About Stall Psychology and Pilots

I've been reading the interesting thread started by Rocky about stall vs
the modern pilot. I'd like to offer some added comment on this subject
as this exact issue is closely associated with the human factors
research work I've done and am doing now on a continuing basis within
the air show demonstration community as well as the general primary flight
training community. This comment comes after experiencing literally
thousands of hours evaluating other pilots and covers part of a lecture
I've been giving on these issues for many years.



There are obviously diversified personalities among the general pilot
population, and you will be hard pressed to find any two pilots who view
their flying in exactly the same way.

This having been said however, on the issue of stalls and how pilots
envision themselves within the stall
environment there are two general categories involved.

There is a
comfort zone for some pilots where flight deep into the left side of the
envelope as well as flight on the back side of the lift curve apex
causes no discomfort or apprehension, and there are pilots whose comfort
zone virtually ends at 30 degrees of pitch and 60 degrees of bank with
the airplane right side up. The 30/60 component of this equation isn't
related to the parachute parameter in the regulations, but rather simply
to define the edge of that pilot group's comfort zone.

One thing I should make perfectly clear here is that pilots can fly
through entire careers within this 30/60 comfort zone and never have a
problem. There are many pilots out here right now who fit into this
category as the result of their training, and how that training has
ingrained this comfort zone into the way they envision their flying
environment.

Just where do stalls and how pilots view stalls fit into all this?
Well, before I go on, I think I should establish a base premise that I
strongly believe in, and have been preaching about for about 50 years
now. That premise is that although pilots can be considered "good"
pilots having been trained to fly within that 30/60 comfort zone, these
same pilots could be better pilots if their training and the way they
felt in the air while flying exhibited a comfort zone BEYOND that 30/60
defining line.

Let's explore this a bit more and take a look at some history.

Aviation is a business. To make it in business, you need to sell
product, services, or both. Aviation involves both. No sales, no aviation.
Now if one looks at a prospective pilot base as well as a prospective
aircraft sales base, it doesn't take very long to discover that for General
Aviation, if you want to make money and get the public in the air to
make that money, you have to SELL aviation as a safe, non-threatening-
and most of all, non- FRIGHTENING endeavor.

Now, if you look back to the fifties, you will find a concentrated and
skillful marketing program generally involving Fixed Base Operators, Flight
Schools, Airplane Manufactures, and indeed lobbyists in Washington; all
involved in structuring general aviation to be as safe as a walk in
the park.

The general "attitude" that defines how stall is viewed came right out
of this era. Add to this that design characteristics of the general
aviation fleet began to reflect much more stable flight envelopes than
the planes that came before this period, and you have the makings for
the way the issue of stalls came to be viewed generally within the GA
community.
In other words, a combination of business considerations, and design
enhancement all came together to redefine how flight instructors looked
at stall, and more importantly, approached the issue of teaching stall.

The result of all this from my own personal experience as a check pilot
and as a primary CFI was that I began to notice a pronounced difference
in the "comfort levels" of the pilots and CFI's I was encountering on a
fairly constant basis.

Where pilots and CFI's had been dealing with stall as a complete event,
in other words, full stalls both power on and power off, I noticed a
definite trend toward pilots dealing with stalls highly concentrated on
the recovery from the approach to the stall.

Naturally, the CFI's who came out of this era reflected this change to a
certain extent, and they carried this approach on into their tenures as
instructors.

All this isn't to say that there weren't still pilots and CFI's out
there teaching stalls the "old way". There most certainly were, and
still are such instructors. I am such an instructor BTW.

The bottom line on this issue is that as a pilot, you can function just
fine being trained to recognize and instantly recover from an
approaching stall. You can as well function very well as a pilot if your
comfort zone in the air lies within that magical 30/60 defining line.

But in my opinion, and in the opinion of many CFI's out here, you will
be a MUCH better pilot if your comfort zone in the air includes a
complete familiarity with the left side of the flight envelope, you feel
comfortable doing a full stall and recovery with the airplane, and your
butt cheeks don't squeeze together ever more tightly as the pitch
exceeds 30 degrees and the bank goes beyond 60 degrees.

--
Dudley Henriques

Dudley Henriques wrote:


But in my opinion, and in the opinion of many CFI's out here, you will
be a MUCH better pilot if your comfort zone in the air includes a
complete familiarity with the left side of the flight envelope, you feel
comfortable doing a full stall and recovery with the airplane, and your
butt cheeks don't squeeze together ever more tightly as the pitch
exceeds 30 degrees and the bank goes beyond 60 degrees.


