A320 stall training guidelines
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Asia
Age: 49
Posts: 524
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A320 stall training guidelines
Hello,
does any TRI have a general guideline as to the the thrust lever position, that would spool the engines up with minimal increase of angle of attack and allow for a prompter recovery a minimize altitude loss, including pitch target for clean stall and approach to stall. Thank you!
does any TRI have a general guideline as to the the thrust lever position, that would spool the engines up with minimal increase of angle of attack and allow for a prompter recovery a minimize altitude loss, including pitch target for clean stall and approach to stall. Thank you!
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: upper hemisphere
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As for the thrust there are no such exact thrust lever positions on any jet as each situation is different. However, it is rarely necessary to firewall the thrust in order to get out of a stall (i guess this is more useful for W/S or terrain avoidance). A good 85-90% N1 on any twin eng jet with a lowered nose should get you out of most stall situation. Your FCOM will also state the appropriate method of a stall recovery. In any case, if you add thrust and lower the nose (low alt stall) you are on the right track. Latest 'fashion' is also to trade altitude (don't hit the ground....) in favor of a lower nose attitude.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MD83FO
In type rating Stall training exercises have been changed by Airbus. Low altitude stall is done at 3700ft with flaps2 and high level is done at FL350. Both are done during a turn. Stall occurs around 12/13 degrees (less if in a turn) the nose should be allowed to drop to zero degrees pitch and held there, wings leveled as speed builds up. Move thrust levers smoothly to CLB. If the thrust is idle it takes almost 5 seconds to build up so that is the time pitch up ocurrs and not before.You should be aware that the pitch up is pronounced if the gear is down (direct law), not a problem in alternate law (gear up) as computers resist the pitch up. Problems are initially nose is pushed too much and later when thrust builds up there is no forward pressure that leads to secondary stall. Important thing is to lower the nose first and no thrust till out of stall. That is the essence of the new look at the recoveary procedure.
In type rating Stall training exercises have been changed by Airbus. Low altitude stall is done at 3700ft with flaps2 and high level is done at FL350. Both are done during a turn. Stall occurs around 12/13 degrees (less if in a turn) the nose should be allowed to drop to zero degrees pitch and held there, wings leveled as speed builds up. Move thrust levers smoothly to CLB. If the thrust is idle it takes almost 5 seconds to build up so that is the time pitch up ocurrs and not before.You should be aware that the pitch up is pronounced if the gear is down (direct law), not a problem in alternate law (gear up) as computers resist the pitch up. Problems are initially nose is pushed too much and later when thrust builds up there is no forward pressure that leads to secondary stall. Important thing is to lower the nose first and no thrust till out of stall. That is the essence of the new look at the recoveary procedure.
Last edited by vilas; 29th Jun 2013 at 10:59.
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: The Wood
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A top response from vilas. I'm not a TRI but one observation I made is that the high level stall is a pig. In our sim we needed to lower the pitch to perhaps 5 degrees nose down and then be extremely gentle in the recovery in order to prevent further stall - adding thrust progressively as we started to raise the nose. It was a surprisingly tricky exercise - perhaps this was just the sim. Certainly nothing like stalls in a light aircraft in terms of how carefully you need to make inputs - in fact almost the opposite. By that I mean:
In a light aircraft it was a light check forward to unstall, immediate power, big pull up.
On the 320 it is a big push forward, gentle on the thrust, slow pull up. Consider extending slats below 20000'.
In a light aircraft it was a light check forward to unstall, immediate power, big pull up.
On the 320 it is a big push forward, gentle on the thrust, slow pull up. Consider extending slats below 20000'.
Last edited by WhyByFlier; 29th Jun 2013 at 13:30.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WhyByFlier
I did not cover the high level recovery. You are right there as it needs that much pitch down. The new exercise is to make aware of the buffet during bank and recover. Full stall will be as you said.
I did not cover the high level recovery. You are right there as it needs that much pitch down. The new exercise is to make aware of the buffet during bank and recover. Full stall will be as you said.
and allow for a prompter recovery a minimize altitude loss
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not a TRI but one observation I made is that the high level stall is a pig. In our sim we needed to lower the pitch to perhaps 5 degrees nose down and then be extremely gentle in the recovery in order to prevent further stall - adding thrust progressively as we started to raise the nose. It was a surprisingly tricky exercise
Unless there is a technical reason not to, I would have thought that an approach to stall and recovery would be more realistic and demanding of greater skill if conducted below 1000 ft on final approach - the Turkish Airlines 737 accident at Amsterdam comes to mind.
