Inducing a wing drop to meet a Part 61 requirement
Thread Starter
Inducing a wing drop to meet a Part 61 requirement
Regarding the new proposed rules on spinning and wing drops at the point of stall.
A contributor to the recent CASA discussion panel mentioned wing drop recovery or induced wing drop recovery training. Presumably the term ”induced” covers the situation where a wing drop at the point of stall does not occur naturally because the design of the aircraft is such that stall behaviour is benign.
To induce a significant wing drop in aircraft that have benign stall characteristics, instructors are prone fake the manoeuvre by deliberately mishandling the aircraft into an unusual attitude which in itself is not only extremely unlikely but has the potential to weaken the aircraft structure in the long term. For example, by pulling the nose high with power applied then applying significant rudder to skid the aircraft into dropping a wing while it is not stalled but pretending to be stalled for the purpose of the exercise. Side loads can be significant and not considered by the aircraft designer.
Some instructors including those on ultralights are known to be quite violent with the flight controls as they attempt to force a wing drop in an aircraft that has already benign (by design) stall characteristics. Inducing a fake wing drop by deliberately placing an aircraft into an undesirable state but not actually stalled, is stretching the friendship a little too far merely to tick the box.
CASA needs to address this problem. Brief the actions to counter a wing drop at the point of stall by all means; but avoid playing silly buggers in the air.
Certification flight tests by qualified test pilots are not “rigged” to induce a wing drop at the point of stall if the aircraft already exhibits benign stall characteristics.
A contributor to the recent CASA discussion panel mentioned wing drop recovery or induced wing drop recovery training. Presumably the term ”induced” covers the situation where a wing drop at the point of stall does not occur naturally because the design of the aircraft is such that stall behaviour is benign.
To induce a significant wing drop in aircraft that have benign stall characteristics, instructors are prone fake the manoeuvre by deliberately mishandling the aircraft into an unusual attitude which in itself is not only extremely unlikely but has the potential to weaken the aircraft structure in the long term. For example, by pulling the nose high with power applied then applying significant rudder to skid the aircraft into dropping a wing while it is not stalled but pretending to be stalled for the purpose of the exercise. Side loads can be significant and not considered by the aircraft designer.
Some instructors including those on ultralights are known to be quite violent with the flight controls as they attempt to force a wing drop in an aircraft that has already benign (by design) stall characteristics. Inducing a fake wing drop by deliberately placing an aircraft into an undesirable state but not actually stalled, is stretching the friendship a little too far merely to tick the box.
CASA needs to address this problem. Brief the actions to counter a wing drop at the point of stall by all means; but avoid playing silly buggers in the air.
Certification flight tests by qualified test pilots are not “rigged” to induce a wing drop at the point of stall if the aircraft already exhibits benign stall characteristics.
Not only that but certain designs may have difficulty recovering from a fully developed, stable, spin. Thus if a keen instructor were to hold full into spin rudder and full back stick for one revolution too many, it may well be the last silly thing he does.
Nevertheless demonstrating competence in recovery from incipient spins, (say within half a turn?) is a worthy box to tick.
I’m not sure merely being able to brief the recovery actions will be enough. Or maybe it is because the possibility of entering an unintended spin in today’s designs is almost negligible such that training for it is more of a risk.
You’re right, it is a conundrum.
Nevertheless demonstrating competence in recovery from incipient spins, (say within half a turn?) is a worthy box to tick.
I’m not sure merely being able to brief the recovery actions will be enough. Or maybe it is because the possibility of entering an unintended spin in today’s designs is almost negligible such that training for it is more of a risk.
You’re right, it is a conundrum.
I think it's a false sense of security for pilots to believe that modern designs are almost possible to wing drop, therefore not require such training.
Since a high proportion os students never even balance the aircraft on climbout with right rudder (left on Yaks of course), or never practise stalls whilst at full power, they pretty much become solo test pilots when it stalls for real - with a wing drop. Then they pull back harder, or apply opposite aileron, or a thousand other things they shouldn't do.
Since a high proportion os students never even balance the aircraft on climbout with right rudder (left on Yaks of course), or never practise stalls whilst at full power, they pretty much become solo test pilots when it stalls for real - with a wing drop. Then they pull back harder, or apply opposite aileron, or a thousand other things they shouldn't do.
I used to do a demo for students (in a Piper Warrior) of a full power climbing right turn.. I'd chat to them as the speed bled off - and then point out that I now had full right aileron as the aircraft rolled left in the stall (outer wing has the higher angle of attack in the climbing turn).
The demo served to point out:
1. How "easy" it is to enter an inadvertant stall when you aren't paying attention.
2. How a stall is recongnised as basically "any time the aircraft doesn't answer the controls."
3. Pushing forward on the stick is the answer to almost all of your problems.
The students were generally impressed at the roll against full opposite aileron - most never believed an aircraft would do that (training aircraft being so docile.)
The demo served to point out:
1. How "easy" it is to enter an inadvertant stall when you aren't paying attention.
2. How a stall is recongnised as basically "any time the aircraft doesn't answer the controls."
3. Pushing forward on the stick is the answer to almost all of your problems.
The students were generally impressed at the roll against full opposite aileron - most never believed an aircraft would do that (training aircraft being so docile.)
I'm wondering if all this dumbed down training and the crop of "docile" training aircraft aren't setting up those produced in this manner for a serious 'fall'.
What happens when one of the currently being trained crop manages to get their hands on a not designed to be docile aircraft. They may be lucky enough to get into a Tiger Moth, a Chippy or a Texan. Heaven forbid they ever get enough money to own and fly a Mustang or a Spitfire
What happens then with all their wing drop training in a docile training aircraft. Even if they never manage to get into one of these sorts of aircraft.
I imagine their initial twin training will be a very steep learning experience and come as some what of a shock to their 'docile' aircraft handling knowledge, that's if they even understand what is actually happening.
I expect it will be a few years before we will know.
CC
What happens when one of the currently being trained crop manages to get their hands on a not designed to be docile aircraft. They may be lucky enough to get into a Tiger Moth, a Chippy or a Texan. Heaven forbid they ever get enough money to own and fly a Mustang or a Spitfire
What happens then with all their wing drop training in a docile training aircraft. Even if they never manage to get into one of these sorts of aircraft.
I imagine their initial twin training will be a very steep learning experience and come as some what of a shock to their 'docile' aircraft handling knowledge, that's if they even understand what is actually happening.
I expect it will be a few years before we will know.
CC
One instructor told me about an airline mate who told him he learned to fly in a spin proof aircraft.
"Oh yeah? what type was that?"
"Cessna 172."
"Oh yeah? what type was that?"
"Cessna 172."
