Instructors teaching full rudder to "pick up" dropped wing.
Folks,
Rounsounds suggests this should be investigated by CASA.
I agree, that CASA should investigate itself, as the poor sod who is the butt of this thread is only "demonstrating" the competency required to be demonstrated by CASA.
See CASA (in)competency standards for pilots. 'tis all in black (or maybe blue) and white.
In the CASA "one size fits all" world, full opposite rudder is the prescribed corrective action for a wing drop at or near the point of stall.
That this "one size fits all" is almost never appropriate (depending on the aircraft) is too subtle for CASA. That "full opposite rudder" at the point of a stall is the recommended method of spin entry for a number of aircraft is probably "lost" on CASA experts. Or that some aircraft at the stalling angle of attack have the rudder almost completely blanketed, but the ailerons remain effective, due the design.
The real answer is "Know your stuff, and which aeroplane you happen to be flying today".
Just one further pertinent question: Why would anybody think that CASA has the competence to look into this matter of CASA incompetence, and come to a competent answer??
Tootle pip!!
Rounsounds suggests this should be investigated by CASA.
I agree, that CASA should investigate itself, as the poor sod who is the butt of this thread is only "demonstrating" the competency required to be demonstrated by CASA.
See CASA (in)competency standards for pilots. 'tis all in black (or maybe blue) and white.
In the CASA "one size fits all" world, full opposite rudder is the prescribed corrective action for a wing drop at or near the point of stall.
That this "one size fits all" is almost never appropriate (depending on the aircraft) is too subtle for CASA. That "full opposite rudder" at the point of a stall is the recommended method of spin entry for a number of aircraft is probably "lost" on CASA experts. Or that some aircraft at the stalling angle of attack have the rudder almost completely blanketed, but the ailerons remain effective, due the design.
The real answer is "Know your stuff, and which aeroplane you happen to be flying today".
Just one further pertinent question: Why would anybody think that CASA has the competence to look into this matter of CASA incompetence, and come to a competent answer??
Tootle pip!!
MOS unit A5.2 - Recover from incipient spin:
a) perform pre-manoeuvre checks
b) recognise an incipient spin
c) use the aeroplane's attitude and power controls to execute an incipient spin manoeuvre from the following flight conditions and, using correct recovery technique, regain straight and level flight with height loss commensurate with that available attitude (simulated ground base may be set)
(i) straight and level flight
(ii) climbing
(ii) turning
Nothing there about applying full opposite rudder.
a) perform pre-manoeuvre checks
b) recognise an incipient spin
c) use the aeroplane's attitude and power controls to execute an incipient spin manoeuvre from the following flight conditions and, using correct recovery technique, regain straight and level flight with height loss commensurate with that available attitude (simulated ground base may be set)
(i) straight and level flight
(ii) climbing
(ii) turning
Nothing there about applying full opposite rudder.
Nothing there about applying full opposite rudder.
control the aeroplane by applying the required pitch, roll and yaw inputs as
appropriate
appropriate
Where does CASA say always use full rudder?
What, then, does CASA say is the "correct recovery technique"?
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From immediate memory both Piper Colt and Maule, (and many others), have interconnected rudder and ailerons. Application of either will correspond with a reaction not fully anticipated in the alleged CAsA advice. I could go on with evidence of an interconnection being tampered with on a Maule but it's all written up in "The Phelan Papers". I think the advice is sound for the Sopwith Camel though and even then the engine needs to have the fuel turned off. 'Blipping" tends to exaggerate the situation.
djpil is correct - in the new replacement document for the old "pub 45" manual for guidance of instructors it describes instructors stress the importance of using rudder not aileron to prevent yaw in stall recovery.
I can't find where CASA ever says to use full rudder in stall recovery anywhere though (happy to be proved wrong).
