Jump to content
  • Welcome to Recreational Flying!
    A compelling community experience for all aviators
    Intuitive, Social, Engaging...Registration is FREE.
    Register Log in
djpacro

Stalls

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, mnewbery said:

Going back to post #1 of this thread, yes the form 61-1488 has items 80-81 which refer to stalls and  incipient spins.

 

CAAP 155 suggests that stalls from straight and level are not aerobatic as per section 5.1 of that document. From this I am implying that a pilot can perform straight and level stalls where one might not do aerobatics - this includes below 3000 feet AGL and over populated areas. I'm not suggesting that this is a good idea, just that its not illegal if the interpretation is correct. An instructor who has since moved on tried to convince me of the obverse - that I shall not be performing straight and level stalls in the training area below 3000 feet AGL - even though I was happily recovering with a 100 foot altitude loss. I just shrugged and took it up with his manager. I never got a straight answer.

CASA still hasn't defined what they want in the way of an incipient spin as required by Part 61 and that licence test form. https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/news-items/2019/incipient-spin-concerns/ I look forward to the ATSB report on Bristell spin accident.

 

CAAP 155-1 is way out of date after Part 61 so largely irrelevant and incorrect these days. CAR 155 has been stripped of most content and will disappear entirely when Part 91 takes effect. CASA has a new definition of aerobatics which leaves little doubt as to whether stalls are aerobatic or not - depends what is done.

 

Your instructor should've referred you to his school's Ops Manual as it almost certainly would have a minimum altitude specified for stall training.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mnewbery said:

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.830.1760&rep=rep1&type=pdf Page 15

The same document says the NTSB and the FAA are at odds regarding spin training.

 

Hell of a way to start a bar fight @Manwell

That document was written nearly 30 years ago and refers to NTSB recommendations from over 40 years ago. The NTSB has recommended UPRT training for some time now - refer ICAO requirements. Good stuff to read here: https://www.safepilots.org/resource-center/public-documents/avoiding-loss-of-control/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, djpacro said:

Your instructor should've referred you to his school's Ops Manual

Yes! I'm going to follow this up tonight and see what shakes out. I doubt he had a working knowledge of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most stalls can be recovered in about 200 ft (or less if power is used properly.) IF the wing drops away and the nose gets vertical you are likely to lose a few thousand feet and may  stall it again during the recovery. If you are horsing around and accidently flick, it you will have much less idea of what is going on and will definitely need the "recovery from unusual attitudes" training ,(done properly) which needs  "am I spinning or spiraling and in which direction? and upside down or right way up?.  ALL these outcomes are possible  and the recovery technique certainly varies a lot.  .Nev

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In summary, you haven't the faintest idea how many died as a result of stall/spin training do you mnewbery? 

 

Don't you find it odd that that level of detail isn't available from accident reports?  At least not available for free, or to the public?   Do you not also find it odd that it's easier to find stats from those opposed to mandatory spin training than supporting those for it?   Would any of it make sense to you if you hadn't assumed the stats provided are right?  You do know there is an old adage that goes, "There are three types of lies.  Lies.  Damned Lies.  And statistics..."

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know what you are doing. I am putting you on my ignore list

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Manwell said:

In summary, you haven't the faintest idea how many died as a result of stall/spin training do you mnewbery? 

 

Don't you find it odd that that level of detail isn't available from accident reports?  At least not available for free, or to the public?   Do you not also find it odd that it's easier to find stats from those opposed to mandatory spin training than supporting those for it?   Would any of it make sense to you if you hadn't assumed the stats provided are right?  You do know there is an old adage that goes, "There are three types of lies.  Lies.  Damned Lies.  And statistics..."

 

 

Hi Manwell

 

I’m sure you mean well but I find your phraseology sometimes a little off-putting and this one more so.

 

We all try to be respectful most of the time and learn from others where we can.

 

i think you have much to offer and hope you will continue to do so.

 

kaz

  • Agree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you kaz3g.   I won't apologize for my phraseology, because offence can only be taken, not given.  It's always our choice how we process words, and I agree about being respectful and learning from others wherever possible.  

 

mnewbery, I'm glad you know what I'm doing, so please let everyone else know too.  Being put on your ignore list implies you don't, but maybe you're right and I'm mistaken.  It wouldn't be the first time, and it probably won't be the last.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 31/07/2019 at 10:17 AM, Manwell said:

Thank you kaz3g.   I won't apologize for my phraseology, because offence can only be taken, not given.  It's always our choice how we process words, and I agree about being respectful and learning from others wherever possible.

How can you possibly believe that offensiveness is only about the receiver of the words interpretation?

 

So you believe it is the fault of the person been insulted if they take offence?

 

On that basis, anything racists say is ok, it their fault for been offended.

 

What about rape victims? Your logic would make them to blame as well if upset.

 

I suggest you grow some and take responsibility for your words. You say the words, you own  their results.

 

In the modern parlance of politics, does that pass the pub test?

 

No, you might get a big punch in the gob for been a offensive twat.

 

Not that I think violence is the answer. 

 

You are welcome here if you are constructive and respectful.

 

Please think before replies.  

 

Or, should I revert to my teaching days and ask you to sit in the naughty corner until you learn to play with others?

 

Yes, I happily accept my words have consequences.

 

Now please have quiet think and then choose your words carefully.

Edited by Litespeed
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I often see cries of "racist" to shut down discussion but this is the first time that I've seen one on stalls closed down. There is a button up there to report a post if you don't like it or take that discussion elsewhere .... anyway I'm off ......

  • Winner 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Litespeed said:

How can you possibly believe that offensiveness is only about the receiver of the words interpretation?

 

So you believe it is the fault of the person been insulted if they take offence?

 

On that basis, anything racists say is ok, it their fault for been offended.

 

What about rape victims? Your logic would make them to blame as well if upset.

 

I suggest you grow some and take responsibility for your words. You say the words, you own  their results.

 

In the modern parlance of politics, does that pass the pub test?

 

No, you might get a big punch in the gob for been a offensive twat.

 

Not that I think violence is the answer. 

 

You are welcome here if you are constructive and respectful.

 

Please think before replies.  

 

Or, should I revert to my teaching days and ask you to sit in the naughty corner until you learn to play with others?

 

Yes, I happily accept my words have consequences.

 

Now please have quiet think and then choose your words carefully.

Litespeed, if you believe that offensiveness is able to be given whether the receiver chooses to take offence or not, then that's your choice.

I could choose to take offence at your response, especially when you threaten me and call me an offensive twat, but I'm man enough to see past that, and so did many men before we became convinced words can harm.

When I was a kid, the saying was "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt you."  Wise words indeed, that have been long forgotten in this politically correct society.  Australia was never like that when I was a kid, and I learned the hard way that racist taunts, teasing, and verbal abuse were unsophisticated ways the inarticulate tried to convey concern for something others did that prevented them from loving them.

Just one of my nicknames, and there were plenty, was Jimmy the Boong, because I was dark-skinned.  My old school mates still call me Jimmy, and we left school over 40 years ago.   Eventually, I came to understand why they did it, and it wasn't because they didn't like me, it was because they couldn't like me when I was so self-conscious that I'd take their words as insults.

In truth, not political correctness which is a distortion of the truth, there are no innocent victims.  That thinking has been corrupted over my lifetime to the point that everyone seeks to blame others for their own faults.  And most even believe that thinking somehow empowers them, when it really forces dependence on others for their own feelings.  Ironically, that's immature, and you suggest I grow up....

In the modern parlance of politics, the pub test is a fraud.  The notion that a few people down the pub must be so well-informed that they know the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, is patently absurd.  Of course, that's not to say that many individuals in society wouldn't know better than most elected representatives, but very, very few are capable of seeing the big picture.  

If you assume I don't think before commenting, that's an assumption without evidential basis.  You don't know me at all, and I don't know you either, and communication is one way for us to learn about each other.  

In conclusion, be absolutely certain that you have the ability to control yourself, and that is an absolutely essential quality for any Pilot IN COMMAND.  I agree that our words have consequences, so it's very important to be precise and do our best to ensure people can't unintentionally misconstrue our meaning.   Unfortunately, some still manage to, and that's a consequence we must be prepared to deal with.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, djpacro said:

I often see cries of "racist" to shut down discussion but this is the first time that I've seen one on stalls closed down. There is a button up there to report a post if you don't like it or take that discussion elsewhere .... anyway I'm off ......

