Flight Safety Australia article - duff gen

[Centaurus]

Latest issue of Flight Safety Australia has an article on stall recoveries. The author (qualifications not published) says ailerons must be held neutral and only rudder should be used to level the wings as part of the recovery from a wing drop at point of stall.

This technique is an old wives tale perpetuated for decades in flying schools and still is. Sometimes referred to as "picking up the wing with rudder." The CASA Flight Instructors Manual makes no mention of this technique. Does anyone know if this technique still taught at flying schools or flight instructors courses?

[Runaway Gun]

Yep, many people still believe and teach this. If you try to tell them that they are doing the wrong thing, then they defend their 'own instructors' to the grave.

[BrogulT]

Yep, many people still believe and teach this. If you try to tell them that they are doing the wrong thing, then they defend their 'own instructors' to the grave.

So let me understand. I'm flying my C172 in a left traffic pattern for landing and when making the left turn from base to final, I get sloppy, there's a little turbulence and so on, and suddenly I hear the stall horn croak and the left wing drops. I push the yoke forward a bit and reach for the throttle. My "old instructor" wants me to step on the right rudder pedal if I have time before I auger in. Are you suggesting I should twist the yoke to the right as well? Or am I missing something?

[gerry111]

This old wives tale is simple to disprove, for all to see, by using a radio controlled model aircraft. Your choice of high or low wing.

[jonkster]

Had an instructor student try and teach me that just this week in their stall briefing so yep still happening.
I believe in the old pub45 they mentioned it at one point and it became the standard phrase that still gets repeated today - "pick up the wing with rudder".

[one dot right]

Just playing devils advocate

what do you suggest as an alternative technique?

[Cloudee]

Just playing devils advocate

what do you suggest as an alternative technique?
How about just unstalling the wings with elevator then rolling level with aileron, suitably coordinated with rudder.

[OCTA Aus]

Just playing devils advocate

what do you suggest as an alternative technique?

Simultaneously apply full power, reduce the angle of attack sufficient to unstall the wing, and opposite rudder sufficient to prevent further wing drop (prevent further, not return to wings level).

Once the wing is unstalled level wings with aileron and recover from the nose low U/A.

If you use rudder to level wings at the stall you run a good chance of entering a spin.

[BigPapi]

How about the alternative,

"Use rudder to prevent further auto-rotation".

I.e. identify the direction that the incipient spin is developing in, just use enough rudder to stop further rotation whilst simultaneously unstalling the wings with elevator.

[sheppey]

Most present day training aircraft are designed to ensure stalls are benign - more like gentle nodding of the nose and certainly nothing more than a practically imperceptible movement of the wings. The problem facing instructors on these types is they are forced to fake a wing drop at the point of stall in order to tick the required Part 61 box, both during training and on tests with an Examiner.

So how do you fake a wing drop in aircraft that are benign stallers by certification and design? Unfortunately the fact is there are cowboy flying instructors who happily hack-flick-zoom and rack these poor aircraft into a steep climbing turn, go to full power and kick in full rudder.

All that does is skid the aircraft horribly as it gyrates on one wing while the instructor shouts "SEE - THERE'S a WINGDROP"...while the frighted ab- initio student thinks WTF and goes away having learned nothing.

The instructor ticks the relevant box while the CASA audit officer is satisfied that particular "competency" is also ticked off. No one seems to care that these sort of harsh and totally unnecessary manoeuvres have the propensity to put undue strain on the airframe and associated engine mounts.

Shouldn't these violent manoeuvres be written up in the maintenance release just like hard landings should be, so an LAME could check for hidden damage? Answer? Fat chance of that ever happening as unscheduled inspections cost money.

[kaz3g]

Just playing devils advocate

what do you suggest as an alternative technique?

http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/aoc/training/guides/fim.pdf

[OCTA Aus]

Sheppey, you are correct, training aircraft are benign. That’s why people are getting away with using rudder to pick up the wing back to wings level. Do that in some of the high performance experimentals and they will bite and bite hard.

As for how to set up a wing drop stall in something like a Cessna, I find 1500RPM, flaps 20 and a gentle turn to the right. Unless the student is brilliant with the rudder it will inevitably drop the wing to the left. With the right bank that was on initially it gives time to catch it if the student messes up the recovery before the aircraft ends up on its side.

[djpil]

Is there a link to that article in Flight Safety Australia - I don’t see it?

