Action after Stall Recovery
 

Having recovered from stall and levelled the wings (if necessary) we ease out of the dive, would you regain straight and level flight or put the a/c back into the climb?

I have my own views on this but would be interested in other opinions.

I teach to always recover to a climb as most real world inadvertent stall scenarios happen at low altitude

Into the climb is most commonly taught and I agree with the above however you could also teach to the straight and level as the climb may not be a catch all?

I agree with recovering into a climb, if only to be sure you are not still losing height.


MJ:ok:

+1 for recovery to the climb. It can be consciously varied, but generally there's far less to be scared of above you than any other direction, so it should be the default action.

G

Used to teach to the climb, but more recently have been teaching to
recover to S&L then assess the situation.

I am far more concerned with teaching them to recognise the APPROACH to the stall and recover BEFORE it happens. When teaching fully developed I am much more interested that they can recover using the column, power and rudder correctly than what happens once they've got flying speed again.

I would hope what you wrote is a given for every instructor. However the OP specified actions after the stall recovery which is where I directed my answer.

If a low time pilot gets into an inadvertent stall then they are likely to be rattled after the recovery and will revert to what they where trained. You can't go wrong by starting a climb, you can however get into trouble by recovering to straight and level at low altitudes.

Duchess_Driver for me that's a given too.

The reason I asked the question was that a recent candidate was criticised by an examiner for climbing after recovery and not going for straight and level.

If you stalled at low level and were recovered at 200 ft agl would you fly straight and level?

I've been thinking about this lately, too.

So, what I do now is:

a) teach recovery to a glide descent,
b) recover to a glide descent, then recover to S&L (as per ex 8)
c) recover to a glide, then recover to a climb
d) recover with minimum height loss, to a climb (which I think is what the examiner will be looking for).

The rationale here is to show in a) the pure aerodynamic recovery with change in A of A, back to the known (glide recovery to S&L), THEN introduce the ideal in d). Too many people on reval. flights shove in the power before the A of A has reduced, causing a pitch up back into the stall, with all kinds of yawing going on 'cos they don't adjust rudder against the power slipstream changes. I'm looking eventually with a 'straight' stall, for a constant heading through the manoeuvre.

TOO

For the stall recovery, the CAA provide the following guidance in:

Standards Doc 19(A)

Standards Doc 14(A)

ifitaint...

Do what is appropriate for the situation.

Fireflybob, the examiner should have specified what he wanted to see after recovery in his briefing. In the absence of that then Standards doc guidance would be appropriate. When I am examining I usually brief to recover to the normal climb (i.e. best rate, clean). You normally carry out a series of stalls during a skill test so it makes sense to recover lost altitude between each one.

I have a few issues with this.

There is a lot of evidence that pilots under high stress will revert to the first thing they learned - in your case, you are setting people up for a pitch only recovery as default action, which will cause excessive height loss.

Secondly heading is really not that important - an unstalled aeroplane in a turn, is an unstalled aeroplane. The ONLY thing that in the immediacy should be going on with the rudder is keeping zero sideslip.

I do absolutely agree that nobody should be applying power first - but there is adequate evidence that simultanous power and pitch both gives us consistent stall recovery and minimum height loss. (For the Brits, this is the CFS stall recovery.)


It seems to me that everybody - but especially a new pilot - should drill the right actions (simultaneous pitch and full power, zero sideslip with rudder, attitude for a shallow climb), then anything (such as pitch only to explore something, partial power in a very high powered aeroplane, recovering to level flight, correcting bank or heading) should be a deliberate exception from drilled best practice *only* once that best practice is consistent and instinctive.

Similarly - no. Can I offer a parallel from my other interest - when not doing aviation, I do martial arts. I have a 3rd dan black belt and am chief instructor at a club - so not a beginner. I teach flinch responses to immediate threats, and in our style basically only a very very limited range of actions. These responses have been designed over a lot of years to protect somebody from immediate harm, without hurting anybody else.

