Stall Recovery Technique

[Flying Lawyer]

SN-2011/08: Stall Recovery Technique (http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=33&pagetype=65&appid=11&mode=detail&id=4624)

[Pace]

Powering out of a stall is common on jets where on the Citation the technique is to hold the attitude while applying full thrust until the aircraft flies out.
I have never seen that technique taught in light piston aircraft?

Pace

[Big Pistons Forever]

Powering out of a stall is common on jets where on the Citation the technique is to hold the attitude while applying full thrust until the aircraft flies out.
I have never seen that technique taught in light piston aircraft?

Pace

As a result of the Colgan and Air France crashes both the FAA and Transport Canada have both issued advisories noting the importance of reducing AOA by pitching down during a stall recovery. I recently completed an intial type rating on a large T-prop airliner and this came up in the post ride debrief.

In any case I still teach flying and I have always emphasized the importance of forward stick, followed by full power and rudder as required to prevent Yaw, as the correct response to a stall.

[CharlieJuliet]

I am really happy that the large aircraft world has finally accepted that the only way out of a full stall is to reduce the angle of attack, and not to try and power out. Powering out may be possible in a high performance fighter, but is unlikely to be possible in the average airliner. It seems as if the non GA world is now experiencing a transformation in stall recovery techniques. Comments?

[bingofuel]

The citation has a stick shaker, and the recovery is full power and select flap on activation of the stick shaker , whilst maintaining attitude. So by definition is not a stall recovery but a low airspeed, high angle of attack recovery scenario

[TractorBoy]

I did a short course a few years ago on spinning and spin recovery from a fully developed one (in a Firefly)

One of the exercises we did prior to the spin recovery lesson was applying full power in a stall (in a C152) to see what happened. The result was somewhat alarming, as the moment I applied full power the starboard wing decided to fall out of the sky, followed by my stomach and the rest of the aircraft. Even then, all I had to do to kill the stall was to centralise the controls.

It showed me very graphically that the way to kill as stall was to reduce the angle of attack, and not to apply full power.

[mrmum]

The ONLY way to unstall an aircraft is to reduce the angle of attack. I don't think anyone has said anything different to this, what has perhaps been debatable is how exactly we achieve this reduction in AoA. We should also be careful with terms, not to confuse AoA and pitch attitude. In a typical light aircraft training scenario, we reduce AoA by lowering the nose. However the AoA is that between the chord line of the aerofoil and the relative airflow, so you could also reduce AoA by changing the vector of the relative airflow, which is what is happening if you "power out of a stall".

[Pace]

Accept that in the CAA doc

Note 1 Any manufacturers recommended stall recovery takes precedence over the advice by the CAA. So what i read into that is until the manufacturers change their recovery recommendations thats what we have to keep doing?
In the Citation thats not to pitch forward!

Pace

[mrmum]

Indeed, can't see the CAA overriding the manufacturer's recommendations/POH/flight manual, so I guess you'll just keep on doing what Cessna says for the Citation. Which is reduce AoA by moving the relative airflow vector (with lots of thrust) while holding a constant pitch attitude, is it not?

We seem to be talking about light aircraft a lot here, when really, if you read the safety notice carefully, the CAA concerns come from observations of SFI's and TRI's, which really excludes any relevance to SEP/MEP class aircraft. You would take it that they are really aiming at turbo-prop and jet aircraft operators, but for some reason have made it applicable to all GA pilots, all FE's & FI's and all FTO's & RF's.

[Pace]

MRMUM

Point taken and that whats puzzled me as I have never known an instructor teaching powering out of a stall in piston singles or twins.

In the Citation I have done stall recovery from clean to full flap/gear to flap app and in banked turns in the aircraft.

Once I reverted to a normal recovery pitching forward and the height loss was significantly higher with a scolding from the examiner.
Will have to e mail him for a response as to these recommendations.

Pace

[sycamore]

Pace,what do you do if you are on one-engine ?

[Contacttower]

In the Citation I have done stall recovery from clean to full flap/gear to flap app and in banked turns in the aircraft.

Is that just to the shaker or do you actually do fully developed?

