Learning to fly, or thinking of learning? Post your questions, comments and experiences here

Moderator: AndyR

User avatar
By T67M
#1625685
I agree at altitude - I'd got myself into the mindset of only considering base-to-final (low-level) recoveries (Thread drift? Me? :whistle:). At 3000', yes, absolutely no problem with aerodynamic stall recovery.
User avatar
By Irv Lee
#1625690
And the Gasco study into SEP stall/spin fatalities a few years ago found we have been improving awareness of the base/final stall/spin fatalities, (judging by recent lack of them) but we could do to improve awareness of the climb out stall/spin problem, especially if there is power reduction going unnoticed rather than the full engine failure after take off, or of course, the "full failure and turned back" stall/spin.
Paul_Sengupta liked this
User avatar
By Rob P
#1625702
Almost every day I run through in my mind the events of my EFATO.

Every time I think "if only I hadn't been so aggressive getting the nose down so I could execute a steep turn from about 120 - 150 ft the aircraft might have been less badly damaged"

Then I remember my overriding thought, "Don't stall! Don't stall" and go on to enjoy the day I might not have had if I'd have spun in trying to save the aircraft.

Rob P
Irv Lee, Cessna57, Charles Hunt and 3 others liked this
By BehyBill
#1627651
Trainingwise, exactly as Balliol said

Practically, you will not recover from a 500ft agl foot stall/spin base to final irrespective how much trained to recover, so just don't go there in the first place (you can ask a pro aerobatic pilot who is allowed to go very low to do a demo of a wingover/chandelle from 500ft agl, as Rob's mentioned human factors kicks in and the least you do the better the outcome is)
#1631754
Rob P wrote:Almost every day I run through in my mind the events of my EFATO.

Every time I think "if only I hadn't been so aggressive getting the nose down so I could execute a steep turn from about 120 - 150 ft the aircraft might have been less badly damaged"

Then I remember my overriding thought, "Don't stall! Don't stall" and go on to enjoy the day I might not have had if I'd have spun in trying to save the aircraft.

Rob P

Very wise Rob. Much better to discuss it here rather than at an inquest!
#1631759
Thoughts, having spent a lot of time worrying about this issue over, oooh, about 15 years...

- Nose down and simultaneous full power.

- Indeed, don't touch the ailerons until the aeroplane's unstalled. If the aeroplane's turning, let it keep turning. Similarly only use the rudder initially to keep the ball in the middle.

- The EGAST document should best be discounted, to the best of my knowledge it was cobbled together by a few professional committee goers in a meeting in Cologne, and has no hard research behind it. That most of it is probably correct may mostly be luck. Use the CAA document, which is vastly superior.

- Yes, a pitch only recovery will work as a stall recovery, but you'll unnecessarily lose excessive height. So long as you never apply power first, and keep the ball in the middle, the use of power should not have any adverse effect.

- Statistically, mishandling post take-off or on the go-around are around 8 times more likely to induce a low level stall. I'm not saying don't avoid a base to final stall, I'm saying it's unlikely, don't obsess about it. DO worry about it particularly on go-around from a full flap approach.

G
T67M, Irv Lee liked this
#1631768
TopCat wrote:
T67M wrote:The EGAST document is certainly different! I don't think I fancy teaching someone a purely aerodynamic (no power) stall recovery in a light aircraft

I'm curious why?

While stall recovery with minimum height loss is of course important when close to the ground, that's absolutely no reason to avoid stall recovery without power at a safe height.

If you're not already spinning, which is of course completely different, stall recovery at any attitude requires nothing more than easing the stick forward until the AoA reduces enough for the airflow to reattach.

Doing this without power and simply accepting the loss of height is a great confidence builder, as it demystifies the stall, reduces the workload, and if you approach the stall from a slow deceleration rather than from level flight where it all happens so quickly, there's plenty of time to explore the increasingly floppy controls, the pre-stall buffet, and the stall itself.


I was wondering why too. I'm a glider pilot and my only power time is in a Tiger Moth. Stalled that - throttle right back, raise nose, stall and nose drop, recover, fly out of the stall, reapply power. A complete non-event. Are more modern trainers more twitchy?
User avatar
By Irv Lee
#1631783
Genghis the Engineer wrote:Thoughts, having spent a lot of time worrying about this issue over, oooh, about 15 years...
- Statistically, mishandling post take-off or on the go-around are around 8 times more likely to induce a low level stall.
G

As far as I'm concerned, these stats are nicely backed up by over 15 years of checking out qualified PPLs who don't fly as often as they want. Threat and Error - threat is the unnoticed engine power reduction on climb out, error is what many not so current pilots do when they have to go around.
I soon learned to include a full flap go-around as part of the upper air work section of a checkout, and not wait to scare myself in the circuit . It is very frightening what some qualified pilots will do on a full flap simulated approach when told to go around, but as long as this is happening in a check out at the sort of height stalls are practised, I've had the luxury of letting things develop more than I would 20' off the ground.
I do have a theory though, which must be in a Flyer article somewhere. I think people who don't do (m)any go arounds, on being suddenly forced into one, revert to 'touch and go' actions learned years ago in training, which usually don't work all that well as go arounds to say the least. (Probably the lack of runway supporting the aircraft whilst things are sorted out). So without actually defining long, medium or short, the ones who haven't done a go around for years, but originally learned on a long runway try to retract flap first then go to full power, which is basically what they used to do on a touch and go. The ones who learned on a medium runway add some power but not all of it and then retract half the flap, then go to full power. The ones on a short runways either are not sure what to do as they probably did as few touch and goes as they did go arounds, or, they do something that works.... full power nose horizon (simulated getting into ground effect), stablise, retract half flap, climb, retract flap.
T67M liked this
User avatar
By Rob P
#1631811
So all the go-rounds I've done since switching to tailwheel are a Good Thing then?

Rob P
User avatar
By GolfHotel
#1631818
Rob P wrote:So all the go-rounds I've done since switching to tailwheel are a Good Thing then?

Rob P


Far better than messing up a landing. I’m very happy to go around if in doubt. I landed a taildragger yesterday for the first time in over a year. I was quite prepared for the go around, although by some fluke it was a greaser.

Although an RV with VP prop 200 horses and light weight is not too fussy on which order you do things. Just keep the nose well up and keep it straight and wings level.
#1631835
The OP was talking about the approach to the stall. Don’t forget students follow our advice. A full stall recovery at the approach to the stall is unnecessary and possibly dangerous in a turn final as you will lose a couple of hundred feet.
By TopCat
#1631839
Irv Lee wrote:...I think people who don't do (m)any go arounds, on being suddenly forced into one, revert to 'touch and go' actions learned years ago in training, which usually don't work all that well as go arounds to say the least. ....

... the ones who haven't done a go around for years, but originally learned on a long runway try to retract flap first then go to full power, which is basically what they used to do on a touch and go.

I was always taught to get the power in first for a touch and go, then get the pitch attitude right, and then sort out the flap.

It's never even occurred to me that anyone would teach a different technique for touch and goes, than for go arounds - it makes no sense to me at all as it's essentially the same manoeuvre.

But then I was also made to do stop-and-goes on an 855m grass runway in my training - guess I was lucky.

Out of interest, are there any aircraft that won't climb at all with full flap?
#1631842
TopCat wrote:Out of interest, are there any aircraft that won't climb at all with full flap?

I once sat 3 up in a 172 with an instructor whom decided to dispel the 'myth' about a 172s poor take off and climb performance on full flap.

Not an experience I would like to repeat. :shock: :evil: :evil: