Safety Discussion #1: Stall/Spin at Low Altitude

Toobuilder said:

...Only shown to make a point, not a literal example. The point remains that skill plays a HUGE role in the outcome of an event where the primary variable is skill. Flying under an overpass is skill based activity - so is formation, landing a taildragger in a crosswind, and making the base-final turn, etc, etc.

Click to expand...

I think improving piloting skills is a very important aspect and so is improving decision making but in this instance about stall spin at low altitudes, skill has very little to do with surviving the initial error. At 300 feet if you are not expecting to flick in, you don't have a hope of saving the situation no matter what your skill level (unless you are actually Sean Tucker).

Recognizing first that trying to pull 2 Gs at 60 knots while tightening up the base to final turn defies the physical limits of the airplane to remain in controlled flight will save you every time in the first place. The military and airlines train with rigid procedures to avoid problems in the first place. It does not work every time but their accident rates prove that the theory works in real life.

It is more logical to avoid rather than react and the outcome is a lot more predictable.

If you are just landing the airplane, do you have to make it more exciting somehow? I'll save my excitement for some stiff/ gusty crosswind landings, formation flying or a tail chase up high somewhere.

OK Bob, I get it now. However, we are going to assume that we are looking for utility in our flying - after all, aviation safety is best served if we all stay on the ground, right?

So that said, a segment of this forum seems to favor avoiding discomfort rather than overcoming the discomfort. Many times, gaining the more advanced skills DOES reduce the overall risk.

As for the subject accident, there really is not enough information to determine what went wrong. Clearly, a runway overshoot is strike 1 and should have instantly "tuned up" the PIC, but is not in itself a fatal error. And neither is tightening up the bank angle to correct UNLESS it was done without proper assessment of the tradeoff of lift for tighter turn. As pointed out earlier in this thread, airspeed and bank angle have no direct effect on stall speed - the only thing that matters is AOA. Airspeed and bank angles are really poor derivatives of AOA and relying on them alone is asking for trouble when you are playing with the limits - as was apparently the case.

So, was this high time pilot used to flying a standard approach and just at the spur of the moment threw in a wild variable (tight turn) without thinking it through? Probably. But I don't know. I do know that I "max perform" the wing on base to final sometimes, but I also bring my "A game" and am spring loaded to unload at the first sign of a burble. I practice this so that I can avoid an accident like the subject of this thread.

Low and slow is definitely not the time to get complacent, and certainly not the time to experiment.

Toobuilder said:

However, this thread seems to favor "A" as the permanent solution, apparently because gaining more skill is in itself "risky" somehow.

What is your take?

Click to expand...

I don't see the thread this way. Bob hit it on the head. Risk awareness and self assessment. Improve your skill set and manage your risk. The risk management part is what i didn't pick up on in your posts, otherwise i think most agree with you, and i am sure you intended for that to go hand in hand with skill expansion. A good example; you can practice cross wind landings in a calm wind, pick a direction, drop a wing, center your airplane and land on the "upwind" wheel. You can do that without a lot of added risk. Then move to a runway with options, length, and outs for go arounds, and choose the cross wind runway. I have even asked for it from the tower. Start stretching your limits in a measured way that minimizes the risk. You can never eliminate the risk but as you say, and I agree, if you don't push a little, you are not developing a better skill set. The time to develop those skills is not when you are faced with them and have lost any other option.
None of us train enough, speaking mostly for myself.
Gil - I agree with you on the DA. It is tough for us sea level guys to train for that. I treat my airplane like a B52 when I am at or near gross with high DA.

I am all in favor of training. I only question why anyone, no matter how skilled, would want to use that training to push the edge down low, except in an emergency or other unforseen circumstance, when other good options are available (go around and start over). I think one thing that happens is risk creep. The first ten times we do steep turns down low, or scud run, etc., we're very attentive. But after a while it becomes routine, and we forget how close we may be pushing things. And after a while, for some, the odds catch up. It's not like we're talking certain death here. Just increased odds, which no one thinks will ever catch up to them.

I hope people are not mislead by the discussion of steep turns, low and slow. It is true that the wing will not stall if the critical AOA is not exceeded. But if you need to 'unload' the wing to keep from stalling, the plane will fall vertically downward at an ever increasing rate. Trading one bad thing for another, down low, does not strike me as the lowest risk option. But how risky is for you to decide.

JonJay said:

?.. The risk management part is what i didn't pick up on in your posts, otherwise i think most agree with you, and i am sure you intended for that to go hand in hand with skill expansion...

Click to expand...

Absolutely. Risk management is an extremely important aspect to flying. I intentionally gloss over it in these threads because 1. It's a given, and 2. Because you can't teach it very effectively. I feel it's a little like "common sense"... You either have it, or you don't.

At least you can learn stick and rudder skills.

I hate to say this (joking!) but I fear Michael is right about this. I quit giving primary flight instruction because I felt there were some students who were bound and determined to be risk takers the moment I signed them off for solo, and I could not figure out how to change that.

Is the perceived safety problem really that simple?

Lots of discussion is a good sign that people are at least reading and thinking about the safety topic. Plus one for the home team.

Reading through the thread, there are a few things I’ll pile on here.
First, I don’t think it’s a good idea to prod people into expanding their envelopes or belittle the types of patterns people fly, provided they are safe. Why would I say that? Most importantly, PILOTS ARE NOT CREATED EQUALLY. Some people will never gain the skills, regardless of experience, to fly more aggressively. A safe conservative approach with shallow bank angles might just be what it takes for them to have long, successful, fun, and safe flying careers. Tempting them into a flight regime where they might exceed their limits is not the purpose of this thread. So please, let’s drop this avenue of discussion and focus on techniques to stay safe instead of pontificating on conservative vs aggressive flight philosophy.

Second, with regard to the safety topic at hand…What are you going to do if you should find that you have messed up and stalled your airplane in the pattern? There is a face full of ground out your windshield and uncommanded bank. If your first reaction is not push the throttle up and relax backpressure on the control stick to recover the aircraft, you are wrong. I say this because I’ve seen people leave the throttle at idle as they succumb to their natural instincts to avoid accelerating while the airplane is pointed at the ground. You absolutely have to fight that instinct and push the throttle up to recover the aircraft, regardless of the fact that you are extremely nose low at low altitude. Speed is life!

Third, no one has really talked about how to stay focused on flying in the pattern and ways to identify when you have become distracted. Whether you are instructing or flying with a friend, how do you know when you’ve become distracted? What are you going to do when you recognize that you’ve become distracted and lost situational awareness of your surroundings? I would offer a few things as indicators that you are becoming distracted:
1) you miss radio calls
2) you need to make large control inputs to correct airspeed/altitude
3) you find yourself having an off topic conversation
4) your ground track is off.

Once you have recognized that you are distracted, its time to do something to get back in the game, so here are a few things I would recommend:
1) check airspeed, altitude, and your horizon line to ensure that you can maintain aircraft control
2) clear your flight path so you don’t run into someone else in the pattern
3) execute a go around or leave the pattern in a safe direction if you cannot maintain the approach path or pattern ground track without undue haste.

I understand why people want to talk about pushing it up and honing skills, but that is a different safety discussion for the future. I have some really good topics for at least a couple of months, so just bear with me and take it one safety discussion at a time.

BobTurner said:

I am all in favor of training. I only question why anyone, no matter how skilled, would want to use that training to push the edge down low, except in an emergency or other unforseen circumstance, when other good options are available (go around and start over)....

Click to expand...

The reason is to add one more "out". The accident pilot pushed a bad situation and should have gone around, but the tight turn should not have been a death sentence. I'm not suggesting we learn more skills so we can push a bad situation, I"m suggesting that we add skills that can be used when a bad situation pushes us.

BobTurner said:

...I hope people are not mislead by the discussion of steep turns, low and slow. It is true that the wing will not stall if the critical AOA is not exceeded. But if you need to 'unload' the wing to keep from stalling, the plane will fall vertically downward at an ever increasing rate. Trading one bad thing for another, down low, does not strike me as the lowest risk option. But how risky is for you to decide.

Click to expand...

Absolutely! People need to be very clear on this point, but thanks in large part to the belief that the FAA approved 3 degree stabilized approach is somehow sacred, the option to trade altitude for turn rate is lost on many. While it's true that immediate assessment is required to determine if there is enough altitude to make this option work, it MAY BE an option that can save your backside. Given the choice between this and pulling on the stick in a desperate attempt to keep the nose up at all costs, I'll dump the nose every time. Again, it's just one more tool that many pilots don't have.

Toobuilder said:

Airspeed and bank angles are really poor derivatives of AOA and relying on them alone is asking for trouble when you are playing with the limits - as was apparently the case.

Click to expand...

I don't agree with your approach here due to the fact that not all RVs are equiped the same way. From the perspective of providing techniques to keep people safe and have a benchmark in their mind, the bank angle/stall speed method is VERY reliable because it is conservative. So for the guys with no AOA gage, no stall warning horn, and no G-meter, bank angle/stall speed is a GREAT way to gage where you are in the flight envelope.

Be cautious dismissing a conservative method, because someone wanting to emulate you will brain dump it, since you said it was worthless, when in reality it could save them in hard times.

... So please, let?s drop this avenue of discussion and focus on techniques to stay safe instead of pontificating on conservative vs aggressive flight philosophy...

Click to expand...

Funny, I thought this discussion about adding skills/ knocking the rust off WAS a technique to stay safe. In fact, most of these discussion items were skills we needed to demonstrate on our PP checkride. Perhaps things have changed in 10 years, but I never considered anything in this thread "aggressive".

Well, anyway, if it is better to shelter the kids rather than actually teach and achieve understanding...

I'm out.

Chris Hill said:

I don't agree with your approach here due to the fact that not all RVs are equiped the same way...

Click to expand...

I'm not talking about an indicator mounted to the panel, I'm talking about the angle of attack of the wing - it's an attempt to bring to light a critical element of ground school/flight instruction that apparently isn't taught anymore.

And I'm certainly not trying to get people to "abandon" anything... I hope to "add" comprehension. i.e., the tenuous link between IAS, bank angle, and AOA. I don't mean to sound elitist, but it will come off that way... If a moron like me gets this stuff and the population at large does not, we're in trouble.

There is no need to bug out...the point of this thread is to provide flight techniques or training techniques which people can use to stay safe. I sincerely hope that if you have some techniques that help you fly better, you will post them so the rest of us can use them if they fit our skill level and comfort level. I say that to all followers of this thread.

Don't bail on us yet Michael.

I decided to try to emulate an overshoot, aggressive pull, and stall/ spin entry. I started with a few clearing turns at 3000' lined up on a 90 to a railroad that was my phantom runway. First off, it is really hard to get slow at altitude, get into landing approach attitude, and keep your speed down. It is just not natural at altitude. After a bit of practice I was able to achieve what I felt was a good approximation of an overshoot base to final.
I had a few things going for me, or against me, in the test. I was relatively light on fuel, no passenger or baggage, so nowhere near gross. I am also cg forward naturally with my IO360 and heavy BA prop. It is also about 40 deg. f so my DA is low.
I started 70mph indicated (my stall is around 53 or so) full flaps, throttle idle and pitched/turned simulating my approach at approx. 30 deg of bank then pulled. no luck. Even with 2.5 g pull I just made a really tight circles with only a little altitude loss.
I worked down in steps and finally at 60mph indicated a 2.1g pull produced The stall. There was really no buffet, just a loud and sharp shake, harder and sharper than a normal stall, then dropped a wing immediately. Recovery was a simple relax in back pressure. I lost 250ft. I did not let a spin develop. It may have gone 1/2 or 3/4 turn. I did this in both directions and it behaved the same.
I have done departure stalls, turning stalls, power on and off with both, but never a simulated approach stall. I need to repeat my testing at gross and compare the difference. I am sure it will be much easier to produce the stall.
These where fun to practice and I intend to do more.
PS - I am proficient in stall, unusual attitude, and spin recovery in my 6. I conducted my test near a small airfield, in a rural area, free of any airways, and at altitudes that allowed safe recovery. I announced my intentions on the nearest ctaf and scanned for traffic after each event. This is a safety oriented thread.

I appreciate the attempt at inclusion, but I tend to call it like I see it. And telling people flying is safe as long as you follow the rules or compile an extensive list of personal limitations is complete BS. This is an inherently dangerous activity that requires skill and understanding to accomplish. Your beloved airplanes will try kill you on every flight and the more skill and understanding you have, the better chance you have of beating them. And yes, there are some pilots on this forum and out loose in the world that should not fly with passengers or beyond the airfield fence. There, I said it. I get the fact that this does not mesh well with the modern soccer team mentality where everyone is a "co captain" and every player gets a trophy... But I digress.

I'm no longer sure what this thread intends to accomplish, but if I can figure it out and have something that doesn't offend half the population, I'll give it another shot.

Until then...

Tom Martin said:

When we do our basic training quite a bit of time is spent on stalls. In Canada we also do basic spin recovery training as well. However we do not do base to final stall training. All of the stall training that I remember was at an almost ridiculously high nose attitude. I think it would be fair to say that we are programmed to avoid ridiculous high, low speed, nose attitudes. This is not what happens in the base to final turn stall. Our nose is low on the horizon, we are descending, power off, and in the back of our mind, our training, tells us we are ok because our nose is down. Nothing bad can happen.
As has been mentioned previously in this thread, a crosswind, with a bit of inside rudder correction and the stage has been set. Distractions, and the "need" to fly a perfect straight in approach, as per our training, ultimately gets many good pilots every year.
Another point that I would like to raise is pilot age. I am 58 and have been flying for 30 years. Although I fly a lot and have taking upgrade training in the last few years, I am not as good a pilot as I was twenty years ago. There, I said it, I am not as good as I used to be. My mind does not work as fast, my reflexes are not as quick, I do not see as well, and I am more easily distracted. All of those negatives are somewhat balanced with less risk taking, more experience and hopefully more wisdom. However, bottom line is that I need to be even more careful as time goes on. I would suspect that the average age of this group is probably not too far off of 50. For the most part one has to be middle aged to afford this hobby.
Base to final stall training is something that you should practice. Hire someone good, go high and see what it actually feels like.


As a side note: With my "modern" panel I miss the great big old ball that I used to have in all of my airplanes. Although you can stall a plane with the ball in the middle you are not as likely to drop a wing. It was something that I always looked at. This little artificial ball just does not get my old fart attention.

Click to expand...

Then install one of these....... http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/inpages/winterslipindicator.php?clickkey=4877 ....... at the top of your panel.

Object Lesson?

So, I'm wondering now if this thread serves as an object lesson for all of us on the VAF, who sit on both sides of the discussion of whether or not to discuss accidents.

On one side, a number of good observations have been put forward on possible factors, and things that can serve as lessons-learned:
1) overshoot/steeper turn to final
2) cross wind
3) wind gradient
4) density altitude
5) go-around
6) training history/"license to learn" to expand personal skill set
7) judgement to recognize evolving situation with lurking hazards, and/or judgement not to exceed personal skill set
8) cockpit distractions, relaxed/familiarity/complacency.

And, are these all based on speculation based on incomplete facts and may be wrong/probably are wrong for the specific accident? YES.

And even so, is there still value in collecting relevant observations of what circumstances MIGHT have played a role and how to avoid/overcome them if they happen to you or me? YES.

On the other hand, as is common in controversial threads, it has somewhat boiled down to a back-and-forth between just a very few people, who, in reality probably agree on much more than they disagree on, and over a beer could probably agree to disagree, or find some nuances in each other's points that have value. But in the virtual world of the forum, unlike over a beer, we don't seem to reconcile very well.

So, this thread is a great experiment in more ways than one and I applaud the OP for putting it up. Sadly though, I think one aspect of the experiment is proving the case of those who would rather confine the accident discussions to other forums -- that we don't seem to be able to stay focused on the objective situation, we generalize to basic philosophies, and end up not reaching any closure.

I hope we continue the experiment. I hope we learn as we go to keep it in a forum that everyone will be able to learn from, and not drive people away that don't want to read 2 or 3 thread pages of back-and-forth with no closure.

I'll try to write up an interesting experience next week that should stimulate a juicy discussion.

Chris Hill said:

Lots of discussion is a good sign that people are at least reading and thinking about the safety topic. Plus one for the home team.

Second, with regard to the safety topic at hand?What are you going to do if you should find that you have messed up and stalled your airplane in the pattern? There is a face full of ground out your windshield and uncommanded bank. If your first reaction is not push the throttle up and recover the aircraft, you are wrong. I say this because I?ve seen people leave the throttle at idle as they succumb to their natural instincts to avoid accelerating while the airplane is pointed at the ground. You absolutely have to fight that instinct and push the throttle up to recover the aircraft, regardless of the fact that you are extremely nose low at low altitude. Speed is life!

I understand why people want to talk about pushing it up and honing skills, but that is a different safety discussion for the future. I have some really good topics for at least a couple of months, so just bear with me and take it one safety discussion at a time.

Click to expand...

First reaction is to PUSH THE STICK forward...... then add power. There is no debate over this.

The most dangerous pilots I have flown with are those who's ego (or confidence) does not match their ability. Low experience/low capability pilots that have a set of limitations that match their ability can be quite safe. I agree that proper training and experience can expand the safe envelope for pilots as they develop their proficiency. Some of the rules of thumb discussed here are useful for defining those safe boundaries. As skills develop, these rules of thumb can change too. However, there are a base set of these rules of thumb that even experienced pilots should adhere to. Those that think there are no limitations or rules of thumb that should ring their alarm bells fit in to the 'ego exceeding ability' category.

gasman said:

First reaction is to PUSH THE STICK forward...... then add power. There is no debate over this.

Click to expand...

One hand on stick, one hand on throttle. Why wouldn't you do both simultaneously?

You can practice this

I used to teach the stall/spin scenario in my Extra. We would set up a pattern, with 3000' or so as designated hard deck/ground level, and start a downwind pattern at 4000'. Engine at idle, slower than usual approach airspeed, maybe 75 to 80 mph. On the base to final turn we would tighten the turn to the point of stall, and on some approaches, skid the plane to the point of a stall. Then see if we could recover before going through the hard deck. Often the plane would do the sweetest, gentlest snap roll to spin before busting through.

Though I suspect the sensations are quite similar, I will add a disclaimer: I honestly can't speak to an RV, as I haven't done this yet in an RV, but in an Extra it's quite obvious that you are out of the "normal" envelope of flying, long before the aircraft stalls. You can hear how much quieter the air noise is, you can feel how mushy the controls are, you can feel the added "g" forces, and you can definitely feel the uncoordination of the skid. You actually have to work at it some to get it to stall, much less spin.

I urge everyone to get physical training like this in the stall / spin scenario. Then take your aircraft up to a safe altitude and practice, see how your aircraft responds. Once you are familiar with the way your aircraft FEELS before it stalls/spins, you won't need AOA's, stall warning horns, or even airspeed indicators, those are for BIG airplanes that HAVE to flown by the numbers. Part of my PPL training, long before I had flown any aerobatics, was to do approaches and landings with the AI covered. If you never did that during your training, it's time to do it now, with a competent instructor, of course!

You will develop an invaluable feel for it. I can't emphasize this enough! You will be able to sense when the aircraft is in, or nearing, a possibly dangerous flight regime. Its quite uncomfortable, and easy to recognize once you have some experience. This will allow you to keep your head out of the cockpit in a busy area, as well as adjusting your approach safely.

Stall/Spin in the Pattern

A couple of thoughts regarding low altitude handling errors that might lead to a stall/spin in the landing pattern:

The first consideration is that a spin entered at or below pattern altitude is likely to be non-recoverable. A pilot well versed in aerobatics and aircraft handling may have an edge in this situation, but he is also less likely to make this type of error in the first place. RV types do provide stall and loss of directional control warning, but the pilot must be proficient in recognition. This is best achieved by training and practice at altitude.

The second consideration is how the pattern is flown. Consistency in pattern operations and achieving a stabilized final approach segment is the key to good landings. Three known "energy" points are the basics used to establish this condition: high key (generally applicable in an engine-out situation); low key (also referred to as the "perch" [USAF], "180" [USN], or simply the base turn point); and the final roll-out point. Final itself is a matter of managing aim point, airspeed/AOA and cross wind.

A technique for a visual final approach: establish a final roll-out point 300 feet AGL, 3000 feet from the planned touchdown point. This provides a 6 degree glide path which allows a power off approach to be flown. It is also any easy point to visualize when entering the traffic pattern and flying downwind. Once establishing a reference point on the ground, add 300 feet to TDZ or field elevation to establish a "hoop" to fly through after "rolling off the perch" (i.e., starting a descending 180 degree base turn).

This point can be reached from a "square" base or a curved "180" base. I prefer the later (military training) because I find it easier to fly consistently well. The key to making either technique work is where you start the turn, i.e., where you place the "perch" (base turn) point. Under no wind conditions, I normally fly a 1000 foot AGL downwind with the runway under the outboard third of the wing, and roll off the perch with the TDZ 45 degrees aft--looking over my left/right shoulder. The perch/180/start of base turn is abeam the planned final roll-out point. The airplane is configured for landing and on speed (Vref) at the perch/base turn point. The base turn and final are flown in the landing configuration so full attention is devoted to clearing and simply flying the airplane, the only variable is power (idle in our fixed pitch -4). Vref is 1.3 to 1.4 Vs, as recommended by Van's. Exact numbers are unimportant and will vary from airplane to airplane due to differences in pitot/static systems. What is important is the ratio relative to indicated stall speed in the configuration in which the base turn is flown (e.g., full flaps). If the airplane is equipped with an AOA indicator, then AOA corresponding to L/Dmax to slightly fast is appropriate for the base turn with indicated airspeed serving as a back-up.

Prior to reaching the base turn point/perch/180, I determine whether winds are over- or under-shooting. An over-shooting wind is one that blows from downwind toward the runway and will tend to carry you across final. An under-shooting wind will blow from the runway to downwind and tend to impede your turn to final. An under- shooting wind is easier to deal with than an over-shooting wind. For an over-shooting wind, I move the perch farther out from the runway (generally beyond the wing tip for a visual reference on a 1000 foot AGL downwind). For an under-shooting wind I fly a normal or slightly tight downwind. If I make an error, I prefer to be "wide off the perch," i.e, a bit too far from the runway--I can always carry a bit if power or square off the base turn to compensate and avoid an "angled final." If I find myself a bit high/tight on base and am already at idle, then a slip to the inside of the turn is appropriate. In this case, attention to airspeed/AOA is critical. An over-shoot requires steeping the bank keeping the turn coordinated and simultaneously lowering the nose while maintaining an on speed condition. Depending on the amount of over-shoot, there is only so much correction that can be applied and you simply have to accept the angled final. It may or may not be practical to attempt a landing after an overshoot. There is no occasion to use excessive "inside rudder" (skidding turn) in a properly flown landing pattern. If a slip is used, aileron is applied in the direction of turn (inside wing down) and "outside" rudder is applied while carefully managing airspeed/AOA. The bottom line is if the perch/180/base turn point is properly adjusted, then base is simply a coordinated, descending 180 degree turn to roll out 300 feet AGL, 3000 feet from touchdown--adjusting bank as required to fly through the "hoop" that puts me on a stabilized final approach segment.

The angle for final approach can be adjusted as required/desired, but any angle shallower than glide angle will require a power on approach (e.g., for a 3 degree final approach segment, roll-out at 150 feet AGL, 3000 feet from touchdown). Additionally, significant wind down the runway can also require the use of power to maintain desired approach angle. If significant wind down the runway is present, "rolling off the perch" (beginning the descending base turn) early may be desirable.

To summarize, flying the same pattern consistently, using a consistent landing configuration, adjusting the one key point for wind (base turn) and adhering to the "stabilized final" criteria you establish will go a long way to mitigating problems in the pattern. A planned low approach prior to a full-stop landing to assess the pattern is a good idea, if in doubt.

Personal criteria are important. RV types are extremely maneuverable, and capable of curing a myriad of ills if properly flown so the limiting factor generally becomes pilot experience and comfort. Be realistic in your self assessment remembering that humans don't generally do a good job with self-assessment! Stay in your zone and strive for consistency...expand your zone with training and practice.

Fly safe,

Vac

scsmith said:

So, I'm wondering now if this thread serves as an object lesson for all of us on the VAF, who sit on both sides of the discussion of whether or not to discuss accidents.
.

Click to expand...

I don't think the thread was intended to discuss the specific accident. It was titled correctly as a discussion about Stall/Spin at Low Altitudes. The accident was just a possible example, possible as the findings are not complete. It did give some reference to go by and witness reported and described a classic base to final overshoot. That gave us a scenerio to discuss.
I took the discussion as an opportunity to learn and test my skills, went out and practiced at altitude (post#65) so I could gain more experience and add some real time relevance.
The back and forth was a completely different discussion that seemed to develop on it's own out of some kind of assumptions of a disagreement about risk, experience, procedure, equipment, not really totally sure.... This happens in a public forum.
Your absolutley correct. A beer and face to face discussion would have a different tone.

training and accident prevention

I'll bet i'm one of the freshest pilots here. i am 1.5 years off my ppl, just passed 150 hrs. i remember aoa very well in my training. A couple statements i'd like to make:

despite cyllabus following, some get better instruction than others.

example: i got passed from a 2500 hour pilot mid PPL to a new cfi that had yet to sign someone off. think i could tell?

its true that some points should be stressed more than others in the cyllabus.

I would like to think most of us recieved good sufficient instruction. I think a bigger problem is we forget things slowly, and need to refresh. There are many good ways to do that, one of them is reading this forum and implementing safe practices.

good thread

IMO, one of the best ways to avoid becoming a low altitude stall/spin statistic is to DO all types of stalls and spins...ALL the time. This will develop even a subconsious feel for your airplane that you will not have if you're the type of pilot who gets dragged kicking and screaming into stall/spin work only every two years during a BFR. Muscle memory and instinctive reflexes are amazing things. An inadvertent spin entry on base does not have to be a death sentence. Try some accelerated stall, x-controlled incipient spin entries at altitude. If you react instantly, you can recover in a couple hundred feet. If you do this stuff all the time, you'll react instantly to an upset and you'll likely recover. But of course, if you have these skills, it's very unlikely you'd ever need to put them to use...unless you're a CFI. The common straight-and-level-only driver who's uncomfortable with stalls and terrified of spins will have much less success with recovery. I think folks have stalled/spun on base-to-final because they are scared of stalls/spins. They are taught to keep the bank angle low...which causes them to skid the turn. It's not bank angle that's the problem, it's feel and understanding of the airplane and the dynamics...and of course skill. Skill can be built, but not if you don't make the effort. Thousands of straight-and-level hours don't help much here. And all the stall avoidance training in the world won't help you when the airplane has snapped 500' AGL on base and you see lots of dirt filling your view out the windscreen.

Here's the "mission statement" for this thread:

Chris Hill said:

I offer this as a part of a weekly series to prompt discussion about specific flight regimes where anyone interested can read and learn from someone else’s misjudgment and the advice and experience of others who participate in the forum.

When you read these accidents and provide input in the thread, please take the perspective that simply not flying or not performing the maneuver is NOT an acceptable solution. Instead, take the perspective that the pilot was definitely going to choose to fly in whatever manner that lead to the crash or accident. In this way, we can provide methods to perform the same maneuver in a safe manner or with risk mitigated through knowledge/prior planning...

Click to expand...

And my point was, if you follow the guidance above, and MUST push a bad situation (tightening the turn), then trading altitude for turn rate is one of the few options available.

...However, this concept (and working up to/practicing for it) was deemed too "aggressive" and "advanced" for the forum at large.


Definitely not trying to turn this into a back and forth volley, but if you ask for specific responses, don't be upset when you get them.

...So I ask again, what are we trying to get from this thread?

Toobuilder said:

Here's the "mission statement" for this thread:



And my point was, if you follow the guidance above, and MUST push a bad situation (tightening the turn), then trading altitude for turn rate is one of the few options available.

...However, this concept (and working up to/practicing for it) was deemed too "aggressive" and "advanced" for the forum at large.


Definitely not trying to turn this into a back and forth volley, but if you ask for specific responses, don't be upset when you get them.

...So I ask again, what are we trying to get from this thread?

Click to expand...

I recognized that I have been in this situation many times before but had never really trained properly for it. So, with some thought and self evaluation, I went out and did it. I learned a lot from just one short experience and intend to go out and practice more. It should not take a post on VAF to prompt that, but I am glad it did. I will add this type of training to my regimen.
Through my short practice yesterday I also learned that I have never been even close to a stall in any of the situations I experienced. However, add DA issues, loading, etc... to the equation and things could be very different.
That is what I got from this.

JonJay said:

I recognized that I have been in this situation many times before but had never really trained properly for it. So, with some thought and self evaluation, I went out and did it. I learned a lot from just one short experience and intend to go out and practice more. It should not take a post on VAF to prompt that, but I am glad it did. I will add this type of training to my regimen.
Through my short practice yesterday I also learned that I have never been even close to a stall in any of the situations I experienced. However, add DA issues, loading, etc... to the equation and things could be very different.
That is what I got from this.

Click to expand...

Good post and when I get my -6 back together, I'm going to do some practice along these lines too. I think this thread has accomplished something useful- to make people think, be more aware and evaluate how they fly and train.

When I'm demonstrating landings for a new pilot ("new" to the airplane), before we even get near the pattern we practice the base/final turn and specifically, accelerated stalls. I feel it is extremely valuable to experience the tactile as well as visual clues to a stall. It’s one thing to stick to an airspeed and bank angle, but you should also know just how much (or little) margin you have in that configuration. Get up a mistake or two high and set up a normal base/final turn – then PULL until you get the burble. Just did this with the Hiperbipe on Sunday. This airplane has a pretty nasty stall if the flaps are up, which mellows considerably with them down, and even more so with a touch of power - all at the SAME airspeed and bank angle! So the thing to demonstrate is how configuration affects stall margin... You'd never get that knowledge by simply sticking to a set speed and bank angle. So while this one simple session opened the door to awareness, you really need to practice this a bunch to make the proper response (unload the wing) second nature. It is often said the natural reaction of most pilots facing a low altitude stall is to pull harder... I can tell you all – you can train yourself out of that deadly situation. MY reaction now is to immediately push and unload.

Hope this doesn’t come off as advanced or aggressive – this is just PP checkride/ Flight Review stuff.

Edit:

It occurs to me that the above might need a little explaining if someone wants to try this this weekend.

The “pull” I describe needs to be fairly sharp, because you are not trying to make the airplane climb, you are trying to force a rapid change in AOA without bleeding off any speed. The reason for this is to determine just how close your normal “75 MPH and 30 degrees of bank” (or whatever), is to the critical AOA (i.e stall). In the case of my Hiperbipe, flaps up at my normal pattern speed does not require much of a tug to get the burble – this means that I’m pretty close to CLmax at this speed and bank, and consequently there is not a lot of margin left for gusts, maneuvering etc.. In this configuration, the controls require a gentle touch. - Flaps down however, requires a fairly healthy pull to get the exact same stall burble. This indicates that I’m much further from the edge, and I have a little more leeway for course corrections. In other words, I can be a bit more ham fisted and get away with it if needed. At any rate, start small with this tug and work your way into the stall. Some airplanes may break very quickly, and some may need a lot more. Every airplane and loading configuration will feel different. Finally, make sure the ball is centered. You don’t need to introduce spin training into this exercise.

So what is the point of this exercise? Well, for one, it shows you how your particular airplane stacks up against expectations/published numbers. If you think that your “by the book” pattern speed gives you a healthy stall margin you might be right and you might be wrong– this will let you know for sure. The other thing it does is refines your awareness of the airplane. There are certain visual, audible and tactile clues that should trigger your internal alarms. With enough practice, you should be able to develop a sense for “right and wrong” using more than the dials on the panel. Understand these feelings are in addition to, not a replacement for…

Much has been said about striving for consistency and standards in our flying, airlines and military are often cited as examples. I agree – and the above does not conflict with that. One thing often left out of the military example however, is the fact that their normal pattern, with fighter aircraft in particular, is a maximum performance event. They come “off the perch” very near CLmax and ride that all the way down. They fly the numbers because they are wringing every last ounce of lift and turn out of the wing, and to go just a little off the number is to stall or an overshoot. This is very different from the sedate parade around the pattern that the FAA likes to see. So yes, consistency and spot on numbers are important, but if you want to emulate the military, you are looking for the maximum performance out of the airplane. The only way to get that is to practice a variety of scenarios to establish your baseline. If you’re just following the published numbers without verification, you’re just going through the motions. Also, while the military strives for consistency, remember that they are operating with a fleet of aircraft that are for all intents and purposes “identical”. They have complete configuration control and their training syllabus relies heavily on this fact. We do not have this luxury. Even among the same type aircraft, we have sometimes radically different characteristics. My RV-8 is going to likely be quite a bit different from your RV-8…
Finally, the drive for consistency does not mean we are precluded from practicing unusual situations so that we can establish and define the performance envelope. There’s nothing wrong with practicing an airliner approach, a tight “fighter style” 180, dragging in on the prop, no flap, etc. in addition to your normal pattern work. Mixing it up a little not only keeps it interesting, but will round each of us out as pilots.

Mike, thats exactly the kind of post I would want in a safety discussion. You have provided a valid training technique to help someone expand his comfort zone/add skill to his flying. Spot on.

gasman said:

First reaction is to PUSH THE STICK forward...... then add power. There is no debate over this.

Click to expand...

Thanks, edited my post for clarity

Toobuilder said:

Hope this doesn?t come off as advanced or aggressive ? this is just PP checkride/ Flight Review stuff.

Click to expand...

It perhaps is not aggressive or advanced enough in my opinion.
Sadly, it was not PP checkride/flight review stuff, at least not when I was in flight school and never was part of any of my BFR's. Accelerated stalls where never demonstrated let alone practiced, just talked about on a chalk board.

Interesting, because I did this in initial training, on my checkride, some BFR's, and on my High perf/complex checkout as part of the high altitude training (accelerated stalls at 13k, while on O2 in a Commanche).

There certainly is a wide variation in training among us, isn't there?

Toobuilder said:

Not sure I follow, Bob....

If faced with a landing on a short, narrow runway that is outside your demonstrated skill level, you have the choice to chalk that one up to your personal minumums list and never land there (A - Avoidance); or work on your skills until you master short narrow runways (B - overcome).

Clearly, the short term answer is to go with A, but the long term (aviation safety best served by...) is certainly to go with B. More skills is better than less skills. However, this thread seems to favor "A" as the permanent solution, apparently because gaining more skill is in itself "risky" somehow.

What is your take?

Click to expand...

An excellent thread
My take Michael, s that there are different scenarios that A or B apply to.
Eg, with regards to the subject of this thread, for me A , is the way- we should learn and continue to strive to never be in this situation, but rather , our skills should be focused on learning to avoid accelerated stalls in pattern, this makes us a proficientnGA pilot .
B, certainly applies, elsewhere , as one should strive to become a better pilot as the hrs pile up, so that one can handle cross wind, short narrow runways

Risk management

Pilots should be taught early on to exercise risk assessment and manage to their skills, not beyond. Sometimes it's not what we know that will take us down, but rather the unknown or trying to stretch our skills into the unknown.

Snowflake said:

One hand on stick, one hand on throttle. Why wouldn't you do both simultaneously?

Click to expand...

First, unload the wing... then add power. If you add power and don't unload the wing enough, the added power can pull the wing deeper into the stall.

You don't need to add full power. And with our over powered RV's too much power during a pending stall/spin situation can become very exciting. Just don't panic and jamb the throttle forward.

On downwind, as I set first notch of flaps, I trim for heavy nose. Not too heavy, just enough that I can feel that I am holding the nose up. Now if I get relaxed in the pattern, the nose drops. If the turn ends up tighter than I expected, I just relax on the stick.

If you are trimming to trim out all flap pressures (in an RV) you are giving up valuable signals that the airplane can give you through a heavy stick.

I agree on the trim thing...I like to trim so that if I let go or fall asleep at the wheel on base to final, the plane gets faster not slower....

Agree with the above two posts: Trim being a touch nose heavy in the pattern; and the correction from stall does not have to be a heroic move - it’s often very subtle. In fact, I have a lot of time in a 9A with the stick all the way back/wing fully stalled. With about a half inch of stick movement forward, the airflow reattaches and its flying again. The difference is stick position between "flying" and "not flying" in some airplanes is often inperceptable.

I’m in Toobuilder’s camp, practice slow flight and all possible stall scenarios that go with getting to slow, Van has preached this all the years I have known him, he’s right.

Also when it does come to making the base to final turn, never skid around the corner, using bottom rudder is the perfect recipe for a spin.
I would also add if you’re not comfortable doing this on your own, get some training, if you want to go the extra step make that training include all possible stall scenarios including spins, while you’re at it aerobatic training expands your skill for using the hole speed envelope of you airplane too, highly recommend this.

When I got my PPL back in 1990 my instructor (Boyd Williamson) said spins where no longer required, he added he felt this was a poor choice and we did quite a few in his old 1959 C-150, enough so it was fun, no longer scary, after the PPL was earned we put rudder pedals in the back of his RV-4 and I got checked out in my first tail wheel airplane the RV-4 at about 75 hours total, before he turned me loose with it he gave me fairly extensive aerobatic training in the -4. I think my flight training went far and above what most people got then or now, it’s also saved my ***, not just once but I dare say it comes into play every time I go flying, the training is always there and the regular practice I do is also always there even when I’m just doing something as routine as turning final.

I think this thread and ones like it could help safety more than most of the ones that pop up every month or so that don’t actually provide an idea of how to improve safety and there is no suggestion of requiring anything from anyone or taking away any freedoms of any kind, good thread.

Disclaimer,,,, the RV-4 is not normally a suitable aerobatic trainer, old man Boyd was skinny and I was very skinny at the time, the airplane was light so it worked for us but would not work for most of us today.

Once again, Russ is spot on...4s at least with fixed pitch props are accelerating fools with the nose down....and with two up, light in pitch...poor aerobatic trainers is right! EG: I let a very experienced ATP roll my plane from the back seat maybe 15 years ago from cruise flight...nose barely came up, rolled level maybe 40 degrees pitch down...and here comes the hyperspace picture even after I dialed the power back seeing this scenario unfold...fortunately, he got it and instantly let go so I could induce some drag, so no overspeed, but a cautionary lesson: pedigree means very, very little. Where someone has been and the suffixes after their name may have little correlation with their actions going forward...MTCents

johnf_1 said:

I let a very experienced ATP roll my plane from the back seat maybe 15 years ago from cruise flight...nose barely came up, rolled level maybe 40 degrees pitch down...and here comes the hyperspace picture even after I dialed the power back seeing this scenario unfold...fortunately, he got it and instantly let go so I could induce some drag, so no overspeed, but a cautionary lesson: pedigree means very, very little. Where someone has been and the suffixes after their name may have little correlation with their actions going forward...MTCents

Click to expand...

And how much aerobatic experience is required to obtain the ATP? Ratings and stick and rudder skills are not directly proportional.

luddite42 said:

... Ratings and stick and rudder skills are not directly proportional...

Click to expand...

...AMEN!!!

Time to lock this thread down....

luddite42 said:

And how much aerobatic experience is required to obtain the ATP? Ratings and stick and rudder skills are not directly proportional.

Click to expand...

This thread has jumped the track to a useless expression of pilot ego.

Fact is, more professional aerobatic pilots die each year than professional part 121 pilots, notwithstanding their skill level. (or maybe not skill level but daring spirit)

We do have the privilege in this country of flying upside down or anyway we wish by slamming the stick from on corner to another, setting the G meter at 5 or 6 and preserving it for all to see, but to do so is not a proven survival skill. It is window of opportunity for a young, inexperienced pilot to kill himself thinking he knows more than he does.

True, the ATP rating does not require aerobatics, not even spin recovery, but rest assured most ATP's have flown aerobatics at some point and know enough about it to not kill themselves or passengers doing it.

David-aviator said:

This thread has jumped the track to a useless expression of pilot ego.

Fact is, more professional aerobatic pilots die each year than professional part 121 pilots, notwithstanding their skill level. (or maybe not skill level but daring spirit)...

Click to expand...

...but how many of those deaths are DURING aerobatic flight? After all, aerobatics is a whole lot higher risk than a 121 mission. How many of those aerobatic pilots die flying a more mundane profile?

It is a very valid point that the ability to fly aerobatics makes a pilot better equipped to handle any flying situation, even if aerobatic activity itself is much higher risk. There is a good reason the military flight test schoolhouses include aircraft like the Pitts, Extra, Stearman, and T-6 in their curriculum.

You need to separate the ability from the activity if you want to make an appropriate comparison.

David-aviator said:

Fact is, more professional aerobatic pilots die each year than professional part 121 pilots, notwithstanding their skill level. (or maybe not skill level but daring spirit)

Click to expand...

This thread is about accidental low altitude stall/spins in the GA context...not about airshow pilots killing themselves recovering snap rolls or tumbles too low. I've never heard of a "professional" aerobatic pilot accidentally stalling/spinning on a regular base-to-final turn.

David-aviator said:

True, the ATP rating does not require aerobatics, not even spin recovery, but rest assured most ATP's have flown aerobatics at some point and know enough about it to not kill themselves or passengers doing it.

Click to expand...

Oh unless they have military experience, there are lots of airline pilots out there who have never themselves flown a roll in an airplane. Not trying to argue about the percentage of ATPs who have had the barest introduction to aerobatics at some point in their flying careers, just making a point about ratings since I often hear people describe situtations where they elevate the expectations of flying ability for CFII's, ATP's, airline pilots, military pilots, etc. even when the type of flying they're describing has zero bearing on one's ratings. Aerobatics and the ATP have no bearing on each other kinda like tailwheel flying and being a CFII have no bearing on each other. Budd Davisson, legendary Pitts instructor, says he has the most trouble with the airline guys.

Aerobatics

There are very few "professional" aerobatic pilots. A more useful benchmark would be to divide aerobatic pilots into airshow and competetion. There have only been two fatal accident in the history of IAC Competetion. Both involved equipment failure. In 20 years of IAC competetion flying I saw very few problems with spins. In almost all cases those who had problems with spins did not have proper training.
A Pitts S2B will do a one turn spin and recover in 450 feet. So it is possible to spin from pattern altitude and recover. In many cases the people spinning in from pattern altitude and lower have likely never performed a spin.
I really dislike it when people categorize. In the early history of IAC, airline pilots were probably the largest vocational group, with doctors a likely second.
The great airline safety record is likely due to two factors. I like to call the first "Pratt and Whitney reliable engines". This of course is not correct as there are several major manufacturers of SUPERBLY RELIABLE turbine engines. The second factor is the FAA goal of putting an ILS approach at the end of every runway served by the airlines. While this program was never completed there are a lot of ILS's compared to the early airline jet era. These two factors have at least been major contributors to the superb airline safety record.
But we still have the miracle on the Hudson and Air France 447.

Get some spin training and preferably some aerobatic training. It may very well save your life.

In 2009 all 27 fatal accidents in high performance EAB aircraft involved loss of control. Some were preceded by other problems before control was lost. NONE needed to be fatal. NONE would have been fatal if the pilot were properly trained and profecient.

One thing I think that contributes to low altitude loss of control accidents is how hard it is to overcome the tendency to pull the stick back in your lap after a low altitude departure. Fwd stick when the ground is rushing up at you does not come naturally but is the only method to recovery. It takes lots of training to ingrain the correct response. Once recovered it also takes discipline and training to make a smooth pullout without getting a secondary stall or departure. AOA cn be a big help on the pullout.
George

And also, if you've recovered the spin/upset and need to pullout at low altitude from relatively low airspeed do not pull power off! It might seem like a natural reaction, but it is wrong, and will cause you to use more altitude on the pullout. From the initial low airspeed, nose down position, full power will minimize the altitude required to pullout. I've seen a couple bad crashes involving aerobatic pilots who pulled power off before trying to pull out hard. The airplane stopped turning a corner and basically buffeted down to a pancake impact.

If you wish post philosophical musings about which kinds of pilots are better than others, please start a new thread. Thanks!

David-aviator said:

This thread has jumped the track to a useless expression of pilot ego.

Fact is, more professional aerobatic pilots die each year than professional part 121 pilots, notwithstanding their skill level. (or maybe not skill level but daring spirit)

We do have the privilege in this country of flying upside down or anyway we wish by slamming the stick from on corner to another, setting the G meter at 5 or 6 and preserving it for all to see, but to do so is not a proven survival skill. It is window of opportunity for a young, inexperienced pilot to kill himself thinking he knows more than he does.

True, the ATP rating does not require aerobatics, not even spin recovery, but rest assured most ATP's have flown aerobatics at some point and know enough about it to not kill themselves or passengers doing it.

Click to expand...

Learning aerobatics will make you a better stick and rudder pilot than you are, even if you are a good stick and rudder pilot already. There is no ego in that statement. It's plain and simple truth, you will have a better feel for your aircraft under all flight regimes if you have training and experience flying in all fight regimes.

Aerobatics as a sport or hobby does attract a more risk taking type of personality, however. Don't let that fact influence your opinion about aerobatics as good training. I was not one of those types, it scared the cr*p out me at first, but I knew learning aerobatics would make me a better, safer pilot, so I stuck with it. Aerobatics done down low is what kills most people who die flying aerobatics. There is very little room for error, either pilot or malfunction type.

I also hold an ATP, and that training has also made me a better safer, pilot, in a different way.

More training in any endeavor is usually a good thing. You don't have to take a full blown aerobatics course to get better at avoiding stall/spin accidents, a simple stall/spin course of 2 or 3 hours could be invaluable in this. Once you develop a better "feel" for your aircraft as it nears critical angle of attack in various flight regimes, you will be a better, safer pilot.

There is no ego about this, I am well aware my airplane could care less about my ego, it can kill me just as easily no matter how good I think I am. So I try to stay well trained, and not get complacent.

Chris Hill said:

If you wish post philosophical musings about which kinds of pilots are better than others, please start a new thread. Thanks!

Click to expand...

Stating that pilots who continually maintain proficiency and competence with spins are better off than those who are scared of and not proficient with spins in the context of "stall/spin at low altitude" is off topic and a "philosophical musing??"