Ex10b Stalling.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Live near Cardiff (from Scotland)
Age: 47
Posts: 803
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ex10b Stalling.
Hi all,
I would like to check how you teach this exercise. I refer to the demo of HOLDING the aircraft IN THE STALL to show low speed/high ROD, leading into the simple recovery.
I have been inform this is has been stopped?
Only demo into stall with immediate recovery.
Thanks
I would like to check how you teach this exercise. I refer to the demo of HOLDING the aircraft IN THE STALL to show low speed/high ROD, leading into the simple recovery.
I have been inform this is has been stopped?
Only demo into stall with immediate recovery.
Thanks
You continue to teach it as you were taught on your FI Course. You are probably confused with the reference to "oscillatory stalling" where the following comment appeared in Trainingcom
The term “oscillatory stalling” is not commonly used. No reference could be found in UK flight training publications,
by either AAIB investigators or CAA staff flight examiners. However, from other sources it is understood to describe
the practise of maintaining the aircraft in a stalled condition whilst controlling any wing drop with rudder.
by either AAIB investigators or CAA staff flight examiners. However, from other sources it is understood to describe
the practise of maintaining the aircraft in a stalled condition whilst controlling any wing drop with rudder.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Live near Cardiff (from Scotland)
Age: 47
Posts: 803
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thats the one
I was taught to hold in the stall, obviously seconds only to show the student the developed stall.
I`ll continue as I have been shown. Thanks
I was taught to hold in the stall, obviously seconds only to show the student the developed stall.
I`ll continue as I have been shown. Thanks
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: London, England
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi, The next paragraph of the trainingcom, which I have pasted below, seems to say they do not recommend holding the aircraft in a developed stall?
Two points should be emphasised here: firstly, the purpose of the stalling exercises on the PPL syllabus is to ensure that students can recognise the warning signs of the approaching (incipient) stall and the symptoms of the developed stall, and be able to recover safely from both incipient and developed stalls. It is not necessary or advisable, having demonstrated the signs and symptoms, for instructors to hold an aircraft in a developed stall, and students should never be taught to do so for the purposes of this exercise. Secondly, instructors are reminded that rudder must only be used to maintain balance (prevent yaw) throughout the stalling exercise. The essential components of a spin are wings stalled with yaw and/or roll present. Deliberately inducing yaw with rudder to “pick up” a dropped wing, with the aircraft stalled, is tantamount to setting up for a spin.
Two points should be emphasised here: firstly, the purpose of the stalling exercises on the PPL syllabus is to ensure that students can recognise the warning signs of the approaching (incipient) stall and the symptoms of the developed stall, and be able to recover safely from both incipient and developed stalls. It is not necessary or advisable, having demonstrated the signs and symptoms, for instructors to hold an aircraft in a developed stall, and students should never be taught to do so for the purposes of this exercise. Secondly, instructors are reminded that rudder must only be used to maintain balance (prevent yaw) throughout the stalling exercise. The essential components of a spin are wings stalled with yaw and/or roll present. Deliberately inducing yaw with rudder to “pick up” a dropped wing, with the aircraft stalled, is tantamount to setting up for a spin.
The important points made in that paragraph is:
So, in answer to the original question, there is no problem with holding the aircraft in the stall for long enough to point out all of the symptoms (as you were taught) but no longer.
It is not necessary or advisable, having demonstrated the signs and symptoms, for instructors to hold an aircraft in a developed stall, and students should never be taught to do so for the purposes of this exercise.
This was the response to a specific accident where an instructor was demonstrating the use of rudder to pick up a dropped wing whilst holding the aircraft in a stalled condition. There is nothing inherently wrong with holding the aircraft in the stall however, if the wing drops, standard stall recovery should be initiated and rudder should not be used to pick up the wing.
This was a very non standard technique, and the Trainincom was aimed at making other instructors aware of it, and its inherent dangers. I doubt that such a technique has ever been taught on a UK FI Course and therefore; does not fundamentally change the way the teaching of stalling should be conducted.
This was a very non standard technique, and the Trainincom was aimed at making other instructors aware of it, and its inherent dangers. I doubt that such a technique has ever been taught on a UK FI Course and therefore; does not fundamentally change the way the teaching of stalling should be conducted.
Moderator
I am not an instructor, however....
Very much agreed!
A number of times, while deliberately stalling aircraft for test purposes (the aircraft, not the pilot), other pilots who have accompanied me have resisted the use of ailerons to maintain co-ordinated flight up to the stall. Though a few aircraft (C 208 Caravan for example) recommend minimizing the use of ailerons during a stall recovery, the certification requirements state that the aircraft must be recoverable with "normal" use of the controls. For certified general aviation aircraft types, great use of ailerons (or rudder) during a stall will increase drag, and perhaps worsen the situation just a little, gentle use of the ailerons will not cause the aircraft to spin - great use of the rudder will!
