Manwell

...without doing a full blown upside down white knucle recovery. The point I'm getting at is if you can recognise the approach of a stall either straight or turning then spin training is unneccesary, CASA must think the same way....

 

Sscbd, there are times when practicing something that is unlikely to happen is dangerous, 

 

Student Pilot, I'm getting the distinct impression that flying isn't really your cup of tea.   Flying can be dangerous, and that's exactly why we fly.   Practicing something that's unlikely to happen might save your life and the lives of your pax one day.   Consider it insurance that pays off each time you fly.

That was investigative journalism mod.  It was an article related to aviation, and I'd have thought people here would find it interesting and decide for themselves if it had any relevance to their flying.   The intent wouldn't be to create discord or discontent,  What sort of political posts would be authorised anyway?

 Well if you think about it, it cant work over all situations but they try to make this stuff so as any fool can fly it so lazy feet doesn't matter ?? Nev

 

Correct Nev.  They are trying to make it so any fool can fly.  And that's not a good thing for anyone....

When you start flying, imagine you have two cups, one empty, and the other full.  The full cup is luck, and the empty, experience.   Your challenge is to fill the cup of experience before the cup of luck runs out.

keep the posts relevant ti this site.   Political opinion posts, unless authorised by admin will be removed.   Please dont troll this site with political spam.......mod

Figure eights and sideslipping are good exercises Nev, but think even more basic than that.  

For example, unbalanced flight can only occur if.....

Reluctance to use power in turns is due to....

Stalls can only happen if...

Adverse yaw when rolling rapidly or boosting power is caused by.....

If a building develops cracks in the walls and ceiling, where is the cause of the problem, in the walls, or ceilings, or in the foundations?

To summarize, we've established that flaws must exist in basic training if pilots are losing control leading to stalls and spins.  Stalls can't develop if pilots know when the aircraft is approaching critical AoA, and also know how to control the aircraft in that configuration.  Similarly, spins can't develop if an aircraft isn't permitted to stall, but it would be even better if the aircraft is kept balanced as well.

 

Based on the above summary, which training elements must be flawed if pilots are losing control?

 

What we've established is that people make mistakes even after they were taught. Mistakes will continue to be made because we're human, some of those mistakes are made because we are conditioned to be afraid of breaking the "rules", when we should be afraid ( or at least respectful) of breaking the laws of physics.

 

Not quite correct M61.  Students can only learn what they are taught by instructors who can only teach what they learned from their instructors who only knew what they were taught by others, etc.  And while we are indeed human, and prone to err, those errors would be eradicated over time, provided our tuition was valid.   

One firm point to note, we should never fear anything, but we should respect natural laws that aren't subject to the whim of precious precocious mortals.  Fear, or any emotion, whether excessively positive or negative, doesn't help inform anyone about anything.  In fact, it can only obscure rational consideration of the facts, and thereby, interfere with the mental process of flying both safely and efficiently.

Fear of breaking the rules is indeed a weakness if it prevents a captain from saving either the ship, the crew, or the cargo.  And we have been "conditioned" to fear breaking the rules.  A classic example of double disability....

The full deal suggests a thorough grounding in the basics according to known training standards, Nev.  What we're aiming to establish here is where are the flaws in known training standards and methods.

It is not really "what's not included" in established training methods, and more how it's taught.  Current training philosophy places little importance on effects of controls and basic manoueuvres, but that training and knowledge forms the foundation of all future knowledge and skills.  Therefore, if we're genuinely interested in addressing the problem, that's where we should look first.

To summarize, we've established that flaws must exist in basic training if pilots are losing control leading to stalls and spins.  Stalls can't develop if pilots know when the aircraft is approaching critical AoA, and also know how to control the aircraft in that configuration.  Similarly, spins can't develop if an aircraft isn't permitted to stall, but it would be even better if the aircraft is kept balanced as well.

All the evidence is in plain sight, but the solution hasn't been found because we keep looking in the wrong place, expecting it to be found in places we'd prefer, rather than places we assume to be irrelevant because they're so elementary. 

