stall recovery

[MichaelP]

Hit rudder

Words

When I was writing CBT training courses for BAe/Swissair flight training the correct use of words was very important especially in an ESL environment.

We apply rudder, we don't hit it!
Let's use correct language when instructing except when we are being deliberately humourous

[Lurch]

OMFG

767 have you discussed this with your CFI? because I'd love to know what they have to say about this. If you truly believe this garbage you shouldn't be embarrassed to discuss your enlightenment with them. It's been done attitude first for 100 years and you have discovered unknown, that thousands of pilots before haven't been able to figure out (oh wait they are dead).

767 your problem is you are ignorant, there are poster on here who have more taxi time then you have total time and you think you know better then them.

One of these days, well hopefully not, you'll fly something with a little more power then the 172. You'll try "your" stall recovery and before your know what is happening you'll be upside down and 1/2 second from death. I just hope you are alone when this happens.

You mention the POH in your attempt to defend this "technique" I'd love you to state what POH this is in and quote it on here.

My student stalled once in a 152, it was a dual flight. If I delayed the power, i would've crashed. It was power first, then nose down.

This is a awesome example of how bad of instructor you are, your student never should have been allowed to get that close to a stall. If you are behind a 152 as an instructor then you have no business in a cockpit.

Personally from reading your posts I don't think you actually know when a airplane stalls.

So you've been instructing now for a little over 1.5 years, this means you should be a Class III, so you have at least 3 student who have flight tested. How have your students been able to get this past the flight test examiner? Your students should be failing the stall and when you do your next instructor flight test TC will test you on the stall. This should hopefully put you back to a class IV.

Lurch

[Dagwood]

There seems to be a misunderstanding among some as to what exactly unstalls an airplane. In ALL cases, it is by reducing the angle off attack. In some cases of light training aircraft, simply adding full power will have the effect of reducing the angle of attack. It is not advisable to teach the latter as it is not applicable to all airplanes, and it does not "fix" the fundamental cause of a stall, which is by definition, exceeding the critical angle of attack.


The first stall I teach is the power-off stall, power-off recovery. I emphasize that this is only a demonstration, and all future stalls will be power-on recovery.

I do this for 2 reasons:

-To emphasize the fact that is isn't the power that will recover you, but a prompt lowering of the AOA; it doesn't have to be much in the 172. After the stall, maybe let the control column go ahead an inch or two (you still need to pull back to hold it there). The airplane will slowly recover from the stall, but it will recover, without power, into a power off descent.

- What happens if they have an engine failure, carb-ice, or any other reason they may not have full power available and get distracted enough to stall the airplane? They need to know to let the nose down immediately before they reach for the power that may not be there.

[ogc]

I was taught stalls a couple of weeks ago.

My training very much followed Dagwoods method.

Power off stalls first

Power on recovery stalls

Wing drops

Then incipient spins.

The method for recovering from a stall I was taught.

Lower nose, apply power, gain airspeed, climb to original altitude.

For a wing drop.

Lower nose and apply rudder, KEEP AILERONS NEUTRAL, apply power, gain airspeed, climb to original altitude.

[767]

So you've been instructing now for a little over 1.5 years, this means you should be a Class III, so you have at least 3 student who have flight tested. How have your students been able to get this past the flight test examiner? Your students should be failing the stall and when you do your next instructor flight test TC will test you on the stall. This should hopefully put you back to a class IV.

Lurch

Im class 2 now. On the 1st flight test, the examiner told my student that "ok enough 4's, i have to give you 3 now".

I wasnt going to reply to your comment(s).

Modi13, Ill be back later to reply, kind of busy right now.... However, this is an interesting discussion.

[767]

OMFG
and you think you know better then them.
Lurch

By having different opinion(s), it does not make me better or worse than someone.

[trampbike]

OMFG
and you think you know better then them.
Lurch

By having different opinion(s), it does not make me better or worse than someone.

I don't think that opinions have anything to do with a physical phenomenon such as stalling. If you want my opinion (which is probably worthless since I'm a noob with 100h), facts are the way to go.

Facts > Opinions

[Lurch]

I wasnt going to reply to your comment(s).

Ok how about you answer my questions then?

This shouldn't be a problem if you truly feel you are correct

767 have you discussed this with your CFI?

You mention the POH in your attempt to defend this "technique" I'd love you to state what POH this is in and quote it on here.

Lurch

[On condition]

OMFG
and you think you know better then them.
Lurch

By having different opinion(s), it does not make me better or worse than someone.

I don't think that opinions have anything to do with a physical phenomenon such as stalling. If you want my opinion (which is probably worthless since I'm a noob with 100h), facts are the way to go.

Facts > Opinions

I am a noob with a 1000 hrs an I concur with your statemant.


If I had a choice of one action to do when an aircraft is stalling, it is to lower the nose. Yes, I am going down, but it is in a controlled manner. Maybe if you had a 400 hp Pitts would power alone solve your problem, but most likely you would enter a nice snap roll at 100 AGL.

