Proposed Advisory Circular For Stall And Stick Pusher Training

I would strongly support aerobatic training and real upset training, but do not be surprised if a pilot with all of those skills STILL stalls a jet aircraft at high altitude. Happened before, and could happen again.
 
seagull said:
I would strongly support aerobatic training and real upset training, but do not be surprised if a pilot with all of those skills STILL stalls a jet aircraft at high altitude. Happened before, and could happen again.
Click to expand...
I don't discount it in the least.

I do think it would be a good "back to basics" addition that might reduce such incidents, though. Or at least, remind folks that airplanes are still all-attitude vehicles.
 
Polar742 said:
I'm in recurrent now. We just changed our stall series and it's a huge difference.

Instead of US flying into the stall (You're "in the game"), the AP now is set to stall the aircraft (trimming the whole way in), and then we recover.

Way, way different than doing it hand flying into it, or setting the scenario where you hand fly into a stall. Very glad to have practiced this in the box....

Please don't every forget though, the reason planes have shakers, pushers, ventral fins and such is because they are very ill-mannered in a full, deep stall. Prevention is ALWAYS the best medicine in for keeping the machine out of the dirt.
Click to expand...

Well that's convenient because I already forgot the old way we did them. Wheeeee....
 
jhugz said:
Really, you don't reduce the AoA?
Click to expand...

Sort of. The recovery was not like in piston aircraft.

Through both my newhire and upgrade EMB training, both over 5 years ago, we were essentially taught to lower the nose, but don't loose altitude, really add the juice and power out of the stall. So yes, reduce AOA, but not below the horizon. My understanding was that it was also the case on the RJ. The training is much different now especially on the high altitude stalls on the RJ, where you expect to loose thousands of feet if you recover correctly.
 
Polar742 said:
I'm in recurrent now. We just changed our stall series and it's a huge difference.

Instead of US flying into the stall (You're "in the game"), the AP now is set to stall the aircraft (trimming the whole way in), and then we recover.

Way, way different than doing it hand flying into it, or setting the scenario where you hand fly into a stall. Very glad to have practiced this in the box....

Please don't every forget though, the reason planes have shakers, pushers, ventral fins and such is because they are very ill-mannered in a full, deep stall. Prevention is ALWAYS the best medicine in for keeping the machine out of the dirt.
Click to expand...

"Ill- mannered" is a very nice way to put it. :)

I really like that method and wish we did the same. You still have to set up for the stall and THEN recover. Which I understand, but I also agree that a set up that somewhat emulates being suprised by the stall seems more realistic to me.
 
Not adding much here, but, remember, you don't actually need to change the pitch of the airplane to reduce the AOA. "powering out" modifys the velocity vector, and reduces the aoa for a given pitch. Airline training up untill this point was to "reduce the AOA" but, via means that wouldn't normally work in a 172. Once you point the nose of a heavy jet down, you will lose a "lot" of altitude. Then again, if you keep pointing it up, you will lose even more.

Our training now uses the work "pitch" in the recovery. along with fancy words like reduce pitch or deck angle or yada yada. It doesn't say reduce aoa, partially because we don't have a gauge for that, and, because it's a dynamic variable that won't always produce the same results between different crews.

We do have cautions about "low altitude" stalls, eg, don't dive it into a mountain... but thei also breaks into the regiem where the pusher is disabled anyways... so it's a "don't dive, but by the way, the pusher won't go on you" snip it.
 
I dunno, "reduce backpressure" is just as good as "lower the nose." More appropriately, "don't pull so f'ing much!" is the better way to put it. Add power, and reduce backpressure, in under powered, high lift airplanes, "lower the nose." C'mon, it should be easy, "airspeed is life" to get airspeed back when you arebehind the power curve you need PITCH + POWER. This is basic stuff.

When I went to FSI, I thought the "power out of the stall" was absolutely asinine for a turbo-prop. The jet could be different but, I'd suspect that same basic situational awareness about altitude v. airspeed thinking would be the way to go. I bet you lose a crapload of altitude during a high altitude stall, however I bet that adding power and reducing back-pressure down low would be damn effective down there low where those wings work well. Additionally, a high altitude stall is only going to be a factor in terms of impacting terrain when you live and work in the Himalayas.

Also, the stall series was formulaic, and put absolutely no emphasis on actual knowing how to fly the airplane - rather it was an exercise in procedural differences and Sim-isms. Add power, reduce backpressure or if the airplane requires it, lower the nose, get your airspeed back. This is basic stuff guys.
 
