Upset training

[sepia]

So what about a regular 152? not an Aerobat. I remember once being told that any aircraft can technically do a barrel roll as it's only a 1 g manouver. I have been trying it lately, but I can't seem to get it past about 110 degrees. Too many nerves

I would seriously suggest you track down an aerobatic instructor and get someone to show ya how to do it. Definitely not worth screwing it up and bending a plane or killing yourself.

[Osiris]

So what about a regular 152? not an Aerobat. I remember once being told that any aircraft can technically do a barrel roll as it's only a 1 g manouver. I have been trying it lately, but I can't seem to get it past about 110 degrees. Too many nerves

I don't know what your level of aerobatic experience is, but unless you know how to fly a barrel roll, you shouldn't assume it's safe to do in any aircraft that isn't aerobatic. By "know how to fly one" I don't mean that you're simply familiar with the inputs, but that you've seen and flown a barrel roll enough to have it down. A properly flown barrel roll is about a 1g maneuver, but if it's your first time flying one I can assure you it won't be properly flown. On the first try, nobody makes the first half large enough or high enough. This makes the radius of the second half larger than planned. On the pull-out your barrel roll will exceed 1g, your speed will be higher than your entry speed and you'll loose height. Why risk over-stressing the aircraft?

As Sepia said, find an instructor! And please don't fly aerobatic figures in a non-aerobatic aircraft!

[Hedley]

Would you try to teach yourself IFR flying, by taking off
on a crappy day, climbing up into the clouds, and trying
to make your first approach to minimums a solo one?

I would surely hope not.

Similarly, I don't know why so many people have such
contempt for aerobatics that they think it's safe to teach
it to themselves - in a NON-aerobatic aircraft?

I would surely hope not.

When you are learning to fly aerobatics, you will make
mistakes. Trust me on this. An aerobatic airplane is
strong enough to not be damaged when you make a
mistake flying a maneuver.

But from a physics standpoint, a highly skilled and experienced
aerobatic pilot - of which there are less than 10 in all
of Canada, IMHO - can fly a very nice aerobatic sequence
with only +0.5/+3.8 on the G meter at the end, which
is within normal category limits.

Are you one of the 10 highly skilled and experienced aerobatic
pilots in Canada? Statistically, it is doubtful. I can count
these people on the fingers of both hands.

[mcrit]

The correct way is to stop the pitch by moving the control column forward and then rolling the aeroplane level again.

You might want to keep slight + g on and use aggressive (full aileron + rudder if the speed is high) inputs to roll level. Using forward pressure to stop the pitch has a few draw backs, the big one being that if you completely stop the pitch down you will be at -1g and that can be really disconcerting if you're not used to it. The other advantage of keeping + g is your engine fuel and oil systems are less likely to hiccup.

On a side note I knew fellow that thought it might be fun to try a split s from cruise. Upon landing he noticed that the g meter was just touching the max g limit so he told maintainence. The techs pulled the data recorders and it turned out he had been within 1 knot of Vne and .1 of an over g. That was in an airplane designed for aerobatics and (compared to most a/c) high speed. Think about what would happen if you took 172 through an unplanned vertical downline.

[MichaelP]

do a barrel roll as it's only a 1 g manouver

This underlines the ignorance out there....
You might be able to do a barrel roll with a little more than one G in a high speed jet but in our little aeroplanes any deviation from straight and level coordinated flight is a deviation from one G.
Even a gentle turn involves more than one G!

An aeroplane such as a Cessna 152 will take about 2 1/4 G to initiate the barrel roll with about 1/3 G over the top inverted and exiting with a similar g to what you started with.
You have to ensure that when the fuselage reaches level the wings are also level.

If the wings are not yet level when the fuselage is level inverted then you'd better apply more aileron and roll them there otherwise you'll be in the worst spiral dive you can imagine with speed and G building up rapidly.

Whereas the barrel roll can be done in anything stressed for 3 G or more, it is also a manoeuvre that can go horribly wrong.

