Deliberately forced wing drop stalling in GFPT test

[Tee Emm]

ATSB has published its report on the mid-air collision between a Cessna 152 and a Liberty Aerospace XL-2 near Bankstown on 18 December 2008. There was an astonishing time delay between the accident and the final report (two and a half years)
. The report stated the GFPT test required two demonstrations of the stalling sequence. Entry and recovery from a stall in the approach configuration, and entry and recovery from a stall with a wing drop. In addition, the investigation made mention of the CASA Flight Instructor Manual statement with reference to `advanced`stalling practice`, where the pilot must ensure the aircraft is recovered by at least 3000 feet agl. Presumably `advanced stalling` means stalling in a steep turn.

Two points come to mind. Modern training aircraft have benign stalling characteristics and there are stringent rules on the amount of wing drop permitted in the certification process. These aircraft include the Cessna and Piper singles of a previous era. Warbirds are different in this respect. Most current trainers waffle in a nose up attitude at the stall and are practically impossible to stall. Notwithstanding, the GFPT test requires recovery from a wing drop. However, to get these types to drop a wing requires deliberate gross mis-handling to attitudes never envisaged by the manufacturer of a non-aerobatic design. In fact, impossibly high nose attitudes and grossly exaggerated rudder inputs are needed in attempts to induce a wing drop. Even then a wing may not drop. That is how safe these aircraft are designed.

If we accept aircraft certification design that today's aircraft will not drop a wing at the point of stall, a risk of structural damage to airframe or engine is present if pilots are required to deliberately and grossly force the aircraft into exaggerated attitudes to achieve the outcome required by the GFPT.
Apply the same GFPT criteria to a Boeing 737 which has benign stalling characteristics and no pilot would remotely risk airframe damage by pulling up to 50 degrees nose high then push on full rudder to induce a wing drop. Not even in the simulator. Why then does such an antiquated and illogical requirement still exist in the GFPT test?

Deliberately forcing an aircraft into a manoeuvre beyond its design limitation is foolhardy and potentially dangerous. Whether conducted deliberately for practice or inadvertently, the aircraft should be grounded for a full structural inspection.

The second point is this. The original height limit of recovery by 3000 ft was for aerobatic manoeuvres and aimed at recovery from the looping plane or from a deliberate spin. Before first solo, students are required to demonstrate competency at recovering from a stall with minimum loss of height. Practice stalls in modern light aircraft should be easily recoverable by a competent student within 100 feet of height loss. This was even achievable in the old Tiger Moth days. Nowadays, with competency based training all the go, an instructor would not certify a student for solo stalling practice if height loss was excessive. It is therefore illogical to place 3000 ft as a minimum height at which all aircraft must be recovered from a practice stall. In any case, the time to climb above 3000 ft is expensive in terms of aircraft hire cost and utilization.

Stalling is not an aerobatic manoeuvre and the authors of the CASA Flight Instructor Manual, were living in the past when they mandated practice stalling as an aerobatic manoeuvre. On that basis a student should be certified competent in aerobatics before first solo.

CASA needs to take an enlightened attitude to light aircraft stalling characteristics and be realistic in terms of minimum height legislation.

[swh]

Presumably `advanced stalling` means stalling in a steep turn.

Normally power on stalls in the departure and arrival configurations as well as steep turns.

Notwithstanding, the GFPT test requires recovery from a wing drop. However, to get these types to drop a wing requires deliberate gross mis-handling to attitudes never envisaged by the manufacturer of a non-aerobatic design.

Normally easy enough to develop a wing drop in the approach configuration simulating a turn onto final when low on profile with a little bit of power and approach flap without the use of any rudder.

Modern training aircraft have benign stalling characteristics and there are stringent rules on the amount of wing drop permitted in the certification process. These aircraft include the Cessna and Piper singles of a previous era.

I would not agree with that, the rate of stall/spin accidents below 1000 ft has not really changed significantly in the last 50 years. Still responsible for a lot of accidents, and unfortunately deaths as well.

"The Piper PA-38 Tomahawk, designed specifically for flight instruction, including easier demonstration of spins, was involved in 50 stall/spin accidents from 1982 through 1990, for a rate of 3.28 per 100 aircraft in the fleet. During the same period, the Cessna 150/152 had 259 stall/spin accidents, for a rate of 1.31 per 100 aircraft, and the Beech 77 suffered only four such accidents, for a rate of 1.64 per 100 aircraft."

http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/topics/stall_spin.pdf

Stalling is not an aerobatic manoeuvre and the authors of the CASA Flight Instructor Manual, were living in the past when they mandated practice stalling as an aerobatic manoeuvre.

