Things you won't learn in Flight Schools...

[BraceBrace]

Of course we train upset recovery, and that includes possible stall recovery. But the important thing to note is that stall is considered "out-of-control" (quoting Boeing). You are not in control of the aircraft, you are merely doing a series of inputs and then yes, at some point you will be able to recover. A "Cessna-like" philosophy (where you end up with full power for recovery) has created some incidents or even accidents, the most notable one the Turkish Airlines 1951 in Amsterdam. The B737 has limited elevator authority over the THS. If the THS ends up trimming up all the way, there might not be sufficient elevator authority available when you push the engines into full thrust (underwing mounted, they will push the nose up). Hence the aircraft will continue to slide down, tail first, with further on a possible wing drop due to the swept wing design. Since the crash, Boeing changed the recovery procedure and teaches to disregard altitude loss as mentioned by B2N2, focusing on lowering the nose and be patient. Thrust "as needed". We used to do stall recovery to show how little altitude was lost in the recovery, that idea is long gone, we don't look at altitude loss to avoid people focusing on it. We teach to use all the altitude needed for correct recovery.

There are other "SEP" topics that sometimes end up being debriefed in the sim/line training as "no-no-no" topics:
* sideslip to lose altitude
* rudder use (American Airlines 587 crash)
...

(ps: on a SEP, while doing stall excercices, don't you ask students to stop the trim up at a certain point?)

[Pilot DAR]

disregard altitude loss as mentioned by B2N2, focusing on lowering the nose and be patient. Thrust "as needed". We used to do stall recovery to show how little altitude was lost in the recovery, that idea is long gone, we don't look at altitude loss to avoid people focusing on it. We teach to use all the altitude needed for correct recovery.

I entirely agree with this. I certainly agree that a stall in very thin air, or a stall recovery whose control inputs are being supplemented by an automated system would be more complicated. I think in terms of an airplane which can be hand flown without a supplementary systems making things worse. So MCAS (as I understood the "old" system), and in some cases, Garmin ESP, may contribute to a worsening stall recovery situation than helping. This is a really good reason to train both those systems, and how they interact with the handling of the airplane. With great reluctance, I agree that these systems will become more prevalent, and the need to hand fly an upset recovery will fade into history - 'same as a manual transmission car - we have them now, but their future in common use is limited.

So, training, which is what this thread is about. Train the trainer, make sure that their being surprised by an event in the aircraft they normally train in, is very unlikely. And, they can convey that confidence to their student!

[jonkster]

Applying large modern transport aircraft techniques blindly to typical light GA aircraft is as inadvisable as applying light GA aircraft techniques blindly to large modern transport aircraft. Similarly techniques for specialised military aircraft may have characteristics that separate them in nasty ways from both of the previous categories.

Indeed even within the GA fleet, there are differences in techniques - eg spins in a Chipmunk, Tomahawk, Pitts, Decathalon, Aerobat or Cirrus etc, all differ to varying extents.

Train pilots to fly the aircraft they are operating, and hopefully train them in a way that makes them adaptable as (or if) they progress between types...

[B2N2]

Originally Posted by Manwell

I'd like to know more B2. Why aren't stalls covered in the sim, and why does it take so much altitude to recover? I apologize if they're dumb questions, but I'd rather ask dumb questions than assume the answers.

When we do “stall recovery” we may either recover on the first indication (low speed message), aerodynamic indicators (buffet) or stick shaker (artificial).
Neither one is a fully developed aerodynamic stall as we know it in small airplanes.
Some aircraft also have a stick pusher which prevents a full aerodynamic stall in order to meet certification requirements. Pilatus PC12 being an example.
Back to your question, at high altitudes even a small pitch down correction causes a large amount of altitude loss and even though the engines run fine at cruise power it takes a long time for them to spool up (accelerate) and produce more power.
Those two factors mainly affect the recovery altitude loss.

[Pilot DAR]

Back to your question.........

