Dumping Height: Why not stall?

[paulo]

Now, I thorougly expect this to kick off, so first a caveat: This isn't meant as a suggestion, instead a debating point...

In some types, the stall is benign. I mean really benign. You can float away all you like, and even someone who has never even flown an aircraft before will not get themselves in trouble as long as they keep pulling, keep balancing and have some rough kind of faith.

So, now lets take someone who is actually experienced on type. Forced landing. Too high. S-Turns are fine, sideslipping is fine, but... (and I know I'm going out on a limb here)... one could give it some serious back pull and pile off the altitude whilst retaining an "on-track" view to the target.

I think I'll now duck as I expect missiles are incoming. :}

[Human Factor]

Good thought. However, the rate of descent in a stall is quite considerable plus the amount of height lost during recovery. I guess it depends how close to the ground you are and the controllability of your aeroplane. Although, you're only likely to find yourself in this situation close to the ground. Best avoided I think. I have heard tales of people stalling into trees when there's been no alternative! :oh:

[ROB-x38]

If you've got the height for a stall and recovery then I reckon you've got the height for some shallow turns into the same field and i'd rather do that and spend the extra time preparing pax or trying to inject some life into the fan up front.

But they did it in that movie with the old codgers in the space shuttle :uhoh:

[IO540]

paulo

Do you mean dumping height in an emergency, or dumping height to achieve a very steep descent?

In the latter case, I would say that if there is enough height to stall etc safely then one can do a descending orbit. I once came over some 6000ft hills to land an a field at sea level, about 3nm along. I don't know how many orbits I had to do to lose the 5000ft :O

[foxmoth]

I would think the main problem here is judging when to recover, if you hold it in until you have the right picture and then recover you could find the recovery has taken you to low which would be VERY embarassing. The advantage with the other methods of losing height (Orbits, "S" turns, sideslipping, fishtailing) is that it is much easier to judge the right point to recover to a normal glide.

[Obs cop]

The biggest problem I can see with a deliberate stall in a PFL situation relates to flying the picture.

I have always been taught to fly pfls with an aiming point remaining fixed in the windscreen. Ie. moving down is an overshoot and moving up an undershoot. Keep it in the same spot and thats where you are going.

In a stall you have a completely different desent profile from that of a normal approach and thus the picture will look radically different. IMHO this would make deciding the point to recover from a stall very difficult and particularly dangerous. Further to this, aircraft that are benign in the stall, tend to sit and wallow at a very high nose up attitude, removing virtually all forward view, making the recovery decision even harder and committing the ultimate sin of not keeping sight of your target field.

Just my thoughts,

Obs cop

[Flyin'Dutch']

p,

All the other methods to loose height are very controllable in direction, ROD, entry and exit height, speed etc.

The stall is none of the above and there is always the risk of a spin if you got an upset due to turbulence, which is more likely to increase in the approach to land.

FD

[FNG]

I seem to recall reading somewhere that Lettice Curtis, or one of the other ATA pilots, deliberately stalled to landing after an engine failure in order to avoid crashing into a hangar or ammo dump.

[Snigs]

In those aircraft that it's safe to do it, a side slip will give you similar ROD to that of a stall, and under much more control! Never stall close to the gound, stall spinning is a huge risk, and deadly!

[whatunion]

snigs at least you sound like an instructor.

first problem negligence and liabillity.seen the adverts on tv. had an accident not your fault. read into it, had an accident, probably was my fault but lets try and get some money.

your honour, it was openly known the instructor xyz departed from the syllabus and taught people to actuall stall the aircarft at low level to rectify height and adjust descent while practicing pfls.
its fairly obvious then that this stall accident was caused by the negligence of his instructor.

can you tell me instructor xyz is it considered good avaition practice to purposely stall a/c at low level.

would you agree then that it is in fact extremely dangerous to stall an a/c at low level (you may not but there will be plenty of experts present who will)

after you have read this check out whether you are covered for negligence with your school policy or personal policy, if not put your house in your wifes name!

what you are trying to achieve is reduce ground speed while descending. there are many other ways of doing this which are far safer, such as side slipping or turning.

you also may consider that the human body can take much more forward impact that it can upward impact.

when you teach stalling as an exercise, a lot of you are actually teaching stalling on that particulay a/c in that particular configuration at that particular c of g.

