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.

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.

you need to read and understand your own link pilotchute :rolleyes:

I took it down instead. How could I possibly have had a differing view

Actually they don't say that at all.

They say My bolding.

Once the the aircraft is unstalled the ailerons are used to roll the wings level.

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.

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.

Previous thread.

Wing dropping stall recovery. [Archive] - PPRuNe Forums

Pieces from the net.

andAnd 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.

Would you really use it to pick the wing up, i.e. level your wings, or just as I think most people are saying, to prevent it dropping further while you're using forward stick to unstall the wings, then level them with aileron as you continue the recovery?

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.

Rudders
 

Rudder, in general, for yaw

Have a look at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_587

If you ignore the wing drop for a moment and JUST PUSH FORWARD most types will recover nicely. ;)

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. :)

Very true. Perhaps you should have included promptly levelling the wings with aileron immediately the stall is broken.

Yep, but that is secondary - the pushing forward unstalls the wings, after that you do what you need to do! ;)

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.

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.

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.

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.

Folks,
Rounsounds suggests this should be investigated by CASA.

I agree, that CASA should investigate itself, as the poor sod who is the butt of this thread is only "demonstrating" the competency required to be demonstrated by CASA.

See CASA (in)competency standards for pilots. 'tis all in black (or maybe blue) and white.


In the CASA "one size fits all" world, full opposite rudder is the prescribed corrective action for a wing drop at or near the point of stall.

That this "one size fits all" is almost never appropriate (depending on the aircraft) is too subtle for CASA. That "full opposite rudder" at the point of a stall is the recommended method of spin entry for a number of aircraft is probably "lost" on CASA experts. Or that some aircraft at the stalling angle of attack have the rudder almost completely blanketed, but the ailerons remain effective, due the design.

The real answer is "Know your stuff, and which aeroplane you happen to be flying today".

Just one further pertinent question: Why would anybody think that CASA has the competence to look into this matter of CASA incompetence, and come to a competent answer??

Tootle pip!!

MOS unit A5.2 - Recover from incipient spin:

a) perform pre-manoeuvre checks
b) recognise an incipient spin
c) use the aeroplane's attitude and power controls to execute an incipient spin manoeuvre from the following flight conditions and, using correct recovery technique, regain straight and level flight with height loss commensurate with that available attitude (simulated ground base may be set)
(i) straight and level flight
(ii) climbing
(ii) turning

Nothing there about applying full opposite rudder.

nor is it in section A5.1 in stall recovery competencies - that has just the following

for various stall recovery scenarios

Where does CASA say always use full rudder? :confused:

What, then, does CASA say is the "correct recovery technique"?

From immediate memory both Piper Colt and Maule, (and many others), have interconnected rudder and ailerons. Application of either will correspond with a reaction not fully anticipated in the alleged CAsA advice. I could go on with evidence of an interconnection being tampered with on a Maule but it's all written up in "The Phelan Papers". I think the advice is sound for the Sopwith Camel though and even then the engine needs to have the fuel turned off. 'Blipping" tends to exaggerate the situation.

CASA says stuff in the Flight Instructor Manual.

djpil is correct - in the new replacement document for the old "pub 45" manual for guidance of instructors it describes instructors stress the importance of using rudder not aileron to prevent yaw in stall recovery.

I can't find where CASA ever says to use full rudder in stall recovery anywhere though (happy to be proved wrong).

The OP's report doesn't reveal how they came across this 'full rudder' technique being taught. Was it from a first hand experience with an instructor (eg when doing an instructors rating renewal) or was it reported to the OP by a student? Is it possible there has been some miscommunication about what was being shown and that is not what is being taught? And on what aircraft?

Straight from the CASA Flight Instructor Manual.

Regardless of all the theory in the world on stall recovery there is nothing a bit of time in an aerobatic rated aircraft won't fix in a few minutes.

I was fortune to indulge in exploring deep stalls in a Bellanca Decathlon as part of my training - 5 fully stalled complete spins was the then legal limit which gave one plenty of time to appreciate the stable state of a stalled aircraft and room to think.

The topic of this thread reminds me of a story I read in Charles Kingsford Smith's unofficial autobiography. He was pax in a RPT twin in South America when noticing the engines were full bore and the plane was not climbing. He made his way to the cockpit only to see a mountain range dead ahead that the pilots were going to drive straight into. He told the pilots to drop the nose to pick up speed to achieve a better rate of climb. As CKS would say "always fly the wing" - something Bob Hoover was great at demonstrating.

Fair enough John, but I would have thought that the delay in introducing power would be specified to simulate the difference between a test pilot who was expecting the stall to occur and a 'real' pilot perhaps, a bit like where they have a certain time between rolling off power and lowering the collective in rotary wing autorotation tests?

The reason I say that is that I've never seen a stall recovery procedure from a flight manual that says to delay the introduction of power - not saying it's never done, just never seen it in the types I've flown.

Some of the experienced TPs about the place have strongly antipathetic views about slamming on thrust at the point of stall recovery, for what it may be worth to the typical pilots out there.

My concern is that folks should be aware of the typical certification animal so that they can consider the potential for pitfalls doing the usual minimum height loss style of recovery.

