Aircraft down at Braidwood, NSW
On giving Aerostar Endorsements I get a clearance up to 8000 ft over Richmond and tell the student at 148 kts to roll into a steep turn and pull back to the stall and it will suddenly (within a second) flick upside down and go verticall and it usually then takes him several thousand feet to pull out. they will then usually say I didn’t know an aeroplane would do that no one has ever shown that to me before.
I think what SUNFISH is trying to say is the current standard of flight instruction relating to slow flight / stall / spinning is very poor. This is the result of inadequately skilled instructors, unsuitable aircraft types used for flight training and a poor syllabus.
I think what SUNFISH is trying to say is the current standard of flight instruction relating to slow flight / stall / spinning is very poor. This is the result of inadequately skilled instructors, unsuitable aircraft types used for flight training and a poor syllabus.
A clear and concise summation of of the problem.
Tootle pip!!
Stalls, straight and level were taught plus one demonstration of a spin in an aerobat . That was all that was taught, I do not know if there was anything else on the PPL syllabus at the school - the one that also hated side slips. If there was, I wasn’t taught or tested on the subject.
After I got my ppl I did stalls in a turn in a certain Bellanca and later spins in an aerobatic aircraft of my own volition as I tried to extend my own safety envelope. Stalls in landing condition I first encountered during my last flight review.
Stall/spin on a base to final turn (and of course recovery) would be fun to try in a suitable aircraft at altitude. I would have done more, but my instructor in aerobatics fell off a wing and broke their leg, thus putting an end to a wonderful course of “low impact aerobatics for retirees”.
After I got my ppl I did stalls in a turn in a certain Bellanca and later spins in an aerobatic aircraft of my own volition as I tried to extend my own safety envelope. Stalls in landing condition I first encountered during my last flight review.
Stall/spin on a base to final turn (and of course recovery) would be fun to try in a suitable aircraft at altitude. I would have done more, but my instructor in aerobatics fell off a wing and broke their leg, thus putting an end to a wonderful course of “low impact aerobatics for retirees”.
I think what SUNFISH is trying to say is the current standard of flight instruction relating to slow flight / stall / spinning is very poor. This is the result of inadequately skilled instructors, unsuitable aircraft types used for flight training and a poor syllabus.
What a waste is how long it took the ATSB to publish the final report. The old BASI would have have got this type of report out in industry in less than 3 months.
The ATSB needs a shake up!
The ATSB needs a shake up!
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Must be a swan job working for the ATSB! It's shameful the amount of time it takes to get a final report out in such a basic accident! Mankind never learns from their mistakes, we are good at repeating failures -(
I wonder how many of these preventable tragic events get close to becoming a statistic? Must be dozens yearly Australia wide but a link in the chain is broken just in time!
I wonder how many of these preventable tragic events get close to becoming a statistic? Must be dozens yearly Australia wide but a link in the chain is broken just in time!
There was a video going around the Facebook aviation sites a while ago which explained the ‘defined minimum manoeuvring speed’ very nicely. The suggestion of having a sticker on the ASI with it clearly shown was a good one, especially for those of us who don’t fly the same aircraft type every time. For those who do, it is still a good reminder to be vigilant. Whether or not it would have helped in avoiding this crash I don’t know; can only speculate that it would have.
Moderator
There was a video going around
A simple youtube search will come up with a number of similar videos.
(a) just do be careful taking the stories as gospel as Va is subject to a variety of OWTs and the correct story sometimes is quite different. The usual pilot story only applies for aircraft certificated to the minimum value permitted for Va. For some aircraft the OEM may well elect to design for a higher Va and therein lies a problem when the pilot fraternity typically uses an incorrect definition of what Va is about. The design standards talk about
Design maneuvering speed VA. For VA, the following applies:
(1) VAmay not be less than VS
where--
(i) VS is a computed stalling speed with flaps retracted at the design weight, normally based on the maximum airplane normal force coefficients, CNA; and
(ii) n is the limit maneuvering load factor used in design.
