Instructors teaching full rudder to "pick up" dropped wing.
Thread Starter
Instructors teaching full rudder to "pick up" dropped wing.
Unbelievable that at least one well known flying school in the Melbourne area allows its instructors to teach students to skid with full rudder in order to level the wings after a wing drop at point of stall. The theory being by using full rudder to pick up a dropped wing at point of stall, the dropped wing goes faster than the other wing, gains more lift and thus levels both wings rather than use aileron to level the wings.
Are CFI's so inundated with regulatory paperwork that they have no time to regularly supervise their instructors by not only listening to instructors giving pre-flight briefings to students to ascertain their standard of briefings, but also fly regularly with new students as a quality control measure.
Seems to this observer that CFI's prefer to stick with doing IFR and licence tests instead of checking the blind teaching the blind which is often the case of new instructors teaching new students.
This wing drop rubbish needs to be debunked before someone goes into a spin caused by very low airspeed and full rudder. CFI's of flying schools need to test their instructors knowledge of correct stall recovery technique before allowing them to get loose on student pilots. In turn, CASA need to do their job and audit what is taught on flying instructor courses then spot check graduates on stall recovery techniques.
Are CFI's so inundated with regulatory paperwork that they have no time to regularly supervise their instructors by not only listening to instructors giving pre-flight briefings to students to ascertain their standard of briefings, but also fly regularly with new students as a quality control measure.
Seems to this observer that CFI's prefer to stick with doing IFR and licence tests instead of checking the blind teaching the blind which is often the case of new instructors teaching new students.
This wing drop rubbish needs to be debunked before someone goes into a spin caused by very low airspeed and full rudder. CFI's of flying schools need to test their instructors knowledge of correct stall recovery technique before allowing them to get loose on student pilots. In turn, CASA need to do their job and audit what is taught on flying instructor courses then spot check graduates on stall recovery techniques.
Is the rudder thing from the days of yore when aircraft had different design standards? No washout for example to ensure stalls first at the root. Was one explanation I've seen, but don't know it's veracity.
NZCAA teach using the rudder and not ailerons for recovery. Who to believe?
They say
The use of aileron adversely affects the roll and favours autorotation. This is the reason for maintaining ailerons neutral in the initial stall recovery.
The correct method of stopping autorotation is to break the yaw-roll-yaw cycle, and since aileron cannot be used effectively to stop the roll, rudder is used to prevent further yaw. The nose is lowered simultaneously (backpressure relaxed) with the application of rudder, and this will stop the roll immediately
The correct method of stopping autorotation is to break the yaw-roll-yaw cycle, and since aileron cannot be used effectively to stop the roll, rudder is used to prevent further yaw. The nose is lowered simultaneously (backpressure relaxed) with the application of rudder, and this will stop the roll immediately
Once the the aircraft is unstalled the ailerons are used to roll the wings level.
Moderator
Oh dear ...
While acknowledging that some of the ancient Types flying do have aileron vices, anything of recent design should be far better behaved.
For interest, the current design standard requirements to be found at -
(a) FAR 23.201
(b) FAR 23.203
(c) FAR 23.207
and, I daresay, the EASA words will be somewhat similar ...
Comments, such as in this thread, regarding the dangers of using aileron (with a caveat for the few old ragbag - but delightful - machines still around), in essence, are nonsense.
What the design and certification fraternity would prefer to see is
(a) avoid the stall
(b) if you can't manage (a), then stall
(c) subject to AFM/POH guidance, initial action is to unstall by unloading the wings ie reduce backstick inputs
(d) then, when the thing is definitely unstalled, roll and pitch back to normal flight while adjusting thrust settings.
Unfortunately, the operational folks still have overwhelming hangups about minimum height loss. Progressively, post AF 447 changes to industry practices, this will change.
Centaurus' thoughts are on track .. and that from a chap who was brought up right in the middle of the old practices. Rudder should never be used to pick up anything .. only to prevent further yaw which, in itself, can lead to undesirable excitement.