CASA was seeking feedback on this subject for an AC recently so all this wisdom here seems to be too late to influence what they publish?

https://consultation.casa.gov.au/regulatory-program/draft-ac-61-16-v1-0/supporting_documents/Draft%20AC%206116%20v1.0.pdf

[vilas]

Stall recovery as recommended in Airbus is unstall first by reducing AoA, then wings level and thrust only after out of stall.

[ACMS]

Stall recovery as recommended in Airbus is unstall first by reducing AoA, then wings level and thrust only after out of stall.


Yes that’s the Airbus technique for low slung Jet Engines........Do you think it applies to a Cessna or Piper centerline thrust propellor Aircraft? Or indeed a P3 or L188 with a blown wing?

[markkal]

Centaurus: Are you sure you read correctly "Stall recovery" instead of "Spin recovery" ?

If so I would guess there has been an error , I cannot think of any knowledgeable source making such a mistake :-)

[Teddy Robinson]

My point of reference is having taught on the "famous" Pa38 Tomahawk for a decade or so.

Ailerons neutral, it will drop a wing either depending on it's mood but usually the left, so using the brief pick it up with rudder and prevent the aircraft from spinning.
That game usually lasts 3 divergent roll excursions before control is lost.

Repeat, but un-stall the wing, and keep the ball centred ... the aircraft flies away without drama.

All the airline FCOM material I have been exposed to over many years states, check aircraft configuration, power and attitude and essentially use procedure B

[gerry111]

If you use rudder to level wings at the stall you run a good chance of entering a spin.

That's why a radio controlled model aircraft is so useful for demonstration.

[OCTA Aus]

That's why a radio controlled model aircraft is so useful for demonstration.

Im still a fan of people going and doing aerobatics. Nothing beats seeing it for real with you on the controls. And aerobatic pilots really understand the relationship between stick position, angle of attack, and stall.

[RetiredBA/BY]

Simultaneously apply full power, reduce the angle of attack sufficient to unstall the wing, and opposite rudder sufficient to prevent further wing drop (prevent further, not return to wings level).

Once the wing is unstalled level wings with aileron and recover from the nose low U/A.

If you use rudder to level wings at the stall you run a good chance of entering a spin.

Absolutely spot on, RAF called it STANDARD stall recovery.
Attempting to level the wings with rudder IS potentially dangerous.

(ex RAF CFS standards QFI)

Know nothing about Airbuses but Ill bet the above technique would work well on a bus !

[OCTA Aus]

Absolutely spot on, RAF called it STANDARD stall recovery.
Attempting to level the wings with rudder IS potentially dangerous.

(ex RAF CFS standards QFI)

Know nothing about Airbuses but Ill bet the above technique would work well on a bus !

Its the standard stall recovery I was taught in the RAAF. It may be less effective in the airbus as the pitch up tendency from the underslung engines may be sufficient to re enter the stall, hence why they tend to use unstall then power.

[PaulH1]

Back in the days when we were actually allowed to take aircraft to the stall for training purposes - Cessna twinjets - and we were allowed to conduct the LPC/OPC in the aircraft, I was on a course in the USA. The FAA training assumed that the probability of a stall was greatest when the aircraft was close to the ground and in a dirty configuration. Height loss was a major consideration. The recovery from the incipient stage was to apply full power, hold the pitch attitude and keep wings level with aileron. Get rid of drag flap and gear up with a positive rate of climb.
A few weeks later when I was doing my TRE renewal with a CAA examiner on board, I demonstrated the FAA recovery to the 'student'. The CAA examiner was horrified!! **** scared more likely! Apparently I should have pushed the control column forward to unstall the wing and then increased pitch attitude and not used any aileron until the aircraft was climbing away at a safe speed. When I suggested that we would have hit the ground using this procedure he failed my check ride and I had to take the test again at a later date. A completely different thinking process from two of the major licensing authorities.

[OCTA Aus]

Ideally the stall should be detected at the incipient stage, in which case the stall recovery you described would be correct. However once the aircraft has stalled you don’t want to use aileron as the controls may well work in the reverse sense. As for pushing the control column forward, no, it’s just meant to be sufficient to unstall the wing, and in most training aircraft this will only be a couple of centimetres. The last thing you want is to pole the control column all the way forward.

It would seem that the FAA has moved on from that theory too, now their focus is on properly breaking the stall rather than the height loss aspect.

[djpil]

....... A completely different thinking process from two of the major licensing authorities.Still differences between CAA and FAA per this interesting document https://bura.brunel.ac.uk/bitstream/2438/10015/2/Fulltext.docx

[Artisan]

Well this is what the CASA Flight Training Manual says:

RECOVERY WHEN THE WING DROPS
Use the standard recovery, i.e. simultaneous use of power and forward movement of the control column. In addition rudder must be used to prevent the nose of the aeroplane yawing into the direction of the lowered wing. The ailerons should be held neutral until control is regained, when the wings should be levelled.

