Recovery from inadvertent inverted flight?

[Strega]

Peter,

I was thinking about doing the same..

Can you post a vid of the altitude loss from a split s recovery? (even from 1.0002 VSO) and then maybe show the altitude loss from rolling out...( any maybe even a slow roll )

SPLIT S recovery is STUPID (once again in bold for BPF) -this will be evident in Peters' upcoming vids.

[Big Pistons Forever]

SPLIT S recovery is STUPID (once again in bold for BPF) -this will be evident in Peters' upcoming vids.

Now you have gone and hurt my feelings and here I thought we were getting on so well........

[Strega]

Now you have gone and hurt my feelings and here

Im sorry you feel that way. Perhaps the student that you almost killed felt the same...

[Big Pistons Forever]

Now you have gone and hurt my feelings and here

Im sorry you feel that way. Perhaps the student that you almost killed felt the same...

Now you really, really, have hurt my feelings with the personal attacks

[Strega]

Now you really, really, have hurt my feelings with the personal attacks

Im sorry you feel that way.

[AirFrame]

If you're 60 degrees nose down, inverted, wouldn't you lose a fair bit of altitude in the roll, perhaps comparable to the altitude you'd lose just pulling the nose through to 60 degrees nose down, upright? Once you're rolled upright, still 60 degrees nose down, you're in the same situation as if you've pulled through to that point. Perhaps better off, even... While rolling your nose will probably drop further before you get upright, so you have to pull back anyway.

My gut feeling, and i'm open to someone explaining why i'm wrong, is that if you were to pull through with higher G, that you'd cause more drag due to G-induced drag and the increased AOA on the wing, than if you were to roll at 1G first. That could translate into slower speed buildup as you plummet towards the ground.

Of course, this really only applies to airplanes where rolling takes any significant amount of time... In most aerobatic airplanes rolls are pretty quick so the time to do half of one is pretty low. Mind you, they'll also take higher G-loadings so maybe a 4-5G pullout isn't a bad idea either. Or maybe *pushing*, going inverted, and then rolling upright once you're not heading at the ground anymore.

I think there are too many variables to say "never" do anything. They result in strong opinions based on each poster's exposure and understanding of only a subset of those variables.

As to 95/100% of people pulling back when faced with this situation? It's one of the programmed responses in the human brain. When we get into panicked, near-death (or perceived near-death) situations, we tend to clench into the foetal position. Knees raise, and arms clench in to the torso. Typically that pulls the stick into your gut, and sometimes the throttle to idle. I don't think this response can be avoided, other than by teaching yourself that this *isn't* a panic situation, by trying it (in an appropriate airplane with an appropriate instructor) and learning that it can be recovered from safely.

[Strega]

If you're 60 degrees nose down, inverted, wouldn't you lose a fair bit of altitude in the roll

No, you can push a bit, and roll.

erhaps comparable to the altitude you'd lose just pulling the nose through to 60 degrees nose down, uprigh

To split s from this condition, you need to change 120 degrees of pitch, with a significant segment at high speed, pointed straight at the ground-- not good

is that if you were to pull through with higher G, that you'd cause more drag due to G-induced drag and the increased AOA on the wing, than if you were to roll at 1G first

you are correct, pulling at max G will provide the maximum induced drag, however, when in a split s condition, it is very easy to accelerate well beyond Va and put yourself in a situation to grossly over stress the aircraft, not to mention be pointed at the dirt in a downline at very high (accelerating) speed

Or maybe *pushing*, going inverted, and then rolling upright once you're not heading at the ground anymore.

This might save your life one day.. go find someone with an aerobatic plane, and practice. A++++ from me, and many others on this site.

[cgzro]

Peter,
Can you post a vid of the altitude loss from a split s recovery? (even from 1.0002 VSO) and then maybe show the altitude loss from rolling out...( any maybe even a slow roll )
SPLIT S recovery is STUPID (once again in bold for BPF) -this will be evident in Peters' upcoming vids.

Sure but I can tell you more less the results in a Pitts, if i could not id be dead already. I would not try it in anything less strong.

- inverted pull through at negative vso would be about 750ft with 6g at the bottom and say 190mph.
exact results depend on g profile and density altitude etc. that would break most non acro planes.

- let nose drop to say 100mph and roll, perhaps 100ft lost, important to have enough speed to roll else you get an inverted snap which if you are clever you could stop upright.

- from an inverted 60 down line the pull through likely would be too dangerous to try unless the pull was initiated about 100mph and 6g maxing out at 200mph and i guess 900ft or so. Youd better be going awfully slow on that inverted 60.

Note i dont want to get into a food fight here I simply object to the 60 down inverted pull through statement. There are clearly cases where you could pull through safely but you must be practically stalled at the time and pretty high. Most upsets happen low and slow or high and fast making the circumstances for a successful pull through more rare.. But not impossible.

[Strega]

Peter,

Why not make it simple, make a video of 2.5 gs max, starting off real slow inverted at 45 degrees nose down (a bit tough, but Im sure you can do it) ..and see what your airspeed is at the bottom Im guessing your pitts is as draggy as most

S

[Creston]

Rick Stowell's upset recovery mantra.
Power, Push and Roll.

ex Base to final: Firewall power, push and roll.
ex Cruise power flight: pull power, push and roll.
Push keeps the nose up, unloads the wings and increases the roll rate or something like that.

Citabria:
80 mph, power off, Spilt S: 600 feet loss. (intentional)
80 mph, power 2200 rpm, Split S: I did not catch the altitude loss as was too shaken up by the needle at 155 mph and the resultant pull and Gs generated.(not so intentional)

[cgzro]

If you're 60 degrees nose down, inverted, wouldn't you lose a fair bit of altitude in the roll, perhaps comparable to the altitude you'd lose just pulling the nose through to 60 degrees nose down, upright?

The altitude loss and speed G buildup are ferocious, everything squares so small differences in entry magnify dramatically on exit. Experience it a few times youll get it quickly. We cant teach it on the internet.

My gut feeling, and i'm open to someone explaining why i'm wrong, is that if you were to pull through with higher G, that you'd cause more drag due to G-induced drag and the increased AOA on the wing, than if you were to roll at 1G first. That could translate into slower speed buildup as you plummet towards the ground.

I fly draggy biplanes, they build up speed ferociously, slippery monoplanes are worse. What can i say you hold near stall AOA and you go from 100 to 200 mph and 6 G. The plane does not behave as per your gut, thats why doing /training are so critical because gut is often wrong.

Of course, this really only applies to airplanes where rolling takes any significant amount of time... In most aerobatic airplanes rolls are pretty quick so the time to do half of one is pretty low. Mind you, they'll also take higher G-loadings so maybe a 4-5G pullout isn't a bad idea either. Or maybe *pushing*, going inverted, and then rolling upright once you're not heading at the ground anymore.

If it rolls slow it also pulls slow and has very low ultimate g loading and vne, va. All the more reason to just get a bit of speed push a bit and roll. You may well loose 500 ft but you wont be going 200mph at the bottom. Still not good but better.

I think there are too many variables to say "never" do anything. They result in strong opinions based on each poster's exposure and understanding of only a subset of those variables.

Yes but you need more carefully controlled altitude and speed to survive the pull so in general its far safer.

As to 95/100% of people pulling back when faced with this situation? It's one of the programmed responses in the human brain. When we get into panicked, near-death (or perceived near-death) situations, we tend to clench into the foetal position. Knees raise, and arms clench in to the torso. Typically that pulls the stick into your gut, and sometimes the throttle to idle. I don't think this response can be avoided, other than by teaching yourself that this *isn't* a panic situation, by trying it (in an appropriate airplane with an appropriate instructor) and learning that it can be recovered from safely.

This is very true, that and ram the ailerons over to lift a wing. Not only is training required but you need repeated exposure to maintain the proper action. Unfortunately most pilots have never seen much past 60 degrees of anything and have no idea whats out there and reading is no help because of misinformation. Do it in a plane, it wont lie to you.

[cgzro]

Peter,
Why not make it simple, make a video of 2.5 gs max, starting off real slow inverted at 45 degrees nose down (a bit tough, but Im sure you can do it) ..and see what your airspeed is at the bottom Im guessing your pitts is as draggy as most

2.5g is going to be smoking at the bottom. Id do it the other way around. Start at 6g and work the g down to a vne exit which is going to be well above 2.5g i guess. Hard to say as i dont use less than 4 in general.

Have to aim the cam right, find a mounting point.

Hell i could even simulate very slow roll rate recoveries.

Needs some planning as its dangerous..unlike typing on the internet.

[Strega]

You think it would be smoking in a pitts at 2.5 G split s from 1.00003 Vso and 45 degrees nose down inverted?

I wonder how fast you would be going in, lets say, a multi retract? (with the gear up)

[Big Pistons Forever]

You think it would be smoking in a pitts at 2.5 G split s from 1.00003 Vso and 45 degrees nose down inverted?

I wonder how fast you would be going in, lets say, a multi retract? (with the gear up)

Well in the Seneca I was about 10 mph below Vne so there is your answer.

Now here is a question for you. Go and re-read the account of my upset in the seneca and tell at what point in the upset was the aircraft in the maximum amount of danger ?

[cgzro]

If you could be at vso RIGHT before the pull at 45 nose down then yes I could see getting level with 3 g and 200mph in a Pitts. If I started level at vso inverted and flew a second on that 45 then no. Problem is not many ways to be 45 nose down inverted and at vso. A half snap from a level upright stall would do that, and I could possible show that.

Anyway bottom line its a pretty rare circumstance when it would work but not impossible.

[Strega]

Go and re-read the account of my upset in the seneca and tell at what point in the upset was the aircraft in the maximum amount of danger ?

I (and others might agree) when the student started doing improper things, and both people in the front became passengers for moment or two.

[AirFrame]

Good thoughts from Peter, thanks. I suspect an aerobatic pilot in an aerobatic airplane has many more options available, both in skillset and in aircraft capability. But while I think [push and] roll is my "go-to" solution, I'm not convinced it's right for everyone at all times.

From personal experience: A loop in the RV can be done at cruise power from level flight, entering at 170-180 mph with a 4g pull. If you ease off to 1g at the top, and then ease it back in as you come down the backside, you'll end up right where you started, same altitude and airspeed. Airspeed when you're nose down vertical on the backside is about 100mph, and you only gain another 70-80mph before you're level.

A half-cuban (5/8 loop to the 45 degree downline, then roll upright) can be exited at the entry altitude as well, but that's with pauses before and after the roll (to show your 45 degree line to the judges... ). Without the delays, rolling would bring you upright much faster, so if you were looking to get upright quickly and then do a quick pull to stop the descent, I agree rolling might be quicker. Again, this is in an aerobatic airplane with good roll authority.

If it rolls slow it also pulls slow...

This has not been my experience in single engine non-aerobatic monoplanes. Cessna 150/152/140/170/L-19/190 all roll relatively slowly... But can pitch very rapidly. The RV is much better balanced in that regard, I definitely feel I get more "equal" response if I move the ailerons a certain amount vs. moving the elevator the same amount.

Here's another question: What angle off vertical is the threshold for pull vs. roll?

If you're 90 degrees to the ground, I don't think anyone would argue that just pulling is probably your fastest option. But given that it takes time to roll, and if you're not vertical the nose will probably drop further towards vertical while you're rolling anyway, maybe if you're 80, 70, or even 60 degrees to the ground, inverted, in an airplane that rolls really slowly, pulling might still be a reasonable option.

[trampbike]

Here's another question: What angle off vertical is the threshold for pull vs. roll?

If you're 90 degrees to the ground, I don't think anyone would argue that just pulling is probably your fastest option. But given that it takes time to roll, and if you're not vertical the nose will probably drop further towards vertical while you're rolling anyway, maybe if you're 80, 70, or even 60 degrees to the ground, inverted, in an airplane that rolls really slowly, pulling might still be a reasonable option.

Strega would probably tell you pulling through would be incredibly stupid and dangerous in all cases...

There is obviously a range of energy states and attitudes where pulling through is better than roll/pull. It is going to depend on so many different factors that I don't think it'd be wise to come up with a straight answer like "beyond this pitch attitude and roll angle: PULL"

[Strega]

Strega would probably tell you pulling through would be incredibly stupid and dangerous in all cases.

No... if you on a 90 degree down line, pulling is the only option.

If you are in inverted flight, recovery by doing a split s is stupid, and dangerous.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Go and re-read the account of my upset in the seneca and tell at what point in the upset was the aircraft in the maximum amount of danger ?

I (and others might agree) when the student started doing improper things, and both people in the front became passengers for moment or two.

You are of course correct I made some big, big mistakes going into that mess. Mistakes which I took full ownership of in an earlier post. I will be more specific in my question. From the moment the Seneca stalled to the moment it was back in cruise flight, at which point was it in the maximum danger ?

