stall recovery

[AEROBAT]

767,
With all due respect I don`t believe you are an instructor, I think you dreamed up your novel stall recovery as a hoax to see how many pissed off people you got to respond to your idiotic recovery method.

[Strega]

I took over and since we were still quite slow I simply pulled through in a split S manoever

BPF this is the WORST way to recover from anything..... slow or not...... Please dont do it again EVER!

Roll when inverted... ALWAYS

[FlaplessDork]

I've flown about 20 different light airplanes and I've never heard of power first to recover from a stall...

[Big Pistons Forever]

I took over and since we were still quite slow I simply pulled through in a split S manoever

BPF this is the WORST way to recover from anything..... slow or not...... Please dont do it again EVER!

Roll when inverted... ALWAYS

I am a Class 1 Aerobatic Instructor,.....Are you ?

[modi13]

I think you misunderstood my point about the spin. I never meant that you said to apply power first in the recovery; on the contrary, it was a rhetorical question with the intention of showing that if you wouldn't perform your own recovery in contravention to that of TC in a spin, why would you do so in a stall?

However, I decided that when i teach stalls from now on, im going to teach the recovery both ways (at a safe altitude of course), and then ask the student what theyt prefer to do.

This is probably the worst idea you've come up with so far. First, your job is to teach the students how to correctly recover from this dangerous situation, not to give them options and decide between them. There is only one correct answer, and your job is to teach them how to do that; if you let them decide what they like, your job is irrelevant. If they don't know exactly what to do when a stall actually occurs, they'll have to think about which type of recovery they should do, and will likely do neither. More importantly though, if you teach them wrong, or let them choose incorrectly, they will die. Second, students know almost nothing about stalls, and asking them which recovery technique is best is like asking a 16-year-old whether a BMW handles better than a Mercedes. If you want to test this, do it with experienced instructors who are unaware of this discussion. Tell them to try the two techniques multiple times and see what the outcome is, and possibly get accurate calculations of exact altitudes lost and time to recover. Better yet, do it yourself: stall and hold the attitude, note your rate of descent, and apply full power; do the same, but with a change of pitch instead of power. Adding power first doesn't get you flying again, whereas changing pitch will, and adding power first takes a second or two where the aircraft isn't accelerating. If you are already accelerating, the time to get the power in is largely irrelevant. Since altitude lost is rate of descent x time, every second spent descending increases altitude lost.
I'd like you to explain the aerodynamics involved in the recovery you advocate and address my point about power increasing the angle of attack. I'm not trying to push you into a corner, I'm just curious as to whether you actually have something on which to base your claims. Otherwise, are you just making statements without any facts to validate them and you're unwilling to back down, or do you really have no idea what you're talking about? I'm curious to know where you got these ideas, since they're in contravention to all of TC's approved training courses and manuals, and shouldn't have been taught by one of their instructors.

In some cases of light training aircraft, simply adding full power will have the effect of reducing the angle of attack.

True, but usually not by more than 2 degrees. At best, this will put you deep in slow flight on the verge of another stall, with full power applied and nowhere to go but down.

[Strega]

I am a Class 1 Aerobatic Instructor,.....Are you ?

No Im not, but I do know that split s'ing out of a botched manouver is BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD..... This is how many people are killed each year... I have almosted witnessed it....

[Big Pistons Forever]

I am a Class 1 Aerobatic Instructor,.....Are you ?

No Im not, but I do know that split s'ing out of a botched manouver is BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD..... This is how many people are killed each year... I have almosted witnessed it....

Not interested in discussing this with you...goodbye

[Strega]

So in other words, you do not condemm the split s as an acceptable means to recover from a botched manouver...

did they teach you this in class one school?

[niss]

A simplified explanation of the procedure for recovering from a stall is:

1. Immediately reduce the angle of attack.
2. Regain a correct flight attitude with coordinated use of the flight controls. Not every situation demands the application of power, but its use must become an integral part of the recovery procedure.

These recovery technique for stall and spins are written in blood, I would rather follow them.

[Brewguy]

I am a Class 1 Aerobatic Instructor,.....

You can't be serious. You're a class 1, and say it's okay to pull through?.....

I happen to have worked for a very well known aerobatics & EMT training company (http://www.fightercombat.com & http://www.apstraining.com); and worked with dozens of class 1 aerobatics instructors. Our company never, never taught to pull through.

We used Rich Stowell's acronym PPR - Power, Push, Roll.

Push to unload, then roll the wings level (to the nearest horizon). Then you recover pulling symmetrical G.

I've never in my life heard an aerobatics instructor (class 1 or 2) advocate a split S to recover from an unusual attitude ... especially not at low level.

[On condition]

Before everybody crucifies BPF, remember that he was in an aerobatic instructor, in an aerobatic aircraft, and had ensured a HASEL check was done before the maneuver. I'm sure there wasn't even a remote concern of hitting the ground during the maneuver.

However, the way I was taught (I'm no Aerobatic instructor either) was:

Centralize (the controls), Analyze (attitude/instruments), Roll to the nearest horizon, and Pull (CARP) for extreme unusual attitude recovery. Seems to jive with what Brewguy was saying.

[MichaelP]

I am a Class 1 Aerobatic Instructor as well...

Pulling through under most circumstances is not the thing to do. But I read what was written very carefully and he wrote that the speed was already low and so he pulled through and I decided to skip that point.
However... This was an opportunity to show the correct recovery from the inverted and this is to stop any further downwards pitch and roll the aeroplane level.
First things learned make an impression... Even though you can split S out of this specific situation it might actually have been better for the student to have seen a rolled recovery.

Back to 767
The student's opinion should not be respected above the instructor's, especially not a Class 2 instructor

I have had many 'student opinions' in the past. I like them!
If they do not listen to sense, then I'll let them have their go, and let them learn for themselves with me there to fix it of course!

There's nothing new in flying. But from time to time the ideas that killed people learning to fly in 1912 resurface in a generation of pilots that feel they need to learn these sometimes deadly lessons for themselves again!

As instructors we are required to teach to the FTM.
We often don't, and I am appalled by the fact that some schools here completely ignore the Forced Landing procedures in the FTM in favour of a method that I consider to be highly dangerous!
But that's my opinion for whatever it's worth.

The Canadian FTM is similar to the Central Flying School training manual (RAF), and the 1931 edition of the RAF Flying Training Manual on my shelf here.
Training methods have long been established and proven.

I've been around little aeroplanes properly for 36 years now, before that I flew a Cherokee (C FVLA) in 1971 for a few circuits, and I built and crashed a lot of model aeroplanes in my youth.

In that period I have seen a lot of things.

Of relevance was the loss of my Slingsby T67A G BJCY, with two good friends dead, this was a terrible thing to happen, and I would not wish anyone here to go through what I went through.
The aircraft completed two, what I call, flying club loops.
In this they dived, pulled up, closed the throttle over the top and pulled out... The 'flying club loop' is a descending 'e' shaped manoeuvre.
They did the two loops one straight after the other, and were slower over the top the second time; closed the throttle while falling through inverted, and the prop stopped.
They were 600 feet or so AGL.
The stick was pulled and the aeroplane stalled, flicking left with the 'wing drop' leading to the aeroplane being level erect and with a 40 - 45 degree nose down attitude. They were now in a better position than if they'd continued the loop!
But the stick was not put forward to unstall the aeroplane, while I suspect opposite rudder had been applied to stop the wing drop.
The aeroplane flicked to the right through about two turns into the ground and the bodies were thrown clear of the aircraft's wreckage.

With proper training comes proper responses.
We need to learn the proper response first.
Moving the stick forward/releasing the back pressure if you like, should be the first action in a stall recovery.

Dithering, thinking about what one should do is not a good idea.

Stall recovery in a 172 is the same as for any other fixed wing conventional aeroplane.

Regardless of what aeroplane we teach in, we should be teaching pilots to fly aeroplanes.

[mcrit]

I took over and since we were still quite slow I simply pulled through in a split S manoever

BPF this is the WORST way to recover from anything..... slow or not...... Please dont do it again EVER!

Roll when inverted... ALWAYS

The situation that BPF found himself in was the exception to the rule (i.e. given that he was in an aerobatic aircraft, he is an aerobatic pilot, and the a/c was pretty much set up for a split s anyway). Having said that, pulling through may not have been the best idea (in terms of primacy and generally good habits). I'm certain that BPF will agree that students should be taught to roll out of a botched sequence.