The thinking here is to provide a consistent safe recovery and to prevent entry into a spin.

Note the use of rudder is to prevent further yaw, not to “pick up the dropped wing”. The ailerons should be held neutral until the wings are un-stalled, otherwise trying to “pick up” the low wing with aileron will further increase the angle of attack of the low wing and further aggravate the undesired roll tendency.

[PaulH1]

It does depend on the type of aircraft though. On a swept wing the stall starts on the inboard wing and then moves outboard as speed decreases. When light buffet is encountered the outboard wing is not stalled and the ailerons will function normally. Use of aileron at this stage is the best action.

[OCTA Aus]

It does depend on the type of aircraft though. On a swept wing the stall starts on the inboard wing and then moves outboard as speed decreases. When light buffet is encountered the outboard wing is not stalled and the ailerons will function normally. Use of aileron at this stage is the best action.

Absolutely it depends on aircraft type. However I believe the intent of the article in flight safety was referring to your normal GA trainer aircraft which doesn’t have a lot of those aerodynamic peculiarities. Even so, most GA aircraft will stall inboard first due to things like washout. You can use aileron right up to the stall. But once it is in the stall, no aileron. Also at the light buffet the onboard section of the wing isn’t stalled either, hence why the buffet is a great warning that you are approaching the critical angle.

[Artisan]

It does depend on the type of aircraft though. On a swept wing the stall starts on the inboard wing and then moves outboard as speed decreases. When light buffet is encountered the outboard wing is not stalled and the ailerons will function normally. Use of aileron at this stage is the best action.


on Boeing swept wing jets, the procedure is to un-stall the aircraft first, THEN ROLL. The QRH is very explicit about not attempting to roll while encountering buffet ( or stick shaker)

[Clare Prop]

Still differences between CAA and FAA per this interesting document https://bura.brunel.ac.uk/bitstream/2438/10015/2/Fulltext.docx
This has been updated since the one they refer to in that document
https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_120-109A.pdf

[B-757]

Latest issue of Flight Safety Australia has an article on stall recoveries. The author (qualifications not published) says ailerons must be held neutral and only rudder should be used to level the wings as part of the recovery from a wing drop at point of stall. ..This issue is one, that I hear students always arguing about..Such as ``does power control altitude and pitch airspeed`` (or vice versa), or , ``after engine failure at 300ft (single engine), yes it is safe to turn back for the runway``..

..In my 3 decades as a flight instructor, I have been lucky enough not to witness any serious accidents, but unfortunately, have lost several colleques to them..1 to VMC-roll after an engine failed in a twin, 1 attempted a turn back after engine trouble in a single-engine plane, 1 broke both wings off his plane during a training flight, just to mention some..All these were in situations, that we train for, but for some reason the outcome was what is was..

..Now to the point..To my knowledge, there is only one way to recover from a stall, in any kind of an airplane..If you know another way, feel free to explain..As flight instructors, we try our best to teach our students, to avoid stalls (and other mistakes), especially when you are down at low altitude..That´s because you may only get one chance, if any, to regain control of the plane..

How to recover from a stall ??..I think you know the answer..

Fly safe,
B-757

[BrogulT]

Well this is what the CASA Flight Training Manual says:

RECOVERY WHEN THE WING DROPS
Use the standard recovery, i.e. simultaneous use of power and forward movement of the control column. In addition rudder must be used to prevent the nose of the aeroplane yawing into the direction of the lowered wing. The ailerons should be held neutral until control is regained, when the wings should be levelled.

The thinking here is to provide a consistent safe recovery and to prevent entry into a spin.

Note the use of rudder is to prevent further yaw, not to “pick up the dropped wing”. The ailerons should be held neutral until the wings are un-stalled, otherwise trying to “pick up” the low wing with aileron will further increase the angle of attack of the low wing and further aggravate the undesired roll tendency.

On everything I've flown, I think this would be correct. I have not heard the term 'pick up a wing with the rudder', although in true slow-flight in a Cessna you do need to use the rudder because the ailerons can be in the region of reverse command. Modern day primary flight training seems to avoid spins, deep stalls and MCAS slow flight. Anywhere on the backside of the power curve is now slow flight, or something like that.