(2) The value of VA need not exceed the value of VC used in design.
The two important points to note are bolded in the quote. You need to know what the particular certification did before you go off doing this and that. Other bits make it clear that the pilot is responsible for making sure that any manoeuvres do not cause the limit load factor to be exceeded (often referred to as a "checked" manoeuvre). That is to say, for an aircraft designed for Va above the minimum permitted value, the pilot must not rely on protection by stalling to avoid pulling tails and/or wings off ....
(b) if you are going to run factored speed calculations to account for bank angle or steady g loads, please ensure you use CAS rather than IAS for the sums, converting IAS to CAS at the start and CAS to IAS at the finish.
(c) AFM stall speeds are based on very steady conditions (smooth air and the 1kt/sec deceleration bit). Things can get a bit off that mark if you are manoeuvring or running the speed back at a significantly faster rate.
(d) if you are going to put yourself in a stall risk situation, do so with plenty of air underneath the bird so that the hard, rocky bits don't get a look in.
A simple youtube search will come up with a number of similar videos.
(a) just do be careful taking the stories as gospel as Va is subject to a variety of OWTs and the correct story sometimes is quite different. The usual pilot story only applies for aircraft certificated to the minimum value permitted for Va. For some aircraft the OEM may well elect to design for a higher Va and therein lies a problem when the pilot fraternity typically uses an incorrect definition of what Va is about. The design standards talk about
Design maneuvering speed VA. For VA, the following applies:
(1) VAmay not be less than VS
(i) VS is a computed stalling speed with flaps retracted at the design weight, normally based on the maximum airplane normal force coefficients, CNA; and
(ii) n is the limit maneuvering load factor used in design.
(2) The value of VA need not exceed the value of VC used in design.
The two important points to note are bolded in the quote. You need to know what the particular certification did before you go off doing this and that. Other bits make it clear that the pilot is responsible for making sure that any manoeuvres do not cause the limit load factor to be exceeded (often referred to as a "checked" manoeuvre). That is to say, for an aircraft designed for Va above the minimum permitted value, the pilot must not rely on protection by stalling to avoid pulling tails and/or wings off ....
(b) if you are going to run factored speed calculations to account for bank angle or steady g loads, please ensure you use CAS rather than IAS for the sums, converting IAS to CAS at the start and CAS to IAS at the finish.
(c) AFM stall speeds are based on very steady conditions (smooth air and the 1kt/sec deceleration bit). Things can get a bit off that mark if you are manoeuvring or running the speed back at a significantly faster rate.
(d) if you are going to put yourself in a stall risk situation, do so with plenty of air underneath the bird so that the hard, rocky bits don't get a look in.
It would be great if the ASI had a line on it specific to the aircraft to show you what the “stall” speed is at MTOW on a hot day at 60 degrees of bank is, so you never go below it... problem is that this specific speed might be close to your cruise speed!
Thats where the AOA indicator could be a good thing.
Thats where the AOA indicator could be a good thing.
At least the report is an improvement on that other one above, but if they are going to put the pretty pictures of a stall, where is the discussion about the illusions in turns?
It is, I believe, no coincidence that the stall happened at the end of the downwind turn, at low level, likely doing a constant radius as to inspect the runway strip. Everyone knows the stall, many are less familiar with low level illusions.
https://www.faa.gov/regulations_poli...08_afh_ch6.pdf
It is, I believe, no coincidence that the stall happened at the end of the downwind turn, at low level, likely doing a constant radius as to inspect the runway strip. Everyone knows the stall, many are less familiar with low level illusions.
https://www.faa.gov/regulations_poli...08_afh_ch6.pdf
Generally more so in a left turn. As the aircraft is turning out-of-wind, there is a slip illusion at low level. Rudder input is made, and the nose is forced further left. Then, as the nose drops into the left turn - they apply nose up elevator - thus the IAS falls away further. Hence the stories of IAS decreasing from up to downwind. This combination of inputs ensures the arrival at stall happens much faster than they ever thought possible. Even from 500 agl, recovery is usually impossible.