When doing a barrel roll in a Gardan GY30 Super Cab a few years ago I entered a spin off the top but she came out all right and I was glad there was no fuel in the wingtip tanks!

When teaching aerobatics the barrel roll is the last manoeuvre I teach.

I teach aileron roll, stabilised inverted with different pitch attitudes, inverted turns (pilots usually turn the wrong way until they orientate themselves), then aileron rolls with a little push to hold the inverted attitude in passing, then slower rolls with less and less nose up and using the rudder, and into the proper slow roll.
In this way we learn to handle an aeroplane inverted and to prevent ourselves from getting the tendancy to pull through.
Pulling through from the inverted is highly dangerous.

If a person learns the barrel roll early, then that tendancy to pull and roll becomes a greater possibility when that person loses the aeroplane upside down!

Using forward pressure to stop the pitch has a few draw backs, the big one being that if you completely stop the pitch down you will be at -1g and that can be really disconcerting if you're not used to it. The other advantage of keeping + g is your engine fuel and oil systems are less likely to hiccup.

Even if you zero the G it is better... and minus 1 to 1.5 G may be absolutely paramount.
You have to stop all pitching of the nose towards the ground, apply full aileron and roll the aeroplane level.

The engine is not important and we should close the throttle as we do for a spiral dive recovery then slowly open it up again when we are once again level.

Being inverted is disconcerting so recovery using the best technique is important.

Another problem I have seen again and again is instructors and hence students and renters who do no know how important it is that the lapstrap is really really tight.

ANY TIME YOU ARE FLYING IN ANY AIRCRAFT MAKE SURE YOUR LAP STRAP IS TIGHT!

To quote Norman Jones:

All aircraft bite fools

Do not attempt aerobatics without proper training.

[mcrit]

Even if you zero the G it is better... and minus 1 to 1.5 G may be absolutely paramount.
You have to stop all pitching of the nose towards the ground, apply full aileron and roll the aeroplane level.

You can do it that way, but most people find being pushed up out of their seat while various bits of FOD rise up off the floor to greet them to be very distracting. If your rate of role is fast enough you will find yourself back upright very quickly, and thus the + g will be bringing you out of the dive. If you are flying the 152/172 you can get away with putting the fuel and oil system into 0g for a while. Not all a/c are like this. I can think of 2 off the top of my head that have restrictions when it comes to 0g flight.
When I said to maintain slight +g I meant slight. About +0.5, while rolling out. That is not going to drag your nose all that low all that quickly, especially if you get the roll going.

[GoinNowhereFast]

Are you one of the 10 highly skilled and experienced aerobatic
pilots in Canada? Statistically, it is doubtful. I can count
these people on the fingers of both hands.

You've got 10 fingers? I've only got 8 fingers and 2 thumbs.

[Shiny Side Up]

The origin of the original question was the ignorance of too many instructors questioned on it and giving unsatisfactory answers.

Unfortunately many instructors forget the cardinal rule of instructing: Don't bullshit the students. If you don't know something, admit it to them. Ammend that with that you'll find out for them. They are only human though - and pilots, for whom bullshit comes as naturally as it does fishermen - there are limits to what is excuseable though. The real unfortunate part is when someone truly believes the bullshit they dish out, or that has been passed down to them.

Like taxying and running up with the control column forward, the art of flying/operating an aeroplane well and with consideration has largely died.

The first bit I have to ask about MichaelP, aside from when you'd have a strong tailwind, why would you taxi with control column forward? Maybe I'm misreading something?

I hear you about the consideration though. Courtesy often gives way to the rush that people are always in.

[Strega]

..

[MichaelP]

The first bit I have to ask about MichaelP, aside from when you'd have a strong tailwind, why would you taxi with control column forward? Maybe I'm misreading something?

I wouldn't!

But you have to see the Cessna drivers here who are taught this way with the 172's turning to do their runups with the nose leg bottomed the nosewheel tyre rolling to the side of the wheel and the propeller getting precariously close to the ground while picking up FOD.

I point it out to students all the time.