Have never actually tried it (I've always been taught to release the pressure on the control column while adding power) but I wouldn't have thought most light aircraft are even capable of recovering using power alone, I mean they might just pitch up more making it worse.

[Pace]

http://compair.aviationresearch.com/database_files/TheImage_55.pdf

Contact tower read this ;)

Pace

[mrmum]

I have never known an instructor teaching powering out of a stall in piston singles or twins
Pace, I totally agree, don't recall ever seeing it in SEP/MEP, I expect we all teach reduce AoA by lowering nose/reducing pitch attitude. This is all down to the CAA not targeting the safety notice appropriately, just being lazy, or perhaps covering their a**es by saying it's applicable to everybody.

[Contacttower]

Contact tower read this

OK I'm confused...:confused: I don't know much at Citations but I just assumed from this comment:

The citation has a stick shaker, and the recovery is full power and select flap on activation of the stick shaker , whilst maintaining attitude. So by definition is not a stall recovery but a low airspeed, high angle of attack recovery scenario

...that they had shakers. Or is that just referring to the Citations with swept wings?

[Pace]

Contact tower

The Citation 550 was certified without a stick shaker although I believe many had them fitted as optional extras and the 550 Bravo had them as standard.

Pace

[UV]

Pace
Do you have a maximum altitude for use of the flaps, as on some light jets (eg Falcon)? If so what do you do?
And what about Sycamores question?!
UV

[Pilot DAR]

I understand that a stick shaker is a form of stall warning device. Therefore taking corrective action upon the shake (or horn/light in many other aircraft) is stall avoidance, not recovery. Avoidance is great, unless the purpose is to fully stall the aircraft (training).

A full stall is not caused by reducing power, so application of power is not the appropriate means of recovery - unless the manuafacturer says it is. If so, that procedure is a perversion of the correct technique, as it was not required to be demonstrated for certification.

Though not a design requirement, or the "normal" technique, a Lake Amphibian will generally power out of a stall, with no loss of altitude. Useful for a suddenly aborted water landing - perhaps an oddity.

Reduce AoA using pitch control, to prevent or recover a stall.

[DBTW]

Clearly, being a foreigner, I don't have the full picture. The Safety Note seems to be sending a mixed message. On the basis we are talking about relatively small aircraft, the confusion lies in where the recovery action is commenced. IE: Does the safety notice refer to a stall recovery from a fully developed stall, or to a "recovery during the approach to a stall?"
My interpretation is the latter.

Whilst the standard stall recovery will work in either case, what you do with your nose attitude is possibly different if you are only approaching the stall. Indeed, applying full power at the incipient stall stage should also reduce the angle of attack as a by-product of acceleration. With that in mind, the application of full power will also normally create a pitch up tendency (thus inducing a stall by increasing the AoA) unless the pitch up is prevented (at worst, maintaining the AoA at its pre-stalled state). I therefore interpret that this is what the SN is referring to?

Talking about approaching the stall as distinct to entering one, stick shakers are normally designed to precede the stall. Recovery on activation of the stick shaker would normally be an incipient stall recovery, or a recovery during the approach to a stall, rather than after the aircraft is stalled. One would have thought that whether the aircraft is big or little, it should be able to power out of an incipient stall recovery.

[BEagle]

Nowhere in all this debate has anyone mentioned how far the control column should be moved - or when one should stop moving it.

As the AoA increases, an aircraft will exhibit various stall warnings - these mean 'stop what you're doing, or I'm going to stall'. Once the stall has been reached, the aircraft exhibits stall identification - this means 'see, told you I would!'.

To recover, the application of full power and control column centrally forward whilst maintaining balance is correct. But do not move the column further forward than the point at which the stall warning/ident ceases. Then level wings and recover from any descent - which, if prompt action has been taken at the incipient stage, should be almost zero.

At an early 'incipient' warning, the forward movement of the control column need be only so slight that it's barely noticeable. But maintaining the attitude and selecting full power to 'power out of the stall' (sic) is a fundamentally flawed technique.

