Practice stalls- when to recover?
The Original Whirly
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Belper, Derbyshire, UK
Posts: 4,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Practice stalls- when to recover?
Hi everyone. As many of you know, I'm helicopter hours building in the US, but I decided to do one hour's f/w flying with an instructor before I left. That way I could get back in practice after an 8 month f/w layoff, and be legal to take passengers if I did 3 takeoffs and landings.
Well, I just went up with this real old guy who looked like he was born in an aeroplane. We did a bit of general handling; steep turns and the like. Then he asked me if I wanted to do a stall. Well, I'm scared of stalls, and I was tired after 52.6 hours of heli flying in 3 weeks, and I didn't feel like sending my stomach through the roof, but I said OK. He demonstrated first, and recovered just as it was about to stall, all very very gently. He told me to recover as soon as I could feel it. Well, I like it that way; my instructors always waited until the damn thing was falling out of the sky. I told him that and he shrugged, saying some people like to teach it that way, but he figures if you can recognise that it's about to stall, that's the time to recover. This makes sense to me. Flying is about recognising what's happening with the aircraft, all the little signs that things aren't as they should be, and getting better at doing that earlier and earlier. If we wait until it actually stalls, aren't we doing the exact opposite? Shouldn't students be learning to recover earlier rather than later, and practising recognising and doing just that? Aren't they learning NOT to be sensitive to what's happening with the aircraft, by leaving it so late?
Maybe I should post this in the instructors forum, but I'm interested in what everyone thinks.
Well, I just went up with this real old guy who looked like he was born in an aeroplane. We did a bit of general handling; steep turns and the like. Then he asked me if I wanted to do a stall. Well, I'm scared of stalls, and I was tired after 52.6 hours of heli flying in 3 weeks, and I didn't feel like sending my stomach through the roof, but I said OK. He demonstrated first, and recovered just as it was about to stall, all very very gently. He told me to recover as soon as I could feel it. Well, I like it that way; my instructors always waited until the damn thing was falling out of the sky. I told him that and he shrugged, saying some people like to teach it that way, but he figures if you can recognise that it's about to stall, that's the time to recover. This makes sense to me. Flying is about recognising what's happening with the aircraft, all the little signs that things aren't as they should be, and getting better at doing that earlier and earlier. If we wait until it actually stalls, aren't we doing the exact opposite? Shouldn't students be learning to recover earlier rather than later, and practising recognising and doing just that? Aren't they learning NOT to be sensitive to what's happening with the aircraft, by leaving it so late?
Maybe I should post this in the instructors forum, but I'm interested in what everyone thinks.
Whirly - what an excellent post.
Certain flying schools seem to feel that unless the student has been scared whitless with max power full flap stalls the subject hasn't been covered properly, and then make things worse by doing hours of stall recovery prior to solo.
Surely a better idea would be to teach recovery with minimum height loss at first indication (either aerodynamic or stall warner) of the stall, and do the slightly more scary stuff - maybe even spinning - during revision for the skills test at the end of the course when the student is more familiar with the aircraft enviroment, less likely to be scared stupid and more likely to appreciate what is going on.
However, it would probably be unwise to suggest that developed stalls should be removed entirely from the syllabus.
Certain flying schools seem to feel that unless the student has been scared whitless with max power full flap stalls the subject hasn't been covered properly, and then make things worse by doing hours of stall recovery prior to solo.
Surely a better idea would be to teach recovery with minimum height loss at first indication (either aerodynamic or stall warner) of the stall, and do the slightly more scary stuff - maybe even spinning - during revision for the skills test at the end of the course when the student is more familiar with the aircraft enviroment, less likely to be scared stupid and more likely to appreciate what is going on.
However, it would probably be unwise to suggest that developed stalls should be removed entirely from the syllabus.
Interesting point Whirly.
I'm afraid that personally I take my monthly practice stalls fairly deep, certainly to full back stick, although ideally before entering incipient spin (in an aircraft that does that). Then again, I spend much of my life test-flying, where significant caution is something that can only be a starting position - sooner or later I'm in the 60° bank, full power, flaps-down, rapid decleration case or whatever, which needs a certain amount of teeth-clenching at the best of times.
Whenever I fly with an SEP instructor, they usually do as you've just described - just to moderate buffet then recover - I think they're as scared of stalls as you are.
Flying with test pilots, microlight instructors or gliding instructors, they are usually happy to persevere into pitch break and wing-drop.