The problem I have with all of this is that these students become pilots with bad habits already fixed in their subconcious.
I contend that a lot of tailwheel accidents are because the pilots were not taught good habits in the nosedraggers in the first place.
What a nosewheel forgives a tailwheel won't.

When I said to maintain slight +g I meant slight. About +0.5, while rolling out.

This is not easy to do.
You must kill all pitch towards the ground and roll the aeroplane as quickly as possible.
I would not be concerned about the engine when it comes to something like this. Close the throttle and roll back to level. I know of no engine that has not run properly if the throttle was closed in negative G.
I believe many engines will come apart through overspeeding in a dive and even +0.5 G inverted will put you through Vne very quickly with a good chance the engine will overspeed.

Fortunately for most of us we will never see this happen, and likewise we will never see a forced landing, but we should be prepared for such things.

[Shiny Side Up]

I wouldn't!

Ah, my mistake then, I thought you were advocating it for a minute.

[Blue Side Down]

If a pilot is a keener and is willing and able to spend the money required to become proficient at basic aerobatics, good for them, the skills and insight they gain will compliment their 'normal' flying experience nicely. Implementing a requirement for upset training into the licensing requirements, however, would be a step in the wrong direction. I'd actually expect it to be more of a hazard than a help- just think of all the exciting accident reports which would follow when every fresh off the block Cessna driver believes they've got the skills to Bob Hoover their beast out of a triple-7's wake on short final.

Of the three scenarios proposed where upset training would be an 'asset', all require a grave mistake in judgment to be made before the opportunity for a heroic recovery arises. In the case of the wake turbulence, if you need to ponder whether or not you should put any negative g on an airframe rated for -1.7 or whatever, or zero-g the beast, ballistic roll upright and figure out what to do with the blazing speed once you're right side up again, I hate to break it to you, but you've got bigger problems coming- in fact, a whole world of a problem. Similar with the disorientation in cloud- by the time you realize you're in trouble, the only thing left to do will be to check the airspeed indicator out of curiosity to see where it actually pegs before the wings start bending the wrong way. The only thing that would save pilot in an 'in cloud' situation would be a thorough and disciplined method of flying on the gauges to keep the airplane from getting away in the first place. Students would be better off learning about risk identification and mitigation than fooling themselves into thinking just because Bob Hoover flew upsidedown in a twin, they can too. There were a couple other guys that flew twins at airshows because they thought they could put on a spectacular show within the g limits of the airframes- one guy was in a Baron and the other in a Partanavia iirc- they put on great shows right up to the last one when the wings came off. And note that these guys were flying within the certified g-limits of the airframe- what they did was discover the fatigue limits of the spar.

Here's my thought- discover and enjoy aerobatics for what they are, but lets not naively try to convince ourselves that five hours looping and rolling around the sky will do any good fifteen hundred IFR hours down the road. Stay vigilant, stay out of trouble, don't run out of altitude inverted.

[Osiris]

I disagree.

In simulator studies, pilots (experienced pilots) who had no aerobatic training and no upset training ALWAYS pulled through (and crashed) to recover from "surprise, you're inverted" whereas those who had some aerobatic experience rolled out and survived the scenario. (sorry I don't have a link)

To say that a student is better off learning about risk identification and never actually seeing the inverted attitude is like saying that stall/spin prevention training is better than actually going out, spinning a plane and recovering. Nothing beats going through the motions.

Rolling a twin or a jet out of the inverted should be a very survivable thing if done properly. And the only way to do it properly is to train for it. The captain of the FedEx DC-10 that experienced that attempted hi-jacking rolled his aircraft all over the sky. When they got it on the ground, the plane was well over-stressed, but they were still able to fly it to the ground. Granted the DC-10's got an incredibly strong airframe, but the Baron and Partanavia are equally capable of surviving a single occurrence of upset recovery. Those air show crashes were the result of cumulative fatigue, which has the potential to produce significantly greater wear on an airframe than experiencing a single loading event well beyond the limits of the aircraft. Heck, a Hawker 800 recently took 4 snap rolls and remarkably stayed in one piece: http://www.pprune.org/biz-jets-ag-flyin ... times.html.