The only time I didn't use full power for incipient stall recoveries was when conducting post-maintenance flight test on the VC10K. We had to check that the various warnings occurred at the computes speeds; once we reached the stick shaker 'climb power' alone was sufficient - and better than inducing engine surge by pushing all throttles fully forward. The pitch attitude change needed was very slight. The transport version of the VC10 was taken to the stick pusher, at which point the pilot had little ability to oppose the control column movement - as I once found out when an incorrectly rigged AoA probe triggered the stick pusher during a flapless approach....:\

[Final 3 Greens]

To recover, the application of full power and control column centrally forward whilst maintaining balance is correct. But do not move the column further forward than the point at which the stall warning/ident ceases. Then level wings and recover from any descent - which, if prompt action has been taken at the incipient stage, should be almost zero.

Perhaps it is in the language used to describe the manouever?

The above absolutely reflects what I was asked to do in the USA when checking out for rentals.

When I didn't know the US philosophy, the first time I was asked to recover from a stall (no mention of power on or off), I did a power off with a height loss of about 150 feet and scared the instructor ****less. (He was gracious enough to say it was his fault for not briefing exactly what he wanted, but I did buy him a beer later!)

On his next briefing, he asked me to 'relax the back pressure slighly' and add full power, then explaining that their philosophy was to guard against reaction based aggressive nose down inputs near the ground.

One can see how the 'relax the back pressure slightly' could suffer from the Chinese whispers effect and become 'hold attitude.'

I'm not an instructor and am certainly nowhere near as experienced at flying as other people on the thread, but i do understand human nature and the use of language pretty well.

[Pace]

UV

In what' scenario would you want flaps high level and what do you consider high level ? Obviously you may consider a high altitude airport as high level ?
I have not seen any indication in the manuals of a flap altitude restriction.
Regarding the CAA doc I stress the fact that any manufacturer recommendation overrides their own.
With the citation it isto hold attitude and power out.
Obviously different horses for different courses engine out in a stall I would use my instincts and pitch the nose !

Pace

[TractorBoy]

I may be missing something here, but I thought the fundamental difference between a Citation and a standard GA aircraft is that the Citation is a jet.

Powering out of a stall in a single engine prop aircraft would involve a large increase in torque, producing a sudden increase in yaw - leading to an out of balance situation which produces a dramatic wing drop. I presume this wouldn't happen in a Citation ?

[UV]

I have not seen any indication in the manuals of a flap altitude restriction
OK., just that Falcons have a 20,000 ft limit for flaps.

In what' scenario would you want flaps high level and what do you consider high level
We frequently used flaps, up to F200, when conducting trials for ships, which required certain ground speeds at fixed altitudes.
Stalling exercises too! Usually at F120.

[ariel]

I'm glad BEagle has mentioned the point of how much do you apply forward stick, as it seems to be a misconception to some people that just pushing the control column forward 'will do'

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but I always thought that stick shakers were installed on aircraft whose stall characteristics, (if allowed to develop, whether accidentally or on purpose), are such, that it would be extremely difficult if not impossible, to get out of a fully developed stall. For example, a deep or flat stall situation, (Sometimes seen in aircraft with swept wings)?

If that is so, then surely the 'recovery' techniques described are not recovery at all, but preventative, instigated by the stick shaker?

ariel

[Genghis the Engineer]

Ariel - not quite, stick shakers are a common stall warner on larger aeroplanes, it is stick pushers that tend to get mandated on aeroplanes with poor stalling characteristics.

Fitting both is however fairly common - BAC 1-11 and Jetstream I think both have both.

G

[ariel]

Genghis

Thanks for that. A bit too long with my head OUT of the books, perhaps?!

[Genghis the Engineer]

I suspect a lot of that just comes from spending time around the right aeroplanes - the books are probably wrong or out of date anyhow.

G

[mad_jock]

Jetstream stick shaker goes at 1.1 Vs 1g and push goes at 1.05 Vs 1g and its done off a flap on the leading edge on the j31/32 its done on a AofA sensor on the J41

The shacker goes very occasionally in the flare but more often with full reverse on landing. On a C of A flight check the stick push is rather an eye opener, it gives you 40 deg nose down. I have stalled the 31/32 a couple of times and the stall is less of an issue with the stick push out than when it triggers. The J41 is more forgiving with the safety systems turned on and off.
The J41 is more docile of the 2 in a fully developed stall.