The OP's report doesn't reveal how they came across this 'full rudder' technique being taught. Was it from a first hand experience with an instructor (eg when doing an instructors rating renewal) or was it reported to the OP by a student? Is it possible there has been some miscommunication about what was being shown and that is not what is being taught? And on what aircraft?
I can't find where CASA ever says to use full rudder in stall recovery anywhere though (happy to be proved wrong).
The OP's report doesn't reveal how they came across this 'full rudder' technique being taught. Was it from a first hand experience with an instructor (eg when doing an instructors rating renewal) or was it reported to the OP by a student? Is it possible there has been some miscommunication about what was being shown and that is not what is being taught? And on what aircraft?
RECOVERY WITHOUT POWER
Control column forward to un-stall the wings. As the speed increases ease out of the dive. Emphasize that if a wing drops, rudder is used to prevent yaw into the direction of the lowered wing. The wing is raised with aileron when it is un-stalled.
Control column forward to un-stall the wings. As the speed increases ease out of the dive. Emphasize that if a wing drops, rudder is used to prevent yaw into the direction of the lowered wing. The wing is raised with aileron when it is un-stalled.
RECOVERY WITH POWER
Brief the student that the recovery using power is similar to that when no power is used with the addition that full power is applied at the commencement of recovery. Point out that you will be demonstrating that use of power results in recovery being made with a much decreased height loss compared with the recovery without use of power. It is important to stress that power, if used too late, i.e. when the nose of the aeroplane has dropped below the horizon, will result in an increased loss of height. Stress that the recovery using power is the normal method of recovering from a stalled condition of flight.
Brief the student that the recovery using power is similar to that when no power is used with the addition that full power is applied at the commencement of recovery. Point out that you will be demonstrating that use of power results in recovery being made with a much decreased height loss compared with the recovery without use of power. It is important to stress that power, if used too late, i.e. when the nose of the aeroplane has dropped below the horizon, will result in an increased loss of height. Stress that the recovery using power is the normal method of recovering from a stalled condition of flight.
Moderator
full power is applied at the commencement of recovery
Caveat - be sure that this is applicable to/suitable for your aircraft.
The certification approach is to have a delay between the initiation of recovery and increasing power. Some of the problems which may arise, especially with higher power aircraft, include normal prop force (which might give you a nasty surprise with a nose pitch up) and (probably only a problem with big engines) a quasi-Vmc response due to the old P-factor problem.
Re the current certification approach to stall recovery, you might like to have a read of AC23-8C at p 92 where the good words read -
Recovery..... The power used to regain level flight may not be applied until flying control is regained. This is considered to mean not before a speed of 1.2 VS1 is attained in the recovery dive.
Straight from the CASA Flight Instructor Manual
All fine and beaut, I guess .. just one more example of the operational folks not reading what the certification folks might have done before giving the aircraft a tick in the box.
Caveat - be sure that this is applicable to/suitable for your aircraft.
The certification approach is to have a delay between the initiation of recovery and increasing power. Some of the problems which may arise, especially with higher power aircraft, include normal prop force (which might give you a nasty surprise with a nose pitch up) and (probably only a problem with big engines) a quasi-Vmc response due to the old P-factor problem.
Re the current certification approach to stall recovery, you might like to have a read of AC23-8C at p 92 where the good words read -
Recovery..... The power used to regain level flight may not be applied until flying control is regained. This is considered to mean not before a speed of 1.2 VS1 is attained in the recovery dive.
Straight from the CASA Flight Instructor Manual
All fine and beaut, I guess .. just one more example of the operational folks not reading what the certification folks might have done before giving the aircraft a tick in the box.
Join Date: Apr 1998
Location: Mesopotamos
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regardless of all the theory in the world on stall recovery there is nothing a bit of time in an aerobatic rated aircraft won't fix in a few minutes.
I was fortune to indulge in exploring deep stalls in a Bellanca Decathlon as part of my training - 5 fully stalled complete spins was the then legal limit which gave one plenty of time to appreciate the stable state of a stalled aircraft and room to think.
