Stalling in an Airliner
Guest
Posts: n/a
Stalling in an Airliner
As a humble line pilot, no one has ever trained me to get my current (or any of my six previous) type (s), out of a stall.
On the other hand, on my FIRST type, it was hammered into me and subsequently reinforced by full spin training.
I see a few stall/ spin events recently ( Turkish, Colgan, maybe AF447)
Why not train fully developed stall in the sim?.....at least.
Can't be that expensive surely?
Well, at least compared to the Turkish, Colgan maybe AF447 accidents. What did they cost?
Frankly, if I continue at the rate I'm going, I'll soon no longer be able to fly an aeroplane without an autopilot.
Will I still be a pilot?
On the other hand, on my FIRST type, it was hammered into me and subsequently reinforced by full spin training.
I see a few stall/ spin events recently ( Turkish, Colgan, maybe AF447)
Why not train fully developed stall in the sim?.....at least.
Can't be that expensive surely?
Well, at least compared to the Turkish, Colgan maybe AF447 accidents. What did they cost?
Frankly, if I continue at the rate I'm going, I'll soon no longer be able to fly an aeroplane without an autopilot.
Will I still be a pilot?
Last edited by BarbiesBoyfriend; 15th Jun 2011 at 23:23.
Stalling In The Sim
Why not train fully developed stall in the sim?.....at least.
Ed
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,098
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not so very long ago, (well, 1980!), I seem to remember stall recovery was one of the 'boxed' items on an 1179 type rating, i.e. had to be done in the actual aircraft. I recall doing stalls in a B737-200 somewhere over Essex with the late Chuck Thrower during my UK rating for the B737.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: A tropical island.
Posts: 461
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stalls are done as part of the certification process for a new type, they used to also be done in house after heavy checks before putting the airplane online. The "hold [pilots] by their hands" and "don't do anything 'risky'" mentality that has taken over at most airlines today prevents any real flying or knowledge of the airplane outside of the normal flight envelope from occurring/developing.
As a side note, at my carrier we train to a full stall (with break) in the simulator. It's not part of checking, but it is part of recurrent training.
Well the engines aren't supposed to quit, we're not supposed to bank past 30, cabins not supposed to go above 10K etc. etc., but we train/demonstrate all of that (not necessarily check). Any carrier that doesn't train to a full stall and any aircraft that hasn't been stalled as part of certification should not be in the air.
As a side note, at my carrier we train to a full stall (with break) in the simulator. It's not part of checking, but it is part of recurrent training.
Probably because the flight control system is supposed to keep the plane from stalling in the first place
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 299
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On a similar note, what about water ditching training? Is that part of the simulator protocol yet? After the textbook ditching on the Hudson I'd assume there's some motivation there?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: A tropical island.
Posts: 461
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The FAA only requires training for "an approach to the stall". Same as AF. And AB.
BB asks:- Why not train fully developed stall in the sim?.....at least.
If you are going to do this you need to be very clear as to what are the limitations of your simulator. The simulator is programmed with the test data from the manufacurer's stall tests which are reasonable extensive, and this data is then extended using wind tunnel data and aerodynamic formulae.
For example, there is no reliable data for stalls at high altitude, at high Mach No, at very high AoAs, or with large amounts of sideslip. When using simulators, trainers need to remain close to the 'relatively normal' flight envelope. If they get much outside this the simulator is probably not reproducing accurately the responses of the real aircraft and the conclusions the trainers and their pupils may draw could be very misleading. Yes, I believe that stall training for airline pilots in simulators should be rather more extensive than it seems to be at the moment but beware the limitations.
No test pilot will have ever put a large civil aircraft willingly into the very high AoA experienced by AF447 - it would be far too dangerous.
If you are going to do this you need to be very clear as to what are the limitations of your simulator. The simulator is programmed with the test data from the manufacurer's stall tests which are reasonable extensive, and this data is then extended using wind tunnel data and aerodynamic formulae.
For example, there is no reliable data for stalls at high altitude, at high Mach No, at very high AoAs, or with large amounts of sideslip. When using simulators, trainers need to remain close to the 'relatively normal' flight envelope. If they get much outside this the simulator is probably not reproducing accurately the responses of the real aircraft and the conclusions the trainers and their pupils may draw could be very misleading. Yes, I believe that stall training for airline pilots in simulators should be rather more extensive than it seems to be at the moment but beware the limitations.
No test pilot will have ever put a large civil aircraft willingly into the very high AoA experienced by AF447 - it would be far too dangerous.
DC-10s have been in deep enough stalls to wrinkle the ailerons and tear the elevator counterbalance horns off. Yeh, they flew home afterward.
Guest
Posts: n/a
OK
For clarification, please let me re-state my point more clearly.
If it's vitally important to learn how to recover your Cessna 150 from a full stall while in initial training with only the two of you onboard....
Why is not even worth looking at when you've got an aircraft full of fare paying?
And perleeease, don't say "cos it aint going to happen"!
I realise the limitations of the sim, etc but don't tell me such training can not be done. Surely, this is precisely, what sims are there for?
For clarification, please let me re-state my point more clearly.
If it's vitally important to learn how to recover your Cessna 150 from a full stall while in initial training with only the two of you onboard....
Why is not even worth looking at when you've got an aircraft full of fare paying?
And perleeease, don't say "cos it aint going to happen"!
I realise the limitations of the sim, etc but don't tell me such training can not be done. Surely, this is precisely, what sims are there for?
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BBf, I understand exactly where you are coming from as there appears to a distressing trend emerging that supposedly competent pilots with "appropriate" training are stalling their aircraft.
However, surely the purpose of stalling the C150 is to show you what happens so that you will avoid doing so in the future. It would seem that some pilots have forgotten that lesson.
However, surely the purpose of stalling the C150 is to show you what happens so that you will avoid doing so in the future. It would seem that some pilots have forgotten that lesson.
Guest
Posts: n/a
P Lovett
Sure. But different aircraft react in different ways when stalled.
Surely the point of a 'Type conversion' is to learn about these differences?
Loss of control' is becoming the new Gotcha. Recovery at the shaker is all very well, but surely there is a trend emerging here, and it's one that could be dealt with synthetically!
Sure. But different aircraft react in different ways when stalled.
Surely the point of a 'Type conversion' is to learn about these differences?
Loss of control' is becoming the new Gotcha. Recovery at the shaker is all very well, but surely there is a trend emerging here, and it's one that could be dealt with synthetically!
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 299
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For example, there is no reliable data for stalls at high altitude, at high Mach No, at very high AoAs, or with large amounts of sideslip.
No test pilot will have ever put a large civil aircraft willingly into the very high AoA experienced by AF447 - it would be far too dangerous.
Might get us a lot more data of the edge-of-envelope sort.....
Moderator
Good idea for a coffee discussion but a number of problems -
(a) typical sim is a big PC in drag on steroids. The software perambulations are either
(i) within defined boundary conditions derived from FT or wind tunnel work and should have some correlation with reality. Otherwise -
(ii) playing in the box can only be based on guesswork extrapolation. Probably not too bad for controlled flight within a small delta from the certificated envelope but generally GIGO when it comes to post stall departure regimes. Just what training value might be obtained is moot. I, for one, wouldn't waste time in the box on such activities as there are many far more useful playtime uses of benefit to the guys and gals in the front seats.
(b) certification stall practices have varied over the years so one cannot reliably extrapolate one's experience on a light GA trainer to big iron without a lot of homework and access to well-placed folks in the game.
(c) one might hope that the OEM will have done some beyond-certification requirements post stall departure investigation but don't expect it to be described explicitly in the pilot documents. Furthermore, in the civil arena, cost is a major driver and playtime FT can be very costly.
Best to have pilots who can recognise an impending stall environment and remove the aircraft from the situation before things get even remotely exciting ... and, at the risk of being controversial, perhaps it might be a good idea for pilots to do a bit more hand flying (on raw data in 0/0 conditions) and useful playtime work in their sim sessions ?
(a) typical sim is a big PC in drag on steroids. The software perambulations are either
(i) within defined boundary conditions derived from FT or wind tunnel work and should have some correlation with reality. Otherwise -
(ii) playing in the box can only be based on guesswork extrapolation. Probably not too bad for controlled flight within a small delta from the certificated envelope but generally GIGO when it comes to post stall departure regimes. Just what training value might be obtained is moot. I, for one, wouldn't waste time in the box on such activities as there are many far more useful playtime uses of benefit to the guys and gals in the front seats.
(b) certification stall practices have varied over the years so one cannot reliably extrapolate one's experience on a light GA trainer to big iron without a lot of homework and access to well-placed folks in the game.
(c) one might hope that the OEM will have done some beyond-certification requirements post stall departure investigation but don't expect it to be described explicitly in the pilot documents. Furthermore, in the civil arena, cost is a major driver and playtime FT can be very costly.