The practice of the approach to the stall, and stall recovery does involves abrupt changes in its attitude, abnormal attitudes, or an abnormal variation in speed, when practicing the manoeuvres, that is intentional outcome.

It is under CAR 1988 2, "acrobatic flight" means manoeuvres intentionally performed by an aircraft involving an abrupt change in its attitude, an abnormal attitude, or an abnormal variation in speed. The FIM has the correct definition.

This definition is basically universal, the FAA have something very similar.

[Sunfish]

My understanding is that the Three thousand foot limitation allows for Two recovery mistakes on the way down.

I believe I am aware, if the club gossip is to be believed, of a stall practice in a Commander where the person undergoing endorsement got his left and right feet mixed up, among other things.

The aircraft ended in an inverted spin which consumed a great deal of altitude before the instructor made a successful recovery.

[Tankengine]

Tee Emm,
Take myself [or any experienced instructor] for a fly in a cessna or piper single and they will show you that you are on the wrong track.
I would not suggest doing it at 500':E

[swh]

Take myself [or any experienced instructor] for a fly in a cessna or piper single and they will show you that you are on the wrong track.
I would not suggest doing it at 500'

Agreed, I still have fond memories of doing a pre-test recommendation flight and asking the student to show me a stall in the landing configuration. At the point of stall the student recovered initially with reduction in back pressure whilst simultaneously increasing to full throttle and applying rudder. However rudder was applied in the incorrect sense, and to the stop. Needless to say, it was a perfect demonstration of how the rudder is still effective whilst at low airspeed in the slipstream, and showed us one of the more unusual ways to enter into an inverted spin.

Not something I would have walked away from if commenced at 500'.

[HarleyD]

I would not agree with that, the rate of stall/spin accidents below 1000 ft has not really changed significantly in the last 50 years. Still responsible for a lot of accidents, and unfortunately deaths as well.

"The Piper PA-38 Tomahawk, designed specifically for flight instruction, including easier demonstration of spins, was involved in 50 stall/spin accidents from 1982 through 1990, for a rate of 3.28 per 100 aircraft in the fleet. During the same period, the Cessna 150/152 had 259 stall/spin accidents, for a rate of 1.31 per 100 aircraft, and the Beech 77 suffered only four such accidents, for a rate of 1.64 per 100 aircraft."The Reason for this was that even though the prototype/pre-production Tomahawk was in fact developed as a benign handling trainer, and certified as such, when placed into series production the Engineers at the manufacturing plant introduced several "productionization" mods which resulted in one of the most dangerous trainers ever built,. and which has a very high attrition rate in the world wide fleet. Some of the production mods inclded removing aerodynamic fixes incorporated to inprove its unpredictable stall/spin behavior and other structural mods related to the lightening of the wing by removing components (e.g some ribs) which reduced the torsional rigidity of the wing and allowed mainplane flexing during spinning.

Modern training aircraft have benign stalling characteristics and there are stringent rules on the amount of wing drop permitted in the certification process. These aircraft include the Cessna and Piper singles of a previous era. I would not agree with that, the rate of stall/spin accidents below 1000 ft has not really changed significantly in the last 50 years. Still responsible for a lot of accidents, and unfortunately deaths as well.FAR 23 at the more recent amendment status and other similar certification standards require high stability, controllablity and maneuverability criteria, and importantly also mandate that in any recovery conventional inputs will enable prompt recovery. Even non-spinning certified aircraft must demonstrate prompt recovery when conventional recovery procedure is applied, even when loaded to gross weight, max aft C of G, full power and full flap (or partial flap, depending on the critical entry or recovery case) and this is with the control deflections set to the critical limit, and control cables rigged to minimum tensions. In this configuration recovery , after one full turn, must not exceed ONE ADDITIONAL TURN, when the recovery procedure is applied. so the aircraft must be capable of being sorted and recovered in one turn, so yes, design standards are very much higher these days.



I would suggest that whiilst 3000 ft seems over cautios altitude for ALL stalling, it does provide a level of comfort to the ab initio student, to whom this is very unfamiliar and stressful, as well as re-inforcing to more competent pilots that this is a maneuvre that is outside 'normal operating' procedures in general and should be treated respectfully, that it does also allow sufficient altitude for a stuffed up recovery, though a good instructor should recognize and prevent such a thing happening.

