Instructors teaching full rudder to "pick up" dropped wing.
So why was the Thai DC-8 landing at the military Airbase Butterworth, rather than Penang's civilian Bayan Lepas? 
Probably because of the same reasons we landed Malaysian and Qantas B707 at Butterworth, that's where the scheduled services went in those days.
Tee Emm,
As to the side-slipping and "gone a million", why?? Do you know it was prohibited on the DC-8 by AFM?? Also, on at least some DC-8, reverse could be used in-flight on (I think) the inboard engines to increase ROD.
Both were prohibited on B707, but subsequent Boeing with pylon mounted engines had no side-slip limitation, and both the B767 and B747-400 side-slip across the wind in a coupled approach. I would expect the B-777/787 does the same.
So why not a pilot flying manually, what has "over confidence" got to do with it??
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
both the B767 and B747-400 side-slip across the wind in a coupled approach. I would expect the B-777/787 does the same.
My ignorance - I didn't know that. Thanks for the info. I recall being cautioned by my instructor on Tiger Moths, where side slips to flare height was the norm because of no flaps, that significant IAS errors can be expected while side-slipping.
I can understand that especially as the side wind vector into an open cockpit could blow one's goggles off.
Are there airspeed errors to be allowed for in jet transport side slips? If side slips are permitted in big jets, where does the compatibility to stable approach criteria come in?
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Pacific
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can't believe some of the comments in this thread. if you fly a Spamcan and were taught by a CFI who has also only flown a Spamcan, or if you fly an Airbus, I can see the reason for your lack of knowledge about aerodynamics particularly as it applies to slow flight, stalls and spins but surely the majority must have some idea?
For example, why does a wing drop at the point of stall? That's right; the airplane is yawing. Which means one wing has less lift and will drop. How would you expect to stop this? That's right, stop it from yawing by using the control fitted to most airplanes for this purpose; the rudder.
In many airplanes, even Spamcans (especially if they are misrigged) application of aileron to stop or pick up a dropping wing, unless coordinated rudder is also used, will cause a further wing drop and expose you to an incipient spin, which all modern pilots are taught to fear.
As a flight instructor I fight all the time with pilots who fly with their feet on the floor or consider that those pedals thingies are foot rests. All the way from Cubs to jets.
Just as spinning was banned as too frightening, slow flight has gone the way of the Dodo, and stalls are maneuvers to be feared, soon rudders will become useless appendages. For many, they will not be missed. A pity things have deteriorated to this extent and I fear the standards will continue to drop until we are all replaced by drones. Or has this already happened and I did not notice?
For example, why does a wing drop at the point of stall? That's right; the airplane is yawing. Which means one wing has less lift and will drop. How would you expect to stop this? That's right, stop it from yawing by using the control fitted to most airplanes for this purpose; the rudder.
In many airplanes, even Spamcans (especially if they are misrigged) application of aileron to stop or pick up a dropping wing, unless coordinated rudder is also used, will cause a further wing drop and expose you to an incipient spin, which all modern pilots are taught to fear.
As a flight instructor I fight all the time with pilots who fly with their feet on the floor or consider that those pedals thingies are foot rests. All the way from Cubs to jets.
Just as spinning was banned as too frightening, slow flight has gone the way of the Dodo, and stalls are maneuvers to be feared, soon rudders will become useless appendages. For many, they will not be missed. A pity things have deteriorated to this extent and I fear the standards will continue to drop until we are all replaced by drones. Or has this already happened and I did not notice?
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Pacific
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My ignorance - I didn't know that. Thanks for the info. I recall being cautioned by my instructor on Tiger Moths, where side slips to flare height was the norm because of no flaps, that significant IAS errors can be expected while side-slipping.
I can understand that especially as the side wind vector into an open cockpit could blow one's goggles off. Are there airspeed errors to be allowed for in jet transport side slips? If side slips are permitted in big jets, where does the compatibility to stable approach criteria come in?
I can understand that especially as the side wind vector into an open cockpit could blow one's goggles off.
