"Commercial pilots need stall recovery experience" article

[PilotDAR]

Another informative article in the December 16, 2013 Aviation Week & Space Technology (a good issue) opines that Commercial pilots need stall recovery experience. It describes a new FAA rule requiring airlines to get pilots doing full stalls. Halleluiah! Of course, this was driven by the apparently miserably failed stall handling of the 2009 Colgan Air Buffalo Dash 8 crash.

The article reports that "pilots....are finding themselves in stalled aircraft without the proper reflexes to recover.". I fear that I know why, but there is no excuse. Aircraft are designed so they can be stalled and safely recovered, if you do it neatly.

The requirement, in part:

Sec. 25.203

Stall characteristics.

(a) It must be possible to produce and to correct roll and yaw by unreversed use of the aileron and rudder controls, up to the time the airplane is stalled. No abnormal nose-up pitching may occur. The longitudinal control force must be positive up to and throughout the stall. In addition, it must be possible to promptly prevent stalling and to recover from a stall by normal use of the controls.

Now I concede that some company policies prohibit stalls, and this has been a problem for me during flight tests with a company pilot. I even had one Chief Pilot tell me that a stall was an in flight emergency. I asserted that approached properly, it did not need to be. We did not agree about this.

To me, being in the back, being flown by a pilot who does not have a sharp instinct to recover a stall by feel, would be like riding in a bus, driven by a driver who had no instinct to swerve around an obstacle in front.

The article closes by saying ".... the FAA requires pilots to experience full stalls and recoveries.... It is reasonable and sound".

It's not only reasonable and sound, its vital! Whatever you fly, I would like to think that you find a good, clear calm day, take it up high, do a "Hasel" check, get the ball in the middle, and wings level, and stall it a few times - or get training and do it!

[x-wind]

I have not read this article. TC had a Advisory Circular come out in November titled: "Prevention & Recovery from Aeroplane Stalls"

http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/o ... -1793.html

[Brown Bear]

Air France pilots, pick up the white courtesy phone.....

[sstaurus]

No no, with the new MPL they have a good discussion and session in the sim followed by a pat on the back, that's plenty.

[frozen solid]

.... I fear that I know why, but there is no excuse.

I fear that you are correct. I couldn't agree more that pilots should receive stall recovery training.

[oldtimer]

Many trainers feel a omplete stall is an uncontrolled maneuver whereas the approach to a stall and recovery at the first indication, be it the buffett or the stall warning, is a controlled maneuver. I thought that all airline pilots flying large airplanes or jets have to be trained in the simulator and do the sim instructors know how to teach approach to stall recovery?

[PilotDAR]

Air France pilots, pick up the white courtesy phone.....

The article makes reference to sims being used for big jet training, but their characteristics not being representative into the stall, and needing some rejigging to be appropriate for training in that realm. I admit it... I never stalled the DC-8-63 sim back in the day, I was just happy to be flying it at all!

[Brown Bear]

A stall is a stall is a stall. Send them up in a bloody Citabria!

[Independence]

I'm with Brown Bear. Just get them out there and comfortable in the stall. Before you say we don't want them to be comfortable, let me say that I think the problems in some of the recent stall accidents may be as much about pilots freezing on the controls due to panic as not indentifying that they are in a stall.

[Navaids]

A stall is a stall is a stall. Send them up in a bloody Citabria!

Agreed! I wish TC would see it this way as well. Instead they feel stalling a 767 and a Pitts special are completely different, so therefore a useless training exercise for the new and improved MPL pilot! Why bother with straight and level flight or any other basic training skills? Just put a chair in front of a window and make them sit for 6 hours!

[grimey]

Air France pilots, pick up the white courtesy phone.....

The article makes reference to sims being used for big jet training, but their characteristics not being representative into the stall, and needing some rejigging to be appropriate for training in that realm. I admit it... I never stalled the DC-8-63 sim back in the day, I was just happy to be flying it at all!

I'm reasonably sure that a decent amount of somewhat inaccurate sim training would still have been enough to keep the poor bugger in Air France from pulling back in a stall from flight levels all the way down to a thousand feet or so.

[Colonel Sanders]

I was doing some tailwheel training/refresher with
a pretty experienced pilot the other day. We worked
through the "rolls around a point" and the "falling leaf"
and then got into the circuit and started working the
tailwheel landings, which demand precision in alignment
at touchdown.

The light bulb went on, and he said, "This really improves
your instrument flying, too, doesn't it?"

Sure does.