[Bede]

Not to defend 767's techniques (or lack thereof), but on the MU2 I used to fly, we used to train full power on stall recovery and PA to +8 degrees (since if you were stalled, you were probably well above +8). Full power provided a HUGE amount of airflow over the wing. On the RJ, if you get a stick shaker and EGPWS, it's full power and climb with respect to the stick shaker (ie don't stall). At high altitude, significant nose down attitude is required because you are tapped out for power and behind the curve. Stall recovery up high is about 4000'
.
767:
As a class 2 instructor, you should know better than to teach a proper technique, and an improper technique and let the student decide what to do, even two good techniques is not recommended. You are the instructor; you tell the student how to do it. Sometimes you can teach different techniques and let the student decide because each situation may require a different technique (ie overhead 360 forced, vs base keypoints).

Question for BPF:
From your previous posts, you seem to know what you're talking about. I've never done aerobatics, but I'd like to one day, so perhaps you could give me some insight into the advantages of the split S recovery. If you were in a similar situation again, would you split S again or roll out? Why was the split S recovery better than rolling out in your situation?

[paydaymayday]

Not to defend 767's techniques (or lack thereof), but on the MU2 I used to fly, we used to train full power on stall recovery and PA to +8 degrees (since if you were stalled, you were probably well above +8). Full power provided a HUGE amount of airflow over the wing. On the RJ, if you get a stick shaker and EGPWS, it's full power and climb with respect to the stick shaker (ie don't stall). At high altitude, significant nose down attitude is required because you are tapped out for power and behind the curve. Stall recovery up high is about 4000'.

The moo is the exception for the rule on many things, though. The powerhouse Garrets will pull you through a lot of shit, as you know (just pray they don't fail ) You also don't clean up flaps in many cases, due to the tremendous lift they give that's necessary at slower speeds. So it's imperative to emphasize for 767 that this is not the case in 98% of other aircraft.

[Strega]

Bede,

I fly aerobatics (mind you Im no class one aerobatic instructor ) often, and the split s is NEVER acceptable as a recovery from something botched...

It is something that can be done in a contest/competition, but still its not a "common" thing... ESPECICALLY when you are near the ground..

[Bede]

paydaymayday,
You are exactly right. I was just throwing that out there.

Strega,
From what I have heard you are correct. I just wanted BPF opinion. Perhaps there was a good reason. Talking about rolling out, what pitch attitude would you just pull back vs rolling out? For example if you are in a vertical downline, you can pull out, but how about inverted and a PA of -75 degrees? Wouldn't you be faster pulling out?

Also, how did you get into aerobatics? Seems like an expensive hobby to do regularly? Do you have your own plane?

[Big Pistons Forever]

The topic of this thread is stall recovery. A rather unorthodox method was advanced by 767 and numerous posters pointed out in a generally constructive and non inflamatory way the dangers of starting a stall recovery by applying full power. I provide a concrete example of what had actually happened to me when a a student training for their PPL did exactly that during a practice power on stall. The result was a half snap roll with a inverted recovery. This wasn't at all by design it just happened to be what resulted from the students essentally random control inputs. I then briefly described how I recovered.

Unfortunately certain posters took one sentence out of context and implied I advocated the pull throught as the prefered method of upset recovery. Since my words were so grossly misrepresented I can only assume that, regretfully, the posters motives were not to engage in a constructive and interesting dialogue on an important issues, but simply as an excuse to continue to spout inflamatory and insulting language in the hope of dragging the thread down to their level. Fortunately subsequent posters choose to discuss the topic in an adult fashion and return to the topic at hand. Strega et al, better luck next time

However to bring closure to this issue it may be helpfull If I explain why I choose to pull through under these particular and unique conditions.

The main reason I pulled through was to not further freakout the student. Since the aircraft had stopped rolling to continue the roll to upright would have required a fair amount of time because the C 150 has such a pathetic roll rate. During that roll a lot of forward pressure would have been required to stop the nose from dropping and would have resulted in negative G being generated. My experience when doing exactly that recovery during upset training is the manoever is quite uncomfortable especially for the non flying pilot. This student had gone out to do stall training not an aerobatics lesson. Since I judged a pull through could be safely executed I elected to that and in fact it was not a big deal and we were still above 2000ft AGL comfortably below the redline when we regained level flight. When I talked to the student afterwards he had no idea what had happened or what I had done to recover. I believe he would have been equally oblivious if I had pushed and rolled to recover. We obviously had a long debrief but the thrust of the debrief was not how to recover from the inverted it was how to avoid getting so bent out of shape in the first place. His regular instructor had in my view utterly failed to adequately teach stall recognition and the instinctive reaction of forward stick and rudder to control yaw if a stall is encountered.

A discussion about upset training in my view has absolutely nothing to do with the above discussion thertefore I am going to start a new thread on that subject.