Are there airspeed errors to be allowed for in jet transport side slips? If side slips are permitted in big jets, where does the compatibility to stable approach criteria come in?Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Down south
Age: 69
Posts: 361
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Go out there fly a certified aerobatic aircraft ( For your safety) with a competent instructor, try different scenarios, incipient stall, aggravated stall (Falling leaf) fully developped spin and recoveries, takes 1 flight to demonstrate, many more to master, but worth a 1.000.000.000 words. And an argument that will never be resolved by endless talking will be sorted out once and for all.
Still cannot understand how people can advocate incipient spin recovery with ailerons, it is contrary to all the laws and aerodynamics and physics...And that full rudder recovery presents the risk of spin in the opposite direction.
Unconscious applied full forward stick (Held there) can lead to negative spin, and what nobody even mentions in this thread is that when application of "Full rudder" is applied i needs to be followed by centralising the rudder to complete the recovery maneuver. It is the lack of exposure to these scenarios, the unconscious inputs or the freezing at the controls due to fear of the unknown, which leads to this misunderstandings and consequent endless debates.
Do yourself a favour, go out there and experiment the whole thing then come back with your comments, ...I bet the debate will not wander in all directions as it is now. There are test pilots out there who have devised procedures for all scenarios meant for the average pilot. It's their job, so follow the flight manual, trust me they know what they are doing.
Still cannot understand how people can advocate incipient spin recovery with ailerons, it is contrary to all the laws and aerodynamics and physics...And that full rudder recovery presents the risk of spin in the opposite direction.
Unconscious applied full forward stick (Held there) can lead to negative spin, and what nobody even mentions in this thread is that when application of "Full rudder" is applied i needs to be followed by centralising the rudder to complete the recovery maneuver. It is the lack of exposure to these scenarios, the unconscious inputs or the freezing at the controls due to fear of the unknown, which leads to this misunderstandings and consequent endless debates.
Do yourself a favour, go out there and experiment the whole thing then come back with your comments, ...I bet the debate will not wander in all directions as it is now. There are test pilots out there who have devised procedures for all scenarios meant for the average pilot. It's their job, so follow the flight manual, trust me they know what they are doing.
Thread Starter
.And that full rudder recovery presents the risk of spin in the opposite direction.
The problem with that BS is at the very low speed the aircraft is at the point of normal stall, instant full rudder is guaranteed to flick the aircraft into an incipient spin. Especially if there is a slight delay in lowering the nose.
Certification of aircraft designed in the past 40 years or more (Cessna series etc) require the ailerons to be effective below the stall, whereas aircraft in the old days (pre-war, post war) some had vicious wing drops. Application of opposite aileron exacerbated the wing drop. The classic was the Wirraway single engine trainer where the aircraft could flick inverted in a high speed stall. Hence the general advice when flying those types, not to use instant aileron to level the wings. Instead use only sufficient rudder to prevent a dropped wing from going down further and after the stall is broken by lowering the nose, use ailerons in the normal manner to level the wings. The whole maneouvre, including applying full power to minimise height loss near the ground, should be accomplished normally inside no more than 3-5 seconds.
But from interviewing hundreds of GA pilots over many years, you would be amazed that the vast majority said they had been taught by their flying school instructors to level the wings by rudder only - meaning literally skidding the wings level. Commonly called picking up the wing with rudder. And that is as recent as just a few days ago talking to airline candidates at flying schools that specialise in training cadets for selected airlines.
So whoever is training general aviation flying instructors are pushing old myths..
Last edited by Centaurus; 3rd Dec 2018 at 12:02.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Down south
Age: 69
Posts: 361
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Centaurus, you have a point, however whatever one is thaught or shown ( Unless brainstormed and actually practiced long enough to become instinctive ) as far as risks asociated with counter wing drop with ailerons or with full rudder, I can tell you from experience (My own at the beginning and from countless pilots students and instructors) the initial reaction to an incipient stall is 1000% aileron to raise the wing. And this happens during training when one expects the maneuver, think about when it comes as a surprise..
