737 Stall Training - Alaska Airlines Sim
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
These guys did it for real 15 years ago:
https://vimeo.com/8511733
It was part of some sideslip testing.
https://vimeo.com/8511733
It was part of some sideslip testing.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting. The Alaskan video says this training will be mandated by for all FAA airlines by 2020. What is EASA's policy on this? It also suggests a full 4 hour (2 hrs each pilot) training session for 15 manoeuvres of upset prevention and upset recovery. Good news and a marked expansion from the 20 min, 3 stall, stick shaker recovery exercises now included. The 15 min upset recovery refresher during the 3 year recurrent training cycle might have to be expanded also. That will alter the training courses quite significantly. I hope the training syllabus allows for more basic handling of normal manoeuvres before this training session.
Recently did A320 high altitude stall recovery in the Sim, a very useful excersise. Interesting that a few turns of forward (nose down) Stab trim was required to get the nose to drop, in addition to full forward sidestick (with takeover pushbutton pressed too...).
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fairly close to the colonial capitol
Age: 55
Posts: 1,693
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What is EASA's policy on this?
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: FL390
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Two points:
It's interesting that on the video the autopilot was used to fly the aircraft into the stall on each occasion, which strikes me as appalling design now we're well into the 21st century.
Secondly, Airbus are emphatic that the simulator should not be used to demonstrate, nor attempt to recover from, a full stall owing to lack of aerodynamic data in that region. "Approach to stall" (audio warning or buffet) is all that's approved IIRC. Do Boeing have a different view?
It's interesting that on the video the autopilot was used to fly the aircraft into the stall on each occasion, which strikes me as appalling design now we're well into the 21st century.
Secondly, Airbus are emphatic that the simulator should not be used to demonstrate, nor attempt to recover from, a full stall owing to lack of aerodynamic data in that region. "Approach to stall" (audio warning or buffet) is all that's approved IIRC. Do Boeing have a different view?
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With regard to Boeing, and B737NG in particular, does anyone have a TR syllabus that demonstrates the pseudo stick nudger? It's still there, I believe, but with little information about it. When I wrote a TR course I used to go past the stick shaker to demo the system. It's part of the a/c systems. With other later TR's everything is at the stick shaker. Is the system still installed? If so, why is it not known about?
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: tacoma, WA USA
Age: 61
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boeing has provided validated flight test data of full stall up to 10 degrees beyond critical AOA to provide an accurate model, for the 737NG fleet only. The Bihrle company has produced engineered data that also provides a representative model. Both models have been assessed, evaluated and approved by the FAA and by thorough testing by SME's with hundreds of actual stalls in the 737NG. The first full stall demo is accomplished on the Auto-Pilot so as to allow the pilots to observe all of the cues preceding stall up to full stall (the A/P will not dis-connect like the 777, 787). In addition, to manually fly into the full stall requires so much elevator back pressure on the column, as to make it quite un-realistic for the first demonstration. Later, the pilots will manually fly into the full stall.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: tacoma, WA USA
Age: 61
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Elevator Feel Shift (EFS) is installed and active. It is rarely seen in flight training, as it becomes effective after stick shaker AOA is reached, just preceding critical AOA. It was designed to address FAA Part 121 requirements for the B-737NG fleet to exhibit a positive nose drop behavior in stall. As the NG has a super-critical wing, and as the lift curve of the wing does not fall aggressively at and beyond critical AOA (it is a rather flat line), the nose drop is rather benign. Boeing designed the EFS as an additional cue to the pilot of full stall, by forcing the control column forward. You will notice this behavior (if the simulator is properly qualified) in stall training now, particularly when manually flying into full stall.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fairly close to the colonial capitol
Age: 55
Posts: 1,693
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Secondly, Airbus are emphatic that the simulator should not be used to demonstrate, nor attempt to recover from, a full stall owing to lack of aerodynamic data in that region. "Approach to stall" (audio warning or buffet) is all that's approved IIRC. Do Boeing have a different view?
Also, approach to stall, with identification of cues is the classic ATPL training scenario. We are hoping to move beyond that.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bburks: Thank you kindly. Thus it disturbs me that a type rating course does not educate the student pilots that this system exists and does not let them experience it. I am, perhaps, being idealistic in believing that a type rating course should educate you in all the options and aspects of the aircraft you are being certified to fly as PIC, and as Commander. Silly me.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,407
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Secondly, Airbus are emphatic that the simulator should not be used to demonstrate, nor attempt to recover from, a full stall owing to lack of aerodynamic data in that region. "Approach to stall" (audio warning or buffet) is all that's approved IIRC
Last edited by vilas; 7th Sep 2016 at 03:46.
N4790P
vilas,
May I disagree with you? Please see OTT ref.: 999.0077/16 released 20th June 2016
What airbus doesn't want is jet upset training because of device constraint and not stall training
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: FL390
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What airbus doesn't want is jet upset training because of device constraint and not stall training
Your point makes more sense.
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: At home
Age: 64
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Two issues come to mind in my limited experience with stall training. The 737 and A320 series may not demonstrate a significant "stall break." I was trained in light aircraft and they tended to have a very definite break which identified the stall. The movie shows only limited nose over. The second issue, which has been discussed in depth and which I have experience in our simulators is, It can take 3000 feet to recover from a high altitude stall. Less if you don't try to recover too soon. The airplane is slow to recover and you have to give up significant altitude to regain energy. So no break and even if the stall is recognized, not holding a full corrective input with reduced angle of attack for long enough can lead to trouble as recent accidents have demonstrated.