One thing I show students is a power off stall and correction with pitch only. Back to the buffet and drop, nose down 'till the stall horn is off. Over and over so they can see what is actually breaking the stall.

Not to ingrain into them that this is all you need to recover the aircraft, but to show them how effective pitch alone is to get the aircraft flying again. Once the student knows that it is angle of attack and not lack of power that is making them stall, the rest is easy.

Lowering the nose should not only be first, but it should be instinctive. A stall is likely going to bite you at the time you are least thinking about it.

You hear that horn, or if you see that airspeed drop, or you hear the wind getting quiet, or you even feel the excessive back pressure on the yoke? Releasing back pressure and checking forward should already be happening.

[mcrit]

Words

When I was writing CBT training courses for BAe/Swissair flight training the correct use of words was very important especially in an ESL environment.

We apply rudder, we don't hit it!
Let's use correct language when instructing except when we are being deliberately humourous

Mmmmmmmhmmmmmmmm......and you should adjust your language to your target audience (something I picked up from a few colloquia over the years......and then passed on when I taught methods courses).

BTW, if my nose is snapping left in a stall situation I'm going to HIT the rudder, not just apply it.

[modi13]

What really concerns me is this: "Lowering the nose and then adding power, hmmm... well, Im not comfortable with that when flying low". Transport Canada developed the curriculum for flight training through decades of experience and research, and their recovery technique, at any altitude, is to lower the nose first. If you're not comfortable performing that, should you really be teaching TC's courses? Would you teach an incorrect spin recovery because you aren't comfortable doing it the way TC laid out? What if, for example, you felt that the application of full power should be the first step to exiting a spin because adding power reduces your rate of descent? It doesn't matter what you feel; what matters is the correct way of doing things, and flying should be done rationally, not through emotion. Would you trust your feelings or your instruments in IMC? If you aren't comfortable teaching people how to fly the way TC has mandated is safe and accurate, stop teaching. You're going to get someone killed because of how you feel.

[MichaelP]

if my nose is snapping left in a stall situation I'm going to HIT the rudder, not just apply it.

If your nose is snapping left, it's because either someone hit you with his left fist (GND), or you were testing 767s idea (AIR)

I thought you kick with your feet and hit with your fists...

In any case, when does anyone need to get violent with an aeroplane?
We 'apply' as much control input as we need and only that much... Things get broken when they are 'hit'.

767 I am looking for another Class 1 or 2 instructor... Do I have your resume?

[Lurch]

767 I am looking for another Class 1 or 2 instructor... Do I have your resume?

I'm tempted to forward this thread to 767s CFI and see what his feelings are of his employees techniques.

Any takers?

Lurch

[paydaymayday]

I would be interested to hear 767 CFI's take on this. What he's doing will end up in injury or death, especially on anything else than a fourbanger cessna. From what he has said on this thread alone I find it very difficult to believe he is a class two instructor.

767, there is nothing bad about being wrong if you admit it, listen to your peers, and learn from it so that you can operate in a much safer, competent way.

Remember, 767: you are teaching students - and you are morally responsible for the basic techniques you teach them on every flight they do, even after they are no longer students. Think long and hard about that.

There is a reason everyone is not in agreement with you. I don't want to sound harsh, but when safety is an issue, I am. You are dangerous.

[Big Pistons Forever]

I actually had a student do exactly what 767 suggested. We were (fortunately) in the C 150 aerobat doing stall training at the near PPL preflight test level, and I was subbing for a sick instructor so I had never flown with this guy. During a power on stall just as the airplane stalled he applied full power the airplane promptly snapped to the left at which point the student reduced back pressure and applied full rudder opposite the roll. This resulted in the airplane stabilized inverted and with the nose about 10 degrees below the horizon. I took over and since we were still quite slow I simply pulled through in a split S manoever. I am quite certain that if he had been solo he would have died. The guys regular instructor ( a new class 4) had done his rating in C172 and emphasiszed how important it was to get the wheel hard back so there is a clean stall break and you get a good score on your flight test.
This had unfortunately conditioned the students to be concious of having full back stick in rather than concentrating on lowering the nose at the stall. You could get away with delaying lowering the nose in a C172 but even a docile trainier like the 150 will punish such silliness.

[Lurch]

I was lucky to not be a witness but a pilot I know wasn't so lucky.

He watched as a new pilot to a Spitfire came in for a landing, low and slow. He watched as the Spit sank quickly then heard the engine go to full power. The spit rolled onto its back and crashed almost instantly. The pilot in front was lucky to have died instantly, the instructor in the back wasn't, he was folded in half and suffered before passing on just as emergency crews arrived.

Don't be a statistic ignore 767s procedure.

Lurch

[FlaplessDork]

Someone should pull his rating or fire his ass. A sudden increase in power is going to cause you to suddenly pitch up deepening the stall due to the increase airflow over the tail. Try a stall simulating an overshoot applying full power with full flaps, turning to the right. You will flip on your back. You'll add full opposite rudder in a vain attempt to recover, but when the rudder doesn't stop the spin you'll add aileron making it flip that much faster. All before you realize what has happened.