The answer to that will be a good test of deeply you understand upset scenarios.

[LousyFisherman]

My point was people need aerobatic and or upset training.

This!

As an expert with 6 hours of aerobatic training the point I think people are missing is that an untrained pilot will not be able to execute either maneuver successfully unless they are extremely lucky.

Most pilots do not realize the amount of rudder required for a roll, since they have never witnessed the amount of yaw when only ailerons are used.

The first time a pilot is inverted they become entranced. My first loop, as we came over the top, I hear my instructor "talking firmly" Power off, power off, pull back, pull back! After I apologized, he said "Don't worry, everyone does that the first time"

My rule was the "first time I go inverted I want someone with me who has been there before". After 6 hours my rule is "the next time I go inverted I want someone with me who has been there before"

YMMV
LF

[cgzro]

6 hours

Very perceptive comments. In fact its worse than you state. Not only will almost everybody freeze or pull or grab the control column when inverted the first time, they will revert to this behavior without some repeated exposure.

90 degree

Yes of course at 90 its pull only but here again I bet most people would not use a minimum altitude loss procedure because its counter intuitive. We all know to use full power for a minimum radius turn but the same is true for a minimum raduis pull.

At what angle is a pull vs roll and pull best is of course highly dependent on roll rate and technique, speed, rudder use etc. To answer that you would need a bunch of experiments in different aircraft types.

Upset training is good because it forces you to experience these positions and judge how to get upright. So at the very least you have a bit of brain letf to think your way through rather than simply go along for the ride..thats half the battle.

[PilotDAR]

Not only will almost everybody freeze or pull or grab the control column when inverted the first time, they will revert to this behavior without some repeated exposure.

During my young and foolish years, (which I think are over), I had enough time in my friend's Aerobat to be very comfortable with loops and rolls. He suggested I take is just about to be PPL son to experience some basic aerobatics. Okay..

Somewhat past vertical up the loop I was flying, I hear "Oh I don't like this....." as I feel a firm push from his control wheel. We experienced some negative Gs as the poor plane bunted over at high power, and sort of snap/torque (such as an Aerobat has) rolled out. I recovered the mess, and we agreed that he would not do that again.

Happily, he is now an internationally recognized aerobatic airshow pilot....

[Big Pistons Forever]

Strega:

While arguing with you was mildly entertaining, I find it has now become tiresome so this is my final post on this thread

I related a story about an upset incident that occurred in a Seneca 1 when a Multi rating training flight went very badly wrong. The cause of that event was my failure as an instructor to prevent the students wholly inappropriate control input from causing the aircraft to depart controlled flight.

In course of the event description I mentioned that after regaining control of the aircraft I effected a recovery to straight and level erect flight by pulling through.

Your response to this was an immediate attack starting with an accusation that I advocated pulling out rather than the push and roll method as the preferred method of recovering from an upset. Despite repeated attempts to try to convince you that I did not say or indeed believe that, you kept on hammering on.

It seems to me you have tied your self worth as an aviator to the idea that there can never be a circumstance where pulling through would be a viable recovery method.

So along comes the apostate BPF who dares to spout heresy. He casually mentions that he did the forbidden thing and did not suffer death or even exceeded an aircraft limitation. I can see how such a revelation could be very damaging to your belief system.

But here is the thing. In this pretty unusual set of circumstances, with thing happening very quickly indeed, I used my aerobatic training and experience to make a decision on how to recover. That decision was to pull through and it worked fine.

It seems you will be only satisfied if I make a tear stained confession of how I did it wrong and how very much I wished I had followed the path to enlightenment as articulated by brother Strega, the one true keeper of the faith.

Well, that is not going to happen so Get over it !

[trampbike]

Strega would probably tell you pulling through would be incredibly stupid and dangerous in all cases.

No... if you on a 90 degree down line, pulling is the only option.

If you are in inverted flight, recovery by doing a split s is stupid, and dangerous.

There is a whole spectrum of attitudes and energy states in between... That was AirFrame question: at which point should you pull. The answer is not a simple: 90deg, everything else is stupid and dangerous.

So 90 degrees you say PULL, inverted you say ROLL... Black and white. Easy

What about 89deg? 88? 87?... not so easy, not so black and white. At some point, for many combination of attitudes and energy states, the roll would not be the optimal thing.