Deliberate faking of stalls in RAA Training in aircraft that won't stall
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Deliberate faking of stalls in RAA Training in aircraft that won't stall
A RAA pilot underwent a flight review (for want of a better word in the RAA world) in an LSA. The instructor told the student that LSA (Light Sports Aircraft) have benign stall characteristics and all the ones he had instructed on just mushed gently straight ahead.
Said instructor then informed the student that because stall recovery was part of the flight review, he would demonstrate how to force the LSA to stall. With that he pulled the LSA into a steep climbing turn accompanied by a boot-full of rudder causing the LSA to skid into an extreme nose low and wing down situation. The instructor then used coarse control movements to recover from the steep dive and get the wings back to level. "That's how you can get an LSA to drop a wing and stall" sez the instructor.
Comment.
I don't know enough about the RAA to say that stall recovery training is in the RAA Syllabus for Training; but I assume it is, since the syllabus is basically aligned with CASA Flight Instructor Handbook. Regardless of the written word, it is surely considered poor airmanship to deliberately force any aircraft that is designed to have benign stall characteristics, into extreme attitudes involving application of full control movements to control limits in order to pretend it has stalled when in fact it has not.
In this case, the extreme attitudes did not stall the LSA at all; but were merely the end result of deliberate gross mishandling by the RAA flying instructor.
The airframe loadings caused by gross mishandling cannot be ignored as some of these aircraft are lightly constructed and there is no way the next pilot to fly that aircraft will be able to tell if the aircraft has been over-stressed. In fact, that aircraft could fly for many more hours before something gives way. In any case it is probable that most pilots would agree that it is wrong to deliberately place any LSA into such extreme attitudes that would never normally occur in its service life, in order to simulate a stall characteristic that does not exist. If ever there was an example of the term "practicing bleeding" then this insane practice is a classic example.
The people that manage the RAA need to get their act in order and show some common sense and ban this potentially dangerous practice of faking a stall simply to meet a syllabus written by the RAA themselves.
If the RAA fail to act on this "training" then the result could eventually lead to a similar fatal accident to a Brumby LSA that crashed following a flat spin. That aircraft was being used for a first familiarisation flight of a student converting from general aviation to an RAA LSA. Investigation of the wreckage revealed the elevator was apparently found to be jammed in the full back position. It is not known whether this was the cause of the flat spin or as a result of the impact with the ground. What was known was that LSA had earlier experienced a jammed aileron which was fortunately noticed by a student pilot when checking the controls for full free movement as part of his before take off check.
Said instructor then informed the student that because stall recovery was part of the flight review, he would demonstrate how to force the LSA to stall. With that he pulled the LSA into a steep climbing turn accompanied by a boot-full of rudder causing the LSA to skid into an extreme nose low and wing down situation. The instructor then used coarse control movements to recover from the steep dive and get the wings back to level. "That's how you can get an LSA to drop a wing and stall" sez the instructor.
Comment.
I don't know enough about the RAA to say that stall recovery training is in the RAA Syllabus for Training; but I assume it is, since the syllabus is basically aligned with CASA Flight Instructor Handbook. Regardless of the written word, it is surely considered poor airmanship to deliberately force any aircraft that is designed to have benign stall characteristics, into extreme attitudes involving application of full control movements to control limits in order to pretend it has stalled when in fact it has not.
In this case, the extreme attitudes did not stall the LSA at all; but were merely the end result of deliberate gross mishandling by the RAA flying instructor.
The airframe loadings caused by gross mishandling cannot be ignored as some of these aircraft are lightly constructed and there is no way the next pilot to fly that aircraft will be able to tell if the aircraft has been over-stressed. In fact, that aircraft could fly for many more hours before something gives way. In any case it is probable that most pilots would agree that it is wrong to deliberately place any LSA into such extreme attitudes that would never normally occur in its service life, in order to simulate a stall characteristic that does not exist. If ever there was an example of the term "practicing bleeding" then this insane practice is a classic example.
The people that manage the RAA need to get their act in order and show some common sense and ban this potentially dangerous practice of faking a stall simply to meet a syllabus written by the RAA themselves.
