stall warning and when to panic

[wishful av8r]

I often fly with a much more experienced pilot. Conducting night circuits for recency requirements, I was a little perplexed turning onto final from base with a little wind behind us that my more experienced friend was banking greater than 30 degrees while the stall warning alarm was going off at 500 feet, yet didn't do anything to correct i.e. increase speed or reduce bank angle. My friend does have a a slight hearing problem so I assumed he was not hearing the stall warning. We did a touch and go but on crosswind he said he was happy with the speed turning final. I have only 250 hrs and I have a spinning endorsement but my friend has over 2000hrs and I was a little freaked out that he wasn't concerned about the stall warning alarm going off at 500 feet. Am I just too pedantic? I would really like advice form those with more experience.

[tecman]

When you say 'going off' do you mean blaring, or 'peeping' with gusts? Some aircraft (mine included) have the stall vane set pretty conservatively, and are also more prone to peeping than e.g. typical SE Cessnas. That said, I would be concerned about too-steep turns in the circuit at night.

[Dave Wilson]

I'm only a 200 odd hour guy myself but if I heard the stall warner turning finals I think I would have been in 'I have control' mode, regardless of the experience of the handling pilot. It's your neck on the line as well.

[teknow]

I learned in Tomahawks (good spinners) and the one thing I remember being drilled home more than anything was 15 degree angle of bank on turn to finals, no more than a single stage of flap and AIRSPEED! 70 knots, add 5 if you feel unsure/uncomfortable/weather conditions dictate it! I never forgot this ...

I am currently "refreshing" ], and the only thing to add to this (apart from the Cessna 152 is 65 knots and you can use 2 stages of flap as there are 3 on the Cessna's), is don't start the final turn below 800ft QFE.

I'm no expert, but these are all lessons I don't think will every leave me due to the fact they have been shouted at me so many times!!!! :O

[mad_jock]

You were taught a load of rubbish then teknow. And the 800ft is a load of rubbish as well unless its some noise rubbish.

As for the stall warner going off and not doing anything its bad form especially at night. A chirp or two is acceptable but continuious is silly.

[fireflybob]

The finer point that's often not fully learnt is that when you roll into a descending turn you need to adopt a slightly lower nose attitude to maintain the (correct) speed.

mad_jock, I concur with your comments!

[teknow]

I'm a low hours PPL, so would appreciate an explanation to that!

I understand why the "taught" methods may be rubbished by a more experienced pilot - my understanding is these methods/guidelines are put in place to deter the student pilot being too "gung-ho" and doing something dangerous?!

Getting a little off-topic I guess but as an inexperienced pilot the moment I heard that stall warning, I'd be lowering the nose, reducing the angle of bank and applying power.

[Local Variation]

Are you sure you have 250 hours?

[OhNoCB]

Agree with points made above. A little chirp or two, especially if its a bit windy I would be okay with. If it was going off continuously I would be telling my friend (hopefully before the speed got THAT low) to check the speed and if he didn't remedy it I would take control.

teknow, I don't agree with those things that have been drilled into you, but I have never flown a Tomahawk. In general though, fly a proper speed, don't bank stupid amounts, and don't let the turn slip or skid. Those are the main things I would be concerned with. More than 15 degrees of bank I don't see a problem with (unless you're too slow and/or uncoordinated) and do it at a height that is appropriate to how tight you are doing your circuit. Flaps again I don't know for the Tomahawk but I see no reason to restrict their use on a 152.

[Dave Wilson]

65kts for a 152? Bit fast I think. Tecnow it seems to me that you are flying at a 'add 5 kts for the wife and kids and then another 5 if there's an R in the month' type of place. Have a look at the POH (clues in the name...:)) for the correct speeds and techniques. Having said that if your club has a particular policy then you need to abide by it.

[AdamFrisch]

When the load factors go up, so does the stall speed. Most have an understanding of this.

But did you know that in a 45 degree turn the stall speed goes up with over 40%? That's quite a lot. So, if you're low, heavy, have marginal speed already and gusty winds, it is imperative that you increase your speed either with throttle or by pushing nose down when you turn. There is nothing dangerous with a steep turn down low as long as you protect your speed. Or even better, install a cheap AOA meter and take the guesswork out of it.

[A and C]

I regret to say that you are the victim of poor instruction you flight should be arranged to arrive at the threshold at 1.3 Vs if I remember correctly the PA38 has a Vs (full flap) of 48 Kts so that should be 61.1 Kts.

65 Kts would be a reasonable speed to aim for on final with a reduction to 62 Kts ( I can't read the ASI to 0.1 of a KT) as you come over the hedge. If is was very gusty then 70kts is the maximum ( reducing to 64 Kts at the threshold) I would use in normal flying practice any more and you are going to float half way down the runway and risk all sorts of pilot induced oscillation problems near the ground.

[mad_jock]

Its just part and parcel of the lack of attitude flying thats being taught.

They should add 2 circuits with all the instruments covered into the ppl test, that would sort alot of this pish out.


Reckon that 800ft is some nosense to do with commercial stabilised approach gate at 500ft. Its guff what ever the reason.


BTW the tommy is quite happy at 55knts approach speed full flap for a short field landing.

With 15 knts on the nose and 2 up and 2 hours in the tank you can stop in the space of the piano keys.

[cumulusrider]

Adam Fritch said "But did you know that in a 45 degree turn the stall speed goes up with over 40%?"

Errr No! The stall speed will incease by a a factor of 1.19 at 45%. This would be logical as a glider with a stall speed of 40knts is often thermalled at 50 knts and 45 degrees. Source wikipedia

[Dave Wilson]

Stall speed increase=square root of load factor. Therefore I put my money on Cumulus Rider.

Adam: At least you are erring on the right side of safety!

[Flyingmac]

don't start the final turn below 800ft QFE.


Well with my base you'd be limited to a straight-in approach. (Circuit height 800'). At a neighbouring airfield the circuit height is 500' QFE. So, for you that would be another straight-in as you couldn't possibly turn final at 250'.
Could you?

Mad Jock is quite right regarding the Tommy and 55kts.:ok:

[fireflybob]

There is nothing dangerous with a steep turn down low as long as you protect your speed.

AdamFrisch, nothing?

A and C, am with you but on a point of technicality our Flight Manual states 63 kts for scheduled performance etc.

For the record the load factor varies as the secant (ie 1/cosine) of the bank angle. Secant 45 degrees = 1.4 as near as dammit.

Stall speed increases by square root of the load factor - square root of 1.4 is circa 1.19 - there stall speed in 45 degree bank (level) turn increases by near enough 20%.

I knew there was a reason for all the trigonometry at school!

mad_jock, with you all the way about attitude flying etc.

[Dave Wilson]

Firefly:

Unless I'm misreading what you are putting the load factor increases as the secant of the angle, not the stall speed. The stall speed is the square root of the load factor.

IE the load factor in a level 60 degree turn is 1/cos60 which is 2. So you are pulling 2g in a level 60 degree turn. The stall speed will increase by the square root of 2 which is 1.414. So if stall speed in level flight is 50kts, youre stall speed in a level 60 banked turn is 70kts.

[Unusual Attitude]

The amount of chuff I've heard over the years from people who have no clue about the relationship between angle of bank and stall speed is astounding!

You can roll an aircraft to any flipping angle of bank you want without an increase in stalling speed as long as you don't load it up with G. People seem to lose sight of the fact that examples given to demonstrate the increase in stalling speed for a given angle of bank are only related to maintaining level flight in a turn.

For my own aircraft I know off the top of my head the 1, 2, 3 and 4g stalling speeds as these are of far more use no matter what amount of pitch or roll I have on.

Getting back to the original question, I was flying a G1000 C182 a fair bit until recently and the stall warner on that would go off so far above the actual stall that it was more of an annoyance than a benefit for a short field approach!

Regards

UA

[Dave Wilson]

People seem to lose sight of the fact that examples given to demonstrate the increase in stalling speed for a given angle of bank are only related to maintaining level flight in a turn.

Er...thought that's what we were talking about...I agree with your other stuff by the way.

[fireflybob]

Firefly:

Unless I'm misreading what you are putting the load factor increases as the secant of the angle, not the stall speed. The stall speed is the square root of the load factor.

IE the load factor in a level 60 degree turn is 1/cos60 which is 2. So you are pulling 2g in a level 60 degree turn. The stall speed will increase by the square root of 2 which is 1.414. So if stall speed in level flight is 50kts, youre stall speed in a level 60 banked turn is 70kts.

Dave Wilson, thanks for the correction - that is what I meant!

[Flyingmac]

There are pilots who know the POH off by heart, and pilots who know their aircraft. They are rarely one and the same. It won't change.:rolleyes:

[Dave Wilson]

There are pilots who know the POH off by heart, and pilots who know their aircraft. They are rarely one and the same. It won't change.True but how many students are given the figures for approach and landing by their club and they turn out to be 5 or even more knots higher than the POH? (As tecnow has been given for his 152) First time they have a go at a short field after their license issue they're having a meet and greet with the upwind hedge. At least the POH gives you some info to work with, you can fine tune that to the aircraft you fly.

[englishal]

Wot UA said.

Stall speed increases with wing loading, but if you don't load the wings - by not maintaining level flight - i.e. descending, then the load factor doesn't increase nor does stall speed. You could do a 60 degree bank to final as long as you are not trying to maintain altitude.

do a 60 degree wingover and you can have near enough zero IAS and no stall warner.

[Dave Wilson]

:ugh: Don't think anyone is disputing that! :)

[Unusual Attitude]

Perhaps not Dave but you'd be surprised the amount of pilots out their who really don't understand that concept and wet themselves as soon as you bank more than 30deg in the circuit.

UA

[AdamFrisch]

Cumulus et al - you are correct. The 40% increase was for a higher bank angle, numbers were from memory and we all know how that is at old age.:8

[teknow]

Just to clarify this (whilst not wanting to get into heated argument!) as I feel woefully under-qualified here ... :O

True but how many students are given the figures for approach and landing by their club and they turn out to be 5 or even more knots higher than the POH?

65kts on final turn. I'd then be looking for 60kts IAS on the final approach in the 152 with 2 stages of flap. If I need it, third stage keeping 60kts. Bearing in mind I have lots of tarmac in front of me, I'm happy with that.

The POH states 60-70kts (no flaps) and 55-65kts flaps down. With short field 54kts with 30 degrees flap selected.

For both types of landing, it goes on to say:

"Slightly higher approach speeds should be used under turbulent conditions"

I probably should have made it clear that 65kts was/is not my final approach speed.