Likewise, unless one is trained to use full rudder I have NEVER seen anyone applying full opposite rudder, only a tad of opposite foot (despite believing otherwise), but always full opposite aileron as an instinctive reaction..
Anyway whatever the debate, I can assure you the the majority of accidents are due to not to recoveries techniques , but rather from the fear and lack of confidence arising from the risk of losing control.
It is well known that in these scenarios, the mental process is impaired with either uncosncious random inputs or just no inputs at all . This has nothing to do with skills or the lack of them, It is a normal process that can only be reversed with training. We humans have to learn and practice in order to be able to perform..
Trust me, it has done marvels to boost my confidence and skills, it can benefit anyone, go take a full course on spins ( Please in stages :-) with a qualified instrcuctor and appropriate aircraft. Slow flight, incipient or developped spin, all will come smoothly under control
Spatial awareness, coordination, light touch at the controls, dissipation of fear and it's consequences are guaranteed. Then the whole behavior at the back of the envelelope (Slow flight/second regime) will improve accordingly, the correct reflexes will be ingrained. After that you'll be the judge to what works and what does not, able to experience and correct when need be..
Likewise, unless one is trained to use full rudder I have NEVER seen anyone applying full opposite rudder, only a tad of opposite foot (despite believing otherwise), but always full opposite aileron as an instinctive reaction..
Anyway whatever the debate, I can assure you the the majority of accidents are due to not to recoveries techniques , but rather from the fear and lack of confidence arising from the risk of losing control.
It is well known that in these scenarios, the mental process is impaired with either uncosncious random inputs or just no inputs at all . This has nothing to do with skills or the lack of them, It is a normal process that can only be reversed with training. We humans have to learn and practice in order to be able to perform..
Trust me, it has done marvels to boost my confidence and skills, it can benefit anyone, go take a full course on spins ( Please in stages :-) with a qualified instrcuctor and appropriate aircraft. Slow flight, incipient or developped spin, all will come smoothly under control
Spatial awareness, coordination, light touch at the controls, dissipation of fear and it's consequences are guaranteed. Then the whole behavior at the back of the envelelope (Slow flight/second regime) will improve accordingly, the correct reflexes will be ingrained. After that you'll be the judge to what works and what does not, able to experience and correct when need be..
Unconscious applied full forward stick (Held there) can lead to negative spin]
You either spin the right way up, more or less, or inverted.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: West Woop Woop
Age: 53
Posts: 56
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The full rudder thing was about the scenario where at the point of stall, a sharp wing drop occurs. It is widely taught (and I don't know why) that recovery in that situation is to keep ailerons strictly neutral and apply opposite rudder to skid the dropped wing level by causing it to move faster than the other wing and thus generates more lift. The theory (which is BS) being you level the wings while lowering the nose to unstall the wings and you never used any aileron.
The problem with that BS is at the very low speed the aircraft is at the point of normal stall, instant full rudder is guaranteed to flick the aircraft into an incipient spin. Especially if there is a slight delay in lowering the nose.
Certification of aircraft designed in the past 40 years or more (Cessna series etc) require the ailerons to be effective below the stall, whereas aircraft in the old days (pre-war, post war) some had vicious wing drops. Application of opposite aileron exacerbated the wing drop. The classic was the Wirraway single engine trainer where the aircraft could flick inverted in a high speed stall. Hence the general advice when flying those types, not to use instant aileron to level the wings. Instead use only sufficient rudder to prevent a dropped wing from going down further and after the stall is broken by lowering the nose, use ailerons in the normal manner to level the wings. The whole maneouvre, including applying full power to minimise height loss near the ground, should be accomplished normally inside no more than 3-5 seconds.
But from interviewing hundreds of GA pilots over many years, you would be amazed that the vast majority said they had been taught by their flying school instructors to level the wings by rudder only - meaning literally skidding the wings level. Commonly called picking up the wing with rudder. And that is as recent as just a few days ago talking to airline candidates at flying schools that specialise in training cadets for selected airlines.