What I don't understand about this conversation is which 'myth' the OP is trying to skewer. Is the 'old wives tale' the idea that the ailerons will be ineffective in a stall, that you should use opposite rudder when a wing drops, or something else? I'm not necessarily critical of modern methods or of anyone who does things differently than I was taught, but I think that different perspectives may come from a different understanding of the phases of flight as well as significant differences in how airplanes perform. Even in the SEL less-than-250HP general aviation classification there are big differences that would affect the issues here. Some aircraft can develop very high sink rates without being fully stalled, so the ailerons still work. Others do not behave this way, and using ailerons will put you in a very bad state very quickly.

Just for reference, I'm a mid-to-low time pilot that has flown at least 7 different types that sort of encompass the range of the small single engine category. My training included things like full stalls, spins of three turns, engine-out to a full-stop landing and after PPL, things like tailwheel, floats and even (once) skis. I even went for some aerobatic training with inverted spins. I realize that many of these things are not practical or encouraged today, but when I hear people claiming that you can safely control a stalled airplane indefinitely, including aileron usage, all I can visualize is the smoking wreck where they've spun in turning base to final on a gusty day. Someone trained the way I was would know better.

There may be good reasons for some of the more modern methods, and the story by PaulH1 illustrates one pretty well--in order to survive a low-level stall such as the classic base-to-final spin, you need to catch it much earlier. In a single-engine Cessna, if the left wing suddenly drops sharply and the plane yaws 90 degrees left, someone with my training will recover quickly and efficiently without breaking a sweat because we've done it before. Unfortunately, in many cases the ground will intervene before we're finished. Someone who is terrified of actual stalls and has never, ever done a spin recovery will be almost as well off because in this case, your survival depends on dealing with an incipient stall, not a full one. Perhaps it is best to concentrate training energy there. However, that doesn't justify dismissing other techniques or training as "old wives tales".

[RetiredBA/BY]

Two points.

Yes the inboard section of a swept wing jet ( indeed all wings) stall at the root first, a desirable stability requirement which gives a nose down pitch at the stall.

However, how do you know how much of the wing is stalled, so assume the worst and avoid the use of aileron until unstalled.

Secondly, after 20 years p1 on various Boeing rwins I dont really buy this business of pitch changes with power being dominant or making things difficult.

Adding power at recovery does reduce height loss, essential for recovery near the ground !

Yes, it does occur BUT the elevator can so easily control the required pitch attitude, so is the primary control, fly the aircraft, dont let it fly you !

That said, perhaps FBW Airbuses are different !

Back in my box !

[PaulH1]

However, how do you know how much of the wing is stalled, so assume the worst and avoid the use of aileron until unstalled.
It is a matter of feel. On the military jets of the 70/80s, the F4 Phantom and the Lightning any max rate turn required flying in the buffet. Too much and the drag increased too much and you stopped turning. Too little and the turn radius increased. It starts with light buffet and gradually gets heavier. Not much to do with the original question I admit but in the Phantom light buffet had to be pulled on the finals turn as the wing did not work too well at low speeds!

[Stretch06]

Simultaneously apply full power, reduce the angle of attack sufficient to unstall the wing, and opposite rudder sufficient to prevent further wing drop (prevent further, not return to wings level).

Once the wing is unstalled level wings with aileron and recover from the nose low U/A.

If you use rudder to level wings at the stall you run a good chance of entering a spin.

This.... :ok:

[Artisan]

The purpose of applying rudder during a wing drop stall, is not to “prevent further wing drop” as stated above.

the purpose of the rudder is to stop the yaw towards the low wing. Stall + Yaw = Spin.

[Homesick-Angel]

I think this really depends what sort of plane you’re flying, what altitude you’re at and what the flight manual says to do. It also depends how deep you are in the stall. The stall warning tends to go off about 10kts above the stall in the 172 for example and that thing can be treated like rubbish (do everything wrong) in around and beyond the stall and is unlikely to kill you (depending on altitude) , but there is another reasonably popular trainer that has the tendency to go into flat spins and drastic height losing stalls - certain news grabbing schools have recently been advised to stop doing these training sequences in these aircraft as they may not have correctly passed certification to practice these sequences .

Regardless , I feel there may be some wording issues in this thread between stalls and spins, but let’s just say that somehow both aerofoils were in a deep stall , and you started using aileron (while still holding back pressure) when you sensed a wing drop it would deepen the stalled state by increasing the relative AoA.