Stick push came in for aircraft with high t tails when the dirty air off the wings blanked the elevators. The authorites like stick pushes and most aircraft are fitted with them for example the 747 doesn't need it for a FAA cert but does for a EU cert

[Genghis the Engineer]

There is a body of opinion in the aircraft certification community that the stick-push operating speed then becomes declared as Vs.

The implications of that are significant because this then inevitably increases 1.3Vs, and thus field lengths.

G

[john_tullamarine]

A couple of observations - at high alpha, lots of sudden power/thrust

(a) usually is destabilising in pitch and may create LSS problems - prop or jet. This is especially so on, for example, piston to turboprop conversions where the prop disc moves further forward for balance and provides an increased arm for the prop normal force moment. With underslung jets, one can add the low thrust line to the destabilising problems.

(b) may generate undesirable yaw - even on single engine machines. This increases the risk of a departure into spin - prop

Unless immediate ground contact be a problem, there is a lot to recommend a technique akin to the usual certification recovery variations - simultaneously rudder to constrain further yaw/pitch down, unstall, wings level, power up and then a recovery to normal flight.

While the larger ME turboprop aeroplanes usually can do the throttles up-power out of stall-trick (used to be good fun on the L188) it always appears to me to be a philosophical and knowledge mismatch between the certification and operations folk to emphasise altitude loss as the principal driver. If immediate ground contact is the present risk, then the risk of LOC is acceptable - if not the former, then why accept the latter ?

[moggiee]

It's worth pointing out that the Flight Crew Operating Manual for (for example) the A320 very strongly makes the point that reducing angle of attack is the primary concern and that power should NOT be applied during the recovery as the pitch up moment that the underslung engines create may make it difficult for the pilot to reduce the AOA.

Of course, if the aeroplane has a pitch DOWN moment with power (like the CRJ series for example) then a simultaneous application of power and reduction in pitch may be appropriate I would suggest, as it would asist with the reduction in AOA. An element of type-specificness (if there is such a word) is obviously necessary.

However, reduction of Angle of Attack will always be the chief aim. That said, I have seen many instructors on light aircraft who will advocate an excessive nose attitude reduction that results in significant (and alarming) loss of height. When I was flying the VC10 on 10 sqn, I did a PPL skills test on a PA28 and the examiner gave me a hard time because I used a small (but sufficient) nose attitude reduction to recover with minimal height loss from an incipient stall. He, it would appear, would have preferred me to do an impression of a Stuka!

[John Farley]

BEags

It seems to me (and I suspect to you) that a lot of people are talking about ‘stall recovery’ from a situation where the wings concerned were not actually stalled.

The idea of powering out of a true stall is dangerous talk. Indeed very dangerous talk if the aircraft happens to have a low thrust line.

Powering out from a situation where you are approaching the alpha at which a stall is going to happen if you continue to do what you have been doing is quite another thing and of course no problem.

I read the article Pace asked somebody to read it had this in it:

“Obviously, swept wings would have flown like swept wings, which means challenging stall characteristics, relatively high approach speeds with a tendency toward dutch-roll problems during those “hot” approaches.”

Sounds like something written in the 1950s (although it had a 1986 publishing date on it).

Today it reads like a second hand salesman’s pitch when trying to justify a design’s lack of sweep. Today educated people know how to design swept wings that are as benign at high alpha as you could wish for.

[Pace]

John

Having come from a multi piston invironment my instincts are to pitch and power out of a stall.

In a flight test the examiner blew my head off when I reverted to my instinctive reaction to a stall and made me do the procedure again holding the nose level going for thrust and powering out.

When I pitched out the altitude loss was far greater than the manufacturers and examiners method.

Obviously different aircraft require different methods hence I presume the CAA noting that the manufacturers recommendations over ride their own advice.

Pace

[Contacttower]

But in the test Pace had the aircraft actually stalled, or was it about to stall when you were supposed to recover?

[Genghis the Engineer]

For what it's worth, I'm in the middle of a test programme at the moment looking at different single engine light aeroplanes and their responses to four different stall recoveries:

- Simultaneous full power and pitch (what the CAA recommend)
- Pitch, then full power immediately the wing appears unstalled (what the FAA recommend)
- Pitch, 2 second pause, full power
- Full power holding stick back, 2 second pause, pitch nose-down.