While acknowledging that some of the ancient Types flying do have aileron vices, anything of recent design should be far better behaved.
For interest, the current design standard requirements to be found at -
(a) FAR 23.201
(b) FAR 23.203
(c) FAR 23.207
and, I daresay, the EASA words will be somewhat similar ...
Comments, such as in this thread, regarding the dangers of using aileron (with a caveat for the few old ragbag - but delightful - machines still around), in essence, are nonsense.
What the design and certification fraternity would prefer to see is
(a) avoid the stall
(b) if you can't manage (a), then stall
(c) subject to AFM/POH guidance, initial action is to unstall by unloading the wings ie reduce backstick inputs
(d) then, when the thing is definitely unstalled, roll and pitch back to normal flight while adjusting thrust settings.
Unfortunately, the operational folks still have overwhelming hangups about minimum height loss. Progressively, post AF 447 changes to industry practices, this will change.
Centaurus' thoughts are on track .. and that from a chap who was brought up right in the middle of the old practices. Rudder should never be used to pick up anything .. only to prevent further yaw which, in itself, can lead to undesirable excitement.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Age: 51
Posts: 931
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of my favourite subjects.
For me it comes down to type familiarity.
Some types will allow you to pick up a dropped wing with aileron, others that response will simply deepen the stall.
I think its a case of the instructor knowing his type and training accordingly. The other side of that is further type specific training.
Anyone that has trained on Grummans, AA1-AA5 will tell you, that you pick the wing up with rudder, as ailerons deepen the stall and accelerate the rotation.
It also comes down to space available. The training is done high...where you have space to unload and lower the nose....you don;t have that luxury in the flare.
A PA-28 will forgive you picking the wing up with aileron, many other types won't.
For me it comes down to type familiarity.
Some types will allow you to pick up a dropped wing with aileron, others that response will simply deepen the stall.
I think its a case of the instructor knowing his type and training accordingly. The other side of that is further type specific training.
Anyone that has trained on Grummans, AA1-AA5 will tell you, that you pick the wing up with rudder, as ailerons deepen the stall and accelerate the rotation.
It also comes down to space available. The training is done high...where you have space to unload and lower the nose....you don;t have that luxury in the flare.
A PA-28 will forgive you picking the wing up with aileron, many other types won't.
Previous thread.
Wing dropping stall recovery. [Archive] - PPRuNe Forums
Pieces from the net.
and
And somebody we may know? 
Using The Rudder - Aviation Safety Article
Compare what Mr. Laming says aka "At the low speed normally associated with a stall, the so-called “pick-up-the-wing-with-rudder” technique he advocates has the potential to cause a spin in the other direction" to the bolded piece above.
Wing dropping stall recovery. [Archive] - PPRuNe Forums
Pieces from the net.
Wing drop recovery
When a wing does drop, its downward movement increases the AOA even more, thus bringing it deeper into the stall. Using ailerons at that moment would not be of any help at all as picking up the wing (downward aileron) also increases AOA but then at the wingtip. The stall is now developed from wingroot to the tip.
When a wing does drop, its downward movement increases the AOA even more, thus bringing it deeper into the stall. Using ailerons at that moment would not be of any help at all as picking up the wing (downward aileron) also increases AOA but then at the wingtip. The stall is now developed from wingroot to the tip.
The stall/spin accident is aviation’s #2 killer of general aviation pilots. This is in part because during training the modern airplane has to be forced to spin and it requires considerable judgment and technique to get the spin started when loaded with the student and his instructor. However, when a passenger or baggage is added to the back, this same airplane may be put into an accidental spin with surprising ease.
Spin avoidance is a matter of practicing cross-control stalls until a conditioned reflex of using the rudder is ingrained. During a power-on stall where the wing falls to the left or right, the pilot who has not developed the conditioned reflex of using the rudder will instinctively apply aileron to stop the roll. Modern airplanes, those built since the late 1940’s, are required to have aileron control during a stall. This control is not sufficient to stop the roll without the addition of rudder. In fact, when the airplane rolls to the left and right aileron is used to counter it, the left aileron is deflected downward to increase lift on the left wing. Lift and drag are directly proportional, so the increased drag resulting from the increased lift may actually aggravate the problem.