Excellent, we're learning things that we would not learn in flight schools!

I do have a slight appreciation for the high altitude approach to low speed concern, though the highest I have ever flown was 25,000 feet in the Piper Cheyenne, but we sure didn't stall it up there! I also appreciate that some types (including the Cheyenne) have stall barriers to meet certification. That's fine, that's a part of certification, limitations, and type training. All the more reason for instructors to remind themselves that there is lots more to be learned outside the flying school!

[nonsense]

Originally Posted by B2N2

Instead of microanalysis of a single lesson/event if we look from a little further away:

• Have you ever skidded and fallen off a bicycle ?

I must surely have done so as a child, but I can't remember a particular example. I certainly achieved an understanding of the difference between a rear wheel skid (best achieved by braking as the rear tyre pass over a piece of cardboard) and a front wheel skid.

Originally Posted by B2N2

• Have you ever skidded with a motor bike?

This is the one which prompted me to reply. 44 years ago in my first three months of riding, on a Honda 125cc road bike, in wet weather, I recognised rather too late that I was slowing down for the red light on the far side of an offset junction and I was about to careen into the intersection. I have a clear memory of hauling on the brakes in a straight line, seeing the front wheel stop turning, easing off the front brake so it turned, and repeating the process several times. I slithered to a halt with a newfound appreciation of the need to really pay attention to the road ahead, and of the fact that locking the front wheel was *sometimes* not a disaster.
I'm still riding 44 years later; I've only once skidded and fallen off, about 43 years ago.

Originally Posted by B2N2

• Have you ever skidded with a car on a wet road?

I live in Australia. I often drive on rural dirt roads. Enough said. Haven't hit anything though.

Originally Posted by B2N2

• Why do you think that happened?

A) The coefficient of friction between cardboard and road is dramatically less than between tyre and road.
B) The bike was upright and straight. I knew I had been very lucky, but I also learnt something.
C) Picking one random event at a constant speed of about 50mph on a straight wet clay road about 15 years ago, to this day I'm still not sure why I was suddenly traveling in the same direction but facing 45deg to the left, but I had no difficulty getting the car facing the right direction again without deviating from moving in a straight line in the right direction. Probably relevant here was the lack of much startle factor; sure I was surprised, but the "wetware" took over as required. I'd been sideways on slippery roads before.

Originally Posted by B2N2

• Why do we have posted speed limits on off ramps ?

Legally? So they can book us for doing freeway speeds on urban streets.
Practically? To remind us to slow down. We're human. None of us are perfect all the time, many of us aren't perfect very often at all...

Originally Posted by B2N2

• Why do bridges have slippery when freezing signs?

Now this one actually IS interesting. I had never seen such signs in Australia. My first was at 42yo and driving on the wrong side of the road in Ohio, the first time in my life that I'd driven in a place where ice on roads really is a thing. I looked at the sign (in July) and turned to my friend and said "is that because the underside of the bridge is cold too?". See also often not perfect, need for reminders...

[Pilot DAR]

where ice on roads really is a thing

HaHa! This is the key to the bridge's slippery when freezing signs, there could be ice on the bridge, when there is no ice on the road!

In Canada, the driving schools do teach this! (Just to link back to the theme of the thread).

I was thinking more today (after thinking about the three strips fellow I'd seen entering the cockpit, while I was seated in 2A), back to when I was a "new" copilot, 40 years ago, in a Twin Otter. I was flying, my Captain had gone to the back to fuss with the ferry fuel system in the cabin. My job was to simply fly the airway (in the south of France, headed south, in August). I found the need to add a little power to maintain altitude, then some trim up, 'lost some airspeed, repeat. Trying to be a team member, I wanted to just manage this, and not bother my Captain, as he had ferry fuel flow on his mind. But, as one could anticipate from my story, I could not sustain this, it was going bad. I was at max continuous power, slowing through blueline airspeed, and the handling was terrible - but I still had it straight and level - for the moment. But, it felt stalled to me, and I could not figure out why. I beckoned my Captain back to his seat, for his contribution to my not losing control. He was annoyed at my interruption, but acceded to my request. As he took control, he said with alarm "this airplane is completely stalled!". There was no warning horn, no buffet, just that spongy feeling, and going down under maximum power. What I had not thought of (over the south of France in August, just punching a few tops here and there) was ice. For other circumstances, this airplane had no OAT indicator. And, seeing the leading edge of the wing in a Twin Otter is not easy if you're not really looking.