I see your point but I admit to being "uncomfortable" with advanced
stalling manouvers. I can recover well within PTS when the wings let
go but I don't like it. What runs in my mind is: Should I feel
comfortable at the edge of control, and if I am comfortable will I be
more likely to go where I should not? When I get onto my dream of
aerobatics I'll let you know how my comfort zone extends.

Cheers

WingFlaps wrote in news:643db0b5-e53c-4d06-87ef-
:



Dudley Henriques wrote:


But in my opinion, and in the opinion of many CFI's out here, you will
be a MUCH better pilot if your comfort zone in the air includes a
complete familiarity with the left side of the flight envelope, you feel
comfortable doing a full stall and recovery with the airplane, and your
butt cheeks don't squeeze together ever more tightly as the pitch
exceeds 30 degrees and the bank goes beyond 60 degrees.


I see your point but I admit to being "uncomfortable" with advanced
stalling manouvers. I can recover well within PTS when the wings let
go but I don't like it. What runs in my mind is: Should I feel
comfortable at the edge of control, and if I am comfortable will I be
more likely to go where I should not? When I get onto my dream of
aerobatics I'll let you know how my comfort zone extends.

Well, one way you can look at it is that well into the stall you still have
control. At least in most lightplanes. The aforementioned falliing leaf
manuever is a good example of how to get past that notion.



Bertie

WingFlaps wrote:

Dudley Henriques wrote:

But in my opinion, and in the opinion of many CFI's out here, you will
be a MUCH better pilot if your comfort zone in the air includes a
complete familiarity with the left side of the flight envelope, you feel
comfortable doing a full stall and recovery with the airplane, and your
butt cheeks don't squeeze together ever more tightly as the pitch
exceeds 30 degrees and the bank goes beyond 60 degrees.


I see your point but I admit to being "uncomfortable" with advanced
stalling manouvers. I can recover well within PTS when the wings let
go but I don't like it. What runs in my mind is: Should I feel
comfortable at the edge of control, and if I am comfortable will I be
more likely to go where I should not? When I get onto my dream of
aerobatics I'll let you know how my comfort zone extends.

Cheers

The key to everything I commented on and with your comment as well is a
GOOD CFI, and I don't mean a CFI who can teach full stalls and left side
flying. The answer is more subtle than that. It lies in how the
instructor approaches these issues with the student.

If the instructor is lacking in the ability to evaluate the student on a
personal basis and deal with these issues directly on that basis, there
is a very good chance a new student will never feel comfortable in an
expanded comfort zone.
The instructor literally has to take a new student who might be, and
more often than not IS, apprehensive, and GUIDE that student CAREFULLY
and with great skill and tact into the areas of flight that define an
expanded comfort zone.
Instructors capable and willing to teach in this manner are the good
ones, and if there is one single facet of flight training where I
literally BEG new pilots to spend time it's in seeking out and finding
these instructors.
Once this pairing has been made, the potential for a new pilot to become
a better pilot than they would have been in any other scenario is
TREMENDOUS!!

As for your own situation, just the fact that you are seeking out
aerobatics tells me that the odds of you achieving your goal of becoming
a better all around pilot are high. You will need to make the pairing of
which I speak. The rest will come easily and naturally to you.

--
Dudley Henriques

On Feb 15, 3:36 pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:

Let's explore this a bit more and take a look at some history.

Aviation is a business. To make it in business, you need to sell
product, services, or both. Aviation involves both. No sales, no aviation.
Now if one looks at a prospective pilot base as well as a prospective
aircraft sales base, it doesn't take very long to discover that for General
Aviation, if you want to make money and get the public in the air to
make that money, you have to SELL aviation as a safe, non-threatening-
and most of all, non- FRIGHTENING endeavor.

Now, if you look back to the fifties, you will find a concentrated and
skillful marketing program generally involving Fixed Base Operators, Flight
Schools, Airplane Manufactures, and indeed lobbyists in Washington; all
involved in structuring general aviation to be as safe as a walk in
the park.

Dudley Henriques

A very interesting and trenchant analysis.

I think some other relevant historical data points are that in the
late 60's and early 70's many of the WW2 era military-trained pilots
started retiring, quitting, or dying. At the same time there was a
change in educational philosophy that stressed the learner over the
content.

We saw a related change in the Army in the 80s -- from "Do it cuz I
said so, maggot" to "Here's the task, here's how, (and sometimes,
'here's why') -- now move out smartly."

As in most social movements, as the pendulum swings the baby and the
bathwater get tossed.

The GA Flying industry has to push utility and fun. They have to --
the opposite -- the innate fear that is resident in most normal humans
with the brain capacity and means to pursue GA flying -- counters the
"utility and fun" with loads of "That's scary."

