Originally Posted by
Artisan
Well this is what the CASA Flight Training Manual says:
RECOVERY WHEN THE WING DROPS
Use the standard recovery, i.e. simultaneous use of power and forward movement of the control column. In addition rudder must be used to prevent the nose of the aeroplane yawing into the direction of the lowered wing. The ailerons should be held neutral until control is regained, when the wings should be levelled.
The thinking here is to provide a consistent safe recovery and to prevent entry into a spin.
Note the use of rudder is to prevent further yaw, not to “pick up the dropped wing”. The ailerons should be held neutral until the wings are un-stalled, otherwise trying to “pick up” the low wing with aileron will further increase the angle of attack of the low wing and further aggravate the undesired roll tendency.
On everything I've flown, I think this would be correct. I have not heard the term 'pick up a wing with the rudder', although in true slow-flight in a Cessna you do need to use the rudder because the ailerons can be in the region of reverse command. Modern day primary flight training seems to avoid spins, deep stalls and MCAS slow flight. Anywhere on the backside of the power curve is now slow flight, or something like that.
What I don't understand about this conversation is which 'myth' the OP is trying to skewer. Is the 'old wives tale' the idea that the ailerons will be ineffective in a stall, that you should use opposite rudder when a wing drops, or something else? I'm not necessarily critical of modern methods or of anyone who does things differently than I was taught, but I think that different perspectives may come from a different understanding of the phases of flight as well as significant differences in how airplanes perform. Even in the SEL less-than-250HP general aviation classification there are big differences that would affect the issues here. Some aircraft can develop very high sink rates without being fully stalled, so the ailerons still work. Others do not behave this way, and using ailerons will put you in a very bad state very quickly.
Just for reference, I'm a mid-to-low time pilot that has flown at least 7 different types that sort of encompass the range of the small single engine category. My training included things like full stalls, spins of three turns, engine-out to a full-stop landing and after PPL, things like tailwheel, floats and even (once) skis. I even went for some aerobatic training with inverted spins. I realize that many of these things are not practical or encouraged today, but when I hear people claiming that you can safely control a stalled airplane indefinitely, including aileron usage, all I can visualize is the smoking wreck where they've spun in turning base to final on a gusty day. Someone trained the way I was would know better.
There may be good reasons for some of the more modern methods, and the story by PaulH1 illustrates one pretty well--in order to survive a low-level stall such as the classic base-to-final spin, you need to catch it much earlier. In a single-engine Cessna, if the left wing suddenly drops sharply and the plane yaws 90 degrees left, someone with my training will recover quickly and efficiently without breaking a sweat because we've done it before. Unfortunately, in many cases the ground will intervene before we're finished. Someone who is terrified of actual stalls and has never, ever done a spin recovery will be almost as well off because in this case, your survival depends on dealing with an incipient stall, not a full one. Perhaps it is best to concentrate training energy there. However, that doesn't justify dismissing other techniques or training as "old wives tales".