I'm going to ask next Saturday about the 800ft thing ... I'm sure I've probably been told before, but can't recall the reasoning.

[Dave Wilson]

Perhaps not Dave but you'd be surprised the amount of pilots out their who really don't understand that concept and wet themselves as soon as you bank more than 30deg in the circuit.


Due to lack of understanding of the principles of flight probably.

[Dave Wilson]

I feel woefully under-qualified here ... No you're not, I only have around 250 power hours, still wet behind the ears. I understand what you're getting at now with the 152, misunderstanding on my part. Not unusual...:)

[S-Works]

I'm only a 200 odd hour guy myself but if I heard the stall warner turning finals I think I would have been in 'I have control' mode, regardless of the experience of the handling pilot. It's your neck on the line as well.

If you did that in my aircraft, I would tear your arm off and beat you to death with the bloody stump........

[fireflybob]

I'm no expert, but these are all lessons I don't think will every leave me due to the fact they have been shouted at me so many times!!!!

teknow, good instructors shouldn't be shouting IMHO!

This thread proves what I often say about aviation - "Operating an aircraft safely is quite simple. It's just that there are a lot of people around trying to make it incredibly complicated".

The place and time to find out about lower speed characteristics of an aircraft is at a (safe) altitude.

Correct "normal" approach speeds are 30% above the stall speed!

There is a difference between the "signs of an approaching stall" and the "identification of a full stall". One sign of an approaching stall is the stall warner operating. Typically the stall warner operates at 5 to 10 kts above the stall speed.

As has been said previously there is a difference between the stall warner momentarily sounding or doing so continuously.

In a correctly flown circuit you shouldn't have to exceed thirty degrees of bank and I wouldn't want low hour students doing so. If you find yourself in that position better to level the wings (or reduce bank angle) and Go Around. Once settled back at circuit height do some analysis to trouble shoot how you got in that position to avoid same on next approach.

[Piper.Classique]

Quote:
I'm only a 200 odd hour guy myself but if I heard the stall warner turning finals I think I would have been in 'I have control' mode, regardless of the experience of the handling pilot. It's your neck on the line as well.


If you did that in my aircraft, I would tear your arm off and beat you to death with the bloody stump........


Me too! Cheeky git. Mind, you would have a problem hearing a stall warner in a cub.....

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Nonetheless, I warn my passengers under what circumstances it's normal to hear the stall warner, and if I were a passenger in something where it's normal for it to be sounding all the way round the final turn I would appreciate advance warning from the pilot!

[Nearly There]

If you did that in my aircraft, I would tear your arm off and beat you to death with the bloody stump

Im assuming by that response you would be expecting a prompt first ie 'airspeed' If that failed and you still didnt respond to a stall warner I'd have no hesitation in taking control. argue about it on the ground alive.

[Dave Wilson]

If you did that in my aircraft, I would tear your arm off and beat you to death with the bloody stump........
http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/statusicon/user_offline.gif http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/buttons/report.gif (http://www.pprune.org/report.php?p=8239205) http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/buttons/reply_small.gif (http://www.pprune.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=8239205&noquote=1)

You would have to be quick as the 'I have control' would probably be accompanied by an elbow in the chops. If I think I'm in danger the normal protocols of polite society are out of the window...:)

[S-Works]

And where in your vast experience as a pilot have you developedthe ability to jump in and take control or have learned the necessary skills to make the decision that you are in danger?

Those of us who have been teaching and examining for thousands of hours still have to make margin calls on that one.

Your action of an elbow in the chops while illegally taking command of an aircraft are likely to get you and the commander killed......

[Whopity]

You would have to be quick as the 'I have control' would probably be accompanied by an elbow in the chops.

From the UK ANO:141 Every person in an aircraft must obey all lawful commands which the commander of
that aircraft may give for the purpose of securing the safety of the aircraft and of
persons or property carried in the aircraft, or the safety, efficiency or regularity of air
navigation.142 A person must not while in an aircraft:
(a) use any threatening, abusive or insulting words towards a member of the crew
of the aircraft;
(b) behave in a threatening, abusive, insulting or disorderly manner towards a
member of the crew of the aircraft; or
(c) intentionally interfere with the performance by a member of the crew of the
aircraft of the crew member's duties.
Unauthorised take-over is a breach of Article 142.

[Nearly There]

So the answer is let a deaf pilot spin you into the ground? I think an airspeed call (shout) would have been appropriate in this instance. x amount of hours shouldnt come into it.

The stall warner is there for a reason, if its constantly blurring during a turn you are approaching or at the stall. If the guy flying cant hear it and there is no visual indicator article 142 wont get you out the **** that is potentially developing.

[piperboy84]

Tek now
The POH states 60-70kts (no flaps) and 55-65kts flaps down. With short field 54kts with 30 degrees flap selected.

Low hour duffer here also, but remember the POH is for gross weight which probably does not make much odds in a 152 with 2 folks in it, but flying it alone with 1/4 tanks probably leaves you 250-300lbs under gross which if I was flying I would knock 1mph off the approach speeds for every 80lbs I am undermax weight, not sure if this is the correct procedure but it does seem to get me in slower and pulled up quicker.

My advice is worth exactly what you pay for it[/SIZE]

[Crash one]

I once stalled a K13 glider at 80knots with about 80deg bank, it took a lot of pull!I've also final turned a C152 at 60deg at 60knots (descending). So all this crap about bank angles wouldn't apply unless you are trying to keep it level without added throttle/speed. Shirley?

[Piper.Classique]

Stall warner calibration is a problem with many light aircraft. Fly the attitude please, with a check of the asi from time to time. Learn to feel the aircraft, know how it handles.

And any passenger wanting to take control when I am P1, flying my own aircraft, had better be prepared to learn to fly without arms.

[Runaway Gun]

Shirley replies:

This bank angle stuff does apply because as you just pointed out, your stall speed does increase, even if you are in a dive. The majority of pilots are so uncurrent/unconfident in generic 3000ft straight and level stalls, let alone an accelerated version in landing configuration at a high angle of bank at low level. There is a fatal difference.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

I once stalled a K13 glider at 80knots with about 80deg bank, it took a lot of pull!I've also final turned a C152 at 60deg at 60knots (descending). So all this crap about bank angles wouldn't apply unless you are trying to keep it level without added throttle/speed. Shirley?

Yeah, well obviously! That's because stalling has eff all to do with speed, and everything to do with angle of attack.

I've stalled a Yak at 140 kts, and flown it at zero airspeed with no stall. I do wish all this pish about 'stall speed' would go away! Of course we'd need AoA indicators, and I wonder why they are not standard fit, since flying is all about the wing, and the wing is all about AoA.

My standard dead side descent in the Chippy was done near-wings-vertical, but wings unloaded. Which was also my method of 'throwing away' an aerobatic manouvre where I'd commenced the pull-up and wanted to exit back to level flight quickly and without drama.

[Dave Wilson]

And where in your vast experience as a pilot have you developedthe ability to jump in and take control or have learned the necessary skills to make the decision that you are in danger?

Those of us who have been teaching and examining for thousands of hours still have to make margin calls on that one.

Your action of an elbow in the chops while illegally taking command of an aircraft are likely to get you and the commander killed...... Crikey, puff your chest back in! Just a jocular response to your 'rip your arm off' comment, I would be quite happy to die with you Bose.

By the way, just got back from Sainsburys and they have half price Heidsiek champagne on offer if anyone is looking to uncork one the morrow. Just opened a bottle and it's quite quaffable.

I once stalled a K13 glider at 80knots with about 80deg bank, it took a lot of pull!I've also final turned a C152 at 60deg at 60knots (descending). So all this crap about bank angles wouldn't apply unless you are trying to keep it level without added throttle/speed. Shirley? No, all of this crap about bank angles doesn't apply unless you are in a level turn. Or not loading the wings. Or the various other permutations we've been discussing.

Unauthorised take-over is a breach of Article 142.

So if you were flying with me ( I think you are far more experienced than me if I remember some of your previous posts) and I was P1, the aircraft commander and you were just along for the ride, no matter what I did you wouldn't take over? Even if you called 'Airspeed' if I was low and slow or some other life threatening situation?

[Crash one]

No, all of this crap about bank angles doesn't apply unless you are in a level turn. Or not loading the wings. Or the various other permutations we've been discussing.


I thought that's what I said. The glider was certainly loaded, the C152 was not.

[Dave Wilson]

Yes you did say that, I was just agreeing!

And any passenger wanting to take control when I am P1, flying my own aircraft, had better be prepared to learn to fly without arms.Jeez, I give up. On a more serious note, I wonder how many commercial crashes with the loss of many thousands of lives over the years could have been avoided without this attitude. Not having a pop at you in particular but I'm surprised at the more experienced pilots here giving the 'I have a squillion hours therefore how can you ever be more right than me with your 250' line. I thought those days were over.

[englishal]

Don't think anyone is disputing that
The number of freshly licensed PPLs who think you can't turn at a bank angle over 15 degrees on base to final is amazing...and a reflection on flight training I am afraid.

[Lone_Ranger]

To the OP, I've known stall warners to be conservatively off by up to 10 knots, get the pilot to demonstrate an actual stall at height and compare the airspeed then to airspeed at the warning, he might just know something you don't

He could also of course be an idiot, but at least this way you'll know.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Lone Ranger, please read my post above. Stalling is not directly related to airspeed. Because of that, such an IAS indication is meaningless. Wing loading will affect the indicated stall speed, so pilot and pax weight come into it, and fuel weight. And of course if you're in a balanced turn (so G loading becomes a factor) you can forget the IAS / stall relationship.

AoA is ALL the wing knows about as far as stalling is concerned. It never varies for a given configuration (flaps etc), regardless of loading.

[ShyTorque]

I am currently "refreshing" ], and the only thing to add to this (apart from the Cessna 152 is 65 knots and you can use 2 stages of flap as there are 3 on the Cessna's), is don't start the final turn below 800ft QFE.

So how do you fly a bad weather/low level circuit?

[Lone_Ranger]

Because of that, such an IAS indication is meaningless


Shaggy, read your post./...it does nothing to increase my understanding.
A wing stalls at a certain AoA of course, but it also is most certainly 'related' to airspeed
You seem to be forgetting how a stall warning vane actually works

[fireflybob]

Reference passengers interfering with controls, in the event of an accident and injury etc the pilot may be able to take a civil action against the passenger who interfered by proving that such action precipitated the accident.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

is don't start the final turn below 800ft QFE.

