Action after Stall Recovery

[fireflybob]

Having recovered from stall and levelled the wings (if necessary) we ease out of the dive, would you regain straight and level flight or put the a/c back into the climb?

I have my own views on this but would be interested in other opinions.

[Big Pistons Forever]

I teach to always recover to a climb as most real world inadvertent stall scenarios happen at low altitude

[nick14]

Into the climb is most commonly taught and I agree with the above however you could also teach to the straight and level as the climb may not be a catch all?

[Mach Jump]

I agree with recovering into a climb, if only to be sure you are not still losing height.


MJ:ok:

[Genghis the Engineer]

+1 for recovery to the climb. It can be consciously varied, but generally there's far less to be scared of above you than any other direction, so it should be the default action.

G

[Duchess_Driver]

Used to teach to the climb, but more recently have been teaching to
recover to S&L then assess the situation.

I am far more concerned with teaching them to recognise the APPROACH to the stall and recover BEFORE it happens. When teaching fully developed I am much more interested that they can recover using the column, power and rudder correctly than what happens once they've got flying speed again.

[Big Pistons Forever]

I am far more concerned with teaching them to recognise the APPROACH to the stall and recover BEFORE it happens. When teaching fully developed I am much more interested that they can recover using the column, power and rudder correctly than what happens once they've got flying speed again.

I would hope what you wrote is a given for every instructor. However the OP specified actions after the stall recovery which is where I directed my answer.

If a low time pilot gets into an inadvertent stall then they are likely to be rattled after the recovery and will revert to what they where trained. You can't go wrong by starting a climb, you can however get into trouble by recovering to straight and level at low altitudes.

[fireflybob]

Duchess_Driver for me that's a given too.

The reason I asked the question was that a recent candidate was criticised by an examiner for climbing after recovery and not going for straight and level.

If you stalled at low level and were recovered at 200 ft agl would you fly straight and level?

[TheOddOne]

I've been thinking about this lately, too.

So, what I do now is:

a) teach recovery to a glide descent,
b) recover to a glide descent, then recover to S&L (as per ex 8)
c) recover to a glide, then recover to a climb
d) recover with minimum height loss, to a climb (which I think is what the examiner will be looking for).

The rationale here is to show in a) the pure aerodynamic recovery with change in A of A, back to the known (glide recovery to S&L), THEN introduce the ideal in d). Too many people on reval. flights shove in the power before the A of A has reduced, causing a pitch up back into the stall, with all kinds of yawing going on 'cos they don't adjust rudder against the power slipstream changes. I'm looking eventually with a 'straight' stall, for a constant heading through the manoeuvre.

TOO

[ifitaintboeing]

The reason I asked the question was that a recent candidate was criticised by an examiner for climbing after recovery and not going for straight and level.

For the stall recovery, the CAA provide the following guidance in:

Standards Doc 19(A)

Recover with minimum height loss and return to a clean configuration climb at VY.

Standards Doc 14(A)

Recover, using the correct techniques and with minimum height loss to return to a clean configuration best rate climb, or as otherwise directed by the examiner

ifitaint...

[InSoMnIaC]

Do what is appropriate for the situation.

[DB6]

Fireflybob, the examiner should have specified what he wanted to see after recovery in his briefing. In the absence of that then Standards doc guidance would be appropriate. When I am examining I usually brief to recover to the normal climb (i.e. best rate, clean). You normally carry out a series of stalls during a skill test so it makes sense to recover lost altitude between each one.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I've been thinking about this lately, too.

So, what I do now is:

a) teach recovery to a glide descent,
b) recover to a glide descent, then recover to S&L (as per ex 8)
c) recover to a glide, then recover to a climb
d) recover with minimum height loss, to a climb (which I think is what the examiner will be looking for).

The rationale here is to show in a) the pure aerodynamic recovery with change in A of A, back to the known (glide recovery to S&L), THEN introduce the ideal in d). Too many people on reval. flights shove in the power before the A of A has reduced, causing a pitch up back into the stall, with all kinds of yawing going on 'cos they don't adjust rudder against the power slipstream changes. I'm looking eventually with a 'straight' stall, for a constant heading through the manoeuvre.