My understanding is that the Three thousand foot limitation allows for Two recovery mistakes on the way down.No Student of mine would ever get the chance to make TWO stuff ups in a single recovery. Any stuff up is enough reason to take over, explain the situation, demonstrate the procedure again and the hand back for another go.

As an instructor I ecercise a degree of discretion regarding stalling practice altitudes, especially as the training level advances, CPL, Aeros, spinning

During Ag training stalling in a loaded aircraft is expected to be able to be demonstrated at 200' with a recovery by 100'. this is a highly incentivated training procedure, but certainly not for ab-initio or 'average' pilots.

HD

[Centaurus]

Replies seem to indicate an unfounded fear of stall practice as a training sequence. There are still pilots around who were fortunate to have flown wartime types where certification rules to make aircraft safer had not been introduced. Some of these could be quite unsettling in stall behaviour (the Australian Wirraway was just one example) and unintentional spins could occur if stall recovery was mis-handled.

For this reason the original 3000 ft height limit for recovery from aerobatics was introduced into civilian aero clubs post war because these aircraft were still around. Times have changed since 1945 and apart from the occasional poorly maintained training aircraft the certification process has steadily improved making stalling a non-event. All current modern training aircraft are so reluctant to stall it takes more handling skill to force the aircraft to stall than it takes to recover. The tail wagging the dog, so to speak.

The current `rules` on minimum heights for stall practice coupled with a CASA directed requirement to force a wing drop by unnatural means if necessary, are archaic and rather quaint. A blast from the past?

In contrast, the gliding fraternity are not so hidebound and stall practice is frequently done at circuit height. Keeping in mind that a glider has no engine power to help recovery so the nose must be lowered to gain safe flying speed. Even then height loss is barely 100 feet.

[mcgrath50]

I don't think I have ever lost more than 500 feet in a stall from the moment I first tried it. But would I do stalling at 1,000ft AGL? I'd rather have a little bit more distance to play with, most places you can climb to 3,000ft while getting to the training area so it doesn't really take much extra time. Nowadays I know I can recover with minimal height loss but I still wouldn't do them any lower than I had to.

Ag training is a different kettle of fish as we all know but general training, why not give yourself some wiggle room?

[lk978]

stalls in a large jet are a little bit different to a single engine light aircraft although the principles are the same different power/weight ratio's, performance and stall characteristics....

[Mimpe]

in large passenger jets even 35,000 ft may not be enough recovery altitude of course.......

[lk978]

different wing design
different power/weight ratio's
different other stuff

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

Been struggling to figure the purpose of this thread.

Modern training aircraft have benign stalling characteristics and there are stringent rules on the amount of wing drop permitted in the certification process.What is a "modern training aircraft"? I still see a lot of C150/152 and PA28 around in a training role, and even the occassional PA38.

The 150/152 can get your attention stalled with 20o flap and 1800 rpm, and the Traumahawk can get downright interesting when stalled in a similar config. I used to instruct in one that would rapidly roll onto its back!

Must confess to doing lots of stalls at 1000' - depends on the aeroplane and your familiarity with it, however, I know a few (incuding myself) who would not be here had they not started out above 3000' on at least one occassion.

The V-tail can get a bit excited when stalled in the approach config but all-in-all is a pussy cat! However, some idiot decided that the A36 needed to be tamed and put those stupid looking wedges on the leading edges of the wing - and spoiled the look of a beautiful aeroplane.

Dr :8

[Centaurus]

Been struggling to figure the purpose of this thread.


Read the title of the original post. Shouldn't be too much of a struggle. The man is saying that mandating 3000 ft as a blanket prohibition below which stall practice is not permitted, is too restrictive for most types flying in today's flying schools. And it costs money in terms of cost/benefit to a student.

Secondly, the poster is saying that to force an aircraft into a wing drop in order to meet a GFPT test requirement in an aircraft that is designed NOT to drop wings, is illogical (read crazy). He should have added that the design certification of recent types (last 25 years) means the ailerons are effective below stalling speed and have the capability of levelling the wings during stall recovery.

Despite this, there is no shortage of flying instructors who were taught on their instructors course to pick up a dropped wing solely by skidding the aircraft using rudder until the wings are level - even though this could lead to a spin in the opposite direction to the first dropped wing. And these instructors teach their new students the same thing and the myth
propagates. All this leads to students and their instructors jumping at shadows whenever the subject of stalling practice comes up

I hope this helps your `struggles`, Fork Tail:ok:

[mcgrath50]

Planes are designed not to have an engine failure, should we not practice forced landings too?