[Lurch]

I'm going to quote, from a PM, one of the more experienced instructors on this site, they shall remain nameless.

A better idea in my opinion would to just go back to the Avcanada flight training forum and ask one of the TCCA inspectors to explain why this instructor is allowed to teach such unorthodox rubbish especially when some of it is just plain dangerous.

Believe me TC reads these forums.

Demand that they answer.

Well any TCCA inspectors care to comment????

Lurch

[shitdisturber]

At least with 767's lack of comfort at lowering the nose before adding power in a low level stall recovery the corpses should be identifiable. While the aircraft will most likely enter a spin there shouldn't be enough time for it to go inverted before impact.

[767]

ok fine... lower the nose

everyone happy now?

[paydaymayday]

ok fine... lower the nose

everyone happy now?

Don't do it to keep us happy. Do it to be a competent pilot.

Baaaaaaaaad attitude.

[767]

ok fine... lower the nose

everyone happy now?

Don't do it to keep us happy. Do it to be a competent pilot.

Baaaaaaaaad attitude.

apologies for the bad attitude.. i couldnt resist.

Also, ive noticed, alot of prejiduce on this website (not directed to you paydaymayday). I clearly stated that if your way up there, delaying the stall recovery is not as dangerous when your at a low altitude. And my statements were based on a cessna 172, which i teach on. If your aircraft is different, and adding power first will be a bad thing, then fine, dont add power. I never said to add power in a spin recovery...

Anyways, sorry for any trouble, its kind of pointless going on. However, I decided that when i teach stalls from now on, im going to teach the recovery both ways (at a safe altitude of course), and then ask the student what theyt prefer to do. Then ill come back here and forward the student's feedback to you guys, and if you dont like it, ill advise the student, just for you guys. I hope that solves all..

Once again, I hope no one is offended.

[old_man]

Baaaaaaaaad attitude.

I see what you did there. Clever pun.

[mcrit]

If your nose is snapping left, it's because either someone hit you with his left fist (GND), or you were testing 767s idea (AIR)

Someone will find themselves spitting teeth long before they get a chance to snap my nose either direction on the ground.
If the nose is snapping left in the air then it's doing it because that's what I wanted it to do.

I thought you kick with your feet and hit with your fists...

Hit the road......hit the bricks........hit the pedal........ya wanna argue semantics, we can argue semantics.........

The stall itself requires lowering the nose while applying full power and controlling the yaw.

WORDS

The stall recovery requires release of back pressure. You will find it rather tricky to stall an aeroplane by lowering the nose (I'm told it can be done, but I doubt anybody not flying aerobatics will ever do it). Also if you tell a student to lower the nose you will quite often find the windscreen filling up with green while you float up out of your seat. If you tell them to release back pressure you will find they make much smoother recoveries. It's all in how you word it. How does that quote go......physician heal thyself?

[Shiny Side Up]

It suprises me that to this point no one has simply re-iterated the FTM at this point, but here we are:

A simplified explanation of the procedure for recovering from a stall is:

1. Immediately reduce the angle of attack.
2. Regain a correct flight attitude with coordinated use of the flight controls. Not every situation demands the application of power, but its use must become an integral part of the recovery procedure.

The FTM goes on after that to elaborate upon those two steps, but the basics are pretty cut and dried. The specifics of each of those steps will vary from aircraft to aircraft and depend on the situation. The basics of those steps, step 1. then step 2., remain constant.

I should also say that I've encountered proponents of 767's stall recovery method which I find most distressing, most, if not all of them, were pilots of the same school and flew ultralights. Notably amongst pilots from the same training regimen there is a very high rate of stall/spin accidents, two of which were fatalities, and several resulting in the occupants spending a lot of hospital time (curiously enough, the survivors were never interested in how they could prevent such a re-occurance, but more interested in finding a way to better survive it should it happen again... there's a faulty thought pattern there, but I digress)

I find it a shame that there are some like 767 who simply choose to ignore, for whichever reason, the lessons so dearly bought by our predecessors in the field of aviation. How many do you think perished so that you might have those two little lines in the FTM?

Worst of all I feel is that it is probably one of the most grievious demonstrations on how the current system is inadequate in the training of pilots. I could forgive someone with their minimal groundschool and a handful of hours tooling around in an ultralight not knowing this crucial bit of information on flying. That a graduated instructor has slipped through the cracks and has corrupted those beneath him is simply intolerable. The possibility of him having been taught this by someone who should be at the pinnacle of instructing knowledge is even worse, but completely damning that the prodgeny of his knowledge have corrupted the system is nothing short of a catastrophic failure of the system.

The only saving grace is that since this is the intardnet, 767 might not be able to be accurately conveying what he actually does in the airplane, inadvertently in actuality doing the activity correctly, despite what seems to be a clear misunderstanding of the subject matter.