TOO

I have a few issues with this.

There is a lot of evidence that pilots under high stress will revert to the first thing they learned - in your case, you are setting people up for a pitch only recovery as default action, which will cause excessive height loss.

Secondly heading is really not that important - an unstalled aeroplane in a turn, is an unstalled aeroplane. The ONLY thing that in the immediacy should be going on with the rudder is keeping zero sideslip.

I do absolutely agree that nobody should be applying power first - but there is adequate evidence (http://aerosociety.com/News/Publications/Aero-Journal/Online/2190/Evaluating-a-set-of-stall-recovery-actions-for-single-engine-light-aeroplanes) that simultanous power and pitch both gives us consistent stall recovery and minimum height loss. (For the Brits, this is the CFS stall recovery.)


It seems to me that everybody - but especially a new pilot - should drill the right actions (simultaneous pitch and full power, zero sideslip with rudder, attitude for a shallow climb), then anything (such as pitch only to explore something, partial power in a very high powered aeroplane, recovering to level flight, correcting bank or heading) should be a deliberate exception from drilled best practice *only* once that best practice is consistent and instinctive.

Do what is appropriate for the situation.

Similarly - no. Can I offer a parallel from my other interest - when not doing aviation, I do martial arts. I have a 3rd dan black belt and am chief instructor at a club - so not a beginner. I teach flinch responses to immediate threats, and in our style basically only a very very limited range of actions. These responses have been designed over a lot of years to protect somebody from immediate harm, without hurting anybody else.

So - somebody swings a baseball bat at my head - I pass it out of the way and step behind the arm.
So - somebody jokingly but I didn't notice early enough swings a cushion at my head - I pass it out of the way and step behind the arm.

Or - somebody grabs me from behind with malign intent, and I drop my weight and go into a guard position.
Or - an aunt spots me in Sainsburys and gives me an unexpected hug, and I drop my weight and go into a guard position.

In my martial arts, I'm making myself instinctively safe without making things any worse, then stopping to think what to do next.


I see a stall recovery in exactly the same way. Any pilot should have an instinctive stall response - stick forward, full power, ball in the middle with rudder, climb attitude. That protects life and aircraft, THEN once that's done there's time to "Do what is appropriate for the situation". The alternative is for things to get worse whilst you use non-existent thinking time to decide upon the right actions.


G

[nick14]

What is the main aim of a stall recovery? To recover the aircraft from the stall, it has nothing to do with minimum height loss! This is the very problem that has been discovered with approach to stall recovery training and causes problems with loss of control etc.

I do however agree that the height loss should not be ignored however carrying out a stall recovery with the aim of minimum height loss is not good.

[Genghis the Engineer]

There is nothing wrong with trying to minimise height loss.

It is paramount to recover from the stall of course, and then to minimise height loss. But you still do both.

The problems we all know about were because minimising height loss was put first above good stall recovery practice, not because it was considered.

G

[Mach Jump]

I think the point of teaching 'Reduce AoA' - 'Increase power' as a 1-2 action, (albeit separated by little more than an instant) rather than simultaneously, is to make it clear that it shouldn't be the other way around.


MJ:ok:

[Genghis the Engineer]

I had exactly that conversation with David Scouller at my last instructor renewal.

Delayed power = increased height loss

Delayed pitch = potential secondary loss of control.


That's a trivial decision - one must certainly organise things so that power is never applied first.

G

[PSF2J]

To recover to a climb should be the eventual aim to regain any height loss. The student should be taught to recognise whether recovery to S&L or a climb is required. (Common sense?).

The primary importance is to get the student to understand the stall symptoms, the indication of the stall itself, and safely action the SSR.

Once they have understood the basics, and can demonstrate good competency, then the climb becomes important, as they will be expected to affect minimum height loss and to return to the original height they started at, but it will also show other elements.