But unless a person is ignorantly unaware of the inherent danger or
suicidal, I assume most pilots with more than 15 hours continue to
think, "Gee, this is dangerous -- I'd better do things the right way,
and avoid the things that can kill me."

So maybe the sell for spins and other advanced maneuvers is not, "Do
it cause it's in the PTS, maggot!", or "Do it cuz I did it" but
rather, "Here's a way to save your life and the life of your
passengers."

Oh, so spin recovery is part of that learning? Good. Sign me up.

You're right, I fly in mountains and should know how to perform a
maximum performance 180 at the edge of stall. Great, show me how.

This presumes a relationship with a trusted instructor who knows his
audience, knows what is needed, and then persuades him/her to act.

Too much of the current system is geared towards producing ratings,
and CFIs are cogs in that machine.

Those CFIs who've "been there" and yet still "hang around the airport"
are sorely needed.

Dan

" wrote in
:



You're right, I fly in mountains and should know how to perform a
maximum performance 180 at the edge of stall. Great, show me how.

A shallow wingover would probably be a better deal here.
They;'re pretty easy and lots of fun to do.



Too much of the current system is geared towards producing ratings,
and CFIs are cogs in that machine.

I agree. Your wing, the weather and the ground care not what's in your
wallet.



Bertie

On Feb 16, 10:49*am, Dudley Henriques wrote:
WingFlaps wrote:


As for your own situation, just the fact that you are seeking out
aerobatics tells me that the odds of you achieving your goal of becoming
a better all around pilot are high. You will need to make the pairing of
which I speak. The rest will come easily and naturally to you.


So far, I've flown with three instructors and I have noted that the
older instructors have a different way about them The young one was
always complaining if I did not do a manouver to his satisfaction.
That changed when I went out and tried a trail flight with aanother
instructor. We were working our way through the PTS curriculum when he
said "OK glide down that valley below the ridges and turn 180 at the
end." I glided down the right side and then went into a steep turn
adding gobs of power to make a very steep 180 -the valley looked
dangerously narrow to my inexperienced eye. He said nothing and did
nothing while I did this sweaty palm (for me) manouver. We made it
with space to spare and then he said "let me show you another way". He
did not offer criticism. He dropped into the slow flight configuration
from the glide and turned much more easily. No gobs of power or steep
angles just a medium rate slow turn. I realized that although I knew
the technicality of flying the plane quite well my airmanship was not
good, I was not _using_ the plane or my skills to best outcome. After
the flight he said, "You've been flying with an instructor too much,
you need more solo time". At that point I had about 60 hours dual and
12 solo but my mind was always wound up expecting a complaint from the
right seat -I was so unrelaxed I just could not learn. The older
instructors seem to just like being there (even with me) and, dare I
say it, even seem to enjoy my audacity in attempting to become a
pilot.

Cheers

WingFlaps wrote in news:8944c789-22c8-48cc-b10b-
:

The older
instructors seem to just like being there (even with me) and, dare I
say it, even seem to enjoy my audacity in attempting to become a
pilot.


Sounds like you got a good one there.

I had sim recently and, for a change, had a very experienced instructor. In
fact he's semi retired. He worked us harder than the kids ever do and yet
it was more relaxed. We got more done and we both performed very well. It
definitely makes a difference.



Bertie

WingFlaps wrote:
On Feb 16, 10:49 am, Dudley Henriques wrote:
WingFlaps wrote:

As for your own situation, just the fact that you are seeking out
aerobatics tells me that the odds of you achieving your goal of becoming
a better all around pilot are high. You will need to make the pairing of
which I speak. The rest will come easily and naturally to you.


So far, I've flown with three instructors and I have noted that the
older instructors have a different way about them The young one was
always complaining if I did not do a manouver to his satisfaction.
That changed when I went out and tried a trail flight with aanother
instructor. We were working our way through the PTS curriculum when he
said "OK glide down that valley below the ridges and turn 180 at the
end." I glided down the right side and then went into a steep turn
adding gobs of power to make a very steep 180 -the valley looked
dangerously narrow to my inexperienced eye. He said nothing and did
nothing while I did this sweaty palm (for me) manouver. We made it
with space to spare and then he said "let me show you another way". He
did not offer criticism. He dropped into the slow flight configuration
from the glide and turned much more easily. No gobs of power or steep
angles just a medium rate slow turn. I realized that although I knew
the technicality of flying the plane quite well my airmanship was not
good, I was not _using_ the plane or my skills to best outcome. After
the flight he said, "You've been flying with an instructor too much,
you need more solo time". At that point I had about 60 hours dual and
12 solo but my mind was always wound up expecting a complaint from the
right seat -I was so unrelaxed I just could not learn. The older
instructors seem to just like being there (even with me) and, dare I
say it, even seem to enjoy my audacity in attempting to become a
pilot.