I think it's safe to say you'd stand a reasonable (or at least better) chance of surviving upset in any aircraft provided (just like a stall or spin) you had sufficient height to recover and you knew how to recover. And if you haven't gone up and done it, you don't know how to recover! Five hours of loops/rolls is a great benefit to any pilot. Some form of re currency every once in a while would make it even more valuable.

[iflyforpie]

+1

Unless you've been inverted in an aircraft you have no idea what it is like. It is totally unnatural to push forward while hanging in your harness and trying to keep your feet on the floor to reach the pedals. You will need to do this if your nose is anywhere near the horizon when you are inverted in a light aircraft.

Mcrit, I don't know of any aircraft other than perhaps a powered parachute that has an all-out restriction against negative-G flight. All normal category aircraft are stressed for -1.52 G. You will loose some oil and battery acid and your engine might sputter, but you will save the aircraft for the worst case scenario of a forced landing if the engine doesn't pick up right away. I'd rather be upright with an engine failure than upside down with everything running.

[AuxBatOn]

Mcrit, I don't know of any aircraft other than perhaps a powered parachute that has an all-out restriction against negative-G flight. All normal category aircraft are stressed for -1.52 G. You will loose some oil and battery acid and your engine might sputter, but you will save the aircraft for the worst case scenario of a forced landing if the engine doesn't pick up right away. I'd rather be upright with an engine failure than upside down with everything running.

Lots of turbines/jets have a very limited time at or around 0G.

[iflyforpie]

I find that surprising considering that some of the most mundane jets are used for weightless training for relatively long periods of time.

[mcrit]

Lots of turbines/jets have a very limited time at or around 0G.

Once early in my training in the sim I stuck around the 0g mark for a bit to long and was rewarded with a chip light, engine failure, forced landing and major earfull in that order.
The way it was explained to me was that exeeding the time at 0g caused my oil pump to cavitate because the system couldn't scavage the sump correctly. This pooched the oil pressure and the rest followed, does that sound about right to you AuxBat? The fellow also mentioned that it was possible for the fuel system to loose pressure for a similar reason, with unpleasant results.
If you find yourself inverted and decide to apply lots (and it will take lots) of forward pressure to arrest the rate at which your nose is dropping, that is fine. Unless you fly upside down on a regular basis be prepared to be disoriented. Also be prepared to have to reverse your forward pressure to back pressure fairly rapidly once you are past the half way point of the roll.
If you choose instead to keep slight +g on during the whole thing, and use a rapid rate of roll (full aileron and lots of rudder), you won't be quite as disoriented and once you are past the half way point you will be pulling the nose up without having to reverse for control pressures. The whole thing is like a bastardized barrel roll.

[AuxBatOn]

Once early in my training in the sim I stuck around the 0g mark for a bit to long and was rewarded with a chip light, engine failure, forced landing and major earfull in that order.
The way it was explained to me was that exeeding the time at 0g caused my oil pump to cavitate because the system couldn't scavage the sump correctly. This pooched the oil pressure and the rest followed, does that sound about right to you AuxBat? The fellow also mentioned that it was possible for the fuel system to loose pressure for a similar reason, with unpleasant results.
If you find yourself inverted and decide to apply lots (and it will take lots) of forward pressure to arrest the rate at which your nose is dropping, that is fine. Unless you fly upside down on a regular basis be prepared to be disoriented. Also be prepared to have to reverse your forward pressure to back pressure fairly rapidly once you are past the half way point of the roll.
If you choose instead to keep slight +g on during the whole thing, and use a rapid rate of roll (full aileron and lots of rudder), you won't be quite as disoriented and once you are past the half way point you will be pulling the nose up without having to reverse for control pressures. The whole thing is like a bastardized barrel roll.

It was indeed what I was referring to. Oil problems and sometimes, fuel problems (but at that point, it's secondary, the oil problem is a far bigger problem, since it will do permanant damage.)


