Stalls?? [Archive] - AviationBanter

Darkwing

February 13th 08, 09:08 PM

"Ol Shy & Bashful" > wrote in message
...
> Why is it so many pilots are afraid of stalls? I see it over an over
> when doing flight reviews and checks. Why are pilots so afraid of
> flying in the low end of the speed envelope? Isn't that where the
> nasty things can happen? Isn't that where a pilot should be
> comfortable and competent?
> What do you think?
> Its a loaded? question and comes from a 24,000+ hour pilot and active
> instructor. I'd really like to see some active discussion on this
> subject. I'm tired of seeing aircraft damaged by sloppy flying, and
> even more tired of seeing people injured by same.
> Got any comments?
> Ol S&B

Well as a low time weekend warrior type I don't dislike doing stalls but I
treat it with a lot of respect. I don't go out by myself and work on stalls
unless I have a CFI with me. I take a CFI with me quite a bit because
sometimes I will go a couple months in between flights with my work schedule
so I feel a lot more comfortable with a seasoned pilot with me. Eventually
I'd like to own my own plane and fly more but work and house payments don't
make that possible right now. If I flew more I'm sure I would be more
comfortable with those maneuvers but comfort always come with experience.

Robert M. Gary

February 13th 08, 09:22 PM

On Feb 13, 12:53*pm, "Ol Shy & Bashful" > wrote:
> Why is it so many pilots are afraid of stalls? I see it over an over
> when doing flight reviews and checks. Why are pilots so afraid of
> flying in the low end of the speed envelope? Isn't that where the
> nasty things can happen? Isn't that where a pilot should be
> comfortable and competent?
> What do you think?
> Its a loaded? question and comes from a 24,000+ hour pilot and active
> instructor. I'd really like to see some active discussion on this
> subject. I'm tired of seeing aircraft damaged by sloppy flying, and
> even more tired of seeing people injured by same.
> Got any comments?
> Ol S&B

As an instructor I approach the first stall with a student with some
caution just because I don't know the plane. I've had a few planes end
up with the blue side down (a Bonanza and a Mooney) in the stall.
These owners had not stalled their planes before. When i was a student
pilot in the Cessna 140 I also thought it odd that some people didn't
like stalls. That was because the C-140 doesn't really stall, it just
buffets along. However, you jump into something with a more
interesting stall characteristic and you can see why some students
don't like stalls.
I'm actually becoming a bit of an odd ball in the Mooney community
because I still do full stalls in the plane. Most of the other CFIs
only go to the first nose drop, not a full stall and when teaching at
the Mooney Pilot Prof. courses you are prohibited from doing full
stalls with students. There are a lot of 10,000+ hour Mooney
instructors that say you simply shouldn't be doing full stalls in
these types of planes.

-Robert, CFII

Ol Shy & Bashful

February 13th 08, 09:50 PM

On Feb 13, 3:22*pm, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
> On Feb 13, 12:53*pm, "Ol Shy & Bashful" > wrote:
>
> > Why is it so many pilots are afraid of stalls? I see it over an over
> > when doing flight reviews and checks. Why are pilots so afraid of
> > flying in the low end of the speed envelope? Isn't that where the
> > nasty things can happen? Isn't that where a pilot should be
> > comfortable and competent?
> > What do you think?
> > Its a loaded? question and comes from a 24,000+ hour pilot and active
> > instructor. I'd really like to see some active discussion on this
> > subject. I'm tired of seeing aircraft damaged by sloppy flying, and
> > even more tired of seeing people injured by same.
> > Got any comments?
> > Ol S&B
>
> As an instructor I approach the first stall with a student with some
> caution just because I don't know the plane. I've had a few planes end
> up with the blue side down (a Bonanza and a Mooney) in the stall.
> These owners had not stalled their planes before. When i was a student
> pilot in the Cessna 140 I also thought it odd that some people didn't
> like stalls. That was because the C-140 doesn't really stall, it just
> buffets along. However, you jump into something with a more
> interesting stall characteristic and you can see why some students
> don't like stalls.
> I'm actually becoming a bit of an odd ball in the Mooney community
> because I still do full stalls in the plane. Most of the other CFIs
> only go to the first nose drop, not a full stall and when teaching at
> the Mooney Pilot Prof. courses you are prohibited from doing full
> stalls with students. *There are a lot of 10,000+ hour Mooney
> instructors that say you simply shouldn't be doing full stalls in
> these types of planes.
>
> -Robert, CFII

Robert
What is a full stall? Does it have anything to do with the pitch
attitude of the aircraft? The whole purpose of doing stall practice is
to teach a pilot how not to get into a stall that makes him NewsAt 9
and a smoking hole in the ground...??!!
What is the advantage of going into a "deep stall" that pitches the
nose down steeply and results in a severe loss of altitude? Isn't the
purpose of stall practice to simulate stalls in the departure or
approach phase? And how much altitude is there to play with? I don't
think it should be thought of as 2-3000 feet as done in practice.
Rather it should be thought of as 50 feet as in an approach stall, or
as 100 feet in a departure stall. Now we are getting realistic in the
dangers of stalls and how to make an effective recovery without
hitting the ground.
Your comment about not knowing the plane has me curious. In fact, most
of your post has me confused as regards stalls.
Cheers
Ol S&B

Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]

February 13th 08, 10:07 PM

kontiki

February 13th 08, 10:27 PM

We fear what we don't understand. Some pilots don't understand
the basic aerodynamics...

I highly recommend that pilots that have a fear of stalls
go spend an hour or two with a an instructor and refresh
your knowledge and skills. You will bolter your confidence
and increase your skills and confidence.

Ol Shy & Bashful

February 13th 08, 10:36 PM

On Feb 13, 4:27*pm, kontiki > wrote:
> We fear what we don't understand. Some pilots don't understand
> the basic aerodynamics...
>
> I highly recommend that pilots that have a fear of stalls
> go spend an hour or two with a an instructor and refresh
> your knowledge and skills. You will bolter your confidence
> and increase your skills and confidence.

Kontiki
Find an instructor who is comfortable with stalls and spins....there
is the trick! And its a major flaw in the modern training process. How
sad is that?
Best Regards
Rocky

Bob Gardner

February 13th 08, 10:41 PM

I think a lot of it is external. As soon as the folks at the
office/neighbors/bowling buddies/other busybodies learn that someone is a
flight student they chime in with "Just wait until you get to stalls!!!"
although in most cases they have no direct experience with flight training
at all. This pre-loads the student with apprehension.

All students become familiar with the angle of attack vs coefficient of lift
curve that appears in almost every text (figure 4-2 in the Airplane Flying
Handbook). You don't have to be a math major to see that maximum lift is
developed just prior to the stall....is max lift a bad thing???

My own approach was to take it slow and easy, beginning with simply holding
the nose on the horizon with the power at idle until a buffet was felt or
the nose began to drop; in either case, I had the student simply lower the
nose until s/he sank into the seat as the wing bit into the air. Adding
power, stalling while banked, etc all came after the student was educated to
the fact that simply relaxing the back pressure was the key to success.

I have dropped long-time friends like the proverbial hot potato when they
refused to explore the low end of the envelope for fear of stalling....and
these were licensed pilots, not students. You can't teach someone whose mind
is made up.

Bob Gardner

"Ol Shy & Bashful" > wrote in message
...
> Why is it so many pilots are afraid of stalls? I see it over an over
> when doing flight reviews and checks. Why are pilots so afraid of
> flying in the low end of the speed envelope? Isn't that where the
> nasty things can happen? Isn't that where a pilot should be
> comfortable and competent?
> What do you think?
> Its a loaded? question and comes from a 24,000+ hour pilot and active
> instructor. I'd really like to see some active discussion on this
> subject. I'm tired of seeing aircraft damaged by sloppy flying, and
> even more tired of seeing people injured by same.
> Got any comments?
> Ol S&B

Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]

February 13th 08, 10:53 PM

Bob Gardner wrote:

> I have dropped long-time friends like the proverbial hot potato when
> they refused to explore the low end of the envelope for fear of
> stalling....and these were licensed pilots, not students. You can't
> teach someone whose mind is made up.
>

Is this really the case? I'm 45 and got my PPL in '79. Most of the other
pilots I fly with today are either a little older than I am or in most
cases WAY older than I am. I just don't have a lot of experience flying
with pilots that were trained after I was. An even though I was
trained in '79 the training I received would have been right at home in
the early to mid 60's.

My one recent experience was with a young CFI when I was getting a BFR
and this kid was scared of stalls. Hell, he damn near made me scared of
them.

Dana M. Hague

February 13th 08, 11:13 PM

On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 13:50:09 -0800 (PST), "Ol Shy & Bashful"
>... The whole purpose of doing stall practice is
>to teach a pilot how not to get into a stall that makes him NewsAt 9
>and a smoking hole in the ground...??!!
>What is the advantage of going into a "deep stall" that pitches the
>nose down steeply and results in a severe loss of altitude? Isn't the
>purpose of stall practice to simulate stalls in the departure or
>approach phase?...

You teach full stalls because although you should never get into one
accidentally, if it DOES happen you don't want it to be a totally
unfamiliar situation.

-Dana
--
--
If replying by email, please make the obvious changes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Have you any idea how successful censorship is on TV? Don't know the answer? Hm. Successful. Isn't it?

Bob Gardner

February 14th 08, 12:26 AM

Because I was older than most of the instructors around Boeing Field (got my
CFI at age 40), the older pilots seemed to gravitate to me for recurrency
and BFR's. Pilots I taught, of whatever age, were no problem...it was
(usually) airplane owners, older almost by definition, who were skittish
about getting too slow and wouldn't even try. No signoffs for them, of
course, but there were lots of other CFIs on the field.

Bob

"Gig 601XL Builder" > wrote in message
...
> Bob Gardner wrote:
>
>> I have dropped long-time friends like the proverbial hot potato when they
>> refused to explore the low end of the envelope for fear of
>> stalling....and these were licensed pilots, not students. You can't teach
>> someone whose mind is made up.
>>
>
> Is this really the case? I'm 45 and got my PPL in '79. Most of the other
> pilots I fly with today are either a little older than I am or in most
> cases WAY older than I am. I just don't have a lot of experience flying
> with pilots that were trained after I was. An even though I was trained in
> '79 the training I received would have been right at home in the early to
> mid 60's.
>
> My one recent experience was with a young CFI when I was getting a BFR and
> this kid was scared of stalls. Hell, he damn near made me scared of them.

Blueskies

February 14th 08, 01:53 AM

"Ol Shy & Bashful" > wrote in message
...
> Why is it so many pilots are afraid of stalls? I see it over an over
> when doing flight reviews and checks. Why are pilots so afraid of
> flying in the low end of the speed envelope? Isn't that where the
> nasty things can happen? Isn't that where a pilot should be
> comfortable and competent?
> What do you think?
> Its a loaded? question and comes from a 24,000+ hour pilot and active
> instructor. I'd really like to see some active discussion on this
> subject. I'm tired of seeing aircraft damaged by sloppy flying, and
> even more tired of seeing people injured by same.
> Got any comments?
> Ol S&B

I love slow flight...and fast flight...and steep turns...and going around...

My feeling is that folks who are wary of flying slow never really practiced it early in their piloting careers. Flight
training really does instill a fear of the dreaded stall/spin accident, so folks don't want to even get close to it. I
think folks should go up and fly right right on the ragged edge, turning and playing power up and down, until they are
comfortable with the handling of the plane. Takes a lot of leg work (read rudder!) to do successfully, and many are too
lazy to really work at it...

Blueskies

February 14th 08, 01:57 AM

"Gig 601XL Builder" > wrote in message ...
> Ol Shy & Bashful wrote:
>> Why is it so many pilots are afraid of stalls? I see it over an over
>> when doing flight reviews and checks. Why are pilots so afraid of
>> flying in the low end of the speed envelope? Isn't that where the
>> nasty things can happen? Isn't that where a pilot should be
>> comfortable and competent?
>> What do you think?
>> Its a loaded? question and comes from a 24,000+ hour pilot and active
>> instructor. I'd really like to see some active discussion on this
>> subject. I'm tired of seeing aircraft damaged by sloppy flying, and
>> even more tired of seeing people injured by same.
>> Got any comments?
>> Ol S&B
>
>
> The reason for the fear is probably because it was taught as the final thing that can happen at low end of the
> envelope. This was not always the case because people used to be trained that after the stall came the spin and how to
> recover from that. Of course everyone knows that the spin comes after the stall but it is all theory and faith. Sort
> of like the afterlife.

Every flight in a light GA single should end in a full stall...right as the wheels roll on to the runway...Unless folks
know how to handle the plane in a stall, they will not learn to land correctly (I know this will start the flames!)

[email protected]

February 14th 08, 02:22 AM

> Every flight in a light GA single should end in a full stall...right as the wheels roll on to the runway...Unless folks
> know how to handle the plane in a stall, they will not learn to land correctly (I know this will start the flames!)-

That's a sweet ending, though -- flames or not -- especially when the
stall horn blows and the wheels just start turning.

Yeah baby!

[email protected]

February 14th 08, 02:26 AM

On Feb 13, 2:53*pm, "Ol Shy & Bashful" > wrote:
> Why is it so many pilots are afraid of stalls? I see it over an over
> when doing flight reviews and checks. Why are pilots so afraid of
> flying in the low end of the speed envelope? Isn't that where the
> nasty things can happen? Isn't that where a pilot should be
> comfortable and competent?
> What do you think?
> Its a loaded? question and comes from a 24,000+ hour pilot and active
> instructor. I'd really like to see some active discussion on this
> subject. I'm tired of seeing aircraft damaged by sloppy flying, and
> even more tired of seeing people injured by same.
> Got any comments?
> Ol S&B

For me I was only ever uncomfortable with power on because of the
sudden drop out. It was simply an uncomfortable sensation and then
when I learned about uncoordinated flight and the potential for spins
I got even more nervous about it.

I practiced it till I stopped being nervous -- and stopped over
controlling pitch down. It would have been better to have asked my
instructor to have me do some spin recoveries. Got to make up for that
this spring.

Come to think of it, I need to go practice stalls.

Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]

February 14th 08, 04:37 AM

Ol Shy & Bashful wrote:
> Why is it so many pilots are afraid of stalls? I see it over an over
> when doing flight reviews and checks. Why are pilots so afraid of
> flying in the low end of the speed envelope? Isn't that where the
> nasty things can happen? Isn't that where a pilot should be
> comfortable and competent?
> What do you think?

Think about a stall in a typical light trainer. The controls get mushy, the
nose is usually unnaturally high and the stall horn typically rises in both
volume and pitch the closer you get. It's not by accident that horror film
soundtracks do essentially the same thing. Then there's the fear that the thing
will get away from you and snap into some sort of unrecoverable regime.

I think it's quite natural to be afraid of stalls. Now, how to change that?

Do them... lots of them. Remove the unusualness of the stall from your
experience bank. Make them commonplace. Then not only do you stop fearing
them, you come to easily recognize the way aircraft behave as they approach the
stall.

With this I think you have to include a bit of spin recovery training. If you
know that the worst the stall can do is put you into a ho-hum spin, easy to
recover, then what's left to worry about?

As an aside, I prefer the old stall warning light over the horn. I can
effectively ignore it so that I can more properly concentrate on how the
aircraft feels. YMMV.

--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]

February 14th 08, 04:47 AM

Blueskies wrote:
> Every flight in a light GA single should end in a full stall...right as the
> wheels roll on to the runway...Unless folks know how to handle the plane in a
> stall, they will not learn to land correctly (I know this will start the
> flames!)

I had just started with a Part 135 cargo outfit and was doing the initial
training in a C-402. The check airman asked me for a stall. I gave him a
stall. I thought he and the other new hire were going to ****.

"Didn't you understand I wanted a stall? Give me another."

So I did. Just like before, the plane got pretty mushy and then it broke
cleanly. Once again, I thought they were going to ****. They were visibly
uncomfortable and I had no clue why.

Finally the check airman said, "When I ask for a stall, I expect you to recover
before it actually breaks."

"Well, why didn't you just say you wanted an 'approach to a stall'", I asked.
"What's the problem with doing a full stall in the 402?"

"We hever do full stalls in a twin", he said. The other guy agreed.

Well, you could have knocked me over with a feather. I was trained in the 402
originally by a retired USAF colonel and we always did full stalls in anything
he checked me out in... single or twin. He expected me to be familiar with the
stall characteristics of anything I flew, single or twin. Frankly, the 402
stalls just like a big C-172.... as long as you have the power equalized on both
sides. We did plenty of them.

Of course, no moron stalls a twin with asymetrical power. But otherwise it's
just another airplane.

--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

Robert M. Gary

February 14th 08, 05:31 AM

On Feb 13, 1:50*pm, "Ol Shy & Bashful" > wrote:

> Your comment about not knowing the plane has me curious. In fact, most
> of your post has me confused as regards stalls.
> Cheers
> Ol S&B

I'm mostly an inde CFI so I don't have the benefit of knowing the
planes I'm going to be instructing in. Although the Cessna & Piper
brands normally stall about the same, the higher performance singles
often have individual personalities. For instance I can jump in one
plane and do stalls that are very tame and jump into another with a
serial number only a few off and end up inverted (I know this from
experience ;) ). So the first time you stall a customer's plane you
want to be very careful, especially if you are the first CFI that's
done a full stall in the plane since the last rigging.
I picked up a Mooney from a Mooney Service Center after some control
linkage work. They actually have test pilots fly their aircraft before
releasing them back to customers. I met with the test pilot because I
knew they did a lot of flap rigging and asked him how it stalled
afterwards. He said "Oh, I don't stall them, but it flew straight as I
dropped the flaps". He then put on the helmet and jumped on his crotch
rocket. Full stalls, to the point the nose pitches down, seems to be a
thing of the past in high performance planes now. Again, teaching at
the official prof courses, we are prohibited from doing them.

-Robert, CFII

Robert M. Gary

February 14th 08, 05:32 AM

On Feb 13, 5:14*pm, Bill Watson > wrote:
> Interesting question but I'm not sure that fear of stalls is necessarily
> connected with sloppy flying and injuries.

Yea, when was the last time your typical 737 driver stalled a plane,
real or simulated?

-Robert

Robert M. Gary

February 14th 08, 05:34 AM

On Feb 13, 8:37*pm, "Mortimer Schnerd, RN" <mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com>
wrote:

> With this I think you have to include a bit of spin recovery training. *If you
> know that the worst the stall can do is put you into a ho-hum spin, easy to
> recover, then what's left to worry about?

I've given up even thinking about spinning students anymore. There
just aren't that many of the ancient planes that are actually
certified for spins anymore. I can't think of the last time I flew a
plane where spins were legal. Even the new 182, that looks like it
would spin great, is prohibited.

-Robert

WJRFlyBoy

February 14th 08, 08:00 AM

On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 12:53:53 -0800 (PST), Ol Shy & Bashful wrote:

> Why is it so many pilots are afraid of stalls?

Because stall sounds like death nell.

> I see it over an over
> when doing flight reviews and checks. Why are pilots so afraid of
> flying in the low end of the speed envelope? Isn't that where the
> nasty things can happen? Isn't that where a pilot should be
> comfortable and competent?
> What do you think?

I think you answered your own question.

I think.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

kontiki

February 14th 08, 09:34 AM

Ol Shy & Bashful wrote:

> Kontiki
> Find an instructor who is comfortable with stalls and spins....there
> is the trick! And its a major flaw in the modern training process. How
> sad is that?
> Best Regards
> Rocky

Good point.

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

February 14th 08, 01:01 PM

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" <mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com> wrote in
:

> Blueskies wrote:
>> Every flight in a light GA single should end in a full stall...right
>> as the wheels roll on to the runway...Unless folks know how to handle
>> the plane in a stall, they will not learn to land correctly (I know
>> this will start the flames!)
>
>
> I had just started with a Part 135 cargo outfit and was doing the
> initial training in a C-402. The check airman asked me for a stall.
> I gave him a stall. I thought he and the other new hire were going to
> ****.
>
> "Didn't you understand I wanted a stall? Give me another."
>
> So I did. Just like before, the plane got pretty mushy and then it
> broke cleanly. Once again, I thought they were going to ****. They
> were visibly uncomfortable and I had no clue why.
>
> Finally the check airman said, "When I ask for a stall, I expect you
> to recover before it actually breaks."
>
> "Well, why didn't you just say you wanted an 'approach to a stall'", I
> asked. "What's the problem with doing a full stall in the 402?"
>
> "We hever do full stalls in a twin", he said. The other guy agreed.

I can't see any reason why you couldn't either. Did they pass you BTW?

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

February 14th 08, 01:14 PM

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in news:53b8656a-fc72-4912-930f-
:

> On Feb 13, 5:14*pm, Bill Watson > wrote:
>> Interesting question but I'm not sure that fear of stalls is necessarily
>> connected with sloppy flying and injuries.
>
> Yea, when was the last time your typical 737 driver stalled a plane,
> real or simulated?
>

I've done it a few times on maintenance checks in the 737 and A300. They
stall just like airplanes with the exception of a natural nose drop. It
still happens, but it's helpful to be a bit more assertive in the recovery.
This is due to the fact the tips tend to get a little more involved in the
stall than the onboard section of the wing. The tips, are, of course,
behind the CG.
In some jets it is verboten to stall, though.
When I was checked out in the ATR 42 it was shortly after the first icing
accident in italy. The crew certification requirement suddenly included
stalls in the airplane. It had a sharp break with a wing drop, but not
worse than some older light airplanes I've flown.
We do stalls in the sim when converting to type, and they tend to let guys
who are new in jets do them in each sim session to get them warmed up ( as
we well as steep turns and what not). They're generally non-events that any
pilot could be familiar with.

Bertie

Mark T. Dame

February 14th 08, 02:23 PM

John Smith wrote:
>> "Ol Shy & Bashful" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Why is it so many pilots are afraid of stalls?
>
> How many instructors teach their students that it only takes a slight
> push on the yoke at the onset of buffet to prevent the stall. Too many
> pilots shove the yoke much farther forward (into a descent) than is
> necessary.

This past weekend I was doing a BFR for a guy who hadn't flown in a
couple of years. He and I talked about this very thing. He told me
that stalls used to really bother him because his first instructor
taught him to dive as part of the stall recovery. My PPL instructor
taught me the same thing.

When I went for my commercial certificate, my instructor taught me to
lower the nose to the horizon for the recovery. Even better, the
examiner who did my CFI checkride taught me, for power on stalls, start
with slow flight, pull back on the yoke to just enough to get the plane
to start the stall, then lower the nose back to the previous (slow
flight) attitude for the recovery.

So, basically, I learned to do stalls all wrong and they were a little
intimidating. Since then, I've learned some much better techniques that
make stalls less scary than steep turns.

So, to answer the original question: Because too many instructors don't
teach them right.

-m
--
## Mark T. Dame >
## CP-ASEL-IA, CFI-A, AGI
## <insert tail number here>
## KHAO, KISZ
"Blessed be those who initiate lively discussions with the hopelessly
mute, for they shall be known as Dentists."