[RatherBeFlying]

In the otherwise thorough investigations of AA587 and AF447, it somehow transpired that a similarly loaded airframe was not exposed to the accident conditions.

Now I'm not at all suggesting that all the crew mistakes be repeated all the way to losing another airframe, but it would be highly worth while to understand the aircraft approaching the accident situation.

We do not have a validated in the airframe recovery method from:

• wake encounter in an A300
• high altitude stall in those various laws without stall protection in the A330

[Doc]

Stalls in a 767, Cessna 150, Citabria, etc., all have two things in common. If you pull back on the stick, the houses get smaller. If you continue to pull back on the stick, the houses get larger again. And yes, this undeniable fact of life can be taught in a J3.
D

[Liquid Charlie]

Upset/Stall is a big issue -- companies try and train in the sim but the total irony is that it's done with the motion turned off because the sim would jump off it's jacks -- so it turns into a video game -- I'm not entirely up to date on this but last time I looked into it there were only about 3 simulators in the world that would give you the full meal deal in a jet upset -- they were active in motion and simulated all the g-forces etc associated -- so the solution -- don't do anything -- carry on as before -- until you remove the pilot completely there will always be a need for reasonable stick and rudder skills --

I was in a symposium and an expert stood up front and made the statement that c-fit in 705/121 in north america was under control and had been replaced by stick and rudder skills because of automation and how it was expanding across the entire aviation world even down to the basic training level. Pass the aileron drag

[tractor driver]

In our company, we train initial hires on all allowed stall scenarios, and revisit them on the annual check ride, noting indications, airspeeds, and recovery requirements and variations. On each type to be flown. it's one of the more discussed subjects around the table and appreciated comfort the knowledge / skill brings.
Doesn't everybody?

[Doc]

Frankly, I feel it may be as basic as recognizing something is amiss, and having the SA to realize that what you're doing just isn't working. In the Air France scenario, I don't want to over simplify it, but cruise deck angle, paired with cruise N1, would have got the job done. It doesn't need to be pretty. It does need to be recognized as a stall. Jet upset is outside my area of expertise, but it obviously should be recognized for what it is, and quickly.
Toss all you captains into a Citabria for a couple of hours. Might solve some issues.....and, it would be cheap!

[ODA]

A stall is a stall, but I think it's the recovery they are getting at. A high lift wing like a Citabria all you really have to do is release the back pressure. A jet at altitude you have to pitch down significantly to break the stall or you will ride it all the way down. Apparently some of the people that tried this where quite surprised how far they had to push. Not that I have any experiences with this, but that was how it was explained to me to by someone with far more experience.

[PilotDAR]

we train initial hires on all allowed stall scenarios

That's great to read. These "all allowed stall scenarios" would include:?

"Stall demonstration.

(a) Stalls must be shown in straight flight and in 30 degree banked turns with--
(1) Power off; and
[(2) The power necessary to maintain level flight at 1.5 VSR1 (where VSR1 corresponds to the reference stall at maximum landing weight with flaps in the approach position and the landing gear retracted).]
(b) In each condition required by paragraph (a) of this section, it must be possible to meet the applicable requirements of Sec. 25.203 with--
(1) Flaps, landing gear, and deceleration devices in any likely combination of positions approved for operation;
(2) Representative weights within the range for which certification is requested;
(3) The most adverse center of gravity for recovery...."

This are all allowed, and required, during certification testing. I find that some pilots have not recently (or ever) entered a stall with a deliberate bank angle, particularly carrying power.

So operators do not "allow" some configurations of stall entry, and this is a disadvantage to confidence building and skill maintenance for pilots.

[tractor driver]

Hey DAR,
yes, we do banked climbing / descending stalls. The "limitations" are those in the aircraft manual. I've checked with a few other training captains and they tell me that often the first indication limit is applied which I agree is good for the operation of the specific aircraft, but not the best for the skill set for the event. Some time in a machine capable of more adventurous flying would likely be of benefit to everyone, and a lot of fun.
g

[PilotDAR]

yes, we do banked climbing / descending stalls. The "limitations" are those in the aircraft manual.

That is very reassuring. I hope that training departments in general take to heart the need that stalls actually be practiced - ideally to the break, but anything is better than nothing!

Truthfully , the only thing which has scared me during stalls, right up through Piper Cheyenne, King Airs, Twin Otters and Basler DC-3's, has been the occasional very nervous company pilot beside me, who hasn't done stalls in.....

Practice practice practice.....