Crikey! Even when I was a PPL stude back in 1978 circuits at Barton were 800' QFE. So by final turn one was down to maybe 500' max (I'd done the rote power, flaps, trim thing on base, and did it again on final).

Once I started to learn to fly into strips etc, height on final turn could be as low as you can go before the wingtip is in danger of hitting the ground!

Now obviously you won't be doing 20 foot final turns as a stude or a low hours PPL... but 800 feet? That's just silly in a little aeroplane (unless there's some local noise rule).

Shaggy, read your post./...it does nothing to increase my understanding.
A wing stalls at a certain AoA of course, but it also is most certainly 'related' to airspeed
You seem to be forgetting how a stall warning vane actually works

There's a relationship between IAS and stall, but it's not in any way reliable for the reason I give (re-read the post). 0 or 140 knots, the stall being at 140! How inconsistent is that? Yes, that was in aeros, so an extreme example.. but it demonstrates the point and the wing has no idea whether it's doing aeros or just circuits.

How do you think a stall warning device works?

No, I haven't forgotten, but your post makes me wonder if you ever knew how it works? If you think it's triggered by IAS, for your own safety go read 'Stick & Rudder' before you become a statistic!

Whether it's a vane or a 'whistle' type of warner, it's triggered by AoA!

[fireflybob]

The 800 ft sounds more like a misunderstanding to me.

Quite often a student will say "Instructor Bloggs said this or told me to do this".

And then when you research and ask Instructor Bloggs nothing of the sort was said or something was said which was misunderstood.

This is why as instructors we are in the "communication business" - be precise and make sure what you teach isn't misleading.

[fujii]

I'd like to thank all the posters here for pointing out how close to death I have been when flying aircraft without stall warning equipment fitted. What were Geoffrey DeHavilland and others thinking?

[Jan Olieslagers]

Fly the attitude please, with a check of the asi from time to time. Learn to feel the aircraft, know how it handles.

Flying a 3-axis microlight with no stall warner installed (cheese us! that would add another 600 grammes or so!) I can only agree. Turned a handful of circuits yesterday, trying various approach speeds and feeling the plane, I am coming to terms with it. Even the one time I let the ASI get rather low I felt it in my pants (or was it my stomach? can't be sure) before confirming on the needle.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

I'd like to thank all the posters here for pointing out how close to death I have been when flying aircraft without stall warning equipment fitted. What were Geoffrey DeHavilland and others thinking?

Don't you get pre-stall buffet? That was the warning on the Chippy (thank you Mr de Havilland)! And of course it's entirely AoA related (as is every stall warner I've ever met)!

[Genghis the Engineer]

Back to the taking control thing.

A real world story of getting it right.

I was right hand seat, instructor, sat back arms folded but monitoring a very good student on his tailwheel (and an antique type) conversion. At 400ft just after take-off, we had a sudden loss of power. My student, not unreasonably said loudly and clearly "you have control Genghis".


I took control, called a Pan, and was manoeuvring to land back (eventually) on a disused crosswind runway. Partway through the manoeuvring - turning, stressed, trying to relate attitude to variably sloping hills around the airfield, and close to the ground, my student recalls noting that I was very close to the stall. His recollection is that he said something like "Genghis, check your airspeed".

I do not recall hearing that. I do recall at that point, glancing at the airspeed, realising from that and stick pressure and pitch attitude that I was close to the stall, and easing the nose forwards. Almost certainly I was responding to what he said, but too stressed to be consciously aware that that was what I was doing.

His clear verbal reminder to me almost certainly saved 2 lives and the aircraft.


I agree that a passenger should not be taking control from a qualified PiC under almost any circumstances. (Obvious circumstances when he might include PiC having a heart attack, or inviting pax to take control to have a go). However, it is excellent airmanship to clearly draw a safety concern to the attention of the pilot. The pilot then, who hopefully knows their aeroplane well enough to form sensible judgments, can do the right thing. In *some* aeroplanes that *might* be to continue to fly with the stall warner operating.

G

[fujii]

SSD, I was being sarcastic. People are obsessed with the stall warning and not flying the aircraft.

[Andy_P]

Its just part and parcel of the lack of attitude flying thats being taught.

They should add 2 circuits with all the instruments covered into the ppl test, that would sort alot of this pish out.

Guess what I am doing next weekend!! Circuits with no instruments! Cant go solo with no SPL (still waiting on CASA), so I am using the opportunity to fine tune my circuits since I still have someone sitting next to me. I asked the FI last lesson if we could go up and fly without any instruments, so I could try learn to see and feel airspeed and altitude with out looking at instruments.


Reckon that 800ft is some nosense to do with commercial stabilised approach gate at 500ft. Its guff what ever the reason.

BTW the tommy is quite happy at 55knts approach speed full flap for a short field landing.

I was taught to make the turn onto final at about 600feet. Also taught 65knot final with full flap (C172S), obviously dependant on conditions.. Oddly enough, if you drop much below 60knots in the c172, the tail feels like its sinking and plane pitches up.

FWIW, when I first started training, they tell you to set certain RPM and on downwind, base and final. Likewise, the tell you what airspeeds to achieve. I have since learned that these are only guidelines, and whist they are ideal, sometimes you need a bit more or less depending on conditions.

Anyway, sorry about the hijack. Learning lots from you guys and gals!

[Dave Wilson]

Reference passengers interfering with controls, in the event of an accident and injury etc the pilot may be able to take a civil action against the passenger who interfered by proving that such action precipitated the accident. To turn your argument on it's head, if I were flying in the RH seat with you and you pranged the a/c even after I had warned you about low airspeed/ insert frightening situation of choice, and I didn't take control and sat through the inevitable crash, would I have a claim against you? I would have an insurance claim obviously but if I pressed for damages in that I could have prevented the accident had you listened would that stand up in a court of law? We're not talking about pax here we're talking about qualified and current pilots. Would the court say 'Well as a current on type and qualified pilot Mr Wilson why didn't you take control?'

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Sorry Fujii... So was I! I agree with you entirely! :ok:

[fireflybob]

Dave Wilson, I am not a lawyer!

One relevant point that has been missed is that when pilots are task saturated the very first sense the brain deletes is hearing. Your ear hears but the brain says "hey we're busy enough here - we don't need that stuff!".

So it's possible the pilot is not aware that the stall warner is operating (how many have landed gear up with the warning horn blasting away?).

Similarly the pilot may not be aware of your airspeed prompt. You might have to break the pilot's pattern by (for example) shaking him on the shoulder etc.

In the event of an accident with injury etc IF the passenger(s) can prove negligence on the part of the pilot they would have a case for civil action. But being negligent implies a deliberate act rather than a "genuine" mistake as I understand it but, as I say, I am not a lawyer.

But this is really getting highly hypothetical now. Sounds as though the OP was flying with someone who was not that competent.

One question I often ask students/pilots is "Can I stall if I am diving vertically towards the ground?" (with model a/c in hand pointing vertically down!) The answers are quite illuminating since almost exclusively all their stalling training has been done from more or less level flight and/or modest bank angles.

[fireflybob]

To turn your argument on it's head, if I were flying in the RH seat with you and you pranged the a/c even after I had warned you about low airspeed/ insert frightening situation of choice, and I didn't take control and sat through the inevitable crash, would I have a claim against you? I would have an insurance claim obviously but if I pressed for damages in that I could have prevented the accident had you listened would that stand up in a court of law? We're not talking about pax here we're talking about qualified and current pilots. Would the court say 'Well as a current on type and qualified pilot Mr Wilson why didn't you take control?'

Dave Wilson, my answer to that is that there is only ever ONE Commander on an aircraft!

[Genghis the Engineer]

Dave Wilson, my answer to that is that there is only ever ONE Commander on an aircraft!

I agree - but would still emphasise that the qualified and competent PASSENGER should draw the pilot's attention to anything of concern.

G

[fireflybob]

I agree - but would still emphasise that the qualified and competent PASSENGER should draw the pilot's attention to anything of concern.

Genghis the Engineer, I agree of course! I was alluding to the strict legal aspect.

[Dave Wilson]

One question I often ask students/pilots is "Can I stall if I am diving vertically towards the ground?" (with model a/c in hand pointing vertically down!) The answers are quite illuminating since almost exclusively all their stalling training has been done from more or less level flight and/or modest bank angles.

Exactly. It's not a point that is really driven home and it's one of the most important things to understand in flying. I suppose time and the syllabus are against most instructors. I don't come entirely virginal to the theory of it, before my whole 250 hrs as a powered pilot I spent 20 odd years as a glider pilot and was an instructor in theory of flight at a military establishment for four years. I already had the background when I started powered so any gaps were I suppose unconsciously filled in by me.

[fireflybob]

Also you can demonstrate the fact that the a/c can stall at any attitude/airspeed much more easily if the a/c is aerobatic.

Fly a loop and as you become inverted show the student "nose high, low speed (below 1g Vs) - but NO stall" and then when more or less vertical pull to buffet and show "nose low, high speed, STALL"

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Firefly, yes, that's where my example of a Yak zero airspeed with no stall and seconds later a stall at 140 knots (both in the same manouvre) came from.

But I wonder if the average non-flyer (i.e. a low hour stude) would gain anything from such a demo? I suspect not.

Experienced pilots, however, should know this stuff. It seems many don't.

[cockney steve]

A graphic illustration a few years ago was the spitfire at an airshow, which looped too low.....pancaked into the ground....IIRC pilot killed, not a lot left of the A/c.

[Andy_P]

One question I often ask students/pilots is "Can I stall if I am diving vertically towards the ground?" (with model a/c in hand pointing vertically down!) The answers are quite illuminating since almost exclusively all their stalling training has been done from more or less level flight and/or modest bank angles.


Can I (the student) have a crack at answering that?

If you are diving vertically to the ground, and you pull up to quick, the AoA can be exceeded and you will stall?

In my head, I visualise it as this: diving vertically to the ground, relative airflow is also vertical. Pulling out of the dive quickly, relative airflow is still vertical, but you are becoming horizontal, therefore AoA may be exceeded?

As for turns, I guess the same logic applies.When turning, to keep the plane flying vertical you would have to pitch up? So a steep turn in a vertical dive could still result in a stall?

Your question poses and interesting point for me though. How much can you bank a plane without it turning, and how do you do it. Thoughts of aerobatics in head and how they do it. Clear gap in my knowledge here, time to go do some research. I am at work now, I really need to get a model for these moments, visualising it helps a lot.

[fireflybob]

But I wonder if the average non-flyer (i.e. a low hour stude) would gain anything from such a demo? I suspect not.