As said above a 150, in approach config, handled a bit roughly can drop a wing. And if it's on approach you damn well want to have recovered from it before in a training environment.

And the 3,000ft? As I said above, why go lower for initial training at least? I don't think I ever lost more than 500 ft (or even 250ft) and I don't think many people do, but there are enough stories.

[jas24zzk]

Centaurus correctly mentions that the glider boys will practice stall training at circuit height. I personally did my spin training with Mike Valentine (dec) not above 1200 agl....man does the earth look huge!

To a glider pilot stall/spin training is more serious than learning how to thermal. When you are sharing a thermal with other gliders, your concentration is largely outside the cockpit, esp if you have beeping vario's (vario=hypersensitive VSI). Being that nature you are not watching the ASI, and in a bumpy thermal you are also dealing with a constantly changing nose attitude. Gliders are not subject to the same regs as say a PA28, so their likelihood of departing into a spin is increased. Having flown gliders of greater than 25 metres span, their docile nature is rudely interupted by their readiness to spin, so you have to be on the ball. Glider pilots are trained to a level, where they recognise the stall without aid of instruments or horizon and immediatley manage the wing drop with rudder, and continue around the thermal turn as if nothing ever happened.


The argument that a PA28 is designed to be benign and seriously forgiving (which it is) and that the regs/testing should reflect that, although once a truth, is now a falacy. You need to look at what people are training in now. We have VH registered ultralights (different design regs) and even people doing the bulk of their training in RAA registered and then swapping to a GA ticket. We are furtunate enough that many of the people teaching in RAA are also qualified to teach in GA. (and no i am NOT saying RAA trained instructors are less qualified)

The 3000' limitation. Hmm I have no problem with that, as the reg governing that is designed to cover multiple types and give you space for them all. Who said training should be risky?


So what is Advanced stalling?
Some say that it is in the approach or climb configuration.
To me it is ensuring that the student understands the practical side of the aerodynamics of managing any wing drop with rudder rather than aileron. A 161 warrior will forgive you, but a Grumman Trainer/cheetah/tiger won't. It is also about ensuring the student has the skills to move onto more complex types with not so benign handling.

As for forcing a type to drop a wing in the the test...PHOOEY!..... even a warrior will waddle about the lateral axis in a stall......theres your wing drop, get the student to manage it with rudder rather than aileron and you have advanced stalling and he/she is ready to move onto something less forgiving.

Cheers
Jas

(PS I took this whole conversation was based on the comments of what the student is doing the test in, when the regulatory body needs to consider what they might fly next)

[43Inches]

I agree with a minimum height for stalling practice in any aircraft, recover by 3000ft AGL, why not, especially with students practicing for the first time. I know of at least two occasions where a student has locked up on the controls preventing recovery and the instructor has regained control with the loss of over 1000ft.


I learned to fly on Grobs...they're spin capable (with the kit fitted). If you kick in too much rudder correction with a wing drop situation, it'll flick the other way. I learned one hell of a lot flying those.


Train in a Grob and you'll get a healthy respect for low speed flight. Very good at teaching rudder control with power changes and near the stall. Poor ruder use at low speed = inverted flight.

A 161 warrior will forgive you, but a Grumman Trainer/cheetah/tiger won't.

A PA28 is very docile, until you load it full aft CoG or near it and mishandle it near the stall. When it lets go it will rapidly roll on its back, treat any aircraft with respect at low speed.

Airliners are no different near the stall, throw in some ice and even the best designed aircraft can do anything it wishes. The ATSB has some interesting reading regarding airliners stalling and recovery techniques. There have been some very close calls. Swept wings and t-tails etc make things more complicated near the stall but still the same applies, dont go there if you dont have to.

Why practice any abnormal procedure at low altitude that does'nt require you to be there, even a normal high angle of bank turn has risks let alone combining it with a stall.

[PA39]

You must teach a student how to recover from a stall and incipient spin. These situations happen when you least expect it, turning final and lapses of concentration.

I always induced a wing drop on the GFPT, PPL,CPL and BFR. Students must be proficient at recognising and recovering from both situations. The stall/spin situation is a killer.

[A37575]

practical side of the aerodynamics of managing any wing drop with rudder rather than aileron.

By`managing,`do you mean picking up the wing with rudder? Exactly how is that done?

[seavenom]

Not picking up a wing with rudder but to stop further yaw in the direction of the lowered wing. The ailerons should be neutral until control is regained, then level the wings.