[Gannet167]

This stall stuff is further complicated by a few factors. Not all aircraft stall the same. Some have a benign and forgiving stall that has plenty of early onset indicators. Other aircraft stall abruptly with virtually no indicators that it's about to happen. The analogy is to a bubble bursting, and all of a sudden you're in free fall, often associated with a wing drop. The deep stall can blank out airflow over some aircraft's tail designs making recovery difficult and follow on issues like compressor stall can become a problem as well. Add to this the potential complexity (and confusion) of a multi-crew environment - which it seems was at least part of the equation in the Air France event. Add to that the use of automation which can mask an impending stall as it dutifully attempts to maintain altitude, VSI etc until it runs out of trim and departs controlled flight.

Some aircraft limitations don't allow going past shaker, and even if you did, the pusher takes over to keep you from ever getting into a stall. This relegates stall training to the sim only, which has obvious limitations in realism and, depending on the sim, doubtful performance characteristics.

Stall awareness has been a priority training item lately in sim training. I was at one time taught only to take the aircraft to the first indication, and immediately recover - so as to build good recovery habits. Lately, there has been an emphasis in taking the aircraft (in the sim) fully into the stall by fighting the pusher and allowing the stall to fully develop. This is negative training in a way, but allows you to see the way the stall develops and how the aircraft recovers. At altitude the recovery can take several thousand feet even in ideal conditions, knowing that it's coming.

I've read in a few places that the stall recovery mentality has shifted dramatically in light of recent events from "Hold the attitude and power out of it to minimize altitude loss" to "let the nose drop, lower the AOA, accept altitude loss, get the wing flying well again, then recover."

I think a Citabria would be a great asset to have around flight departments for pilots to maintain basic skills - not just stall awareness. It's probably a great idea for pilot proficiency - particularly in an operation where driving the big iron, your hand flying is often relegated to the first and last 200' AGL. However, a Citabria wing does not stall anything like a super-critical wing at altitude.

[cgzro]

What is the trigger mechanism for a stick shaker/pusher? I presume there is an AOA detector that triggers them? What happens if that gets iced up and fails?

[Big Pistons Forever]

My guess is all the guys saying " just giver" in all stall training have never flown large turbine powered aircraft. A full stall in say a 767 is a whole different animal than one in a Citabria.

For jet airliners I see full stalls as the same as V1 cuts. The place for this is a representative
simulator. The problem is no one wants to make the investment in expanding the simulation envelop to accurately model the aircraft characteristics at the extremes of the flight envelop.

The perceived lack of stall training, is really a subset of the broader problem, ensuring that pilots attain and maintain the skills to recover control of the aircraft no matter what attitude it is in. The lack of skill in this area starts, IMO, in the PPL and worse continues at the CPL. The CPL stall exercises are totally unrepresentative of how pilots actually get into trouble and the CPL almost totally lacks any exercises that require fine aircraft control.

One of my big pet peeves is how badly all of the fresh CPL students fly when they start my instructor course.

[PilotDAR]

Not all aircraft stall the same

Yes, I quite acknowledge that, and I have never stalled (nor even flown) a jet. However, one way or another, they all must demonstrate the design requirements I pasted earlier. (some with help, I think) In my opinion, when all else goes wrong, a pilot should have an aircraft which can be commanded nose down, and the pilot should do that by instinct at the onset of a stall. If you've allowed the plane to stall, you don't get to keep your altitude - that is what you just foolishly wasted, you just don't know it for two more seconds. Powering out is a fool's failed attempt at a solution, so I'm delighted to hear that training is going away from that. What really alarms me is that a training pilot/instructor could be so gullible as to be talked into training that at all!

Ultimately, in any aircraft, if you get the nose down, and let it accelerate, it's coming out of the stall, if you continue to fly it safely - pilots just need to do that! Who wasn't trained that in basic flight training? Who trained away from that basic truth of piloting sometime later in their career? Why did they listen?

EVERY plane I fly, gets repeatedly stalled through the break, and I demonstrate recovery from a nose down attitude, power off first - then I work up the power. I was once told to demonstrate a spin entry in a Lake Amphibian at 75% power (because we'd increased the installed power). Why, I asked, would a pilot be entering a spin at 75% power? I know I have to demonstrate it power off, all singles do, but with power? Yup. Well, it snap rolled, and I never did that again! Now I see it, the silly pilot would enter a spin at 75% power, because one foolish instructor taught that pilot to power out instead of lowering the nose, and the other foolish instructor taught them to not coordinate their entry flying with conservative appropriate use of the ailerons approaching the stall, so, yes, you'd have a spin entry at high power - 'cause that's what the silly pilot had commanded!

Back to basic flight training....