Shaggy Sheep Driver, I take your point but it depends on the instructor and how it is taught.

In the "olden days" my dad had students doing loops before they went solo.

[Unusual Attitude]

Your question poses and interesting point for me though. How much can you bank a plane without it turning, and how do you do it. Thoughts of aerobatics in head and how they do it.

If you have enough speed / power as much as you like! A classic example of this is a knife edge pass flown during many displays. The aircraft is flown straight and level down the display line but with 90degrees of bank applied.

It's done using a load of aileron input to hold the bank balanced with a shed load of opposing rudder to hold the nose up along with power to balance the weight of the aircraft since the wings are not developing lift. Technically the fuselage will actually have a significant positive AOA and will be developing some lift but not much! You 'steer' the aircraft down the display line using pitch at that point but I run out of rudder beyond about 60-70 degrees even at 200mph so never personally tried it right over at 90 degs!

If you ever go on to fly an ex mil jet you'll be shown high speed stalling as part of the conversion syllabus which is a bit of an eye opener to say the least!

Regards

UA

[englishal]

For part of the FAA CPLs we did all manner of accelerated stalls etc....My best stall was upside down at the top of a loop and we ended up falling with style. It was quite surreal, I can still remember watching the car on the road that we'd been using as a reference line 5000' below as the harness straps were fluttering around my ears and we were weightless, with an aero's FI laughling like a hyena beside me....I was a bit overloaded then and forgot to close the throttle so we were accelerating downward and a remarkable rate of knots. After what seemed like an eternity (probably a couple of seconds) he said "my plane" and recovered from my numerous botched recoveries in which I stalled about 10 times ( felt like it anyway).

Regarding taking over - Depends. I have taken over in the past when the person I used to fly with (in a shared aeroplane of which I owned a share) was destined to break the aeroplane on landing after flaring at about 50 feet and just waiting for the inevitable. Now I'd certainly take over if we were about to die horribly and I knew I could save us - self preservation and all that.

800'....our circuit is 800'....

[A and C]

Jock I think you are unreasonable being critical of people who are turning onto final at 800 ft while deploying flap with the aim to be full flap speed stable at 500ft as they roll the wings level...........it's what I do all the time at small airfields.










Aircraft type Boeing 737-800, typical threshold speed 145 KTS.


I think a C152 or PA28 being flown this way is likely to be in the hands of a budding child of the magenta line !

FLY THE AIRCRAFT you are flying NOT the aircraft you aspire to FLY !

[A and C]

It goes all the way back to your first flying lesson the first clue should be the controls getting less effective, then the aircraft attitude followed by the light buffet...... Without getting too far into the theory those are the clues that should be ringing alarm bells in the mind of a low time pilot long before the stall warner sounds.

To fail to teach that, and mitigate that with a whole lot of guff derived from videos of airliner flying is to sow the seeds of an accident be it a C152 Turing final at some small airfield of an A330 over the Atlantic.

[Piper.Classique]

Dave, I invite you to note the word Passenger in my previous post. Not co-pilot, not instructor. PASSENGER. Pilot in command flies. Passenger does not interfere.

[tecman]

The OP never did answer my original question about the nature of the stall warning - i.e. intermittent or blaring. Noting his location, I'm also reminded of the need for particular vigilance in NVFR flight in many parts of Australia. There are not always many visual cues and, indeed, the strip lighting can be basic to say the least. Before the thread got silly, Mad Jock correctly made the point that flying around with the stall waring blaring is bad form. To that I'd add that anything other than the gentle turn rates appropriate in instrument flying are not wise in the NVFR environment, especially in locations where you need to keep all your wits about you to avoid sensory and other traps.

A rider on some of the comments re stall warning devices concerns certified (VLA) vs LSA versions of the same aircraft. I'm amused to see that my certified aircraft boasts a stall warning vane, while its LSA stablemates assume that our recreational pilot colleagues can go hang (figuratively). I doubt they lose any sleep over the omission.

[mad_jock]

I know AnC its got the stink of commercial ops. I would be at 600ft and do the last 100ft with 5 degs of bank on in the works machine. Did have one idiot that announced that it was illegal to do less that a 5 mile final in a commercial airliner.
This was just after he announced he was back to OAT to help out in the sim for an open day. It took nearly 500 sectors to batter most of the rubbish out of him and sort his handling out. I am sure he was a whizz with automatics. Unfortunately the only thing we had automatic was the engine start the rest of it you were doing it yourself.


In the tommy I would be at 300-400 feet and if the donk went I would be able to glide the rest of the way.

[S-Works]

We're not talking about pax here we're talking about qualified and current pilots. Would the court say 'Well as a current on type and qualified pilot Mr Wilson why didn't you take control?'

Because my Lord it would have been illegal interference and I would be standing in front of you waiting to be sentenced......

[Dave Wilson]

Bose:

I think there's a bit of pedantry going on here...:). I don't believe that as an obviously experienced pilot that you would just sit there and ride it into the ground is you had the chance to save yourself and the pilot, even though I know you're going to come back with 'Yes I would'.

Piper:

Yes, I see what you are saying but lets say you are spinning earthwards a rate of knots and P1 panics and freezes. (How many pilots have been killed in a spin? Some obviously do panic and freeze) Would you say 'My advice should you wish to take it would be to calm down and press opposite spin rudder' etc etc or would you just do it yourself?

[BEagle]

It does rather amuse me to read about all these children-of-the-magenta and their 'stable approach gate' guff, when I think about all the NDB-to-circle and low level visual circuits we used to do in the VC10 before the noise complaints stopped them.....

Nothing remotely difficult or dangerous about low level circuits, provided that you have been correctly taught. But not something which PPL holders with only a couple of hundred hours or so of £100 hamburger experience should try for themselves without proper training.

There's FAR TOO MUCH people-tube bolleaux creeping into spamcan flying training these days....

[Dave Wilson]

Nothing remotely difficult or dangerous about low level circuits, provided that you have been correctly taught.

I stand by to be corrected but aren't low level circuits taught in training? I can certainly remember doing them.

[fireflybob]

Bose:

I think there's a bit of pedantry going on here.... I don't believe that as an obviously experienced pilot that you would just sit there and ride it into the ground is you had the chance to save yourself and the pilot, even though I know you're going to come back with 'Yes I would'.

Piper:

Yes, I see what you are saying but lets say you are spinning earthwards a rate of knots and P1 panics and freezes. (How many pilots have been killed in a spin? Some obviously do panic and freeze) Would you say 'My advice should you wish to take it would be to calm down and press opposite spin rudder' etc etc or would you just do it yourself?

Dave Wilson, there is a difference between doing "things right" (management) and doing "the right thing" (leadership).

There are certain rare occasions when you have to have the moral courage (aka balls) to do the "right thing" even though you may know it's not "legal". But I think it's important to know that you are (potentially) operating outside the statute when you do this!

But am sure you know this!

There is certainly one occasion that comes to mind when I saved the aircraft (and me!) from crashing although technically I was a "passenger" - the owner was most grateful!

There are very few pilots who I would agree to take me as a PASSENGER to go spinning! (Unless you are referring to inadvertent spin?). It would be established clearly WHO the Commander was BEFORE getting airborne.

It does rather amuse me to read about all these children-of-the-magenta and their 'stable approach gate' guff, when I think about all the NDB-to-circle and low level visual circuits we used to do in the VC10 before the noise complaints stopped them.....

Nothing remotely difficult or dangerous about low level circuits, provided that you have been correctly taught. But not something which PPL holders with only a couple of hundred hours or so of £100 hamburger experience should try for themselves without proper training.

There's FAR TOO MUCH people-tube bolleaux creeping into spamcan flying training these days....

Beagle, Amen to that!

[BEagle]

I stand by to be corrected but aren't low level circuits taught in training? I can certainly remember doing them.

Your usual type of response - note that I wrote correctly taught.

[Dave Wilson]

Firefly: I meant inadvertant spin, and thank you for an honest answer!

Beags: Correct me if I'm wrong...:) but how can I respond in any other way than my usual way? I wasn't schizophrenic last time we looked.

Are you insinuating that my instructors were less than thorough? They all came from the same background as you!

[mad_jock]

He was saying you were taught correctly not a load guff by some airline wannable thats paid 90k to be taught a load of crap about flying SEP aircraft as if its a 737.

And since they have failed to get an airline job they are now inflicting this crap on the general ga population.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

If you are diving vertically to the ground, and you pull up to quick, the AoA can be exceeded and you will stall?
Or perhaps the wings will fall off first? - depends how fast you're going vertically downwards?

[Dave Wilson]

He was saying you were taught correctly not a load guff by some airline wannable thats paid 90k to be taught a load of crap about flying SEP aircraft as if its a 737.

And since they have failed to get an airline job they are now inflicting this crap on the general ga population.

Genuine question then and not a wind up one...:) I don't know anything about FI training not being one but aren't they all trained to the same standard? Most of the instuctors at my club are ex RAF instructors, indeed some are ex CFS instructors, some are now airline pilots and instruct becuase they love it. There's a bottomless pit of experience.

However, to instruct at a ATO they must have done the same training as your man who can't get an airline job, so where does the disparity lie? The 'This is how to fly a circuit' lesson must be the same from all of them? I imagine there's a big book of how to teach things for instructors somewhere or am I mistaken?

[Genghis the Engineer]

There are systems in place for training and assessing to the minimum acceptable standard PPLs, FIs, schoolteachers, and for all I know duck-billed-platypus-sexers.

However, the reality will always be that whilst everybody has to meet the minimum standard when they took their test, some will then drop below that, and some will keep climbing to ever higher standards.

And an instructor with 1000++hrs of varied flying is likely to be more adaptable to what a student really needs than one with a couple of hundred hours on an integrated then an FI course, who knows nothing more than that book.

G

[mad_jock]

Not really dave the FI course is to teach you how to teach.

Most FII have thier own favourite exercises which you do multiple times to learn how to patter and destruct an exercise.

The favorites for my course were straight and level and effects of controls. I think I pattered 10 approaches on return to the field but never a circuit as such.

The course is only 20 hours flying so there isn`t enough time to do the whole syllabus.

In the past the zero to hero pilots wouldn`t go near instructing, these days they are chasing the jobs that the self improvers used to do as a matter of doing thier apprenticeship. Thus bring in all this airline guff into flying schools which they were taught in the expatation of going straight into the seat of an automated flight deck with someone that has a clue what they are doing in the LHS.