Neil Gould

February 14th 08, 02:49 PM

Recently, > posted:

>> Every flight in a light GA single should end in a full stall...right
>> as the wheels roll on to the runway...Unless folks know how to
>> handle the plane in a stall, they will not learn to land correctly
>> (I know this will start the flames!)-
>
> That's a sweet ending, though -- flames or not -- especially when the
> stall horn blows and the wheels just start turning.
>
> Yeah baby!
>
Curious... in the Cessnas and Pipers that I fly the stall horn blows at
least 5 kts before the stall. So, when the stall horn is blowing and the
wheels touch down, the plane is still flying.

Neil

Stefan

February 14th 08, 02:52 PM

John Smith schrieb:

> How many instructors teach their students that it only takes a slight
> push on the yoke at the onset of buffet to prevent the stall. Too many
> pilots shove the yoke much farther forward (into a descent) than is
> necessary.

While not necessairy, it is'n a bad thing, either. Get that sped up
quickly, and it's much better to drop the nose too much than too little.
Why should a pilot be afraid of a dive?

Jay Masino

February 14th 08, 03:02 PM

Ol Shy & Bashful > wrote:
> Why is it so many pilots are afraid of stalls? I see it over an over
> when doing flight reviews and checks. Why are pilots so afraid of
> flying in the low end of the speed envelope? Isn't that where the
> nasty things can happen? Isn't that where a pilot should be
> comfortable and competent?
> What do you think?

For me, there's no question that it's related to my lingering fear of
heights... even after 21 years of flying. I'll do stalls with no
problems when I'm doing my BFR... I even did spin training when I was a
student, but I can't get passed the sensation that the aircraft is
hardly moving forward. It makes me accutely aware of how high in the
air I am. Having said that, it's never caused much of a problem. I'm
probably the best lander at our airport. I regularly slip all the way
to the ground. I think I'm a fairly precise flyer. I did well on my
Instrument rating. I did well when I did my taildragger transition (in
a Luscombe). I know how to fly the aircraft with precision in the
pattern and avoid a stall close to the ground. I don't think there has
to be a correlation between comfort doing stalls, and being a good pilot.

--- Jay

--

Jay Masino "Home is where My critters are"
http://www.JayMasino.com
http://www.OceanCityAirport.com
http://www.oc-Adolfos.com

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

February 14th 08, 03:10 PM

Stefan > wrote in news:3d35d$47b45591$54497f31
:

> John Smith schrieb:
>
>> How many instructors teach their students that it only takes a slight
>> push on the yoke at the onset of buffet to prevent the stall. Too many
>> pilots shove the yoke much farther forward (into a descent) than is
>> necessary.
>
> While not necessairy, it is'n a bad thing, either. Get that sped up
> quickly, and it's much better to drop the nose too much than too little.
> Why should a pilot be afraid of a dive?
>

The ground?

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

February 14th 08, 03:11 PM

(Jay Masino) wrote in
:

> Ol Shy & Bashful > wrote:
>> Why is it so many pilots are afraid of stalls? I see it over an over
>> when doing flight reviews and checks. Why are pilots so afraid of
>> flying in the low end of the speed envelope? Isn't that where the
>> nasty things can happen? Isn't that where a pilot should be
>> comfortable and competent?
>> What do you think?
>
> For me, there's no question that it's related to my lingering fear of
> heights... even after 21 years of flying. I'll do stalls with no
> problems when I'm doing my BFR... I even did spin training when I was
> a student, but I can't get passed the sensation that the aircraft is
> hardly moving forward. It makes me accutely aware of how high in the
> air I am. Having said that, it's never caused much of a problem.
> I'm probably the best lander at our airport. I regularly slip all the
> way to the ground. I think I'm a fairly precise flyer. I did well on
> my Instrument rating. I did well when I did my taildragger
> transition (in a Luscombe). I know how to fly the aircraft with
> precision in the pattern and avoid a stall close to the ground. I
> don't think there has to be a correlation between comfort doing
> stalls, and being a good pilot.

If you're flying a Luscombe and afraid of stalls, please stop flying it.
Far too many have been wrecked already.

Bertie

Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]

February 14th 08, 03:12 PM

Stefan wrote:
> John Smith schrieb:
>
>> How many instructors teach their students that it only takes a slight
>> push on the yoke at the onset of buffet to prevent the stall. Too many
>> pilots shove the yoke much farther forward (into a descent) than is
>> necessary.
>
> While not necessairy, it is'n a bad thing, either. Get that sped up
> quickly, and it's much better to drop the nose too much than too little.
> Why should a pilot be afraid of a dive?

Since most of the practice and training we do at altitude is actually
designed to be used at or below pattern altitude, IMHO getting into the
habit of going into a dive to escape a stall situation is probably not
the best idea.

I was taught to recover from a stall with minimum altitude loss.

[email protected]

February 14th 08, 03:40 PM

On Feb 14, 7:49 am, "Neil Gould" > wrote:
> Recently, > posted:
>
> >> Every flight in a light GA single should end in a full stall...right
> >> as the wheels roll on to the runway...Unless folks know how to
> >> handle the plane in a stall, they will not learn to land correctly
> >> (I know this will start the flames!)-
>
> > That's a sweet ending, though -- flames or not -- especially when the
> > stall horn blows and the wheels just start turning.
>
> > Yeah baby!
>
> Curious... in the Cessnas and Pipers that I fly the stall horn blows at
> least 5 kts before the stall. So, when the stall horn is blowing and the
> wheels touch down, the plane is still flying.
>
> Neil

Too many people overlook that. Even the POH will tell
you that the horn blows at 5 to 10 kts before the stall.
It's difficult to get a "full stall" in the landing in most
lightplanes without banging the tail on the runway; the fuselage
geometry won't allow it. Airplanes like the Zenair 701/801 have been
designed to fix that. And with the nose high at touchdown, the AOA is
lower than with the nose at that attitude approaching a power-off
stall in the air, since the airplane is likely already sinking
somewhat at altitude, and its flightpath increases the AOA at that
deck angle.
I get the horn blaring at ten feet BEFORE touchdown. Now
we're at a reasonable speed. No float in this situation.

It appears that instructors are increasingly afraid of the
airplanes they teach in. Pretty soon they'll be afraid to teach 30°
banked turns at cruise speed. I think it's a result of the overall
dumbing-down of society, where we are told WHAT to think, not HOW to
think. The media tells us which political leaders to vote for. They
tell us what to think (and what to believe) about various hot-potato
issues. The problem with that, besides making us lazy thinkers, is
that they are trying to redesign society along their own agendas.
Everyone knows that the media is infiltrated by a wide assortment of
social engineers.
The flight instructors just parrot stuff from the books and
from their instructors, with some urban legends thrown in. They don't
KNOW from experience; they just REPEAT something they were told. So
they end up scared of stalls and spins and slow flight and little
puffy clouds and five-knot crosswinds.

Dan

birdog

February 14th 08, 03:51 PM

Here again I am appalled at the comments. Disclosure: Old, old ex-pilot -
learned to fly in the '40's.

Did no one ever hear of walking the rudders down? It's a coordination
exercise. Power on, you pull the nose up to about 60 degrees from horizontal
and walk the rudders all the way down, preventing the plane from falling off
to eithor side. After years of flying, I still did 'em just to test my own
reaction times. When learning, it was also great practice in spin recovery,
too.

Man, am I outdated! A 40 hour freshly licensed pilot with a fear of stalls
was unknown in my day.

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

February 14th 08, 04:05 PM

"birdog" > wrote in
:

> Here again I am appalled at the comments. Disclosure: Old, old
> ex-pilot - learned to fly in the '40's.
>
> Did no one ever hear of walking the rudders down? It's a coordination
> exercise. Power on, you pull the nose up to about 60 degrees from
> horizontal and walk the rudders all the way down, preventing the plane
> from falling off to eithor side. After years of flying, I still did
> 'em just to test my own reaction times. When learning, it was also
> great practice in spin recovery, too.
>
> Man, am I outdated! A 40 hour freshly licensed pilot with a fear of
> stalls was unknown in my day.
>

Yep. also called a falling leaf. I taugth them as did the guys I learned
from .

Bertie

birdog

February 14th 08, 04:07 PM

"birdog" > wrote in message
. ..
> Here again I am appalled at the comments. Disclosure: Old, old ex-pilot -
> learned to fly in the '40's.
>
> Did no one ever hear of walking the rudders down? It's a coordination
> exercise. Power on, you pull the nose up to about 60 degrees from
> horizontal and walk the rudders all the way down, preventing the plane
> from falling off to eithor side. After years of flying, I still did 'em
> just to test my own reaction times. When learning, it was also great
> practice in spin recovery, too.
>
> Man, am I outdated! A 40 hour freshly licensed pilot with a fear of stalls
> was unknown in my day.

Correction: That's INTENTIONAL stalls!

RdKetchup

February 14th 08, 04:31 PM

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> "Mortimer Schnerd, RN" <mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com> wrote in
> :
>
>> Blueskies wrote:
>>> Every flight in a light GA single should end in a full stall...right
>>> as the wheels roll on to the runway...Unless folks know how to handle
>>> the plane in a stall, they will not learn to land correctly (I know
>>> this will start the flames!)
>>
>> I had just started with a Part 135 cargo outfit and was doing the
>> initial training in a C-402. The check airman asked me for a stall.
>> I gave him a stall. I thought he and the other new hire were going to
>> ****.
>>
>> "Didn't you understand I wanted a stall? Give me another."
>>
>> So I did. Just like before, the plane got pretty mushy and then it
>> broke cleanly. Once again, I thought they were going to ****. They
>> were visibly uncomfortable and I had no clue why.
>>
>> Finally the check airman said, "When I ask for a stall, I expect you
>> to recover before it actually breaks."
>>
>> "Well, why didn't you just say you wanted an 'approach to a stall'", I
>> asked. "What's the problem with doing a full stall in the 402?"
>>
>> "We hever do full stalls in a twin", he said. The other guy agreed.
>
> I can't see any reason why you couldn't either. Did they pass you BTW?
>
>
>
> Bertie
>

In my multi-engine check ride (in a Baron B55), when I did the requested
stall, the left wing dropped quite suddenly, and for a nano-second I
thought that we would end-up in a spin. It's been a while, but I seem
to remember that we were not that high either. In fact, the evaluator
complimented me on the recovery, adding that if I had not recovered it
right at the start, we would not have had time to do so. That was quite
a scary moment. Even scarier, in all the practices I had done, I had
never experienced such behavior.

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

February 14th 08, 04:47 PM

RdKetchup > wrote in news:fp1qd2$ot9$1
@dns3.cae.ca:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> "Mortimer Schnerd, RN" <mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com> wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Blueskies wrote:
>>>> Every flight in a light GA single should end in a full
stall...right
>>>> as the wheels roll on to the runway...Unless folks know how to
handle
>>>> the plane in a stall, they will not learn to land correctly (I know
>>>> this will start the flames!)
>>>
>>> I had just started with a Part 135 cargo outfit and was doing the
>>> initial training in a C-402. The check airman asked me for a stall.
>>> I gave him a stall. I thought he and the other new hire were going
to
>>> ****.
>>>
>>> "Didn't you understand I wanted a stall? Give me another."
>>>
>>> So I did. Just like before, the plane got pretty mushy and then it
>>> broke cleanly. Once again, I thought they were going to ****. They
>>> were visibly uncomfortable and I had no clue why.
>>>
>>> Finally the check airman said, "When I ask for a stall, I expect you
>>> to recover before it actually breaks."
>>>
>>> "Well, why didn't you just say you wanted an 'approach to a stall'",
I
>>> asked. "What's the problem with doing a full stall in the 402?"
>>>
>>> "We hever do full stalls in a twin", he said. The other guy agreed.
>>
>> I can't see any reason why you couldn't either. Did they pass you
BTW?
>>
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>>
>
> In my multi-engine check ride (in a Baron B55), when I did the
requested
> stall, the left wing dropped quite suddenly, and for a nano-second I
> thought that we would end-up in a spin. It's been a while, but I seem
> to remember that we were not that high either. In fact, the evaluator
> complimented me on the recovery, adding that if I had not recovered it
> right at the start, we would not have had time to do so. That was
quite
> a scary moment. Even scarier, in all the practices I had done, I had
> never experienced such behavior.
>

Well, a real good reason for getting familiar in more docile airplanes,
eh?

Bertie

Private

February 14th 08, 05:02 PM

> wrote in message
...
It's difficult to get a "full stall" in the landing in most
lightplanes without banging the tail on the runway; the fuselage
geometry won't allow it.

IMHO, this is why many taildraggers like or benefit from touching down
tailwheel first.

>Airplanes like the Zenair 701/801 have been
designed to fix that.

> And with the nose high at touchdown, the AOA is
lower than with the nose at that attitude approaching a power-off
stall in the air, since the airplane is likely already sinking
somewhat at altitude, and its flightpath increases the AOA at that
deck angle.

IAITT, I agree but am not sure, I suspect poor wording.

I get the horn blaring at ten feet BEFORE touchdown. Now
we're at a reasonable speed. No float in this situation.

It appears that instructors are increasingly afraid of the
airplanes they teach in. Pretty soon they'll be afraid to teach 30°
banked turns at cruise speed. I think it's a result of the overall
dumbing-down of society, where we are told WHAT to think, not HOW to
think. The media tells us which political leaders to vote for. They
tell us what to think (and what to believe) about various hot-potato
issues. The problem with that, besides making us lazy thinkers, is
that they are trying to redesign society along their own agendas.
Everyone knows that the media is infiltrated by a wide assortment of
social engineers.

I agree. IMHO, Some more benevalent than others, some ignorant, some/most
just lazy, some downright malevolent.

The flight instructors just parrot stuff from the books and
from their instructors, with some urban legends thrown in. They don't
KNOW from experience; they just REPEAT something they were told. So
they end up scared of stalls and spins and slow flight and little
puffy clouds and five-knot crosswinds.

Far too many are ~231 hr. wonders. IMHO the little bit higher rates charged
by more qualified (and often greyer) instructors is very good value. Mine
made me comfortable (and most enjoy playing and exploring) with the top left
of the envelope.

>Dan

Where is your home airport?

Happy landings,

RdKetchup

February 14th 08, 05:11 PM

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> RdKetchup > wrote in news:fp1qd2$ot9$1
> @dns3.cae.ca:
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> "Mortimer Schnerd, RN" <mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com> wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> Blueskies wrote:
>>>>> Every flight in a light GA single should end in a full
> stall...right
>>>>> as the wheels roll on to the runway...Unless folks know how to
> handle
>>>>> the plane in a stall, they will not learn to land correctly (I know
>>>>> this will start the flames!)
>>>> I had just started with a Part 135 cargo outfit and was doing the
>>>> initial training in a C-402. The check airman asked me for a stall.
>>>> I gave him a stall. I thought he and the other new hire were going
> to
>>>> ****.
>>>>
>>>> "Didn't you understand I wanted a stall? Give me another."
>>>>
>>>> So I did. Just like before, the plane got pretty mushy and then it
>>>> broke cleanly. Once again, I thought they were going to ****. They
>>>> were visibly uncomfortable and I had no clue why.
>>>>
>>>> Finally the check airman said, "When I ask for a stall, I expect you
>>>> to recover before it actually breaks."
>>>>
>>>> "Well, why didn't you just say you wanted an 'approach to a stall'",
> I
>>>> asked. "What's the problem with doing a full stall in the 402?"
>>>>
>>>> "We hever do full stalls in a twin", he said. The other guy agreed.
>>> I can't see any reason why you couldn't either. Did they pass you
> BTW?
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>>
>> In my multi-engine check ride (in a Baron B55), when I did the
> requested
>> stall, the left wing dropped quite suddenly, and for a nano-second I
>> thought that we would end-up in a spin. It's been a while, but I seem
>> to remember that we were not that high either. In fact, the evaluator
>> complimented me on the recovery, adding that if I had not recovered it
>> right at the start, we would not have had time to do so. That was
> quite
>> a scary moment. Even scarier, in all the practices I had done, I had
>> never experienced such behavior.
>>
>
> Well, a real good reason for getting familiar in more docile airplanes,
> eh?
>
>
> Bertie

Yep, luckily spin training was part of the curriculum when I was getting
my PPL and commercial licenses. In fact, spin practices in the school
Beech Sundowner where a lot of fun, some of my best memories from the
training.

Private

February 14th 08, 05:14 PM

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
> "birdog" > wrote in
> :
>
>> Here again I am appalled at the comments. Disclosure: Old, old
>> ex-pilot - learned to fly in the '40's.
>>
>> Did no one ever hear of walking the rudders down? It's a coordination
>> exercise. Power on, you pull the nose up to about 60 degrees from
>> horizontal and walk the rudders all the way down, preventing the plane
>> from falling off to eithor side. After years of flying, I still did
>> 'em just to test my own reaction times. When learning, it was also
>> great practice in spin recovery, too.
>>
>> Man, am I outdated! A 40 hour freshly licensed pilot with a fear of
>> stalls was unknown in my day.
>>
>
> Yep. also called a falling leaf. I taugth them as did the guys I learned
> from .
>
>
> Bertie

The falling leaf is fun, and a great exercise in picking up a dropping wing.
I like to do them along a road to maintain heading.

Happy landings,

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

February 14th 08, 05:16 PM

"Private" > wrote in :

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> "birdog" > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Here again I am appalled at the comments. Disclosure: Old, old
>>> ex-pilot - learned to fly in the '40's.
>>>
>>> Did no one ever hear of walking the rudders down? It's a
>>> coordination exercise. Power on, you pull the nose up to about 60
>>> degrees from horizontal and walk the rudders all the way down,
>>> preventing the plane from falling off to eithor side. After years of
>>> flying, I still did 'em just to test my own reaction times. When
>>> learning, it was also great practice in spin recovery, too.
>>>
>>> Man, am I outdated! A 40 hour freshly licensed pilot with a fear of
>>> stalls was unknown in my day.
>>>
>>
>> Yep. also called a falling leaf. I taugth them as did the guys I
>> learned from .
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> The falling leaf is fun, and a great exercise in picking up a dropping
> wing. I like to do them along a road to maintain heading.

Yeah. I don't think many people do them these days, though. Dutch rolls
seem to have fallen by the wayside as well.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

February 14th 08, 05:25 PM

RdKetchup > wrote in news:fp1so6$6nt$1
@dns3.cae.ca:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> RdKetchup > wrote in news:fp1qd2$ot9$1
>> @dns3.cae.ca:
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>> "Mortimer Schnerd, RN" <mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com> wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>> Blueskies wrote:
>>>>>> Every flight in a light GA single should end in a full
>> stall...right
>>>>>> as the wheels roll on to the runway...Unless folks know how to
>> handle
>>>>>> the plane in a stall, they will not learn to land correctly (I
know
>>>>>> this will start the flames!)
>>>>> I had just started with a Part 135 cargo outfit and was doing the
>>>>> initial training in a C-402. The check airman asked me for a
stall.
>>>>> I gave him a stall. I thought he and the other new hire were
going
>> to
>>>>> ****.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Didn't you understand I wanted a stall? Give me another."
>>>>>
>>>>> So I did. Just like before, the plane got pretty mushy and then
it
>>>>> broke cleanly. Once again, I thought they were going to ****.
They
>>>>> were visibly uncomfortable and I had no clue why.
>>>>>
>>>>> Finally the check airman said, "When I ask for a stall, I expect
you
>>>>> to recover before it actually breaks."
>>>>>
>>>>> "Well, why didn't you just say you wanted an 'approach to a
stall'",
>> I
>>>>> asked. "What's the problem with doing a full stall in the 402?"
>>>>>
>>>>> "We hever do full stalls in a twin", he said. The other guy
agreed.
>>>> I can't see any reason why you couldn't either. Did they pass you
>> BTW?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>>>
>>> In my multi-engine check ride (in a Baron B55), when I did the
>> requested
>>> stall, the left wing dropped quite suddenly, and for a nano-second I
>>> thought that we would end-up in a spin. It's been a while, but I
seem
>>> to remember that we were not that high either. In fact, the
evaluator
>>> complimented me on the recovery, adding that if I had not recovered
it
>>> right at the start, we would not have had time to do so. That was
>> quite
>>> a scary moment. Even scarier, in all the practices I had done, I
had
>>> never experienced such behavior.
>>>
>>
>> Well, a real good reason for getting familiar in more docile
airplanes,
>> eh?
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Yep, luckily spin training was part of the curriculum when I was
getting
> my PPL and commercial licenses.

Part of your school's curriculum, obviously! Unless you;re very very old
and got a BE23 back in time.

In fact, spin practices in the school
> Beech Sundowner where a lot of fun, some of my best memories from the
> training.
>

Yeah, I never really liked doing them all that much, especially when
someone else is doing them, but they really are essential learning.

Bertie

gatt[_2_]

February 14th 08, 05:28 PM

"Ol Shy & Bashful" > wrote in message

> Why is it so many pilots are afraid of stalls? I see it over an over
> when doing flight reviews and checks. Why are pilots so afraid of
> flying in the low end of the speed envelope?

It's more difficult, you have to actually remember to step on the ball, and
the view sucks. :>

I think mainly it's because they're taught to avoid the dreaded stall.
Maybe like why some people fear driving on ice and other people can't wait
to go do cookies in a frozen parking lot.

-c

Private

February 14th 08, 06:00 PM

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Private" > wrote in :
>
>>
>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>> .. .
>>> "birdog" > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> Here again I am appalled at the comments. Disclosure: Old, old
>>>> ex-pilot - learned to fly in the '40's.
>>>>
>>>> Did no one ever hear of walking the rudders down? It's a
>>>> coordination exercise. Power on, you pull the nose up to about 60
>>>> degrees from horizontal and walk the rudders all the way down,
>>>> preventing the plane from falling off to eithor side. After years of
>>>> flying, I still did 'em just to test my own reaction times. When
>>>> learning, it was also great practice in spin recovery, too.
>>>>
>>>> Man, am I outdated! A 40 hour freshly licensed pilot with a fear of
>>>> stalls was unknown in my day.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yep. also called a falling leaf. I taugth them as did the guys I
>>> learned from .
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>
>> The falling leaf is fun, and a great exercise in picking up a dropping
>> wing. I like to do them along a road to maintain heading.
>
>
> Yeah. I don't think many people do them these days, though. Dutch rolls
> seem to have fallen by the wayside as well.
>
>
> Bertie

My acro instructor (sadly gone west last year, (non aviation cause)) had me
do Dutch rolls as a coordination and warm-up exercise all the way to the
practice area on every flight.

Happy landings,

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

February 14th 08, 06:07 PM

"Private" > wrote in :

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> "Private" > wrote in :
>>
>>>
>>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>>> .. .
>>>> "birdog" > wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>> Here again I am appalled at the comments. Disclosure: Old, old
>>>>> ex-pilot - learned to fly in the '40's.
>>>>>
>>>>> Did no one ever hear of walking the rudders down? It's a
>>>>> coordination exercise. Power on, you pull the nose up to about 60
>>>>> degrees from horizontal and walk the rudders all the way down,
>>>>> preventing the plane from falling off to eithor side. After years
>>>>> of flying, I still did 'em just to test my own reaction times.
>>>>> When learning, it was also great practice in spin recovery, too.
>>>>>
>>>>> Man, am I outdated! A 40 hour freshly licensed pilot with a fear
>>>>> of stalls was unknown in my day.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yep. also called a falling leaf. I taugth them as did the guys I
>>>> learned from .
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>>
>>> The falling leaf is fun, and a great exercise in picking up a
>>> dropping wing. I like to do them along a road to maintain heading.
>>
>>
>> Yeah. I don't think many people do them these days, though. Dutch
>> rolls seem to have fallen by the wayside as well.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> My acro instructor (sadly gone west last year, (non aviation cause))
> had me do Dutch rolls as a coordination and warm-up exercise all the
> way to the practice area on every flight.
>

Another one thats murder on the instructor if they're not done right!

