Dumping Height: Why not stall?
PPRuNe Knight in Shining Armour
Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 503
Likes: 0
From: Everywhere in the UK, but not home!
Come on people, in what lesson did your instructor teach you how to stall descend and
.
Well.......??????
So why do some of you think it's all right to do it once you've got a PPL.
Do not deliberately stall the aircraft if you cannot recover by 3000' agl
Stalling greatly increases the risk of inducing a spin fact. You can lose height very rapidly in a spin say 1000 ft in 10-15 secs. fact. If you stall close to the ground and spin as a consequence, you will, in all probability die in the wreckage.
And stop being so childish, I've seen a lot worse than whatunion on these boards in my time, leave the sniping out, you're only lowering yourselves to the level at which you perceive he is at!
"float" down onto something soft
Well.......??????
So why do some of you think it's all right to do it once you've got a PPL.
Do not deliberately stall the aircraft if you cannot recover by 3000' agl
Stalling greatly increases the risk of inducing a spin fact. You can lose height very rapidly in a spin say 1000 ft in 10-15 secs. fact. If you stall close to the ground and spin as a consequence, you will, in all probability die in the wreckage.
And stop being so childish, I've seen a lot worse than whatunion on these boards in my time, leave the sniping out, you're only lowering yourselves to the level at which you perceive he is at!
Thread Starter
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 716
Likes: 7
From: London
Snigs: In the aerobatic fraternity there isn't a fixed "not below [x]". 3000ft might be yours (and as it happens it's mine too for spinning), but it's not everyones. Some higher some lower.
MQ: Thanks for the info about the 2160 on full flap. I'll give that a try next time I'm out to play.
MQ: Thanks for the info about the 2160 on full flap. I'll give that a try next time I'm out to play.
Joined: Dec 2001
Aviation Qualifications: Military
Posts: 1,286
Likes: 20
From: I have no idea but the view's great.
I'm trying hard to ignore whatunion but, I'm afraid, I need his expertise on one point that he raised.
As an instructor would you be kind enough to explain to me which laws of physics have been altered.
a lot has changed since the birch and bramson era, but generally very little has been changed by those of that era.
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
From: london
sorry fd, it was me that mentioned you had a better chance with horizontal impact than vertical, you see you do read my posts after all.
i dont mind you ignoring me but before you totally ignore me can i just mention this to you all
FNG posted this
No one has advocated stalling to lose height, and even we mere PPLs appreciate that stalling is (crikey!) dangerous.
i will say that again and as i know you guys like capitals
NO ONE HAS ADVOCATED STALLING TO LOOSE HEIGHT. strange really but the title of the original post is DUMPING HEIGHT: WHY NOT STALL. someone is very confused here.
someone mentioned parts of my post, thank you for going to the trouble of reproducing them.
May be you can elaborate and explain to us lesser gods how you can:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
even on a calm day with an inversion the shear can be extreme.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
sorry are you asking me, can you get shear with an inversion if so the answer is yes and it can be marked. a good quality avaition met book will explain it to you.
And how a pilot of your great knowledge and ability get themselves in a situation whereby:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i went into a farm strip on top of a hill in wales and the sink was such that even with full power we could not change the sink from 600 fpm until we reached an updraft near the end of the strip which allowed to go around.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
thats an easy one, first of all you will never hear me say i have great knowledge about flying or any other subject, i can only tell you what i have experienced in my experience, sorry if that offends.
i took off from an aerodrome were the weather was considerably different from the weather we encountered at the farm, the weather or more correctly the wind was not forecasted to be of the nature we experienced. it was assumed i would land at the farm. the owner of the airfield was there waiting for us and he signalled with a lamp saying it was safe to land. from where he was standing i am sure it was. i was at the time a low houred instructor with a reasonable knbowledge of strip flying. i felt quite confident until i got into the last 3-400ft of the approach then i realised i was in an area of sink the like of i had never experienced before. i applied full power and raised the flap in stages but the a/c continued down towards the runway at around 600 fpm. at that stage i though i was just going to hit the runway, eventually we caught a updraught.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe you need to get the relevant bits of your ATPL syllabus out and revise the appropriate bits on meteorology and aircraft performance.
---------------------------------------------------------------
i found the old long hand cpl syllabus much more useful but agree some of us need to revise our thoughts. the most useful information wont be found in either syllabus. that's to go around if you are unsure and do not land at an airfield if you are not happy with the conditions. its something that lead to me being laughed at and called a coward but its something i still abide by even with 200 passengers behind me.
And:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i have also encountered standing wave rotor where there was only 10 knots in the sock. the sink/turbulence was so bad that when the the glider tug took off it snapped the tow rope to the glider.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is to prove what?
That you were operating a glider tug combination without a weak-link or that the rope you use is of inferior quality?
__________________________________________
i wasnt operating the tug or the glider, you completely missed the point. the tow rope to my knowledge has never in my experience at that airfield broken before.
in all the flying i have done from alaska to finland i have never come across such violent turbulence even at high altitude or over mountains in light a/c. my lasting memory is of the ignition key fob going from the down natural position to the uppermost position on the coaming/ins panel. it was the most frightening experience i have ever encountered in any a/c. the cfi an ex wartime pilot returned saying he had never known turbulence like it.
my point is that had you phoned that airfield in the morning and asked them if it was a good day for flying they would have said yes, until they flew in it. we were all suprised because there was only 10 kts in the sock.
to answer your question which you really should know as its been the subject of a multitude of saftey directives and information circulars is:
you may get a big suprise in the last 500 feet with an engine out. its always best to have some speed and height in hand rather than what this post suggests which is the opposite and could be downright dangerous. the sink or shear in the last 500 feet may cause you to undershoot with an accompanied increase in descent rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have come accross many like our friend Whatunion, being Irish and a big fella, my Mission Statement was "Please do not give me crap like this as a smack in the mouth may offend"
John Anderson
-----------------------------------------------
being irish and big too my mission statement is, please dont let the irish down with statements like this, its not very original and only gives succour to the thick irish and terrorist jokes.
i dont mind you ignoring me but before you totally ignore me can i just mention this to you all
FNG posted this
No one has advocated stalling to lose height, and even we mere PPLs appreciate that stalling is (crikey!) dangerous.
i will say that again and as i know you guys like capitals
NO ONE HAS ADVOCATED STALLING TO LOOSE HEIGHT. strange really but the title of the original post is DUMPING HEIGHT: WHY NOT STALL. someone is very confused here.
someone mentioned parts of my post, thank you for going to the trouble of reproducing them.
May be you can elaborate and explain to us lesser gods how you can:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
even on a calm day with an inversion the shear can be extreme.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
sorry are you asking me, can you get shear with an inversion if so the answer is yes and it can be marked. a good quality avaition met book will explain it to you.
And how a pilot of your great knowledge and ability get themselves in a situation whereby:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i went into a farm strip on top of a hill in wales and the sink was such that even with full power we could not change the sink from 600 fpm until we reached an updraft near the end of the strip which allowed to go around.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
thats an easy one, first of all you will never hear me say i have great knowledge about flying or any other subject, i can only tell you what i have experienced in my experience, sorry if that offends.
i took off from an aerodrome were the weather was considerably different from the weather we encountered at the farm, the weather or more correctly the wind was not forecasted to be of the nature we experienced. it was assumed i would land at the farm. the owner of the airfield was there waiting for us and he signalled with a lamp saying it was safe to land. from where he was standing i am sure it was. i was at the time a low houred instructor with a reasonable knbowledge of strip flying. i felt quite confident until i got into the last 3-400ft of the approach then i realised i was in an area of sink the like of i had never experienced before. i applied full power and raised the flap in stages but the a/c continued down towards the runway at around 600 fpm. at that stage i though i was just going to hit the runway, eventually we caught a updraught.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe you need to get the relevant bits of your ATPL syllabus out and revise the appropriate bits on meteorology and aircraft performance.
---------------------------------------------------------------
i found the old long hand cpl syllabus much more useful but agree some of us need to revise our thoughts. the most useful information wont be found in either syllabus. that's to go around if you are unsure and do not land at an airfield if you are not happy with the conditions. its something that lead to me being laughed at and called a coward but its something i still abide by even with 200 passengers behind me.
And:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i have also encountered standing wave rotor where there was only 10 knots in the sock. the sink/turbulence was so bad that when the the glider tug took off it snapped the tow rope to the glider.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is to prove what?
That you were operating a glider tug combination without a weak-link or that the rope you use is of inferior quality?
