PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - Why did they want us to maintain altitude
Old 9th Aug 2018, 01:52
  #33 (permalink)  
eckhard
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: France
Age: 69
Posts: 1,143
Received 4 Likes on 3 Posts
Originally Posted by RetiredBA/BY
Minimum height loss recovery, of course, pretty obvious really.

SO what was wrong with what we taught in the RAF via CFS, where I was a standards QFI ( and later a Boeing TC)

Stall means we have exceeded the max cl angle and lift is deteriorating, probably because we have let IAS get too low and increased a of a to try and compensate,

SO: stick forward just enough to reduce angle of attack and restore lift, lower nose until buffet, stick shaker stops AND add FULL POWER. Gently rotate into climb.

And when the 737 pitches up on power,, control it to your advantage using forward stick, basic. ( And I have a few thousand hours, LHS on type plus a few thousand hours on bigger Boeing’s )

Recovery achieved, lminimum height loss.

Simples !

What were we we getting wrong?
The way you describe it - not much. BUT, that was not the way it was taught on my (UK CAA) 737 course in 1987, nor on my 747 course in 1997.

At low altitude, we were told to keep the AP in and add full power, period.
If manually flying, select and hold 5 degrees nose-up and add full power.
At high altitude, an attitude just below the horizon was selected and held, while adding full power.

No mention of ‘lower the nose until the buffet stops’, just select and hold the appropriate attitude. Made me feel very uncomfortable.
eckhard is offline