The other problem is that most people would not pull quite -1G, bringing them close to the 0G regime. Even thought it's dead easy to do, there is a tentendy to not push enough, since it can be unconfortable and akward.

[Hedley]

If you ever find yourself accidentally upside down (and
I hope you never do) ...

As mentioned above, push HARD forward while inverted
to keep the nose up (flat bottom wing) and rolling through
knife edge, FULL top rudder. Both of the above will result
in minimum loss of altitude, which may make the difference
between you and your pax living or dying that day.

IMHO better to possibly damage the engine than crash
and kill everyone aboard.

I personally would rather get the airplane back on the
ground with everyone safe with the engine possibly
damaged, rather than try to keep the airplane perfect
up until the moment that it was completely destroyed
in a crash.

[AuxBatOn]

I personally would rather get the airplane back on the
ground with everyone safe with the engine possibly
damaged, rather than try to keep the airplane perfect
up until the moment that it was completely destroyed
in a crash.

Agreed, but with a ceised engine, you're not in a much better position IMHO, which would most likely be the outcome of extended 0G flight in some turboprops/jets.

[Hedley]

I would rather be upright, with flamed-out engines,
which I have a chance of surviving, instead of crashing
inverted at high speed into the ground, which has
absolutely no chance of survival.

My father did a dead-stick instrument approach and
landing through a thick overcast in an F-86 in Europe,
back in the 1950's, even though Transport Canada
hates him because he is related to me. I guess they
are much hotter sticks than he is.

Bob Hoover did many successful dead-stick landings
as a North American test pilot, even though the FAA
hated him. Read his autobiography about why he
wasn't the test pilot on the XS-1 when it broke the
sound barrier.

There is a video on the net of an F-16 doing a dead
stick instrument approach and landing.

A friend of mine (TACA pilot) landed a B737 in New
Orleans with both engines flamed out due to rain/hail
and no one was hurt. The airplane was so undamaged,
Boeing put new engines on it and flew it out!

And of course, there is the Air Canada Gimli Glider,
and the Air Transat Azores glider.

Engines out is not a death sentence. Crashing
inverted at high speed is.

[mcrit]

I would rather be upright, with flamed-out engines,

If you get the roll and rudder in quickly enough you can be both upright and have happy engines.

[iflyforpie]

The KC-135 was regularly used for weightless training for astronauts. You can buy weightless adventures in Russia flying in an IL-76 where, according to their diagrams, you are at zero G for roughly 45 seconds. AFAIK these aircraft use non-inverted dry sump oil systems.

It also perplexes me because all of my inverted training was done in a Citabria 7GCBC, which has a wet sump oil system which definitely looses oil pressure when inverted. Inverted flight is restricted to 30 seconds and there is no restriction on zero G flight.

Just remember too that just because a chip light goes on, doesn't mean the engine is going to fail right away or even at all (sometimes accumulated 'fuzz' can cause one to go).

[AuxBatOn]

Just remember too that just because a chip light goes on, doesn't mean the engine is going to fail right away or even at all (sometimes accumulated 'fuzz' can cause one to go).

Well, a chip light means there is a significant amount of metal chips in the oil, meaning that the gear box is likely eating itself up. I had 1 chip light experience and it wasn't fun at all, torque going up and down, partial power, etc.

On a jet, it's the same kind of concerns, except you do not have the chip light warning.

0G in the Hawk was 10 seconds (-0.5 to +0.5 IIRC), I believe it was 5 on the Harvard II (-0.25 to +0.25) IIRC. I may have mixed the two, since it has been a while.

On the Hornet, 0G is actually a prohibited manoever, except for transient. -G is limited to 10 seconds

Even with an inverted oil system, it doesn't do any good in 0G.

[Rockie]

I don't know about cessna's and such, but anybody recovering from an upset in a transport category jet should leave their feet firmly glued to the floor and off the rudder pedals. Vertical stabilizers are not built to withstand rapid, full rudder applications and will probably depart the fix if you try it. And unless a light airplane is specifically certified for aerobatics I would be reluctant to try it in one of those at high speed too for the same reason.