Stall training is one of the training elements that must be flawed to cause pilots to stall or spin unintentionally, but there are others.   They are all included in ab initio training, so that narrows it down a bit.  Any more suggestions?

The very idea that you tell someone how to do something but not actually allow them to do it. 

 

Pulling up ( To avoid the ground in a stall) and turning back  (EFATO) seem to be quite instinctive, and people still seem to do it despite being taught otherwise. The correct action needs to be instinctive, and to do that I think the training in this respect needs to be repetitive hands on. not on a whiteboard.

 

Excellent M61!  Repetition is definitely one of the essentials missing in how flying is taught.  Repetition enables the desired action to be established in muscle memory along with all the other sensory clues that always inform us that the aircraft is approaching stall/spin.  This is exactly what Chuck implied when he said if a pilot doesn't know his AoA he shouldn't be flying. 

One of the principles of learning is Primacy and Recency, which is based on human psychological studies that show that, under stress, a human being will usually respond according to either the first learned response, or the last, depending on which was learned most effectively.  Obviously, if the exercise was repeated enough for all the various sensory perceptions to become ingrained in memory, that's the response they'll use under stress.

Considering the above, if stall training exposes the student to those sensory perceptions very briefly - either because the instructor fears it, or that's how they were taught - then they won't develop a recognition for the combination of stick position and stick pressure, wind noise, slight sink felt in the seat of the pants, and engine noise, that together let a pilot KNOW AoA is close to stall.

Therefore, repeated prolonged exposure to pre-stall conditions is essential to enable a pilot to instinctively know when it's approaching stall.  Then, they need repeated practice at controlling power and attitude at or below stall speed, so the aircraft can still be flown under his control.   By ensuring the student gains confidence in maintaining control of the aircraft even in the stall, the pilot's basic need for security is satisfied, enabling them to pursue higher needs as listed in Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.  If this step is missing, that need will remain unsatisfied, preventing their progress up the pyramid.  When understood fully, this explains a lot. 

It's not just a recent phenomenon either.  Imagine, if you will, that everything we had to learn to qualify for a license was wrong.  How is that possible, you ask?  I'm glad you asked, because it's a damn good question that demands a damn good answer. 

The short and simple answer is that it's easy.  If just a couple of essential elements of basic training are wrong, then everything that follows reinforces those flawed elements, and the keener the instructor, the harder he'll push them.  Then, after thousands of hours of experience, most keen pilots would reinforce the same flawed concepts themselves, because that's all they know, and it's all anyone else they know knows.

Your turn now.   Which elements must be flawed for pilots to stall and/or spin unintentionally? 

Stall speed, as facthunter describes above, is a representative number for stall AoA.  If pilots knew how to fly properly, they'd become immune to loss of control accidents.  The fact that pilots are still losing control of aircraft should tell us that we're doing something wrong.  The orthodox solution is to do the same thing, only harder, in the hope it will finally work.

So, how could pilots be taught to fly so they became instinctively aware of impending stalls as Chuck suggests? 

While that's obviously true, it's far too complex for our purposes Garfly.  We're just dumb pilots who need to know when an aircraft is about to stall, and how to prevent that unless that's our choice.  e.g. landing, stall and spin training.  The first thing we need to know is how to control power and attitude.

I asked the question above, "...exactly what does "AoA of the wing to the RAF is the clue to being safe" imply?  If it implies that pilots need to know it, or even have a clue about it, how is that achieved?"  So far, facthunter's comment about pre-stall buffet is on the right track that leads to thinking along the same lines as Chuck, Bob, and Ernest.

Thanks M61.  "If you don't know, you shouldn't be flying."  What Chuck's saying is not that you should know the AoA precisely, just intuitively, with information supplied through all the senses.  But how is this intuition achieved?   Only relevant comments please. 

If we'd all been taught by Chuck, EK Gann, or any of the other immortals like Bob Hoover, we'd all know how to fly.   Unfortunately, we haven't had that luxury, which is why we're "sucking eggs..... "   

Facthunter made no reference, direct or implied, to AoA indicators. And, by the way, grandma knows a thing or two about sucking eggs.

 

Okay Garfly, so exactly what does "AoA of the wing to the RAF is the clue to being safe" imply?  If it implies that pilots need to know it, or even have a clue about it, how is that achieved? 

 Angle of attack of the wing to the relative airflow is the clue to being safe.. Basic. for recovery from unusual attitudes. You can be stalled with the nose below the horizon. and the airspeed well above Vs.

 

   .  INITIALLY being able to "hold " an attitude by reference to the horizon is essential stuff. as you will get nowhere until you can do that..  Nev

 

Not really facthunter.  There is no AoA indicator in most aircraft, and if you relied on them in B737Max's lately you wouldn't be safe.  There are lots of clumsier methods intended to "keep us safe", but fortunately, we do have a number of other neglected subtle sensory clues available to us that are ultimately superior to instruments, except in IMC, of course.  However, being able to "hold" an attitude is truly essential stuff.  The emphasis is on "hold", or you could substitute Control to better define the concept.  "Hold" implies keeping something still, but Control implies making the attitude do what you want, which often requires subtle movements or pressures to "hold" an attitude.

If you did watch when I taught crosswind landings in a Decathlon without touching down both wheels, you'd know it's still control of power + attitude kasper.  That's all power + attitude, just the performance is different.

For the record, I had one of those academics too.  We flew all the way from BK to PF and return, and I couldn't get him to hold accurate S&L.  Overthinking and looking at the detail instead of the big picture as one.

Well done kasper! And there you have it in a nutshell.  CONTROL POWER + ATTITUDE.  Perfect, and it still applies to gliders because power is replaced with vertical air speed and weight.  But we're not finished just yet.  Now, define each term.  The objective is to KNOW How to Fly, rather than drive a machine around the sky. 

Power and attitude.

 

Hallelujah!  Now what must you be capable of doing "to fly" using nothing more complex than Power + Attitude?  One word. 

No, just to fly the picture.

 

The instruments are there to be glanced at, just a very quick look to confirm.

 

If you are flying the picture outside (where the nose is relative to the horizon, where the ground sits on the windscreen during a banked turn) the instruments will reflect that.

 

That's basically one of the elements mentioned above, but it can be described in one word.

This one?

 

Lift = coefficient x density x velocity x velocity x wing area / 2

 

Any pilot that understands stalling stick position has it made.

 

Stalling stick position isn't what I had in mind, and it's much simpler than that equation, Thruster.   In practical terms, which two elements must be controlled in order to fly any aircraft?

Look out the window, and keep it balanced.

 

or at least thats what my instructor keeps reminding me (more so the looking out the window bit)

 

That's the best answer so far spenaroo.  Did this instructor mention a simple equation by any chance?

Well, the original question was poorly worded and poorly outlined, then, IMO. A pilot requires a different skill set for every single type and variety of airborne equipment - isn't that the reason for endorsements?

 

A hot air balloon only has lift acting on it, so the pilot of a HOB has only two options available to him - go up or go down. Compare that to the knowledge and skills required to pilot a B747, and there's a major difference.

 

I thought this forum was about recreational flying with powered aircraft. I haven't seen any hang-gliding or HOB forums on the site?

 

That's not quite correct, onetrack.   Flying any aircraft requires the same basic methodology from type to type, and between fixed and rotary.  I didn't ask for the knowledge or skills to fly, just how to fly a fixed or rotary wing, powered, or glider really makes little difference.  Think more basic and general, rather than advanced and specific.  

Either way way the lift vector, regardless of whether thrust contributes, has to exceed gravity at least long enough to become airborne. 

 

Lift could be from a moving airfoil, thrust from a rotating airfoil, pure jet/rocket thrust or a large pocket of of lighter than air material.

 

 In a tow launch glider the thrust vector is negative, but they still climb.

 

The OP question didn't specify fixed wing powered flight only.

 

Correct M61.   Let's narrow it down to powered flight in fixed wing aircraft, although the principles would be as valid for rotary wing.  Piston, Turboprop, and Jet are all forms of powered flight.

How to Fly from the Pilot's perspective, not the aircraft.