Jump to content

Upset Recovery Training and Stalls.


Recommended Posts

I did my first lot of upset and recovery training yesterday. I ***KNEW*** that if your aircraft is inverted, you don't pull back on the stick. And before the manoeuvre, my instructor said, over and over, that if you are inverted, you roll the aircraft level to the nearest horizon. When I was inverted, I still automatically recovered by pulling back on the stick and doing half a loop so I was upright again.  

 

So, I still hate stalls. I think it is because of the falling sensation and realising/thinking that it will/could be really bad if a wing drops. Next time I go flying I will do, and recover from, an inverted spin, as a warm up to doing stalls. Then, when I stall, I will let a wing *really* drop, wait a while, and then recover the aircraft. That oughta do it. 

 

As a side note I am irritated that one of the FIRST THINGS people are taught that if you pull back on the stick, the aircraft climbs. It usually does, but not when you really need it to. If you are stalled, inverted, spinning, in a spiral dive OR in the area of reverse command, pulling back on the stick does not make you higher or make the trees further away. What you are taught fist sticks most. Instead, people should be taught that the elevator controls angle of attack. This is not an original idea of mine. Bob Tait's books are guilty of the above. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's quite a few silly statements which get chucked at you as you go through aviation. .The elevator IS the way angle of attack is managed (provided the elevator still has authority). AND the stall is an angle of attack thing, not a pitch attitude. Even when the wheels are in the sky side  of your vision the controls still act "normally". The spinner on your engine is still pushed or pulled by the stick .

   You might not wish to lose the height  by recovering from the inverted position by a half loop either.. Intentionally doing an inverted spin??

 Why? Most get there unintentionally  by doing a ham fisted recovery from a normal one. Nev

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think I've ever known an instructor to 'teach' that pulling back on the stick (always) makes you go up.  Lived experience does, though, because it mostly works that way.  But that's the whole point, I suppose, of upset recovery training; unlearning ingrained muscle memory.

It's like advanced driver training teaches that more braking ≄ more stopping, in all situations.  Yet we still hear of even very experienced pilots pulling back in panic to save themselves.  Anyway, great move to do that course.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've always had the name Unusual Attitude Recovery for the smaller stuff. In jets at altitude they often use the term "upset" which may just be a dropping out of an altitude/ flight level.  which could be caused by turbulence , stall or a power loss resulting in a loss of control.

   An Unusual Attitude is just that.. You might have hit wake turbulence or a dust devil etc.  Nev

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Recovering from an inverted spin as a warm-up for recovering from a stall seems a bit extreme, but whatever works for you, I guess. 

Edited by rgmwa
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, APenNameAndThatA said:

I did my first lot of upset and recovery training yesterday. I ***KNEW*** that if your aircraft is inverted, you don't pull back on the stick. And before the manoeuvre, my instructor said, over and over, that if you are inverted, you roll the aircraft level to the nearest horizon. When I was inverted, I still automatically recovered by pulling back on the stick and doing half a loop so I was upright again.  

 

So, I still hate stalls. I think it is because of the falling sensation and realising/thinking that it will/could be really bad if a wing drops. Next time I go flying I will do, and recover from, an inverted spin, as a warm up to doing stalls. Then, when I stall, I will let a wing *really* drop, wait a while, and then recover the aircraft. That oughta do it. 

 

As a side note I am irritated that one of the FIRST THINGS people are taught that if you pull back on the stick, the aircraft climbs. It usually does, but not when you really need it to. If you are stalled, inverted, spinning, in a spiral dive OR in the area of reverse command, pulling back on the stick does not make you higher or make the trees further away. What you are taught fist sticks most. Instead, people should be taught that the elevator controls angle of attack. This is not an original idea of mine. Bob Tait's books are guilty of the above. 

Hopefully you’re learning a lot of prevention skills? The technical term for UA training now is Upset Prevention and Recovery Training (UPRT). The most common upset killers are generally non-recoverable due to a lack of height, hence the desire to prevent an event developing at all. 