When you teach this stuff, it tends to be a sensory overload initially to the student and you’d be surprised how many pilots I’ve trained who were scared or very wary of the stall. Even experienced ones. But in teaching it, you need to be able to formulate it into a package that’s going to get through in this time and be something that will save them as they come back into their first solo . People do strange things they wouldn’t normally do when they’re under stress, and stall training is no different. I guess sometimes the wording may seem wrong from some instructors, but you don’t want an inexperienced pilot shoving in a bucketload of aileron to correct an approaching or developed stall. They need to see and recover from the symptoms to meet the criteria - for better or worse I think most people understand by the time they need to.

I used to take instructor trainees up and show them what it looked like to do everything wrong. And then let go. Most trainers will fix themselves.

[Clare Prop]

The purpose of the rudder is to maintain balanced flight.
What I look for in a stall recovery at flight test is that as power is applied any yaw is prevented.

[Centaurus]

If you use rudder to level wings at the stall you run a good chance of entering a spin.

Although most current general aviation aircraft used at flying schools have benign stalling characteristics, there can be hidden hazards than can cause severe wing drops at the point of stall and catch the unwary by surprise.

While this writer has experienced severe wing drops in older military types, even the DC3 can surprise you if stall practice is entered too harshly in the landing configuration. By ‘harshly’ I mean faster than the usual reduction of one knot per second until the stall occurs.

By far the worse aircraft I encountered was a certain Cessna 152 owned and maintained by an LAME. Like the Cessna 172, the Cessna 152 has a benign stall. On this occasion during a practice clean stall, the left wing dropped rapidly and quite unexpectedly. While the usual recovery was initiated (sufficient rudder to stop the yaw towards the dropped wing and nose down elevator), this aircraft yawed and rolled so quickly that 4-800 feet was lost in recovery with the aircraft recovering 180 degrees in the opposite direction to the original heading.

The same problem happened with the full flap stall recovery - only worse -and the flaps had to be retracted quickly to avoid exceeding flap speed limitation. This aircraft could have been a danger to any pilot inadvertently holding off too high during landing.

Following the write up of this defect in the maintenance release, an investigation revealed mis-rigging of the left wing. Once that was rectified, the benign stall characteristics returned to normal.

The lesson here was that although most flying school aircraft have benign stall characteristics, an occasional ’rogue’ aircraft can slip through the system. In this case, the rogue was well known among the instructors who flew and trained ab-initio students on it. Yet no one bothered to write up the snag. An unspoken proviso among the instructors was that solo ab-initio flying on that aircraft was not permitted because of its unhealthy stall characteristics

It follows that if an aircraft you are flying has worrisome handling characteristics, then when in doubt write it up in the maintenance release. The operator should fix the problem before further flight. If nothing else, it warns the next pilot who flies that aircraft rather than leave him to cop an unexpected problem.

[swh]

Absolutely spot on, RAF called it STANDARD stall recovery.
Attempting to level the wings with rudder IS potentially dangerous.

(ex RAF CFS standards QFI)

Know nothing about Airbuses but Ill bet the above technique would work well on a bus !

I would characterise your technique as a low speed recovery, not a stall recovery. Immediately adding thrust has not been part of stall recovery training for some time, it does not unstall a wing. The use of thrust when stalled can interfere with the pitch control and prevent recovery.

The only way to recover from a stall is to reduce the angle of attack. Specific guidance for each type in stall recovery is listed in the AFM.

[Judd]

. The use of thrust when stalled can interfere with the pitch control and prevent recovery.

It all depends. If a stall has occurred during (say) high altitude cruise and caused for example by mishandling in a severe thunderstorm, recovery is initiated by lowering the nose to just below the horizon and applying thrust if already not applied. The pitch up that normally occurs when high power is applied on underslung engines at low altitudes e.g. a go-around, is significantly more severe than at high altitudes. At high altitude, thrust could be as low as one quarter to that obtained at sea level and any pitch up is easily countered.

What is important is to regain safe maneuver speed as quickly as possible - especially if the aircraft is still in severe turbulence. Application of climb or maximum continuous thrust at the same time as the nose is lowered to un-stall the wings, helps to achieve a more rapid acceleration towards severe turbulence penetration speed.

[OCTA Aus]

I think if we are totally honest with ourselves its not stall recovery techniques that are getting people. At the GA level people are stalling, or even worse stalling and spinning, at levels that are far too low to recover. I guarantee if you stall on final at 50ft you're hitting the ground before you recover. Even at best in training most people take about 100ft to recover, and thats when you know you're going to stall and have the recovery primed and ready. As for the base to final turn stall/spin, well the only way to be safe from that one is by not entering it. Once its happened your gone.

As for airlines, I think the concerning thing is these pilots aren't recognising that they have stalled, for example the Air France crash and the Colgan Air crash. Pilots are flying aircraft that were certainly recoverable into the ground because they didn't realise they were stalled.