Here is key opportunity to demo the secondary stall (as you climb away rapidly), but also introduce them to the go-around, low power/idle to full power climb. This is a good time to see the progression of the student and how their co-ordination is.

[Genghis the Engineer]

So you put primacy on understanding, rather than drilling correct and immediate stall recovery?

G

[Big Pistons Forever]

Stall recovery technique in students has to developed to the point where it is instinctive and unthinking to unload the wing by applying forward stick, then applying power and then preventing the aircraft from yawing.

If the pilot has to think about the actions then they are not ready to deal with an inadvertent low altitude stall, the most common real world scenario.

[PSF2J]

Yes, they need to understand. If they don't then how do they know what they are looking for and what to do in the SSR? The SSR is used to get them out of the sh1t. I want them to understand why they got into the sh1t and to not go there in the first place.

The SSR is a recovery. The education should be not getting there in the first place. But if they do, then here is the technique to deal with it.

Am I wrong?

[PSF2J]

We are also talking about TRAINING students to enable them to deal with this instinctively when low to the ground as you say BPF. However, the instinct has to be DEVELOPED. This is our job as instructors.

[InSoMnIaC]

OP - Action after Stall Recovery
Genghis the Engineer -I see a stall recovery in exactly the same way. Any pilot should have an instinctive stall response - stick forward, full power, ball in the middle with rudder, climb attitude. That protects life and aircraft, THEN once that's done there's time to "Do what is appropriate for the situation". The alternative is for things to get worse whilst you use non-existent thinking time to decide upon the right actions.I agree that you should teach critical actions such as stall recovery in a way that they become instinctive however post stall recovery you do need to "do what is appropriate for the situation".

scenario. flying along at FL350 in a heavy jet. engine fails. you inadvertently enter a stall (your situational awareness is low in this scenario of course). this leads you to the stall recovery. what next??

[dobbin1]

scenario. flying along at FL350 in a heavy jet. engine fails. you inadvertently enter a stall (your situational awareness is low in this scenario of course). this leads you to the stall recovery. what next??
Look for a new job?

[InSoMnIaC]

Look for a new job? :ok:

but before that, according to some you need to adopt a "climb attitude"

[Level Attitude]

Any pilot should have an instinctive stall response - stick forward, full power, ball in the middle with rudder, climb attitudeGtE, I agreed with just about everything in your post but I think your summary paragraph, above, is wrong.

A Standard Stall Recovery is:
1) Reduce AoA
2) Add (full) Power
3) Rudder to keep aircraft in balance/prevent further yaw
NB: 3) Is nice but, in my opinion, not vital as long as 1) and then 2) are carried out.

Once recovered from a stall, a recovery from an unusual attitude may/is likely to be required.
Which would be:
1) Power - Less(Idle)/More(Full) as situation warrants
2) Coordinated use of Controls to Roll the wings to the nearest horizon
3) Pitch - Up/Down as situation warrants
I agree that after a stall recovery it is unlikely that 1) will need to be changed and 3) is very likely to be (but not always) Pitch Up BUT 2) must have been performed before 3).

Recovering from a stall under IF will, I suggest, always be to S&L

However, when flying visually, particularly at the PPL level, I would strongly advocate that a SSR should always end in a Best Rate Climb.

Reason:
One of the key symptoms of a stall is a high ROD and a, possibly too vigorous, recovery may result in a dive.
PPL Stall 1 = Hold the aircraft in the stall until Examiner tells you to recover = Lots of height loss.
PPL Stalls 2 & 3 are only approaches to the stall. However they are simulating a 'Base to Final Turn' and 'On Final but Low'. Anything wrong on an approach should always = 'Go Around' so a climb is required.

Irrespective of my opinion, DB6 has the correct answer to the OP's question:
Fireflybob, the examiner should have specified what he wanted to see after recovery in his briefing

[Genghis the Engineer]

3) Rudder to keep aircraft in balance/prevent further yaw
NB: 3) Is nice but, in my opinion, not vital as long as 1) and then 2) are carried out.