Which is more sensible, well I'm honestly not sure. It is realistic to recover at the first stall warning, and that's certainly what I do if I'm not deliberately aiming to stall. But, if student pilots aren't exposed to the deep stall, wing drop, and ideally incipient spin at some point, then they end up petrified of what in virtually any fixed wing aeroplane is a mildly entertaining non-event because they think it's something horrible and mysterious.
So what's the conclusion? Well, I think you should be comfortable taking an aircraft into the deep stall, and sufficiently aware to recover as soon as you nibble the buffet or the warner goes off in normal flying.
G
I'm afraid that personally I take my monthly practice stalls fairly deep, certainly to full back stick, although ideally before entering incipient spin (in an aircraft that does that). Then again, I spend much of my life test-flying, where significant caution is something that can only be a starting position - sooner or later I'm in the 60° bank, full power, flaps-down, rapid decleration case or whatever, which needs a certain amount of teeth-clenching at the best of times.
Whenever I fly with an SEP instructor, they usually do as you've just described - just to moderate buffet then recover - I think they're as scared of stalls as you are.
Flying with test pilots, microlight instructors or gliding instructors, they are usually happy to persevere into pitch break and wing-drop.
Which is more sensible, well I'm honestly not sure. It is realistic to recover at the first stall warning, and that's certainly what I do if I'm not deliberately aiming to stall. But, if student pilots aren't exposed to the deep stall, wing drop, and ideally incipient spin at some point, then they end up petrified of what in virtually any fixed wing aeroplane is a mildly entertaining non-event because they think it's something horrible and mysterious.
So what's the conclusion? Well, I think you should be comfortable taking an aircraft into the deep stall, and sufficiently aware to recover as soon as you nibble the buffet or the warner goes off in normal flying.
G
An interesting topic.
There is a distinction between a)the signs of an approaching stall and b)the symptoms of the full stall.
a) is characterised by, amongst others, reducing airspeed, control effectiveness, high nose attitude, stall warner and/or light buffet.
b)is charcterised by heavy buffet, nose pitching down, a/c descending and possible wing drop.
As far as instruction goes I see little value in teaching the student to hold the a/c in a stall. He/she should either be taught/briefed to recover at either the first symptom of the full stall or the first sign of an approaching stall.
There is a distinction between a)the signs of an approaching stall and b)the symptoms of the full stall.
a) is characterised by, amongst others, reducing airspeed, control effectiveness, high nose attitude, stall warner and/or light buffet.
b)is charcterised by heavy buffet, nose pitching down, a/c descending and possible wing drop.
As far as instruction goes I see little value in teaching the student to hold the a/c in a stall. He/she should either be taught/briefed to recover at either the first symptom of the full stall or the first sign of an approaching stall.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Seattle, WA USA
Age: 53
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I took a look at the FAA Practical Test Standards to get the language they use for stalls (note this is the new version that is coming out in August):
"Recognizes and recovers promptly after the stall occurs by simultaneously reducing the angle of attack, increasing power to maximum allowable, and leveling the wings to return to a straight-and-level flight attitude with a minimum loss of altitude appropriate for the airplane."
Interestingly, the older version prefaces the above paragraph with the following:
"Recognizes and announces the first aerodynamic indications
of the oncoming stall, i.e., buffeting or decay of control
effectiveness."
I interpret this as meaning that the FAA want checkride candidates to demonstrate full stalls and recover, rather than just announce the buffet and recover which, from what I have observed, seemed to be a bit of a grey area before.
Do others agree? I think it would be interesting to get a CFI's view on the language.
"Recognizes and recovers promptly after the stall occurs by simultaneously reducing the angle of attack, increasing power to maximum allowable, and leveling the wings to return to a straight-and-level flight attitude with a minimum loss of altitude appropriate for the airplane."
Interestingly, the older version prefaces the above paragraph with the following:
"Recognizes and announces the first aerodynamic indications
of the oncoming stall, i.e., buffeting or decay of control
effectiveness."
I interpret this as meaning that the FAA want checkride candidates to demonstrate full stalls and recover, rather than just announce the buffet and recover which, from what I have observed, seemed to be a bit of a grey area before.
Do others agree? I think it would be interesting to get a CFI's view on the language.
Last edited by BayAreaLondoner; 1st May 2002 at 04:44.
Moderator
If I may add a little to the very pertinent observation made by Genghis ("It is realistic to recover at the first stall warning, and that's certainly what I do if I'm not deliberately aiming to stall").