If, instead of aileron, the rudder is used to “pick up” the wing, the airplane will not spin. To set up the autorotation required to develop a spin the nose of the airplane must turn or yaw at least 90 degrees. Rudder will stop the turn and prevent the spin.
I have trained more than 2,000 primary students and each one performed a spin prior to their first solo.
Spin avoidance is a matter of practicing cross-control stalls until a conditioned reflex of using the rudder is ingrained. During a power-on stall where the wing falls to the left or right, the pilot who has not developed the conditioned reflex of using the rudder will instinctively apply aileron to stop the roll. Modern airplanes, those built since the late 1940’s, are required to have aileron control during a stall. This control is not sufficient to stop the roll without the addition of rudder. In fact, when the airplane rolls to the left and right aileron is used to counter it, the left aileron is deflected downward to increase lift on the left wing. Lift and drag are directly proportional, so the increased drag resulting from the increased lift may actually aggravate the problem.
If, instead of aileron, the rudder is used to “pick up” the wing, the airplane will not spin. To set up the autorotation required to develop a spin the nose of the airplane must turn or yaw at least 90 degrees. Rudder will stop the turn and prevent the spin.
I have trained more than 2,000 primary students and each one performed a spin prior to their first solo.
Using The Rudder - Aviation Safety Article
Compare what Mr. Laming says aka "At the low speed normally associated with a stall, the so-called “pick-up-the-wing-with-rudder” technique he advocates has the potential to cause a spin in the other direction" to the bolded piece above.
Anyone that has trained on Grummans, AA1-AA5 will tell you, that you pick the wing up with rudder, as ailerons deepen the stall and accelerate the rotation.
It surprises me that using rudder to level the wings, or even bring them partway back in the other direction to the drop, would be a technique nominated by the manufacturer or taught on the type, but as always I will be happy to be corrected if that's the case.
From
https://www.airpilots.org/file/666/t...g-stalling.pdf
So it seems it may have been considered de rigueur at some stage.
https://www.airpilots.org/file/666/t...g-stalling.pdf
In the past it has been considered acceptable to use rudder to pick-up any wing drop whilst teaching the signs of the full stall. This technique is dangerous and has been cited as one of the causes of more than one stall/spin fatal accident. Use of the rudder should be restricted to preventing any further yaw, should any develop. If significant yaw/wing drop occurs whilst trying to teach the full stall signs, recovery action should be taken immediately. If all of the full stall signs were not taught before recovery proved necessary, then it will be necessary to give an additional demonstration.
I reckon that having been an aeromodeller from a rather young age, has helped me understand how aircraft actually fly. For example: W&B of early free flight models. Then later on to fast radio controlled models where any low level bad mistake ended up with a pile of expensive wreckage. Plus gliding, where one actually got to stall and spin in the resident gliding club Kookaburra or Blanik..
These experiences taught me a lot of respect when flying GA.
These experiences taught me a lot of respect when flying GA.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you ignore the wing drop for a moment and JUST PUSH FORWARD most types will recover nicely
Very true. Perhaps you should have included promptly levelling the wings with aileron immediately the stall is broken.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Sydney
Age: 60
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
my 2c FWIW
use and amount of rudder depends on the aircraft.
eg from the flight manual of one aircraft I have instructed in:
That said, *full* deflection rudder in a stall recovery to stop yawing in a stall (as the OP is suggesting is being taught) sounds a little odd but is that actually what is being taught? And on what aircraft? Or is the instructor teaching the student to centralise ailerons and avoid controlling yaw with aileron by appropriate use of rudder?