If the RAA fail to act on this "training" then the result could eventually lead to a similar fatal accident to a Brumby LSA that crashed following a flat spin. That aircraft was being used for a first familiarisation flight of a student converting from general aviation to an RAA LSA. Investigation of the wreckage revealed the elevator was apparently found to be jammed in the full back position. It is not known whether this was the cause of the flat spin or as a result of the impact with the ground. What was known was that LSA had earlier experienced a jammed aileron which was fortunately noticed by a student pilot when checking the controls for full free movement as part of his before take off check.
Last edited by Tee Emm; 2nd Aug 2018 at 13:40.
What type of aircraft are we talking about here,?
Short of the Icon A20, pretty much every LSA in this country will do a decent stall if you point the nose high enough prior.
Short of the Icon A20, pretty much every LSA in this country will do a decent stall if you point the nose high enough prior.
Assuming you are not kidding, I will attempt to answer you.
Begging the question of "deliberate mishandling" by the pilot, I too have experienced the benign stall characteristics of an Evector Sportstar LSA and gentle it can be - so gentle it needs to be demonstrated so that it can be recognised and recovered. BUT as Squawk says, if it is deliberately mishandled by a fool, or more likely as a result of an upset caused by turbulence ( it is light), or if the pilot loses situational awareness in cloud, it will bite and bite hard. it will drop a wing and when you pick that up, it will drop it on the other side. When an instructor demonstrated "benign" to me he damn near had us into the ground he was so thrilled with "'benign" which just goes to show when you make anything foolproof all you do is attract a bigger fool. God knows what the spin characteristics are like, I don't want to find out.
To put that another way, have you ever seen the film "gremlins"? The gremlin starts as a cute loveable fuzzy little animal and then........
You are wrong. These are not violent aerobatic manoeuvres but situations you would expect in the service life of the aircraft. The certification process (ASTM? JAR? EASA?) caters for this. Someone like DJPL might explain better.
You are misguided and in any case wrong. Aircraft are fitted with control stops designed to preclude jamming at extremes of travel. Are you a pilot? Getting to be a play the player rather than play the ball comment. If you wish to be quite this pointed, it would be appropriate to be able to substantiate the comment ? I know who Tee Emm is and he is a very experienced pilot - JT
A RAA pilot underwent a flight review (for want of a better word in the RAA world) in an LSA. The instructor told the student that LSA (Light Sports Aircraft) have benign stall characteristics and all the ones he had instructed on just mushed gently straight ahead.
Said instructor then informed the student that because stall recovery was part of the flight review, he would demonstrate how to force the LSA to stall. With that he pulled the LSA into a steep climbing turn accompanied by a boot-full of rudder causing the LSA to skid into an extreme nose low and wing down situation. The instructor then used coarse control movements to recover from the steep dive and get the wings back to level. "That's how you can get an LSA to drop a wing and stall" sez the instructor.
Comment.
I don't know enough about the RAA to say that stall recovery training is in the RAA Syllabus for Training; but I assume it is, since the syllabus is basically aligned with CASA Flight Instructor Handbook. Regardless of the written word, it is surely considered poor airmanship to deliberately force any aircraft that is designed to have benign stall characteristics, into extreme attitudes involving application of full control movements to control limits in order to pretend it has stalled when in fact it has not.
In this case, the extreme attitudes did not stall the LSA at all; but were merely the end result of deliberate gross mishandling by the RAA flying instructor.
Said instructor then informed the student that because stall recovery was part of the flight review, he would demonstrate how to force the LSA to stall. With that he pulled the LSA into a steep climbing turn accompanied by a boot-full of rudder causing the LSA to skid into an extreme nose low and wing down situation. The instructor then used coarse control movements to recover from the steep dive and get the wings back to level. "That's how you can get an LSA to drop a wing and stall" sez the instructor.
Comment.
I don't know enough about the RAA to say that stall recovery training is in the RAA Syllabus for Training; but I assume it is, since the syllabus is basically aligned with CASA Flight Instructor Handbook. Regardless of the written word, it is surely considered poor airmanship to deliberately force any aircraft that is designed to have benign stall characteristics, into extreme attitudes involving application of full control movements to control limits in order to pretend it has stalled when in fact it has not.