FAW53

[Charlie Foxtrot India]

Surely one of the common precursors to "loss of control" is disorientation. In which case it is unlikely that a disorientated pilot (eg in IMC, low level downwind turn etc) will be able to recognise and recover from a stall if they are disorientated enough to get into the stall in the first place.

Yet in the briefng I see lots of nice colourful pictures with wiggley lines and no explanation of why you would end up there/prevent ending up there in the first place. Then in the training sequence, some instructors will suddenly whack in all sorts of control inputs such as the OP has mentioned leaving some students wondering if the aeroplane has a mind of its own, because otherwise how could this situation arise on a nice day with a good horizon?

I you read the syllabus carefully there is no requirement for wild control inputs in order for the student to be found competent in stall recognition and recovery,

[A37575]

The ailerons should be neutral until control is regained, then level the wings.


I believe most training aircraft designed in the past 25 years or more are designed so that the ailerons are effective beyond the stall. That being so, while you are correct in saying sufficient rudder should be applied to prevent further yaw induced by the down going wing, the recovery with forward stick to reduce the angle of attack is instantaneous allowing the ailerons to be used to level the wings. There is no case for keeping the ailerons neutral during the initial prevention of further yaw because recovery is instantaneous with the ailerons effective by design below the stall.

[jas24zzk]

Interesting discussion...............................Aerodynamics is my favourite topic.

I haven't figured out how to quote people on this forum yet....


A373XX (lets call him Anumbers) asks if I meant by picking up a wing with rudder. YES that is exactly what I meant.


Seavenom, says regain control via Rudder then use ailerons as required Later. Not sure I 100% agree, but every situation is different.

Anumbers goes on to state that most training aircraft designed in the last 25 years are designed to have full aileron authority at speeds much lower than the stall. This corelates very well with the Seminole, that is Vmca is below the stall making it docile.

The last post by Anumbers, fails to recognise what people are training in today. Many are doing their initials in in RAA types, ie Slabaroo's and tecnams.

These types will not forgive sloppy rudder behaviour. A warrior 2 (ie any PA28-xx1) will forgive you for being rudder lazy. A Jab or a Tec will not, any day of the week!.


I Listed the Grumman Trainer (AA-1B) in my list of unforgiving aircraft based on experience. In the same group you can also add the AA-1C (Lynx) and any hershey bar winged Cherokee type (PA-28 PA-32)

The Grummans demonstrate the technique the most violently of any type i have flown. A warrior 2 (pa28-xx1 series) will let you dial in as much aileron as you want to and correct itself. The Grummans, and tecnams if you you dial in the aileron WILL demonstrate classic aileron induced stall and roll in the opposite direction.

I was trained by the late Mike Valentine, and his training on rudder use has saved my life at least twice!

1. VH-GIF (pilatus b4 glider 15m span, approved aero + flick). Aircraft had just come out of maintenance. Owner did a 20 min test flight to aircheck and push the envelope. He signed it off and handed to me. Somewhere approx the 3 hour 20 time frame of my flight the aileron circuit suffered a catastrophic failure. I had the option of popping the canopy and climbing out. I had height on my side so I decided to experiment and see what i could do. End result I used rudder, and got it back on the ground safely....this aircraft is still flying today.

2. VH-APX (grumman aa-1c lynx). I was asked by the aicraft owner to spend some time ICUSing a guy to have him added to the insurance policy, insurer was happy as i had more time on type than the owner. The pilot in question, almost all of his time was on PA28-xx1's. We had done some flying about the region landing at several local strips that the pilot had never been to and i was feeling reasonably comfortable with his handling of the A/C. We were making our final appr to our home field when the **** hit the fan. He was on the money for speed, but conditions at best were blustery with a right to left cosswind. 10 feet off the deck we copped a gust. that rolled the A/C hard left. He applied FULL right aileron, and it continued rolling left. At this point I took over (ground observers say the wingtip missed the grass by less than a foot) When I took over I found the yoke full right and immediatly applied full right rudder, i'm not even sure the ICUS pilot got the oppurtunity to fully relinquish control to me as my my control inputs were savage enough that i still believe that I actually stalled the right wing. It is a classic case ofadding aileron on a hershey bar WILL deepen the stall for the wing in question and the only way you will fix it is with a bootful of rudder in the opposite direction.