Bertie

Dallas

February 14th 08, 06:25 PM

On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 10:51:51 -0500, birdog wrote:

> Did no one ever hear of walking the rudders down? It's a coordination
> exercise. Power on, you pull the nose up to about 60 degrees from horizontal
> and walk the rudders all the way down, preventing the plane from falling off
> to eithor side.

Am I misunderstanding something? Isn't that still the standard way to
teach a stall? I was taught to maintain my heading during the approach to
the stall and after the stall by using the rudders to keep the wings level.

I'm not sure how you keep your heading within the PTS during a stall
without dancing on the rudders.

--
Dallas

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

February 14th 08, 06:30 PM

Dallas > wrote in
:

> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 10:51:51 -0500, birdog wrote:
>
>> Did no one ever hear of walking the rudders down? It's a coordination
>> exercise. Power on, you pull the nose up to about 60 degrees from
>> horizontal and walk the rudders all the way down, preventing the
>> plane from falling off to eithor side.
>
> Am I misunderstanding something? Isn't that still the standard way to
> teach a stall? I was taught to maintain my heading during the
> approach to the stall and after the stall by using the rudders to keep
> the wings level.
>
> I'm not sure how you keep your heading within the PTS during a stall
> without dancing on the rudders.
>
>
>
He's talking about ding a falling leaf. You don't pull the nose up to 60
degrees to do it though. You just start a spin entry, then stop it,
allowing the airplane to begin an entry in the oppostie direction, stop
that one and so on until you run out of altitude.
It's an excellent exercise..

Bertie

WingFlaps

February 14th 08, 07:08 PM

On Feb 15, 3:49*am, "Neil Gould" > wrote:
> Recently, > posted:
>
> >> Every flight in a light GA single should end in a full stall...right
> >> as the wheels roll on to the runway...Unless folks know how to
> >> handle the plane in a stall, they will not learn to land correctly
> >> (I know this will start the flames!)-
>
> > That's a sweet ending, though -- flames or not -- especially when the
> > stall horn blows and the wheels just start turning.
>
> > Yeah baby!
>
> Curious... in the Cessnas and Pipers that I fly the stall horn blows at
> least 5 kts before the stall. So, when the stall horn is blowing and the
> wheels touch down, the plane is still flying.
>

True, and that's usually just the first warning tone. I've said it
before but you can't get second tone in a 172 with wheels on the
ground without the tail touching... but we've thrashed this out
before. The problem, as I see it, is that aiming to land in a stalled
condition everything had better be perfect as you have no reserves.
You can't lift a wing if your x-wind control is a bit off or pull
back if a wind shadow hits -never mind the round out being close to
stall with crossed controls in a xwind ...

I'l just resign myself to trying to be always ~5k above the stall and
not being as "impressive" a pilot as I might be. Strangely, I've
noticed that I'm below POH distances for short field landings despite
my shortcomings as a pilot and failure to stall during landing.

Cheers

WingFlaps

February 14th 08, 07:13 PM

On Feb 15, 4:11*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

>
> If you're flying a Luscombe and afraid of stalls, please stop flying it.
> Far too many have been wrecked already.
>

I don't understand this, are you saying that they stall all the time -
please explain?

Cheers

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

February 14th 08, 07:52 PM

WingFlaps > wrote in news:b0142804-b73a-49e9-8670-
:

> On Feb 15, 4:11*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>>
>> If you're flying a Luscombe and afraid of stalls, please stop flying it.
>> Far too many have been wrecked already.
>>
>
> I don't understand this, are you saying that they stall all the time -
> please explain?
>
No, but the stall, while not violent, is not as wussy as a 150 or
cherokee's stall. It's one of the easiest to spin light airplanes ever (
it's stall-spin accident rate is ferocious) and it's approach speed is
neccesarily fairly low so as to avoid floating. It's a wonderful airplane.
I've owned three. But it is not an airplane that suffers fools gladly. And
anyone who flies one and shies away form stalling it because it makes him
uncomfortable is a future statistic. You have to know every way that
airplane can enter a spin and what every type of stall looks and feels like
or you are not safe to fly it.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

February 14th 08, 08:01 PM

WingFlaps > wrote in news:3d035899-558f-4866-8a56-
:

>>
>
> True, and that's usually just the first warning tone. I've said it
> before but you can't get second tone in a 172 with wheels on the
> ground without the tail touching... but we've thrashed this out
> before. The problem, as I see it, is that aiming to land in a stalled
> condition everything had better be perfect as you have no reserves.
> You can't lift a wing if your x-wind control is a bit off or pull
> back if a wind shadow hits -never mind the round out being close to
> stall with crossed controls in a xwind ...

Not so. There are plenty of airplanes that are normally landed at or close
to the stall. Many taildraggers are arranged so that three point is
achieved at the critical angle of attack or beyond, mainly to reduce
landing roll. as long as you don't try to descend in this attitude it's not
a problem

Bertie

Jay Masino

February 14th 08, 08:14 PM

Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> (Jay Masino) wrote in
> :
>
> > Ol Shy & Bashful > wrote:
> >> Why is it so many pilots are afraid of stalls? I see it over an over
> >> when doing flight reviews and checks. Why are pilots so afraid of
> >> flying in the low end of the speed envelope? Isn't that where the
> >> nasty things can happen? Isn't that where a pilot should be
> >> comfortable and competent?
> >> What do you think?
> >
> > For me, there's no question that it's related to my lingering fear of
> > heights... even after 21 years of flying. I'll do stalls with no
> > problems when I'm doing my BFR... I even did spin training when I was
> > a student, but I can't get passed the sensation that the aircraft is
> > hardly moving forward. It makes me accutely aware of how high in the
> > air I am. Having said that, it's never caused much of a problem.
> > I'm probably the best lander at our airport. I regularly slip all the
> > way to the ground. I think I'm a fairly precise flyer. I did well on
> > my Instrument rating. I did well when I did my taildragger
> > transition (in a Luscombe). I know how to fly the aircraft with
> > precision in the pattern and avoid a stall close to the ground. I
> > don't think there has to be a correlation between comfort doing
> > stalls, and being a good pilot.
>
> If you're flying a Luscombe and afraid of stalls, please stop flying it.
> Far too many have been wrecked already.
>

Actually, I found the stalls in our Luscombe fairly easy. That's not
the point I was trying to make. The point is that my lingering fear of
heights make it... lets say "uncomfortable" to do stalls, so I try my
best to avoid them.

--

Jay Masino "Home is where My critters are"
http://www.JayMasino.com
http://www.OceanCityAirport.com
http://www.oc-Adolfos.com

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

February 14th 08, 08:22 PM

(Jay Masino) wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> (Jay Masino) wrote in
>> :
>>
>> > Ol Shy & Bashful > wrote:
>> >> Why is it so many pilots are afraid of stalls? I see it over an
>> >> over when doing flight reviews and checks. Why are pilots so
>> >> afraid of flying in the low end of the speed envelope? Isn't that
>> >> where the nasty things can happen? Isn't that where a pilot should
>> >> be comfortable and competent?
>> >> What do you think?
>> >
>> > For me, there's no question that it's related to my lingering fear
>> > of heights... even after 21 years of flying. I'll do stalls with
>> > no problems when I'm doing my BFR... I even did spin training when
>> > I was a student, but I can't get passed the sensation that the
>> > aircraft is hardly moving forward. It makes me accutely aware of
>> > how high in the air I am. Having said that, it's never caused
>> > much of a problem. I'm probably the best lander at our airport. I
>> > regularly slip all the way to the ground. I think I'm a fairly
>> > precise flyer. I did well on my Instrument rating. I did well when
>> > I did my taildragger transition (in a Luscombe). I know how to fly
>> > the aircraft with precision in the pattern and avoid a stall close
>> > to the ground. I don't think there has to be a correlation between
>> > comfort doing stalls, and being a good pilot.
>>
>> If you're flying a Luscombe and afraid of stalls, please stop flying
>> it. Far too many have been wrecked already.
>>
>
> Actually, I found the stalls in our Luscombe fairly easy.

They are. Especially the metal wing ones. Did you spin it? Did you try
and provoke an inadvertant spin?

That's not
> the point I was trying to make. The point is that my lingering fear
> of heights make it... lets say "uncomfortable" to do stalls, so I
> try my best to avoid them.

If you're not comfortable, you're not safe in a Luscombe.

Bertie

Bertie

[email protected]

February 14th 08, 08:42 PM

On Feb 14, 8:49 am, "Neil Gould" > wrote:
> Recently, > posted:
>
> >> Every flight in a light GA single should end in a full stall...right
> >> as the wheels roll on to the runway...Unless folks know how to
> >> handle the plane in a stall, they will not learn to land correctly
> >> (I know this will start the flames!)-
>
> > That's a sweet ending, though -- flames or not -- especially when the
> > stall horn blows and the wheels just start turning.
>
> > Yeah baby!
>
> Curious... in the Cessnas and Pipers that I fly the stall horn blows at
> least 5 kts before the stall. So, when the stall horn is blowing and the
> wheels touch down, the plane is still flying.
>
> Neil

We had a jump pilot who (in a 206, with jump door) held a pretty
constant beep-beep-beep from rotation to about 500' on every
takeoff...no buffet, no stall. Sometimes we'd talk him (it didn't
take much) into holding it just off the grass down the runway and then
swoop the takeoff. Sigh.

My first time in a GA aircraft was my first jump...surrounded by
crazies who were going on up to jump out higher. Between the noise &
fear of heights when the door popped open its amazing I jumped again
that day.

[email protected]

February 14th 08, 08:56 PM

On Feb 14, 1:52 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> WingFlaps > wrote in news:b0142804-b73a-49e9-8670-
> :
>
> > On Feb 15, 4:11 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> >> If you're flying a Luscombe and afraid of stalls, please stop flying it.
> >> Far too many have been wrecked already.
>
> > I don't understand this, are you saying that they stall all the time -
> > please explain?
>
> No, but the stall, while not violent, is not as wussy as a 150 or
> cherokee's stall. It's one of the easiest to spin light airplanes ever (
> it's stall-spin accident rate is ferocious) and it's approach speed is
> neccesarily fairly low so as to avoid floating. It's a wonderful airplane.
> I've owned three. But it is not an airplane that suffers fools gladly. And
> anyone who flies one and shies away form stalling it because it makes him
> uncomfortable is a future statistic. You have to know every way that
> airplane can enter a spin and what every type of stall looks and feels like
> or you are not safe to fly it.
>
> Bertie

MIght I ask a (possibly) stupid question about stall practice?

If you start at a safe altitude (I know, what's safe...) say 7-9K ft H
above G...what's the problem (given a plane that's relatively docile)?

Folks I used to jump with (ram-air wings) were always twitchy about
stalling their canopies in flight (but did so to land, go figger).
First time I tried it I had a good scare (no instructor seat in a
harness) because the ram-air chute collapses when it stalls giving you
a good sudden 2' drop, then wads up into a semicircular mini-round
chute and you start dropping *backwards* and down at 40-50mph.

Point being, you don't try this at 500' feet in a chute but at 1500'
or above, why not? Same with a plane...altitude is life. If you
don't know what either rig feels like 'on the edges' then you are an
incipient statistic whenever the situation gets just a little snarky.

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

February 14th 08, 09:07 PM

wrote in
:

> On Feb 14, 1:52 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> WingFlaps > wrote in
>> news:b0142804-b73a-49e9-8670-
>> :
>>
>> > On Feb 15, 4:11 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>
>> >> If you're flying a Luscombe and afraid of stalls, please stop
>> >> flying it. Far too many have been wrecked already.
>>
>> > I don't understand this, are you saying that they stall all the
>> > time - please explain?
>>
>> No, but the stall, while not violent, is not as wussy as a 150 or
>> cherokee's stall. It's one of the easiest to spin light airplanes
>> ever ( it's stall-spin accident rate is ferocious) and it's approach
>> speed is neccesarily fairly low so as to avoid floating. It's a
>> wonderful airplane. I've owned three. But it is not an airplane that
>> suffers fools gladly. And anyone who flies one and shies away form
>> stalling it because it makes him uncomfortable is a future statistic.
>> You have to know every way that airplane can enter a spin and what
>> every type of stall looks and feels like or you are not safe to fly
>> it.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> MIght I ask a (possibly) stupid question about stall practice?
>
> If you start at a safe altitude (I know, what's safe...) say 7-9K ft H
> above G...what's the problem (given a plane that's relatively docile)?
>
> Folks I used to jump with (ram-air wings) were always twitchy about
> stalling their canopies in flight (but did so to land, go figger).
> First time I tried it I had a good scare (no instructor seat in a
> harness) because the ram-air chute collapses when it stalls giving you
> a good sudden 2' drop, then wads up into a semicircular mini-round
> chute and you start dropping *backwards* and down at 40-50mph.
>
> Point being, you don't try this at 500' feet in a chute but at 1500'
> or above, why not? Same with a plane...altitude is life. If you
> don't know what either rig feels like 'on the edges' then you are an
> incipient statistic whenever the situation gets just a little snarky.
>

Oh absolutely, at altitude always. You don't practice stalls low down.
Even if you're sharp enough to recover in ten feet every time, you do
them at altitude.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

February 14th 08, 09:42 PM

John Smith > wrote in
:

> In article >,
> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>> WingFlaps > wrote in
>> news:b0142804-b73a-49e9-8670-
>> :
>>
>> > On Feb 15, 4:11*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> If you're flying a Luscombe and afraid of stalls, please stop
>> >> flying it. Far too many have been wrecked already.
>> >>
>> >
>> > I don't understand this, are you saying that they stall all the
>> > time - please explain?
>> >
>> No, but the stall, while not violent, is not as wussy as a 150 or
>> cherokee's stall. It's one of the easiest to spin light airplanes
>> ever ( it's stall-spin accident rate is ferocious) and it's approach
>> speed is neccesarily fairly low so as to avoid floating. It's a
>> wonderful airplane. I've owned three. But it is not an airplane that
>> suffers fools gladly. And anyone who flies one and shies away form
>> stalling it because it makes him uncomfortable is a future statistic.
>> You have to know every way that airplane can enter a spin and what
>> every type of stall looks and feels like or you are not safe to fly
>> it.
>
> A Luscombe doesn't give the pilot as much warning as many similar
> airplanes will. Instead of nibbling at the stall with a buffet, the
> Luscombe can break abruptly.
>

That's right. It's airfoil gives a more laminar flow that somethign like
a Cub. Add to this long wings, gobs of adverse yaw and an extremely
light and powerful rudder and you have one easily spun airplane. It's
also fairly lightly loaded and relatively low powered.

Bertie

[email protected]

February 15th 08, 01:37 AM

On Feb 14, 3:40 pm, John Smith > wrote:
> In article
> >,
>
> wrote:
> > Folks I used to jump with (ram-air wings) were always twitchy about
> > stalling their canopies in flight (but did so to land, go figger).
> > First time I tried it I had a good scare (no instructor seat in a
> > harness) because the ram-air chute collapses when it stalls giving you
> > a good sudden 2' drop, then wads up into a semicircular mini-round
> > chute and you start dropping *backwards* and down at 40-50mph.
>
> It's even more fun to go full into the brakes as far as you fingers can
> get them until the canopy starts to rock backwards, and then let go of
> them!

That's 'zackly what I'm talkin' about! I like it when the drogue
flops over the front.

I learned to let the brakes off a little more slowly. 'Course I was
jumping video then too with a heavy HI-8 rig and full sized SLR with
motordrive.

Margy Natalie

February 15th 08, 02:16 AM

Roger[_4_]

February 15th 08, 02:41 AM

On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 17:44:27 -0500, John Smith > wrote:

>> "Ol Shy & Bashful" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > Why is it so many pilots are afraid of stalls? I see it over an over
>> > when doing flight reviews and checks. Why are pilots so afraid of
>> > flying in the low end of the speed envelope? Isn't that where the
>> > nasty things can happen? Isn't that where a pilot should be
>> > comfortable and competent?

I never had a fear of stalls, slow flight, or any other maneuvers. My
instructors made sure I was well aquatinted with every phase of
flight before turning me loose.

>> > What do you think?
>> > Its a loaded? question and comes from a 24,000+ hour pilot and active
>> > instructor. I'd really like to see some active discussion on this
>> > subject. I'm tired of seeing aircraft damaged by sloppy flying, and
>> > even more tired of seeing people injured by same.
>> > Got any comments?
>
>
>
>I think it has to do with the fear of entering a spin and the fact that
>a majority of pilots have never received spin training.
>Compound that with students having only to demonstrate an "incipient"
>stall, and not a full stall.

I think most of them around here do for real stalls and learn to
recognize the onset of a stall well before solo.

>This all leads to fear of the unknown and the folk lore associated with
>loss of control.
>How many instructors teach their students that it only takes a slight
>push on the yoke at the onset of buffet to prevent the stall. Too many

I'd hope they teach it only takes releasing the back pressure and not
necessarily pushing. It shouldn't take long to learn the feel of the
stall and recovery. Each plane is a little different, but not that
much different.

>pilots shove the yoke much farther forward (into a descent) than is
>necessary.
Even the Deb which has some pretty abrupt stall characteristics only
takes an easing off of the back pressure. (and a lot of rudder when
gear and flaps are down)

First: I'm not advocating the following without an instructor's
blessings. It depends on the instructor and individual student. On my
second solo flight I spent about an hour and a half doing steep
turns, S-turns, turns around a point, slips, and full stalls. (app,
dep and accelerated) IOW I practiced everything I had to do to get
that far.

I think only exposing students to incipient stalls does them a
disservice. With *proper* preparation and exposure stalls and slow
flight should be a non issue.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Roger[_4_]

February 15th 08, 02:43 AM

On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 15:52:00 +0100, Stefan >
wrote:

>John Smith schrieb:
>
>> How many instructors teach their students that it only takes a slight
>> push on the yoke at the onset of buffet to prevent the stall. Too many
>> pilots shove the yoke much farther forward (into a descent) than is
>> necessary.
>
>While not necessairy, it is'n a bad thing, either. Get that sped up
>quickly, and it's much better to drop the nose too much than too little.
>Why should a pilot be afraid of a dive?

One of the goals when doing stalls is minimum altitude loss.
That can be kinda important in real conditions when close to the
ground.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Roger[_4_]

February 15th 08, 02:48 AM

On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 13:22:19 -0800 (PST), "Robert M. Gary"
> wrote:

>On Feb 13, 12:53*pm, "Ol Shy & Bashful" > wrote:
>> Why is it so many pilots are afraid of stalls? I see it over an over
>> when doing flight reviews and checks. Why are pilots so afraid of
>> flying in the low end of the speed envelope? Isn't that where the
>> nasty things can happen? Isn't that where a pilot should be
>> comfortable and competent?
>> What do you think?
>> Its a loaded? question and comes from a 24,000+ hour pilot and active
>> instructor. I'd really like to see some active discussion on this
>> subject. I'm tired of seeing aircraft damaged by sloppy flying, and
>> even more tired of seeing people injured by same.
>> Got any comments?
>> Ol S&B
>
>As an instructor I approach the first stall with a student with some
>caution just because I don't know the plane. I've had a few planes end
>up with the blue side down (a Bonanza and a Mooney) in the stall.
>These owners had not stalled their planes before. When i was a student
>pilot in the Cessna 140 I also thought it odd that some people didn't
>like stalls. That was because the C-140 doesn't really stall, it just
>buffets along. However, you jump into something with a more
>interesting stall characteristic and you can see why some students
>don't like stalls.
>I'm actually becoming a bit of an odd ball in the Mooney community
>because I still do full stalls in the plane. Most of the other CFIs
>only go to the first nose drop, not a full stall and when teaching at
>the Mooney Pilot Prof. courses you are prohibited from doing full
>stalls with students. There are a lot of 10,000+ hour Mooney

If I signed up for a PP course and they wouldn't do full stalls I'd
demand my money back. WE did them at the Bo specific training.
Incidentally only 3 of us out of 63 had done full stalls in a Bo and
only one of us still practiced them regularly. Other than abrupt the
Bo and Mooney are both predictable and easily handled in the hands of
an experienced pilot.

>instructors that say you simply shouldn't be doing full stalls in
>these types of planes.

IMO Pure BS over hip deep and a very dangerous attitude for them to
take.

>
>-Robert, CFII
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Roger[_4_]

February 15th 08, 02:53 AM

On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 13:50:09 -0800 (PST), "Ol Shy & Bashful"
> wrote:

<snip>
>
>Robert
>What is a full stall? Does it have anything to do with the pitch
>attitude of the aircraft? The whole purpose of doing stall practice is
>to teach a pilot how not to get into a stall that makes him NewsAt 9
>and a smoking hole in the ground...??!!
>What is the advantage of going into a "deep stall" that pitches the
>nose down steeply and results in a severe loss of altitude? Isn't the
>purpose of stall practice to simulate stalls in the departure or
>approach phase? And how much altitude is there to play with? I don't
>think it should be thought of as 2-3000 feet as done in practice.

Our goals in practice were zero loss although up to a 100 was
acceptable.

>Rather it should be thought of as 50 feet as in an approach stall, or
>as 100 feet in a departure stall. Now we are getting realistic in the

Altitude loss in a departure stall can easily be held to zero in a Bo.
Gear and flaps down in approach mode should be 50 (or less) unless
you hold it in the stall for effect.

>dangers of stalls and how to make an effective recovery without
>hitting the ground.
>Your comment about not knowing the plane has me curious. In fact, most
>of your post has me confused as regards stalls.
>Cheers
>Ol S&B
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Angelo Campanella

February 15th 08, 03:26 AM

Roger wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 13:22:19 -0800 (PST), "Robert M. Gary"
> > wrote:
>>instructors that say you simply shouldn't be doing full stalls in
>>these types of planes.
> IMO Pure BS over hip deep and a very dangerous attitude for them to
> take.

I FULLY Agree. I own an M20J (since 1979) and have done CFI work in
other Mooneys in the past, and stalls are not much different in them. I
also was part owner in a BE33 from '70-'79. In both cases, the stalls
were and are not particularly unstable. Sure they buffet, and sure they
might fall off one way or the other. One should know that they both have
factory installed stall strips on a particular place on the wing leading
edges that make stalls reasonable.

Students must be taught to be comfortable with stalls in such aircraft.
Instructors and check-out pilots must demonstrate them in all
check-outs. The student must not only be comfortable in executing them
(stall and recovery); they also should be willing to repeatedly
demonstrate them confidently for you without any assistance from you.

One thing to be careful of is the CG during checkouts. It must be well
forward. Do not have anyone in the back seat since the further aft is
the CG, the harder it is to recover from an inadvertent spin entry. And
of course have plenty of altitude; minimum of 3,000 feet above local
terrain, higher if recoveries cannot be completed above 2,000' above
local terrain. One time in the '70's I was instructing in a CAP T41
(like a Cessna 172). I had that student climb it to 10,000 feet to
practice spins and their recovery. That T41 would immediately and
repeatedly recover on its own when we let go of all controls. The CG was
quite forward with only us two in the front seats, rear and baggage
totally empty.

As the countermeasure for such pilot troubles (fear and aft CG), it
must be taught that the pilot must detect ASAP the direction of turn and
then firmly apply a lot to full opposite rudder and hold it in until the
turn rate stops. Ailerons are best kept neutral until the turning stops
and speed comes up to normal. Getting the student comfortable with these
interesting (to me) actions is vital to that pilot's future.

>>-Robert, CFII
> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)

OK. Now that we are bragging:

Angelo Campanella, CFII
was A-33 N355Z (I heard that the next owner put it in gear up in the
1980's)

Now M20J N4668H

Angelo Campanella

February 15th 08, 03:59 AM

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

> John Smith > wrote in
> :
>>In article >,
>> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>>On Feb 15, 4:11 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>>>If you're flying a Luscombe and afraid of stalls, please stop
>>>>>flying it. Far too many have been wrecked already.

The Luscomb and the Taylorcraft (as well as all Mooneys) obtained a
faster cruise speed by using a thin laminar flow-like airfoil. As
efficient as they are, when the nose (angle of attack) comes up, they
efficently hang on and keep lifting as the airspeed slows.

>>>>I don't understand this, are you saying that they stall all the
>>>>time - please explain?

But when they break to a stall, it happens abruptly, at too low a
speed. They are totally stalled, and to boot one wing always stalls
first, falls of and immediately a spin develops in that direction. One
simply has to know that slow flight is always a touchy thing to do and
airspeed observation is crucial. The Mooney series has leading edge
stall strips about 30% out from the wing root to make the stall beak
earlier at a faster airspeed where control effectivenes is better.

>>>No, but the stall, while not violent, is not as wussy as a 150 or
>>>cherokee's stall. It's one of the easiest to spin light airplanes
>>>ever ( it's stall-spin accident rate is ferocious) and it's approach
>>>speed is neccesarily fairly low so as to avoid floating. It's a
>>>wonderful airplane. I've owned three. But it is not an airplane that
>>>suffers fools gladly. And anyone who flies one and shies away form
>>>stalling it because it makes him uncomfortable is a future statistic.
>>>You have to know every way that airplane can enter a spin and what
>>>every type of stall looks and feels like or you are not safe to fly
>>>it.
>>A Luscombe doesn't give the pilot as much warning as many similar
>>airplanes will. Instead of nibbling at the stall with a buffet, the
>>Luscombe can break abruptly.

OK.

> That's right. It's airfoil gives a more laminar flow that somethign like
> a Cub. Add to this long wings, gobs of adverse yaw and an extremely
> light and powerful rudder and you have one easily spun airplane.

The evolution of more sensible aileron design did not happen until way
after the Luscomb and Taylorcraft went out of production.

Two measures improved saftey vis-a-vis ailerons:

1- Earlier attmpts wre made at improving the lift characteristics of
ailerons. bu hinging them so that the aileron leading edge dipped down
to for a "slot" action that has a better lift/drag ratio. But that did
not do well for safety.

The next generation of ailerons fully faced that fact that adverse yaw
was more due to induced drag; the back-force that arises from demanding
lift out of the air flow. This pulls back the lifting wing (the opposite
of what the pilot wants, so

2- "Differential Aileron" was introduced (you will see this in all
airliners today; look out of windows on both sides when aircraft is
turning on your next commercial trip). ONLY the aileron on the side of
the turn is deflected up, reducing wing lift (and creating some profile
drag) on that side. That wing drops and the turn proceeds as desired.
The opposite aileron is turned down just a little bit to provde some
lift to assist that wing in rising as desired with no profile drag and
minimal induced drag. This aileron system design makes turns more safe
at slow speeds.

But the old craft from the'40's did not have it.

> It's
> also fairly lightly loaded and relatively low powered.

Not much of a factor in spin devlopment.

Angelo campanella

WingFlaps

February 15th 08, 09:32 AM

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> WingFlaps > wrote in news:b0142804-b73a-49e9-8670-
> :
>
> > On Feb 15, 4:11ï¿½am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> If you're flying a Luscombe and afraid of stalls, please stop flying it..
> >> Far too many have been wrecked already.
> >>
> >
> > I don't understand this, are you saying that they stall all the time -
> > please explain?
> >
> No, but the stall, while not violent, is not as wussy as a 150 or
> cherokee's stall. It's one of the easiest to spin light airplanes ever (
> it's stall-spin accident rate is ferocious) and it's approach speed is
> neccesarily fairly low so as to avoid floating. It's a wonderful airplane.
> I've owned three. But it is not an airplane that suffers fools gladly. And
> anyone who flies one and shies away form stalling it because it makes him
> uncomfortable is a future statistic. You have to know every way that
> airplane can enter a spin and what every type of stall looks and feels like
> or you are not safe to fly it.
>
I see thnx. I'll bear that in mind if I get the chance to try one.

Cheers

D Ramapriya

February 15th 08, 10:44 AM

On Feb 14, 5:57 am, "Blueskies" > wrote:
>
> Every flight in a light GA single should end in a full stall...right as the wheels roll on to the runway...

Interesting... is the nosewheel strut generally designed to bear the
impact of a full-stalled landing?

Ramapriya

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

February 15th 08, 12:52 PM

Angelo Campanella > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
>> John Smith > wrote in
>> :
>>>In article >,
>>> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>>>On Feb 15, 4:11 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>>>>If you're flying a Luscombe and afraid of stalls, please stop
>>>>>>flying it. Far too many have been wrecked already.
>
> The Luscomb and the Taylorcraft (as well as all Mooneys) obtained
> a
> faster cruise speed by using a thin laminar flow-like airfoil. As
> efficient as they are, when the nose (angle of attack) comes up, they
> efficently hang on and keep lifting as the airspeed slows.
>
>>>>>I don't understand this, are you saying that they stall all the
>>>>>time - please explain?
>
> But when they break to a stall, it happens abruptly, at too low a
> speed. They are totally stalled, and to boot one wing always stalls
> first, falls of and immediately a spin develops in that direction. One
> simply has to know that slow flight is always a touchy thing to do and
> airspeed observation is crucial. The Mooney series has leading edge
> stall strips about 30% out from the wing root to make the stall beak
> earlier at a faster airspeed where control effectivenes is better.
>
>>>>No, but the stall, while not violent, is not as wussy as a 150 or
>>>>cherokee's stall. It's one of the easiest to spin light airplanes
>>>>ever ( it's stall-spin accident rate is ferocious) and it's approach
>>>>speed is neccesarily fairly low so as to avoid floating. It's a
>>>>wonderful airplane. I've owned three. But it is not an airplane that
>>>>suffers fools gladly. And anyone who flies one and shies away form
>>>>stalling it because it makes him uncomfortable is a future
>>>>statistic. You have to know every way that airplane can enter a spin
>>>>and what every type of stall looks and feels like or you are not
>>>>safe to fly it.
>>>A Luscombe doesn't give the pilot as much warning as many similar
>>>airplanes will. Instead of nibbling at the stall with a buffet, the
>>>Luscombe can break abruptly.
>
> OK.
>
>> That's right. It's airfoil gives a more laminar flow that somethign
>> like a Cub. Add to this long wings, gobs of adverse yaw and an
>> extremely light and powerful rudder and you have one easily spun
>> airplane.
>
> The evolution of more sensible aileron design did not happen until way
> after the Luscomb and Taylorcraft went out of production.

Well, the Luscombe was in production at the same time as the Cessna
150.. and as to sensible, differential aileron is not sensible, it's
just what it is. The Luscombe has Friese type ailerons and adverse yaw
was not a mystery to be solved, it was just part of a design, and it is,
in fact, a tool that can be used. Adverse yaw is something that can be
used to good effect in crosswind landings, for one thing, and
differential ailerons are a liability during aerobatics.
>
> Two measures improved saftey vis-a-vis ailerons:
>
> 1- Earlier attmpts wre made at improving the lift characteristics of
> ailerons. bu hinging them so that the aileron leading edge dipped down
> to for a "slot" action that has a better lift/drag ratio. But that did
> not do well for safety.

Nope.

>
> The next generation of ailerons fully faced that fact that
> adverse yaw
> was more due to induced drag; the back-force that arises from
> demanding lift out of the air flow. This pulls back the lifting wing
> (the opposite of what the pilot wants, so
>
> 2- "Differential Aileron" was introduced (you will see this in all
> airliners today; look out of windows on both sides when aircraft is
> turning on your next commercial trip). ONLY the aileron on the side of
> the turn is deflected up, reducing wing lift (and creating some
> profile drag) on that side. That wing drops and the turn proceeds as
> desired. The opposite aileron is turned down just a little bit to
> provde some lift to assist that wing in rising as desired with no
> profile drag and minimal induced drag. This aileron system design
> makes turns more safe at slow speeds.
>

This is completely wrong. The ailerons go up and down on every airoknier
I've flown, and I've flown lots of them.

> But the old craft from the'40's did not have it.
>

Many did. Besides, the Luscombe and the T-cart were both thirties
airplanes.

>> It's
>> also fairly lightly loaded and relatively low powered.
>
> Not much of a factor in spin devlopment.

Actually it is.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

February 15th 08, 12:55 PM

WingFlaps > wrote in
:

>
>
> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> WingFlaps > wrote in
>> news:b0142804-b73a-49e9-8670-
>> :
>>
>> > On Feb 15, 4:11ï¿½am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> If you're flying a Luscombe and afraid of stalls, please stop
>> >> flying it
> .
>> >> Far too many have been wrecked already.
>> >>
>> >
>> > I don't understand this, are you saying that they stall all the
>> > time - please explain?
>> >
>> No, but the stall, while not violent, is not as wussy as a 150 or
>> cherokee's stall. It's one of the easiest to spin light airplanes
>> ever ( it's stall-spin accident rate is ferocious) and it's approach
>> speed is neccesarily fairly low so as to avoid floating. It's a
>> wonderful airplane.
>
>> I've owned three. But it is not an airplane that suffers fools
>> gladly. And
>
>> anyone who flies one and shies away form stalling it because it makes
>> him uncomfortable is a future statistic. You have to know every way
>> that airplane can enter a spin and what every type of stall looks and
>> feels lik
> e
>> or you are not safe to fly it.
>>
> I see thnx. I'll bear that in mind if I get the chance to try one.

Sorry, I got confused, I thought you said you were flying one, bu tI
obviously got you mixed up with another poster ( didn't look back up the
thread as I was posting) But the comments are relevant to all flying and
all stalls and spins to some degree or another. You have to be able to
fly an airplane comfortably at the edge of a stall or you're not as safe
as you might or can be.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

February 15th 08, 12:57 PM

D Ramapriya > wrote in
:

> On Feb 14, 5:57 am, "Blueskies" > wrote:
>>
>> Every flight in a light GA single should end in a full stall...right
>> as the wheels roll on to the runway...
>
>
> Interesting... is the nosewheel strut generally designed to bear the
> impact of a full-stalled landing?
>

Good grief. If it isn't we could always use your head in it's place.

Bertie

Ol Shy & Bashful

February 15th 08, 03:38 PM

On Feb 15, 6:57*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> D Ramapriya > wrote :
>
> > On Feb 14, 5:57 am, "Blueskies" > wrote:
>
> >> Every flight in a light GA single should end in a full stall...right
> >> as the wheels roll on to the runway...
>
> > Interesting... is the nosewheel strut generally designed to bear the
> > impact of a full-stalled landing?
>
> Good grief. If it isn't we could always use your head in it's place.
>
> Bertie

Bertie
Fun to read your reposts and I'm delighted to see my OP generated so
much discussion in an area that obviously has me concerned. The spins
discussion has been beat over and over but still is as germane as
ever. Again, I am distressed to see so many of todays CFI's who are
not qualified to be teaching flying. They have the certificate and
that doesn't mean schitt. Not when they are afraid to do spins since
they have never done one???
It does not surprise me when students tell me they learn more from me
in one hour than they have learned in 10 with other instructors. I'm
really bothered by that since I don't think I am teaching anything
unusual......OOOHHHH WAIT..
I understand !!! I AM TEACHING VALID FLYING SKILLS AND LETTING THE
STUDENT DO ALL THE WORK.
I also hear that....the instructor stays on the controls all the time
to the point the student begs to get some stick time without overiding
control pressure or input.
Then I see the overconfident CFI who lets a student get sideways in a
stiff XW (15-20kts) and damned near wreck an airplane to prove a
point. Had to replace two tires that were down nearly to blowout with
4 ply showing......
Am I overly sensitive??
Cheers
Another old gray haired fart

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

February 15th 08, 03:46 PM

"Ol Shy & Bashful" > wrote in
:

> On Feb 15, 6:57*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> D Ramapriya > wrote
>> innews:6fdac854-2d28-4f05-8f27-f
> :
>>
>> > On Feb 14, 5:57 am, "Blueskies" >
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >> Every flight in a light GA single should end in a full
>> >> stall...right as the wheels roll on to the runway...
>>
>> > Interesting... is the nosewheel strut generally designed to bear
>> > the impact of a full-stalled landing?
>>
>> Good grief. If it isn't we could always use your head in it's place.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Bertie
> Fun to read your reposts and I'm delighted to see my OP generated so
> much discussion in an area that obviously has me concerned. The spins
> discussion has been beat over and over but still is as germane as
> ever. Again, I am distressed to see so many of todays CFI's who are
> not qualified to be teaching flying. They have the certificate and
> that doesn't mean schitt. Not when they are afraid to do spins since
> they have never done one???

Well, AFAIK, it's still part of the requirements to get an intstructor's
rating, unless they;ve dropped it. But that coudl only be a cursory
introduction.

> It does not surprise me when students tell me they learn more from me
> in one hour than they have learned in 10 with other instructors. I'm
> really bothered by that since I don't think I am teaching anything
> unusual......OOOHHHH WAIT..
> I understand !!! I AM TEACHING VALID FLYING SKILLS AND LETTING THE
> STUDENT DO ALL THE WORK.

I know the feeling.

> I also hear that....the instructor stays on the controls all the time
> to the point the student begs to get some stick time without overiding
> control pressure or input.

Well, to be fair, I don't think there are many guys doing that. .

> Then I see the overconfident CFI who lets a student get sideways in a
> stiff XW (15-20kts) and damned near wreck an airplane to prove a
> point. Had to replace two tires that were down nearly to blowout with
> 4 ply showing......
> Am I overly sensitive??

Nah, just older and wiser. However, I do let the guys get to the edge of
my comfort zone. the crosswind thing is a whole nuther discussion, of
course, but it is germaine to the "wtf are instructors up to these
days" discussion. There's little point in letting a student get way
beyond his abilities, but trying a stiff crosswind when it's only a bit
beyond would be a useful exercise, in my opinion.

Bertie

[email protected]

February 15th 08, 04:01 PM

On Feb 14, 10:02 am, "Private" > wrote:

> Where is your home airport?
>
> Happy landings,

Three Hills, Alberta.

Dan

[email protected]

February 15th 08, 04:10 PM

On Feb 14, 10:51*am, "birdog" > wrote:
> Did no one ever hear of walking the rudders down? It's a coordination
> exercise. Power on, you pull the nose up to about 60 degrees from horizontal
> and walk the rudders all the way down, preventing the plane from falling off
> to eithor side.

An intentional pitch exceeding a 30-degree magnitude is prohibited
unless everyone aboard wears an approved parachute (91.307c2).

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

February 15th 08, 05:24 PM

wrote in
:

> On Feb 14, 10:51*am, "birdog" > wrote:
>> Did no one ever hear of walking the rudders down? It's a coordination
>> exercise. Power on, you pull the nose up to about 60 degrees from
>> horizont
> al
>> and walk the rudders all the way down, preventing the plane from
>> falling o
> ff
>> to eithor side.
>
> An intentional pitch exceeding a 30-degree magnitude is prohibited
> unless everyone aboard wears an approved parachute (91.307c2).

Nope.

Bertie

Dallas

February 16th 08, 06:30 AM

On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 18:30:42 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

> He's talking about doing a falling leaf.

Ok... I was missing something.

> It's an excellent exercise..

Yeah, better than a Stairmaster I bet.

....oh, I guess that's not what you meant?

<G>

--
Dallas

[email protected]

February 16th 08, 01:28 PM

On Feb 15, 11:54*am, Bob Moore > wrote:
> I would suggest the following.....
>
> 1. A solo pilot is not "carrying any person (other than a crewmember)"
> * *and therefore a parachute is not required.

Oops, sorry, you're right. Thanks for the correction.

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

February 16th 08, 05:21 PM

Dallas > wrote in
:

> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 18:30:42 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
>> He's talking about doing a falling leaf.
>
> Ok... I was missing something.
>
>> It's an excellent exercise..
>
> Yeah, better than a Stairmaster I bet.
>
> ...oh, I guess that's not what you meant?

Depends on the muscle you're trying to get at!

Bertie

Big John[_2_]

February 16th 08, 07:41 PM

-----------------------------clip-------------------------

But when they break to a stall, it happens abruptly, at too
low a speed. They are totally stalled, and to boot one wing always
stalls first, falls of and immediately a spin develops in that
direction. One simply has to know that slow flight is always a touchy
thing to do and airspeed observation is crucial. The Mooney series
has leading edge stall strips about 30% out from the wing root to make
the stall beak earlier at a faster airspeed where control effectivenes
is better. light and powerful rudder and you have one easily spun
airplane.

-------------------------clip---------------------

Angelo campanella

************************************************** *************************

Angelo

Stall strip on inboard portion of wings are to cause the inboard
section of wing to stall before the tips, where ailerons are located..

This is to give you some aileron control in early part of a stall.

You say "But when they break to a stall, it happens abruptly, at too
low a speed".

I've stalled aircraft at 400-500 mph. Not a big deal.

Big John

Big John[_2_]

February 16th 08, 07:47 PM

----------clip---------

You have to be able to fly an airplane comfortably at the edge of a
stall or you're not as safe as you might or can be.

************************************************** ******************

Bertie

Better words were never said.

Big John

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

February 16th 08, 07:51 PM

Big John wrote:
> -----------------------------clip-------------------------
>
>
> But when they break to a stall, it happens abruptly, at too
> low a speed. They are totally stalled, and to boot one wing always
> stalls first, falls of and immediately a spin develops in that
> direction. One simply has to know that slow flight is always a touchy
> thing to do and airspeed observation is crucial. The Mooney series
> has leading edge stall strips about 30% out from the wing root to make
> the stall beak earlier at a faster airspeed where control effectivenes
> is better. light and powerful rudder and you have one easily spun
> airplane.
>
>
> -------------------------clip---------------------
>
>
> Angelo campanella
>
> ************************************************** *************************
>
> Angelo
>
> Stall strip on inboard portion of wings are to cause the inboard
> section of wing to stall before the tips, where ailerons are located..
>
> This is to give you some aileron control in early part of a stall.
>
> You say "But when they break to a stall, it happens abruptly, at too
> low a speed".
>
> I've stalled aircraft at 400-500 mph. Not a big deal.
>
> Big John

I agree John. I hate to see stall linked to airspeed in any way but to
note that the stall speeds on the ASI are based on 1g flight at a
specific gross weight.
I don't even like stall warning devices. I want pilots recognizing
approach to stall by how the airplane feels and is behaving.

--
Dudley Henriques

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

February 16th 08, 07:56 PM

Big John wrote:
> ----------clip---------
>
> You have to be able to fly an airplane comfortably at the edge of a
> stall or you're not as safe as you might or can be.
>
>
> ************************************************** ******************
>
> Bertie
>
>
> Better words were never said.
>
>
> Big John

Actually there were better words.

It happened one night when I was eighteen in the back seat of a borrowed
Chevy when Nancy Ann Brown told me;
"YES"
:-))

--
Dudley Henriques

WingFlaps

February 16th 08, 10:05 PM

On Feb 17, 8:56*am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> Big John wrote:
> > ----------clip---------
>
> > *You have to be able to fly an airplane comfortably at the edge of a
> > stall or you're not as safe as you might or can be.
>
> > ************************************************** ******************
>
> > Bertie
>
> > Better words were never said.
>
> > Big John
>
> Actually there were better words.
>
> It happened one night when I was eighteen in the back seat of a borrowed
> Chevy when Nancy Ann Brown told me;
> "YES" and thus began my descent into wine women and song.
> :-))
>

LOL
Let me guess, Nancy Ann Brown was 85? :-P

Cheers

WingFlaps

February 16th 08, 10:08 PM

On Feb 17, 8:56*am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> Big John wrote:
> > ----------clip---------
>
> > *You have to be able to fly an airplane comfortably at the edge of a
> > stall or you're not as safe as you might or can be.
>
> > ************************************************** ******************
>
> > Bertie
>
> > Better words were never said.
>
> > Big John
>
> Actually there were better words.
>
> It happened one night when I was eighteen in the back seat of a borrowed
> Chevy when Nancy Ann Brown told me;
> "YES"
> :-))
>

She said nothing .

http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~rita/stanifer/d0008/g0000044.html

Cheers (ducking)

WingFlaps

February 16th 08, 11:18 PM

On Feb 17, 8:56*am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> Big John wrote:
> > ----------clip---------
>
> > *You have to be able to fly an airplane comfortably at the edge of a
> > stall or you're not as safe as you might or can be.
>
> > ************************************************** ******************
>
> > Bertie
>
> > Better words were never said.
>
> > Big John
>
> Actually there were better words.
>
> It happened one night when I was eighteen in the back seat of a borrowed
> Chevy when Nancy Ann Brown told me;
> "YES"
> :-))
>

Err, I hope that was Mrs. H! :-0 :-)))

Cheers

WingFlaps

February 16th 08, 11:26 PM

On Feb 17, 8:51*am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> Big John wrote:
> > -----------------------------clip-------------------------
>
> > * *But when they break to a stall, it happens abruptly, at too
> > low a speed. They are totally stalled, and to boot one wing always
> > stalls first, falls of and immediately a spin develops in that
> > direction. One simply has to know that slow flight is always a touchy
> > thing to do and airspeed observation is crucial. *The Mooney series
> > has leading edge stall strips about 30% out from the wing root to make
> > the stall beak earlier at a faster airspeed where control effectivenes
> > is better. light and powerful rudder and you have one easily spun
> > airplane.
>
> > -------------------------clip---------------------
>
> > * * * * * *Angelo campanella
>
> > ************************************************** *************************
>
> > Angelo
>
> > Stall strip on inboard portion of wings are to cause the inboard
> > section of wing to stall before the tips, where ailerons are located..
>
> > This is to give you some aileron control in early part of a stall.
>
> > You *say "But when they break to a stall, it happens abruptly, at too
> > low a speed".
>
> > I've stalled aircraft at 400-500 mph. Not a big deal.
>
> > Big John
>
> I agree John. I hate to see stall linked to airspeed in any way but to
> note that the stall speeds on the ASI are based on 1g flight at a
> specific gross weight.
> I don't even like stall warning devices. I want pilots recognizing
> approach to stall by how the airplane feels and is behaving.
>

I think a still warning device is very useful for a pilot who is
preoccupied with other tasks. A question, will a typical air pressure
stall warning always sound off at the same AOA regardless of speed
you are flying at? (I know really fast planes use a vane device to
measure it directly).