To be honest alot of the airline guff isn`t even industry standard its taken from BA sop`s from when the schools did the cadet courses. Give the CTC pilots there due the kiwi`s do seem to teach the sep syllabus better than the US trained pilots from the limited exposure I have had of them.

It depends which company you work for what gives the flight safety office kittens about. Some its normal to hand fly a visual some if you even suggest a visual never mind manually flown and you will be looked at as some sort of cowboy.


They don`t even know the book G they have been taught with the sole purpose of flying a 40 ton plus multicrew airliner which is pref A. There is a heap of stuff they do which is wrong but is deemed good habit forming for the time that they do fly the airliner. Unfortunately when they don`t go straight into a job they think that they way they have been taught is the way to fly a sep.

[LAI]

Dave - I think to sum it up, the FI course is designed to give you the basics of instructional technique, as well as the template of "patter" for each of the main PPL exercises. The rest comes from your own experience etc. I have been through both the military and civilian instructor training systems and my personal experience is that the mil system puts much more emphasis on standardisation of the way you teach an individual exercise, whereas the GA side seemed to me more "relaxed" (for want of a better word). There is also, I would suggest, much more (and more regular) monitoring of individual instructor standards - but then they can afford to do all that!

As we say with computers etc. - "rubbish in, rubbish out" and I think this is the big issue with instructing today. Take a guy fresh from his commercial course with 250 hours - he doesn't have a lot of experience, he doesn't know what he doesn't know and he can only teach what he does.

If the FI course were getting everyone to the same gold-standard of GA instructional knowledge, I think it would involve a hell of a lot more hours!

I'm not an FIE, so I can't comment on the requirements to pass an FI rating test. However, on my initial, I turned out what I would have said was a decidedly mediocre presentation of the exercise. To my surprise, the examiner seemed most pleased with it, which only leads me to wonder what the minimum acceptable standard was!

We really do seem to have drifted from the topic now, so apologies!

[Dave Wilson]

Thanks for the replies chaps.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

There's FAR TOO MUCH people-tube bolleaux creeping into spamcan flying training these days....

Never a truer word. But why has that happened?

Even when I was a PPL stude back in the '70s there was an element of 'the radio is a primary flight control' creeping in and PPLs being taught to communicate before they aviate.

My perception is that things have got a lot worse since the 'old generation' of ex-mil instructors (many ex-WW2 or even earlier) have dropped off the perch to be replaced by aerial-Routemaster-driver wannabees (a generalisation, obviously). The concept among PPLs of being 'The Pilot In Command' seems to have receded, mirroring the trend of people-tube drivers being ruled by managers and accountants in their airlines.

[OhNoCB]

Piper.Classique and bose-x,

I am asking this as an open and genuine question not trying to have a go or prove a point.

I understand of course that as the PIC and owner of an aircraft, the last thing you would want is a passenger (let's assume a licence holding and current one, but still a passenger) jumping on the controls, especially if you knew what you were doing.

But now lets ask the reversed question as before, but please, less about what is legal and what articles prohibit it.

If you were a passenger with your friend flying in his aeroplane, and you noticed a situation developing (for example, he's getting low on the approach and just keeps pulling stick back without doing anything to correct the lowering airspeed), what would you do?

Would you do as people have already mentioned here and call out the speed to make him realise?

If you did this, maybe two or three times and it seemed like he was still not correcting (perhaps he is overloaded for some reason), would you really sit and let the aircraft stall with you in it when you are perfectly capable of saving the situation?

Again, I am not trying to make this an argument, just a discussion as from what I read, you are completely against this happening whatever the situation (aside from incapacitation), but perhaps I have just mis-understood.

[Genghis the Engineer]

, what would you do?

Tell them, calmly and clearly but, if necessary, loudly.

If they do not acknowledge this at all, then you have a problem.

G

[OhNoCB]

I agree Genghis, and maybe I am just missing something here but the way I read some of the posts it seems like some might rather perish than break the 'passenger' status. It is the lack of apparent self preservation which is perplexing me.

[mad_jock]

This whole take the controls off the PIC is a bit of a nightmare what ever aircraft you fly.

I have done it once in tens years. Lucky for me the skipper was very gateful and thanked me in the car park and asked if i wanted to submit a report on it.

But in general if you are flying with an instructor the likelyhood is that the aircraft is inside thier comfort zone but not yours. Take doing an approach in the tommy at 55 knts when you had only been exposed to some pillock telling you that you would die if you flew slower than 75knts, some of them teach 80knts.

For an instructor landing off a steep turn at 50ft pulling G to get rid of energy and then dumping the flap out isn`t an issue. To your normall ppl who hadn`t seen it before it would scare the hell out of them. Same with a slip to land only taking the rudder off at 20ft. All perfectly doable and glider tug pilots and meat bombers do them regularly.

So in themain it is very likely you would be doing more harm than good.

[Dave Wilson]

For an instructor landing off a steep turn at 50ft pulling G to get rid of energy and then dumping the flap out isn`t an issue. To your normall ppl who hadn`t seen it before it would scare the hell out of them.

Surely a good instructor wouldn't do that, or at least brief the student as to what he was going to do first.

[Lord Spandex Masher]

Why not just let your passenger know that he might hear the stall warner parping a bit before hand?

[Genghis the Engineer]

I agree Genghis, and maybe I am just missing something here but the way I read some of the posts it seems like some might rather perish than break the 'passenger' status. It is the lack of apparent self preservation which is perplexing me.

Well if absolutely no response, not even "shut up, I'm busy", then I think at that point I have to assume that my pilot is incapacitated. If he isn't, well that will most definitely be a point for the debrief.

G

[mad_jock]

A good instructor would never ever do that sort of thing on a lesson dave.

Flying a positioning flight with 4 CAT aircraft approaching 6 miles out and the other choice of holding on down wind for 15-20mins they might go for it with a ppl onboard.

And it won`t matter what you brief it all goes out thier heads. Which is one of the reasons most of us get the student to sit on their hands when you first demo a spin.

[AdamFrisch]

I did my BFR in FAA land not long ago, and new to the PTS is to demonstrate an accelerated stall. So in a 45 degree turn we quickly pulled until buffeting.

[mad_jock]

Wonder how many they are going to kill with that one with aircraft going into untested spin modes.

You have to give it to the yanks as soon as they shut one way down of instructors killing students they come up with another one.

[Desert185]

Mad jock:

Standby on your characteristic and insulting American bashing for a moment and realize the requirements. I know its difficult. :ugh:

When giving a Flight Review, the instructor has the OPTION to review maneuvers equivalent to the pilot's license. There is no real PTS for the Flight Review. The PTS is for the rating held.

From the FAA Commercial PTS (Practical Test Standards). Note that the stall demonstration is an "approach" to stall done at a minimum safe altitude.

References: FAA-H-8083-3; AC 61-67; POH/AFM.
Objective: To determine that the applicant:
Exhibits satisfactory knowledge of the elements related to accelerated (power on or power off) stalls.
Selects an entry altitude that allows the task to be completed no lower than 3,000 feet AGL.
Establishes the airplane in a steady flight condition, airspeed below VA, 20 knots above unaccelerated stall speed or the manufacturer’s recommendations.
Transitions smoothly from the cruise attitude to the angle of bank of approximately 45° that will induce a stall.
Maintains coordinated turning flight, increasing elevator back pressure steadily and firmly to induce the stall. Recognizes and recovers promptly at the “onset” (buffeting) stall condition.
Returns to the altitude, heading, and airspeed specified by the examiner.
Accelerated Stalls (ASEL and ASES)

This has been accomplished for years here in America, BTW. Accomplished with the above parameters, the maneuver is instructional and entirely safe.

[S-Works]

No different in reality to our own stall in a turn in fact.....

[mad_jock]

Well having been flipped over the top in a cessna 152 into a spin which wouldn`t recover using the POH method and required full power to be applied before the rudder got any authority by doing just that but with the flight instructor instructor demoing a botched steep turn you crack on.

BTW it spun faster than tommy we lost 4k feet before he recovered it with 500ft left.

Sounds very like that other special of hanging in the air fannying around with the rudder pedals while holding it in the stall.

It took nearly twenty years and a rudder falling off an airbus to stop that lifting wing with the rudder nonsense.

[englishal]

Wonder how many they are going to kill with that one with aircraft going into untested spin modes.

You have to give it to the yanks as soon as they shut one way down of instructors killing students they come up with another one.
Why is it going to spin? I did many of these in FAA land. Stalls in FAA land are not a mystery, as you practice them until you are competent and confident in recovery. When I first came to UK land, the FI checking me out asked me to stall. I said do you want a power on stall? He said they don't do them over here.....!

[Piper.Classique]

Fair questions. ohNo and Dave.
I would have no objection to a verbal prompt when flying as P1 with another pilot on board.

If I am flying as passenger then that's what I am. As I would prefer not to be killed then obviously I would attempt a verbal prompt in a developing situation. If that didn't have a result then a rather more urgent and firm prompt would ensue......if no reply then I suppose I would assume incapacitation and proceed accordingly.

FI hat on now. I teach low level circuits, stalling in all configurations, incipient spins. Can't do full spins in the Dr400. Operation at minimum level, precautionary landings, flap failure, radio failure , all sorts of engine failures in all sorts of places, anything else I can think of failing I will do it. Glide approaches, sideslips, no instruments.

Tug pilot hat on now. Steep turns pulling G to kill the speed are routine. Final turn low, close in, then nose down to flick the rope up, land anywhere without a glider in the way.

Glider pilot hat on. We can't do go arounds. So I have to be able to get a landing out of a student's messed up approach. Better, I can help the student sort it out for him/her self.

Oh, yes, stall warners. Usually the calibration is more than a little approximate. Control feel, buffet, stick position, and in unaccelerated flight the attitude and asi are far better indicators in light aircraft. Which is what I teach people to fly. Which is what I learned to fly, then got a CPL through the back door with 700 hours in 1990. Which is what I still fly, and am still learning. Sorry I can't take you spinning in the cub, but we are beyond the aft limit for spinning two up.

Happy new year!

[mad_jock]

English go and think what happens to the aoa of the inside wing.

Then have a look at theory why the designers put wash out into the wing.

Then have a look at the certfication standards.

Then link the whole lot together and see that the aircraft has never been tested in a stall in a steep turn or the resulting inside wing stall to spin.

Recovery on the stall warner is completely diffetent to being on the nibble or fully developed because the aircraft isn`t stalled. In europe land the only configuration for a fully developed stall is clean wings level for very good reason. All the other stalls are done from incipent from the warning. Not from nibble or fully developed.

[fujii]

Going back to the original post titled: "stall warning and when to panic."

I suggest never. Panic won't achieve anything.

[mad_jock]

Good post. And something every pilot should reflect on. Fujii

[englishal]

Every time I have (properly) stalled in the turn, it is the outside wing that dropped due to increased AoA on the outside wing causing it to stall first / deeper.

[djpil]

Every time I have (properly) stalled in the turn, it is the outside wing that dropped due to increased AoA on the outside wing causing it to stall first / deeper.Level turn? Climbing turn? Descending turn?

One question I often ask students/pilots is "Can I stall if I am diving vertically towards the ground?" (with model a/c in hand pointing vertically down!)Nope. If you increase (or decrease) the angle of attack then it is no longer diving vertically towards the ground.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Every time I have (properly) stalled in the turn, it is the outside wing that dropped due to increased AoA on the outside wing causing it to stall first / deeper.


It may have dropped the outside wing every time but the reasons given are your guess based presumably on the very simplistic theory used in PPL/ATPL TK. Very few aeroplanes are instrumented in a way that would prove (or disprove!) what you say.

G

[fireflybob]

djpil, good point!

Perhaps a better question then might be if I am diving vertically towards the ground and pulled hard back on the stick what would happen?

Technically your answer is correct but the question is geared to make a relevant point

[mad_jock]

We were at 50 deg bank balanced flight with ower on in a c150 or 152.

The aircraft was pitched to the buffet then roll applied to level the wings.

The wing tip stalled throwing us over the top and straight into a high rot fully developed spin which was nothing like the normal spin. Rudder made not the slightest bit of difference and neither did progresively moving the stick forward.

It was one of my three this is it moments in aircraft

[djpil]

No worries, fireflybob, I find it difficult myself to translate stuff from my briefings/chats to online posts. I totally agree with your approach. Small number of written words I find inadequate. 140 per twitter I cannot deal with.

jock, we should discuss over a nice bottle of red next time you visit.

[Cows getting bigger]

I sometimes wonder why we make this so difficult for the average PPL. The fundamentals are that the nearer the stick is to your Crown Jewels the nearer you are to a stall. If you have a significant angle of bank and are trying to turn the stick will be in that position.

Of course we all recognise the symptoms of slow flight or, more importantly the approach to the stall? Gushing over air speeds, angles of bank, squares of the load factor etc is for people who prefer reading books or designing aircraft.

There are some simple rules of thumb which the average pilot can hang their hat on, one being reduced bank angles in a turn, close to the ground when taking off or landing. Experimenting outside these boundaries is very useful and informative but needs to be done in the right environment.

[Steve6443]

We were at 50 deg bank balanced flight with ower on in a c150 or 152.

The aircraft was pitched to the buffet then roll applied to level the wings.

The wing tip stalled throwing us over the top and straight into a high rot fully developed spin which was nothing like the normal spin. Rudder made not the slightest bit of difference and neither did progresively moving the stick forward.


Mad Jock: Care to tell us how you recovered? I read these stories to learn from people and would love to know, should I inadvertently get into such a situation, what the most effective way out is..... after all, if I'm spinning and opposite rudder isn't helping me, I'd like to think I had some idea of a Plan B rather than "manipulate the controls and hope for the best" and learning from the more experienced is the only way I have of "preparing", if you get my drift.

It was one of my three this is it moments in aircraft

The other two being? But more importantly, how did you recover? Think it would be interesting to hear from the more experienced pilots telling us about their "This is it" moments and how they managed to survive and tell the tale - unless the reason for this was pure luck.......

After all, if it happened to you, it could happen to any of us......

[Flyingmac]

Nice old training film from 1943. Inverted Spin Recovery - YouTube

[Piper.Classique]

Nice find, Flyingmac. Any more where that came from?

[Desert185]

Steve6443:

My similar situation in a C152 Aerobat required power to recover after five turns in a spin. 150/152's don't normally need power for flow over the rudder/elev to recover from a spin. It seemed like a good idea at the time, and I'm here to report that it was.

[piperboy84]

Here's an interesting vid on the subject
Anatomy of a Cirrus Stall Accident - YouTube

[mad_jock]

The fii was was doing a demo at the time so he recovered it by applying power in fact red line power until it started recovering. I still to this day don`t know if I was meant to take control off him before he did it or what. We knocked it on the head that day after that and got the engineers to check the plane out when we got back. They checked the rigging and found nothing wrong. Ever since then I have stayed well away from stalling in a steep turn. I presume they test the stalling up to 30deg bank. Anything more than that and your on your tod. In C of A test flights we only have to do up to 30 degs for the stick push function test.

The othere one was getting caught in mountain wave to the north of the cairgorm did a 160 back towards the spey and got out of it.

The third was in the works machine with wind shear on approach in imc and just did the training for that event. Including turning off the engine protection systems and getting 105% out of them both. Thought i had just burned half a million worth of engines but it turned out because we hadn`t exceeded the exhaust gas temp limits all that was required was a program of SOAP sampling, both engines were fine.

[Desert185]

Piperboy:

Science and government can create whatever to protect you against yourself, but there will always be someone who will explore and override the design safety mechanism(s). It's an unchangeable human trait. :rolleyes:

The Cirrus' leading edge difference (washout) to reduce incidence at the outboard end of the wing has been in existence for sometime in many airplanes (as I'm sure you know). Bertorelli explains the Cirrus leading edge like it was a safety feature Cirrus created, which I'm sure was not his intention. My particular old-school, 1971 Cessna 185 has washout...and no airframe parachute. The biggest safety enhancement any aircraft can have is the judgment and ability of the guy/gal in the left seat, IMO.

Want to eliminate stall/spin? Drive a car and don't get in the vast majority of airplanes.

[windclock]

I'm wondering about this spin I think mad jock is writing about.

By any chance was your weight and balance slightly aft c of g?

[mad_jock]

desert I found it interesting you have been in a similar mode of spin in that type.

I have spoken to a few other pilots that have also been in that mode and required power to get it out. I have never found anything documented on this alternative mode or for that matter a published recovery procedure.

Its is definitely not the usual Cessna spin which almost recovers itself if you let go of everything.

From 5000ft we recovered at 500ft agl to S&L coming out of rotation at 1000ft agl

Genghis with your boffin hat on have you got any ideas what was going on?

BTW if there are any budding test pilots out there wanting to prove MJ is talking nonsense I would strongly advise you are up at 8k-10k ft just in case you do get it to happen. It could be we had a bent wing or a unlucky gust at just the wrong time but if she does go it makes a tommy spin look tame.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Well having been flipped over the top in a cessna 152 into a spin which wouldn`t recover using the POH method and required full power to be applied before the rudder got any authority by doing just that but with the flight instructor instructor demoing a botched steep turn you crack on.

BTW it spun faster than tommy we lost 4k feet before he recovered it with 500ft left.

Sounds very like that other special of hanging in the air fannying around with the rudder pedals while holding it in the stall.

It took nearly twenty years and a rudder falling off an airbus to stop that lifting wing with the rudder nonsense.

I have spoken to a few other pilots that have also been in that mode and required power to get it out. I have never found anything documented on this alternative mode or for that matter a published recovery procedure.

Its is definitely not the usual Cessna spin which almost recovers itself if you let go of everything.

From 5000ft we recovered at 500ft agl to S&L coming out of rotation at 1000ft agl

Genghis with your boffin hat on have you got any ideas what was going on?

Hmmm, unsure from the amount of information to go on. I'll give it a stab, but may wel be completely wrong.

I'm guessing you had reasonable power on when you entered the spin, which probably meant you saw a higher AoA than would be normal, it *may* have locked you into a different to normal spin mode. Possibly one with the wings locked stably into a higher AoA condition that would be normal. I'm assuming it was an erect spin (yaw and roll in the same direction) as opposed to an inverted spin (way and roll in opposite directions)?

Sounds to me not dissimilar to two spin modes that I have seen - one is the high rotational flattish spin mode achievable in the Bulldog through introduction of some in-spin aileron during an erect spin, the other is the power-on erect spin to the left in the Tucano, which is not particularly fast, but extremely stable.

So, you were in a fast and very stable spin, too stable for primary controls to get you out of and the only control available was apparently the throttle, so you gave it a go. Clearly a good guess as you survived the experience.

Introducing power, added torque at the propeller, this should have created oscillatory pitching and yawing moments, and my guess is that in addition to the effect you were getting inputs from the controls, this got you out of the spin. In the Tucano it would do that in one direction, although in the other would just stabilise the spin even more.

The Bulldog of course has suffered a number of "inexplicable" spinning losses over the years, generally when captained by very experienced service QFIs who can reasonably be assumed to have known what they were doing.

Somewhat disconcerting for you I'm sure, but re-inforces a couple of my prejudices:-

- Most aeroplanes have potential for an undiscovered spin mode somewhere that can bite, and was not found in the original flight test programme.

- Spinning and/or aerobatics without a personal parachute and route out of the aeroplane is silly, however well understood we *think* that the type is.

G

[mad_jock]

C of G was within limits more forward with two blokes in the front just a fire extinguisher and first aid box strapped in the back. Two hours of fuel.

Yes there was a fair bit of power on and also I presume a bit of the wrong way rudder as well.

And it was and erect spin.

Whats the certification testing? do they test up to 60degs or only up to 30degs?

And we hadn't planned on doing any spinning its was a patter a steep turn practical and he was showing me the common student screw ups after I had done my bit. It was more by luck than judgement we were at 5k.

[djpil]

Article in Flight Magazine of 24 October 1978 about spins in Cessnas with info from a Cessna test pilot - you should be able to find it online. FAA issued a safety bulletin for instructors on the subject at about the same time based on the same material but more comprehensive.
"Even small amounts of aileron deflection into the spin may increase the rotation rate and prolong recovery."
Info in Rich Stowell's excellent book too.

[mad_jock]

there was no aileron input into this spin after we flick inverted over the top.

Full rudder and full forward on the stick resulted in cock all happening.

[Genghis the Engineer]

whats the certification testing? do they test up to 60degs or only up to 30degs?

Ah yes, well.

The reality is that the wording in the certification standards over spinning is so vague and minimal that it really comes down to the professionalism of the flight test team, and what they consider an appropriate level of testing.

I would always ensure a significant amount of mishandling, and a variety of spin entries - but some manufacturers do the absolute minimum, and the authorities sometimes let them get away with it. What was going on between FAA and Cessna in the 60s of course, is anybody's guess - Cessna wouldn't tell, and anybody who worked on it will have retired long ago, and in all likelihood are using another form of aerial conveyance by now.