So yes i am an advocate of rudder before aileron

Cheers
Jas

[A37575]

I had height on my side so I decided to experiment and see what i could do. End result I used rudder, and got it back on the ground safely....this aircraft is still flying today.
Well done that man. So rudders are all the go in this discussion even to the point of deliberately skidding the rudder until the faster going wing develops so much lift that eventually after air sickness from excessive skidding subsides the aircraft becomes wings level and NOW the pilot can dare to use aileron:mad:

Forget the rudder hero. Do you know you can also use the doors to get on the ground safely? In the Cessna 152/172 and all those with two doors, simply open one door a little bit and the aircraft will do a well coordinated turn. Of course you need to know which door to open...

[jas24zzk]

Well done that man. So rudders are all the go in this discussion even to the point of deliberately skidding the rudder until the faster going wing develops so much lift that eventually after air sickness from excessive skidding subsides the aircraft becomes wings level and NOW the pilot can dare to use aileron

Thats not what I am saying and you know it.:rolleyes: Uncommanded Roll can be considered a stall/spin type movement, esp when slow, and should be given even more respect when you are almost on the deck.

If you read the Grumman example I gave, it is a classic case of aileron deepening the wing stall (did you miss that lesson at ground school???) At that point in time, the HELL with how anyones guts felt, I had no inclination to go cartwheeling down YCEM's lovely all weather strip.

Cheers
Jas

[gkpilot]

:rolleyes::\wow, how long have u been flying for???if you pick up with aeleron it will be worse
cheers happy stalling

[APMR]

Most current trainers waffle in a nose up attitude at the stall and are practically impossible to stall.
Point of order. Those aircraft are ALREADY stalled.

in large passenger jets even 35,000 ft may not be enough recovery altitude of course.......
I think Mimpe is referring to Air France 447, the Airbus 330 that entered the stall near FL400 over the south Atlantic ocean. The aircraft remained stalled all the way down and brought the deaths of all 228 persons on board.

The FDR revealed that there were two "stall recovery-like" actions on the controls but they were insufficient to break the stall.

The final report is not out yet but the ICAO has already stated that it intends recommending to member countries that they review how stall recovery is taught.

It appears that the recovery technique being used by the crew was based around achieving the minimum height loss.

I believe that, in Australia, minimum height loss is one of the requirements of a stall recovery.

[Oktas8]

It's interesting that CASA defines a stall as an aerobatic (acrobatic?) manoeuvre.

It certainly explains why CASA think it is unsafe to stall below 3000'. I agree that it's a reasonable height for solo student practise, no argument there. But for an intentional stall by an experienced pilot? Bizarre. I stall all the time at 1 foot height in some aircraft. Perhaps I should turn in my license?

I prefer the more traditional view, that an aerobatic manoeuvre is one where the aircraft is rolled to beyond 90 degrees (60 in some countries), or pitched beyond about 30 degrees up or down (that number varies too). A stall is just so benign in light aircraft that to call it a acrobatic manoeuvre is to portray the wrong impression altogether.

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

Although Australian instructors teach the standard recovery is using rudder to arrest wing drop with ailerons neutral, there are definitely aircraft that utilise positive aileron inputs during the recovery.

Research your flight manuals, people.

I completed an endorsement at an overseas factory with the factory test pilot (who had everything from F104, F15/16/18 and Tornados to Airbuses on his licence - read as knows his stuff). When I quizzed him on the AFM technique not utilising ailerons neutral (wrt spinning) he was adament the only aircraft he had flown that did not use ailerons to recover was the F4 Phantom.

Food for thought.

ps, Oktas8, Aust defines aerobatic as greater than 60deg AoB,
CAR 155(2) specifically states that straight and steady stalls where <60 AoB is flown are NOT aerobatic.
Otherwise, students would need an aeros entry in their logbook to practise them.

[Tee Emm]

It's interesting that CASA defines a stall as an aerobatic (acrobatic?) manoeuvre.


In what publication is that stated?

[Lasiorhinus]

Oktas,

CAR 155 (2) For the purposes of subregulation (1), straight and steady stalls or turns in which the angle of bank does not exceed 60 degrees shall be deemed not to be acrobatic flight.

Check your facts before posting please.

[QJB]

I think that the way stalling is taught in flying schools is on the whole a load of rubbish. So much so that students learn to fear stalling the aircraft, spin training is no longer mandatory according to the CPL(A) syllabus :ugh:

I remember my first lesson of stalling and the instructor's words: see what we need to stall, a nose high attitude, low airspeed, sloppy controls, buffeting. Then the stall and PUSH! Lose about 500 feet in the recovery. Be fearful of wing-drops and only ever use the rudder. What a load of rubbish.

So many OWTs.