Wouldn't dispute that.

My point, perhaps missed, was that worrying about maintaining constant heading is silly, and the only thing you should be doing with the rudder is keeping the ball in the middle.


(At least nobody has mentioned "picking up the wing with rudder" :yuk:)

G

[skyhighfallguy]

step one after stall recovery, DO NOT STALL AGAIN

IF at high altitude , descend

IF at low altitude CLIMB

if at medium altitude , maintain

pretty easy isn't it?

[InSoMnIaC]

One of the key symptoms of a stall is a high ROD

are you sure about that?

[LostYetAgain]

High RoD is indeed one of the stall symptoms that we teach, and the SSR is taught as CCCF (Control Column Centrally Forward). However, that all assumes "right way up" flight which I'm sure covers almost all but the most unusual of unexpected stall events.

If you like to throw the scenery round the aircraft, the SSR offers insufficient, and in some cases inappropriate, guidance. it is easy to be climbing quite quickly whilst stalled.

Although thankfully unusual, it is also possible to stall the other aerofoils that are generally found towards the rear of the aircraft.

[InSoMnIaC]

It is very possible to stall and be climbing/descending/high speed/low speed. And in any attitude.

If you are teaching high RoD as a symptom of a stall you are misleading your students. Now a spiral dive does produce a high RoD and if you are teaching high RoD = stalling then guess what the student will do?

Whats wrong with teaching them to recognise the onset of buffeting instead.

Btw what produces a higher RoD a sprial dive or a spin?

[TheOddOne]

Whats wrong with teaching them to recognise the onset of buffeting instead.

Nothing, if your aircraft exhibits noticeable pre-stall buffet. There are popular training types that show little obvious buffet (that would be apparent to a student) in the initial stalling exercise from a clean airframe, power off, erect, level flight situation. We demonstrate a suite of signs leading to the stall, all the symptoms of low airspeed including sloppy controls and reducing wind noise, nose high attitude, aft column and lack of ability to maintain altitude (leading to an indicated RoD). We would say in the pre-flight brief that pre-stall buffet is a symptom, but warn that they might not experience it in our aircraft.

Some might say that training should not be conducted in aircraft that do not exhibit all the symptoms or which do not spin etc.

TOO

[Genghis the Engineer]

Some might say that training should not be conducted in aircraft that do not exhibit all the symptoms or which do not spin etc.

Although if that viewpoint were carried, you'd have to replace around 70% of the world's training aeroplanes.

I tend to think that although there's a near-universal stall recovery, there are not universal stall warning symptoms, and that's where pilots need to know their individual aeroplane - this should be impressed upon them throughout their training.

G

[Level Attitude]

One of the key symptoms of a stall is a high RODare you sure about that?YES.
1) Specifically:
That quote is from a paragraph I wrote regarding PPL level stalling.
It is very possible to stall and be climbing/descending/high speed/low speed. And in any attitude.and 2) Generically:
If recovery action is not taken, even a stall (as opposed to an approach to a stall) entered from any flight mode will, fairly quickly, result in a high RoD - possibly with the added bonus of auto-rotation.

If you are teaching high RoD as a symptom of a stall you are misleading your students. Now a spiral dive does produce a high RoD and if you are teaching high RoD = stalling then guess what the student will do? Of course a dive will result in a high RoD. Forget students, probably every human on earth could understand that.

BUT:
Climb Attitude: Gaining height = Climb; whereas High RoD = Stall
Slow Flight Attitude: Level Flight = Slow Flight: whereas High RoD = Stall

[fireflybob]

I prefer to use the term "stall identification" rather than "symptoms".

A stall (as opposed to the "warnings" that we are approaching a stall) is identified by heavy buffet (but as has been said before this can be type dependent), aircraft descending, nose pitching "down", and possible wing drop.

Any one of these can occur first depending on the nature of the stall.

