do you agree?
Absolutely, the aim is to minimise departure risk during the exercise
The primary pitch control is the elevator and should be used to decrease the pitch of the airplane so that it begins flying again.
Concur. However, it doesn't assist the goal if the aircraft departs controlled flight. The stall needs to be well-controlled consistent with the aeroplane's characteristics.
emphasis on using the rudders in the stall instead of ailerons
That is an historical hangover from earlier aeroplanes for which aileron input complicated stall behaviour. More recent aeroplanes should be reasonably well behaved. Rudder has the potential for surprises so needs to be used in a very constrained manner entering the stall regime.
"decrease pitch to recover!"
it might be preferable to emphasise unloading to reduce alpha with the aim of unstalling .. the recovery, say, to straight and level flight occurs post unstall.
The elevator, now acting 50% as pitch control and 50% as directional control
that's a little in the way of innovative thought. If one is looking at body axes, I would have expected the elevator to produce pitching moment only ?
AND decrease the directional deviation (yawing moment) from its heading.
can you walk us through just how this occurs ? Sometimes I'm a tad slow picking up the details ...
What happens when the pilot decides to instinctively fight the wing drop by adding rudder? ... but it also pitches the nose of the airplane up!
again, might I ask for some further clarification of the mechanics involved ?
The four-step procedure:
1. Reduce pitch
2. Power full
3. Coordinated roll to wings level
4. Pitch for VY
while the semantics may vary from source to source, presuming there is no departure other than the stall and recognising that AFM/POH guidance is prescriptive I might prefer to see something along the lines of
- manual flight - reduce pitch - control yaw
- reduce thrust if/as necessary
- unstall
- simultaneously increase thrust while returning to the desired flight path using co-ordinated control inputs.
Increasing thrust significantly while stalled (ie high alpha) may result in significant and undesirable nose up pitching moments, especially for larger engines. Pitching motion potentially may give rise to undesired yawing moments.
As to target speed, that would depend on circumstances and priorities on the occasion.
Straight and level flight should be established with full coordinated use of the controls
one presumes that we are referring to post unstall ?
some of the quotes are a bit generalised but well-intentioned.
where are these instructors getting the idea that you should use uncoordinated rudder in the stall recovery?
Probably part historical hangover from a bygone era mixed with a very sensible concern for the typical low level stall event scenario. However, it should be a matter of minimising overall risk .. and, below whatever height might be appropriate for the Type involved, it just might not be possible to recover successfully .. hence the real importance of being very aware of exposure to stall risk situations.
an "approach to stall" exercise should be done with zero altitude loss because, in their words, "you weren't stalled".
In earlier days, it was expected that pilots would be highly attuned to prestall warnings and would be able to recover post warning prior to entry into the stall environment. For many aircraft this was quite feasible with little or no height loss .. indeed, for some of the larger turboprops at low to mid weights, the exercise involved power up and climbing out of the prestall situation ..
Nowhere ... does it say that one of the aims of the exercise is zero altitude loss
The sensible test program addresses a wide range of stall situations and should cover role related considerations.
The line pilot is far more interested in the real world operational imperatives of
(a) not hitting the hard bits
(b) getting back to where the aeroplane was intended to be
These differences result in differing emphases.
At least, in recent times, we have been seeing a pronounced move away from the minimum height loss philosophy.