Similar concerns for when one should initiate recovery. The stall procedure has varied somewhat over the years and, sometimes, not knowing what the certification was can present some excitement. For instance, a tale related at a FT course I did years ago .. by a very experienced instructor TP .. concerned a USAF student TP in a well-known civil light twin .. thought it would be interesting to progress into the stall to see what happened.

Aircraft flicked into an inverted spin.

The instructor knew what was about to happen, the student learnt a lesson about doing his history homework rather than making it up on the fly. For that particular aircraft, the rules of the day had the recovery commencing promptly.

Not knowing what the OEM really did can have surprising consequences. Generally, the pilot only has the AFM/POH guidance and, if he is interested, a review of the TCDS and relevant issue design standards documents.

Re full power immediately for stall recovery
 

As a digression - Immmediate power application is something Airbus pilots (and others no doubt)are 'unlearning' in the sim.

Airbus say (amongst other things) nose over to break the stall then, when no symptoms exist, then gently increase power.

Also at high altitude a good whack of nose down >10deg has less height loss than a 5 degree or so nose down. Your ROD might be double, but your speed recovery out of the symptoms happens in under half the time.

And back on topic, and Airbus also says level the wings simultaneously with decreasing the AoA.

FWIW, I recall being taught to hold the control column level and recover with rudders at one of three linked schools at Moorabbin in the early 90s.....

it is worth reading both chapters 9 and 13. I wonder if the various authors/editors bothered to read what others had written or retained from the old one?


no such limit that I'm aware of however the current FAR 23 puts a limit of 6 turns on new types/models certified.

I show this video to students as part of the pre flight briefing for the slow flight and stalling exercise. There are lots of contributing human factors which the student needs to identify, but look what happens at the end when he applies full rudder.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nm_hoHhbFo

There are mistakes in the CASA Jandakot Visual Pilot Guide too. When I asked CASA about this, eg the taxi call for VFR including "request clearance" which had controllers snarling I was told with a shrug "It's not a controlled document". The reference is the AIP, not the CASA guide.

Similarly, the reference for instructors is the MOS, not the Flight Instructor Manual. I have encountered newly trained instructors and students coming up for test who have never seen or heard of the MOS.

Clare Prop,
The relevant section was a wing drop in a stall, not incipient spins.
If the offending "full opposite rudder" is no longer in the MOS as described, at least some notice has been taken of "industry input", which is a good thing --- I certainly had an "animated" discussion on the subject at "the highest levels of CASA" --- at an SCC meeting, including Skidmore.
I must look it up and check, when I have the time, and nothing else is pressing.
I am bound to comment that too many of you are into a "one size fits all" mindset, even if different sizes, based on various posts, consider carefully the wise words of John T., and know which aeroplane you are flying.
They ain't all the same!!
Tootle pip!!

Some power on, rapid stick back and simultaneous full rudder. Flick roll. :( Sad. Awful.

Not quite the scenario being discussed here but one I think has happened many times in GA and students need to have thought about (and even better simulated dual at altitude) is with a rough running engine, ie partial power, trying to stretch a glide to make a field and needing to turn the aircraft to line up with the field and also having a wariness to bank the aeroplane low to the ground so the pilot unconsciously starts booting in rudder to skid the aeroplane around onto final.

I sometimes used to set up that scenario (at altitude and with a briefing beforehand of course) with some students and on BFRs.

My old man had a rhyme he was taught ab initio in the RAAF on Tiger Moths

This is the section about recovery from a stall.

A5.1 – Enter and recover from stall

(a) perform pre-manoeuvre checks for stalling;

(b) recognise stall signs and symptoms;

(c) control the aeroplane by applying the required pitch, roll and yaw inputs as appropriate in a smooth, coordinated manner, trims aeroplane accurately to enter and recover from the following manoeuvres:

(i) incipient stall;

(ii) except for multi-engine aeroplanes, stall with full power applied;

(iii) stall without power applied;

(iv) stall under the following conditions:

(A) straight and level flight;

(B) except for multi-engine aeroplanes, climbing;

(C) except for multi-engine aeroplanes, descending;

(D) approach to land configuration;

(E) except for multi-engine aeroplanes, turning;

(d) perform stall recovery as follows:

(i) positively reduce angle of attach;

(ii) use power available and excess height to increase the aircraft energy state;

(iii) minimise height loss for simulated low altitude condition;

(iv) re-establish desired flight path and aircraft control;

(e) recover from stall in simulated partial and complete engine failure configurations.


Let me know what your definition is of "incipient spin" The only amendments to the MOS since it became a legislative instrument in 2014 have been for ATPL and IR test . There has never been anything in the MOS about "full opposite rudder" it is one of the many Old Wives Tales that we come across.

Absolutely agree the one size fits all thing is not appropriate and is lazy/ignorant instructing. I see it a lot particularly relating to the use of carb heat and electric fuel pump in PA28s. Don't get me started on CSU power settings... "My instructor told me" does not override the POH.

A couple of points there which might be pushing the certification tick in the box.

Possibly be a good idea to have the studes read through the relevant bits of FAR 23 and AC 23-8 (versions appropriate to the particular training Type - ref TCDS) to get some background prior to frightening themselves.

There isn't, necessarily, a danger in doing something different to the certification .. just a potential concern that something surprising might turn up along the way and then the pilot is on his/her Mat Malone. If the bit which is surprising has some underlying problems for recovery, that just might be beyond the non-FT knowledgeable trainee pilot ?