A lot of work to be done yet, and a number of common types we want to fly. However, we've flown 8 types so far (9, but we've not analysed data on the 9th yet).

All recovered first time every time to both the CAA and FAA recoveries, the CAA version however averaged 2/3 the height loss in recovery of the FAA recovery. The 2 second pause didn't add much height loss compared to the FAA method but was much more comfortable to fly with the aeroplane "feeling" far more controllable.

On a couple of occasions aeroplanes recovered with power only gave a really lovely minimal height loss recovery. On rather more occasions (and this could depend upon flaps) other types did show secondary departure with a few knife-edge rolls or incipient spins when power was applied first without pitch.

Much more work to be done, more aeroplanes to be flown, and a paper to be go through peer review before we publish this - so a year or so more than likely. But it seemed pertinent to the discussion.

G

[CJ Driver]

I believe Pace is describing the recovery from incipient stall (the shaker) in which case the wing has not yet stalled. Adding power in a Citation in those circumstances will indeed "power out" of the impending stall without loss of altitude, and it is therefore a reasonable strategy, especially close to the ground. An additional item on the list mentioned by others is that if the wing is "clean", selecting the first stage of flap is also one of the memory items. This immediately reduces the angle of attack of the wing - combined with the addition of power, recovery is instant and assured.

On the other hand, with a fully developed stall in a Citation, unless you have a death wish and have cranked the trim all the way back, you WILL be pulling firmly on the control column (and descending). Easing the back pressure will quickly reduce the AOA and unstall the wing - but we will still be descending until we add power and let it accelerate.

[John Farley]

I agree with you. In my view so called stall recovery training in aircraft and sims is about recovering from the incipient stage. Sadly the terrible emphasis on minimising height loss has had some very bad results recently.

There are signs that the 'authorities' are starting to realise this.

[Pilot DAR]

An example of trading controlled flight for stalled flight can be seen here (if I made the link work this time!)

‪BELLANCA CRASH‬‏ - YouTube

Though I don't want to appear to second guess the pilot's choice to stretch a glide, and thus stall the plane, to get to the intended landing spot, I suggest that a much better landing would have been possible if control of the aircraft were to have been maintained in unstalled flight. Perhaps the pilot had absolutely no choice, but to stretch to there, and if so, fair enough, but this aircraft flew quite a long way in partially stalled flight, and cross the final approach obsticle with excess altitude, which might have been better exchanged for more controlled flight, and a lower impact landing.

If you have stalled "close to the ground" your duty as the pilot is to recover to controlled flight without hitting the ground. Recovering to minimum altitude loss is foolish, and riskes a worse situation if poorly executed, with a greater altitude loss than otherwise would have occurred. I'd rather brush treetops in controlled flight, than descend into them in stalled flight, from a botched effort to minimize altitude loss.

Once you give up the power off energy associated with speed, it's hard to get back, without loosing a whole lot more altitude. The recent "retracting flaps" thread touches on this too, it's a similar theme.

[IO540]

Surely what one does depends on how much altitude you have to play with.

There is no doubt that AF447 (which pretty obviously is what the CAA's horse bolting exercise is based on) had plenty of altitude to play with.

The opposite extreme is the typical GA stall scenario, which isn't going to happen enroute (unless doing some weird stuff like 89 degree turns above your girlfriend's house) and the only place it might happen is in the base to final turn, when you have very little altitude to play with, and then the only possible recovery is a combination of a concurrent nose-down push, level wings if they are not level, and powering out of it.

In the FAA IR unusual attitude recovery they expect to see stall recovery with minimal altitude loss but you do have to take rapid action which means concurrent nose down and max power. One usually does it with a loss of a few hundred feet.

It gets more interesting when probing one's operating ceiling e.g. a TB20 at FL200, or FL180 on an ISA+10 day carrying 3 plus the kitchen sink. You are already at the absolute max available power anyway (150F ROP or so) so the only way is to descend a bit... last time I was doing this I was approaching this (http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m74/peterh337/alps-201008.jpg) and we were already at FL174, so with the MEA ahead being FL180 the only option was a re-route :)

[bingofuel]

and the only place it might happen is in the base to final turn,I think departure stalls are are greater risk, full power, nose high, and the tendency to overbank in the climb, has a very high risk of stalling in a less forgiving configuration.