Cheers

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

February 16th 08, 11:29 PM

WingFlaps > wrote in
:

> On Feb 17, 8:51*am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> Big John wrote:
>> > -----------------------------clip-------------------------
>>
>> > * *But when they break to a stall, it happens abruptly, at too
>> > low a speed. They are totally stalled, and to boot one wing always
>> > stalls first, falls of and immediately a spin develops in that
>> > direction. One simply has to know that slow flight is always a
>> > touchy thing to do and airspeed observation is crucial. *The Mooney
>> > series has leading edge stall strips about 30% out from the wing
>> > root to make the stall beak earlier at a faster airspeed where
>> > control effectivenes is better. light and powerful rudder and you
>> > have one easily spun airplane.
>>
>> > -------------------------clip---------------------
>>
>> > * * * * * *Angelo campanella
>>
>> >
************************************************** ******************
>> > ****
> ***
>>
>> > Angelo
>>
>> > Stall strip on inboard portion of wings are to cause the inboard
>> > section of wing to stall before the tips, where ailerons are
>> > located..
>>
>> > This is to give you some aileron control in early part of a stall.
>>
>> > You *say "But when they break to a stall, it happens abruptly, at
>> > too low a speed".
>>
>> > I've stalled aircraft at 400-500 mph. Not a big deal.
>>
>> > Big John
>>
>> I agree John. I hate to see stall linked to airspeed in any way but
>> to note that the stall speeds on the ASI are based on 1g flight at a
>> specific gross weight.
>> I don't even like stall warning devices. I want pilots recognizing
>> approach to stall by how the airplane feels and is behaving.
>>
>
> I think a still warning device is very useful for a pilot who is
> preoccupied with other tasks. A question, will a typical air pressure
> stall warning always sound off at the same AOA regardless of speed
> you are flying at? (I know really fast planes use a vane device to
> measure it directly).
>

I think so. They certainly squeak at about the right time in accelerated
stalls.

Bertie

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

February 17th 08, 12:17 AM

WingFlaps wrote:
> On Feb 17, 8:56 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> Big John wrote:
>>> ----------clip---------
>>> You have to be able to fly an airplane comfortably at the edge of a
>>> stall or you're not as safe as you might or can be.
>>> ************************************************** ******************
>>> Bertie
>>> Better words were never said.
>>> Big John
>> Actually there were better words.
>>
>> It happened one night when I was eighteen in the back seat of a borrowed
>> Chevy when Nancy Ann Brown told me;
>> "YES"
>> :-))
>>
>
> Err, I hope that was Mrs. H! :-0 :-)))
>
> Cheers
>
Nope. Met Mrs. H when I was 28. Been together ever since. This was
during my "learning period" :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

February 17th 08, 12:41 AM

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> WingFlaps wrote:
>> On Feb 17, 8:56 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>> Big John wrote:
>>>> ----------clip---------
>>>> You have to be able to fly an airplane comfortably at the edge of
>>>> a
>>>> stall or you're not as safe as you might or can be.
>>>> ************************************************** ******************
>>>> Bertie
>>>> Better words were never said.
>>>> Big John
>>> Actually there were better words.
>>>
>>> It happened one night when I was eighteen in the back seat of a
>>> borrowed Chevy when Nancy Ann Brown told me;
>>> "YES"
>>> :-))
>>>
>>
>> Err, I hope that was Mrs. H! :-0 :-)))
>>
>> Cheers
>>
> Nope. Met Mrs. H when I was 28. Been together ever since. This was
> during my "learning period" :-))
>

Hope you had your training wheels on.

bertie

Big John[_2_]

February 17th 08, 01:01 AM

On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 14:51:37 -0500, Dudley Henriques
> wrote:

>Big John wrote:
>> -----------------------------clip-------------------------
>>
>>
>> But when they break to a stall, it happens abruptly, at too
>> low a speed. They are totally stalled, and to boot one wing always
>> stalls first, falls of and immediately a spin develops in that
>> direction. One simply has to know that slow flight is always a touchy
>> thing to do and airspeed observation is crucial. The Mooney series
>> has leading edge stall strips about 30% out from the wing root to make
>> the stall beak earlier at a faster airspeed where control effectivenes
>> is better. light and powerful rudder and you have one easily spun
>> airplane.
>>
>>
>> -------------------------clip---------------------
>>
>>
>> Angelo campanella
>>
>> ************************************************** *************************
>>
>> Angelo
>>
>> Stall strip on inboard portion of wings are to cause the inboard
>> section of wing to stall before the tips, where ailerons are located..
>>
>> This is to give you some aileron control in early part of a stall.
>>
>> You say "But when they break to a stall, it happens abruptly, at too
>> low a speed".
>>
>> I've stalled aircraft at 400-500 mph. Not a big deal.
>>
>> Big John
>
>I agree John. I hate to see stall linked to airspeed in any way but to
>note that the stall speeds on the ASI are based on 1g flight at a
>specific gross weight.
>I don't even like stall warning devices. I want pilots recognizing
>approach to stall by how the airplane feels and is behaving.

************************************************** **************

Dudley

No one learns to fly by feel any more and haven't for years.

I saw many Air Force students that could fly 60/30 super. They made
adequate bomber and transport pilots but were an accident waiting to
happen in Fighters.

Guess I was lucky (or damn good). I was able to recognize approaching
a stall in all the aircraft I have flown and was able to take
corrective action if it was inadvertent. Best I can remember was roll
off to a max of 90 degrees before I stopped roll and recovered with a
minimum loss of altitude. If a bird departs you need to get ahead of
it immediately.

I've been in programs where the airspeed was taped over and bird flown
and landed without it. Closest I've come to flying by feel since my
open cockpit days.

All this being said, if you get a nervous nellie then they are unable
to even stand a program like that even if it might save their life
some day.

And a good day to you and all.

Big John

[email protected]

February 17th 08, 01:04 AM

On Feb 13, 3:08 pm, "Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Ol Shy & Bashful" > wrote in ...
>
> > Why is it so many pilots are afraid of stalls? I see it over an over
> > when doing flight reviews and checks. Why are pilots so afraid of
> > flying in the low end of the speed envelope? Isn't that where the
> > nasty things can happen? Isn't that where a pilot should be
> > comfortable and competent?
> > What do you think?
> > Its a loaded? question and comes from a 24,000+ hour pilot and active
> > instructor. I'd really like to see some active discussion on this
> > subject. I'm tired of seeing aircraft damaged by sloppy flying, and
> > even more tired of seeing people injured by same.
> > Got any comments?
> > Ol S&B
>
> Well as a low time weekend warrior type I don't dislike doing stalls but I
> treat it with a lot of respect. I don't go out by myself and work on stalls
> unless I have a CFI with me. I take a CFI with me quite a bit because
> sometimes I will go a couple months in between flights with my work schedule
> so I feel a lot more comfortable with a seasoned pilot with me. Eventually
> I'd like to own my own plane and fly more but work and house payments don't
> make that possible right now. If I flew more I'm sure I would be more
> comfortable with those maneuvers but comfort always come with experience.

Have you ever tried a panic stop in your vehicle? Or are you just
hoping you'll know what to do when you have to?

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

February 17th 08, 01:41 AM

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
>> WingFlaps wrote:
>>> On Feb 17, 8:56 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>> Big John wrote:
>>>>> ----------clip---------
>>>>> You have to be able to fly an airplane comfortably at the edge of
>>>>> a
>>>>> stall or you're not as safe as you might or can be.
>>>>> ************************************************** ******************
>>>>> Bertie
>>>>> Better words were never said.
>>>>> Big John
>>>> Actually there were better words.
>>>>
>>>> It happened one night when I was eighteen in the back seat of a
>>>> borrowed Chevy when Nancy Ann Brown told me;
>>>> "YES"
>>>> :-))
>>>>
>>> Err, I hope that was Mrs. H! :-0 :-)))
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>> Nope. Met Mrs. H when I was 28. Been together ever since. This was
>> during my "learning period" :-))
>>
>
> Hope you had your training wheels on.
>
>
> bertie

Are you kidding? You think I wanted to roll off??????

--
Dudley Henriques

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

February 17th 08, 01:46 AM

Big John wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 14:51:37 -0500, Dudley Henriques
> > wrote:
>
>> Big John wrote:
>>> -----------------------------clip-------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>> But when they break to a stall, it happens abruptly, at too
>>> low a speed. They are totally stalled, and to boot one wing always
>>> stalls first, falls of and immediately a spin develops in that
>>> direction. One simply has to know that slow flight is always a touchy
>>> thing to do and airspeed observation is crucial. The Mooney series
>>> has leading edge stall strips about 30% out from the wing root to make
>>> the stall beak earlier at a faster airspeed where control effectivenes
>>> is better. light and powerful rudder and you have one easily spun
>>> airplane.
>>>
>>>
>>> -------------------------clip---------------------
>>>
>>>
>>> Angelo campanella
>>>
>>> ************************************************** *************************
>>>
>>> Angelo
>>>
>>> Stall strip on inboard portion of wings are to cause the inboard
>>> section of wing to stall before the tips, where ailerons are located..
>>>
>>> This is to give you some aileron control in early part of a stall.
>>>
>>> You say "But when they break to a stall, it happens abruptly, at too
>>> low a speed".
>>>
>>> I've stalled aircraft at 400-500 mph. Not a big deal.
>>>
>>> Big John
>> I agree John. I hate to see stall linked to airspeed in any way but to
>> note that the stall speeds on the ASI are based on 1g flight at a
>> specific gross weight.
>> I don't even like stall warning devices. I want pilots recognizing
>> approach to stall by how the airplane feels and is behaving.
>
> ************************************************** **************
>
> Dudley
>
> No one learns to fly by feel any more and haven't for years.
>
> I saw many Air Force students that could fly 60/30 super. They made
> adequate bomber and transport pilots but were an accident waiting to
> happen in Fighters.
>
> Guess I was lucky (or damn good). I was able to recognize approaching
> a stall in all the aircraft I have flown and was able to take
> corrective action if it was inadvertent. Best I can remember was roll
> off to a max of 90 degrees before I stopped roll and recovered with a
> minimum loss of altitude. If a bird departs you need to get ahead of
> it immediately.
>
> I've been in programs where the airspeed was taped over and bird flown
> and landed without it. Closest I've come to flying by feel since my
> open cockpit days.
>
> All this being said, if you get a nervous nellie then they are unable
> to even stand a program like that even if it might save their life
> some day.
>
> And a good day to you and all.
>
> Big John

Instructors who teach stall "feel" are still out here, but you have to
spend some time finding the right ones.
When you find a CFI who tapes up the ASI and pulls the circuit breaker
on the stall warning horn to teach you to "feel" the airplane...GRAB
THEM, you've found the right one :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

February 17th 08, 02:15 AM

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> WingFlaps wrote:
>>>> On Feb 17, 8:56 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>>> Big John wrote:
>>>>>> ----------clip---------
>>>>>> You have to be able to fly an airplane comfortably at the edge
of
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> stall or you're not as safe as you might or can be.
>>>>>>
************************************************** ******************
>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>>> Better words were never said.
>>>>>> Big John
>>>>> Actually there were better words.
>>>>>
>>>>> It happened one night when I was eighteen in the back seat of a
>>>>> borrowed Chevy when Nancy Ann Brown told me;
>>>>> "YES"
>>>>> :-))
>>>>>
>>>> Err, I hope that was Mrs. H! :-0 :-)))
>>>>
>>>> Cheers
>>>>
>>> Nope. Met Mrs. H when I was 28. Been together ever since. This was
>>> during my "learning period" :-))
>>>
>>
>> Hope you had your training wheels on.
>>
>>
>> bertie
>
> Are you kidding? You think I wanted to roll off??????
>

Heh heh!

Bertie

WingFlaps

February 17th 08, 02:40 AM

On Feb 17, 1:17*pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> WingFlaps wrote:
> > On Feb 17, 8:56 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> >> Big John wrote:
> >>> ----------clip---------
> >>> *You have to be able to fly an airplane comfortably at the edge of a
> >>> stall or you're not as safe as you might or can be.
> >>> ************************************************** ******************
> >>> Bertie
> >>> Better words were never said.
> >>> Big John
> >> Actually there were better words.
>
> >> It happened one night when I was eighteen in the back seat of a borrowed
> >> Chevy when Nancy Ann Brown told me;
> >> "YES"
> >> :-))
>
> > Err, I hope that was Mrs. H! *:-0 *:-)))
>
> > Cheers
>
> Nope. Met Mrs. H when I was 28. Been together ever since. This was
> during my "learning period" :-))
>

Ah, then you forgot that the YES followed by I WILL from Mrs. H. was
the best of all -right?!

:-)

Cheers

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

February 17th 08, 03:26 AM

WingFlaps wrote:
> On Feb 17, 1:17 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> WingFlaps wrote:
>>> On Feb 17, 8:56 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>> Big John wrote:
>>>>> ----------clip---------
>>>>> You have to be able to fly an airplane comfortably at the edge of a
>>>>> stall or you're not as safe as you might or can be.
>>>>> ************************************************** ******************
>>>>> Bertie
>>>>> Better words were never said.
>>>>> Big John
>>>> Actually there were better words.
>>>> It happened one night when I was eighteen in the back seat of a borrowed
>>>> Chevy when Nancy Ann Brown told me;
>>>> "YES"
>>>> :-))
>>> Err, I hope that was Mrs. H! :-0 :-)))
>>> Cheers
>> Nope. Met Mrs. H when I was 28. Been together ever since. This was
>> during my "learning period" :-))
>>
>
> Ah, then you forgot that the YES followed by I WILL from Mrs. H. was
> the best of all -right?!
>
> :-)
>
> Cheers

Thank you. Actually that would have been number one.
You're right on too. I'm one of the lucky ones. I married my best friend
42 years ago and she's still my best friend today. Getting her to say
yes was the luckiest damn thing I ever managed to do in my whole life
and hearing her say it was absolutely number one on the list.

--
Dudley Henriques

C J Campbell[_1_]

February 17th 08, 03:36 AM

On 2008-02-13 12:53:53 -0800, "Ol Shy & Bashful" > said:

> Why is it so many pilots are afraid of stalls? I see it over an over
> when doing flight reviews and checks. Why are pilots so afraid of
> flying in the low end of the speed envelope? Isn't that where the
> nasty things can happen? Isn't that where a pilot should be
> comfortable and competent?
> What do you think?
> Its a loaded? question and comes from a 24,000+ hour pilot and active
> instructor. I'd really like to see some active discussion on this
> subject. I'm tired of seeing aircraft damaged by sloppy flying, and
> even more tired of seeing people injured by same.
> Got any comments?
> Ol S&B

If I have a student who is nervous about stalls, I have him take the
control yoke by the stem behind the horns and have him pull the yoke
back for a power-off stall. This keeps him from trying to use aileron.
Instead of recovering, I have him hold the plane in a stall and just
keep the wings level using rudder. (I of course keep my own feet
lightly on the rudders.)

A pilot's fear of stalls is greatly reduced once he learns that the
airplane will not do anything he will not tell it to do.

I have had instructors who were afraid of stalls. I think this fear of
stalls gets handed down from one instructor to the next. I make sure
that any new flight instructors that I teach gain a thorough
understanding of stalls. We probably spend more time doing stalls than
any other maneuver. I want them to be as boring as dead grass.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

February 17th 08, 03:54 AM

C J Campbell > wrote in
news:2008021619364216807-christophercampbell@hotmailcom:

> On 2008-02-13 12:53:53 -0800, "Ol Shy & Bashful" >
> said:
>
>> Why is it so many pilots are afraid of stalls? I see it over an over
>> when doing flight reviews and checks. Why are pilots so afraid of
>> flying in the low end of the speed envelope? Isn't that where the
>> nasty things can happen? Isn't that where a pilot should be
>> comfortable and competent?
>> What do you think?
>> Its a loaded? question and comes from a 24,000+ hour pilot and active
>> instructor. I'd really like to see some active discussion on this
>> subject. I'm tired of seeing aircraft damaged by sloppy flying, and
>> even more tired of seeing people injured by same.
>> Got any comments?
>> Ol S&B
>
> If I have a student who is nervous about stalls, I have him take the
> control yoke by the stem behind the horns and have him pull the yoke
> back for a power-off stall. This keeps him from trying to use aileron.
> Instead of recovering, I have him hold the plane in a stall and just
> keep the wings level using rudder. (I of course keep my own feet
> lightly on the rudders.)
>
> A pilot's fear of stalls is greatly reduced once he learns that the
> airplane will not do anything he will not tell it to do.
>

Absoluely. Almost all fears are born of ignorance.

Bertie

WingFlaps

February 17th 08, 04:07 AM

On Feb 17, 4:26*pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> WingFlaps wrote:
> > On Feb 17, 1:17 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> >> WingFlaps wrote:
> >>> On Feb 17, 8:56 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> >>>> Big John wrote:
> >>>>> ----------clip---------
> >>>>> *You have to be able to fly an airplane comfortably at the edge of a
> >>>>> stall or you're not as safe as you might or can be.
> >>>>> ************************************************** ******************
> >>>>> Bertie
> >>>>> Better words were never said.
> >>>>> Big John
> >>>> Actually there were better words.
> >>>> It happened one night when I was eighteen in the back seat of a borrowed
> >>>> Chevy when Nancy Ann Brown told me;
> >>>> "YES"
> >>>> :-))
> >>> Err, I hope that was Mrs. H! *:-0 *:-)))
> >>> Cheers
> >> Nope. Met Mrs. H when I was 28. Been together ever since. This was
> >> during my "learning period" :-))
>
> > Ah, then you forgot that the YES followed by I WILL from Mrs. H. was
> > the best of all -right?!
>
> > :-)
>
> > Cheers
>
> Thank you. Actually that would have been number one.
> You're right on too. I'm one of the lucky ones. I married my best friend
> 42 years ago and she's still my best friend today. Getting her to say
> yes was the luckiest damn thing I ever managed to do in my whole life
> and hearing her say it was absolutely number one on the list.
>

Good on you, and here's to many more years of successful partnership.

Cheers

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

February 17th 08, 04:40 AM

WingFlaps wrote:
> On Feb 17, 4:26 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> WingFlaps wrote:
>>> On Feb 17, 1:17 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>> WingFlaps wrote:
>>>>> On Feb 17, 8:56 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>>>> Big John wrote:
>>>>>>> ----------clip---------
>>>>>>> You have to be able to fly an airplane comfortably at the edge of a
>>>>>>> stall or you're not as safe as you might or can be.
>>>>>>> ************************************************** ******************
>>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>>>> Better words were never said.
>>>>>>> Big John
>>>>>> Actually there were better words.
>>>>>> It happened one night when I was eighteen in the back seat of a borrowed
>>>>>> Chevy when Nancy Ann Brown told me;
>>>>>> "YES"
>>>>>> :-))
>>>>> Err, I hope that was Mrs. H! :-0 :-)))
>>>>> Cheers
>>>> Nope. Met Mrs. H when I was 28. Been together ever since. This was
>>>> during my "learning period" :-))
>>> Ah, then you forgot that the YES followed by I WILL from Mrs. H. was
>>> the best of all -right?!
>>> :-)
>>> Cheers
>> Thank you. Actually that would have been number one.
>> You're right on too. I'm one of the lucky ones. I married my best friend
>> 42 years ago and she's still my best friend today. Getting her to say
>> yes was the luckiest damn thing I ever managed to do in my whole life
>> and hearing her say it was absolutely number one on the list.
>>
>
> Good on you, and here's to many more years of successful partnership.
>
> Cheers
>
Many thanks.

--
Dudley Henriques

Jim Logajan

February 17th 08, 06:28 AM

Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Almost all fears are born of ignorance.

Eh? I thought the line went "Ignorance is bliss," not "Ignornace is fear?"

Or that if you are in a bad situation and aren't afraid, you're probably
ignorant of what's going on?

Or is it "We have nothing to fear, but fear itself?"

All these trite statements can't be right, can they?

Neil Gould

February 17th 08, 01:17 PM

Recently, Big John > posted:
>
> No one learns to fly by feel any more and haven't for years.
>
I must have been one of the lucky ones that got "old school" training. My
first few lessons had the entire instrument panel covered except for the
tach. Then, one instrument at a time was uncovered as the lessons
progressed, with the focus being on what it indicated vs. what it looked
like outside the window.

Some of my BFRs have been interesting. ;-)

Neil

[email protected]

February 17th 08, 02:05 PM

On Feb 16, 8:46 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
> Instructors who teach stall "feel" are still out here, but you have to
> spend some time finding the right ones.
> When you find a CFI who tapes up the ASI and pulls the circuit breaker
> on the stall warning horn to teach you to "feel" the airplane...GRAB
> THEM, you've found the right one :-))

I have hear a few different people on this ng say things like this.
And yet if you fly by feel in an incursion into IMC, it kills (or can
kill) non instrument rated pilots. Am I missing a step here? Do you
have to learn by feel before you can learn by instrument?

This question comes to you from the "A little knowledge is dangerous"
trite statement...

-SPCT

[email protected]

February 17th 08, 02:25 PM

On Feb 17, 9:05*am, wrote:
> On Feb 16, 8:46 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> > Instructors who teach stall "feel" are still out here, but you have to
> > spend some time finding the right ones.
> > When you find a CFI who tapes up the ASI and pulls the circuit breaker
> > on the stall warning horn to teach you to "feel" the airplane...GRAB
> > THEM, you've found the right one :-))
>
> I have hear a few different people on this ng say things like this.
> And yet if you fly by feel in an incursion into IMC, it kills (or can
> kill) non instrument rated pilots. *Am I missing a step here? *Do you
> have to learn by feel before you can learn by instrument?

Good question. Dudley's talking about flying in visual conditions.
Then, a pilot should be looking out the window as much as possible, in
part to see and avoid other aircraft. So it's good to be able to
perceive as much as possible without reference to the instruments
(even though some use of instruments, as a crosscheck for airspeed
etc., is ordinarily advisable even in visual flight; aviation is all
about redundancy).

But in instrument conditions, when you can't see anything out the
window, you can't keep the plane upright for long without using the
instruments. But even in those conditions, it's possible to perceive
such things as coordinated vs. uncoordinated flight, or the onset of a
stall, just by the feel of the plane. And it's good to be able to do
so, for the sake of redundancy, even though the instruments should be
giving you that information too.

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

February 17th 08, 02:34 PM

wrote:
> On Feb 16, 8:46 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> Instructors who teach stall "feel" are still out here, but you have to
>> spend some time finding the right ones.
>> When you find a CFI who tapes up the ASI and pulls the circuit breaker
>> on the stall warning horn to teach you to "feel" the airplane...GRAB
>> THEM, you've found the right one :-))
>
> I have hear a few different people on this ng say things like this.
> And yet if you fly by feel in an incursion into IMC, it kills (or can
> kill) non instrument rated pilots. Am I missing a step here? Do you
> have to learn by feel before you can learn by instrument?
>
> This question comes to you from the "A little knowledge is dangerous"
> trite statement...
>
> -SPCT

Yes. You are missing something, and it's vitally important you
understand it....and understand it completely.