So - somebody swings a baseball bat at my head - I pass it out of the way and step behind the arm.
So - somebody jokingly but I didn't notice early enough swings a cushion at my head - I pass it out of the way and step behind the arm.

Or - somebody grabs me from behind with malign intent, and I drop my weight and go into a guard position.
Or - an aunt spots me in Sainsburys and gives me an unexpected hug, and I drop my weight and go into a guard position.

In my martial arts, I'm making myself instinctively safe without making things any worse, then stopping to think what to do next.


I see a stall recovery in exactly the same way. Any pilot should have an instinctive stall response - stick forward, full power, ball in the middle with rudder, climb attitude. That protects life and aircraft, THEN once that's done there's time to "Do what is appropriate for the situation". The alternative is for things to get worse whilst you use non-existent thinking time to decide upon the right actions.


G

What is the main aim of a stall recovery? To recover the aircraft from the stall, it has nothing to do with minimum height loss! This is the very problem that has been discovered with approach to stall recovery training and causes problems with loss of control etc.

I do however agree that the height loss should not be ignored however carrying out a stall recovery with the aim of minimum height loss is not good.

There is nothing wrong with trying to minimise height loss.

It is paramount to recover from the stall of course, and then to minimise height loss. But you still do both.

The problems we all know about were because minimising height loss was put first above good stall recovery practice, not because it was considered.

G

I think the point of teaching 'Reduce AoA' - 'Increase power' as a 1-2 action, (albeit separated by little more than an instant) rather than simultaneously, is to make it clear that it shouldn't be the other way around.


MJ:ok:

I had exactly that conversation with David Scouller at my last instructor renewal.

Delayed power = increased height loss

Delayed pitch = potential secondary loss of control.


That's a trivial decision - one must certainly organise things so that power is never applied first.

G

To recover to a climb should be the eventual aim to regain any height loss. The student should be taught to recognise whether recovery to S&L or a climb is required. (Common sense?).

The primary importance is to get the student to understand the stall symptoms, the indication of the stall itself, and safely action the SSR.

Once they have understood the basics, and can demonstrate good competency, then the climb becomes important, as they will be expected to affect minimum height loss and to return to the original height they started at, but it will also show other elements.

Here is key opportunity to demo the secondary stall (as you climb away rapidly), but also introduce them to the go-around, low power/idle to full power climb. This is a good time to see the progression of the student and how their co-ordination is.

So you put primacy on understanding, rather than drilling correct and immediate stall recovery?

G

Stall recovery technique in students has to developed to the point where it is instinctive and unthinking to unload the wing by applying forward stick, then applying power and then preventing the aircraft from yawing.

If the pilot has to think about the actions then they are not ready to deal with an inadvertent low altitude stall, the most common real world scenario.

Yes, they need to understand. If they don't then how do they know what they are looking for and what to do in the SSR? The SSR is used to get them out of the sh1t. I want them to understand why they got into the sh1t and to not go there in the first place.

The SSR is a recovery. The education should be not getting there in the first place. But if they do, then here is the technique to deal with it.

Am I wrong?

We are also talking about TRAINING students to enable them to deal with this instinctively when low to the ground as you say BPF. However, the instinct has to be DEVELOPED. This is our job as instructors.

OP -
Genghis the Engineer -I agree that you should teach critical actions such as stall recovery in a way that they become instinctive however post stall recovery you do need to "do what is appropriate for the situation".

scenario. flying along at FL350 in a heavy jet. engine fails. you inadvertently enter a stall (your situational awareness is low in this scenario of course). this leads you to the stall recovery. what next??

Look for a new job?

:ok:

but before that, according to some you need to adopt a "climb attitude"

GtE, I agreed with just about everything in your post but I think your summary paragraph, above, is wrong.

A Standard Stall Recovery is:
1) Reduce AoA
2) Add (full) Power
3) Rudder to keep aircraft in balance/prevent further yaw
NB: 3) Is nice but, in my opinion, not vital as long as 1) and then 2) are carried out.