So whoever is training general aviation flying instructors are pushing old myths..
The problem with that BS is at the very low speed the aircraft is at the point of normal stall, instant full rudder is guaranteed to flick the aircraft into an incipient spin. Especially if there is a slight delay in lowering the nose.
Certification of aircraft designed in the past 40 years or more (Cessna series etc) require the ailerons to be effective below the stall, whereas aircraft in the old days (pre-war, post war) some had vicious wing drops. Application of opposite aileron exacerbated the wing drop. The classic was the Wirraway single engine trainer where the aircraft could flick inverted in a high speed stall. Hence the general advice when flying those types, not to use instant aileron to level the wings. Instead use only sufficient rudder to prevent a dropped wing from going down further and after the stall is broken by lowering the nose, use ailerons in the normal manner to level the wings. The whole maneouvre, including applying full power to minimise height loss near the ground, should be accomplished normally inside no more than 3-5 seconds.
But from interviewing hundreds of GA pilots over many years, you would be amazed that the vast majority said they had been taught by their flying school instructors to level the wings by rudder only - meaning literally skidding the wings level. Commonly called picking up the wing with rudder. And that is as recent as just a few days ago talking to airline candidates at flying schools that specialise in training cadets for selected airlines.
So whoever is training general aviation flying instructors are pushing old myths..
Join Date: Apr 1998
Location: Mesopotamos
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Y'know, those training hacks are bl@@dy hard to viciously stall. With power off they take forever to reach stall buffet and by then the horn has been blaring a while and the stick is right under your chin. With power fully on the wing drops are slightly more interesting but even with the horn blaring the b@stard thing still manages a positive climb rate.
Fully agree, it should be part of the training syllabus. Exploring the stall in a more slippery certified craft does wonders to one's overall handling skills in this area, to the point that it becomes a non-issue.
Go out there fly a certified aerobatic aircraft ( For your safety) with a competent instructor, try different scenarios, incipient stall, aggravated stall (Falling leaf) fully developped spin and recoveries, takes 1 flight to demonstrate, many more to master, but worth a 1.000.000.000 words.
Standard gliding full spin recovery technique is exactly this "BS" theory as you describe it - FULL opposite rudder, centralise ailerons, forward stick until the autorotation stops, centralise the rudder & then recover. With incipient spin recoveries we teach to relax the back pressure (effectively, forward stick again) and if there is a wing drop to correct it with opposite rudder as required. Even with full opposite rudder in a full spin recovery there is a significant delay before the autorotation stops, so using anything less than full rudder is just delaying the recovery and wasting altitude. There's no prop slipstream to help I know (even in idle) but why would any GA single be so different? I know the CT-4 used exactly the same recovery technique as I described with no issues ... it certainly never even came close to flicking into an opposite spin. I suppose if you just never centralised upon recovery it might.
another 2c from me.
The spin follows the stall and is a stalled manouvre. If we teach students to use ailerons in the stall to "pick up the wing" (because most modern aircraft retain effective aileron in the stall) but not to do that in a spin, I think that is expecting a bit much - I have seen more than once (many times in fact) pilots who are introduced to a stall off a climbing turn (often who have never had it introduced in their ab initio training) who frantically try and correct by using full deflection aileron as the aircraft starts to autorotate and also who seeing the aircraft rapidly pitch down, pull back hard. In a panic situation this is not a great response. Reinforcing aileron use in the stall is something I feel is not doing students a good service.
I have no problem teaching people to neutralise ailerons and if necessary use appropriate rudder in the stall (NB *not* to "pick up the wing" but to stop any associated yaw - allow the wing to be low - don't let the nose start wandering though ). If they become adept at this (falling leaf great for this) they will hopefully be more likely to use the same technique if the aircraft ever autorotates or enters a full developed spin.
That way we use a common technique in all stalled manouvres rather than one for the stall and one if it is developing into (or is) a spin.