The topic of this thread reminds me of a story I read in Charles Kingsford Smith's unofficial autobiography. He was pax in a RPT twin in South America when noticing the engines were full bore and the plane was not climbing. He made his way to the cockpit only to see a mountain range dead ahead that the pilots were going to drive straight into. He told the pilots to drop the nose to pick up speed to achieve a better rate of climb. As CKS would say "always fly the wing" - something Bob Hoover was great at demonstrating.
I was fortune to indulge in exploring deep stalls in a Bellanca Decathlon as part of my training - 5 fully stalled complete spins was the then legal limit which gave one plenty of time to appreciate the stable state of a stalled aircraft and room to think.
The topic of this thread reminds me of a story I read in Charles Kingsford Smith's unofficial autobiography. He was pax in a RPT twin in South America when noticing the engines were full bore and the plane was not climbing. He made his way to the cockpit only to see a mountain range dead ahead that the pilots were going to drive straight into. He told the pilots to drop the nose to pick up speed to achieve a better rate of climb. As CKS would say "always fly the wing" - something Bob Hoover was great at demonstrating.
Fair enough John, but I would have thought that the delay in introducing power would be specified to simulate the difference between a test pilot who was expecting the stall to occur and a 'real' pilot perhaps, a bit like where they have a certain time between rolling off power and lowering the collective in rotary wing autorotation tests?
The reason I say that is that I've never seen a stall recovery procedure from a flight manual that says to delay the introduction of power - not saying it's never done, just never seen it in the types I've flown.
The reason I say that is that I've never seen a stall recovery procedure from a flight manual that says to delay the introduction of power - not saying it's never done, just never seen it in the types I've flown.
Moderator
Some of the experienced TPs about the place have strongly antipathetic views about slamming on thrust at the point of stall recovery, for what it may be worth to the typical pilots out there.
My concern is that folks should be aware of the typical certification animal so that they can consider the potential for pitfalls doing the usual minimum height loss style of recovery.
Similar concerns for when one should initiate recovery. The stall procedure has varied somewhat over the years and, sometimes, not knowing what the certification was can present some excitement. For instance, a tale related at a FT course I did years ago .. by a very experienced instructor TP .. concerned a USAF student TP in a well-known civil light twin .. thought it would be interesting to progress into the stall to see what happened.
Aircraft flicked into an inverted spin.
The instructor knew what was about to happen, the student learnt a lesson about doing his history homework rather than making it up on the fly. For that particular aircraft, the rules of the day had the recovery commencing promptly.
Not knowing what the OEM really did can have surprising consequences. Generally, the pilot only has the AFM/POH guidance and, if he is interested, a review of the TCDS and relevant issue design standards documents.
My concern is that folks should be aware of the typical certification animal so that they can consider the potential for pitfalls doing the usual minimum height loss style of recovery.
Similar concerns for when one should initiate recovery. The stall procedure has varied somewhat over the years and, sometimes, not knowing what the certification was can present some excitement. For instance, a tale related at a FT course I did years ago .. by a very experienced instructor TP .. concerned a USAF student TP in a well-known civil light twin .. thought it would be interesting to progress into the stall to see what happened.
Aircraft flicked into an inverted spin.
The instructor knew what was about to happen, the student learnt a lesson about doing his history homework rather than making it up on the fly. For that particular aircraft, the rules of the day had the recovery commencing promptly.
Not knowing what the OEM really did can have surprising consequences. Generally, the pilot only has the AFM/POH guidance and, if he is interested, a review of the TCDS and relevant issue design standards documents.
Re full power immediately for stall recovery
As a digression - Immmediate power application is something Airbus pilots (and others no doubt)are 'unlearning' in the sim.
Airbus say (amongst other things) nose over to break the stall then, when no symptoms exist, then gently increase power.
Also at high altitude a good whack of nose down >10deg has less height loss than a 5 degree or so nose down. Your ROD might be double, but your speed recovery out of the symptoms happens in under half the time.