Once recovered from a stall, a recovery from an unusual attitude may/is likely to be required.
Which would be:
1) Power - Less(Idle)/More(Full) as situation warrants
2) Coordinated use of Controls to Roll the wings to the nearest horizon
3) Pitch - Up/Down as situation warrants
I agree that after a stall recovery it is unlikely that 1) will need to be changed and 3) is very likely to be (but not always) Pitch Up BUT 2) must have been performed before 3).

Recovering from a stall under IF will, I suggest, always be to S&L

However, when flying visually, particularly at the PPL level, I would strongly advocate that a SSR should always end in a Best Rate Climb.

Reason:
One of the key symptoms of a stall is a high ROD and a, possibly too vigorous, recovery may result in a dive.
PPL Stall 1 = Hold the aircraft in the stall until Examiner tells you to recover = Lots of height loss.
PPL Stalls 2 & 3 are only approaches to the stall. However they are simulating a 'Base to Final Turn' and 'On Final but Low'. Anything wrong on an approach should always = 'Go Around' so a climb is required.

Irrespective of my opinion, DB6 has the correct answer to the OP's question:

Wouldn't dispute that.

My point, perhaps missed, was that worrying about maintaining constant heading is silly, and the only thing you should be doing with the rudder is keeping the ball in the middle.


(At least nobody has mentioned "picking up the wing with rudder" :yuk:)

G

step one after stall recovery, DO NOT STALL AGAIN

IF at high altitude , descend

IF at low altitude CLIMB

if at medium altitude , maintain

pretty easy isn't it?

are you sure about that?

High RoD is indeed one of the stall symptoms that we teach, and the SSR is taught as CCCF (Control Column Centrally Forward). However, that all assumes "right way up" flight which I'm sure covers almost all but the most unusual of unexpected stall events.

If you like to throw the scenery round the aircraft, the SSR offers insufficient, and in some cases inappropriate, guidance. it is easy to be climbing quite quickly whilst stalled.

Although thankfully unusual, it is also possible to stall the other aerofoils that are generally found towards the rear of the aircraft.

It is very possible to stall and be climbing/descending/high speed/low speed. And in any attitude.

If you are teaching high RoD as a symptom of a stall you are misleading your students. Now a spiral dive does produce a high RoD and if you are teaching high RoD = stalling then guess what the student will do?

Whats wrong with teaching them to recognise the onset of buffeting instead.

Btw what produces a higher RoD a sprial dive or a spin?

Nothing, if your aircraft exhibits noticeable pre-stall buffet. There are popular training types that show little obvious buffet (that would be apparent to a student) in the initial stalling exercise from a clean airframe, power off, erect, level flight situation. We demonstrate a suite of signs leading to the stall, all the symptoms of low airspeed including sloppy controls and reducing wind noise, nose high attitude, aft column and lack of ability to maintain altitude (leading to an indicated RoD). We would say in the pre-flight brief that pre-stall buffet is a symptom, but warn that they might not experience it in our aircraft.

Some might say that training should not be conducted in aircraft that do not exhibit all the symptoms or which do not spin etc.

TOO

Although if that viewpoint were carried, you'd have to replace around 70% of the world's training aeroplanes.

I tend to think that although there's a near-universal stall recovery, there are not universal stall warning symptoms, and that's where pilots need to know their individual aeroplane - this should be impressed upon them throughout their training.

G

YES.
1) Specifically:
That quote is from a paragraph I wrote regarding PPL level stalling.
and 2) Generically:
If recovery action is not taken, even a stall (as opposed to an approach to a stall) entered from any flight mode will, fairly quickly, result in a high RoD - possibly with the added bonus of auto-rotation.

Of course a dive will result in a high RoD. Forget students, probably every human on earth could understand that.