[RetiredBA/BY]

However, how do you know how much of the wing is stalled, so assume the worst and avoid the use of aileron until unstalled.
It is a matter of feel. On the military jets of the 70/80s, the F4 Phantom and the Lightning any max rate turn required flying in the buffet. Too much and the drag increased too much and you stopped turning. Too little and the turn radius increased. It starts with light buffet and gradually gets heavier. Not much to do with the original question I admit but in the Phantom light buffet had to be pulled on the finals turn as the wing did not work too well at low speeds!

Having mixed with an F4 in my Canberra at 40 k plus, the F 4 wing didnt seem to work all that well at high speed !

Agreed but didnt you have an AOA in the F4 where the watchword, IIRC was “ unload to control. And roll control in the buffet was rudder, use of aileron inviting a flat, unrecoverable spin.

of course my memory may be failing me !

SWH, please reread my posts , STALL requires reducing a of a below the critical value , a low speed recovery needs just THRUST.

[PaulH1]

I believe that is correct. I did not fly the F4 but several of my close friends did. I was on the Lightning. I think that on the finals turn, the F4 flew in the light buffet and turned using mainly rudder! I have used air to air cannons against a target towed by a Canberra many times!

[OCTA Aus]

In fairness the F4 isn’t your textbook training aircraft, it’s more an example of what happens when you have 35000 pounds of thrust with something that kind of functions a little bit like a wing attached to it...

[compressor stall]

The purpose of the rudder is to maintain balanced flight.
What I look for in a stall recovery at flight test is that as power is applied any yaw is prevented.
Is there a minimum height loss criterion these days?

The advent of UPRT training is seeing that trained out of people at airline level now.

[OCTA Aus]

I believe the requirement to recover within 100ft is gone, the focus is now on ensuring the aircraft is unstalled.

[BigPapi]

Is there a minimum height loss criterion these days?

The advent of UPRT training is seeing that trained out of people at airline level now.

There is no specified value, only the phrase "minimum height loss".

[BrogulT]

I would characterise your technique as a low speed recovery, not a stall recovery. Immediately adding thrust has not been part of stall recovery training for some time, it does not unstall a wing. The use of thrust when stalled can interfere with the pitch control and prevent recovery.

The only way to recover from a stall is to reduce the angle of attack. Specific guidance for each type in stall recovery is listed in the AFM.

We really need to specify aircraft types when making these statements as the results do vary. I'm pretty sure that in something like a DHC-7 you could demonstrate unstalling with power alone. Not that I fly one, just guessing....

[Lead Balloon]

This is another demonstration of why ‘one size fits all’ guidance can be dangerous.

[swh]

What is important is to regain safe maneuver speed as quickly as possible - especially if the aircraft is still in severe turbulence. Application of climb or maximum continuous thrust at the same time as the nose is lowered to un-stall the wings, helps to achieve a more rapid acceleration towards severe turbulence penetration speed.

At high altitude recovering to maneuvering speed is done by trading altitude for airspeed. If you had encountered for example a sudden temperature rise from the developing convective activity, mountain wave, jet stream increasing thrust will probably give you no thrust at all, it will already be developing maximum thrust. FADEC is not going to deliver any more thrust even at TOGA. Engines at altitude do not accelerate quickly, it can take 45 seconds to obtain maximum continuous. Recovery from the situation you describe would be be done by descending down 2000 ft to the next level in order to gain better low speed, high speed, and thrust margins. Modern aircraft at high altitudes take forever to accelerate when flow level below the best L/D ratio.

We really need to specify aircraft types when making these statements as the results do vary. I'm pretty sure that in something like a DHC-7 you could demonstrate unstalling with power alone. Not that I fly one, just guessing....

I did explicitly state that the AFM should be consulted for the recovery techniques for the specific type. I doubt the DCH7 stall recovery technique would at first instance rely on thrust, the techniques for stall recovery are designed to be applied in any situation, including engine(s) out. I doubt any published stall recovery technique has thrust being used in the recovery below Vmca, just cannot see how that would meet certification standards.

[Centaurus]

Recovery from the situation you describe would be done by descending down 2000 ft to the next level in order to gain better low speed, high speed, and thrust margins

I may have mis-understood your intent but descending to "the next level" implies adhering to air traffic control flight levels. That is the last thing you should be concerned with during stall recoveries.

Certainly in the B737 Classics at 37,000 ft you can count on deliberately losing at least 3500 feet during the recovery phase to reach a minimum safe airspeed of Vref 40 plus 100 knots as the criteria for levelling out. Add another 2000 ft to reach Severe Turbulence Penetration speed if still encountering severe turbulence.

[swh]

I may have mis-understood your intent but descending to "the next level" implies adhering to air traffic control flight levels.

The recovery takes whatever height loss it takes, every situation is different.

Where do you go after the recovery in Judd’s example ? Back to the original level where performance was marginal or one level down ?

[PJ2]

Hi Centaurus, greetings from the northern hemisphere!

I learned to fly in 1967 in a Fleet-80 Canuck. Stalls and full spins, not just incipient spins, were part of the private licence course. I remember when the early Cessna products came out, (152, etc.) and those aircraft were prohibited from spinning, and that ended the kind of training which I thought at the time was exceedingly valuable.

The "mythology", if I may, behind "not using aileron" vice using aileron to do so, has grown into something that was perhaps not intended when orginally stated in print and taught, at least here in Canada.

In demonstrating/teaching the stall, there wan't much said about the ailerons at the time. The emphasis was on lowering the nose, adding power and using opposite rudder to stop the spin. When the airplane was unstalled, the ailerons were used to level the wings.

From a Canadian Flying Training Manual by the Department of Transport - Civil Aviation Branch in Chapter VIII, On Stalling;
On some types of aeroplanes, especially those with sharply tapered wings, one wing may go down at the same time as the nose, and it is also common on some types for the aeroplane to attempt to flick or roll when stalled with the engine on. If this happens, keep straight with rudder and unstall the aeroplane by moving the control column forward. An attempt to level the wings with the ailerons at the point of stall may be quite ineffective or may even have the opposite effect to that desired; if for instance, an aileron is lowered in an attempt to raise the wing that has gone down the effect may be to stall the wing more completely and cause a loss of lift and increase the drag on that wing. Once, however, the angle of attack is reduced to below the stallng angle the ailerons become again the obvious and natural method for raise the wing.
...etc.:

Obviously aircraft which are not of the type considered in the above document will possibly have slightly different recovery techniques.

PJ2

[michigan j]

Unfortunately the fact is there are cowboy flying instructors who happily hack-flick-zoom and rack these poor aircraft into a steep climbing turn, go to full power and kick in full rudder.

All that does is skid the aircraft horribly as it gyrates on one wing while the instructor shouts "SEE - THERE'S a WINGDROP"...while the frighted ab- initio student thinks WTF and goes away having learned nothing.



I was once this ab-initio student. The ashtray flew out of the mount when the aircraft lurched and clocked my instructor on the head.
Best lesson ever.

[C441]

The Airbus technique mentioned above grew out of the AF447 accident. In simple terms, having only 'practiced' stalls in the simulator at relatively low level with sufficient power to accelerate out of the stall, the F/O applied TOGA thrust and expected the aircraft to accelerate. At high altitude, with little relative additional thrust (and with the added impact of raising not lowering the nose for other reasons) the aircraft remained deeply stalled. Thus the revised Airbus technique became "Nose Down Pitch Control…..Apply, Bank…….Wings level" until the stall indications cease, before you do anything else - including adding thrust.

[Centaurus]

Had an instructor student try and teach me that just this week in their stall briefing so yep still happening.I believe in the old pub45 they mentioned it at one point and it became the standard phrase that still gets repeated today - "pick up the wing with rudder".

A colleague of mine kindly sent this message today:
Quote:
"I managed to check out the reference to stall recovery and wing drop in my Flight Instructor Manual (Publication 45). My one is dated September 1975.

Exercise 9 (Stalling) has 2 references and I’ll quote them here:

Recovery when a wing drops

Use standard recovery i.e., simultaneous use of power and forward movement of the control column. In addition rudder must be used to prevent the nose of the aeroplane yawing into the direction of the lowered wing. The ailerons should be held neutral until control is regained, when the wings should be levelled. In aeroplanes where the ailerons remain effective beyond the critical angle, they may be used to regain or maintain lateral level in association with rudder.

Common Faults

When a wing drops at the stall the student instinctively tries to correct this with aileron. The use of ailerons at the point of the stall must be carefully explained to the student. Even if the use of ailerons at the stall is permitted in the type of aeroplane in use, the student must understand that in some types their use will aggravate the situation.

Clearly there is no mention of "picking up the wing with rudder" in DCA Publication 45 published in 1975. So where did this expression originate? Maybe around a local aero club bar in those far back days - picked up in turn from a beery wartime pilot and soon spread like the Corona Virus..