 I am certainly not trying to close it down , but make it civil. 

 

The examples I gave where merely some of the deadheaded excuses people use to justify their views of others. To excuse their words and blame the person they offend.

 

If members thought I was trying to play some PC stuff to close debate- that is the opposite of my intent. 

 

And as such happily apologize my words did not demonstrate this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Manwell,

 

Sticks and stones? I thought we had gotten beyond such primary school sayings in modern life.

 

"The pen is mightier than the sword"

 

And thus words are strong.

 

I will leave it at that and others can reflect and make up their mind. 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/leader/north-west/sunbury-pilot-terry-otway-mourned-after-lancefield-plane-crash/news-story/eb8030a269ac4c54a92a706ed1cdfd4b

 

This one killed an old friend and his student. 

 

And this one resulted in an advisory from the Regulator

 

https://www.flightsafetyaustralia.com/2019/05/spin-deaths-prompt-certification-warning/ 

 

And my my best mate was killed in his C150 B chasing cattle on a hot day. Too low, too slow and too inexperienced to recognise it.

Edited by kaz3g
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Come back djp!

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

"Intentional spinning prohibited" might be OK if the PLANE understood that section of the manual..  I would suggest that many instances of the plane spinning (autorotating) and (relatively) out of control are not a result of intending to spin. Different planes behave in vastly different ways and if weight is added to the tail, that will not help. Mass at the extremes is not desired.  Nev

Edited by facthunter
  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
23 hours ago, facthunter said:

"Intentional spinning prohibited" might be OK if the PLANE understood that section of the manual..  I would suggest that many instances of the plane spinning (autorotating) and (relatively) out of control are not a result of intending to spin. Different planes behave in vastly different ways and if weight is added to the tail, that will not help. Mass at the extremes is not desired.  Nev

“Intentional” applies to the pilot. If you consider the millions of air miles flown without falling into a spin, what’s wrong with teaching pilots to stay well inside the envelope as instructors have been doing?

 

I’m aware of the experiences you’ve described from time to time because I’ve dropped a Chipmunk into a spin and from that point I was just along for the ride; I saw the sky, the ground, the sky in rapid succession and couldn’t have told you if I was upright or upside down, but at the time I was trying to make  90 degree turn which is prohibited in RA. RA also prohibits turns over 60 degrees, but in my opinion in something slippery like a Jab that’s too close to the edge of the envelope. I’d be happier to see RA pilots trained to consider 45 degrees as a steep turn, and receive more training in managing angle of attack. It’s a bit like getting people to stand back from cliff edges as against mandatory parachute training so they can see what happens if they slip off.

Edited by turboplanner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

“Intentional” applies to the pilot. If you consider the millions of air miles flown without falling into a spin, what’s wrong with teaching pilots to stay well inside the envelope as instructors have been doing

100% correct !

Being a low hours pilot the main thing that is on my mind turning base or final is air speed. You learn what the minimums are for the aircraft you are flying and if you fly above them and stay balanced you are always safe, if not do a go around. That's what my instructor taught me ( and I had a great instructor) it's not rocket science!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Butch said:

100% correct !

Being a low hours pilot the main thing that is on my mind turning base or final is air speed. You learn what the minimums are for the aircraft you are flying and if you fly above them and stay balanced you are always safe, if not do a go around. That's what my instructor taught me ( and I had a great instructor) it's not rocket science!

100% wrong Butch.  But that's the reason why we aren't interested in changing a flawed system.  Because that's what we all learned and we don't see anything wrong with our training.  After all, the instructor was great, and it cost us loads of cash, so how could we possibly dispute such a large investment? 

 

Try getting to ATPL A, CPL H, Grade One Instructor, Multi-engine IFR, and Aerobatics teaching approvals with thousands of hours, and then imagine how easy it would be to accept what you'd been teaching was wrong.  It doesn't get any easier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Manwell said:

100% wrong Butch.  But that's the reason why we aren't interested in changing a flawed system.  Because that's what we all learned and we don't see anything wrong with our training. 