BUT:
Climb Attitude: Gaining height = Climb; whereas High RoD = Stall
Slow Flight Attitude: Level Flight = Slow Flight: whereas High RoD = Stall

I prefer to use the term "stall identification" rather than "symptoms".

A stall (as opposed to the "warnings" that we are approaching a stall) is identified by heavy buffet (but as has been said before this can be type dependent), aircraft descending, nose pitching "down", and possible wing drop.

Any one of these can occur first depending on the nature of the stall.

I recall the Chipmunk Flight Manual notes on spinning making a distinction between a semi stalled spiral dive (where the airspeed is increasing) and a spin (where the airspeed is reasonably constant and low with high rate of descent) and not to confuse the two with respect to recovery action.

There are now four generally accepted signs of a stall that I teach on the jet and SEP:

Lack of roll control
Lack of pitch control
Buffeting
Inability to arrest descent rate

These generally apply to all conditions and should always result in the same action which is to reduce the angle of attack whichever way that might be, forward or backward.

As for what to do after, in the Jets it's return to desired flight path for which I would expect a certain level of SA. For the SEP side a climb is the norm but an awareness of the desired flight path could be taught.

I would always however ensure that the reason I teach a particular technique is to improve the student's competence rather than to satisfy an examiner. If I do my job properly the student will be competent and by that very virtue able to pass a check but I never teach for test.

What you are alluding to is actually Loss of Control(a much better title than stalling), however lack of pitch control is incorrect unless C152's and other trainers are fitted with pushers to get the nose over!

Most GA training aircraft in the power off flaps zero configurations do have a degree of roll control at the buffet and beyond and its even a requirement for certification.

However i wonder if you guys who instruct in the UK have ever read the Flight Examiners Handbook.

PPL Skill Test

Stalling:
Stall Recovery from:
• Clean, S&L power off, I will tell you when to recover.
• Base Turn using intermediate flap, gear, approach power with 20° to 30° AOB recovering at the first sign of the approaching stall.
• Final Approach stall, full flap, gear, approach power on a datum heading recovering at the first sign of the approaching stall.
All recoveries with minimum height loss, recovering back to the best rate of climb.

Pretty much common sense for PPL training as the most likely place a PPL is going to stall is in the circuit, as accidents constantly show. So if your guy stalls at 300 feet surely you would really hope he recovers with the minimum height loss and climbs away rather than takes a daisy cutter straight and level run through the approach scenery! This type of recovery also compliments the go around too and again common sense should tell you that some go arounds are from a speed that would satisfy the test requirement of 'at the first sign of the approaching stall'

Oh and the best teaching ADM statement is, after an emergency or abnormal fly the aircraft to the safest place. After a 300 feet height loss near the ground on the approach you are unlikely to find the safest place by flying level!

Sorry to intrude, but surely there are other stall recoveries?

For example, you are doing a max rate turn and you manuever stall. Easing off the back pressure immediately unstalls the aircraft.

Job done?

There is no requirement in this scenario to add power (you will probably already be at max) and as long as you are under control there is nothing wrong with continuing the turn, surely?

Perhaps, depending upon the aircraft type and its stall characteristics.

But the point, in my opinion, is that there should be a correct and universal set of stall recovery actions - drilled until they're flown automatically. A deliberate change from that is fine: and anybody flying max rate turns is probably sufficiently on top of their game and the aeroplane to do that. But, that should be a deliberate change from the default action only.

G

That's fine Ghengis, but some aircraft will require quite different techniques.

I accept that the "standard stall recovery" will work for most/all puddle jumpers, however an Airbus or a turboprop will require different techniques. All based around reducing angle of attack, yes, but quite different in execution.

A turboprop is likely to want early power, whereas an airliner you may want to be waiting a long long time before you think about adding power.
If there is a wingdrop, again the recovery will be quite different.

My point being that if you are teaching a student who will be in an airline within 200hrs, then perhaps the standard stall recovery drilled into him may do him no favours.