  • Like 2
  • Agree 2
  • Winner 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, APenNameAndThatA said:

What you are taught fist sticks most. Instead, people should be taught that the elevator controls angle of attack.

Yes indeed. Many pilots are surprised when I talk to them about that.

 

A good primer for UPRT is 

https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/airplane_handbook/media/06_afh_ch5.pdf

 

UA recoveries from failed aerobatic manoeuvres in an aerobatic course share some of the elements of UPRT and unfortunately some schools have simply rebadged their extreme UA recovery courses as UPRT.

 

My advice for people looking for UPRT is to see what EASA specifies for their Advanced UPRT course and compare that with what is being offered. 

https://www.apstraining.com/resource/easa-advanced-uprt-requirements-are-a-big-step-toward-reducing-loc-i-fatalities/

 

Quote

How Does EASA Define UPRT?

The Advanced UPRT course in Europe is seen as an important step towards enhancing a commercial pilot’s resilience to the psychological and physiological aspects often associated with upset conditions. The required Advanced UPRT course must include at least 5 hours of theoretical academic instruction as well as at least 3 hours of dual flight instruction in an airplane. The original designers of the EASA solution intended for the 3 hours to be in delivery of actual UPRT in the training area, not block time. 3 hours in the training area is enough. Based on APS’s three decades of UPRT experience delivering UPRT, 3 hours of block time is unacceptably low to deliver effective UPRT that will make a difference in safety.

 

Edited by djpacro
  • Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another "Don't pull back!" (among other things) lesson:

 

 

[ Interesting discussion in 'Comments'.  Watch on YouTube to view. ]

 

 

 

 

Edited by Garfly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love the way experts promote the stick as controlling angle of attack. It may be correct, but how can the pilot see angle of attack? I have been flying for over half a century and I still cannot see angle of attack, it is purely a theoretical thing. I can see attitude, plus I can see airspeed, because there is a gauge to tell me what it is,

The nearest I can come to seeing angle of attack is to feel it in the pressure on the stick and of course that can be changed by the trim applied.

Yes I know you can have an A o A gauge, but you have to set it up before it is of any use and in my years of flying I have only ever seen one and that was a self made one using if I remember correctly an old VSI.

  • Agree 1
  • Informative 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

IF you don't reconfigure the plane, the stick position will relate to the wing's angle of attack. It will not stall with the stick forward of a certain position.. IF you have an in flight adjustable horizontal stabiliser this does not apply..   Your instructor(s) should have informed you of this and if you did many limit steep turns you would have deduced it for yourself..  3 pointing your taildragger  obeys the same rules.   Nev

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Yenn said:

I love the way experts promote the stick as controlling angle of attack. It may be correct, but how can the pilot see angle of attack?

 

Or as the article below puts it:

 

   "Without an AOA indicator, the AOA is "invisible" to pilots. In certain configurations and attitudes, you might not realize you're approaching a stall."

 

https://www.boldmethod.com/learn-to-fly/systems/angle-of-attack-indicators/

 

A couple of the comments on that article caught my eye:.

 
Chris Zavatson
I use AoA in flight test and aerodynamic performance evaluation. In day-to-day flying I use Minimum Maneuver Speed.
In particualr at GA approach speeds, the ASI is far more precise and stable than AoA indicators simply due to resolution issues of the physical measurement.
 
George Bigs
I own an SR22T and have been flying and using an AoA meter for five years. The best use is in pattern turns, especially in base to final where you will see how quickly the critical angle is approached (and cannot see or feel that without the meter). Using the meter is a two-edged sword...on the one hand it is helpful to see the needle approaching the yellow and red...but on the other hand it is also scary to see it but the meter definitely helps remind you to get the nose down and recover the angle before it's too late.
 
 
 
 
Edited by Garfly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

IF you are flying a jet with a trim on the stabiliser you will have some sort of  speed command/ AoA indicator as well as some pretty positive stall warning mechanism/warning. . At quite a few occasions in the flight envelope you will be quite close to a VMO/MMO  stall boundary. Nev

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Upset prevention and recovery training (UPRT) has been developed during the last decade to address the category of accidents ascribed to loss of control in-flight (LOC-I).