And back on topic, and Airbus also says level the wings simultaneously with decreasing the AoA.
FWIW, I recall being taught to hold the control column level and recover with rudders at one of three linked schools at Moorabbin in the early 90s.....
Airbus say (amongst other things) nose over to break the stall then, when no symptoms exist, then gently increase power.
Also at high altitude a good whack of nose down >10deg has less height loss than a 5 degree or so nose down. Your ROD might be double, but your speed recovery out of the symptoms happens in under half the time.
And back on topic, and Airbus also says level the wings simultaneously with decreasing the AoA.
FWIW, I recall being taught to hold the control column level and recover with rudders at one of three linked schools at Moorabbin in the early 90s.....
it is worth reading both chapters 9 and 13. I wonder if the various authors/editors bothered to read what others had written or retained from the old one?
no such limit that I'm aware of however the current FAR 23 puts a limit of 6 turns on new types/models certified.
no such limit that I'm aware of however the current FAR 23 puts a limit of 6 turns on new types/models certified.
I show this video to students as part of the pre flight briefing for the slow flight and stalling exercise. There are lots of contributing human factors which the student needs to identify, but look what happens at the end when he applies full rudder.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nm_hoHhbFo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nm_hoHhbFo
There are mistakes in the CASA Jandakot Visual Pilot Guide too. When I asked CASA about this, eg the taxi call for VFR including "request clearance" which had controllers snarling I was told with a shrug "It's not a controlled document". The reference is the AIP, not the CASA guide.
Similarly, the reference for instructors is the MOS, not the Flight Instructor Manual. I have encountered newly trained instructors and students coming up for test who have never seen or heard of the MOS.
Similarly, the reference for instructors is the MOS, not the Flight Instructor Manual. I have encountered newly trained instructors and students coming up for test who have never seen or heard of the MOS.
Clare Prop,
The relevant section was a wing drop in a stall, not incipient spins.
If the offending "full opposite rudder" is no longer in the MOS as described, at least some notice has been taken of "industry input", which is a good thing --- I certainly had an "animated" discussion on the subject at "the highest levels of CASA" --- at an SCC meeting, including Skidmore.
I must look it up and check, when I have the time, and nothing else is pressing.
I am bound to comment that too many of you are into a "one size fits all" mindset, even if different sizes, based on various posts, consider carefully the wise words of John T., and know which aeroplane you are flying.
They ain't all the same!!
Tootle pip!!
The relevant section was a wing drop in a stall, not incipient spins.
If the offending "full opposite rudder" is no longer in the MOS as described, at least some notice has been taken of "industry input", which is a good thing --- I certainly had an "animated" discussion on the subject at "the highest levels of CASA" --- at an SCC meeting, including Skidmore.
I must look it up and check, when I have the time, and nothing else is pressing.
I am bound to comment that too many of you are into a "one size fits all" mindset, even if different sizes, based on various posts, consider carefully the wise words of John T., and know which aeroplane you are flying.
They ain't all the same!!
Tootle pip!!
I show this video to students as part of the pre flight briefing for the slow flight and stalling exercise.
Sad. Awful.Not quite the scenario being discussed here but one I think has happened many times in GA and students need to have thought about (and even better simulated dual at altitude) is with a rough running engine, ie partial power, trying to stretch a glide to make a field and needing to turn the aircraft to line up with the field and also having a wariness to bank the aeroplane low to the ground so the pilot unconsciously starts booting in rudder to skid the aeroplane around onto final.
I sometimes used to set up that scenario (at altitude and with a briefing beforehand of course) with some students and on BFRs.
My old man had a rhyme he was taught ab initio in the RAAF on Tiger Moths
Watch him spin, watch him burn, held off bank in a gliding turn
This is the section about recovery from a stall.