Instrument flying is a totally separate issue from the way one learns to
fly an airplane during initial training. They are integrated in certain
ways. In other ways the two are entirely separate.

We are discussing here the initial process of learning to fly, NOT
flying in instrument conditions.

VFR is one thing IFR is quite another.

When an instructor discusses "flying by feel", they are in no way
advocating the non-use of instruments and warning sensors available to
the pilot in the aircraft. They are simply reducing the available
"tools" the pilot relies on to a lower level to help the pilot
understand his/her flight evironment more closely without the aid of
artificial help.

In the IFR scenario, an instructor will do the same thing when they
reduce a pilot to flying on the primary panel only.

Don't think of flying VFR and IFR in the same breath. This attitude can
get a pilot into deep trouble down the line.

When you start talking instruments, you're in a whole new ball game when
it comes to cues. Everything changes. There are no more visual cues.
There is no more "feeling" of the airplane. There are ONLY the instruments.

It's a whole different flying world. You learn to fly by "feel" to
better understand the aerodynamics and how the airplane interfaces in
it's environment. Visual cues are part of this equation.
Once these things are learned, you TRANSITION into a whole new world
where instruments replace these cues. Don't EVER, as long as you fly,
get these two worlds mixed up in your mind. Doing that will kill you in
an airplane faster than you can imagine!

--
Dudley Henriques

Neil Gould

February 17th 08, 02:43 PM

Recently, > posted:

> On Feb 16, 8:46 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>
>> Instructors who teach stall "feel" are still out here, but you have
>> to spend some time finding the right ones.
>> When you find a CFI who tapes up the ASI and pulls the circuit
>> breaker on the stall warning horn to teach you to "feel" the
>> airplane...GRAB THEM, you've found the right one :-))
>
> I have hear a few different people on this ng say things like this.
> And yet if you fly by feel in an incursion into IMC, it kills (or can
> kill) non instrument rated pilots. Am I missing a step here? Do you
> have to learn by feel before you can learn by instrument?
>
In the case of my training, by the time I soloed, use of the instruments
was well understood. I had other "fortunate" experiences before I soloed,
such as having a vacuum pump failure. I didn't even notice it until the AI
was pretty far out of whack with the outside picture. If you're paying
attention to what's going on outside, I don't think it's all that easy to
inadvertently fly into IMC.

Neil

Bob Noel

February 17th 08, 05:41 PM

In article >,
"Neil Gould" > wrote:

> If you're paying
> attention to what's going on outside, I don't think it's all that easy to
> inadvertently fly into IMC.

At night, it's a little harder to avoid IMC than during the day.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

Neil Gould

February 17th 08, 06:39 PM

Recently, Bob Noel > posted:

> In article >,
> "Neil Gould" > wrote:
>
>> If you're paying
>> attention to what's going on outside, I don't think it's all that
>> easy to inadvertently fly into IMC.
>
> At night, it's a little harder to avoid IMC than during the day.
>
And, even harder over open water at night. But, all that means to me is
that one has to be more vigilant during those times to pick up on clues
that something is changing.

Neil

[email protected]

February 17th 08, 07:17 PM

On Feb 16, 4:26 pm, WingFlaps > wrote:

> I think a still warning device is very useful for a pilot who is
> preoccupied with other tasks. A question, will a typical air pressure
> stall warning always sound off at the same AOA regardless of speed
> you are flying at? (I know really fast planes use a vane device to
> measure it directly).

The stall warning device on a lightplane is an indirect AOA
detection device. AOA is directly related to the stagnation point, and
as AOA increases the stagnation point moves farther back under the
leading edge. When it gets just under the vane, or just under the
suction slot, the warning will sound. Airspeed doesn't figure into it.
Try slow flight someday (at altitude) when the air is rough from
thermal activity, and listen to it beep intemittently due to updrafts
even though the airspeed is constant.

Dan

WingFlaps

February 17th 08, 08:32 PM

On Feb 18, 8:17*am, wrote:
> On Feb 16, 4:26 pm, WingFlaps > wrote:
>
> > I think a still warning device is very useful for a pilot who is
> > preoccupied with other tasks. A question, will a typical air pressure
> > stall warning *always sound off at the same AOA regardless of speed
> > you are flying at? (I know really fast planes use a vane device to
> > measure it directly).
>
> * * * *The stall warning device on a lightplane is an indirect AOA
> detection device. AOA is directly related to the stagnation point, and
> as AOA increases the stagnation point moves farther back under the
> leading edge. When it gets just under the vane, or just under the
> suction slot, the warning will sound. Airspeed doesn't figure into it.
> Try slow flight someday (at altitude) when the air is rough from
> thermal activity, and listen to it beep intemittently due to updrafts
> even though the airspeed is constant.
>

Thanks,

I know how it works, but I was unsure if the stagnation point is
always in the same position at all airspeeds for a given AOA. You seem
to be saying it is -right? Your thermal test doesn't answer the
question because the AOA is not constant.

Cheers

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

February 17th 08, 08:35 PM

Jim Logajan > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Almost all fears are born of ignorance.
>
> Eh? I thought the line went "Ignorance is bliss," not "Ignornace is
> fear?"

I never said that.

>
> Or that if you are in a bad situation and aren't afraid, you're
> probably ignorant of what's going on?

Or that.
>
> Or is it "We have nothing to fear, but fear itself?"

Or that.

>
> All these trite statements can't be right, can they?

Dunno. What is it you fear?

Bertie

[email protected]

February 17th 08, 08:54 PM

On Feb 15, 4:36 pm, "Blueskies" > wrote:
>
> If you always land full flap the likelyhood of a tail strike in a full stall landing is nil....
> Dan D.

Wrong. It's regularly done in 172s during soft-field landings.
As a mechanic as well as a pilot, I get to replace the bent and broken
tail tiedown rings that got banged on the runway. A little power, as
used in the soft-field technique, with full flaps, yet, allows the
airplane to achieve a higher deck angle in the touchdown and if the
piloet uses a little too much power, he'll get the nose really high so
that when the thing settles on the runway, the tail strikes first.
It can get expensive. The tiedown ring ($40) gets busted, but
if the strike was hard enough the whole tail section can sustain
damage. We look hard at the entire tailcone, rudder hinges (because
the big chunk of lead up top slugs downward on those little hinge
brackets and cracks them), the stabilizer spars (more big chunks of
lead on the elevator tips that want to keep going down, too, and can
bent the spars), and so on.

Dan

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

February 17th 08, 08:58 PM

wrote in news:dc23e3cf-7070-4210-a22a-
:

> On Feb 17, 9:05*am, wrote:
>> On Feb 16, 8:46 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> > Instructors who teach stall "feel" are still out here, but you have
to
>> > spend some time finding the right ones.
>> > When you find a CFI who tapes up the ASI and pulls the circuit
breaker
>> > on the stall warning horn to teach you to "feel" the
airplane...GRAB
>> > THEM, you've found the right one :-))
>>
>> I have hear a few different people on this ng say things like this.
>> And yet if you fly by feel in an incursion into IMC, it kills (or can
>> kill) non instrument rated pilots. *Am I missing a step here? *Do you
>> have to learn by feel before you can learn by instrument?
>
> Good question. Dudley's talking about flying in visual conditions.
> Then, a pilot should be looking out the window as much as possible, in
> part to see and avoid other aircraft. So it's good to be able to
> perceive as much as possible without reference to the instruments
> (even though some use of instruments, as a crosscheck for airspeed
> etc., is ordinarily advisable even in visual flight; aviation is all
> about redundancy).
>
> But in instrument conditions, when you can't see anything out the
> window, you can't keep the plane upright for long without using the
> instruments. But even in those conditions, it's possible to perceive
> such things as coordinated vs. uncoordinated flight, or the onset of a
> stall, just by the feel of the plane. And it's good to be able to do
> so, for the sake of redundancy, even though the instruments should be
> giving you that information too.
>

True, but having said that, the ASI should e regarded with some
suspicion even IMC. Most pilots ( and I did this exercise in the sim the
other day) when presented with bad airspeed info will chase it in
preference to attitude info. this has caused lots of accidensts over the
years. Two I can remember off the top of my head are the 757 off the
coast of Peru, I think, and the 727 in upstate new york. I'm sure there
have been lots of others in light airplanes. It's amazing to watch. The
airspeed sems to run away and the guy just zeroes in on it and pulls or
pushes until the whole scene is just such a mess recovery would be a
miracle.

Bertie

Bertie

[email protected]

February 17th 08, 09:49 PM

On Feb 17, 3:58*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> True, but having said that, the ASI should e regarded with some
> suspicion even IMC. Most pilots ( and I did this exercise in the sim the
> other day) when presented with bad airspeed info will chase it in
> preference to attitude info. this has caused lots of accidensts over the
> years. Two I can remember off the top of my head are the 757 off the
> coast of Peru, I think, and the 727 in upstate new york. I'm sure there
> have been lots of others in light airplanes. It's amazing to watch. The
> airspeed sems to run away and the guy just zeroes in on it and pulls or
> pushes until the whole scene is just such a mess recovery would be a
> miracle.

Yeah, worst case is when the pitot freezes over or otherwise gets
sealed off, so the ASI says you're slowing down when you're speeding
up, and vice versa (because of the changing static-port pressure as
you climb or descend). In theory, the ASI should then be out-voted by
the altimeter and the attitude indicator, but I imagine it's tricky
(I've never experienced it myself).

That's one situation where the mushy response of a slow plane, or the
stiff controls and whooshing sound in a diving one, might be
especially helpful in augmenting what the instruments are saying (at
least for the light planes I fly--dunno how well that applies to
airliners).

[email protected]

February 17th 08, 10:17 PM

I guess I'm going to have to start (and perhaps finish) my primary
training in order to understand this comment completely.

I understand that being able to see outside helps the brain make a
connection between the behavior of the airplane and what it looks
like. However, couldn't you learn to feel the airplane and how it
behaves only on instruments ever? Could you complete a PPL without
ever looking out the window? At the risk of sounding like a simmer,
why is this "feel" so necessary when training the beginning pilot and
then relearned for an instrument rating? I know I'm making an error
of logic here (otherwise pilot training would be much different), but
what is it exactly?

I have done enough research to understand the difference between VFR,
VMC, IFR, and IMC and who and why you would fly in each one. I would
imagine this is part of training when getting a PPL. So how would a
pilot mix up these two worlds?

-SPCT

On Feb 17, 9:34 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
> Yes. You are missing something, and it's vitally important you
> understand it....and understand it completely.
>
> Instrument flying is a totally separate issue from the way one learns to
> fly an airplane during initial training. They are integrated in certain
> ways. In other ways the two are entirely separate.
>
> We are discussing here the initial process of learning to fly, NOT
> flying in instrument conditions.
>
> VFR is one thing IFR is quite another.
>
> When an instructor discusses "flying by feel", they are in no way
> advocating the non-use of instruments and warning sensors available to
> the pilot in the aircraft. They are simply reducing the available
> "tools" the pilot relies on to a lower level to help the pilot
> understand his/her flight evironment more closely without the aid of
> artificial help.
>
> In the IFR scenario, an instructor will do the same thing when they
> reduce a pilot to flying on the primary panel only.
>
> Don't think of flying VFR and IFR in the same breath. This attitude can
> get a pilot into deep trouble down the line.
>
> When you start talking instruments, you're in a whole new ball game when
> it comes to cues. Everything changes. There are no more visual cues.
> There is no more "feeling" of the airplane. There are ONLY the instruments.
>
> It's a whole different flying world. You learn to fly by "feel" to
> better understand the aerodynamics and how the airplane interfaces in
> it's environment. Visual cues are part of this equation.
> Once these things are learned, you TRANSITION into a whole new world
> where instruments replace these cues. Don't EVER, as long as you fly,
> get these two worlds mixed up in your mind. Doing that will kill you in
> an airplane faster than you can imagine!
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

Blueskies

February 17th 08, 10:32 PM

> wrote in message ...
> On Feb 15, 4:36 pm, "Blueskies" > wrote:
>>
>> If you always land full flap the likelyhood of a tail strike in a full stall landing is nil....
>> Dan D.
>
> Wrong. It's regularly done in 172s during soft-field landings.
> As a mechanic as well as a pilot, I get to replace the bent and broken
> tail tiedown rings that got banged on the runway. A little power, as
> used in the soft-field technique, with full flaps, yet, allows the
> airplane to achieve a higher deck angle in the touchdown and if the
> piloet uses a little too much power, he'll get the nose really high so
> that when the thing settles on the runway, the tail strikes first.
> It can get expensive. The tiedown ring ($40) gets busted, but
> if the strike was hard enough the whole tail section can sustain
> damage. We look hard at the entire tailcone, rudder hinges (because
> the big chunk of lead up top slugs downward on those little hinge
> brackets and cracks them), the stabilizer spars (more big chunks of
> lead on the elevator tips that want to keep going down, too, and can
> bent the spars), and so on.
>
> Dan

Like I said, the likelihood is nil. I didn't say it couldn't be done...

Is this with the 'new' 30° flap limited machines or the older standard 40° flap machines?

d²

[email protected]

February 17th 08, 10:45 PM

On Feb 17, 5:17*pm, wrote:
> I guess I'm going to have to start (and perhaps finish) my primary
> training in order to understand this comment completely.
>
> I understand that being able to see outside helps the brain make a
> connection between the behavior of the airplane and what it looks
> like. *However, couldn't you learn to feel the airplane and how it
> behaves only on instruments ever? *

Conceivably (except for landing, of course). But in VMC, you need to
be looking out the window almost all the time in order to scan for
other traffic (at least with current technology). The more time you
spend looking at your instruments, the less time you're devoting to
collision avoidance. So it's important to be able to perceive as much
as possible without reference to the instruments.

There's also the problem that instruments can fail, sometimes
unobviously. VFR aircraft aren't required to provide as much
rednundant information as IFR instruments. So again, it's important
not to rely too much on the instruments.

> I have done enough research to understand the difference between VFR,
> VMC, IFR, and IMC and who and why you would fly in each one. *I would
> imagine this is part of training when getting a PPL. *So how would a
> pilot mix up these two worlds?

If the transition to IMC is unexpected, a pilot may delay switching to
instrument flight, clinging instead to fading and inadequate visual
cues. Even in established, solid IMC, misleading perceptions of the
plane's orientation often conflict with the instruments, creating
illusions that can be dangerously hard to ignore.

Conversely, in VMC, many pilots spend too much time looking at their
instruments, creating an unnecessary collision hazard.

Angelo Campanella

February 17th 08, 11:56 PM

Big John wrote:

> -----------------------------clip-------------------------
> But when they break to a stall, it happens abruptly, at too
> low a speed. They are totally stalled, and to boot one wing always
> stalls first, falls of and immediately a spin develops in that
> direction. One simply has to know that slow flight is always a touchy
> thing to do and airspeed observation is crucial. The Mooney series
> has leading edge stall strips about 30% out from the wing root to make
> the stall beak earlier at a faster airspeed where control effectivenes
> is better. light and powerful rudder and you have one easily spun
> airplane.
> -------------------------clip---------------------
> Angelo campanella
> ************************************************** *************************
> Stall strip on inboard portion of wings are to cause the inboard
> section of wing to stall before the tips, where ailerons are located..
> This is to give you some aileron control in early part of a stall.

OK, Thanks for reminding me of the more precise function of stall strips.

> You say "But when they break to a stall, it happens abruptly, at too
> low a speed".

By that I mean for laminar flow wings without stall strips, the stall
occurs at a low speed is not reversable; it really requires an increase
of speed to start flying again. With stall strips, loss of lift occurs
at a slightly higher speed where just dropping the nose to reduce the
angle of attack will resume flying status. I suspect that of one could
fly the same plane with and without stall strips, the bare wing would be
flying all the time at the speed where the plane with stall strips would
experience the mushing... I really can't say which plane would do
which... I'm just reierating some basic aerodynamics.

> I've stalled aircraft at 400-500 mph. Not a big deal.

I can believe that.

Ang. C.

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

February 18th 08, 12:02 AM

We don't fly in a one cue world. (Instruments)

Pilots have to learn to use any and all cues available to them to be
thoroughly proficient at all times, and in all normally anticipated
conditions commensurate with the ratings they hold and the aircraft they
are flying.
This means learning to use the senses such as the visual cues as well as
how the aircraft feels physically to them through their hands and feet.
The reason we learn to use all available cues is that when one cue fails
we have another. Also, the manner in which we use these cues change.
For example, when we are VFR, normally a pilot will use visual and
audible, as well as physical cuing backed up by instrument cuing. In
this case all cues are available so they are used.
When we go IFR, we lose the visual cues and we deliberately set aside
all the physically felt cues, and the instruments and audible cues
become prime.
The bottom line on all this is that if a pilot learned to fly using only
instruments, that pilot would be denied a properly trained reference set
of visual cues and physical cues.
In other words, if you're trying to solve a physics problem, don't leave
your algebra book at home! :-))

Flying a plane is nothing more than the proper application of a few
sound basics. Learning to use all the available cues is simply learning
sound basics.

Thank you

wrote:
> I guess I'm going to have to start (and perhaps finish) my primary
> training in order to understand this comment completely.
>
> I understand that being able to see outside helps the brain make a
> connection between the behavior of the airplane and what it looks
> like. However, couldn't you learn to feel the airplane and how it
> behaves only on instruments ever? Could you complete a PPL without
> ever looking out the window? At the risk of sounding like a simmer,
> why is this "feel" so necessary when training the beginning pilot and
> then relearned for an instrument rating? I know I'm making an error
> of logic here (otherwise pilot training would be much different), but
> what is it exactly?
>
> I have done enough research to understand the difference between VFR,
> VMC, IFR, and IMC and who and why you would fly in each one. I would
> imagine this is part of training when getting a PPL. So how would a
> pilot mix up these two worlds?
>
> -SPCT
>
> On Feb 17, 9:34 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> Yes. You are missing something, and it's vitally important you
>> understand it....and understand it completely.
>>
>> Instrument flying is a totally separate issue from the way one learns to
>> fly an airplane during initial training. They are integrated in certain
>> ways. In other ways the two are entirely separate.
>>
>> We are discussing here the initial process of learning to fly, NOT
>> flying in instrument conditions.
>>
>> VFR is one thing IFR is quite another.
>>
>> When an instructor discusses "flying by feel", they are in no way
>> advocating the non-use of instruments and warning sensors available to
>> the pilot in the aircraft. They are simply reducing the available
>> "tools" the pilot relies on to a lower level to help the pilot
>> understand his/her flight evironment more closely without the aid of
>> artificial help.
>>
>> In the IFR scenario, an instructor will do the same thing when they
>> reduce a pilot to flying on the primary panel only.
>>
>> Don't think of flying VFR and IFR in the same breath. This attitude can
>> get a pilot into deep trouble down the line.
>>
>> When you start talking instruments, you're in a whole new ball game when
>> it comes to cues. Everything changes. There are no more visual cues.
>> There is no more "feeling" of the airplane. There are ONLY the instruments.
>>
>> It's a whole different flying world. You learn to fly by "feel" to
>> better understand the aerodynamics and how the airplane interfaces in
>> it's environment. Visual cues are part of this equation.
>> Once these things are learned, you TRANSITION into a whole new world
>> where instruments replace these cues. Don't EVER, as long as you fly,
>> get these two worlds mixed up in your mind. Doing that will kill you in
>> an airplane faster than you can imagine!
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>

--
Dudley Henriques

[email protected]

February 18th 08, 12:03 AM

On Feb 17, 3:32 pm, "Blueskies" > wrote:
> > wrote in ...
> > On Feb 15, 4:36 pm, "Blueskies" > wrote:
>
> >> If you always land full flap the likelyhood of a tail strike in a full stall landing is nil....
> >> Dan D.
>
> > Wrong. It's regularly done in 172s during soft-field landings.
> > As a mechanic as well as a pilot, I get to replace the bent and broken
> > tail tiedown rings that got banged on the runway. A little power, as
> > used in the soft-field technique, with full flaps, yet, allows the
> > airplane to achieve a higher deck angle in the touchdown and if the
> > piloet uses a little too much power, he'll get the nose really high so
> > that when the thing settles on the runway, the tail strikes first.
> > It can get expensive. The tiedown ring ($40) gets busted, but
> > if the strike was hard enough the whole tail section can sustain
> > damage. We look hard at the entire tailcone, rudder hinges (because
> > the big chunk of lead up top slugs downward on those little hinge
> > brackets and cracks them), the stabilizer spars (more big chunks of
> > lead on the elevator tips that want to keep going down, too, and can
> > bent the spars), and so on.
>
> > Dan
>
> Like I said, the likelihood is nil. I didn't say it couldn't be done...
>
> Is this with the 'new' 30° flap limited machines or the older standard 40° flap machines?
>
> d²

40° flaps. With 30° it would be worse.

Dan

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

February 18th 08, 12:12 AM

Angelo Campanella wrote:

> By that I mean for laminar flow wings without stall strips, the
> stall occurs at a low speed is not reversable; it really requires an
> increase of speed to start flying again.

Not trying to be confrontational here, but I would rethink the way you
phrase this issue.

First of all, the stall can occur at ANY speed, and it absolutely
reversible, and it's reversible by decreasing the angle of attack below
stall. THIS is what "starts" the wing flying again...not an increase in
speed...although an increase in speed is coincident with the stall recovery.

For example, the P51 I flew had a laminar wing without stall strips and
I can assure you that just like any other airplane, the stall
characteristics of the wing were normal in every way.

--
Dudley Henriques

Roger[_4_]

February 18th 08, 12:31 AM

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 02:44:25 -0800 (PST), D Ramapriya
> wrote:

>On Feb 14, 5:57 am, "Blueskies" > wrote:
>>
>> Every flight in a light GA single should end in a full stall...right as the wheels roll on to the runway...
>
>
>Interesting... is the nosewheel strut generally designed to bear the
>impact of a full-stalled landing?

Why would it need to? The nose shouldn't drop unless the pilot screws
up.

>
>Ramapriya
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Centurion

February 18th 08, 12:39 AM

Ol Shy & Bashful wrote:

> Why is it so many pilots are afraid of stalls? I see it over an over
> when doing flight reviews and checks. Why are pilots so afraid of
> flying in the low end of the speed envelope? Isn't that where the
> nasty things can happen? Isn't that where a pilot should be
> comfortable and competent?
> What do you think?

I think that to consider stalls within the confines of the low-speed end of
the envelope is naive at best and dangerous at worst. With 24,000+ hours
you obviously know that, but after skimming through the many (many) replies
to this thread I see scant little, if any, acknowledgement that the stall
occurs at a given angle of attack (AoA), not a SPEED!

You can safely (as in not over-stress the airframe) use full control
deflection from the bottom of the green arc (usually Vs) to Vmo. At Vmo,
full elevator deflection will result in the airframe's maximum certified G
load, right before the stall. IOW, max-G and stall occur simultaneously.
Below Vmo, the wing will stall before max-G. At 1G, the wing stalls at Vs.

Here's something to really fry your noodle: at zero-G, the wing wont stall
(think about it).