Which basically means, nobody has a clue.

G

[mad_jock]

I think I am just going to continue my policy of not getting near a stall in a steep turn. Once was enough for me.

[BEagle]

Back in 19** on my PPL course at Cranfield, we were taught dynamic stalling in steep turns. I well recall the buffeting and the stall warner screeching its head off as the aircraft stalled.

Some would roll further into the turn, others would depart in the opposite direction in an incipient spin. But they always recovered as soon as back pressure was released.

These were Reims-built Cessna 150s, but the big difference was that they were brand spanking new. We also used to spin them.

However, it wouldn't surprise me to learn that elderly C150 / C152, if deliberately mishandled, will bite the unwary. Rigging tolerances, mass distribution and other factors could be issues....

But closing the throttle and immediately centralising the controls should recover any incipient spin.....nevertheless, discovering that you have a rogue aircraft which won't recover quite so readily wouldn't be much fun....:uhoh:

In the Bulldog and Chipmunk, max rate turns on the 'buffet nibble' were an essential part of military flying training. As was recognition and recovery from any 'undemanded roll rate'.

[Miserlou]

Going back to earlier in the thread, way back when I was a boy we were taught (gliding) MINIMUM 30 degrees of bank for final turn.

Even through commercial training they wanted exactly 30 degrees of bank, not 20, not 31. 30!

PS. Despite much deliberate 'abuse' resulting in plenty of departures and spins, I never managed to provoke the 'difficult' spin which the Firefly is known tp possess.

[dirkdj]

Miserlou,

It also depends how much you pull on the yoke ( = AoA) during your turn. You could make a 30° final turn where you let the aircraft finds it's own balance or you could pull hard to intercept the centerline. Hard to describe but you will understand.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

When I did my PPL decades ago, spins were mandatory. We used C150s back then, and it was very difficult to get them to spin properly. I suspect that most C150 / 152 'spins' entered from the classic 'one knot per second' deceleration method are really semi-stalled spiral dives, hence the ease of recovery.

One very experienced instructor (ex-WW2 ex-Spitfire and ex-V bomber pilot) I flew with would use a deliberate flick entry into the spin, with the aeroplane rolling 'over the top' inverted and dropping into a spin as pro-spin controls were held. I recall these entries led to 'proper' spins in that they required the 'full opposite rudder, stick forward' spin recovery. But they did recover OK, not at all as MJ experienced.

Several decades of Chippying never led to any nasty spin experiences despite that aeroplane, at least in the early days, having a bit of a reputation in that department.

The Yak52 loved to spin and would do so at any opportunity. Flat spins off a botched stall turn being one of its party pieces. Recovery from flat spins (which I practiced with none other that Genna) required instant opposite rudder, full forward stick, and in-spin aileron. But recovery was fairly quick and reliable if you did it correctly (rotation in the spin was nose-high and fast).

I agree with Ghengis, however. Having done very many spins over the decades in many aeroplanes, only sometimes with a parachute, I was always aware that each was 'a bit different', and a nasty surprise might be around the corner. I also suspect that normally benign aircraft such as the C152 which are normally difficult to spin might be the very worst types to recover in very rare spin modes. I have no personal experience of that as MJ has..... It's just a feeling born of general spinning experience.

I think Ghengis is right about wearing a parachute for deliberate spinning (and of course ensuring there is the height to use it if recovery goes pear-shaped). We often didn't in the slightly more cavalier days of the 70s, 80s, and 90s (and in a biennial a few years ago we did a 5-turn Chipmunk spin without chutes) but nearly all of us got away with it. Some didn't.

[mad_jock]

Personally I think its better to teach them attitude flying properly then the buggers don't get near a stall in a steep turn.

Its worked for me for the last 10 years.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

But what about aeros? If an aeros manouvre goes wrong it can often result in a spin. Furthermore, since the spin wasn't entered deliberately and wasn't expected, it might not at first be obvious which way you're spinning.

[mad_jock]

Aeros are for aeros type people in machines designed and tested for it being taught by pilots that know what they are doing.

Same with the mill boys and girls.

Not for PPL's and CPL's fannying around in clapped out heaps with the blind leading the blind in the RHS.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Well said Jock.

G

[Miserlou]

Dirk,
I do understand. The thinking behind the 'minimum 30 degree bank' is that if you are too slow the first sign is a higher rate of descent which is easily recovered from by levelling the wings.
It also ensures that both wings are at almost the same speed so that one wing doesn't stall before the other.
Furthermore, there is less urge to 'rudder' the turn more to tighten it.

There is little tendency to pull harder as the turn onto final is usually 'high' as the final approach will usually be the time where final flap settings will be made or the airbrakes increased accordingly.

Most satisfying is the final turn flowing into a nice side-slip flowing into the flare and three point touch down.

[mad_jock]

I thought glider base are at 45 degrees to final anyway.

Anyway the best way to do it is by not having a base at all and just keeping a constant aspect all the way round from down wind.

[Miserlou]

The base would be at 45 degrees from the downwind leaving a 135 degree turn to final.
The 45/135 degree base/final turn is just a formalization of the old RAF constant aspect approach effectively allowing one to turn in early at any point along the way.
The problem with it being is fitting more aircraft into the circuit and different types' gliding/speed characteristics.

Strange that the safest, most environmetally friendly and reliable way to get down morphed into cross country circuits.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Aeros are for aeros type people in machines designed and tested for it being taught by pilots that know what they are doing.

Same with the mill boys and girls.

Not for PPL's and CPL's fannying around in clapped out heaps with the blind leading the blind in the RHS.

Hmmm. Back in the '70s at least at Barton, I don't remember there being such a 'brick wall' between 'aeros type' people and anyone doing a PPL. Often, on completing the PPL, aeros was the next logical step for some (indeed with some instructors and with interested students, you'd no doubt have done a bit of extra-curricular aeros during the basic training phase!). But it was a long time ago, and maybe I've forgotten exactly how it was.

[barit1]

mad_jock in post #13:
They should add 2 circuits with all the instruments covered into the ppl test, that would sort a lot of this pish out.


My father instructed in AT-6s during the big one (Harvard to my UK friends).

Part of the syllabus included IAS covered below 90 kt., so the student (WASPs in this case) learned to fly by feel, sound and attitude. Of course the instructor's pit still had a "live" IAS, but seldom was intervention called for.

And no, for the unwashed, this 600 hp taildragger had no stall warning!

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

I once got a flight in the front seat of a Stampe. It had stick, rudder, throttle, mixture, carb heat.... and a lot of instruments in that front cockpit. But all of instruments, every one, were paper cut-out ones glued onto the dash!

"That's all you need" said the guy in the back. He was right!

[mad_jock]

I suspect in the 70's at Barton the ratio of hairy arsed knows what they are doing occupants of the RHS to clueless idiots that couldn't find there backside without a mirror and a FMS was significantly different to today where the RHS may have only done 3-5 spins as part of their FIC.

[Piper.Classique]

I suspect in the 70's at Barton the ratio of hairy arsed knows what they are doing occupants of the RHS to clueless idiots that couldn't find there backside without a mirror and a FMS was significantly different to today where the RHS may have only done 3-5 spins as part of their FIC.

Rofl!

The base would be at 45 degrees from the downwind leaving a 135 degree turn to final.
The 45/135 degree base/final turn is just a formalization of the old RAF constant aspect approach effectively allowing one to turn in early at any point along the way.

Am I missing something here? You do your base leg getting further away from the airfield all the time?

[phiggsbroadband]

Whilst doing some practice Power On 60deg Banked Turns in a C152, I caught up my own wake turbulence, and was spat out of the turn slightly over wings level and on a downward path.. Which was easily corrected.

I can only assume my upper wing encountered the turbulence and stalled, had the other wing stalled we would have been upside down in next to no time... Was I just lucky?

[mad_jock]

I don't think it would have stalled in a normal speed steep turn with a bit of turbulence off yourself.

What we are talking about to most PPL's and instructors is a rather extreme attitude. You really have to be trying to get anywhere near what we are talking about.

Which is another reason why I see it as a bit of a pointless exercise for the majority of pilots. I can see certain groups getting near it such as photo pilots and aero's but the majority of us won't get anywhere near it unless somebody makes us do it as part of an exercise.

[RetiredF4]

@phiggsbroadband
I can only assume my upper wing encountered the turbulence and stalled, had the other wing stalled we would have been upside down in next to no time... Was I just lucky?

No, you were unprecise and loosing altitude in your turn, otherwise the turbulence would have been below you. And wingrock is not stalled.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I disagree - it's quite common if flying at a steep bank angle in a slow aeroplane to hit your own wake vortex. The vortex does not descend very fast.

G

[djpil]

moose stall - some types in specific configurations and power setting will get the tailplane stalled if they fly through their own wake - sudden and violent nose down pitch. Numerous fatal accidents (can't shoot a coyote at high altitude).

[RetiredF4]

Genghis the engineer
I disagree - it's quite common if flying at a steep bank angle in a slow aeroplane to hit your own wake vortex. The vortex does not descend very fast.



I know that it is not uncommon, due to the reason, that it is not uncommon to descent unintentionaly in steep turns. What time do you need for a 360 in a C152? What is the span of a C152? Something like 33 feet? Most people will accept such a deviation in a steep turn as negligable. But loosing that altitude will bring you closer to your own wake, maintaining level keeps you out of it.

I know it is nitpicking, excuse my interruption.

[Miserlou]

Piper Classique,

The base would be a tangent to a circle with centre at threshold, the turn to base being started abeam the threshold.
So the base is actually a much more constant distance to the runway than your normal circuit.

If you think about aiming points and such, this is much easier to judge and adjust. Just a slight modification of a spiral where your aiming point would be completely constant, hence, constant aspect approach.

[Genghis the Engineer]

A 360 in a C152 at 60 aob could be done in around 15 seconds.

What is much harder to estimate of course is the behaviour of the wake vortex.

G

[abgd]

Another vote for being able to feel wake turbulence when doing 60 degree turns without losing height.

I have looked but not managed to find figures for how fast light aircraft wake vortices descend. I did find a suggestion that it was slower than a vortex from transport-sized aircraft. Or perhaps it's related to wing loading... same result. I'm afraid I've lost the link.

Do vortices initially descend? For example, if you were at the top of a loop, wouldn't your vortices actually go up? If so, then when doing a 60 degree turn your wing vortices will initially be cast off more laterally than downwards, and perhaps your outboard vortice will actually rise or stay level (in the pictures they always seem to diverge laterally outwards).