I recall the Chipmunk Flight Manual notes on spinning making a distinction between a semi stalled spiral dive (where the airspeed is increasing) and a spin (where the airspeed is reasonably constant and low with high rate of descent) and not to confuse the two with respect to recovery action.

[nick14]

There are now four generally accepted signs of a stall that I teach on the jet and SEP:

Lack of roll control
Lack of pitch control
Buffeting
Inability to arrest descent rate

These generally apply to all conditions and should always result in the same action which is to reduce the angle of attack whichever way that might be, forward or backward.

As for what to do after, in the Jets it's return to desired flight path for which I would expect a certain level of SA. For the SEP side a climb is the norm but an awareness of the desired flight path could be taught.

I would always however ensure that the reason I teach a particular technique is to improve the student's competence rather than to satisfy an examiner. If I do my job properly the student will be competent and by that very virtue able to pass a check but I never teach for test.

[Pull what]

Lack of roll control
Lack of pitch control
Buffeting
Inability to arrest descent rate

What you are alluding to is actually Loss of Control(a much better title than stalling), however lack of pitch control is incorrect unless C152's and other trainers are fitted with pushers to get the nose over!

Most GA training aircraft in the power off flaps zero configurations do have a degree of roll control at the buffet and beyond and its even a requirement for certification.

However i wonder if you guys who instruct in the UK have ever read the Flight Examiners Handbook.

PPL Skill Test

Stalling:
Stall Recovery from:
• Clean, S&L power off, I will tell you when to recover.
• Base Turn using intermediate flap, gear, approach power with 20° to 30° AOB recovering at the first sign of the approaching stall.
• Final Approach stall, full flap, gear, approach power on a datum heading recovering at the first sign of the approaching stall.
All recoveries with minimum height loss, recovering back to the best rate of climb.

Pretty much common sense for PPL training as the most likely place a PPL is going to stall is in the circuit, as accidents constantly show. So if your guy stalls at 300 feet surely you would really hope he recovers with the minimum height loss and climbs away rather than takes a daisy cutter straight and level run through the approach scenery! This type of recovery also compliments the go around too and again common sense should tell you that some go arounds are from a speed that would satisfy the test requirement of 'at the first sign of the approaching stall'

Oh and the best teaching ADM statement is, after an emergency or abnormal fly the aircraft to the safest place. After a 300 feet height loss near the ground on the approach you are unlikely to find the safest place by flying level!

[Tourist]

Sorry to intrude, but surely there are other stall recoveries?

For example, you are doing a max rate turn and you manuever stall. Easing off the back pressure immediately unstalls the aircraft.

Job done?

There is no requirement in this scenario to add power (you will probably already be at max) and as long as you are under control there is nothing wrong with continuing the turn, surely?

[Genghis the Engineer]

Perhaps, depending upon the aircraft type and its stall characteristics.

But the point, in my opinion, is that there should be a correct and universal set of stall recovery actions - drilled until they're flown automatically. A deliberate change from that is fine: and anybody flying max rate turns is probably sufficiently on top of their game and the aeroplane to do that. But, that should be a deliberate change from the default action only.

G

[Tourist]

That's fine Ghengis, but some aircraft will require quite different techniques.

I accept that the "standard stall recovery" will work for most/all puddle jumpers, however an Airbus or a turboprop will require different techniques. All based around reducing angle of attack, yes, but quite different in execution.

A turboprop is likely to want early power, whereas an airliner you may want to be waiting a long long time before you think about adding power.
If there is a wingdrop, again the recovery will be quite different.

My point being that if you are teaching a student who will be in an airline within 200hrs, then perhaps the standard stall recovery drilled into him may do him no favours.

[dobbin1]

Interesting to note that the new alternate PPL syllabus just published by the CAA includes some additional scenarios including in the take off configuration.