It amazes me the number of people who happily bank to 30deg + on the climb out without a care in the world

and then the only possible recovery is a combination of a concurrent nose-down push, level wings if they are not level, and powering out of it

Could I also suggest the correct technique is reduce angle of attack, apply full power and once the warnings of stall have gone ,only then level the wings and climb away. Applying aileron at an angle of attack near the stall can stall the downgoing aileron which will result in the exact opposite of what you expect the wing will drop not rise.

[IO540]

Yes; agreed. If you are really stalled then it's best to leave the ailerons alone, initially.

[Gipsy Queen]

I'm astonished that umpteen years after the Wright brothers, this subject is still being discussed in such a basic way. Makes me wonder about the aerial competence of younger people.

"The only time I didn't use full power for incipient stall recoveries was when conducting post-maintenance flight test on the VC10K. We had to check that the various warnings occurred at the computes speeds; once we reached the stick shaker 'climb power' alone was sufficient - and better than inducing engine surge by pushing all throttles fully forward. The pitch attitude change needed was very slight."

Well, I know almost nothing about the VC10 but having flown as a passenger in a number, can confirm yet another opportunity lost by the British government/aircraft industry. Lovely aircraft. I know even less about turbine management but I would have thought that by the time the things had speeded up to "climb power", the nose might have dropped anyway. I wonder if we are talking about recovery from incipient spin conditions or a full-blown, fully stalled wing drop twirly wirly? Wouldn't fancy the latter with that T-tail. From my own experience, I would prefer to initiate recovery based on ASI information and not the gizmos but I appreciate they had to be tested.

Many years ago, I shared a breakfast with Capt. "Flaps" Rendall at Frankfurt when we were both grounded by weather. Don't suppose that would help much in spin recovery. :ugh:

Gipsy Queen.

[BEagle]

I was referring to recovery at the stall warning stage; this occurs a fair while before the actual stall. The control column is used to define a pitch attitude; there is no question of the 'nose dropping' at this early stage. All climb power does is to minimise height loss by accelerating to normal cruise speed as quickly as is reasonably possible.

ASI information is emphatically NOT the primary reference for stall recovery!

'Flaps' was indeed a fine chap - as are his son and grand-daughter. She captained the last ever flight of an ex-airline standard VC10 when, on 27 Mar 2001, we flew ZA142 (G-ARVI) to its final resting place at RAF St Athan after 17 years of busy AAR operations with 101 Sqn. Probably the only aeroplane to have had 3 generations of the same family flying it as Captain! Nasty crosswind on a short, wet runway - she did very well.

[Jude098]

we are taught 2 stall recoveries on the C152..........standard (control column only, i.e. CC foward till buffet stops+stall warner off - airspeed rises to 70kts -ease out of dive- climbing attitude...when less than 90kts - full power)and minimum height loss recovery(CC forward+full power+opp rudder...use elevator/aileron/rudder to ease gently out of dive) and one of my instructors is a CAA examiner.

Does the CAA notification mean that on my skills test I should now only use the standard recovery? Or still do both?

[Genghis the Engineer]

Jude

Your "standard" is only usually an intermediate learning tool. What you've described as "minimum height loss" is the standard CAA recovery.

"Opposite rudder" is something you only do in a developed spin - simply use rudder to keep the ball in the middle. I suspect this is just a terminology issues and I can't imagine that you were taught anything except that.

Worth discussing with your instructor, but I imagine they will advise you to use this "minimum height loss" recovery in your skill test.

Just don't EVER apply power first, and you should be fine.

G

[Cows getting bigger]

Yes, the stall recovery without power is a demonstration tool use to highlight the need to reduce AoA using pitch. Once you have that concept, you should then be taught how power will help minimise loss of altitude.

[Pace]

I believe Pace is describing the recovery from incipient stall (the shaker)

CJ

The Citation 550 was not certificated with a stick shaker although many are fitted with the device.

I will have to get a more definative answer but holding attitude with the nose on the horizon and powering out is the " STALL " recovery method taught on the 550.