My point is, stalls are an aerodynamic phenomena that is tied to the AoA,
not the ASI. I have a CFI, ATPL, aerobatics endorsements, etc, and
several thousand hours too...but all this is basic aeronautical knowledge
that is taught at ab-initio stage. Stalls shouldn't be feared, just
understood, then practised until they are as familiar as any other phase of
flight - right across the speed envelope.

BTW, you haven't lived until you've done accelerated stalls that transition
into accelerated spins! Hoo-har!! ;)

James
--
Write yourself a threatening letter and pen a defiant reply.

Blueskies

February 18th 08, 01:18 AM

"Centurion" > wrote in message ...
>
> BTW, you haven't lived until you've done accelerated stalls that transition
> into accelerated spins! Hoo-har!! ;)
>
> James
> --
> Write yourself a threatening letter and pen a defiant reply.
>

About 1978, in a C-150 @ ~2500 agl under a cloud bank, student practicing steep turns, and I notice he is trying to hold
the nose up using top rudder, with the ball off to the left. I also notice the speed decaying, but I figure I'll let him
get a little deeper in to it. The buzzer chipped and over we go into a right snap roll and down into a spin. Piece of
cake, except this guy is bigger than I am and he froze up on the controls, yoke back and spinning. I finally busted it
loose from him and effected a recovery, and when I checked the altimeter we were at about 800'. I decided that I would
not let students get that far out of shape anymore...

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

February 18th 08, 01:22 AM

Centurion wrote:
> Ol Shy & Bashful wrote:
>
>> Why is it so many pilots are afraid of stalls? I see it over an over
>> when doing flight reviews and checks. Why are pilots so afraid of
>> flying in the low end of the speed envelope? Isn't that where the
>> nasty things can happen? Isn't that where a pilot should be
>> comfortable and competent?
>> What do you think?
>
> I think that to consider stalls within the confines of the low-speed end of
> the envelope is naive at best and dangerous at worst. With 24,000+ hours
> you obviously know that, but after skimming through the many (many) replies
> to this thread I see scant little, if any, acknowledgement that the stall
> occurs at a given angle of attack (AoA), not a SPEED!
>
> You can safely (as in not over-stress the airframe) use full control
> deflection from the bottom of the green arc (usually Vs) to Vmo. At Vmo,
> full elevator deflection will result in the airframe's maximum certified G
> load, right before the stall. IOW, max-G and stall occur simultaneously.
> Below Vmo, the wing will stall before max-G. At 1G, the wing stalls at Vs.
>
> Here's something to really fry your noodle: at zero-G, the wing wont stall
> (think about it).
>
> My point is, stalls are an aerodynamic phenomena that is tied to the AoA,
> not the ASI. I have a CFI, ATPL, aerobatics endorsements, etc, and
> several thousand hours too...but all this is basic aeronautical knowledge
> that is taught at ab-initio stage. Stalls shouldn't be feared, just
> understood, then practised until they are as familiar as any other phase of
> flight - right across the speed envelope.
>
> BTW, you haven't lived until you've done accelerated stalls that transition
> into accelerated spins! Hoo-har!! ;)
>
> James

Correct me if I'm mistaken as it's been a long long time since I've been
in a Cessna 182, ( and I'm just using a 182 as an example here out of
the inventory of everything that flies since the Vmo for the Skylane
pops into my rather feeble brain :-)) but if I remember right, the Vmo
on the Skylane was 160 KIAS. The Va or maneuvering speed on the Skylane
at GW was 111.
It's just a suggestion mind you, but I wouldn't be in all that much in a
hurry to apply full back elevator on the airplane at 160knots or Vmo
unless I wanted to crack the world record for a Cessna 182 making it
sans a few misc parts from where ever it was in the sky when I did this
to impact on the ground :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

February 18th 08, 02:04 AM

wrote in news:c2611450-2801-4cb7-9fc9-
:

> On Feb 17, 3:58*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> True, but having said that, the ASI should e regarded with some
>> suspicion even IMC. Most pilots ( and I did this exercise in the sim
the
>> other day) when presented with bad airspeed info will chase it in
>> preference to attitude info. this has caused lots of accidensts over
the
>> years. Two I can remember off the top of my head are the 757 off the
>> coast of Peru, I think, and the 727 in upstate new york. I'm sure
there
>> have been lots of others in light airplanes. It's amazing to watch.
The
>> airspeed sems to run away and the guy just zeroes in on it and pulls
or
>> pushes until the whole scene is just such a mess recovery would be a
>> miracle.
>
> Yeah, worst case is when the pitot freezes over or otherwise gets
> sealed off, so the ASI says you're slowing down when you're speeding
> up, and vice versa (because of the changing static-port pressure as
> you climb or descend). In theory, the ASI should then be out-voted by
> the altimeter and the attitude indicator, but I imagine it's tricky
> (I've never experienced it myself).

I have a couple of times and I had no problem, but apparently it can be.
it certainly gives you a jolt when you see it. I had it in a Twin Beech
once and the airspeed instantly went to the barberpole. Had it in some
singles as well I t doesn't take much to clog them.
>
> That's one situation where the mushy response of a slow plane, or the
> stiff controls and whooshing sound in a diving one, might be
> especially helpful in augmenting what the instruments are saying (at
> least for the light planes I fly--dunno how well that applies to
> airliners).

It's the same, though the feel is simulated through an artificial system
that is reliant on.. you guessed it, airspeed! Older airplanes had
dedicated pitots for this ( you can see them on the fin of older
Boeings) but newer machines tend to use the air data computer which is
fed by standad pitots on the nose.

Bertie
>

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

February 18th 08, 02:13 AM

wrote in
:

> I guess I'm going to have to start (and perhaps finish) my primary
> training in order to understand this comment completely.
>
> I understand that being able to see outside helps the brain make a
> connection between the behavior of the airplane and what it looks
> like. However, couldn't you learn to feel the airplane and how it
> behaves only on instruments ever? Could you complete a PPL without
> ever looking out the window? At the risk of sounding like a simmer,
> why is this "feel" so necessary when training the beginning pilot and
> then relearned for an instrument rating? I know I'm making an error
> of logic here (otherwise pilot training would be much different), but
> what is it exactly?
>
> I have done enough research to understand the difference between VFR,
> VMC, IFR, and IMC and who and why you would fly in each one. I would
> imagine this is part of training when getting a PPL. So how would a
> pilot mix up these two worlds?

Well, one good reason that visual flying is a better way to go if you
are flying visually.... Umm...

Anyhow, flying instruments has, for instance, one aspect that makes it
very different and that is; you are constantly fighting a number of
signals coming from your body. I'm sure you've heard about spatial
disorientation arising from when the signal from your inner ear
conflicts with the info coming from your eyes. This never really
entirely goes away no matter how much intsrument flying you do. ( at
least it hasn't for me)
Contarily-wise, these signals are an absolute asset to a pilot flying
visually. They are working in concert with your eyes.
So the long and short of it is, when you are flying with your eyes
outside, dozens of signals that give you nothing but grief when your IMC
and soaking up a lot of your resources, are now complementing them and
aiding you in controlling the airplane.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

February 18th 08, 02:18 AM

Angelo Campanella > wrote in
:

>

> By that I mean for laminar flow wings without stall strips, the
> stall
> occurs at a low speed is not reversable; it really requires an
> increase of speed to start flying again. With stall strips, loss of
> lift occurs at a slightly higher speed where just dropping the nose to
> reduce the angle of attack will resume flying status. I suspect that
> of one could fly the same plane with and without stall strips, the
> bare wing would be flying all the time at the speed where the plane
> with stall strips would experience the mushing... I really can't say
> which plane would do which... I'm just reierating some basic
> aerodynamics.

No. this just isn't so. Laminar airfoils are just like any other except
they tend to break a little more briskly.

Bertie

Centurion

February 18th 08, 02:56 AM

Dudley Henriques wrote:

> Centurion wrote:
>> Ol Shy & Bashful wrote:
>>
>>> Why is it so many pilots are afraid of stalls? I see it over an over
>>> when doing flight reviews and checks. Why are pilots so afraid of
>>> flying in the low end of the speed envelope? Isn't that where the
>>> nasty things can happen? Isn't that where a pilot should be
>>> comfortable and competent?
>>> What do you think?
>>
>> I think that to consider stalls within the confines of the low-speed end
>> of
>> the envelope is naive at best and dangerous at worst. With 24,000+ hours
>> you obviously know that, but after skimming through the many (many)
>> replies to this thread I see scant little, if any, acknowledgement that
>> the stall occurs at a given angle of attack (AoA), not a SPEED!
>>
>> You can safely (as in not over-stress the airframe) use full control
>> deflection from the bottom of the green arc (usually Vs) to Vmo. At Vmo,
>> full elevator deflection will result in the airframe's maximum certified
>> G
>> load, right before the stall. IOW, max-G and stall occur simultaneously.
>> Below Vmo, the wing will stall before max-G. At 1G, the wing stalls at
>> Vs.
>>
>> Here's something to really fry your noodle: at zero-G, the wing wont
>> stall (think about it).
>>
>> My point is, stalls are an aerodynamic phenomena that is tied to the AoA,
>> not the ASI. I have a CFI, ATPL, aerobatics endorsements, etc, and
>> several thousand hours too...but all this is basic aeronautical knowledge
>> that is taught at ab-initio stage. Stalls shouldn't be feared, just
>> understood, then practised until they are as familiar as any other phase
>> of flight - right across the speed envelope.
>>
>> BTW, you haven't lived until you've done accelerated stalls that
>> transition into accelerated spins! Hoo-har!! ;)
>>
>> James
>
> Correct me if I'm mistaken as it's been a long long time since I've been
> in a Cessna 182, ( and I'm just using a 182 as an example here out of
> the inventory of everything that flies since the Vmo for the Skylane
> pops into my rather feeble brain :-)) but if I remember right, the Vmo
> on the Skylane was 160 KIAS. The Va or maneuvering speed on the Skylane
> at GW was 111.

Ooops. You're 100% correct - I mean't Va NOT Vmo! Serves me right for not
proof-reading my post :P

> It's just a suggestion mind you, but I wouldn't be in all that much in a
> hurry to apply full back elevator on the airplane at 160knots or Vmo
> unless I wanted to crack the world record for a Cessna 182 making it
> sans a few misc parts from where ever it was in the sky when I did this
> to impact on the ground :-))

Indeed. That's a quite possible outcome. IIRC ultimate load for normal
category aircraft is 150% rated G (as in 1.5 times). The following thread
will be of interest to those interested in the high-speed end of the flight
envelope and how that is determined based on component failure
probabilities:
http://tinyurl.com/yrqz4f (links to http://www.eng-tips.com/)

Thanks for highlighting my misinformation :)

James
--
Are you making all this up as you go along?

Centurion

February 18th 08, 03:00 AM

Blueskies wrote:

>
> "Centurion" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> BTW, you haven't lived until you've done accelerated stalls that
>> transition into accelerated spins! Hoo-har!! ;)
>>
>> James
>
>
> About 1978, in a C-150 @ ~2500 agl under a cloud bank, student practicing
> steep turns, and I notice he is trying to hold the nose up using top
> rudder, with the ball off to the left. I also notice the speed decaying,
> but I figure I'll let him get a little deeper in to it. The buzzer chipped
> and over we go into a right snap roll and down into a spin. Piece of cake,
> except this guy is bigger than I am and he froze up on the controls, yoke
> back and spinning. I finally busted it loose from him and effected a
> recovery, and when I checked the altimeter we were at about 800'. I
> decided that I would not let students get that far out of shape anymore...

Yep - similar story for me, only student was climbing and trimming
for "constant back-pressure" instead of trimming out the control force.
I'd corrected him on a few flights, so thought I'd let it go and let him
see what happens. End up with the nose about 55-60deg pitch up, full power
and over it went. Student lets go of the controls and grabs me! So there
we are going round and round, down, down, down with full power. Shook him
off and recovered, but decided that accelerated spin training is probably
best left for later phases :P

You live and learn. If you do neither, you're dead.

James
--
You will triumph over your enemy.

Centurion

February 18th 08, 03:21 AM

Bob Moore wrote:

> Centurion wrote
>
>> You can safely (as in not over-stress the airframe) use full control
>> deflection from the bottom of the green arc (usually Vs) to Vmo. At
>> Vmo, full elevator deflection will result in the airframe's maximum
>> certified G load, right before the stall. IOW, max-G and stall occur
>> simultaneously. Below Vmo, the wing will stall before max-G. At 1G,
>> the wing stalls at Vs.
>> I have a CFI, ATPL, aerobatics endorsements, etc,
>> and several thousand hours too...but all this is basic aeronautical
>> knowledge that is taught at ab-initio stage.
>
> You're kidding of course....right? You really meant to say Va instead
> of Vmo....right? A CFI....yeah, right!

Thank you King Sarcasm. See my reply to Dudley Henriques. It was a typo,
graciously pointed out by Dudley, far less so by you.

(Clipped BAK regurgitation)

James
--
Q. How many ex-Airline Captains does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A: Just one. He grasps it firmly and the universe revolves around him.

Bob Gardner

February 18th 08, 03:34 AM

To answer your basic question, you could not get a PPL without looking out
the window because ALL training is done in visual conditions. There is a
required lick-and-a-promise three hours of flight training (not instrument
training) in controlling the airplane solely by instrument reference which
is intended ONLY to prepare the visual pilot to keep the airplane right-side
up when visual contact with the outside world is lost through inadvertence.
The value of this training can be assessed by reading the all too familiar
reports of VFR pilots flying into instrument meteorological conditions and
killing themselves and passengers...it is among the leading causes of
aviation fatalities.

Bob Gardner

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> wrote in
> :
>
>> I guess I'm going to have to start (and perhaps finish) my primary
>> training in order to understand this comment completely.
>>
>> I understand that being able to see outside helps the brain make a
>> connection between the behavior of the airplane and what it looks
>> like. However, couldn't you learn to feel the airplane and how it
>> behaves only on instruments ever? Could you complete a PPL without
>> ever looking out the window? At the risk of sounding like a simmer,
>> why is this "feel" so necessary when training the beginning pilot and
>> then relearned for an instrument rating? I know I'm making an error
>> of logic here (otherwise pilot training would be much different), but
>> what is it exactly?
>>
>> I have done enough research to understand the difference between VFR,
>> VMC, IFR, and IMC and who and why you would fly in each one. I would
>> imagine this is part of training when getting a PPL. So how would a
>> pilot mix up these two worlds?
>
>
> Well, one good reason that visual flying is a better way to go if you
> are flying visually.... Umm...
>
> Anyhow, flying instruments has, for instance, one aspect that makes it
> very different and that is; you are constantly fighting a number of
> signals coming from your body. I'm sure you've heard about spatial
> disorientation arising from when the signal from your inner ear
> conflicts with the info coming from your eyes. This never really
> entirely goes away no matter how much intsrument flying you do. ( at
> least it hasn't for me)
> Contarily-wise, these signals are an absolute asset to a pilot flying
> visually. They are working in concert with your eyes.
> So the long and short of it is, when you are flying with your eyes
> outside, dozens of signals that give you nothing but grief when your IMC
> and soaking up a lot of your resources, are now complementing them and
> aiding you in controlling the airplane.
>
> Bertie

WJRFlyBoy

February 18th 08, 04:22 AM

On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 20:46:44 -0500, Dudley Henriques wrote:

> Instructors who teach stall "feel" are still out here, but you have to
> spend some time finding the right ones.
> When you find a CFI who tapes up the ASI and pulls the circuit breaker
> on the stall warning horn to teach you to "feel" the airplane...GRAB
> THEM, you've found the right one :-))
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

oh my

Can I emasculate them afterwards..or say thanks lol
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

WJRFlyBoy

February 18th 08, 04:33 AM

On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 22:26:44 -0500, Dudley Henriques wrote:

> I'm one of the lucky ones. I married my best friend
> 42 years ago and she's still my best friend today. Getting her to say
> yes was the luckiest damn thing I ever managed to do in my whole life
> and hearing her say it was absolutely number one on the list.

Double down that, @ 15 I met my wife in the late 60's. Total luck.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

February 18th 08, 04:48 AM

WJRFlyBoy > wrote in news:18wndw6seuv9n
:

> On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 20:46:44 -0500, Dudley Henriques wrote:
>
>> Instructors who teach stall "feel" are still out here, but you have to
>> spend some time finding the right ones.
>> When you find a CFI who tapes up the ASI and pulls the circuit breaker
>> on the stall warning horn to teach you to "feel" the airplane...GRAB
>> THEM, you've found the right one :-))
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> oh my
>
> Can I emasculate them afterwards..or say thanks lol

It's not that uncommon. In fact a couple of our gliders and cubs had a disc
permanently mounted on he panel that could be flipped in front of the ASI.
I didn't use them that much,but the chief instructor ( who had installed
them) hardly ever let the students fly with the ASI uncovered.

Bertie

Roger[_4_]

February 18th 08, 05:38 AM

On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 14:43:50 GMT, "Neil Gould"
> wrote:

>Recently, > posted:
>
>> On Feb 16, 8:46 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>
>>> Instructors who teach stall "feel" are still out here, but you have
>>> to spend some time finding the right ones.
>>> When you find a CFI who tapes up the ASI and pulls the circuit
>>> breaker on the stall warning horn to teach you to "feel" the
>>> airplane...GRAB THEM, you've found the right one :-))
>>
>> I have hear a few different people on this ng say things like this.
>> And yet if you fly by feel in an incursion into IMC, it kills (or can
>> kill) non instrument rated pilots. Am I missing a step here? Do you
>> have to learn by feel before you can learn by instrument?
>>
>In the case of my training, by the time I soloed, use of the instruments
>was well understood. I had other "fortunate" experiences before I soloed,
>such as having a vacuum pump failure. I didn't even notice it until the AI
>was pretty far out of whack with the outside picture. If you're paying
>attention to what's going on outside, I don't think it's all that easy to
>inadvertently fly into IMC.

You'd be surprised at how quick it can happen.
Most on here have already heard this, but some years back my wife and
I were departing Knoxville TN. (TYS). There had been some on and off
sprinkles, but the ceiling was high and well above the mountains to
the South. Just after rotation the sky opened up and dumped on us. In
the space of a couple seconds the view went from better than 10 to
around 30 to 50 feet out the side and zero ahead.

One beautiful summer day with a clear blue sky as far as I could see,
an area from a bit South of Muskegon MI to Somewhere between Alpena
and Oscoda and a good 50 miles from North to South turned into heavy
thunderstorms in roughly 5minutes.

If you fly much in the way of long flights you are likely to run into
weather that just doesn't behave as you figure it should. Always have
an out.

>
>Neil
>
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Alan[_6_]

February 18th 08, 07:12 AM

In article > Roger > writes:
>On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 14:43:50 GMT, "Neil Gould"
> wrote:

>>In the case of my training, by the time I soloed, use of the instruments
>>was well understood. I had other "fortunate" experiences before I soloed,
>>such as having a vacuum pump failure. I didn't even notice it until the AI
>>was pretty far out of whack with the outside picture. If you're paying
>>attention to what's going on outside, I don't think it's all that easy to
>>inadvertently fly into IMC.
>
>You'd be surprised at how quick it can happen.
>Most on here have already heard this, but some years back my wife and
>I were departing Knoxville TN. (TYS). There had been some on and off
>sprinkles, but the ceiling was high and well above the mountains to
>the South. Just after rotation the sky opened up and dumped on us. In
>the space of a couple seconds the view went from better than 10 to
>around 30 to 50 feet out the side and zero ahead.
>
>One beautiful summer day with a clear blue sky as far as I could see,
>an area from a bit South of Muskegon MI to Somewhere between Alpena
>and Oscoda and a good 50 miles from North to South turned into heavy
>thunderstorms in roughly 5minutes.
>
>If you fly much in the way of long flights you are likely to run into
>weather that just doesn't behave as you figure it should. Always have
>an out.

It makes one want to think twice about flying an aircraft without
attitude and heading instruments (or flying without recent practice
using them).

I am fairly certain that that weather did not check to see if you
had an IFR rating or equipment before it dumped on you that day.

Alan

WJRFlyBoy

February 18th 08, 07:22 AM

On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 06:28:23 -0000, Jim Logajan wrote:

> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Almost all fears are born of ignorance.
>
> Eh? I thought the line went "Ignorance is bliss," not "Ignornace is fear?"

Starve your fear, feed your life
You'll find that you might
Be completely different all together
And then you'll decide which one you like better
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

WJRFlyBoy

February 18th 08, 04:53 PM

On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 13:22:19 -0800 (PST), Robert M. Gary wrote:

> Most of the other CFIs
> only go to the first nose drop, not a full stall and when teaching at
> the Mooney Pilot Prof. courses you are prohibited from doing full
> stalls with students. There are a lot of 10,000+ hour Mooney
> instructors that say you simply shouldn't be doing full stalls in
> these types of planes.
>
> -Robert, CFII

Insurance have a play in this?
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

Centurion

February 18th 08, 11:12 PM

Bob Moore wrote:

> Centurion wrote
>
>> Thank you King Sarcasm. See my reply to Dudley Henriques. It was a
>> typo, graciously pointed out by Dudley, far less so by you.
>
> NO...a typo occurs when you misspell a word or hit the wrong key
> once, you typed Vmo three times. Hardly a typo. Then to top it off,
> you proceed to tell everyone that what you say is correct because
> "I am a flight instructor.....".
>
> Without a "real" name, you get very little respect from me.

Whatever; you washed up has-been.

FWIW, I'm no longer an instructor as I decided not long after heading down
that path that Instructing wasn't my cup of tea. I have, however studied
fluid dynamics at University (and graduated) so I can guarantee I know more
about the subject of stalling than you. Big deal, so I haven't explained
V-speeds in a while...doesn't mean I don't know what I'm talking about.

As for my name, my first name is below just above my sig. (see it down
there?) and my surname can be extrapolated from the headers. I assume you
know what an NNTP header is? After all, you seem to know everything to me.
So how about you live in your deluded state in your little ivory tower a
little longer...when you want to pull your head out your arse, feel free to
visit the real world.

BTW, it's self-important arse-holes like you that make me glad I'm no
longer "in" the airline industry.

James
--
Ansett Airlines (retired) ...couldn't be arsed with my resume.
Your goose is cooked.
(Your current chick is burned up too!)

Centurion

February 18th 08, 11:14 PM

Curt Balluff wrote:

> Am Wed, 13 Feb 2008 12:53:53 -0800 (PST) schrub "Ol Shy & Bashful"
> >:
>
>>Why is it so many pilots are afraid of stalls?
> Depends on the height.
> ;)
> Curt

lol - good point :)

James
--
Avoid reality at all costs.

D Ramapriya

February 19th 08, 02:19 AM

On Feb 19, 3:12 am, Centurion > wrote:
> Bob Moore wrote:
>

<drivel snipped>

> BTW, it's self-important arse-holes like you that make me glad I'm no
> longer "in" the airline industry.

If only you had a smidgen of nous, you'd have watched it. Bob's the
only one on this group that I personally know and have spoken to many
times. He's nothing if not amiable, knowledgeable and above all
unassuming. One chat with him would disabuse you of all your mental
images about the cove.

That the written word is incapable of conveying that vital personal
feel (unless very meticulously worded) is often lost on many a grown
man, as you've just demonstrated. Pity.