In this case, the extreme attitudes did not stall the LSA at all; but were merely the end result of deliberate gross mishandling by the RAA flying instructor.
To put that another way, have you ever seen the film "gremlins"? The gremlin starts as a cute loveable fuzzy little animal and then........
The airframe loadings caused by gross mishandling cannot be ignored as some of these aircraft are lightly constructed and there is no way the next pilot to fly that aircraft will be able to tell if the aircraft has been over-stressed. In fact, that aircraft could fly for many more hours before something gives way. In any case it is probable that most pilots would agree that it is wrong to deliberately place any LSA into such extreme attitudes that would never normally occur in its service life, in order to simulate a stall characteristic that does not exist. If ever there was an example of the term "practicing bleeding" then this insane practice is a classic example.
The people that manage the RAA need to get their act in order and show some common sense and ban this potentially dangerous practice of faking a stall simply to meet a syllabus written by the RAA themselves.
If the RAA fail to act on this "training" then the result could eventually lead to a similar fatal accident to a Brumby LSA that crashed following a flat spin. That aircraft was being used for a first familiarisation flight of a student converting from general aviation to an RAA LSA. Investigation of the wreckage revealed the elevator was apparently found to be jammed in the full back position. It is not known whether this was the cause of the flat spin or as a result of the impact with the ground. What was known was that LSA had earlier experienced a jammed aileron which was fortunately noticed by a student pilot when checking the controls for full free movement as part of his before take off check.
If the RAA fail to act on this "training" then the result could eventually lead to a similar fatal accident to a Brumby LSA that crashed following a flat spin. That aircraft was being used for a first familiarisation flight of a student converting from general aviation to an RAA LSA. Investigation of the wreckage revealed the elevator was apparently found to be jammed in the full back position. It is not known whether this was the cause of the flat spin or as a result of the impact with the ground. What was known was that LSA had earlier experienced a jammed aileron which was fortunately noticed by a student pilot when checking the controls for full free movement as part of his before take off check.
Begging the question of "deliberate mishandling" by the pilot, I too have experienced the benign stall characteristics of an Evector Sportstar LSA and gentle it can be - so gentle it needs to be demonstrated so that it can be recognised and recovered. BUT as Squawk says, if it is deliberately mishandled by a fool, or more likely as a result of an upset caused by turbulence ( it is light), or if the pilot loses situational awareness in cloud, it will bite and bite hard. it will drop a wing and when you pick that up, it will drop it on the other side. When an instructor demonstrated "benign" to me he damn near had us into the ground he was so thrilled with "'benign" which just goes to show when you make anything foolproof all you do is attract a bigger fool. God knows what the spin characteristics are like, I don't want to find out.
Back in the days before Part 61 there was a Day VFR Syllabus for pilot training which included “Recovers from stall during a turn” and “Recover from incipient spin”. Note: “incipient spin entry (stall with wing drop)”. There was also “Recovers at incipient spin stage during a turn”. So, it was quite clear that pilots undergoing basic training must perform stalls in a turn.
Required underpinning knowledge included: the potential dangers of unbalanced flight at slow speed so pilots should know that stuff.
Now we have Part 61 and the associated Manual of Standards – we have even more stalls to do as part of the required syllabus. Those same underpinning knowledge items are still there so new pilots should also know that stuff.
CASA has recently redefined aerobatics so it is now not the same as ICAO’s definition which the other major aviation countries have, beats me why they have changed it but the consequence is, in my opinion, that advanced stall training per Part 61 must be done in an aeroplane approved for aerobatics and the instructor must have a spin and/or aerobatic training endorsement. I therefore don’t see how RAA instructors can legally teach the full suite of stall exercises and I understand that RAA instructors are not required to have any spin training themselves unlike GA instructors.
I hear these stories all the time from RAA pilots converting to GA.
The problem is this: To become CFI or HOO of a GA flying school requires a Grade 1 instructor rating and often well in excess of 1000 hours. To become a flight examiner requires even more and further training with CASA.
To become CFI of a RAA school requires around 400 hours and a PPL. CFI of RAA school automatically gets flight examiner status for the schools students.