[cockney steve]

I was fortunate to accompany a friend in an Aeronca Chief, on several occasions. On one of our "doss-abouts" he stood it on it's ear and did a 360, culminating in a jiggle as we flew through our own wake....it wasn't a fluke, he could do it at will (as I remember, it was a "still-air" day.:) My attempt....crank it over, pull back and a bit of opposite rudder....nowhere near...but there was no mush, buffet or other untoward feedback. Happy days, Armstrong starting and an Icom handheld...when he got a portable intercom.....LOOXURY!

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

if you were at the top of a loop, wouldn't your vortices actually go up?

Vortices only occur when the wing is loaded. At the top of a loop the wing is very lightly loaded, maybe even zero loading if the loop is ballistic. So vortices would be negligible or absent. But I guess if there are any, they'd go down relative to the wing, so 'up' relative to the ground!

[barit1]

When I took my instructor's check ride, the FAA guy asked for the typical Lazy Eight and chandelle demos. Lazy Eight met his approval, but he didn't like my chandelle. "Stall warner was sounding for 5-10 seconds solid" - well, yes, that was how we did them. So I asked what he wanted. "Just an occasional beep" was his goal.

I said "Can I do it again?" - and he was satisfied this time.

The difference, of course, was that I had been practicing recovery with a bit of burble - itself a reliable stall warning in a C150 (or in all the other light singles I had been flying). Attitude and feel = old school. The examiner was of the "by the numbers" school and expected his candidate instructors to follow suit.

But I think he respected the fact I could adapt, and demo both styles.

[phiggsbroadband]

Hi Barit1, the Lazy8 is not taught over this side of the pond, either in PPL or Basic Aerobatics... Which is a bit of a shame.
We also don't seem to do 'Turns about a Pole' which is another of your favourites, (especially in a crosswind).

[barit1]

The lazy eight is valuable because you are continually moving in all three axes; nothing is static! You learn the flow of the maneuver - up, roll, yaw, reverse roll, back to S&L... :)

[Desert185]

Barit1

I'm one of those guys who never understood the need for a Lazy 8 in training, nor any benefit it might provide in my future as a professional pilot in any airplane under any circumstances. After almost 47 years, my opinion has not changed, and the fact that it is not required in some areas of the world with resulting capable pilots seems to confirm my suspicions. :cool:

Pylon 8's? Yes. Good value to becoming proficient in those.

[Piper.Classique]

The base would be a tangent to a circle with centre at threshold, the turn to base being started abeam the threshold.
So the base is actually a much more constant distance to the runway than your normal circuit.

If you think about aiming points and such, this is much easier to judge and adjust. Just a slight modification of a spiral where your aiming point would be completely constant, hence, constant aspect approach.

Ah. Yes, now I understand what you are saying, once you say start the turn abeam the threshold. We call that a PTU here, prise de terrain en U. But there is no need to work out the angles, it is simply a U turn, half a circle with bank angle varying to adjust for the wind. Not an unusual technique when teaching proper stick and rudder flying and, dare I mention it, judgement.

[mad_jock]

What's plyon 8's?

I agree on the lazy 8's did them once they are just a coordination exercise with nothing really gained for the real world.

I have never felt I have missed out by not doing them properly. The time could be better spent flying the aircraft without any instruments through a series of trimming in different configuration exercises just setting everything up by ear and attitude.

[phiggsbroadband]

Whilst model flying, I used to be able to do half a dozen lazy8s, continuously one after the other. The trick was to use 80% of 'cruise power' so that there was no height lost or gained.


Also the same 80% power was useful for holding a continuous Dutch Roll on the model plane... I have not tried a Dutch Roll in a full size Cessna, I can only imagine it would spin out on the first excursion.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Dutch roll? That's not a manouvre, is it? I understood it to be an undesireable flight characteristic of an aeroplane with insufficient yaw stability, cured by fitting a yaw damper?

I found PA38s do it in rough air.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Dutch Roll is a coupling of lateral with directional stability driven by sideslip. Pretty much any aeroplane will do it, most can be induced to do it deliberately by a sinusoidal yaw input called a "rudder doublet" and many will do it in turbulence. Many birds deliberately induce then damp it as a means of making rapid heading changes, although we don't use it deliberately in aeroplanes.

A yaw damper is the most common fix in more complex aeroplanes to eliminate unwanted DR. It's not the fix you'd normally use in a small aeroplane, where you'd more likely change the shape or size of the fin.

G

[mad_jock]

http://img1.pictaero.com/2008/02/11/s/5428.jpg

If you don't want to fit a yaw dampener you can just design a really stupid looking aircraft instead.

[phiggsbroadband]

To fly the Dutch Roll (in model flying) I used to get the plane flying away from myself at 80% power, with almost fully back on the stick, to give a high nose attitude slow flight. Then a quick dab of rudder would make the plane bank 40-60deg to the left, followed by the same to the right, then to the left... etc etc. The only Input I had was to hold the stick almost right back to hold the altitude. Release the back pressure before the model went out of sight... and then RTB.
It is true that the flight path is stable, the plane keeps flying in a straight line.. Just wobbling R+L+R+L....


btw Jock.. What is a Yaw Dampener? Is it an Electronic Gizmo Box of tricks, or something mechanical.

[barit1]

Yaw dampeners used to be simple fluid dynamic "computers" (either pneumatic or hydraulic*) tuned to counter the airplane's natural period. Today on big jets they're probably just a chip or two on the FBW system.

* Analogous to the hydromechanical engine fuel control of past decades...

[fireflybob]

On the aircraft I have flown with such devices it's called a Yaw Damper rather than "dampener"!

[mad_jock]

Depends which country the manual is written what its called.

[Desert185]

mad_jock:

Eights on pylons - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eights_on_pylons)

[mad_jock]

I have survived with out doing them either.

[Desert185]

...and I can survive without Scotch, but I choose not to. :D

[mad_jock]

Dear god Scotch that's another dirty habit.

Try single malt whisky instead.

[Desert185]

Have two or three bottles of the nectar in the cabinet.

[mad_jock]

Honestly what does it bring to the final product. And what real life situation does it equip you for.

[Desert185]

I've used the technique of pivoting the wingtip on a point on the ground during a search to get a better view of the object on the ground. It also demonstrates the pilot's ability to fly the aircraft while focusing his attention outside the aircraft. Its actually fun when done in a brisk wind, as altitude will change with a change in groundspeed. Depending on speed, initial entry altitude will be around 800' AGL.

More of the AFH description, below, is available online, if desired.

From the FAA Airplane Flying Handbook:

EIGHTS-ON-PYLONS (PYLON EIGHTS)
The pylon eight is the most advanced and most diffi-
cult of the low altitude flight training maneuvers.
Because of the various techniques involved, the pylon
eight is unsurpassed for teaching, developing, and test-
ing subconscious control of the airplane.
As the pylon eight is essentially an advanced
maneuver in which the pilot’s attention is directed
at maintaining a pivotal position on a selected pylon,
with a minimum of attention within the cockpit, it
should not be introduced until the instructor is assured
that the student has a complete grasp of the fundamentals.
Thus, the prerequisites are the ability to make a coordi-
nated turn without gain or loss of altitude, excellent feel of
the airplane, stall recognition, relaxation with low altitude
maneuvering, and an absence of the error of over
concentration.
Like eights around pylons, this training maneuver also
involves flying the airplane in circular paths, alter-
nately left and right, in the form of a figure 8 around
two selected points or pylons on the ground. Unlike
eights around pylons, however, no attempt is made to
maintain a uniform distance from the pylon. In eights-
on-pylons, the distance from the pylons varies if there
is any wind. Instead, the airplane is flown at such a
precise altitude and airspeed that a line parallel to the
airplane’s lateral axis, and extending from the pilot’s
eye, appears to pivot on each of the pylons. [Figure 6-
10] Also, unlike eights around pylons, in the perform-
ance of eights-on-pylons the degree of bank increases
as the distance from the pylon decreases.
The altitude that is appropriate for the airplane being
flown is called the pivotal altitude and is governed by
the groundspeed. While not truly a ground track
maneuver as were the preceding maneuvers, the objec-
tive is similar—to develop the ability to maneuver the
airplane accurately while dividing one’s attention
between the flightpath and the selected points on the
ground.

Don't be mad, Jock. Try it. You might like it. :cool:

[mad_jock]

Not mad more amused.

Nah your ok the punters in the back would wonder if I was drunk.

Doing that in The UK would in most places get your reported for low flying.

And the places where you could do it without annoying anyone there aren't any pylons.

[Ridger]

Teknow - once you've refreshed, please consider a taildragger conversion. You'll be absolutely amazed at what a good instructor can teach you in Cub / Chippy / Tiger etc and you'll find your flying much more rewarding than the 'sand menage' stuff you've done to date. No offence intended of course!

[Desert185]

Funny how taildragger flying can be so joyful and rewarding after the initial apprehension of hearing the horror stories, learning the basics and perfecting the handling and idiosyncrasies of the different types.

[dubbleyew eight]

I havent flown anything but taildraggers since my endorsement.:ok:

[phiggsbroadband]

I suppose at this point I must tell you of my first solo, whilst doing my PPL at Hawarden, North Wales.


Traditionally an Ex 14. is just a quick Take-Off, Circuit and Landing, having learnt enough to do all the climbs and turns by the numbers....


Well, I got as far as the downwind leg; 'G-DB downwind to land', when ATC said 'G-DB take up position at end of downwind leg and orbit right for the Baluga on a seven mile final.'


Orbits where a new thing to me, but how hard could it be....... So after the third orbit, I noticed the ditch-bridge that I had been orbiting was disappearing into the distance. So not wanting to make the flight a cross-country I started to alter the bank angle... Which worked...


I landed (after the wake turbulence delay, and about six orbits.) and clocked up 25 minutes flight time for Exercise 14.... Its all good fun...

[mad_jock]

I would have ensured the student had done orbits before getting sent out. I would have also asked if anything was due in the next 20 mins and delayed it until it was clear.

[Thud105]

If I may be so bold as to drag the thread (kicking and screaming) back to the title "Stall warning and when to panic" - the answer is 'never'. You may have one engine out and another on fire, but panicking will not help.

[bubbers44]

35 years ago when flight instructing in Cessnas, etc I always had them do a power on stall in a right climbing turn. This frequently because of inadequate rudder put them over the top into a left spin. I wanted them to see how easy it was to get into but more importantly how easy to recover.

Fearing a spin is only because you never did one.