[FullOppositeRudder]

I don't wish to instigate thread creep - this discussion has stayed within the realm of powered aircraft, and for the most part what has been said in so many different ways obviously remains valid for that broad branch of aviation. However in the world of glider flying it appears to be different. The idea of "grabbing" a dropping wing at the stall with opposite rudder - not aileron - was drummed into me some 54 years ago as a student in that discipline, and I vividly remember what took place in the practical demonstrations which were part of the experience.

I'm well out of it now, and gliders have changed enormously since those days, but from what I read, it's still applicable in the general sense for gliding. Certainly, this quote from the current Gliding federation of Australia manual suggests that: "Most gliders still have some aileron authority at the stall but don’t use ailerons because that itself may cause the glider to enter a spin". (Australian Gliding Knowledge, page 67)

(apologies for the digression)

[OCTA Aus]

Not thread drift at all, totally relevant to powered aircraft as well. Precisely the same thing will happen in a powered aircraft too. And that includes some of our supposedly sedate training aircraft. Understanding the relation between angle of attack and coefficient of lift on a stalled aerofoil makes it pretty clear why this happens.

This is a great video of what happens if you use aileron after the stall https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WKIk-dqml6U

[jonkster]

A colleague of mine kindly sent this message today:
Quote:
"I managed to check out the reference to stall recovery and wing drop in my Flight Instructor Manual (Publication 45). My one is dated September 1975.

Exercise 9 (Stalling) has 2 references and I’ll quote them here:

Recovery when a wing drops

Use standard recovery i.e., simultaneous use of power and forward movement of the control column. In addition rudder must be used to prevent the nose of the aeroplane yawing into the direction of the lowered wing. The ailerons should be held neutral until control is regained, when the wings should be levelled. In aeroplanes where the ailerons remain effective beyond the critical angle, they may be used to regain or maintain lateral level in association with rudder.

Common Faults

When a wing drops at the stall the student instinctively tries to correct this with aileron. The use of ailerons at the point of the stall must be carefully explained to the student. Even if the use of ailerons at the stall is permitted in the type of aeroplane in use, the student must understand that in some types their use will aggravate the situation.

Clearly there is no mention of "picking up the wing with rudder" in DCA Publication 45 published in 1975. So where did this expression originate? Maybe around a local aero club bar in those far back days - picked up in turn from a beery wartime pilot and soon spread like the Corona Virus..

I found my copy which is a bit later than that (it has CAA logo and says DA 2342(rev5/88) - I assume revision 1988?). It has the exact same wording. I obviously mis-remembered reading this in pub 45. Apologies for the misdirection.

As you say - somewhere this phrase got picked up and has become common.

I wonder if perhaps it started from a student mis-hearing their instructor?

What gets said and what gets heard in a cockpit (or briefing room) can sometimes be quite different - much the same as what I recalled reading once in pub45 years ago and what it actually says... :(

[megan]

Clearly there is no mention of "picking up the wing with rudder" in DCA Publication 45 published in 1975. So where did this expression originate? Maybe around a local aero club bar in those far back daysPerhaps an explanation lies here Centaurus. Just been reading a pilot report on a DH 9 and the author (Roger Bailey, chief pilot of the Shuttleworth Trust, CV here https://www.shuttleworth.org/news/ericwinklebrowntrophy/) has this to say,Stalling - In all cases roll and yaw control could be controlled with unreversed use of controls up to the stall. On those occasions when a wing dropped it was not always possible to prevent the roll off with roll control alone, but intuitive use of rudder was always effective in checking the roll.

The differences between this aircraft and one designed to a post WWII airworthiness specification, it should be noted the lateral and directional characteristics of the aircraft, which are typical of most aircraft of this era, in particular of de Havilland designs, are not conventional by 'modern' standards. The pilot must understand that the primary turn control in those days was seen as the rudder, with ailerons being used only to maintain wings level or to 'fine tune' the bank angle required to achieve balanced flight. When such a control strategy is used it eliminates adverse yaw, because the rudder produces proverse yaw before the aileron is deflected significantly.However, a 'modern' pilot, one trained after WWII, expecting to enter and exit turns using the aileron to effect the roll angle change will experience significant adverse yaw unless attention is paid to balance and the rudder used generously. It should be recognised that the lateral/directional stability and control characteristics described are little different to and no worse than those of the DH82 Tiger Moth.Since all Commonwealth pilots of WWII vintage trained on the Tiger might the 'pick up wing with rudder' emanate from those days? I was given the advice early 60's somewhere around the traps, may have been when doing the Tiger check out, don't recall.