The net result of this is widely varying standards and skills amongst RAA pilots, far far more so than GA pilots.
The problem is this: To become CFI or HOO of a GA flying school requires a Grade 1 instructor rating and often well in excess of 1000 hours. To become a flight examiner requires even more and further training with CASA.
To become CFI of a RAA school requires around 400 hours and a PPL. CFI of RAA school automatically gets flight examiner status for the schools students.
The net result of this is widely varying standards and skills amongst RAA pilots, far far more so than GA pilots.
The RAA instructor manual is very thin on stall recognition and recovery, as it is on mislanding recovery and go-around training. A pilot I trained went to an RAA school to hire one of their aircraft. The pilot wanted to do some upper air familiarisation before starting circuits. He completed a couple of basic stalling exercises (along the lines he completed during his initial training and in accordance with the syllabus) These sequences apparently frightened the crap of the instructor, to the point where he directed him to stop the stalling exercises.
I would agree with that comment.
Increasingly, in recent years, in AU, "low speed flight" has been avoided, rather than properly addressed.
As a matter of interest, it is something, into which much effort is put, in the US.
Because, quite simply, many accidents and incidents are the result of lack of competency in low speed flight.
What happens in the real world, in the US v. AU, is not reflected in the syllabi, but it is in the airsafety record.
Tootle pip!!
Folks,
I would agree with that comment.
Increasingly, in recent years, in AU, "low speed flight" has been avoided, rather than properly addressed.
As a matter of interest, it is something, into which much effort is put, in the US.
Because, quite simply, many accidents and incidents are the result of lack of competency in low speed flight.
What happens in the real world, in the US v. AU, is not reflected in the syllabi, but it is in the airsafety record.
Tootle pip!!
I would agree with that comment.
Increasingly, in recent years, in AU, "low speed flight" has been avoided, rather than properly addressed.
As a matter of interest, it is something, into which much effort is put, in the US.
Because, quite simply, many accidents and incidents are the result of lack of competency in low speed flight.
What happens in the real world, in the US v. AU, is not reflected in the syllabi, but it is in the airsafety record.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Dunda
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
He looked at me like I was crazy for asking just said ‘don’t let your airspeed get low and you have nothing to worry about’ and that was that.
You spend hours doing precautionary searches but very little on the exact situation that seems to kill many experienced pilots.
My 2c of advice would not be about watching your airspeed but to spend time practicing stalling, just as much for the ability to know when you are operating close to the stall (and so will not unintentionally allow the aircraft to get there) as about recovery techniques.
If you spin at circuit height it is too late - recovery technique skills probably won't get you out in time.
If you however are familiar and comfortable with stalling, you know if you are close to applying stall (or stall/spin) entry inputs and at circuit height, you won't!
Being comfortable stalling also gives confidence that you know the aircraft and can confidently operate it under all normal regions of the flight envelope.
Sadly stalling can often taught in a way that doesn't build confidence - particularly so if the instructor was badly taught in their ab-initio training - the pattern keeps repeating.
If you spin at circuit height it is too late - recovery technique skills probably won't get you out in time.
If you however are familiar and comfortable with stalling, you know if you are close to applying stall (or stall/spin) entry inputs and at circuit height, you won't!
Being comfortable stalling also gives confidence that you know the aircraft and can confidently operate it under all normal regions of the flight envelope.
Sadly stalling can often taught in a way that doesn't build confidence - particularly so if the instructor was badly taught in their ab-initio training - the pattern keeps repeating.
Based on my observations, instructors are generally underconfident in stalling sequences themselves, this is passed onto their trainees and reflected in the accident stats. Having completed many tailwheel endorsement with FIR holders I have had the chance to see their reluctance to stall an aeroplane first hand.
That pretty much sums up the AU situation.
Tootle pip!!
PS; The whole point is to avoid having to recover from a stall in normal operation, only competence is low speed flight (of which stall and recovery is part) does that.
To say words to the effect: "Just don't get slow" is plain dumb, part of the reason for our inferiore track record compared to US.