__________________________________________
i wasnt operating the tug or the glider, you completely missed the point. the tow rope to my knowledge has never in my experience at that airfield broken before.
in all the flying i have done from alaska to finland i have never come across such violent turbulence even at high altitude or over mountains in light a/c. my lasting memory is of the ignition key fob going from the down natural position to the uppermost position on the coaming/ins panel. it was the most frightening experience i have ever encountered in any a/c. the cfi an ex wartime pilot returned saying he had never known turbulence like it.
my point is that had you phoned that airfield in the morning and asked them if it was a good day for flying they would have said yes, until they flew in it. we were all suprised because there was only 10 kts in the sock.
to answer your question which you really should know as its been the subject of a multitude of saftey directives and information circulars is:
you may get a big suprise in the last 500 feet with an engine out. its always best to have some speed and height in hand rather than what this post suggests which is the opposite and could be downright dangerous. the sink or shear in the last 500 feet may cause you to undershoot with an accompanied increase in descent rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have come accross many like our friend Whatunion, being Irish and a big fella, my Mission Statement was "Please do not give me crap like this as a smack in the mouth may offend"
John Anderson
-----------------------------------------------
being irish and big too my mission statement is, please dont let the irish down with statements like this, its not very original and only gives succour to the thick irish and terrorist jokes.
Last edited by whatunion; 20th June 2004 at 11:27.
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 479
Likes: 0
From: Enniskillen
I said "I don't like Cessna singles in much over 20 knots accross".
You said 35 knots accross in a 150 is no problem.
I think is is a problem (even for Cessna's own demo pilots)
So therefore I think you are either bulls..ting or silly.
Tony
You said 35 knots accross in a 150 is no problem.
I think is is a problem (even for Cessna's own demo pilots)
So therefore I think you are either bulls..ting or silly.
Tony
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
From: 75N 16E
I read an interesting article about gliding and mountain waves. A glider / tug combo flew into the wave somewhere in north America, the glider experienced 15G, the wings fell of the tow plane, the rope snapped, and the tug pilot bailed out (sucessfully). The glider stayed in one piece and landed.
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 3,130
Likes: 17
From: U.K.
Stalls only need to be recovered by 2000' NOT 3000' as is always put about.
Following on from FAA Oldtimer, if you are stuck above a layer with only a small hole below AND you are proficient with the spin recovery in the particular type you are flying, then why not spin down through the hole?
Too many people are scared to explore the limits of their a/c as well their own capabilites.
It's all to easy to shout "thou shalt not........" about alot of things in aviation, but until you've been in a particular situation then judging the right and wrongs of somebody's actions is always going to be mostly guesswork.
Stalling itself is not dangerous, smacking into the ground a high sink rate is what kills you not the stall.
With so many students terrified of stalling, I always took them up high, stalled the a/c and held it there for a couple of thousand feet, talking and showing what I was doing and what was happening to the machine. This usually helped calm most of the terror that was felt about stalls.
Stall+yaw = Spin. Yes it does, but in most light a/c such as cessnas and PA28's, you really have to try b*oody hard to get them to drop into a spin. So it's not as dangerous as people like to make out. (I still wouldn't recommend either close to the ground.)
Like anything, is stalling to lose height sensible? Up to the individual. I'd be perfectly happy doing it in a machine I'm familiar with, but then again I've done more than a few stalling exercises in the past few years.
One thing I was always taught by someone alot wiser than me. "Don't try anything new in an emergency unless you've exhausted every other option..." Have a go on a nice CAVOK sunny day, see what happens, then make you're own decisions. After all, even if you are a solo student, you're still the a/c commander and it's your a*se on the line.
Following on from FAA Oldtimer, if you are stuck above a layer with only a small hole below AND you are proficient with the spin recovery in the particular type you are flying, then why not spin down through the hole?
Too many people are scared to explore the limits of their a/c as well their own capabilites.
It's all to easy to shout "thou shalt not........" about alot of things in aviation, but until you've been in a particular situation then judging the right and wrongs of somebody's actions is always going to be mostly guesswork.
Stalling itself is not dangerous, smacking into the ground a high sink rate is what kills you not the stall.
With so many students terrified of stalling, I always took them up high, stalled the a/c and held it there for a couple of thousand feet, talking and showing what I was doing and what was happening to the machine. This usually helped calm most of the terror that was felt about stalls.
Stall+yaw = Spin. Yes it does, but in most light a/c such as cessnas and PA28's, you really have to try b*oody hard to get them to drop into a spin. So it's not as dangerous as people like to make out. (I still wouldn't recommend either close to the ground.)
Like anything, is stalling to lose height sensible? Up to the individual. I'd be perfectly happy doing it in a machine I'm familiar with, but then again I've done more than a few stalling exercises in the past few years.
One thing I was always taught by someone alot wiser than me. "Don't try anything new in an emergency unless you've exhausted every other option..." Have a go on a nice CAVOK sunny day, see what happens, then make you're own decisions. After all, even if you are a solo student, you're still the a/c commander and it's your a*se on the line.