One of the problems with stalling the Widget Mk 1 is that certification standards have changed over the years and the flight test approach adopted by the certification team may well have gone no further than what is minimally required to get a tick in the box, especially for a normal category machine not routinely used in training.
Thus, if the stall has only been tested to the onset, one could find in line practice that such a machine exhibits quite nasty characteristics if the stall is progressed beyond the initial stages. I can recall a tale from one very experienced trainer of test pilots who related how a popular high performance twin piston machine, when pushed a bit, would only too happily flick into an inverted spin ... the certification was not required, and did not, investigate the developed stall characteristics. The observation was made when a TP student thought it might be a good idea to push the particular (and otherwise very nice) aeroplane well into the stall .... apparently both pilots expressed a modicum of surprise at the time ...
Might I suggest for consideration that,
(a) unless the specific aircraft is intended for training manoeuvres in the stall regime, then a certain degree of caution is called for.
(b) if one wants to play vigorously in this area, then a utility or, preferably, acrobatic category aircraft is the way to go. At least the certification program had a look at the sorts of things to which an instructor might wish to expose his/her student.
What it really comes down to is ...why play test pilot without benefit of the checks and balances which the flight test fraternity employ to control their risk exposure to an acceptable level ?
One of the problems with stalling the Widget Mk 1 is that certification standards have changed over the years and the flight test approach adopted by the certification team may well have gone no further than what is minimally required to get a tick in the box, especially for a normal category machine not routinely used in training.
Thus, if the stall has only been tested to the onset, one could find in line practice that such a machine exhibits quite nasty characteristics if the stall is progressed beyond the initial stages. I can recall a tale from one very experienced trainer of test pilots who related how a popular high performance twin piston machine, when pushed a bit, would only too happily flick into an inverted spin ... the certification was not required, and did not, investigate the developed stall characteristics. The observation was made when a TP student thought it might be a good idea to push the particular (and otherwise very nice) aeroplane well into the stall .... apparently both pilots expressed a modicum of surprise at the time ...
Might I suggest for consideration that,
(a) unless the specific aircraft is intended for training manoeuvres in the stall regime, then a certain degree of caution is called for.
(b) if one wants to play vigorously in this area, then a utility or, preferably, acrobatic category aircraft is the way to go. At least the certification program had a look at the sorts of things to which an instructor might wish to expose his/her student.
What it really comes down to is ...why play test pilot without benefit of the checks and balances which the flight test fraternity employ to control their risk exposure to an acceptable level ?
Well said John.
I think this post points us towards a partial answer. When certifying an aeroplane, part of the task is to prepare advice for the POH showing what the characteristics are and what is the permissible handling envelope.
So perhaps although in normal practice, the aim should always be for a recovery at first signs of the stall warning, in learning to fly (or staying current on) any aeroplane type, there should be some experiencing of the limits of WHAT IS DESCRIBED IN THE OPERATORS MANUAL. This should, in most cases, accurately reflect what has been seen, and deemed acceptable, during the certification programme.
G
I think this post points us towards a partial answer. When certifying an aeroplane, part of the task is to prepare advice for the POH showing what the characteristics are and what is the permissible handling envelope.
So perhaps although in normal practice, the aim should always be for a recovery at first signs of the stall warning, in learning to fly (or staying current on) any aeroplane type, there should be some experiencing of the limits of WHAT IS DESCRIBED IN THE OPERATORS MANUAL. This should, in most cases, accurately reflect what has been seen, and deemed acceptable, during the certification programme.
G
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Dorset
Posts: 902
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I personally quite like practising recovery from unusual attitudes, I'll generally take practice stalls to their logical conclusion (and enjoy it!); this is when I'm solo or with someone who shares my point of view.
If I've got nervous passengers who are terrified of stalls and leap out of their seats if the stall warner so much as chirps when you hit a bit of lumpy air (I fly a Fuji which has very sensitive stall warner!), I take them almost to the point of buffet and recover (with their agreement and explaining what's happening). I tell them that they've just experienced a stall and so there's nothing to be nervous about. This generally calms them down from the dread fear that is promoted by the media of 'aircraft stalling' and the dire consequences.
If I've got nervous passengers who are terrified of stalls and leap out of their seats if the stall warner so much as chirps when you hit a bit of lumpy air (I fly a Fuji which has very sensitive stall warner!), I take them almost to the point of buffet and recover (with their agreement and explaining what's happening). I tell them that they've just experienced a stall and so there's nothing to be nervous about. This generally calms them down from the dread fear that is promoted by the media of 'aircraft stalling' and the dire consequences.