The lack of understanding regarding the stall is not limited to GA or RAA pilots. You don't have to go very far to see that airline pilots do not understand it either e.g. AF447. When I was teaching stalling in Cessnas, particularly the stall in the approach config, I would always reinforce that this is not what a stall will look like when you are in the circuit pulling hard to regain the centreline or mucking around at low level. I would reinforce that the eventual departure from controlled flight would be the same but that the luxury of altitude for the recovery would not.
I fly with both RAAus and GA a pilots and have to say understanding stalling and flying in balance is poorly understood by both groups.
- instructors not confident enough
- instructors inexperienced and poorly trained
- not enough emphasis on it in syllabuses
- box ticking rather than robust teaching
- a few canned scenarios taught but not related to some likely real world gotchas
Not suggesting these are the causes, just throwing a few out there. Certainly if any instructor doesn't understand stalling and how to at least teach it to a decent basic level then I'd hate to send my child out with him or her for training.
That's particularly concerning, seeing as it's such a fundamental thing. What are the reasons for it, would you say? A few possibles that spring to mind are:
- instructors not confident enough
- instructors inexperienced and poorly trained
- not enough emphasis on it in syllabuses
- box ticking rather than robust teaching
- a few canned scenarios taught but not related to some likely real world gotchas
Not suggesting these are the causes, just throwing a few out there. Certainly if any instructor doesn't understand stalling and how to at least teach it to a decent basic level then I'd hate to send my child out with him or her for training.
- instructors not confident enough
- instructors inexperienced and poorly trained
- not enough emphasis on it in syllabuses
- box ticking rather than robust teaching
- a few canned scenarios taught but not related to some likely real world gotchas
Not suggesting these are the causes, just throwing a few out there. Certainly if any instructor doesn't understand stalling and how to at least teach it to a decent basic level then I'd hate to send my child out with him or her for training.
All of the above. And a couple more.
There is a reason why low speed loss of control is close to the top of the list of "most probable causes", and as Lookleft points out, it is not limited to GA/Rec.A.
Again, I have to point to the FAA for doing something effective, with its emphasis on control on low speed flight. Very few AU pilots I know would pass an FAA PPL flight test, on this sequence alone.
Tootle pip!!
PS: The above remarks are NOT LIMITED to PPLs.
Ah Sunfish,
With the utmost respect, I do believe the only purpose of aircraft flight control stops, be they fixed or adjustable, are designed for flight control rigging as per the manufacturers specs in their respective Aircraft Maintenance Manuals e.g. aileron 20 deg up/down from the neutral. Nothing to do with flight control jamming prevention "at the extremes" whatsoever. If you are an Aircraft Maintenance Engineer (LAME or AME) please feel free to correct me if I am wrong.
Rgds McHale.
With the utmost respect, I do believe the only purpose of aircraft flight control stops, be they fixed or adjustable, are designed for flight control rigging as per the manufacturers specs in their respective Aircraft Maintenance Manuals e.g. aileron 20 deg up/down from the neutral. Nothing to do with flight control jamming prevention "at the extremes" whatsoever. If you are an Aircraft Maintenance Engineer (LAME or AME) please feel free to correct me if I am wrong.
Rgds McHale.
With the utmost respect, I do believe the only purpose of aircraft flight control stops, be they fixed or adjustable, are designed for flight control rigging as per the manufacturers specs in their respective Aircraft Maintenance Manuals e.g. aileron 20 deg up/down from the neutral. Nothing to do with flight control jamming prevention "at the extremes" whatsoever.
The applicable FAA words for the strength of the stops are something like "all loads obtainable by a pilot in normal operation" the FAA goes on to specify what those are and they are pretty hefty..
Which adds up to my observation that stops are properly designed to cope with frightened (and strong) student Bloggs or in the case of the Evector Sportstar, hamfisted Sunfish discovering the limits of aileron travel in a crosswind landing. To put that another way, properly designed stops should not bend, including during (legal) training manouvres. If yours are, then the designer screwed up.
That is one of their purposes. The others include; preventing interference between control surfaces at the limits of travel, preventing the control surface from interfering with secondary structure (eg; fairings), preventing the control circuit from moving outside design mechanical limits (eg; linkages going oversquare or interfering with other structure). These are all potential causes of jamming.