About Stall Psychology and Pilots

Are you familiar with what Derrik Piggott has written about some peoples
sensitivity to reduced G forces? It used to be on-line but I can't find
a copy anymore.


I haven't heard of this study but will suggest a technique recommended
by an instructor who was also a downhill skiier -- instead of tensing
up and "backing away" from the "fall", lean forward and go with it.

As Dudley said, prepare for it in your head. The physical corollary is
to lean forward a tiny bit.

Try it next time you're on a roller coaster.

Dan

On Feb 16, 2:08 pm, "Private" wrote:
"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in ...







As much as I like the "dud" his post is the
most completely idiotic thing I had to read.

On Feb 16, 12:10 pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:
It's interesting to note that although stall recovery should be thought
of as something done with a minimum loss of altitude, the emphasis on
recovery should always be placed on the regaining of angle of attack as
PRIME to recovery.

NUTZ. You need airspeed, it's called kinetic
energy that is needed to suck off, using the
wings (you know, those little things that
protude out the side of airplanes).

I am one instructor who strongly believes that instructors should
consider altering their approach to teaching stall to focus more
strongly on recovering angle of attack than recovering in minimum
altitude.

See KIAS, Dud, you'd last 2 minutes in the RHS
of my plane, after that you'd be lickin' pavement,
from my shoe on your ass.

Stalls entered at low altitude have many times resulted in
secondary stall entry or a mushed recovery followed by ground impact by
pilots who COULD have lowered the nose and held it down there a bit
longer than they did, using the air under them to better advantage and
giving themselves the needed time to regain angle of attack and smooth
airflow as they attempted a recovery. But because they had been taught
that ALTITUDE rather than AOA was the killer, they recovered trying to
save altitude, when in reality what was needed was to USE THE AVAILABLE
ALTITUDE CORRECTLY....and save the airplane.

Toward this goal, I strongly encourage all CFI's to reference AOA in
stall recovery. This doesn't mean INSTEAD of altitude, but it does mean
that to recover the airplane, you absolutely HAVE to restore AOA, and at
low altitude that might very well mean using available altitude to the
last foot of air to do that.
I have always taught stall recovery both with and without power. The FAA
requires power. I want the student to see the difference and at the same
time be able to stress that it's the ANGLE OF ATTACK that saves your
butt. The strong lesson here is that you USE altitude......you don't try
to minimize it at the expense of angle of attack.

Dud, you're clueless, you have not a clue about KIAS,
spiral dives or g-force recovery's. In short I see NO
evidence you have even been in an airplane with your
focus on AoA.
I can get a good AoA at 10 KIAS or 200 KIAS,
what are going to do?
Regards
Ken

Ken,
With respect, I think you must have missed my reply in another thread. I am
enclosing it here for your convenience and consideration.

"Private" wrote in message

...

"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in message
...
I was out paying taxes, to get some coin for the
piggy bank, I shook it 3 times and still didn't hear
any rattling, that's simple accounting to tell me
when I'm broke, works every time!
Ken

Some here would suggest that you apply the same strategy to your head
before
posting.

I am somewhat embarrassed to be entering this thread, but I just can't
resist swinging at a soft pitch like that.
Happy landings,

To elaborate, my suggestion was that before posting you should give your
head a shake to determine if there is anything inside and to consider
whether you really wished to make the fact public.
Happy landings,

If I were you, I'd ****-off and read.
You're swinging at screw-balls...
Me and the "dud" ****ed your mush mind.
Get a ****in life, crack a book.

Best Regards
Ken
xxxx

wrote in
:

On Feb 15, 6:37 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"Robert M. Gary" wrote in
news:ebb74b75-9910-4c50-ae86-
:

On Feb 15, 3:56 pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dudley Henriques wrote in
:

Man there are a lot of posts on this topic. Too much newsgrouping,
people need to do more flying

When my airplane is finished!

Bertie

Watchu building?


A Hatz, but it's a Citabria being restored I'm waiting to fly.


Bertie

"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in news:1f25eddb-4c7f-
:

As much as I like the "dud" his post is the
most completely idiotic thing I had to read.

On Feb 16, 12:10 pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:
It's interesting to note that although stall recovery should be
thought
of as something done with a minimum loss of altitude, the emphasis on
recovery should always be placed on the regaining of angle of attack
as
PRIME to recovery.

NUTZ. You need airspeed, it's called kinetic
energy that is needed to suck off, using the
wings (you know, those little things that
protude out the side of airplanes).

I am one instructor who strongly believes that instructors should
consider altering their approach to teaching stall to focus more
strongly on recovering angle of attack than recovering in minimum
altitude.

See KIAS, Dud, you'd last 2 minutes in the RHS
of my plane, after that you'd be lickin' pavement,
from my shoe on your ass.

Stalls entered at low altitude have many times resulted in
secondary stall entry or a mushed recovery followed by ground impact
by
pilots who COULD have lowered the nose and held it down there a bit
longer than they did, using the air under them to better advantage
and
giving themselves the needed time to regain angle of attack and
smooth
airflow as they attempted a recovery. But because they had been
taught
that ALTITUDE rather than AOA was the killer, they recovered trying
to
save altitude, when in reality what was needed was to USE THE
AVAILABLE
ALTITUDE CORRECTLY....and save the airplane.

Toward this goal, I strongly encourage all CFI's to reference AOA in
stall recovery. This doesn't mean INSTEAD of altitude, but it does
mean
that to recover the airplane, you absolutely HAVE to restore AOA, and
at
low altitude that might very well mean using available altitude to
the
last foot of air to do that.
I have always taught stall recovery both with and without power. The
FAA
requires power. I want the student to see the difference and at the
same
time be able to stress that it's the ANGLE OF ATTACK that saves your
butt. The strong lesson here is that you USE altitude......you don't
try
to minimize it at the expense of angle of attack.

Dud, you're clueless, you have not a clue about KIAS,
spiral dives or g-force recovery's. In short I see NO
evidence you have even been in an airplane with your
focus on AoA.
I can get a good AoA at 10 KIAS or 200 KIAS,
what are going to do?



Again with the bank rattling.


Bertie

"Private" wrote in :


"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
...

It's interesting to note that although stall recovery should be
thought of as something done with a minimum loss of altitude, the
emphasis on recovery should always be placed on the regaining of
angle of attack as PRIME to recovery.

Agreed, I have always thought of myself as flying a wing to which is
attached a fuselage rather than the reverse.



Xactly right IMO. All you need is a wing to fly, after all.

Bertie

wrote in
:

On Feb 15, 9:54 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
wrote
innews:48ff8b66-f84b-4281-998b-158e7acf78dd@
28g2000hsw.googlegroups.co
m:



On Feb 15, 9:06 pm, wrote:
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.
...

Dudley Henriques

Obliquely related to the topic of comfort in the left hand curve of
the flight envelope, some low speed F22 aerobatics:

http://www.airventure.org/2008/news/080214_raptors.html

What a ride that aircraft provides.

Well, that thing looks after alpha for you.

Bertie

OH that's just great. Now I have to ask WTF 'alpha' is. ****.
Thanks. ;-)

Sew watt is it?


Oh sorry, slang for Angle of Attack, basically.



Bertie

"Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" The Sea Hawk At Wow Way D0t C0m wrote in message
news:nfWdnZsrSOkXpiranZ2dnUVZ_g2dnZ2d@wideopenwest .com...
"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
...
...
You're right. Power on stalls have a natural tendency to make newbies
more nervous than power off. The nose attitude is generally higher, it's
louder, (this is a factor BTW), the break is cleaner and more sudden, and
the recovery can seem hurried to a newbie who is experiencing the
recovery under stress.

Are you familiar with what Derrik Piggott has written about some peoples
sensitivity to reduced G forces? It used to be on-line but I can't find a
copy anymore.

But his theory is that some people react very poorly to reduced G and will
can attempt to "brace" themself to avoid falling which can result in an
accident when stalling at a low altitude...

I'll have to keep looking - it was an interesting read for me since my
youngest just HATES even things like elevators or driving over a bit of a
hill (reduced G situations)

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

I think that Google found it for me and the spelling of the author's first
name is Derek The article is at:
http://www.danlj.org/~danlj/Soaring/Clues/SDO.html

Peter

"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in
:

On Feb 16, 2:08 pm, "Private" wrote:
"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in
messagenews:1f25eddb-4c7f-4bde-a4fa-3cc5d7844522
@e23g2000prf.googlegro
ups.com...







As much as I like the "dud" his post is the
most completely idiotic thing I had to read.

On Feb 16, 12:10 pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:
It's interesting to note that although stall recovery should be
thought of as something done with a minimum loss of altitude, the
emphasis on recovery should always be placed on the regaining of
angle of attack as PRIME to recovery.

NUTZ. You need airspeed, it's called kinetic
energy that is needed to suck off, using the
wings (you know, those little things that
protude out the side of airplanes).

I am one instructor who strongly believes that instructors should
consider altering their approach to teaching stall to focus more
strongly on recovering angle of attack than recovering in minimum
altitude.

See KIAS, Dud, you'd last 2 minutes in the RHS
of my plane, after that you'd be lickin' pavement,
from my shoe on your ass.

Stalls entered at low altitude have many times resulted in
secondary stall entry or a mushed recovery followed by ground
impact by pilots who COULD have lowered the nose and held it down
there a bit longer than they did, using the air under them to
better advantage and giving themselves the needed time to regain
angle of attack and smooth airflow as they attempted a recovery.
But because they had been taught that ALTITUDE rather than AOA was
the killer, they recovered trying to save altitude, when in
reality what was needed was to USE THE AVAILABLE ALTITUDE
CORRECTLY....and save the airplane.

Toward this goal, I strongly encourage all CFI's to reference AOA
in stall recovery. This doesn't mean INSTEAD of altitude, but it
does mean that to recover the airplane, you absolutely HAVE to
restore AOA, and at low altitude that might very well mean using
available altitude to the last foot of air to do that.
I have always taught stall recovery both with and without power.
The FAA requires power. I want the student to see the difference
and at the same time be able to stress that it's the ANGLE OF
ATTACK that saves your butt. The strong lesson here is that you
USE altitude......you don't try to minimize it at the expense of
angle of attack.

Dud, you're clueless, you have not a clue about KIAS,
spiral dives or g-force recovery's. In short I see NO
evidence you have even been in an airplane with your
focus on AoA.
I can get a good AoA at 10 KIAS or 200 KIAS,
what are going to do?
Regards
Ken

Ken,
With respect, I think you must have missed my reply in another
thread. I am enclosing it here for your convenience and
consideration.

"Private" wrote in message

...

"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in message
news:64fb5517-76cc-49df-8db1-

m...
I was out paying taxes, to get some coin for the
piggy bank, I shook it 3 times and still didn't hear
any rattling, that's simple accounting to tell me
when I'm broke, works every time!
Ken

Some here would suggest that you apply the same strategy to your
head before
posting.

I am somewhat embarrassed to be entering this thread, but I just
can't resist swinging at a soft pitch like that.
Happy landings,

To elaborate, my suggestion was that before posting you should give
your head a shake to determine if there is anything inside and to
consider whether you really wished to make the fact public.
Happy landings,

If I were you, I'd ****-off and read.


Some people read 'em. Others write them..


You're swinging at screw-balls...



Well, I certainly am.


Bertie

On Feb 17, 11:39*am, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:

Me and the "dud" ****ed your mush mind.
Get a ****in life, crack a book.

Cuniform tablets are quite outdated ...

Cheers

On Feb 17, 11:41*am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
wrote :



On Feb 15, 6:37 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"Robert M. Gary" wrote in
news:ebb74b75-9910-4c50-ae86-
:

On Feb 15, 3:56 pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dudley Henriques wrote in
:

Man there are a lot of posts on this topic. Too much newsgrouping,
people need to do more flying

When my airplane is finished!

Bertie

Watchu building?

A Hatz, but it's a Citabria being restored I'm waiting to fly.


Are you building alone? How far along is it? Where is it -I'd like to
see it if I got the chance.

Cheers