Regarding the high altitude case, in the 737 at 37,000 you need to count on allowing at least a deliberate 3000 ft height loss before levelling at a safe speed. That safe speed is approximated by Vref 40 plus 100 knots which will be around 230 knots IAS. In other words an entirely different technique when faced with a landing configuration stall at 1000 ft on final approach where minimum height loss is essential.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Southeast USA
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As our colleague, LeftHeadingNorth, has said “there are no such exact thrust lever positions on any jet as each situation is different." It might be logical to recall that all pilots (at one point in their career) are required to demonstrate satisfactory recoveries from a stall … including glider pilots … but, significantly, glider pilots don’t get to play with things called “throttles.” Hopefully without sounding “overly critical’ or “way too basic,” we should all recognize it is airplane attitude that is (or at least should be…) the critical issue to address in the recovery from a stall. Going back to the days preceding simulators, when all airplane training was accomplished in the airplane, and looking specifically at training stalls on larger, transport category airplanes … particularly those with those “new-fangled” jet engines – almost always mounted under the swept wings, actually taking the airplane into a stall was something that instructors were very cautious about doing - (been there – done that) – and once it was recognized that the appropriate corrective actions to take to recover from an aerodynamic stall would be the exact same corrective actions to take to recover from an “approach to stall.” The altitudes used for this training was almost always between 12,000 and 17,000 feet … because no one wanted to take the airplane into the more rarified, higher altitudes above 17,000 feet (and it also avoided the Positive Controlled Airspace that was becoming the domain of these jet-powered machines and guarded – almost selfishly – by Air Traffic Control. Of course the lower boundary was chosen because of the fact that students were still involved, and doing this training and practice at altitudes that would minimize the amount of time available to actually recover the airplane if it got to a critical point and the student really “did a number” on the training task, was something that made a lot of sense … by providing adequate time for the instructor to still recover the airplane should that become necessary. By going only to the point where the approaching stall was more easily recognized – the approach to the stall – the significantly more problematic condition (actually stalling the airplane) could be avoided … without denying the student the opportunity to see the results of the application of those proper recovery procedures. Also as indicated by our colleague, WhyByFlier, actually stalling an airplane at a truly high altitude presents a whole new set of issues that must be dealt with as well. Also, as our colleague, Tee Emm, said in his post “I would have thought that an approach to stall and recovery would be more realistic and demanding of greater skill if conducted below 1000 ft on final approach.” Of course doing this in an airplane is completely out of the question – at least it is for all the instructors I know who teach in transport category jet airplanes. Of course, suffering an airplane crash is not the goal of any pilot I know. The most immediate alternative – for either circumstance, is clearly the proper and competent use of a properly designed, properly developed, properly built, and properly evaluated airplane flight simulator. Unfortunately, the aviation training industry used flight simulators JUST EXACTLY like we treated the airplane … i.e., stall training was limited to Approach to Stall, and the altitudes used for this training were the same 12,000 to 17,000 feet. Which is a subject for a whole different set of posts … which I’ll avoid putting all of you through today. However, it is true that we now have a more realistic attitude toward the use of simulation … and that includes stall training. However, even though the use of flight simulators has long-been the accepted norm, we are just getting to the point of understanding what additional flight testing data, once incorporated into a simulator, can do for the training value. Unfortunately, because as any experienced jet transport instructor (at least those who are as old as me) will recognize … no two stalls are exactly the same. If we capture specific data, even if the data has never previously been captured as the airplane is stalled … we will have data on ONE stall – and the simulator will handle and perform exactly like that same event – and only that event. Unfortunately, in an airplane any subsequent stall will have slightly or dramatically differing entry “feel,” or “sound,” and will probably not provide any other identical indication that a stall is developing or has developed. This is where the competently trained and knowledgeable instructors will have to be relied upon to impart relevant information and indicate what additional task training and practice may be warrented.
[quoteAlso, as our colleague, Tee Emm, said in his post “I would have thought that an approach to stall and recovery would be more realistic and demanding of greater skill if conducted below 1000 ft on final approach.” Of course doing this in an airplane is completely out of the question – at least it is for all the instructors I know who teach in transport category jet airplanes. Of course, suffering an airplane crash is not the goal of any pilot I know. ][/quote]
I am sure the comments by Tee Emm were about stall training in a simulator -at least that's the way I understood it.
I am sure the comments by Tee Emm were about stall training in a simulator -at least that's the way I understood it.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Southeast USA
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Centaurus … I agree completely with your thoughts about what Tee Emm was saying. The point I was driving toward (perhaps not so successfully) was that because we have historically treated the use of simulators just exactly like we used to treat airplanes … we have wound up using the simulator just as sparingly as we used to use the airplane. Of course, no one would consider taking a B-707 into a stall at 1000 feet AGL – because of the very real potential that exists. Unfortunately, we have treated simulators the same way. On the other side of that particular coin – there are some who would demand that the simulator provide exactly the same approach-to-stall cues as would be expected in the airplane. My point is that a simulator is a computer – and it will do just exactly as it is programmed to do … nothing more and nothing less – if all goes as planned. Unfortunately, as I know you are aware, a series of stalls in an airplane rarely, if ever, results in having all subsequent stalls look, feel, and function exactly the same way as the first stall … there is either some differing amount of aileron, rudder, or elevator displacement … air temperature or density difference, air velocity difference, gross weight difference, side-slip difference, or any of the other multitudes of potential differences. The point is that in all the recent serious looks into simulator data and simulator programming in this specific area – the largest complaints still continue to be directed toward the lack of similarity provided by the simulator in comparison to the airplane. But I think the vast expanse of difference between those two positions is getting dramatically smaller – and that’s a good thing. Again – I’d like to ensure that we don’t allow “perfection” to become the enemy of “perfectly good.” I think it would be a mistake to insist that simulators, in order to be accepted for training – and checking – in these outside the normal flight maneuvering envelope cases, we learn to point out how close the simulation really is, and concentrate on what can be pointed out by a competent instructor as to what could be expected. For example, one objection I’ve heard about the use of a simulator in a normal stall was that the buffeting of the simulator was no where near the magnitude or frequency that this person remembered from his last actual airplane stall as that stall was approached. That is quite probably true – but if the simulator were to provide for those extreme kinds of buffeting – what would happen to the visual system components or the hoses, jacks, servos, and valves connected to the motion system … not to mention what might break in the cockpit? Simulators today are not cheap … and I think that demanding that we risk destroying or seriously damaging even some components of the simulator … when we can get reasonable representations … is CLEARLYnot the way to go. I would expect that after any stall training series that might have been a bit on the docile side in the opinion of the instructor ... that instructor could pause and get the attention of the pilot(s) involved and say something like … “did you notice the buffeting? Well, in the airplane that buffeting would be increased by some 10 to 12 times in magnitude and at 3 times in frequency.” I think that such a message would have little problem in being understood completely.