I feel strongly that PPL students should be taught fully developed stall recoveries with wing drop.
Spinning was removed from the syllabus.
If you stall and instinctively apply aileron to correct wing drop you will spin. You have no training in spin recovery. You will die.
In addition the student should be able to demonstrate themselves adept at recognising and recovering from the incipient stall condition.
WWW
Spinning was removed from the syllabus.
If you stall and instinctively apply aileron to correct wing drop you will spin. You have no training in spin recovery. You will die.
In addition the student should be able to demonstrate themselves adept at recognising and recovering from the incipient stall condition.
WWW
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Oop North, UK
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IMHO you should know (subject to the aircraft limitations) as far as possible, what the fully developed stall is like, and be able to recover from it in ANY aircraft you fly. The emphasis though should be on recognition and recovery at the incipient stage - preferably using aerodynamic signs not the stall warner.
The reason I prefer aerodynamic signs, is that the time you may be in an unintentional incipient stall you are probably concentrating on something else, this is when the stall warner goes unnoticed.
The reason I prefer aerodynamic signs, is that the time you may be in an unintentional incipient stall you are probably concentrating on something else, this is when the stall warner goes unnoticed.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with WWW. With my students I explore the fully-developed stall and demonstrate the effect of rudder on a dropped wing. They say it helps to understand the theory once they have seen it in the air. I build up to it gradually as students gain confidence so I certainly don't aim to frighten anyone. On consolidation practice we concentrate on recovery at first sign - which is what I advise them to do when practising solo. It may be interesting to copy this thread to the instructors' forum and see whether you get other views.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: North Weald, UK
Posts: 357
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting posts!
The one part of my PPL training that scared me most was incipient spins - I was convinced that the aircraft was going to flip over & plummet earthwards. But having practised a few and learnt to gently pick up the wing with just a touch of rudder, I felt more comfortable with them. We also did spinning, an exercise more feared in the anticipation than the execution, I think. it is definitely worth demonstrating the real world situation of recovering at the stall warning, but also going past the stall warner to a real, nose-dropping' stall.
I'm always a bit concerned that the standard recovery from an incipient spin, (by applying rudder), if done too enthusiatically is very close to the standard method of entering a spin.
The one part of my PPL training that scared me most was incipient spins - I was convinced that the aircraft was going to flip over & plummet earthwards. But having practised a few and learnt to gently pick up the wing with just a touch of rudder, I felt more comfortable with them. We also did spinning, an exercise more feared in the anticipation than the execution, I think. it is definitely worth demonstrating the real world situation of recovering at the stall warning, but also going past the stall warner to a real, nose-dropping' stall.
I'm always a bit concerned that the standard recovery from an incipient spin, (by applying rudder), if done too enthusiatically is very close to the standard method of entering a spin.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: www.tiovicente.com
Age: 44
Posts: 399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting points being made here. From a novice's point of view I am of the opinion that it would probably be a good idea to push the stall a bit further. I have done the standard stall recovery in a Katana and after some trepidation "pushed" the stall a bit under the guidance of my instructor. However, I don't like the feeling very much and as soon as the stall is induced I immediately want to lower the nose and put power on. Having said that I think that the Katana is quite a benign aircraft.....
I have a bit of a phobia about stalling and spinning now to the extent that I don't like "chucking" the aircraft about too much (not too keen on steep turns etc) and this comes from a lack of confidence, more than anything! What I would like to see is more investigation of the stall (in the correct aircraft!) and spinning as part of the PPL - if for no other reason than to build confidence and enable students to get out of trouble if it ever occurrs!
My first port of call after gaining a PPL would be to the nearest Aerobatic Instructor to get the confidence and the knowledge of how to sort things out if they get pear shaped.
In short, develop the stall further as part of the PPL training to give students a better chance of recovering from severe situations and bring back spin training.
I have a bit of a phobia about stalling and spinning now to the extent that I don't like "chucking" the aircraft about too much (not too keen on steep turns etc) and this comes from a lack of confidence, more than anything! What I would like to see is more investigation of the stall (in the correct aircraft!) and spinning as part of the PPL - if for no other reason than to build confidence and enable students to get out of trouble if it ever occurrs!
My first port of call after gaining a PPL would be to the nearest Aerobatic Instructor to get the confidence and the knowledge of how to sort things out if they get pear shaped.
In short, develop the stall further as part of the PPL training to give students a better chance of recovering from severe situations and bring back spin training.
I am pleased that this subject is being discussed because I have flown with too many instructors, including an examiner, who did not make it clear when they wanted me to recover. Now I always ask but generally prefer a full stall because I also believe that it is important to practice recovery from a nose down attitude which most of us boring cruise only PPL's rarely experience and, one imagines, could be a bit panic inducing for some.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Oop North, UK
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who has Control-
I think you will find current practise is NOT to pick up the wing with rudder, just use it to PREVENT further wing drop, then roll the wings level with aileron AFTER recovering from the stall.
I think you will find current practise is NOT to pick up the wing with rudder, just use it to PREVENT further wing drop, then roll the wings level with aileron AFTER recovering from the stall.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Braughing
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I find this a very interesting post.
During training at a large, and in my view very professional, school my excellent but dogmatic instructor insisted on recovery from fully developed stalls in a PA-38. They scared me ****less with the invariable random wingdrop and my inclination to recover with aileron. I eventually got the hang of it, avoided spins - just - but never grew to love the process.
On my GFT the examiner - also from the school but with whom I had never flown before - demanded recovery from the incipient stall, which I had never done! Can you believe that I cocked it up by letting the stall progress to fully developed, much to his annoyance? I then had to let him see that I really could recover just from the buffet etc.
Then having passed (Feb this year) I went to my local - very professional also - flying club to get checked out on the PA-28. The instructor put me through what seemed like another GFT and also required recovery from the developed stall, albeit that in the PA-28 it at least goes down level.
Personally, I suppose that I am glad that I had the experience but I never intend getting near the stall and at the first sign will be getting the nose down and banging on the power. And as for spinning..........
During training at a large, and in my view very professional, school my excellent but dogmatic instructor insisted on recovery from fully developed stalls in a PA-38. They scared me ****less with the invariable random wingdrop and my inclination to recover with aileron. I eventually got the hang of it, avoided spins - just - but never grew to love the process.
On my GFT the examiner - also from the school but with whom I had never flown before - demanded recovery from the incipient stall, which I had never done! Can you believe that I cocked it up by letting the stall progress to fully developed, much to his annoyance? I then had to let him see that I really could recover just from the buffet etc.
Then having passed (Feb this year) I went to my local - very professional also - flying club to get checked out on the PA-28. The instructor put me through what seemed like another GFT and also required recovery from the developed stall, albeit that in the PA-28 it at least goes down level.
Personally, I suppose that I am glad that I had the experience but I never intend getting near the stall and at the first sign will be getting the nose down and banging on the power. And as for spinning..........
Guest
Posts: n/a
Firstly, I think I need to make it clear that I am not an instructor, so there are lots of people posting on this who will know much more about this than me.
I came into power from Gliding. In order to go solo I had to do a lot of stalls, plus recovery from full and incipient spins. I have since done a reasonable amount of aerobatics.
I have two main questions. The people who find Stalls frightening, do you practice them regularly?
Have you considered doing some gentle aerobatics, in, say, a Pup 100 or similar?
If you do try the aerobatics, I think you will find your stall problem will vanish, and you may find that you have more fun, without the worry in the back of your mind.
I came into power from Gliding. In order to go solo I had to do a lot of stalls, plus recovery from full and incipient spins. I have since done a reasonable amount of aerobatics.
I have two main questions. The people who find Stalls frightening, do you practice them regularly?
Have you considered doing some gentle aerobatics, in, say, a Pup 100 or similar?
If you do try the aerobatics, I think you will find your stall problem will vanish, and you may find that you have more fun, without the worry in the back of your mind.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder if maybe you are exaggerating just a little in your statement WWW.
" If you stall and instinctively apply aeliron to correct wing drop you will spin. You have no training in spin recovery. You will die. "
In that , that is not necessarily true in all airplanes, isn't that sort of fear mongering?
Cat Driver:
...........................
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no.
" If you stall and instinctively apply aeliron to correct wing drop you will spin. You have no training in spin recovery. You will die. "
In that , that is not necessarily true in all airplanes, isn't that sort of fear mongering?
Cat Driver:
...........................
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no.
I think Chuck has a fair point, although we should always aim to do it by the book, the truth is that MOST small fixed wing aeroplanes will recover from most spin modes if you take the following actions:
- Close the throttle
- Scream "aarrggghhh"
- Let go of the controls.
G
- Close the throttle
- Scream "aarrggghhh"
- Let go of the controls.
G