Low airspeed will not make you stall
Large angle of bank will not make you stall
A high nose attitude will not make you stall

I would recommend anyone that is fearful of stalling complete an aerobatics course or EMT. Best money I have ever spent.

My 2 cents,

J

[MikeTangoEcho]

QJB,

It is a whole load of rubbish IF it's taught like that. What your instructor should have made clear is that those were the symptoms of an approaching stall, not the stall itself. Probably should've briefed on slow/high speed stalls as well.

I agree with you on the aerobatics course to overcome the fear of stalling, definitely.

[Oktas8]

Thanks to those people who have pointed out that CASA doesn't define stalling as aerobatic. "check your facts before posting", indeed.

Tee Emm: perhaps you have forgotten having written this:
Stalling is not an aerobatic manoeuvre and the authors of the CASA Flight Instructor Manual, were living in the past when they mandated practice stalling as an aerobatic manoeuvre.

I was responding to the OP and perhaps the first respondent, both of whom made claims about the FIM and about stalling, implying that it states stalling is an aerobatic manoeuvre, or that the FIM said that in the past. Is the FIM written by CASA? I think so. Does the FIM actually say that? Wouldn't have a clue. Don't care. He said it, not me.

Ho hum. Yet another reason not to post on Pprune. Respond to a post, get shot down. By three people no less.

Oh well, may as well be hung for a sheep as for a lamb:

Most current trainers waffle in a nose up attitude at the stall and are practically impossible to stall.
Perhaps you don't know the symptoms of a stall? They are buffet, nose drop, sink and wing drop (the last one only if flying out of balance at the point of the stall). Apart from canard-winged aircraft, you'll get at least two and usually three or four of these symptoms.

But 3000' is a little restrictive, we can all agree on that.

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

Don't think I would've classified my response as "shooting you down".
You made a comment that was incorrect and I merely referred to the Regs.
Don't stress, I've done it too.

Agreed, there are many people who live on this site purely to debate logical arguments, or so it seems (and not referring to Lazo or TM). Threads written on the negativity in the past, but don't be discouraged.

[Tinstaafl]

Although Australian instructors teach the standard recovery is using rudder to arrest wing drop with ailerons neutral...

I must disagree with this comment. 'Arrest wing drop with rudder' is not a standard technique and no instructor working for me was allowed teach this. Prevent yaw with rudder, however...




Edited to correct an incorrectly quoted word, as pointed out in a following comment. My point is the same, however. Rudder is not used to control roll but to control yaw. If the wing drops, it drops. So what if one wing is low, as long as yaw can be controlled. After the stall is recovered then roll the aircraft to wings level if need be.

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

I didn't say prevent, I said arrest.

[Ando1Bar]

Jeez some rubbish gets posted on these forums.


you'll get at least two and usually three or four of these symptoms


if you pick up with aeleron it will be worse



asks if I meant by picking up a wing with rudder. YES that is exactly what I meant.


Makes it hard for the less experienced or knowledgeable pilots to know what the good information in the thread is.

I feel better now for having a short rant...

[Oktas8]

Which aircraft do you have in mind Ando1bar that does not exhibit the symptoms of the stall I listed? Just curious.

[Ando1Bar]

Your typical C172 for one. The high wing vs low elevator didn't always produce buffeting. The coupling action didn't always cause the nose to pitch down (more to do with releasing back pressure with a now out of trim elevator). A wing drop isn't easy to produce, requiring significant yaw to get it going (some particularly poorly rigged were very easy though), usually created by power and the subsequent slipstream effect. A rate of descent - yes, you are right with that one.

It's misleading to say you WILL get a combination of those things. You MAY get some of those things, but "usually three of four" is a gross exaggeration for many types.

Gets back to knowing your particular aircraft and understanding aerodynamics.

[Oktas8]

Thanks for the answer Ando1bar.

The C172 does actually exhibit nose drop and buffet and sink. The nose drop is minor with power off, and can be likened to a "nodding dog" effect (those funny nodding dog models people have on the parcel shelves of their cars). The nose drops, comes up, drops, comes up, and so on, as long as the control column is held aft. The higher the power setting, the more pronounced the drop. This kind of nose drop is a very strong indicator of a stall because it is constant across almost all types.

This kind of nose drop is very useful in a trainer. Mainly, it teaches effective awareness of the full stall in a very conventional aircraft. However it also helps instil precise attitude awareness, in the stalled regime as well as normal flight.