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
From: london
somegreat advice there
but quote
Stalling itself is not dangerous, smacking into the ground a high sink rate is what kills you not the stall.
have you ever noticed that a/c are never dangerous until a pilot gets into them.
unfortunately stalling is an area of flight normally occuring at the low and slow phase.
but quote
Stalling itself is not dangerous, smacking into the ground a high sink rate is what kills you not the stall.
have you ever noticed that a/c are never dangerous until a pilot gets into them.
unfortunately stalling is an area of flight normally occuring at the low and slow phase.
Joined: Dec 2001
Aviation Qualifications: Military
Posts: 1,286
Likes: 20
From: I have no idea but the view's great.
whatunion
Thanks for clearing up my query, didn't think that they'd changed, but it's always safer to check.
Nice to see you've got those numbers mastered, for the next lesson we'll move things on a bit and introduce spelling, I know it's a new concept for you but it's really not as difficult as some would make out. If you could just read up on apostrophes before the next lesson we'll have you solo on that keyboard within the year.
Thanks for clearing up my query, didn't think that they'd changed, but it's always safer to check.
Nice to see you've got those numbers mastered, for the next lesson we'll move things on a bit and introduce spelling, I know it's a new concept for you but it's really not as difficult as some would make out. If you could just read up on apostrophes before the next lesson we'll have you solo on that keyboard within the year.
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 3,130
Likes: 17
From: U.K.
Yep. Inadvertant stalling and spinning kills people at low level, but I hope nobody is advocating stalling at low level, just losing height with plenty below you.
Actually I've seen more people stall at high speed and at altitude then near the ground, but that's after teaching aero's for a while! (Why does everybody either pull too hard at the bottom of a loop or fall off the top?)
JAFO, whatunion's tone may be slightly grating but I think everybody should grow up a bit don't you?
Actually I've seen more people stall at high speed and at altitude then near the ground, but that's after teaching aero's for a while! (Why does everybody either pull too hard at the bottom of a loop or fall off the top?)
JAFO, whatunion's tone may be slightly grating but I think everybody should grow up a bit don't you?
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
From: london
sas, i wasnt thinking of you i was referring to teaching aero's.
student falls out of the bottom of the loop. with a nose low attitude and as per standard recovery selects full power which increases height loss, any thoughts
student falls out of the bottom of the loop. with a nose low attitude and as per standard recovery selects full power which increases height loss, any thoughts
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
From: london
someone asked about windshear and inversions.
here is a link that can explain it
http://www.pilotfriend.com/flight_tr...G%20WINDS1.htm
here is a link that can explain it
http://www.pilotfriend.com/flight_tr...G%20WINDS1.htm
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 3,130
Likes: 17
From: U.K.
I don't really like advocating a 'standard' recovery whilst doing aeros'. More along the lines of Nose high, speed reducing or nose low, speed increasing and then having a different recovery for each.
The extra height loss would be minimal, especially if you take into account the extra elevator force when you have lots of slipstream at full power. This is a contentious issue and I certainly don't have an impirical data to support any view apart from personal experience.
But if falling out of the top of a loop, then the 'standard' system works O.K, but you have to be careful about speed increasing too quickly and overspeeding the prop if you don't have a CSU.
The extra height loss would be minimal, especially if you take into account the extra elevator force when you have lots of slipstream at full power. This is a contentious issue and I certainly don't have an impirical data to support any view apart from personal experience.
But if falling out of the top of a loop, then the 'standard' system works O.K, but you have to be careful about speed increasing too quickly and overspeeding the prop if you don't have a CSU.
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,414
Likes: 2
From: Europe
w,
Just quickly:
1. Yes you can get shear with an inversion, very much so, but not on a calm day.
2. Going around is something which may well be the best plan of action, I was merely surprised that someone who professes to be such an experienced hand got caught out by something as mundane as downdraught on approach to a hill strip.
See what your saying about conditions being different from forecast but we PPLs and certainly studes should be able to expect even a low hours instructor to reassess the weather/wind situation during the flight.
3. Windspeed and turbulence can but do not have to be linked.
4. Think you have mellowed at bit, which is nice.
FD
Just quickly:
1. Yes you can get shear with an inversion, very much so, but not on a calm day.
2. Going around is something which may well be the best plan of action, I was merely surprised that someone who professes to be such an experienced hand got caught out by something as mundane as downdraught on approach to a hill strip.
See what your saying about conditions being different from forecast but we PPLs and certainly studes should be able to expect even a low hours instructor to reassess the weather/wind situation during the flight.
3. Windspeed and turbulence can but do not have to be linked.
4. Think you have mellowed at bit, which is nice.
FD