The spin follows the stall and is a stalled manouvre. If we teach students to use ailerons in the stall to "pick up the wing" (because most modern aircraft retain effective aileron in the stall) but not to do that in a spin, I think that is expecting a bit much - I have seen more than once (many times in fact) pilots who are introduced to a stall off a climbing turn (often who have never had it introduced in their ab initio training) who frantically try and correct by using full deflection aileron as the aircraft starts to autorotate and also who seeing the aircraft rapidly pitch down, pull back hard. In a panic situation this is not a great response. Reinforcing aileron use in the stall is something I feel is not doing students a good service.
I have no problem teaching people to neutralise ailerons and if necessary use appropriate rudder in the stall (NB *not* to "pick up the wing" but to stop any associated yaw - allow the wing to be low - don't let the nose start wandering though ). If they become adept at this (falling leaf great for this) they will hopefully be more likely to use the same technique if the aircraft ever autorotates or enters a full developed spin.
That way we use a common technique in all stalled manouvres rather than one for the stall and one if it is developing into (or is) a spin.
Application of rudder is to prevent yaw, most aeroplanes will only yaw if you forcefully boot the rudder, yank on the ailerons or apply power. Most aircraft will recover without any input from the pilot at all.
Unless the aircraft is in a fully developed spin use of rudder will probably just make things a lot worse. Ref the Avweb video with the Cirrus going into a snap roll at about 200 feet AGL because someone did exactly this, it is a vid I show students before the stalling lesson.
Plus a proper analysis rather than old wives tales here https://www.richstowell.com/document...a_TP13748E.pdf
"One feature that stands out in all except one of the 39 stall/spin accidents examined is that knowing how to recover from the stall or spin was of no benefit to the pilots in these circumstances. They stalled at altitudes so low that once the stall developed, a serious accident was in progress"
This is what students need to study, not have instructors yank and shove little aeroplanes around at 3500 feet.
Unless the aircraft is in a fully developed spin use of rudder will probably just make things a lot worse. Ref the Avweb video with the Cirrus going into a snap roll at about 200 feet AGL because someone did exactly this, it is a vid I show students before the stalling lesson.
Plus a proper analysis rather than old wives tales here https://www.richstowell.com/document...a_TP13748E.pdf
"One feature that stands out in all except one of the 39 stall/spin accidents examined is that knowing how to recover from the stall or spin was of no benefit to the pilots in these circumstances. They stalled at altitudes so low that once the stall developed, a serious accident was in progress"
This is what students need to study, not have instructors yank and shove little aeroplanes around at 3500 feet.
And in Rich’s Summary:
Skill in recovery from stalls is needed, especially stalls in those situations that lead to a wing drop and autorotation requiring immediate, precise, and confident handling. Once the spin develops, as this study shows, the situation is too often an accident in progress.
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I find it amazing that the stall recovery debate comes up constantly over the years with varying techniques for recovery. Even some academics cant decide on how lift is actually produced so how the hell do we expect anyone to know stall recovery? After nearly 40 years driving planes from low powered SE's to heavy jets & thousands of hours I've not once stalled a plane accidently or put myself in a position where it's likely, only a few times during early training & even then it was a quick basic let it all go & fly away, at Alt of course. The above video says it all, very steep AoB, loading up the wing by pulling back on the stick whilst maneuvering close to the ground, all of which should never have been done in the first place, that's just poor handling & little knowledge of what NOT to do! Today's modern planes with good overall training don't need to be flying near the stall at all. Correct handling doesn't mean you should know how to get out of a stall it means don't put yourself in that position in the first place! Turning onto final at low Alt is not the time to test your abilities to recover from a stall no matter how you reckon its done, most wont survive, avoidance is your best insurance!
This is shown on a big screen at the beginning of a major airlines unusual attitude and stall training. If it doesn’t increase your pulse, you’re probably dead. Two MD test pilots completing a test card. No survival gear, as it wasn’t supposed to involve anything sporty. Watch the PF hands and the CRM. The first thing he does is unload the wing - pushes forward.
I find it amazing that the stall recovery debate comes up constantly over the years with varying techniques for recovery. Even some academics cant decide on how lift is actually produced so how the hell do we expect anyone to know stall recovery? After nearly 40 years driving planes from low powered SE's to heavy jets & thousands of hours I've not once stalled a plane accidently or put myself in a position where it's likely, only a few times during early training & even then it was a quick basic let it all go & fly away, at Alt of course. The above video says it all, very steep AoB, loading up the wing by pulling back on the stick whilst maneuvering close to the ground, all of which should never have been done in the first place, that's just poor handling & little knowledge of what NOT to do! Today's modern planes with good overall training don't need to be flying near the stall at all. Correct handling doesn't mean you should know how to get out of a stall it means don't put yourself in that position in the first place! Turning onto final at low Alt is not the time to test your abilities to recover from a stall no matter how you reckon its done, most wont survive, avoidance is your best insurance!
I believe teaching people stalling is not so much that they can recover if they accidentally stall but so they are familiar with the situations it can happen in and will recognise when they are putting in inputs that are leading to a stall/spin and will avoid continuing with those inputs.
I also think it should be taught so they are comfortable with the aircraft and don't fear it. Every now and then I come across pilots who fly unnecessary high speed approaches with corresponding long floats, clumsy landings and wasted runway and and when I query them they say they are scared of stalling so keep the speed up. Recently I had a pilot who pretty much dived the aircraft onto final, increasing speed for the base-final turn, fearful that he might stall in a turn low to the ground.
I think we should be teaching people good hand skills and proper flying techniques, rather than dumbing things down and teaching people to drive the aeroplane, to never have the opportunity to learn and experience from outside 'normal' situations and to be fearful of what might happen if things move outside their comfortable cocoon of 'normal' flight.
Stalling and low speed flight is part of that. I really believe that taught properly stalling should not be a scary or uncomfortable process - it should not be a big deal and should result in the pilot feeling more in control, more confident and understanding more about the aircraft and should give them an intuitive feel for when they are pushing the limits and what will happen if they continue. I think that stalling is often taught poorly because the instructor was taught poorly and so is not comfortable with stalling (I think that is far more common than instructors who want to show off to the student).
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: West Woop Woop
Age: 53
Posts: 56
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Application of rudder is to prevent yaw, most aeroplanes will only yaw if you forcefully boot the rudder, yank on the ailerons or apply power. Most aircraft will recover without any input from the pilot at all.
Unless the aircraft is in a fully developed spin use of rudder will probably just make things a lot worse. Ref the Avweb video with the Cirrus going into a snap roll at about 200 feet AGL because someone did exactly this, it is a vid I show students before the stalling lesson.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nm_hoHhbFo&t=25s
Plus a proper analysis rather than old wives tales here https://www.richstowell.com/document...a_TP13748E.pdf
"One feature that stands out in all except one of the 39 stall/spin accidents examined is that knowing how to recover from the stall or spin was of no benefit to the pilots in these circumstances. They stalled at altitudes so low that once the stall developed, a serious accident was in progress"
This is what students need to study, not have instructors yank and shove little aeroplanes around at 3500 feet.
Unless the aircraft is in a fully developed spin use of rudder will probably just make things a lot worse. Ref the Avweb video with the Cirrus going into a snap roll at about 200 feet AGL because someone did exactly this, it is a vid I show students before the stalling lesson.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nm_hoHhbFo&t=25s
Plus a proper analysis rather than old wives tales here https://www.richstowell.com/document...a_TP13748E.pdf
"One feature that stands out in all except one of the 39 stall/spin accidents examined is that knowing how to recover from the stall or spin was of no benefit to the pilots in these circumstances. They stalled at altitudes so low that once the stall developed, a serious accident was in progress"
This is what students need to study, not have instructors yank and shove little aeroplanes around at 3500 feet.