The message is that my training handling an airplane at the brink of breaking in a stall had served me, while flying straight and level, at an indicated airspeed much faster than the stall "speed". Sure, I should have thought about airframe ice, (not new to me then), and the fact that we were well over gross with cabin ferry fuel certainly increased the stall speed. It all met at a point, and I'd got there, just flying straight and level on airway.

The way that my Captain "avoided" a stall was to lower the AoA, so we descended (I worked that out during a stressful exchange with French ATC), found warm air, it all melted, and life went on, but I learned something.

So, imagine many years later, my flying a very new, full FIKI Cessna 303, with the same fellow, now right seat with me, having the reverse icing problem, wings perfectly fine (I could see them in a C303), tail all iced up, and the airplane trying to yaw and bunt at the same time. Again, the only cue was handling(very poor) and control forces - no warning system - 'cause we were at cruise speed. Knowing what the approach to stall felt, with no warning system, was critically important to my fixing the problem before it became catastrophic.

So I value pilot awareness and confidence near the stall "loss of lift" aerodynamic circumstances. And.... I really don't like ice, even in FIKI planes!

[Manwell]

Following this discussion, it should become apparent that how stall and slow flight training is conducted, doesn't prevent pilots from stalling. How else could it be covered so stalls don't present such a problem that they lead to an accident?

[B2N2]

Originally Posted by Manwell

Following this discussion, it should become apparent that how driving training is conducted, doesn't prevent drivers from crashes. How else could it be covered so driving don't present such a problem that they lead to an accident?

Its not the teaching it’s the deviation from the teachings.

-Confucius

(pretty sure he said that )

[Manwell]

Originally Posted by B2N2

Its not the teaching it’s the deviation from the teachings.

-Confucius

(pretty sure he said that )

From memory, it was probably deviating from "THE WAY", B2. Which are teachings handed down from Confucius and others about how to lead an exemplary life. Essentially, the right way to live, which is the proverbial straight and narrow path that is often deviated from.
However, why do you think the problem is deviation from the teachings, rather than stalling and slow flight teachings themselves?

[Pilot DAR]

why do you think the problem is deviation from the teachings

I perceive "the problem" to be less deviation from teaching, rather evolution of teaching, with, in my opinion, the evolution being more a devolution. Training accidents and scares result in the leaders of training asking themselves "if we teach this differently, will students crash less?", and maybe that's a "yes". But the absence of that learning which allows the occasional bad event, which pilot skill might have prevented. and the more that bad event is distant from the training the more it is a dark hole boogie man thing.

There have been so many educational experiences in my career as a pilot where a more experienced pilot said "let me show you" such that I learned that a maneuver/event I had feared had a much more broad range of tolerably safe boundaries. That is a legacy of wisdom which should not be lost with the evolution of training, but slips away as "modern" aircraft design overlays advance design and tech to simply try to keep you out of there.

Shifting gears in manual transmission cars demanded skill, and the occasional clutch replacement. Better instruction was replaced by automatic transmissions. Is "driving standard" a growing skill? If tailwheel airplanes were still predominate, surely by now an avionics manufacturer would have developed a yaw stabilization system to prevent groundloops - in either way, the general pilot skill for tailwheel flying would/has diminished. Hand propping was a skill (and certainly a workplace safety concern!). It was very common on aprons when I learned to fly, and I certainly flew airplanes which required it, when's the last time anyone hand propped a plane? Would you teach it?