2. Many students are scared of stalling. Which is sad IMO. When they end up as instructors that fear is contagious and the cycle continues. This is not a criticism of instructors but is something that good instructors should (and often do) work at correcting. Properly taught, deliberately stalling (and recovering) an aeroplane should not be something that instils fear in students for the remainder of their flying career. Sometimes it seems initial stall training consists of clumsy and rushed entry with the instructor's voice and demeanor on edge and with a pronouced nose high attitude and then a sudden drop that for a student who so far has only ever experienced smooth coordinated flight can be alarming.
Initial stall exposure should be gentle and give the student reassurance that they can handle the aircraft in all its normal operating envelope - it should allow the student plenty of time to experience how the aircraft feels at near stall speeds so their response and feel can become instinctive and they recognise the stall signs well before they happen and can recover appropriately and instinctively when they do enter the stall. (Which also is great for developing feel on landing).
Stall training should be fun not frightening.
IMHO.
use and amount of rudder depends on the aircraft.
eg from the flight manual of one aircraft I have instructed in:
"Alieron control response in a fully developed stalled condition is marginal. Large aileron deflection will aggravate a near stalled condition and their use is not recommended to maintain lateral control. The rudder is very effective and should be used for maintaining lateral control in a stalled condition with the ailerons in a neutral position"
2. Many students are scared of stalling. Which is sad IMO. When they end up as instructors that fear is contagious and the cycle continues. This is not a criticism of instructors but is something that good instructors should (and often do) work at correcting. Properly taught, deliberately stalling (and recovering) an aeroplane should not be something that instils fear in students for the remainder of their flying career. Sometimes it seems initial stall training consists of clumsy and rushed entry with the instructor's voice and demeanor on edge and with a pronouced nose high attitude and then a sudden drop that for a student who so far has only ever experienced smooth coordinated flight can be alarming.
Initial stall exposure should be gentle and give the student reassurance that they can handle the aircraft in all its normal operating envelope - it should allow the student plenty of time to experience how the aircraft feels at near stall speeds so their response and feel can become instinctive and they recognise the stall signs well before they happen and can recover appropriately and instinctively when they do enter the stall. (Which also is great for developing feel on landing).
Stall training should be fun not frightening.
IMHO.
Last edited by jonkster; 19th Feb 2017 at 06:08. Reason: added minor explanation
Need to teach the human factors that lead to making decisions that lead to stall/spin accidents (including the instinct to level the wings when actually it is a lower priority than reducing angle of attack) rather than draw pretty pictures in a briefing then go up to 3000 feet and start yanking around on the controls and putting the aircraft into unrealistic attitudes.
If an instructor is teaching a fully developed spin recovery (ie full opposite rudder) in an incipient spin scenario then they are probably just copying what thy were taught and haven't gone below the thin veneer of rote learning that is all that is required to become a flying instructor.
If an instructor is teaching a fully developed spin recovery (ie full opposite rudder) in an incipient spin scenario then they are probably just copying what thy were taught and haven't gone below the thin veneer of rote learning that is all that is required to become a flying instructor.
That's scary if any instructor is actually dumb enough to think that fully developed spin recovery actions are appropriate for a stall recovery - not sure any flying school would be allowing that level of incompetence, surely? Let's hope not.
This situation needs investigation by CASA. If in fact the reports are correct, the CFI, Flight Examiner(s) who issued the FIRs, the instructors and their students need to undergo remedial training.
This technique is not only dangerous, it is not an accepted practice and contradicts the Flight Instructors Handbook guidance and the Part 61 MOS.
There is no need to pick up a wing during a stall, rudder is used to prevent yaw in the event of a wing drop and ailerons used to level the wings after recovery from the stall.
This technique is not only dangerous, it is not an accepted practice and contradicts the Flight Instructors Handbook guidance and the Part 61 MOS.
There is no need to pick up a wing during a stall, rudder is used to prevent yaw in the event of a wing drop and ailerons used to level the wings after recovery from the stall.
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: SF Bay area, CA USA
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When receiving my primary training, before doing stalls, we always warmed up with MCA flight.
This seemed to make stalls no big deal and I think this was great instruction technique.
This seemed to make stalls no big deal and I think this was great instruction technique.