I do the the same as butch, would like to know the big secret that will make us safe.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
12 hours ago, Manwell said:

100% wrong Butch

Manwell,

could you please enlighten us ( with your immense knowledge ) what's wrong with being instructed to fly an aircraft within its envelope to be safe.

Please explain the flaws in the system that your extensive experience has found.

You quote "why would you dispute such a large investment". The large investment in my view is to learn the safest way to pilot an aircraft in a curriculum with proven  standards so you have a greater chance of not becoming a statistic . How else do you learn the skills? 

 

 

Edited by Butch
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait till @Manwell sees the thread on ASICs :stirrer:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How can  you know you are not going to suffer an upset at some time ? You have been trained under a system which is the result of external factors Like NO planes being available  from the big 3  since the mid 60'sthat are stressed for  aeros, Unusual attitudes or to allow a mucked up recovery to be safely corrected. There will always be wilty willy's, dust devils,  fronts,  Large Cu clouds, sea breezes coming in, in the afternoon, at a near coastal aerodrome, mechanical turbulence from trees sheds nearby hills  wake turbulence etc.

    You don't know, "what you don't know" until you are exposed to it.  Recovery  from "Unusual Attitudes" is NOT aerobatics. and someone being paid to  show off and scare you is not what we are talking about here.. Whether you believe it will never happen or like it, is not the question. Planes fly in and react to an airmass that is dynamic,  not still and calm, and that more affects small planes than large ones, which have more speed and mass and wing loading (penetration)

  Stalling is not "just" an airspeed thing. It's an angle of attack thing, actually. You can be well UNDER the STATED stall speed but not stalled if you unload the wing (by moving the stick forward.) When you are unstalled the DRAG reduces dramatically and the plane is controllable. Naturally you don't do this  in EVERY situation. It's fine to stall the plane just as it lands ( from a miniscule height)  as an example, though too few bother and just fly it on. I'm talking about light aircraft.   .Nev

  • Winner 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Stalling is not "just" an airspeed thing."  Hear, Hear, facthunter, but trying to use AoA instead is no better.  Why?  Because, as Chuck said, "If a pilot doesn't know his AoA, he shouldn't be flying." but he doesn't mean knowing it from instruments or even just stick position.   You would "know" when you're approaching stall, perhaps without even knowing how.  Stick position is one clue, pitch attitude is another, control responsiveness another, wind noise and a sinking feeling in the seat of the pants are others.  Together, they allow a pilot to "know" when the aircraft is at stall AoA, and you would probably know that increasing power or reducing pitch attitude is all that's required to prevent it from stalling.

 

The best way to learn how to "know" when the aircraft if approaching stall, is by practising slow flight at or below stall speed at progressively lower altitudes until you're comfortable controlling an aircraft on the edge of stall close to the ground.  That way, pilots would develop an instinctive knowledge when the aircraft is about to stall, and how to control it in the stall.  The result being the end of loss of control accidents during take-off and landing.  There's the "big secret" Thruster, in a nutshell.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 When I say angle  of attack I DO refer to the fact that any airfoil will stall (break away) or whatever you wish to call it at a particular ANGLE to the relative airflow and NOT an airspeed except under particular conditions which must be clearly defined for it to make any sense and give a repeatable result.. Some planes buffet, some don't  Many controls have 'artificial " feel' if they are powered. Some U/L's have very varying feel dependent on where the Cof G is. and how "balanced" the control is. Sometimes you fly a plane that is non standard or being test flown. Any delicate feel is yet to come, though there should be some but that comes with experience  and awareness.

  I'm not advocating an AoA indicator be considered necessary but when it's fitted if things are close to the margin I certainly refer to them as a check on a complex flap retraction schedule. or steep turn (or any turn at high altitude or near max cruise level for conditions) Seat of the pants won't work if the plane is "upset". Your best indication is the ASI , Gyro rate turn needle and the Altimeter. Your basic panel.. Many A/H's will topple if a certain pitch angle is exceeded. If it doesn't you have a good tool to aid your recovery or better are visual and have a distinct horizon... What your eyes see will be better than any seat of the Pants input, which in some circumstances is your worst enemy.  Eg If you have been spinning for a while when you stop it feels like you are going the other way. Nev

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later for your post to be seen If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...