have you ever stopped to think you are actually teaching your student stalling on every particular a.c he/ she will fly on from a cessna to a 747.

you may be teaching a slow entry at 1 kt per sec but if your student ever stalls for real will it be a slow entry similar to the one being taught, will he just sit there and say, oh look we are stalling.
remember the trident accident at staines.
the enquiry said;

if after x secs after take off the crew had been asked(and there were 4 on the flight deck!) why dont you recover, they would have replied recover from what?

this is a sentence all instructors should remember when teaching stalling; RECOVER FROM WHAT?

the crew did not understand that the a/c was stalling and seconds later they and all their passengers were dead.

these were 4 proffesional pilots two of whom had been through hamble.

my point is that actually stalling and teaching stalling can be two very different matters. therefore encouraging anyone to stall intentionly at low level would be total madness and totally iresponsible.

when you teach stalling you should teach and drive home the point;
to day we are stalling the a/c correctly loaded and balanced, on this particualr a/c on this particular day and with this particular entry and speed this is what happened. on another day or on another a/c the results may be entirely different.

we have been on stalling here before and discussed always applying full power to recover, so let me run this one by you.

many years ago i was doing a stalling exercise with a student and i asked him to enter a stall with power on and full up elevator. this he dutifully did, when he went to recover the control column would not budge, it was locked in the full aft position. full power wasnt much good to us in fact i had to stop him from continually trying to apply full power.

how would your student fare on a forced landing with full up elevator locked on, not very well i would think so perhaps best not to go there i think!

[QDMQDMQDM]

Because it is a phase of flight where the aircraft is under only limited control and recovery from it is not completely predictable.

It's a really crazy suggestion!

QDM

[Flyin'Dutch']

w,

Not sure what rattled your cage but I think you are being unfair on sniggs.

Not sure why you pick on him/her, I had actually posted the same and now feel left out!

Whilst it is perfectly safe to stall most aircraft during the landing phase to flare it on at minimum speed at grass top height, the suggestion to do so during the approach to achieve a high ROD is unsafe.

I don't understand what the Staines Trident accident illustrates with regards to stalling during the landing phase.

I will don my flak jacket, as I no doubt will be flamed for having the audacity to query your eloquent post. And whilst I am at it, can I ask you to use capitals there were required. Makes you look so much more mature.

;)

FD

PS Scary to realise that someone who can go off at the deep end like that is actually instructing

[TonyR]

At the risk of being totally lambasted for this, I used to find that if I want to get "more sink" without side slpping in the old PA27 Aztec, I slow down, (a lot).

I don't do it very close to the ground, but say from 2000 ft to 700 ft agl, it is an effective way to loose height without too much distance covered, and with a bit of height remaining I could get back to blue line speed quickly if one donk failed.

I have flown the aztec into some very difficult places and sometimes you need every trick in the book to get there.

YOU MUST KNOW YOUR AIRCRAFT VERY WELL BEFORE TRYING THIS. ( I do know the Aztec very well)

I was never comfortable side slipping in a twin.

The Rallye can be held in a full stall giving about 1000 fpm ROD showing nothing on the ASI, but again I would not do this on final approach. (it will turn its self into wind).

Tony

[FNG]

FD, whatunion appears to be a troll: have a look at the instructors' forum, where he has had BEagle chewing the furniture.

Edit: to be fair, maybe not a full-on troll of the fol-de-rol variety, but capable of exhibiting troll-like characteristics.

[TonyR]

And someone accused me of being on the "shandy" when posting

[Flyin'Dutch']

Sorry guys,

The lack of grammar and capitals should have given it away!

FD

Tailwheel fixed so off to pick up the bird tonight!

[FNG]

....why not save time and collect the aeroplane as well?

[whatunion]

sorry fd but your comments

The stall is none of the above and there is always the risk of a spin if you got an upset due to turbulence, or

Whilst it is perfectly safe to stall most aircraft during the landing phase

dosnt really sound like instructor speak to me.

perhaps as an instructor you are versed in the difference between people and can understand i post without capital letters as i understand you post with them. the understanding of people does however come with maturity, so hang on in there!

i appreciate some of the others need to highlight my inadequacies and i welcome it because it underlines what sort of instructors you are but as i have said before i am happy with my inadequacies, what excuses can you give for being perfect..

if you get a collection of people who all agree with each other
you dont get any debate, if you do not get any debate you do not get any progress.

you do not understand what the staines accident has to do with stalling on the approach but i do, what does that tell you about both of us and you dont need to put a flak jacket on?

some of you may be very impressed from what you have heard on here from some of the old hands, i cant say i have. my next door neighbour has been driving for years and i have the marks on the gatepost to prove it.

a lot has changed since the birch and bramson era, but generally very little has been changed by those of that era.

have a nice evening with your bird!