I am glad to see things starting to change. Autothrust, I agree with your SuperD comment. It really is PPL fundamental training, the problem was that if you did what you have been taught since you PPL to recover from a stall you would fail your ride from losing to much altitude. I am very glad that the FAA has come around to the fact that all airplanes fly, fundamentally, the same. And to recover a stalled airfoil the fundamentals should also be the same.
 
I find it interesting that in this thread, and other like it, the folks that explain that the simple procedure is to "get with it" because this stuff is "so simple" haven't flown an aircraft that weighs over 15,000 lbs.

Interesting that people that have never flown anything bigger than a Metro can give tips to 767 drivers about how to perform a maneuver. I mean I'm glad that they've got that kind of knowledge base, but I dunno, I generally tend to listen to the guys in my training department that have 10,000 hours in the type of aircraft they're giving instruction in.

But maybe I'm old fashioned.
 
jtrain609 said:
I find it interesting that in this thread, and other like it, the folks that explain that the simple procedure is to "get with it" because this stuff is "so simple" haven't flown an aircraft that weighs over 15,000 lbs.

Interesting that people that have never flown anything bigger than a Metro can give tips to 767 drivers about how to perform a maneuver. I mean I'm glad that they've got that kind of knowledge base, but I dunno, I generally tend to listen to the guys in my training department that have 10,000 hours in the type of aircraft they're giving instruction in.

But maybe I'm old fashioned.
Click to expand...



My plane may not be as fast as your but its almost as heavy...
 
jtrain609 said:
I find it interesting that in this thread, and other like it, the folks that explain that the simple procedure is to "get with it" because this stuff is "so simple" haven't flown an aircraft that weighs over 15,000 lbs.

Interesting that people that have never flown anything bigger than a Metro can give tips to 767 drivers about how to perform a maneuver. I mean I'm glad that they've got that kind of knowledge base, but I dunno, I generally tend to listen to the guys in my training department that have 10,000 hours in the type of aircraft they're giving instruction in.

But maybe I'm old fashioned.
Click to expand...

An airplane is an airplane man. At some point, it doesn't matter if its a jettttttttt or a skyhawk, they all fly for the same reason. You've gotta get that air going over the wing, you can use power or pitch or both to do it. Pretty straight forward.

Plus a flew an airplane that weighed 15500 this morning, so I'm out of that first category right?
 
Sorry, my mistake, guys.

I hadn't realized the forum software got rid of my ignore list. With some quick updates, this thread is back to making sense again.

Carry on.
 
jtrain609 said:
Of course, how could I be so foolish.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure you entirely get what I'm trying to say, either that or you do understand perfectly and prefer sarcastic one liners (which is your typical MO) to an actual discussion. Airplanes are airplanes, there's nothing magical about a different wingshape or weight class, the basics are the same for everyone provided one understands the aerodynamics from ship to ship.

Guess what, I did the stall series profiles in the sim at FSI for the 1900 (yeah I know, not transport category, not swept wing yada yada, but they had a Power Out of the stall mentality there), if you powered out, you lost no altitude, if you pitched and powered out, you lost some (a little) altitude but it was way quicker, if you did both, it worked great for that airplane. What technique to use on the airplane would be different from situation to situation. Honestly speaking, there's nothing inherently wrong with "powering out" a low speed scenario, but when you're in the stall or close to it, you HAVE to get your airspeed back and there are only two ways to do this, if one isn't working, try the other.
 
Don't forget that there has to be recognition of a stalled condition before anything else. There are cases where that isn't nearly as cut-and-dried as we might like to think.
 
SteveC said:
Don't forget that there has to be recognition of a stalled condition before anything else. There are cases where that isn't nearly as cut-and-dried as we might like to think.
Click to expand...

This is an incredibly cogent point. The approach to a stall shouldn't take the pilot off guard though, the sluggishness of response, the slow speed, deck angles out of whack with what is "normal" should all add up to the stall being something that the crewmember expects. Not that that's the way it always goes.
 
ppragman said:
This is an incredibly cogent point. The approach to a stall shouldn't take the pilot off guard though, the sluggishness of response, the slow speed, deck angles out of whack with what is "normal" should all add up to the stall being something that the crewmember expects. Not that that's the way it always goes.
Click to expand...
Now take that train of thought to the Air France accident. I'm working from my phone at the moment so can't type a lot now...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top