A5.1 – Enter and recover from stall
(a) perform pre-manoeuvre checks for stalling;
(b) recognise stall signs and symptoms;
(c) control the aeroplane by applying the required pitch, roll and yaw inputs as appropriate in a smooth, coordinated manner, trims aeroplane accurately to enter and recover from the following manoeuvres:
(i) incipient stall;
(ii) except for multi-engine aeroplanes, stall with full power applied;
(iii) stall without power applied;
(iv) stall under the following conditions:
(A) straight and level flight;
(B) except for multi-engine aeroplanes, climbing;
(C) except for multi-engine aeroplanes, descending;
(D) approach to land configuration;
(E) except for multi-engine aeroplanes, turning;
(d) perform stall recovery as follows:
(i) positively reduce angle of attach;
(ii) use power available and excess height to increase the aircraft energy state;
(iii) minimise height loss for simulated low altitude condition;
(iv) re-establish desired flight path and aircraft control;
(e) recover from stall in simulated partial and complete engine failure configurations.
Let me know what your definition is of "incipient spin" The only amendments to the MOS since it became a legislative instrument in 2014 have been for ATPL and IR test . There has never been anything in the MOS about "full opposite rudder" it is one of the many Old Wives Tales that we come across.
Absolutely agree the one size fits all thing is not appropriate and is lazy/ignorant instructing. I see it a lot particularly relating to the use of carb heat and electric fuel pump in PA28s. Don't get me started on CSU power settings... "My instructor told me" does not override the POH.
A5.1 – Enter and recover from stall
(a) perform pre-manoeuvre checks for stalling;
(b) recognise stall signs and symptoms;
(c) control the aeroplane by applying the required pitch, roll and yaw inputs as appropriate in a smooth, coordinated manner, trims aeroplane accurately to enter and recover from the following manoeuvres:
(i) incipient stall;
(ii) except for multi-engine aeroplanes, stall with full power applied;
(iii) stall without power applied;
(iv) stall under the following conditions:
(A) straight and level flight;
(B) except for multi-engine aeroplanes, climbing;
(C) except for multi-engine aeroplanes, descending;
(D) approach to land configuration;
(E) except for multi-engine aeroplanes, turning;
(d) perform stall recovery as follows:
(i) positively reduce angle of attach;
(ii) use power available and excess height to increase the aircraft energy state;
(iii) minimise height loss for simulated low altitude condition;
(iv) re-establish desired flight path and aircraft control;
(e) recover from stall in simulated partial and complete engine failure configurations.
Let me know what your definition is of "incipient spin" The only amendments to the MOS since it became a legislative instrument in 2014 have been for ATPL and IR test . There has never been anything in the MOS about "full opposite rudder" it is one of the many Old Wives Tales that we come across.
Absolutely agree the one size fits all thing is not appropriate and is lazy/ignorant instructing. I see it a lot particularly relating to the use of carb heat and electric fuel pump in PA28s. Don't get me started on CSU power settings... "My instructor told me" does not override the POH.
Moderator
A couple of points there which might be pushing the certification tick in the box.
Possibly be a good idea to have the studes read through the relevant bits of FAR 23 and AC 23-8 (versions appropriate to the particular training Type - ref TCDS) to get some background prior to frightening themselves.
There isn't, necessarily, a danger in doing something different to the certification .. just a potential concern that something surprising might turn up along the way and then the pilot is on his/her Mat Malone. If the bit which is surprising has some underlying problems for recovery, that just might be beyond the non-FT knowledgeable trainee pilot ?
Possibly be a good idea to have the studes read through the relevant bits of FAR 23 and AC 23-8 (versions appropriate to the particular training Type - ref TCDS) to get some background prior to frightening themselves.
There isn't, necessarily, a danger in doing something different to the certification .. just a potential concern that something surprising might turn up along the way and then the pilot is on his/her Mat Malone. If the bit which is surprising has some underlying problems for recovery, that just might be beyond the non-FT knowledgeable trainee pilot ?