If your Cessna doesn't drop the nose at all at the stall, either it is loaded outside the manufacturer's approved CG range, or it is an old one with stretched or dodgy elevator cables such that it is actually incapable of stalling (flew one like that once :ooh: ), or you simply haven't stalled.

Back to the symptoms. Sink is obvious. Buffet is not obvious if flap is down. I will give you that. It exists, but is well masked by the normal vibration associated with the flaps being extended. As you say the airframe layout has a lot to do with that. I taught buffet recognition by finding smooth air, and very gradually decelerating through the relevant speed range, in trim, while saying "follow through, and tell me when you can feel buffet." Most people could recognise it for themselves without me having to prompt.

Wing drop is minor compared to other types. It is not necessary to apply incorrect rudder input. (Oh my goodness please don't do that in front of a student pilot.) 1600 rpm, approach flap, and a relaxation of the rudder will often, not always, give some degree of wing drop.

So there are two definite symptoms, a third which is well masked with flaps down, and the fourth of course may or may not occur depending on configuration power and balance.

Please note that these are stall symptoms, not symptoms of an incipient stall or impending stall. If you don't believe my description of the nose drop in particular, try holding the control column aft against the stops in the stall. I have found many pilots are unwilling to do this in a Cessna, and as a result never quite completely stall.

[Ando1Bar]

Okatas, you are correct and the nodding dog description is a good one. While holding the aeroplane in the stall, the first 'nose drop' can be so minor that many pilots wouldn't notice it. It's not as bad as it can be made out to be (it's been a while, but from memory the Tiger Moth was an example of an aeroplane that significantly dropped its nose during a stall).

It think the point of both our posts is the symptoms either do not always occur or are not obvious to all pilots. Therefore, general blanket statements about the characteristics of a stall should be avoided.

Now who wants to debunk the myth (and comment on the previous page) that you cannot 'pick up the wing' with aileron and rudder is needed to regain a wings level position? Maybe I read the post wrong, but this is also a common misconception amongst pilots about how to recover from a 'wing drop' stall.

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

Code of Federal Regulations


Sec. 23.201

Part 23 AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: NORMAL, UTILITY, ACROBATIC, AND COMMUTER CATEGORY AIRPLANES
Subpart B--Flight
Stalls

Sec. 23.201

Wings level stall.

[(a) It must be possible to produce and to correct roll by unreversed use of the rolling control and to produce and to correct yaw by unreversed use of the directional control, up to the time the airplane stalls.
(b) The wings level stall characteristics must be demonstrated in flight as follows. Starting from a speed at least 10 knots above the stall speed, the elevator control must be pulled back so that the rate of speed reduction will not exceed one knot per second until a stall is produced, as shown by either:
(1) An uncontrollable downward pitching motion of the airplane;
(2) A downward pitching motion of the airplane that results from the activation of a stall avoidance device (for example, stick pusher); or
(3) The control reaching the stop.
(c) Normal use of elevator control for recovery is allowed after the downward pitching motion of paragraphs (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this section has unmistakably been produced, of after the control has been held against the stop for not less than the longer of two seconds or the time employed in the minimum steady slight speed determination of Sec. 23.49.
(d) During the entry into and the recovery from the maneuver, it must be possible to prevent more than 15 degrees of roll or yaw by the normal use of controls.
(e) Compliance with the requirements of this section must be shown under the following conditions:
(1) Wing Flaps: Retracted, fully extended, and each intermediate normal operating position.
(2) Landing Gear: Retracted and extended.
(3) Cowl Flaps: Appropriate to configuration.
(4) Power:
(i) Power off; and
(ii) 75 percent maximum continuous power. However, if the power-to-weight ratio at 75 percent of maximum continuous power result in extreme nose-high attitudes, the test may be carried out with the power required for level flight in the landing configuration at maximum landing weight and a speed of 1.4 , except that the power may not be less than 50 percent of maximum continuous power.
(5) Trim: The airplane trimmed at a speed as near 1.5 as practicable.
(6) Propeller: Full increase r.p.m. position for the power off condition.]


Amdt. 23-50, Eff. 03/11/96

Comments

Document History
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Actions:
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Notice No. 94-22; Issued on 07/19/94.

Final Rule Actions:
Final Rule. Docket No. 27807; Issued on 01/29/96.


Interesting to note point 3
The control reaching the stop is defined as stalled.

Humphrey Maltman (RIP) used to state the C152 wasn't completely stalled. It exhibited the symptoms of a stall, but if the elevator stops were adjusted, would be a very different kettle of fish.

Just saying.....:cool: