teaching stalls
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Oop North, UK
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My understanding of the Slingsby accident is that it was not the "nose nod" itself that caused the problem but the fact they were picking up the wing with rudder and in fact the oscillatory bit they were taking about was the rudder rather than the "nodding", unfortunately for all the detailed analysis the AIB do not explain enough WIHIH in this. Personally I like a student to fully recognise the full stall themself before recovery which should happen before the first actual "nod" and they certainly should not be picking the wing up. Normally what happens is students call "stalled" and recover well before the actual stall itself.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 285
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
foxmouth
I fully appreciate what you are saying but my point is that the AAIB say that so called 'oscillatory stalling' or holding an aircraft in a stall should not be demonstrated as part of ab-initio flight training.
What I am saying is that JamesT has students who have never held an aircraft in a stall which is what the AAIB is saying should not be practised ?? So is this the fault of the instructor?
Personally I don't agree and feel that students should experience a fully developed stall and be able to recover from it, however as my previous post indicates I have been discouraged from demonstrating a fully developed nose nodding stall due to this incident.
TJ
I fully appreciate what you are saying but my point is that the AAIB say that so called 'oscillatory stalling' or holding an aircraft in a stall should not be demonstrated as part of ab-initio flight training.
What I am saying is that JamesT has students who have never held an aircraft in a stall which is what the AAIB is saying should not be practised ?? So is this the fault of the instructor?
Personally I don't agree and feel that students should experience a fully developed stall and be able to recover from it, however as my previous post indicates I have been discouraged from demonstrating a fully developed nose nodding stall due to this incident.
TJ
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 762
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Holding it in
Let just be clear.
I DID NOT say hold it in the stall. I said experience a fully developed stall. That just means as soon as the nose drops, with whatever characteristic, we recover.
The oscillatory stall is not a technique i use. (i.e holding the aircraft in, while preventing wing drop with the rudder).
The book does state how to recover from 1. A stall and 2. Stall at the incipient stage. In my mind you cannot show a student how to un-stall a wing when it has never been stalled. The CFS expression of nose drop, we, drop, wing drop. is probably the best way to describe it. The book uses slightly different wording but it's just semantics.
It's unusual for a flying school to restrict the teaching of a fully developed stall. But if you are talking about oscillatory stalling then i agree.
Also it depends on the aircraft. Some instructors don't like spinning ansd some refuse to spin a Tomahawk. Different argument but as someone says it depends on your own experience level. I also have students who have never done slow flight below 65 knots (C152).
For person to hold a PPL and never have experienced a stall is quite alarming.
Lots of people have incidents in IMC regardless if they have a IMC/IR. We still teach it though.
I DID NOT say hold it in the stall. I said experience a fully developed stall. That just means as soon as the nose drops, with whatever characteristic, we recover.
The oscillatory stall is not a technique i use. (i.e holding the aircraft in, while preventing wing drop with the rudder).
The book does state how to recover from 1. A stall and 2. Stall at the incipient stage. In my mind you cannot show a student how to un-stall a wing when it has never been stalled. The CFS expression of nose drop, we, drop, wing drop. is probably the best way to describe it. The book uses slightly different wording but it's just semantics.
It's unusual for a flying school to restrict the teaching of a fully developed stall. But if you are talking about oscillatory stalling then i agree.
Also it depends on the aircraft. Some instructors don't like spinning ansd some refuse to spin a Tomahawk. Different argument but as someone says it depends on your own experience level. I also have students who have never done slow flight below 65 knots (C152).
For person to hold a PPL and never have experienced a stall is quite alarming.
Lots of people have incidents in IMC regardless if they have a IMC/IR. We still teach it though.
From BEagle - "Dan - RTFQ!! The discussion here is about incipient stalling. Not many SEP aircraft will exhibit buffet as the first warning..."
Thanks BEagle. You stopped being my CFI over a year ago and you're still b0llocking me!
Yes, I agree. But whether the first warning you receive is the high nose attitude, the low and decreasing airspeed, the less effective controls, the artificial warnings or the light buffet - the recovery should still be the same. Apply full power, prevent yaw with rudder and move the control column centrally forward until the buffet stops. If there is no buffet, then there is no need to move the control column - if at all - and then the prioity is to control the attitude. This is what I was tought, what I tought for 6 years as an RAF QFI and then a few years more in your club.
Thanks BEagle. You stopped being my CFI over a year ago and you're still b0llocking me!
Yes, I agree. But whether the first warning you receive is the high nose attitude, the low and decreasing airspeed, the less effective controls, the artificial warnings or the light buffet - the recovery should still be the same. Apply full power, prevent yaw with rudder and move the control column centrally forward until the buffet stops. If there is no buffet, then there is no need to move the control column - if at all - and then the prioity is to control the attitude. This is what I was tought, what I tought for 6 years as an RAF QFI and then a few years more in your club.
Hi Dan! How are things over there?
You're absolutely right, of course.
Unfortunately most students (apart from ones who have been trained properly ) will merely stuff the control column forward when the idiot warner beeps, then timidly inch the throttle open. Hardly a recovery 'with minimum height loss'!
You're absolutely right, of course.
Unfortunately most students (apart from ones who have been trained properly
) will merely stuff the control column forward when the idiot warner beeps, then timidly inch the throttle open. Hardly a recovery 'with minimum height loss'!
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: notts
Posts: 636
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stalls
DAN
An old chestnut that needs reminding is this;
do you say POWER - ATTITUDE etc. or ATTITUDE -POWER etc.
It should be ATTITUDE - POWER etc!!!!!!!
You should of course do these thing simultaneously and I may be reacting to semantics.
I don't have a major objection to your point that there is no need to lower the nose on hearing only the stall warner as you describe it. However it is wise to do so sufficiently to restore the correct angle of attack. The stall warning activating indicates that you have marginilised the safety parameters which should then be corrected. It may take some time for the path of flight to change and therefore the angle of attack to reduce following the action to increase power.
An old chestnut that needs reminding is this;
do you say POWER - ATTITUDE etc. or ATTITUDE -POWER etc.
It should be ATTITUDE - POWER etc!!!!!!!
You should of course do these thing simultaneously and I may be reacting to semantics.
I don't have a major objection to your point that there is no need to lower the nose on hearing only the stall warner as you describe it. However it is wise to do so sufficiently to restore the correct angle of attack. The stall warning activating indicates that you have marginilised the safety parameters which should then be corrected. It may take some time for the path of flight to change and therefore the angle of attack to reduce following the action to increase power.