[paulo]

Hmmm. Some good things I'd not thought about - the picture scenario, and the windshear type stuff nearer the ground.

I'm not sure what fps is doing this vs. s turns etc. Unless there's a big difference, maybe there'd be no benefit even in a desperation scenario (e.g. you absolutely have to be in that field in front of you, not the next one/housing estate/school field full of kids/whatever)

[Skylark4]

Whatunion.
Your lack of proper punctuation makes your argument very difficult to understand. From here on in. I shall ignore your posts.

Many people.
Loose = sloppy, not tight.
Lose = to become uncertain of the location of something.
Please get it right, it puts my teeth on edge.

Mike W

[Milt]

Approach Angle

Anything which increases an aircraft's drag during descent will increase the glide/approach angle.

Angle is determined by the ratio of drag to lift.

Aircraft which land / approach below their minimum drag speed, such as an unflapped delta can readily increase their glide angle by raising the nose to increase angle of attack and hence drag.

The Mirage III delta is typical. Pilots get to know that a breif haul back on the stick will result in a ready means carving off excess height. An F111 with wings swept back is even worse requiring almost full power to stay on anywhere near a reasonable glide slope. Space shuttle worse again.

But NO NO NO to stalls at low level - you will end up in a crunched heap if you persist.

[Milt]

Explanation of "Speed Instability on the Approach"

Most aircraft have a minimum total drag speed. Usually min drag speed for light aircraft is 10 to 20 kts above the stall and is the speed which gives you shallowest glide angle. Good to know it if ever you want to glide furthest in still air. Glide at speeds above or below min drag speed and the angle of glide increases.

Approach speeds are usually above min drag. Thus if you are below glide slope and inrease alpha you will go back towards intended glide slope, losing a little speed in the process. Drag is reduced down towards min drag speed and all feels natural as you regain glide slope..

High performance military aircraft often have min drag speeds well above an optimum speed for landing approach. With such aircraft below glide slope when you increase alpha the speed washes off fairly fast and the increase in drag can be large. Result is you don't get back to the desired glide slope and markedly increase the angle of descent. Pilot work load is high and many have auto throttles to keep you on speed.

Angle of glide is the cosine (I think) of drag over lift.

An F111 with wings fully swept to 72 degrees (26 degrees forward) has a min drag speed over 300 kts and a steeply rising drag below 300. Full dry power may not be enough to dig you out of the hole unless you can trade off altitude

Is that enough of an explanation?

[Flyin'Dutch']

w,

Glad not to have to feel left out anymore, I at least hope that with the profane reference to your fellow fliers you did include me.

It is well known from psychology research, that those referring to others by using expressions relating to genitalia do so out of a deep frustration with their own.

May be that snippet of knowledge had escaped your attention but thought I'd be generous and share it with you so that you can avoid embarrassing yourself on these public forums in future.

Keep up the good work.

FD

[MLS-12D]

In some types, the stall is benign. I mean really benign. You can float away all you like, and even someone who has never even flown an aircraft before will not get themselves in trouble as long as they keep pulling, keep balancing and have some rough kind of faith.True. But in many types, the stall is not benign and you will get a violent downward pitching movement, probably accompanied by a wing drop and an incipient spin. One would be grossly imprudent to assume that every fixed-wing aircraft has the flying characteristics of a spam can.

Forced landing. Too high. S-Turns are fine, sideslipping is fine, but... But what? :confused:

[TonyR]

whatunion,

i was an instructor for 16 years so i am well used to the low hour self appointed experts

So for 16 years you probibly flew with hundreds of students, you flew the first four hours or so then you sat and they flew the next fifty.

I think you will find a depth of knowlege and experience on this forum that you are unlikely to find anywhere else in the aviation industry.

Some of us were never instructors but perhaps have flown more hours in many aicraft type in remote areas of the world that you might never even have heard of over the last 30 years or so.

There is more to being a pilot that the white shirt and gold bars.

So why don't you sit up and listen for a while, instead of trying to insult us, you might even learn something.

Tony

[Keef]

TonyR: I sense a troll there. I'd guess 13 to 16 years old. I may be wrong, but I doubt it.

Not worth getting excited about. Your comment is spot on, nevertheless.

[MLS-12D]

Yes, hardly worth worrying about. Best to ignore the personal attacks: which of course are unwarranted, but since we all know that, they don't do any harm.

I wouldn't waste time reading the posts of anyone who can't be bothered to use correct punctuation, spelling and capitals ... just add such people to your "ignore" list.

[paulo]

MLS - Absolutely - I'd already discounted types that are anything other than utterly stable. What I fly has a ventral fin and is very stable. No wing drop, no pitch oscillation.

As for why even raise it - just to debate, I've no idea whether it has any validity vs. S Turns or sideslipping. Just for fun I might do some tests (at a decent altitute) to compare fps.

[shortstripper]

Interesting debate but a bit too dodgy I'd say on the approach.

However, when I was a fresh faced glider pilot, I often thought that if I lost it in cloud I'd simply spin down an out (assuming decent cloud base). My thoughts were that as spinning is a stable and safe condition for the airframe, it would be preferable to losing control and overstressing the glider in say, a spiral dive. As gliders are very benign in the spin and will recover easily ... the idea does stand up. I never used it though, and having later learnt to fly on instruments I didn't really give it further thought until now.

SS

[FNG]

Shortstripper: interesting point. The idea of spinning to descend through cloud has come up before, but none of us knew anyone who'd tried it. As you say, preferable to over-stressing the airframe whilst out of control in a descent. It would be psychologically disconcerting, to say the least, to start the spin above unbroken cloud, trusting (a) to the accuracy of the reported cloudbase and (b) to one's ability to remain focused whilst spinning through grey fog and so recover promptly on clearing the base. I think that, if I was stupid enough to get myself stuck above cloud (having no IMC), I would probably opt to try a straight ahead descent on instruments (telling D&D what I was up to and taking their advice) unless the instruments were broken.

[shortstripper]

Yes I agree,

Like I said this was something I thought about when flying mainly old wood and fabric gliders. Machines such as Blaniks, K6/8/13's ect ect all spin very predictably and can be recovered within a turn or two at most. If the cloud base was over at least 1500 agl (pref more) I would have been happy to spin ... well, maybe "happy" is the wrong word but you know what I mean ;)

Powered aircraft tend to spin a bit more erratically and recovery is often slower, especially after several turns. Also glider spins are very benign and you'd have to be very sensitive to become disoriented unlike a powered aeroplane. The whole point was that if you were likely to become disoriented at least a spin is a known flight state that is safe and if intentionally initiated then recovery should be pretty straight forward.

I wouldn'd seriously suggest anybody does this ... but in the context of this discussion, and bearing in mind the nature of gliders, it was something to ponder :ok:

SS

[rustle]

I think that, if I was stupid enough to get myself stuck above cloud (having no IMC), I would probably opt to try a straight ahead descent on instruments (telling D&D what I was up to and taking their advice) unless the instruments were broken.I'm guessing that you would do this if you were low on fuel or had another problem forcing you down?

By remaining above and talking to someone on the ground you may find that there is an area within easy flying distance/time where the WX is perhaps SCT/BKN and such a perilous descent is not actually required :)

(A.N.C., A.N.C., I hear everyone shout, but surely part of "A" is knowing all of your available options?)

[FNG]

In the extremely hypothetical scenario I describe, I am (a) very stupid in the first place, and (b) let us assume, in need of a descent asap (perhaps low fuel and/or unbroken cloud as far as can be seen and/or pubs about to open). I suppose that this just could happen, but if I ever allowed it to happen to me in real life, I would deserve a kicking.

[FAA Old timer]

Can I comment on a couple of points,

I have used the "high AoA" method of loosing height in a lot of different aircraft from the F-86 Sabre to the F-16 (fast jets dont much like side slip).

I have also used the "spin in method" in my old Super Cub, even I, with 50 + years and 23,500 hours still can end up looking for a big hole to get down. if I find a small hole I can put the cub in a gentle spin and down we go, just semi-recovering if things get too quick (don't tell the FAA).

I WOULD NOT SPIN IN CLOUD, STRICTLY VMC.

One more point, I was in the USAF for 30 years including a couple of scraps, and flight testing for the Feds for over 20 years, so I might just be one that does know a small bit.

I have come accross many like our friend Whatunion, being Irish and a big fella, my Mission Statement was "Please do not give me crap like this as a smack in the mouth may offend"

John Anderson.

[Sans Anoraque]

On my keyboard (which is quite traditional) I use a finger on my left hand to press the up arrow thus enabling the fingers on my right hand to enter a letter in uppercase.

I think whatunion's problem is that one of his hands is busy doing something else. What do you think that could be???

[MayorQuimby]

paulo,

I presume you're talking about the Robin when you mention the ventral fin. Does the one you fly not drop a wing with full flap deployed?

MQ.

[yakker]

Does not Xavier de Lapparent stall his aircraft to end his display?
Approach is very slow in the stall but high rate of descent, just before touchdown applies power and rolls along the runway.

The 'falling leaf' manoeuvre is also taking the aircraft to the stall, recovering, and stalling again (easier to draw than explain) to descend quickly with very little forward movement.

[paulo]

MQ - Yup, 2160. I can't remember stalling it full flap, so dunno.

[englishal]

I suppose if you have a serious problem, you do whatever you can to get down.

I've often wondered about this, most people have done the "falling leaf" exercise at some point, where you stall and hold it stalled for say 30 seconds or more. Now if you look at the VSI you see you're only coming down at 2000ish fpm, which equates to <30 miles per hour vertical speed. Better still, your forward velocity is pretty low. Last time I simulated an EF in an Arrow, leaving the prop forward, we were coming down at 1500 fpm with a forward velocity of around 75kts.

So in the event of engine failure, without any options for a safe landing, why not stall the thing, and "float" down onto something soft, rather than hit a fence with a high forward velocity?

EA;)

[Flyin'Dutch']

So in the event of engine failure, without any options for a safe landing, why not stall the thing, and "float" down onto something soft, rather than hit a fence with a high forward velocity?

Stall equals risk of spinning.

Few people survive a spin close to the ground. On the other hand very few people get killed when you over or undershoot your intended landing spot............

As someone mentioned on here before, you are more resilient to for aft de/accellerations than vertical ones.

I know what I'd choose.

FD

[MayorQuimby]

The 2160 I fly is, as you say, quite benign with no flap, but has quite a lively wing drop with full. Something to bear in mind while trying to mush it into the field :ok:

[englishal]

As a certain Irish guy once taught me.....

"Aim for a picture window" (when flying over a large built up area like LA)

:D

[Snigs]

Come on people, in what lesson did your instructor teach you how to stall descend and "float" down onto something soft.

Well.......??????

So why do some of you think it's all right to do it once you've got a PPL.

Do not deliberately stall the aircraft if you cannot recover by 3000' agl

Stalling greatly increases the risk of inducing a spin fact. You can lose height very rapidly in a spin say 1000 ft in 10-15 secs. fact. If you stall close to the ground and spin as a consequence, you will, in all probability die in the wreckage.

And stop being so childish, I've seen a lot worse than whatunion on these boards in my time, leave the sniping out, you're only lowering yourselves to the level at which you perceive he is at!

[shortstripper]

Hmmmm ... I deliberately stall the aeroplane virtually every time I land ... which is generally at less than 3000' :E

SS

[Snigs]

Ah yes, but not much more than 3ft, I'd hazard to guess! :O

[paulo]

Snigs: In the aerobatic fraternity there isn't a fixed "not below [x]". 3000ft might be yours (and as it happens it's mine too for spinning), but it's not everyones. Some higher some lower.

MQ: Thanks for the info about the 2160 on full flap. I'll give that a try next time I'm out to play.

[J.A.F.O.]

I'm trying hard to ignore whatunion but, I'm afraid, I need his expertise on one point that he raised.
a lot has changed since the birch and bramson era, but generally very little has been changed by those of that era.
As an instructor would you be kind enough to explain to me which laws of physics have been altered.

[englishal]

So why do some of you think it's all right to do it once you've got a PPL.
Wow, I consider myself well and truley bollocked :D

[whatunion]

sorry fd, it was me that mentioned you had a better chance with horizontal impact than vertical, you see you do read my posts after all.

i dont mind you ignoring me but before you totally ignore me can i just mention this to you all


FNG posted this

No one has advocated stalling to lose height, and even we mere PPLs appreciate that stalling is (crikey!) dangerous.

i will say that again and as i know you guys like capitals

NO ONE HAS ADVOCATED STALLING TO LOOSE HEIGHT. strange really but the title of the original post is DUMPING HEIGHT: WHY NOT STALL. someone is very confused here.

someone mentioned parts of my post, thank you for going to the trouble of reproducing them.


May be you can elaborate and explain to us lesser gods how you can:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
even on a calm day with an inversion the shear can be extreme.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
sorry are you asking me, can you get shear with an inversion if so the answer is yes and it can be marked. a good quality avaition met book will explain it to you.

And how a pilot of your great knowledge and ability get themselves in a situation whereby:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i went into a farm strip on top of a hill in wales and the sink was such that even with full power we could not change the sink from 600 fpm until we reached an updraft near the end of the strip which allowed to go around.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
thats an easy one, first of all you will never hear me say i have great knowledge about flying or any other subject, i can only tell you what i have experienced in my experience, sorry if that offends.

i took off from an aerodrome were the weather was considerably different from the weather we encountered at the farm, the weather or more correctly the wind was not forecasted to be of the nature we experienced. it was assumed i would land at the farm. the owner of the airfield was there waiting for us and he signalled with a lamp saying it was safe to land. from where he was standing i am sure it was. i was at the time a low houred instructor with a reasonable knbowledge of strip flying. i felt quite confident until i got into the last 3-400ft of the approach then i realised i was in an area of sink the like of i had never experienced before. i applied full power and raised the flap in stages but the a/c continued down towards the runway at around 600 fpm. at that stage i though i was just going to hit the runway, eventually we caught a updraught.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe you need to get the relevant bits of your ATPL syllabus out and revise the appropriate bits on meteorology and aircraft performance.
---------------------------------------------------------------

i found the old long hand cpl syllabus much more useful but agree some of us need to revise our thoughts. the most useful information wont be found in either syllabus. that's to go around if you are unsure and do not land at an airfield if you are not happy with the conditions. its something that lead to me being laughed at and called a coward but its something i still abide by even with 200 passengers behind me.

And:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i have also encountered standing wave rotor where there was only 10 knots in the sock. the sink/turbulence was so bad that when the the glider tug took off it snapped the tow rope to the glider.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Is to prove what?

That you were operating a glider tug combination without a weak-link or that the rope you use is of inferior quality?
__________________________________________
i wasnt operating the tug or the glider, you completely missed the point. the tow rope to my knowledge has never in my experience at that airfield broken before.

in all the flying i have done from alaska to finland i have never come across such violent turbulence even at high altitude or over mountains in light a/c. my lasting memory is of the ignition key fob going from the down natural position to the uppermost position on the coaming/ins panel. it was the most frightening experience i have ever encountered in any a/c. the cfi an ex wartime pilot returned saying he had never known turbulence like it.

my point is that had you phoned that airfield in the morning and asked them if it was a good day for flying they would have said yes, until they flew in it. we were all suprised because there was only 10 kts in the sock.

to answer your question which you really should know as its been the subject of a multitude of saftey directives and information circulars is:

you may get a big suprise in the last 500 feet with an engine out. its always best to have some speed and height in hand rather than what this post suggests which is the opposite and could be downright dangerous. the sink or shear in the last 500 feet may cause you to undershoot with an accompanied increase in descent rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have come accross many like our friend Whatunion, being Irish and a big fella, my Mission Statement was "Please do not give me crap like this as a smack in the mouth may offend"

John Anderson

-----------------------------------------------

being irish and big too my mission statement is, please dont let the irish down with statements like this, its not very original and only gives succour to the thick irish and terrorist jokes.

[TonyR]

I said "I don't like Cessna singles in much over 20 knots accross".

You said 35 knots accross in a 150 is no problem.

I think is is a problem (even for Cessna's own demo pilots)

So therefore I think you are either bulls..ting or silly.

Tony

[englishal]

I read an interesting article about gliding and mountain waves. A glider / tug combo flew into the wave somewhere in north America, the glider experienced 15G, the wings fell of the tow plane, the rope snapped, and the tug pilot bailed out (sucessfully). The glider stayed in one piece and landed.

[Say again s l o w l y]

Stalls only need to be recovered by 2000' NOT 3000' as is always put about.

Following on from FAA Oldtimer, if you are stuck above a layer with only a small hole below AND you are proficient with the spin recovery in the particular type you are flying, then why not spin down through the hole?

Too many people are scared to explore the limits of their a/c as well their own capabilites.
It's all to easy to shout "thou shalt not........" about alot of things in aviation, but until you've been in a particular situation then judging the right and wrongs of somebody's actions is always going to be mostly guesswork.

Stalling itself is not dangerous, smacking into the ground a high sink rate is what kills you not the stall.

With so many students terrified of stalling, I always took them up high, stalled the a/c and held it there for a couple of thousand feet, talking and showing what I was doing and what was happening to the machine. This usually helped calm most of the terror that was felt about stalls.

Stall+yaw = Spin. Yes it does, but in most light a/c such as cessnas and PA28's, you really have to try b*oody hard to get them to drop into a spin. So it's not as dangerous as people like to make out. (I still wouldn't recommend either close to the ground.)

Like anything, is stalling to lose height sensible? Up to the individual. I'd be perfectly happy doing it in a machine I'm familiar with, but then again I've done more than a few stalling exercises in the past few years.

One thing I was always taught by someone alot wiser than me. "Don't try anything new in an emergency unless you've exhausted every other option..." Have a go on a nice CAVOK sunny day, see what happens, then make you're own decisions. After all, even if you are a solo student, you're still the a/c commander and it's your a*se on the line.

[whatunion]

somegreat advice there

but quote



Stalling itself is not dangerous, smacking into the ground a high sink rate is what kills you not the stall.

have you ever noticed that a/c are never dangerous until a pilot gets into them.

unfortunately stalling is an area of flight normally occuring at the low and slow phase.

[J.A.F.O.]

whatunion

Thanks for clearing up my query, didn't think that they'd changed, but it's always safer to check.

Nice to see you've got those numbers mastered, for the next lesson we'll move things on a bit and introduce spelling, I know it's a new concept for you but it's really not as difficult as some would make out. If you could just read up on apostrophes before the next lesson we'll have you solo on that keyboard within the year.

[Say again s l o w l y]

Yep. Inadvertant stalling and spinning kills people at low level, but I hope nobody is advocating stalling at low level, just losing height with plenty below you.

Actually I've seen more people stall at high speed and at altitude then near the ground, but that's after teaching aero's for a while! (Why does everybody either pull too hard at the bottom of a loop or fall off the top?)

JAFO, whatunion's tone may be slightly grating but I think everybody should grow up a bit don't you?

[Say again s l o w l y]

Generally I don't fall out of the bottom of the loop! High speed stalls are just having too great an angle of attack, so just releasing some of the back pressure is all that is needed.

[whatunion]

sas, i wasnt thinking of you i was referring to teaching aero's.

student falls out of the bottom of the loop. with a nose low attitude and as per standard recovery selects full power which increases height loss, any thoughts

[whatunion]

someone asked about windshear and inversions.

here is a link that can explain it



http://www.pilotfriend.com/flight_training/weather/PREVAILING%20WINDS1.htm

[Say again s l o w l y]

I don't really like advocating a 'standard' recovery whilst doing aeros'. More along the lines of Nose high, speed reducing or nose low, speed increasing and then having a different recovery for each.

The extra height loss would be minimal, especially if you take into account the extra elevator force when you have lots of slipstream at full power. This is a contentious issue and I certainly don't have an impirical data to support any view apart from personal experience.

But if falling out of the top of a loop, then the 'standard' system works O.K, but you have to be careful about speed increasing too quickly and overspeeding the prop if you don't have a CSU.

[Flyin'Dutch']

w,

Just quickly:

1. Yes you can get shear with an inversion, very much so, but not on a calm day.

2. Going around is something which may well be the best plan of action, I was merely surprised that someone who professes to be such an experienced hand got caught out by something as mundane as downdraught on approach to a hill strip.

See what your saying about conditions being different from forecast but we PPLs and certainly studes should be able to expect even a low hours instructor to reassess the weather/wind situation during the flight.

3. Windspeed and turbulence can but do not have to be linked.

4. Think you have mellowed at bit, which is nice.

FD