The leaders of our training industry evolve training based upon technological advancement, and perceived safety demand. That becomes the standard. Nothing prevents advancing pilots from seeking out "other" training, other than perhaps, reduced availability.

[EXDAC]

Originally Posted by Pilot DAR

If tailwheel airplanes were still predominate, surely by now an avionics manufacturer would have developed a yaw stabilization system to prevent groundloops - in either way, the general pilot skill for tailwheel flying would/has diminished. Hand propping was a skill (and certainly a workplace safety concern!). It was very common on aprons when I learned to fly, and I certainly flew airplanes which required it, when's the last time anyone hand propped a plane? Would you teach it?

My tailwheel airplane has a yaw stabilization system. It's called a pilot. Like all systems it works great until the day it doesn't.

The last time I hand propped an airplane (Aeronca 11BC Chief) was November 26, 1999. I taught all my partners to start it safely. Not sure I could hand start my IO-360 as the prop angle is awkward. I carry a jump pack so I don't have to find out.

It scares me when I see anyone hand prop with a cap on. If the cap blows off most people will instinctively reach for it.

[B2N2]

Originally Posted by Manwell

However, why do you think the problem is deviation from the teachings, rather than stalling and slow flight teachings themselves?

On a philosophical level you don’t run with scissors.
You’re told not to do something then you’re shown why not.
Levels of learning, application, correlation.
No need to get stabbed to know a knife is dangerous.
Human Factors, people become indifferent and out of practice.
A lot of private rated pilots are barely up to solo standard yet they’re happy to take up non flying family members and friends.
Walk the walk and talk the talk in the clubhouse and fly 12 hrs a year.
Unless you practice very specific things every single flight out of your twelve hours.
Spend 30 min practicing maneuvers, level turns (accurately) climbing and descending turns and steep turns. Flight at minimum airspeed and stalls in different configurations.
Then spend 30 min doing landings in various configurations and with varying speeds on downwind. Do an entire traffic pattern at 60-70kts, then fly a downwind as fast as the thing will go.
Instead people noodle straight and level for a while and call it a day.

The fried egg analogy.
The yolk is your proficiency level, the egg white is what is supposed to be your skill level.

[sycamore]

Thought for the day;You are out and about at about 2000`agl,in a taildragger(1),n/wheel(2);The engine quits dead,no response.In front is not a lot of good landing areas,but on each side you have a large cornfield,with standing corn;as you are into wind now,about 10-12 kts..What decision(s) do you make to land,for 1 or 2..?

[EXDAC]

Originally Posted by sycamore

Thought for the day;You are out and about at about 2000`agl,in a taildragger(1),n/wheel(2);The engine quits dead,no response.In front is not a lot of good landing areas,but on each side you have a large cornfield,with standing corn;as you are into wind now,about 10-12 kts..What decision(s) do you make to land,for 1 or 2..?

Not enough information to make a decision.

Does corn mean maize or some other cereal?
How tall is the crop?
What is the slope of the fields, if any, relative to the wind?
Are the fields irrigated and if so how?
Are there furrows? If so are they circular or straight?
If furrows are straight do they align with the wind?
What is between the two fields?
If there is a road between the fields how wide is it? Any trees, power lines, or phone lines?
What makes the terrain ahead unsuitable for landing?

The outcome of landing in tall crop may be very different for high wing vs low wing but that is not specified.

[POBJOY]

I was given this scenario on my Commercial Single eng GFT out of Oxford. Was is a Piper Tomahawk (glides quite well) but not a cornfield contender. Opted for small but doable field into wind with Farm House at the end. During the go around the CAFU man was less than happy and asked why I did not go for said cornfield alongside.
I pointed out we would prob end up on our back unable to exit (canopy not doors) and that was before the Corn caught fire. That confused him (he prob had not seen a light a/c upside down in a corn field),(but I have). The upshot was quite a 'conversation' about PFL's as opposed to real ones. A week later on a low level transit to an airshow in a vintage machine, no 1 cylinder decided to eat an exhaust valve for breakfast requiring a very swift pull up and 360 into the only possible field, requiring a substantial side slip (no flaps fitted) past the the farm house kitchen. I still remember thinking as I kicked it all off, CAFU would'nt like this one bit.!!!. The tea and cakes were a delight.