[Bede]

BPF,

Thanks for the response. That is what I was looking for.

Cheers,

[MichaelP]

Just to show that I am reading this stuff very carefully BPF:

we were still above 200ft AGL comfortably below the redline when we regained level flight.

****ing hell! I'd say after that one with my heart in my mouth.... I'm sure you meant two thousand feet and not two hundred
(I see you corrected the above )

what pitch attitude would you just pull back vs rolling out?

80 degrees from the vertical perhaps...

Here's the thing, to relate it back to the topic of stall recovery... BPF was flying an Aerobat.
What about flying a straight 150/152?
Someone doing 767's recovery technique with a new Class IV, he was passed the student by a Class 2 who had taught 'wrong technique' and now the student was repeating the stalling lesson with an unsuspecting instructor... Whack around the snap roll the Cessna goes.... There's a pause while the Class IV tries to grasp what just happened... But now the airpeed is rising, the aeroplane is unstalled, good hey?, but hang on a second (not a minute, that's too long!), we're upside down two outcomes, you can imagine a movie with two endings:
1. The aeroplane is rolled within its +4.4 - 1.76 limits, the engine coughs a little, they fly home and go to the 'can'.
2. The instructor instinctively pulls, they feel the G rising rapidly, they hear the speed rising rapidly and a glance at the ASI would reveal that Vne has been passed a little while ago, but they can't see now, they couldn't see beyond 4.5 G, the altimeter is winding rapidly downwards..... then:
2a. the screaming stops, and they fly home wondering how they survived that (perhaps they didn't?).
2b. there's a large crack followed by sma..... nothing.
2c. ban... they hit the ground.
"sma..." would have been smash, "ban..." would have been bang but they didn't live long enough to hear the whole thing.

On my last aerobatic flight test I was asked to recover on the half turn of the spin entry in the Decathlon.
During spin entry in most of the planes we fly, we are inverted at half a turn, even in a Cessna.
Recovering from the first half turn with a pull out loses more height and gains more speed than if the 'spin' is allowed to continue to the completion of the first turn when the nose is now above the vertical.
I told the TC examiner this and said that with the additional speed and energy I would have to do a victory roll afterwards, and I did

[shitdisturber]

Shiny and I have discussed this stall recovery several times over the last couple of days. What concerns us is that 767 has supposedly gotten his Class 2 while teaching an incorrect procedure, ok that's bad. As Shiny mentioned in his post, apparently the CFI is oblivious or perhaps even agrees with this technique, that's worse. But in order to have gotten his Class 2, at least ten candidates have used this method during a flight test and the examiner has assessed their skills and decided they are of an acceptable standard to warrant the issue of a license. My question is, what in the hell is going on out there that this is apparently sliding through the cracks?

[Stan Darsh]

Does anyone else think 767 is just a troll, a persona meticulously constructed by someone with a lot of time on their hands? Or is that too optimistic?

Interesting discussion though.

[Lurch]

Does anyone else think 767 is just a troll, a persona meticulously constructed by someone with a lot of time on their hands? Or is that too optimistic?

Interesting discussion though.

Sorry Stan but that is too optimistic

767 is in fact a instructor, and is known to a few posters on here.

Lurch

[767]

But in order to have gotten his Class 2, at least ten candidates have used this method during a flight test and the examiner has assessed their skills and decided they are of an acceptable standard to warrant the issue of a license. My question is, what in the hell is going on out there that this is apparently sliding through the cracks?

Well, maybe its becuase the "snap" rolls, spins, etc. arent happening on the flight test(s) during the recovery?? Im not trying to get into arguing mode here, and im not trying to act like im better than everyone else, but like i said, ive accepted the change you guys advised. Now since i began telling students "nose down" first, perhaps we can now move on with the topic of the thread, rather than debate about my "old" procedure. You can however, keep debunking my previous procedure if you like.

[modi13]

No, I'm quite certain that he meant your stall recovery technique. How did any of your students get that past the examiner? Unless the examiner was also the Class I who trained you on that technique...The largest concern for all of us here isn't that you've said you'll stop teaching it that way; it's that you taught it that way at all. How many licenced pilots are there out there who are certain that the way to recover from a stall is to add power first? For that matter, who taught you, and how many other instructors were taught the same thing, only to pass it on to their students? On the other hand, this seems like the kind of thing that you came up with yourself after a moment's thought on the use of power to arrest descent, without any in-depth consideration for the actual aerodynamics involved, or a complete lack of understanding thereof.