Rich Stowell, considered a “father” of UPRT, looks at another way to approach LOC-I mitigation with a webinar presented by Aviation Performance Solutions (APS), “Learn to Turn: Laying the Foundation for Proper Upset Prevention and Recovery Training Skills.”

from https://www.flyingmag.com/aps-webinar-featuring-learn-to-turn-rich-stowell/

Quote

Released to the aviation community in September, the free Learn to Turn program takes a stick and rudder approach to reducing loss of control. This webinar focuses on increasing awareness of the consequences of your control inputs and describing training exercises designed to improve your basic flying skills. Master Instructor Rich Stowell shares tips and techniques that will help you be a better and safer pilot.

from https://www.aopa.org/training-and-safety/air-safety-institute/implementing-learn-to-turn-with-rich-stowell

 

ElevatorMisunderstanding.png

  • Like 1
  • Informative 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/12/2021 at 11:00 AM, APenNameAndThatA said:

I did my first lot of upset and recovery training yesterday. I ***KNEW*** that if your aircraft is inverted, you don't pull back on the stick. And before the manoeuvre, my instructor said, over and over, that if you are inverted, you roll the aircraft level to the nearest horizon. When I was inverted, I still automatically recovered by pulling back on the stick and doing half a loop so I was upright again. 

Let us know how you go with the course. Hopefully you get the full, complete theory and enough practice that the techniques stick (for a while) and you don't automatically do the wrong thing in their scenarios.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Instinctive" reactions have no place in these matters. They can assure your NON survival. For instance the SPIN or SPIRAL? issue has to be determined before you instigate recovery action if either is likely. . There are also situations that can be non recoverable due to insufficient height being available.. In some situations even if you have ample height your recovery may overload the structure if the speed builds up too much. Nev

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I wonder if this has ever happened on Victor One which follows the Sydney coast underneath finals for RWYS 34 and 25

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

About 1000'?  (2-3 minutes sink time?)

 

 

[Click to expand.]

 

233263672_RWY25.thumb.png.5c035d4213a9d0d7cfc846b9e94c62d5.png

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Garfly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes and I think that SHOULD be enough . Vortices continue at just below the same height they were generated and gradually dissipate. In calm air they last longer and move with the prevailing wind in any case, so that might bring some of the later approach path turbulence your way in some conditions. Worth considering I suppose but you'd have to be unlucky. Anytime you are moving in air with heavies you should be aware of where they have been in 3 dimensions and the effect (like a puff of smoke) moves with the airmass. Nev

  • Like 1
  • Informative 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Garfly said:

I wonder if this has ever happened on Victor One which follows the Sydney coast underneath finals for RWYS 34 and 25

 

 

 I don't know but the traffic lanes I suspect are planned with a separation distance.

At some airfields you will be given XXX clear for takeoff, caution wake turbulance, and that's probably not the time to rip out over the line, line up and go in the one action and make a steep climb; better  to dawdle a bit. There are ATSB reports that give very good advice on where the wake turbulence is likely to be depending on the wind. Where you might not expect it is where you are crossing someone's track, such as cruising at a set altitude in CTA.

  • Informative 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

17 minutes ago, facthunter said:

Yes and I think that SHOULD be enough . Vortices continue at just below the same height they were generated and gradually dissipate. In calm air they last longer and move with the prevailing wind in any case, so that might bring some of the later approach path turbulence your way in some conditions. Worth considering I suppose but you'd have to be unlucky. Anytime you are moving in air with heavies you should be aware of where they have been in 3 dimensions and the effect (like a puff of smoke) moves with the airmass. Nev

Yes, according to this ATSB diagram it looks like you'd just sneak under the worst of it.