[Pilot DAR]

Unless you practice very specific things every single flight out of your twelve hours.
Spend 30 min practicing maneuvers, level turns (accurately) climbing and descending turns and steep turns. Flight at minimum airspeed and stalls in different configurations.
Then spend 30 min doing landings in various configurations and with varying speeds on downwind. Do an entire traffic pattern at 60-70kts, then fly a downwind as fast as the thing will go.
Instead people noodle straight and level for a while and call it a day.

This. And what EXDAC said.

If I have not done some airwork, stalls, slow flight, and a few landings in the last 30 days, that will be my next hour of flying.

Following on from the excellent report linked in the Bagby Aztec crash in A&CC (everybody read the report please), what flying schools are not great at are teaching you how to know when to say no. They may tell you "no", but did they teach you? 400 hour PPL, with limited C310 and DA42 time is handed the keys to the Aztec (okay, the only Aztec key is for the door, but you know what I mean), and takes the plane! I have lots of time in each of those types, and can attest that they are each very different to the other. Self checkouts on these twins are for higher time pilots, and with at least a briefing from a mentor who knows your skills. Eager PPL guy, while walking out to the parked Aztec, should have asked himself, would my instructor/flying school just send me off in this? ('cause that would have been a hard no!). Then use that truth to reassess the whole idea.

I'm all about pilots learning new skills, but at a safe pace, and with some mentoring. I have learned that I am checked out when the mentor pilot I trust tells me that I am. I, as this PPL's colleague did, have declined to fly sometimes - airplane condition, new type, unsafe load, poor weather - and no one has ever criticized me for it. And you know what (eager PPL's/CPL's reading this) usually those people extended another offer soon after which I was content to accept, because they respected the fact that I would say no!

[sycamore]

EXDAC(tongue in cheek),corn is as high as an elephant`s eye;it`s just corn,no roads,wires,houses in front,no furrows visible,no irrigation,lo wing/hi wing,retractable gear/fixed,your choice,no visible slope,times running out..!!

Sorry,POBJOY RANG ME...!!

[Pilot DAR]

The quite overweight, less than ideally skilled pilot who used to keep his Cherokee 140 at the aerodrome I used to keep my plane, ran off the end if the runway, at just flying speed, and managed to climb away unsafely. He'd run it through the corn cobs before managing to climb out of it (the prop swath cut was quite something when I walked to the end of the runway the next day!). The leading edges of the Cherokee were fairly well dent in by the corn cobs. He flew it for repair (yeah, you read right). A few weeks later, he returned with it, 'same 3/10 paint, and a shiny new STOL kit cuff covering most of the leading edge damage! He and I did not agree on much....

[EXDAC]

Originally Posted by sycamore

EXDAC(tongue in cheek),corn is as high as an elephant`s eye;it`s just corn,no roads,wires,houses in front,no furrows visible,no irrigation,lo wing/hi wing,retractable gear/fixed,your choice,no visible slope,times running out..!!

Well, with my tailwheel aircraft on 26 inch Bushwheels I'd be inclined to check out the area ahead. I only need about 200ft with that wind. Landing in tall crop even at 35 mph is likely to do significant damage.

BTW landing out (au vache) is something I have done far too many times in my over 95,000 miles of glider cross country. One that pleased me was landing in a field of young cotton with deep irrigation furrows. I put the main and tail in the same furrow and damaged only one cotton plant when the wing came down as I stopped. Damaged nothing else in the extraction to the adjacent farm road and trailer.

It didn't please me as much as getting home would have done but the thunderstorm was right over the turn point.