for ALL  Instructors and also available to others without having to have an endorsement on the particular plane.. I can't recall EVER doing an unintentional stall anytime and I put that down to thorough training, awareness and a  continued interest in saving lives (including my own.). Nev

 

 

[Manwell]

The full deal suggests a thorough grounding in the basics according to known training standards, Nev.  What we're aiming to establish here is where are the flaws in known training standards and methods.

 

It is not really "what's not included" in established training methods, and more how it's taught.  Current training philosophy places little importance on effects of controls and basic manoueuvres, but that training and knowledge forms the foundation of all future knowledge and skills.  Therefore, if we're genuinely interested in addressing the problem, that's where we should look first.

 

To summarize, we've established that flaws must exist in basic training if pilots are losing control leading to stalls and spins.  Stalls can't develop if pilots know when the aircraft is approaching critical AoA, and also know how to control the aircraft in that configuration.  Similarly, spins can't develop if an aircraft isn't permitted to stall, but it would be even better if the aircraft is kept balanced as well.

 

All the evidence is in plain sight, but the solution hasn't been found because we keep looking in the wrong place, expecting it to be found in places we'd prefer, rather than places we assume to be irrelevant because they're so elementary. 

 

 

[M61A1]

we've established that flaws must exist in basic training if pilots are losing control leading to stalls and spins

 

What we've established is that people make mistakes even after they were taught. Mistakes will continue to be made because we're human, some of those mistakes are made because we are conditioned to be afraid of breaking the "rules", when we should be afraid ( or at least respectful) of breaking the laws of physics.

 

 

[Manwell]

What we've established is that people make mistakes even after they were taught. Mistakes will continue to be made because we're human, some of those mistakes are made because we are conditioned to be afraid of breaking the "rules", when we should be afraid ( or at least respectful) of breaking the laws of physics.

 

Not quite correct M61.  Students can only learn what they are taught by instructors who can only teach what they learned from their instructors who only knew what they were taught by others, etc.  And while we are indeed human, and prone to err, those errors would be eradicated over time, provided our tuition was valid.   

 

One firm point to note, we should never fear anything, but we should respect natural laws that aren't subject to the whim of precious precocious mortals.  Fear, or any emotion, whether excessively positive or negative, doesn't help inform anyone about anything.  In fact, it can only obscure rational consideration of the facts, and thereby, interfere with the mental process of flying both safely and efficiently.

 

Fear of breaking the rules is indeed a weakness if it prevents a captain from saving either the ship, the crew, or the cargo.  And we have been "conditioned" to fear breaking the rules.  A classic example of double disability....

 

 

[facthunter]

  There are easy "to over emphasise" RULES like limiting bank angle to 30 degrees which may even promote flat turning with excess unbalanced rudder. 30 degrees is OK in airliners where you don't encourage much out of the ordinary in the way of attitude and at High altitudes is inappropriate anyhow. as you are usually very close to stall boundaries already, Possibly there's a reluctance to use power to get you into a better situation also. It IS another control as an example in entering and coming out of a turn.  IF people automatically thought of the need for extra power in a turn THAT would reduce a lot of the getting slow and stalling . One of my favourite training and self assessing exercises is a level figure 8 .  Again like sideslipping, rarely done well. Little planes are not easier to fly than big ones. They have little inertia so can lose speed quickly.. and you have to respond quickly. Nev

 

 

[Manwell]

To summarize, we've established that flaws must exist in basic training if pilots are losing control leading to stalls and spins.  Stalls can't develop if pilots know when the aircraft is approaching critical AoA, and also know how to control the aircraft in that configuration.  Similarly, spins can't develop if an aircraft isn't permitted to stall, but it would be even better if the aircraft is kept balanced as well.

 

Based on the above summary, which training elements must be flawed if pilots are losing control?

 

 

 

[Manwell]

Figure eights and sideslipping are good exercises Nev, but think even more basic than that.  

 

For example, unbalanced flight can only occur if.....

 

Reluctance to use power in turns is due to....

 

Stalls can only happen if...

 

Adverse yaw when rolling rapidly or boosting power is caused by.....

 

If a building develops cracks in the walls and ceiling, where is the cause of the problem, in the walls, or ceilings, or in the foundations?

 

 

[facthunter]

 I"ve always said  "you are only an ab initio ONCE and any misconceptions linger and bite you if not corrected. " Yes I've had the wind coming from the  side in a gypsy moth because I didn't apply enough rudder pressure  and maintain it, But I didn't have much time on that one. and hadn't thrown it around at all. I don't KNOW why people don't apply power when entering turns. I can only think it wasn't emphasized enough or perhaps they've only flown Tripacers or Cessna's.  with footrests.  Nev

 

 

[spacesailor]

" perhaps they've only flown Tripacers or Cessna's.  with footrests.  Nev"

 

?

 

I've only flown A foxbat.

 

So what are the footrests.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[kgwilson]

Pedals

 

 

[spacesailor]

OK

 

Puffin pedals !.  (... The Hatfield Puffin first flew on 16 November 1961,)'

 

 

spacesailor

 

 

[pmccarthy]

Maybe they were flying Ercoupes

 

 

[facthunter]

 It's an old saying for people who only use the pedals to steer the nosewheel on the ground and the Tripacer has a spring interconnect from the ailerons to the rudder. I thought everybody knew it but I was obviously some what presumptive for which I apologise,  but you now have some more useless information. Nev

 

 

[Thruster88]

 It's an old saying for people who only use the pedals to steer the nosewheel on the ground and the Tripacer has a spring interconnect from the ailerons to the rudder. I thought everybody knew it but I was obviously some what presumptive for which I apologise,  but you now have some more useless information. Nev

 

The musketeer has this also, have never understood why, it's not very noticeable.