Exercise 10b Stalling
Safety checks
Symptoms and recognition of the stall
The clean stall and recovery without and with power
Stall recovery during a wing drop
The stall and recovery with power and/or flap (or spoilers, airbrakes or speedbrakes, as applicable) The approach to stall and recovery in the approach configuration
The approach to stall and recovery in the landing configuration
The approach to stall and recovery in the take-off configuration
Stall and incipient stall and recovery in different configurations and various manoeuvres

[nick14]

Sounds sensible to me, something which highlights the importance and underlying understanding which is lacking in both instructors and students alike even right up to ATPL level.

[Genghis the Engineer]

That's fine Ghengis, but some aircraft will require quite different techniques.

I accept that the "standard stall recovery" will work for most/all puddle jumpers, however an Airbus or a turboprop will require different techniques. All based around reducing angle of attack, yes, but quite different in execution.

A turboprop is likely to want early power, whereas an airliner you may want to be waiting a long long time before you think about adding power.
If there is a wingdrop, again the recovery will be quite different.

My point being that if you are teaching a student who will be in an airline within 200hrs, then perhaps the standard stall recovery drilled into him may do him no favours.

Page 16 of Royal Aeronautical Society | Aeronautical Journal | Stalling transport aircraft (http://aerosociety.com/News/Publications/Aero-Journal/Online/1051/Stalling-transport-aircraft)


Recovering from a stall is straight forward and is in fact nearly identical to that used in general
aviation aircraft. First and foremost the angle-of-attack must be lowered using elevator. During
recovery the buffet level can momentarily increase, however, this tends to be transitory in nature.
Engine thrust can also aid in stall recovery but, the timing of its use is absolutely critical. If thrust
is added too soon, the upward pitching moment of under wing-mounted engines may cause an
increase in the angle-of-attack. Under certain conditions it may even be necessary to reduce
thrust to prevent the angle-of-attack from increasing (Ref. 3). Regardless of when or if thrust is
used, the altitude cannot be maintained and should be of secondary importance to reducing the
angle-of-attack with the elevator (Ref. 2). Also, of secondary importance, is the restoration of
normal pitch and roll attitudes. Flight testing has shown that a properly conducted stall recovery
at low altitude using the elevator as the primary control typically results in minimal altitude loss

You have a point - this makes it clear that the GA stall recovery is an appropriate starting point, but does say that a big jet may need delayed or partial power.

But, I do think very much that pilots should train for the aeroplane they're flying. Whatever they may hope for, most pilots training in small aeroplanes won't be in a big jet at 200hrs - and until then, they have to be trained to fly the aeroplane they're in safely.

G

[Big Pistons Forever]

But, I do think very much that pilots should train for the aeroplane they're flying. Whatever they may hope for, most pilots training in small aeroplanes won't be in a big jet at 200hrs - and until then, they have to be trained to fly the aeroplane they're in safely.

G

Exactly ! Ab initio flight training is IMO being ruined by trying to bring in wholly inappropriate large aircraft handling techniques to the initial flying training syllabus.

When the 200 hr guy/gal gets to the airline type rating training program they can be trained as a crew how to deal with a stall in a transport category airplane.

In the meantime techniques that will keep them alive in the small aircraft they are flying should be taught.

[Centaurus]

The problems we all know about were because minimising height loss was put first above good stall recovery practice, not because it was considered.


While the subject is centred around light training aircraft, it is instructive to compare stall recovery technique in a transport jet type such as a 737 (ie not FBW) at high altitude and at low altitude. I am talking about what should be taught in a full flight simulator.

At high altitude cruise (say 37,000 ft) the approach to the stall is preceded by heavy buffet and I mean really strong buffet. You cannot miss it. The recovery should be started then and not wait until the stick-shaker.

Assuming however for the purpose of the training exercise the recovery is started at the stick shaker.

From the Boeing 737 FCTM: Quote:
"High Altitude Recovery. At higher altitudes above 20,000 feet, the airplane becomes increasingly thrust limited. If an approach to stall indication is experienced, nose down elevator and stabiliser trim is required to initiate a descent. This is because when the airplane is thrust limited, altitude needs to be traded for airspeed. Therefore a recovery at high altitude results in a greater altitude loss than a recovery at low altitudes". Unquote.