Will occur with certain very stall resistant aircraft types. The most pronounced example of this I have seen is a Robertson STOL equipped C 206 with 40 flap extended. Though the aircraft will indicate all of the symptoms of a stall, and be descending at a high rate, it can be flown at yet a slower indicated airspeed. This occurs becasue the aircraft with lots of up elevator applied will bob up and down, with a corresponding increase and decrease in indicated airspeed, but you cannot control it. You can recover any time you like, but you cannot maintain a speed slower than the faster speed then that at which you entered. The aircraft only reaches this speed momentarily on its own, then speeds up again. Of course, the whole time you're doing this, the stall warning is screaming, and you're going down at a heck of a rate.
During flight testing of this type, I had a heck of a time defining the "stall speed" in KIAS. I was told by the flight test authority that the fastest indicated speed at which pitch control could not be maintained was the stall speed. The fact that the aircraft could be flown at yet a slower speed, albeit with this "bobbing" in pitch, did not give credit for a slower speed. Stall speeds are predicated on the speed at which the pilot can no longer maintain pitch control (one of the criteria). At a slower speed, that condition has already occurred, even if the plane is oscillating between these speeds on its own.
The essential components of a spin are wings stalled with yaw and/or roll present. Deliberately inducing yaw with rudder to “pick up” a dropped wing, with the aircraft stalled, is tantamount to setting up for a spin.
A number of times, while deliberately stalling aircraft for test purposes (the aircraft, not the pilot), other pilots who have accompanied me have resisted the use of ailerons to maintain co-ordinated flight up to the stall. Though a few aircraft (C 208 Caravan for example) recommend minimizing the use of ailerons during a stall recovery, the certification requirements state that the aircraft must be recoverable with "normal" use of the controls. For certified general aviation aircraft types, great use of ailerons (or rudder) during a stall will increase drag, and perhaps worsen the situation just a little, gentle use of the ailerons will not cause the aircraft to spin - great use of the rudder will!
"oscillatory stalling"
During flight testing of this type, I had a heck of a time defining the "stall speed" in KIAS. I was told by the flight test authority that the fastest indicated speed at which pitch control could not be maintained was the stall speed. The fact that the aircraft could be flown at yet a slower speed, albeit with this "bobbing" in pitch, did not give credit for a slower speed. Stall speeds are predicated on the speed at which the pilot can no longer maintain pitch control (one of the criteria). At a slower speed, that condition has already occurred, even if the plane is oscillating between these speeds on its own.
As part of the initial spin lesson I always demonstrate what other posters are calling "oscillatory stalls". That is smoothly apply full back stick just prior to the stall and then after the aircraft stalls keep the full back stick applied.
The purpose of this is to demonstrate that if yaw is controlled the aircraft will not spin even if it is stalled and the primary anti yaw control is the rudder. For non aerobatic instruction (ie the PPL/CPL) the emphasis should not be on how to spin an aircraft, it should be on how Not to spin an aircraft. Critical to that IMO is to make sure that in the event of an inadvertent stall yaw is instinctively prevented as the nose is lowered to reduce the AOA and power applied. Again this manoever is demonstrated once by me and is not a student solo exerecise.
I also use this exercise when teaching the spin for the aerobatic course but in this case for entirely different reasons. For aerobatics, spins are both a deliberate manoever and the likely result of a botched manoever so the student needs to have a very good understanding of the effects of controls when the aircraft is stalled and when and how yaw can/should be controlled.
The purpose of this is to demonstrate that if yaw is controlled the aircraft will not spin even if it is stalled and the primary anti yaw control is the rudder. For non aerobatic instruction (ie the PPL/CPL) the emphasis should not be on how to spin an aircraft, it should be on how Not to spin an aircraft. Critical to that IMO is to make sure that in the event of an inadvertent stall yaw is instinctively prevented as the nose is lowered to reduce the AOA and power applied. Again this manoever is demonstrated once by me and is not a student solo exerecise.
I also use this exercise when teaching the spin for the aerobatic course but in this case for entirely different reasons. For aerobatics, spins are both a deliberate manoever and the likely result of a botched manoever so the student needs to have a very good understanding of the effects of controls when the aircraft is stalled and when and how yaw can/should be controlled.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Bear Island
Posts: 598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
also worthy of note during the approach to stall / slow flight section of the air ex is the tendency for the aircraft sink in a slightly nose up attitude (which we then correct to attain the stall) .. this may be valuable as it represents the condition we try to attain in a controlled manner immediately prior to touchdown.