This goes against my instincts too and my guess is that this recovery is taught because of the large altitude loss pitching the nose even a small amount in this jet.

But no mention of incipient.

Pace

[mad_jock]

Pace I would presume though to fly the Citation with the nose on the horizon this would mean that you would have had to reduce the AoA from the stalling attitude which I presume would be about 15-20 degrees nose up?

So it is the same as the CAA recommendation ie reduce the AoA. Its just giving you an attitude to go for. Which isn't a bad idea in my opinion because it stops folk sticking the nose way down more than required which is another very common fault. And a slippery beast like the citation I would presume that giving it 5-10degs nose down at full power is going to get you through Vmo pretty quick.

[Pace]

Interesting I read two reports on a canard and husky flight test.
The canard in the stall purely stalled the canard dropping the nose and uninstalling the canard.
Stick back and the aircraft sat bobbing up and down.
The other was a Husky where the pilot put in full aft stick and holding the stick back just added full power. The aircraft kicked it's heals and climbed away.
The Citation in a full stall has a tendency to drop the nose adding forward pressure would give a v high descent rate.
The CAA added that the manufactures Recommendations override their own recommendations.

Pace

[mad_jock]

Must admit I quite like that the citation does have an attitude to go for.

Saves any discussions on the debrief, in essance its the same as the CAA but it has a defined limits to the nose attitude acceptable. Gets rid of personal interpretation by the examinor

[bingofuel]

Pace , I am confused , you initially posted

Powering out of a stall is common on jets where on the Citation the technique is to hold the attitude while applying full thrust until the aircraft flies out.You are now saying put the nose on the horizon.

I suspect one of the proabable scenarios for a stick shaker activation on a basic small jet without autothrottle would be the level of ,after a descent, with the failure to reapply power. The autopilot will level the aircraft at the preselected altitude but the throttles will remain at idle or reduced power.
As the aircraft slows the A/P will trim noseup to maintain altitude until eventually the stickshaker would be activated. Now the nose will be pitched quite high, so are you saying maintain that attitude for stickshaker activation and try to use power alone to accelerate and reduce the angle of attack, or are you now saying, pitch down to the horizon, accept the height loss and achieve a rapid reduction of AofA?

[Pace]

Bingo

I am not always clear. The best way is to describe a created stall in the aircraft clean.

Reduce thrust! handlflying maintain altitude as speed decays. This will obviously increase the AOA. Not all Citation 2 s have shakers so presume this one doesnt as the shaker is clouding the issue.

At the onset of the stall instant full thrust while initially holding the attitude and ease the column pressure rather than a positive push as speed increases.

This is the way taught for minimal altitude loss in the 550.

The one time I reverted to my normal stall recovery by picthing the nose as well as adding thrust the altitude loss was far greater and resulted in a telling off by the examiner. I have had a number of examiners in the aircraft. They all insist on the same technique.

Levelling off clean is unlikely to result in a stall as the aircraft is pretty slippery 60-70 % N1 will give 200 kts IAS low level so over double the stall speed.
More likely on approach with lots of drag out ie full landing flap and gear or even speedbrakes or back at VREF for landing.
High level climbs where IAS is low.

Pace

[CJ Driver]

Pace,

I'm still inclined to pick at this one a bit more. You describe being "taught" a stall recovery technique, and then demonstrating it to an examiner on several occasions. Based on the use of words, I rather suspect you are still talking about an incipient stall. As far as I know, actually stalling a Citation is not part of the type rating training and check ride, only the approach to the stall and the subsequent recovery.

Exploring the fully developed stall in a multi-engine jet is a specialist subject - which I have had the pleasure of being taught as part of test pilot training. It's quite exciting, and even your examiner may not have seen it done before, so if you really stalled your Citation on a check-ride I am not surprised that you were chastised!

[Pace]

Yes recoveries are at the incipient stage. Where I feel the issue is clouded is the talk of stick shaker stage. The citation 550 was not certificated with a stick shaker. Obviously there are not two recovery methods! One to incipient stall and one to fully developed.
The one to incipient is THE recovery method recommended by Cessna on.the 550.
For recurrents the norm is obviously incipient although I have experienced a full stall with one particular examiner.

Pace