The nose should be kept just below the horizon while accelerating to a safe recovery speed with the aim to recover to a safe speed before levelling out. As thrust is increased forward elevator and stabiliser trim is needed to keep the nose on or just below the horizon. A typical example of a safe speed to attain before stopping the descent is the published high altitude holding speed which approximates full flap landing speed plus 100 knots. Typically around 230 knots IAS at high altitude. Expect an altitude loss of 3-4000 feet before this speed is attained.

It is a different recovery technique altogether when practicing a low altitude stall since it very much depends on the aircraft configuration at the time the stall occurs. Readers may recall the Turkish Airlines Boeing 737 accident at Amsterdam where a defective radio altimeter caused the autothrottles to retard prematurely during a ILS coupled approach.

When this happened, the autopilot attempted to maintain the iLS glide slope by raising the nose. With both thrust levers at idle, the speed reduced until the stick shaker operated at around Vref minus 30 knots (roughly 105 knots IAS). By then the altitude was about 1000 feet agl. The autopilot stabiliser trim wound steadily back while all this was happening as the autopilot attempted to maintain the glide slope. At the point of stick shaker the stabiliser trim was nearly fully aft. A successful go-around could have been made but the pilot was too slow to react and the aircraft stalled wings level into a field.

The recovery technique used in the simulator for this type of event is to disconnect the autopilot and autothrottles and apply full manual power. At the same time, reduce the angle of attack by lowering the nose sufficiently to unstall the wings. Lowering the nose too much at that altitude will cause significant height loss with no room to recover. Adjusting the nose attitude to around 5-8 degrees nose up once the stall is broken, permits a slight rate of climb while accelerating towards first flap retraction which occurs after reaching Vref.

The pitch up moment is very strong with full thrust. At full thrust settings and very low airspeeds, the elevator, working in opposition to the stabiliser, has limited control to reduce the pitch attitude. This must be countered by forward elevator and immediate forward stabiliser trim otherwise there will be insufficient elevator control to prevent the nose from pitching up under the influence of high thrust. In the simulator example described above, where the autopilot steadily applied almost full back stabiliser in its attempt to maintain the ILS glide slope, it was found that up to eight seconds of continuous forward stabiliser movement may be needed to retain normal elevator control. If full forward elevator combined with continuous forward stabiliser trim does not prevent further pitch up, and loss of control is imminent, consideration should be given to reducing thrust to help lower the nose. If that has only limited effect, the following extract is applicable from the Boeing 737 Flight Crew Training Manual:

Quote:
" If normal pitch controls do not stop an increasing pitch rate, rolling the aircraft to a bank angle that starts the nose down should work. Bank angles of about 45 degrees, up to a maximum of 60 degrees, could be needed. Unloading the wing by maintaining continuous nose-down elevator pressure keeps the wings angle of attack as low as possible, making normal roll controls - up to full deflection of ailerons and spoilers - may be used. The rolling manoeuvre changes the pitch rate into a turning manoeuvre, allowing the pitch to decrease. The reduced pitch attitude allows airspeed to increase, thereby improving elevator and aileron effectiveness . After the pitch attitude and airspeed return to a desired range, the pilot can reduce angle of attack with normal lateral flight controls and return the aircraft to normal flight". Unquote.

In fact, this technique is applicable to most light training aircraft, where, with full flap extended on final approach, application of full throttle in a low level, low airspeed go-around may cause a marked pitch up that could progress to a stalled condition unless immediate action is taken prevent the pitch up.

Obviously in the case of the Boeing 737 under discussion, the aim is not only to recover from the stalled condition with minimum loss of height but to accelerate from Vref minus 30 knots at the point of stick shaker, to a safe airspeed where the first flap retraction sequence is started. Normally that would be at Vref speed, typically around 140 knots in the 737 Classics where a normal go-around procedure then follows. Flown correctly from the point of stick shaker to a safe recovery results in a height loss of around 300 feet.