Fuji_Abound wrote:
Also I think rather like PFLs there is a temptation not to rehearse as frequently as we should,
This is very true!
All normal category certified singles will have demonstrated that “it must not be possible to obtain an unrecoverable spin with any use of the controls”, but it does not require the spin characteristics to be idiot proof. Yes, in some types, the spin must be actively recovered, while others it will be a “let go and wait”. The problem is that no one tells you which types are which! Even the ubiquitous 172 will have differing spin recovery characteristics based upon the aft C of G position, hence the dual Normal/Utility categories based upon C of G location.
It is simply unfortunate that recurring practice spinning requires a spin approved aircraft, so unless a pilot has regular access to one, it is not easily possible to keep fresh with recovery skills. But in lieu of that,pilots should practice power off stalls in whatever single or light twin they fly, while being very aware to keep the ball in the middle. The fact that the aircraft type you fly regularly is not spin approved is not an excuse to be current on stall recovery techniques.
Once a pilot is sharp at recognizing the onset of the stall, and reducing AoA (NOT adding power! Remember, it’s power off stall practice!), the skill and patience to allow the aircraft to build some speed up while pointed down, before recovering the dive is important. Stall/spin recoveries are often delayed by pilots being startled by ground rush, and pulling, so the still slow aircraft stalls again.
It is for these reasons, I feel that minimum currency would be 24 hours a year: A jaunt with friends or family for an hour an month, and practicing stalls and emergencies an hour a month (without the friends or family – unless one of them is a keen piloting mentor!).
I agree.
Arent they still quite keen State side on power on stalls?
Is there some evidence that a scenario is shortly after take off the pilot pulling up too hard and creating a power on stall that can potentially be even more disasterous.
I recall during my last BFR in the States it was something he was keen about at the time, albeit that was a while ago.
In the UK, the stalls practiced tend to be straight & level power off clean, straight & level power off in landing configuration, and (that’s the dangerous one) in a turn with approach power in approach configuration.
In the US, it was all of the above, and one at full power in take-off configuration(s) in addition.
In the UK, the stalls practiced tend to be straight & level power off clean, straight & level power off in landing configuration, and (that’s the dangerous one) in a turn with approach power in approach configuration.Quote
That’s good, as long as the addition of power is not being taught as a stall recovery method. I have heard that in jets, there has been some training which puts the emphasis on adding lots of power. I’m not a jet pilot. In light aircraft the emphasis must be on lowering the AoA, and preventing slip/skid. If, during that action, the addition of power is an element, that’s fine, but it must not be the first item, or focus.
Lowering the AoA has the dual benefit of reducing the demand for lift, and thus lowering the stall speed, right through to reducing G to less than one. If G approaches zero, a stall and thus spin are not possible. If during that, you get the nose pointed down, recovery from the unusual attitude (altitude permitting) is certain. I was entertaining myself yesterday, while loosing some altitude near the airport, by flying wingovers in my 150. While seeing the indicated airspeed slowing from 50 or so to 20, with the nose well up, I would reduce to less than one G, and rudder the plane around with 20 MPH showing, no stall warning – no stall, no loss of control. Then, three PFA’s later, I felt current for the month!
Pilot Dar – yes I agree.
BTW and my original question, what is your experience with the stall warner in a developed spin across a range of types. We are taught that at least one wing is fully stalled (which it is) but not always the other wing and if the warner is on that wing typically we sometimes hear the stall warner not sounding continously.
Yes, I agree, that once in a developing spin, the stall warning may cease to warn of a stall, as that wing may have recovered. I regularly fly an amateur built PA-18 Super Cub clone, which has no stall warning system – how refreshing! While flying a Siai Marchetti 1019 year back, I noted that it was not equipped with a stall warning system. I expect that is probably the only certified turbine powered aircraft in history to be approved with no stall warning system!
I find audible warnings a troublesome distraction to my piloting duties. I would prefer that there were none, so the pilot knew that they were responsible for awareness of those many opportunities for error/failure. Unfortunately, certifiers don’t rush to agree with me, and delight in approving more and more audible warnings. The turbine DC-3 is a veritable chatter box in short final approach, and distracting. The C 182 amphibian I fly has a landing gear warning system, which operates at 80 knots. The problem is that long final approach speed is about 80 knots, so the warning can be triggered multiple times. I pull the breaker, but I must not leave the plane that way, lest the owner think that he should get the warning.
This leads to the other failing of audible warnings, that being that the pilot expects that they will be warned of a condition. If that system fails, and the pilot is unaware of the failure, they may blunder on, unaware of an unsafe condition. This has been the cause of accidents. A failed configuration warning system in a commercial jet comes to mind, where the system had failed, and did not warn that the flaps were not set for takeoff. The pilots heard no warning, so off they went, wrong configuration. So, for me, I mentally suppress warnings, and follow procedures and checklists as appropriate. For an approach to stall, if the pilot cannot feel and sense that, they need more practice on type….
The stall warner can be so annoying when flying aerobatics – and it is common to pull the breaker to deal with the annoyance.
Were there more things in life were it as simple as pulling the breaker. :-)
Pilot_DAR wrote:
I have heard that in jets, there has been some training which puts the emphasis on adding lots of power.
That used to be the case until AF447. Now one is supposed to unstall the wing first by (slightly) decrasing the AoA and only then adding power. There is some variation between aircraft with tail mounted engines (which have a tendency to push the nose down when power is added thereby assisting the pilot) and underslung wing mounted engines which produce a nose-up moment with power increase. When power is added while still in a stall there can be insufficient forward acceleration to regain elevator control. AF447 dropped 35.000ft under full power with the nose pointing 30…45 degrees up and a forward velocity in the 50…70 kt range.
Tumbleweed wrote:
And as an Instructor you are required to be able to teach it, not just demonstrate it.
But how, when no aircraft in the training fleet is approved for intentional spinning…
what_next wrote:
When power is added while still in a stall there can be insufficient forward acceleration to regain elevator control.
I expect that an certified aircraft must meet the requirement that power on or off, the elevator is effective to lower the nose. I once test flew what I found to be a horribly mis rigged Cessna 206, which at flap settings greater than 15 degrees did not have sufficient “down” elevator travel to pitch down out of a power on stall. That results in a very alarming sensation!
what_next wrote:
But how, when no aircraft in the training fleet is approved for intentional spinning…
If you’re going to provide the service, you have to have the equipment!