Cheers,

Ramapriya

Centurion

February 19th 08, 03:42 AM

D Ramapriya wrote:

> On Feb 19, 3:12 am, Centurion > wrote:
>> Bob Moore wrote:
>>
>
> <drivel snipped>
>
>> BTW, it's self-important arse-holes like you that make me glad I'm no
>> longer "in" the airline industry.
>
>
> If only you had a smidgen of nous, you'd have watched it. Bob's the
> only one on this group that I personally know and have spoken to many
> times.

<personal perspective snipped>

You have your perspective, I have mine.

Cheers,

James
--
Good day for overcoming obstacles. Try a steeplechase.

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

February 19th 08, 06:31 AM

D Ramapriya > wrote in news:50ff5543-1ef1-4891-9792-
:

> On Feb 19, 3:12 am, Centurion > wrote:
>> Bob Moore wrote:
>>
>
> <drivel snipped>
>
>> BTW, it's self-important arse-holes like you that make me glad I'm no
>> longer "in" the airline industry.
>
>
> If only you had a smidgen of nous, you'd have watched it. Bob's the
> only one on this group that I personally know and have spoken to many
> times.

I'm sure he has a plaque commemerating that meeting on his wall.

Bertie

[email protected]

February 19th 08, 12:23 PM

> First of all, the stall can occur at ANY speed, and it absolutely
> reversible, and it's reversible by decreasing the angle of attack below
> stall. THIS is what "starts" the wing flying again...not an increase in
> speed...although an increase in speed is coincident with the stall recovery.

> Dudley Henriques

It took me a while to get this into my head, as all my primary
training focus was on stall *speeds*. This made it very hard to
separate the two.

"Stick and Rudder" helped me start understanding Angle of Attack.

The final puzzle pieces came together with "Aerodynamics for Naval
Aviators."

Dan

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

February 19th 08, 01:58 PM

wrote:
>> First of all, the stall can occur at ANY speed, and it absolutely
>> reversible, and it's reversible by decreasing the angle of attack below
>> stall. THIS is what "starts" the wing flying again...not an increase in
>> speed...although an increase in speed is coincident with the stall recovery.
>
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> It took me a while to get this into my head, as all my primary
> training focus was on stall *speeds*. This made it very hard to
> separate the two.
>
> "Stick and Rudder" helped me start understanding Angle of Attack.
>
> The final puzzle pieces came together with "Aerodynamics for Naval
> Aviators."
>
> Dan
>
>
I always tell pilots to keep a copy of "AFNA" under their pillows :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[email protected]

February 19th 08, 02:17 PM

On Feb 19, 8:58 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
> I always tell pilots to keep a copy of "AFNA" under their pillows :-))
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

I love the grainy black and white pictures. Makes me remember the old
ADVENTURES IN FLYING type books I would check out from the library and
examine for hours.

Dan

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

February 19th 08, 02:32 PM

wrote:
> On Feb 19, 8:58 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> I always tell pilots to keep a copy of "AFNA" under their pillows :-))
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> I love the grainy black and white pictures. Makes me remember the old
> ADVENTURES IN FLYING type books I would check out from the library and
> examine for hours.
>
> Dan
>
I've actually seen some of the originals of those prints down at the
Test Pilot School.

--
Dudley Henriques

Roger[_4_]

February 20th 08, 07:57 AM

On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 19:34:09 -0800, "Bob Gardner" >
wrote:

>To answer your basic question, you could not get a PPL without looking out
>the window because ALL training is done in visual conditions. There is a
>required lick-and-a-promise three hours of flight training (not instrument
>training) in controlling the airplane solely by instrument reference which
>is intended ONLY to prepare the visual pilot to keep the airplane right-side
>up when visual contact with the outside world is lost through inadvertence.
>The value of this training can be assessed by reading the all too familiar
>reports of VFR pilots flying into instrument meteorological conditions and
>killing themselves and passengers...it is among the leading causes of
>aviation fatalities.
Another way of looking at it is when flying VFR we learn to depend on
our senses (seat of the pants) as well as our visual senses as a
reference to controlling the airplane. Good old stick-and-rudder
flying.

When it comes to IFR in real IMC (can't see a thing except the panel)
we can no longer rely on those senses as they are not reliable.
Actually they outright lie to us. You can easily end up in situations
where you can be inverted while thinking you are right side up. You
can be in a steep turn one way when your senses tell you that the
turn is in the other direction. Like ice skating, you tend to go in
the direction you are looking. Try to find land by looking out he left
window and down will result in a descending turn to the left.

One exercise my instructor put me through in instrument training was
to remove all visual input and have me fly the plane (at night). The
test was to see how long I could maintain a safe attitude, not
necessarily straight and level. I managed over a minute and a half
which he said was unusual. IIRC he said 20 to 30 seconds was
normal.However I did cheat a little. I depended on the airplane. I
made small inputs, resisted to correct for what my body was telling me
and managed to stay upright.
>
Developing a BAD case of spatial disorientation when under the hood
(in the dark) is a real experience. The instruments are telling you
one thing and your body is telling your something else (usually to the
contrary). You can get so dizzy that even your thinking gets stuck in
the mud. I had the privilege of flying like that (in a storm, but it
was daytime) for over an hour. GAWD was I sick! This was my second
time in actual. The first time had been that morning. Yes it was with
an instructor, but he only reminded me if I was straying off course
too far before ATC would bitch. They had the altitude alarms turned
off. It was so rough I kept pointing at the instruments for my scan,
but missing. Then I couldn't remember which instrument I was looking
for. did I mention this was all going on while "GAWD was I sick!"?

BTW this was also my first real flight in the Deb, bringing it home
from MIE.

>Bob Gardner
>
>"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
>> wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> I guess I'm going to have to start (and perhaps finish) my primary
>>> training in order to understand this comment completely.
>>>
>>> I understand that being able to see outside helps the brain make a
>>> connection between the behavior of the airplane and what it looks
>>> like. However, couldn't you learn to feel the airplane and how it
>>> behaves only on instruments ever? Could you complete a PPL without
>>> ever looking out the window? At the risk of sounding like a simmer,
>>> why is this "feel" so necessary when training the beginning pilot and
>>> then relearned for an instrument rating? I know I'm making an error
>>> of logic here (otherwise pilot training would be much different), but
>>> what is it exactly?
>>>
>>> I have done enough research to understand the difference between VFR,
>>> VMC, IFR, and IMC and who and why you would fly in each one. I would
>>> imagine this is part of training when getting a PPL. So how would a
>>> pilot mix up these two worlds?
>>
>>
>> Well, one good reason that visual flying is a better way to go if you
>> are flying visually.... Umm...
>>
>> Anyhow, flying instruments has, for instance, one aspect that makes it
>> very different and that is; you are constantly fighting a number of
>> signals coming from your body. I'm sure you've heard about spatial
>> disorientation arising from when the signal from your inner ear
>> conflicts with the info coming from your eyes. This never really
>> entirely goes away no matter how much intsrument flying you do. ( at
>> least it hasn't for me)
>> Contarily-wise, these signals are an absolute asset to a pilot flying
>> visually. They are working in concert with your eyes.
>> So the long and short of it is, when you are flying with your eyes
>> outside, dozens of signals that give you nothing but grief when your IMC
>> and soaking up a lot of your resources, are now complementing them and
>> aiding you in controlling the airplane.
>>
>> Bertie
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Michael[_1_]

February 20th 08, 02:05 PM

On Feb 17, 9:13*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Anyhow, flying instruments has, for instance, one aspect that makes it
> very different and that is; you are constantly fighting a number of
> signals coming from your body. I'm sure you've heard about spatial
> disorientation arising from when the signal from your inner ear
> conflicts with the info coming from your eyes. This never really
> entirely goes away no matter how much intsrument flying you do. ( at
> least it hasn't for me)

There are two kinds of pilots in this regard.

There are those who fly by feel naturally, solo relatively quickly
(even in a taildragger), and never quite get rid of the discomfort
caused by 'seat-of'the-pants' signals in instrument conditions.
They're the ones who need to be really careful about staying
instrument current because for them it's a perishable skill.

There are also those who have a hard time with coordination and with
the flare, take a long time to solo because of it, and find instrument
flying easy because feel doesn't matter anymore. Someone like that
could probably learn to fly takeoff to touchdown without looking
outside ab initio, as long as he ahd a good RADAR altimeter and GPS.
This is the same person who doesn't need to worry about losing his
instrument proficiency because he found getting the instrument rating
to be a cakewalk in the first place.

Of course those are the extremes - the reality is a continuum - but
you get the idea. As we have more and more people growing up in front
of computers, I think we're going to see the pilot population shifting
towards the second. In fact, I think over 100% of the reduction in
VFR-into-IMC accidents seen in the past few years can be attributed to
this trend (since without it things would have gotten worse).

Eventually, we're going to see student pilots who have an easier time
learning to do an ILS than a simple visual pattern. I think this is
already starting.

Michael

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

February 22nd 08, 06:10 AM

Michael > wrote in news:01dbf2da-65ef-
:

> On Feb 17, 9:13*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Anyhow, flying instruments has, for instance, one aspect that makes
it
>> very different and that is; you are constantly fighting a number of
>> signals coming from your body. I'm sure you've heard about spatial
>> disorientation arising from when the signal from your inner ear
>> conflicts with the info coming from your eyes. This never really
>> entirely goes away no matter how much intsrument flying you do. ( at
>> least it hasn't for me)
>
> There are two kinds of pilots in this regard.
>
> There are those who fly by feel naturally, solo relatively quickly
> (even in a taildragger), and never quite get rid of the discomfort
> caused by 'seat-of'the-pants' signals in instrument conditions.
> They're the ones who need to be really careful about staying
> instrument current because for them it's a perishable skill.
>
> There are also those who have a hard time with coordination and with
> the flare, take a long time to solo because of it, and find instrument
> flying easy because feel doesn't matter anymore. Someone like that
> could probably learn to fly takeoff to touchdown without looking
> outside ab initio, as long as he ahd a good RADAR altimeter and GPS.
> This is the same person who doesn't need to worry about losing his
> instrument proficiency because he found getting the instrument rating
> to be a cakewalk in the first place.
>
> Of course those are the extremes - the reality is a continuum - but
> you get the idea. As we have more and more people growing up in front
> of computers, I think we're going to see the pilot population shifting
> towards the second. In fact, I think over 100% of the reduction in
> VFR-into-IMC accidents seen in the past few years can be attributed to
> this trend (since without it things would have gotten worse).
>
> Eventually, we're going to see student pilots who have an easier time
> learning to do an ILS than a simple visual pattern. I think this is
> already starting.

Well, the former pilot will always be better at the end of the day no
matter what type of flying is being done. The discomfort that comes from
flying insturments for the seat of the pants pilot is a good thing if
it's kept in it's place.

Bertie

Ol Shy & Bashful

February 22nd 08, 01:56 PM

On Feb 20, 8:05*am, Michael > wrote:
> On Feb 17, 9:13*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> > Anyhow, flying instruments has, for instance, one aspect that makes it
> > very different and that is; you are constantly fighting a number of
> > signals coming from your body. I'm sure you've heard about spatial
> > disorientation arising from when the signal from your inner ear
> > conflicts with the info coming from your eyes. This never really
> > entirely goes away no matter how much intsrument flying you do. ( at
> > least it hasn't for me)
>
> There are two kinds of pilots in this regard.
>
> There are those who fly by feel naturally, solo relatively quickly
> (even in a taildragger), and never quite get rid of the discomfort
> caused by 'seat-of'the-pants' signals in instrument conditions.
> They're the ones who need to be really careful about staying
> instrument current because for them it's a perishable skill.
>
> There are also those who have a hard time with coordination and with
> the flare, take a long time to solo because of it, and find instrument
> flying easy because feel doesn't matter anymore. *Someone like that
> could probably learn to fly takeoff to touchdown without looking
> outside ab initio, as long as he ahd a good RADAR altimeter and GPS.
> This is the same person who doesn't need to worry about losing his
> instrument proficiency because he found getting the instrument rating
> to be a cakewalk in the first place.
>
> Of course those are the extremes - the reality is a continuum - but
> you get the idea. *As we have more and more people growing up in front
> of computers, I think we're going to see the pilot population shifting
> towards the second. *In fact, I think over 100% of the reduction in
> VFR-into-IMC accidents seen in the past few years can be attributed to
> this trend (since without it things would have gotten worse).
>
> Eventually, we're going to see student pilots who have an easier time
> learning to do an ILS than a simple visual pattern. *I think this is
> already starting.
>
> Michael

Michael
I agree to a point. Perhaps 15 years ago I actually took a hard look
at the rapidly popular computer sims like Microsoft FlightSim?. To
that point I threw them into the same basket with "PONG" (date me huh?
<gg>). As I did some approaches and played with the program, I
realized it had genuine value for teaching procedures. When you get to
the bottom line, flying is mostly a mental game. At that time I was
actively working as an ag pilot flying both FW/RW and doing some
instruction in off times.
Back in the mid 60's I thought I was pretty good @1500 hrs. Not the
ace of the base, but better than most and I actively sought out
training and professional challenges. When I was offered a job crop
dusting, I took it. Didn't take but a few hours to learn how little I
really knew about "seat of the pants" flying and did a really FAST
catch up as I learned in the lowest reaches of the airspace system. At
the end of the season, I went back to work as a CFI/I and transfered
some of those rediscovered skills to nearly all the flying. The next
season I ran into a fog bank while in a 60deg bank/100agl in a Piper
Pawnee which has NO gyros, not even a turn and slip indicator. If it
hadn't been for all the fine tune IFR training, (including what I now
term "Primitive Panel" I had been teaching, there is no doubt I'd have
crashed. Those same skills have saved me several times in ag work
around the world.
None of us is born with feathers around our butt so flying is a
learned skill which deteriorates with dis-use. I'm still flying 5-6
hrs a day as a basic instructor with brand new Navy/USMC/USCG pilots
and teaching the very rudiments of flying. It includes about 2 hours
of instrument in the first 15 hours.
Using the idea that the youngsters of today are computer oriented, I
try to utilize that concept in some of my teaching. Frequently, and
this is the important part, while they can understand the concept of
instrument flying, when you add the visceral physical sensations (aka
life or death), it causes some brain farts and they get so far behind
the airplane I have to intercede. Once they get it figured out that
their brain can be played with and has to be approached with some
degree of discipline, they start to settle down and recognize all the
facets that go into flying.
I also recognize, as technology advances, and systems become more
complex, pilots will no longer rely on stick and rudder skills as much
as their abililty to manage computer or electronic systems. As I often
point out to my new students, I am coming to the end of my flying
career that started over 50 years ago with wood and fabric aircraft
and no electrical system, to this day and age of space travel. I'll
never go above FL 450 unless I hit the freakin lottery and buy a seat
on one of the new ventures for a rocket shot up and down. That would
be a great way to close out my logbook but it won't happen. So, I
continue to do the basic flight instruction with a building block
process that focuses more on VISUAL than the instruments. BUT it also
teaches how to best utilize the instrument input depending on the
flight condition.
Of course when we go IMC the instruments have to be relied on but they
frequently either lie or can be fooled and it takes a good instructor
to teach how to tell when any of that happens. Just looked at my log
and I've got more than 1400 actual IFR in both FW/RW. No idea of how
much IFR training I've done with students but I'm pressin hard on 6000
hrs of dual given.
Tickles hell out of me that my OP about stalls has generated so much
genuine solid discussion right to this point. I sure hope it continues
with the great input of so many, pros and newbies alike.
Best regards to you all
Rocky AKA Ol Shy & Bashful

Michael[_1_]

February 22nd 08, 02:06 PM

On Feb 22, 1:10*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Well, the former pilot will always be better at the end of the day no
> matter what type of flying is being done. The discomfort that comes from
> flying insturments for the seat of the pants pilot is a good thing if
> it's kept in it's place.

I don't agree with either of those statements.

When it comes to stick-and-rudder intensive flying, like aerobatics,
dropping jumpers, towing gliders (or flying them for that matter) -
then yes. When it comes to flying point to point in lousy weather and
complex equipment - then no. The pilot who makes use of somatic cues
naturally is always going to have to divert part of his attention to
fighting the wrong cues (that's the discomfort) and will never perform
at his best mentally - and weather flying is mostly a mental game. If
there's one thing I learned while teaching both flying and skydiving,
it is this - discomfort never improves performance. Flying a light
plane in IMC, you should be paying attention to potential weather
deterioration and potential developing systems failures - not fighting
your discomfort in controlling the plane by instruments.

I remember one time, I let a kid who had spent a lot of time playing
flight simulator games fly my airplane. VFR, he did about as well as
a low time student generally does with it - not well enough to have me
talk him through the landing (it was, at the time, an unmodified
PA-30, and they have some rough edges on landing - I've since
installed the wing fillets). But then, on a lark, I put him under the
hood. He was instantly better than most instrument pilots I know -
and he was easily able to carry on a conversation while doing it. I
was going to talk him through an ILS, but it turned out to be
unnecessary - he just needed some help setting up my radios and some
advice on power settings, and then he flew it to ATP standards on the
first attempt. If he ever learns to fly, he will make a spectacular
instrument pilot, consistently able to launch and arrive safely in
weather most people wouldn't handle, even if he has significant
multiple system failures in that weather. He will make an acceptable
and safe visual pilot if he gets the right training - but you will
never see him win an aerobatic competition or precision landing
contest. With good training, practice, and experience he might place
or show.

That's our future. You may not like it, but that's the pilot of
tomorrow. There is already a flight school out there (Part 141) where
lesson 3 is an ILS approach. Brave new world - by the time I first
flew an ILS approach, I had already flown from the Gulf to the Great
Lakes, and from the Statue of Liberty to the Golden Gate, in an
airplane that couldn't even do an ILS (or get an IFR certification
without major repairs). But I think those days are pretty much gone.

It is for that reason that we must be ever more vigilant about
watering down the stick-and-rudder component of training (remember the
discussion of spins?). While people on this group talk about how most
accidents are the result of stupidity like blundering into weather or
running out of fuel, the reality is very different. Most accidents
are the result of mishandling approach and landing, takeoff and
initial climb, and go-arounds. They're stick-and-rudder airplane
handling issues. We're turning out pilots who have no real concept of
how the airplane handles (or should be handled) at high anges of
attack, stay away from that region as much as possible (remember the
pilots who won't stall solo, never mind spin?), and thus get into
trouble. I would hate to see that kid handle a vacuum failure in IMC
like it was no big deal, and then wreck the plane because he was
trying to land on a short strip with gusty crosswinds.

I would be very comfortable dropping the time requirement (3 hours
now) for simulated instrument flight, though of course not the
performance standards. Most young pilots these days don't need
anything like 3 hours to learn the emergency instrument skills to the
level they are tested on the checkride (or needed by a VFR pilot). A
lot of them don't need 3 minutes. That would maybe have been a good
requirement back in the old days. Now we're better off using that
time in slow flight, stalls, spins, or short field crosswind landings
- because that's where the skill deterioration is happening.

Michael

Ol Shy & Bashful

February 22nd 08, 02:48 PM

On Feb 22, 8:06*am, Michael > wrote:
> On Feb 22, 1:10*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> > Well, the former pilot will always be better at the end of the day no
> > matter what type of flying is being done. The discomfort that comes from
> > flying insturments for the seat of the pants pilot is a good thing if
> > it's kept in it's place.
>
> I don't agree with either of those statements.
>
> When it comes to stick-and-rudder intensive flying, like aerobatics,
> dropping jumpers, towing gliders (or flying them for that matter) -
> then yes. *When it comes to flying point to point in lousy weather and
> complex equipment - then no. *The pilot who makes use of somatic cues
> naturally is always going to have to divert part of his attention to
> fighting the wrong cues (that's the discomfort) and will never perform
> at his best mentally - and weather flying is mostly a mental game. *If
> there's one thing I learned while teaching both flying and skydiving,
> it is this - discomfort never improves performance. *Flying a light
> plane in IMC, you should be paying attention to potential weather
> deterioration and potential developing systems failures - not fighting
> your discomfort in controlling the plane by instruments.
>
> I remember one time, I let a kid who had spent a lot of time playing
> flight simulator games fly my airplane. *VFR, he did about as well as
> a low time student generally does with it - not well enough to have me
> talk him through the landing (it was, at the time, an unmodified
> PA-30, and they have some rough edges on landing - I've since
> installed the wing fillets). *But then, on a lark, I put him under the
> hood. *He was instantly better than most instrument pilots I know -
> and he was easily able to carry on a conversation while doing it. *I
> was going to talk him through an ILS, but it turned out to be
> unnecessary - he just needed some help setting up my radios and some
> advice on power settings, and then he flew it to ATP standards on the
> first attempt. *If he ever learns to fly, he will make a spectacular
> instrument pilot, consistently able to launch and arrive safely in
> weather most people wouldn't handle, even if he has significant
> multiple system failures in that weather. *He will make an acceptable
> and safe visual pilot if he gets the right training - but you will
> never see him win an aerobatic competition or precision landing
> contest. *With good training, practice, and experience he might place
> or show.
>
> That's our future. *You may not like it, but that's the pilot of
> tomorrow. *There is already a flight school out there (Part 141) where
> lesson 3 is an ILS approach. *Brave new world - by the time I first
> flew an ILS approach, I had already flown from the Gulf to the Great
> Lakes, and from the Statue of Liberty to the Golden Gate, in an
> airplane that couldn't even do an ILS (or get an IFR certification
> without major repairs). *But I think those days are pretty much gone.
>
> It is for that reason that we must be ever more vigilant about
> watering down the stick-and-rudder component of training (remember the
> discussion of spins?). *While people on this group talk about how most
> accidents are the result of stupidity like blundering into weather or
> running out of fuel, the reality is very different. *Most accidents
> are the result of mishandling approach and landing, takeoff and
> initial climb, and go-arounds. *They're stick-and-rudder airplane
> handling issues. *We're turning out pilots who have no real concept of
> how the airplane handles (or should be handled) at high anges of
> attack, stay away from that region as much as possible (remember the
> pilots who won't stall solo, never mind spin?), and thus get into
> trouble. *I would hate to see that kid handle a vacuum failure in IMC
> like it was no big deal, and then wreck the plane because he was
> trying to land on a short strip with gusty crosswinds.
>
> I would be very comfortable dropping the time requirement (3 hours
> now) for simulated instrument flight, though of course not the
> performance standards. *Most young pilots these days don't need
> anything like 3 hours to learn the emergency instrument skills to the
> level they are tested on the checkride (or needed by a VFR pilot). *A
> lot of them don't need 3 minutes. *That would maybe have been a good
> requirement back in the old days. *Now we're better off using that
> time in slow flight, stalls, spins, or short field crosswind landings
> - because that's where the skill deterioration is happening.
>
> Michael

Michael
I recall back in about 1967 when all the additional IFR training was
being mandated and the ****ing and moaning. I said at that time the
commercial would require an IFR rating, and that within 20 years the
private pilot would too. Many people told me I was out of my mind.
But, I was also charging for my pre/post time and everyone said that
wouldn't fly either!!?? Now its pretty much a standard. Well, I hit it
for the commercial but missed on the private. I maintain, its coming
with the complexities of both aircraft and systems for ATC.
Best Pro regards
Rocky