Best to have pilots who can recognise an impending stall environment and remove the aircraft from the situation before things get even remotely exciting ... and, at the risk of being controversial, perhaps it might be a good idea for pilots to do a bit more hand flying (on raw data in 0/0 conditions) and useful playtime work in their sim sessions ?
BB - Recovery from a full stall can be done (and is done during conversion training) on the simulator, and is reasonable representative of the aircraft.
However, what JT says about GIGO is absolutely right. The point I was trying to make is, if you go outside what the simulator is programmed to do, the response of the simulator is likely to be inaccurate and therefore the instructor might well be training the wrong response. One has to be very careful not to indulge in what I used to call 'anti-training', i.e. pilots must not come away from a training session with the idea that the aircraft will behave in a benign way in certain extreme conditions when, in reality, it might exhibit some vicious characteristics.
Yes, training should be done to demonstate the approach to the stall, the recognition of this condition, the flight characteristics at the stall and how to recover with minimum height loss. But pilots should also be trained in the recovery from a full stall, i.e. immediately to reduce AoA and then gently to apply power. They also need to know that applying power too vigorously might cause engine(s) on one side to spool up too quickly causing sideslip and a departure into an 'untested' region of the flight envelope Even more important, they need to know that in many unintentional stalls the situation is likely to be compounded by a severe nose-up trim condition. If they are also flying an aircraft with underslung engines and they apply too much power too quickly the nose-up pitching moment, combined with the out of trim condition, might leave them with too little elevator authority to recover. This latter problem can be demonstrated accurately on the simulator, and it should be done.
But I still caution that all instructors MUST know the limitations of the simulator and not try to draw conclusions from manoeuvres which are outside what has been accurately programmed.
However, what JT says about GIGO is absolutely right. The point I was trying to make is, if you go outside what the simulator is programmed to do, the response of the simulator is likely to be inaccurate and therefore the instructor might well be training the wrong response. One has to be very careful not to indulge in what I used to call 'anti-training', i.e. pilots must not come away from a training session with the idea that the aircraft will behave in a benign way in certain extreme conditions when, in reality, it might exhibit some vicious characteristics.
Yes, training should be done to demonstate the approach to the stall, the recognition of this condition, the flight characteristics at the stall and how to recover with minimum height loss. But pilots should also be trained in the recovery from a full stall, i.e. immediately to reduce AoA and then gently to apply power. They also need to know that applying power too vigorously might cause engine(s) on one side to spool up too quickly causing sideslip and a departure into an 'untested' region of the flight envelope Even more important, they need to know that in many unintentional stalls the situation is likely to be compounded by a severe nose-up trim condition. If they are also flying an aircraft with underslung engines and they apply too much power too quickly the nose-up pitching moment, combined with the out of trim condition, might leave them with too little elevator authority to recover. This latter problem can be demonstrated accurately on the simulator, and it should be done.
But I still caution that all instructors MUST know the limitations of the simulator and not try to draw conclusions from manoeuvres which are outside what has been accurately programmed.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: La Belle Province
Posts: 2,179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Two regulatory activites are currently underway which are related to this.
There's an Industry-FAA Stall/Stick Pusher Working Group which is looking at both training norms and at simulation capabilities. That's supposed to wrap up this month, IIRC. Recent FAA movement on the applicability of the Practical Test Standard "minimizing altitude loss" comes at least in part from this activity.
There's also an Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee task assigned to the Avionics Systems Harmonization Working Group to:
They are wrapping up for rules for all-new aircraft (phase 1), the next phase will be to consider retroactive requirements for existing aircraft.
(ARAC tasking notice published in the Federal Register on April 2, 2010 (75 FR 16902).)
There's an Industry-FAA Stall/Stick Pusher Working Group which is looking at both training norms and at simulation capabilities. That's supposed to wrap up this month, IIRC. Recent FAA movement on the applicability of the Practical Test Standard "minimizing altitude loss" comes at least in part from this activity.
There's also an Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee task assigned to the Avionics Systems Harmonization Working Group to:
provid[e] information that will be used to develop standards and guidance material for low speed alerting systems. This information may result in
standards that complement existing stall warning requirements.
standards that complement existing stall warning requirements.
(ARAC tasking notice published in the Federal Register on April 2, 2010 (75 FR 16902).)
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: earth
Posts: 1,341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The "hold [pilots] by their hands" and "don't do anything 'risky'" mentality that has taken over at most airlines today prevents any real flying or knowledge of the airplane outside of the normal flight envelope from occurring/developing.