Cheers



The old Canyon Turn. There are several ways to extricate yourself from a
blind canyon. That was one of them, and it works. The more training and
proficient you become as a pilot the more options become available to
you in circumstances like these.

The average fighter pilot for example, if faced with a blind canyon turn
situation wouldn't hesitate to use the vertical plane to cut down the
horizontal turning component for the airplane and possibly make the turn
in that manner.
As a highly trained aerobatic pilot, perhaps a Hammerhead turn would do
the trick.

Or, as a simple pilot who took the trouble to make himself/herself a
better pilot through added training with a real fine CFI, perhaps I
wouldn't be in that blind canyon to start with :-))

As for the age factor in CFI's; it could be a player of course, but I
wouldn't rely on it as a common denominator. You can find young
instructors out there who are excellent teachers and have all the
attributes I've mentioned.

Of course, some of us "older folk" have our good points as well.


--
Dudley Henriques

That's true. After the war a lot of highly qualified pilots hit the
streets as new GA instructors. They brought with them the military
approach to flying that was based on maximum result in minimum time,
which was the natural process of the military scenario.
Many of these pilots were great sticks, but few of them possessed any
teaching skills at all as we define those skills in a GA market place.
The result of this influx was a no nonsense teaching environment that
actually clashed with the changes that were occurring in GA at that time.
Gradually, these military pilots became a liability in the new
marketplace and many were "replaced" as FBO's began to realize that new
students like "Mrs. Duffy" the housewife, was coming back in from her
hour of dual looking a bit pale and concerned :-)

What happened is what we have now; a few holdovers from the "old school"
and a whole lot of the "new breed" of instructor.

The ultimate answer to getting the quality level up in the GA pilot
community will in my opinion require a whole new look at the way flight
instruction is conducted.

I know from my own personal experience that it is possible to take an
average newbie with the average apprehensive feeling about flying and
take that newbie through a learning process that replaces the
apprehension with confidence. These newbies can be trained by GOOD
instructors to function not only well, but VERY well in the flying
environment with comfort zones well beyond their initial level of
apprehension found at the initiation of training.

Barring the influx of CFI's who are capable of teaching students in this
manner, I would project no meaningful changes in the present GA environment.

Dudley Henriques





wrote:
On Feb 15, 3:36 pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:

Let's explore this a bit more and take a look at some history.

Aviation is a business. To make it in business, you need to sell
product, services, or both. Aviation involves both. No sales, no aviation.
Now if one looks at a prospective pilot base as well as a prospective
aircraft sales base, it doesn't take very long to discover that for General
Aviation, if you want to make money and get the public in the air to
make that money, you have to SELL aviation as a safe, non-threatening-
and most of all, non- FRIGHTENING endeavor.

Now, if you look back to the fifties, you will find a concentrated and
skillful marketing program generally involving Fixed Base Operators, Flight
Schools, Airplane Manufactures, and indeed lobbyists in Washington; all
involved in structuring general aviation to be as safe as a walk in
the park.

Dudley Henriques

A very interesting and trenchant analysis.

I think some other relevant historical data points are that in the
late 60's and early 70's many of the WW2 era military-trained pilots
started retiring, quitting, or dying. At the same time there was a
change in educational philosophy that stressed the learner over the
content.

We saw a related change in the Army in the 80s -- from "Do it cuz I
said so, maggot" to "Here's the task, here's how, (and sometimes,
'here's why') -- now move out smartly."

As in most social movements, as the pendulum swings the baby and the
bathwater get tossed.

The GA Flying industry has to push utility and fun. They have to --
the opposite -- the innate fear that is resident in most normal humans
with the brain capacity and means to pursue GA flying -- counters the
"utility and fun" with loads of "That's scary."

But unless a person is ignorantly unaware of the inherent danger or
suicidal, I assume most pilots with more than 15 hours continue to
think, "Gee, this is dangerous -- I'd better do things the right way,
and avoid the things that can kill me."

So maybe the sell for spins and other advanced maneuvers is not, "Do
it cause it's in the PTS, maggot!", or "Do it cuz I did it" but
rather, "Here's a way to save your life and the life of your
passengers."

Oh, so spin recovery is part of that learning? Good. Sign me up.

You're right, I fly in mountains and should know how to perform a
maximum performance 180 at the edge of stall. Great, show me how.

This presumes a relationship with a trusted instructor who knows his
audience, knows what is needed, and then persuades him/her to act.

Too much of the current system is geared towards producing ratings,
and CFIs are cogs in that machine.

Those CFIs who've "been there" and yet still "hang around the airport"
are sorely needed.

Dan







--
Dudley Henriques