Still, if you saw a heavy crossing on final a mile or two ahead of you I guess it'd be wise to do an orbit or two (and be just in time for the next one ;- )

617568968_WakeTurbulence.thumb.png.3c7920d16c26413c6676088ee1fe20f3.png

 

https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/5775610/ar-2017-011-final.pdf

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Garfly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

 I don't know but the traffic lanes I suspect are planned with a separation distance.

 

 

Yes, there is a note in ERSA about it.  I was wondering if there'd ever been an incident but I can't find reference to any. It seems that all the wake turbulence incidents at YSSY have involved aircraft taking off or landing there.

 

 

[Click to expand]

 

V1 WT.PNG

Edited by Garfly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it goes below  the aircraft at 500 to 900 feet there'd be some houses near aerodromes with the doors blown off. Also holding at the holding point as a heavy lands you don't get much effect. I can't ever recall any effect except engine noise. I think the illustration is far from scientific. 

   The vertical displacement of the air is the result of lift. The swirling comes from the flaps  outside corners and/ or the wingtips and is due to the crudeness of "non feather" wings and causes the high drag in the full flapped and slow, configuration.   The diameter of the swirling air gets larger as it gets further and with time  from the plane  and loses energy. Nev

  • Like 1
  • Informative 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 10/12/2021 at 1:37 AM, Garfly said:

I don't think I've ever known an instructor to 'teach' that pulling back on the stick (always) makes you go up.  Lived experience does, though, because it mostly works that way

True-ish.. In straight and level flight, thrust = drag at that angle of attack. At normal angles of attack, when you raise the nose, you will have an increase angle of attack and thanks to inertia, the airspeed will hold for a bit. With the increase angle of attach and the same air mollecules going past, you will enter a climb. At that angle of attack (assuming a small increase), you may have excess thrust and be able to maintain the climb, although likely, to maintain the climb if pulling back the elevator at cruise, you will have to up the throttle or reduce the AoA slightly. Of course, you can be straight and level with a nose high attitude and the throttle rammed to the firewall.. I wouldn't pull back the control column at this stage, and I have no more thrust to apply - so to climb, counterintuitively, I have to ease up on the control column slightly and reduce the AoA.

 

Of course, I am talking fixed pitch props..

 

In the PPL syllabus (and I am assuming the RAA), you are taught when entering a climb or descent, power, attitude, trim.. and when levelling off, attitude, power trim I try and follow it, but don't always.. but invariably the change in AoA of lower powered a/c means at some stage you have to adjust the power. But power is the rate of ascent/descent control, and elevator is the airspeed control (within normal parameters of flight in piston engine aircraft, anyway).

 

 

Moral of the story - don't bleedin' well use the elevator for the climb or the descent - use the power first.. then get your airspeed with the elevator, then trim.. or at least that's how I have been taught.. (of course, minor deviations in height/altitude - yeah go for the elevator).

 

Re wake/vortex turbulence - the aircraft in front doesn't have to be too much bigger. Unfortunately, the PPL theory alludes to them aircraft having to be a lot bigger. I believe I suffered a wake turbulence problem on very late finals into Moorabbin while I was a student - and in a PA28 from memory (could have been a C150/152). I was bang on my speed (for once!) and there was a twin in front of me. No idea what type; bigger than an Navajo I think, but smaller than a king air (maybe a small one??). Well, I must have flown under its flight path because out of no where, my left wing decided it couldn't be bothered flying anymore and scared the living poop out of a solo-ing student. I was landing from the north ont rwy 18L, so coming on over the park (Kingswood park??) on a mild day with very light if any wind. So thermals or shear should not have been a problem. Scared the living carp pout of me, tbut thankfully, I read a book called "All About Stalls and Spins"  by Everett Gentry (a book I recommend) and forgot turning the control column and used rudder and judicious amounts of power.. I am sure it was wake turbulence, but thankfully not intense enough to spin me into the ground like this - which was in front of an AN2.:

 

[Edit] BTW, I don't blame the pilot for using aileron.. if you have used up all your options.. try something else (no matter how unlikely it is to get you out of the situation.. The state of mind at the time is such that what have you got to lose.

Edited by Jerry_Atrick
  • Informative 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...