Originally Posted by
gloopy
What was the learning objective mandate for that though?
Was it push down, lose altitude and recover, or was it the idiotic "hold altitude +/- 100 feet" fake PTS nonsense, toxic negative training group think that was prevalent at the time in the sims?
Fake PTS nonsense, although it was showing your scan could control an aircraft decelerating and accelerating. I think eventually we stopped going to the shaker.
BTW, here was a portion of the PPT presentation from the NTSB on Colgan:
- Air carrier pilots trained on "approach to stall," requiring recovery with minimal altitude loss,
- Altitude loss standards not appropriate for full developed stall
- Positive nose-down control force necessary once actual wing aerodynamic stall occurs.
Not bright, it's what we did. Now if they want to stalls at FAF, that probably is not a bad idea. Colgan wasn't the first to get themselves into that situation.
Also this is from that same PPT presentation:
- Colgan included NASA-produced video on tailplane stalls during training,
- Tailplane procedure opposite of wing stall recovery procedure,
- Bombardier: Q400 demonstrated to be free from taliplane stalls,
- FAA: no current Part 121 airplanes susceptible to tailplane stalls.
Now for those who have never seen it I've fast forwarded to a portion of that NTSB video (starts 20 min in) that would probably be the most memorable behind the cockpit video of the DHC-6 tailplane stall recovery...
NASA Tailplane Icing Video Glenn Research Center - YouTube
sure its out of context but if all you remember is stall, pull back, retract flaps... i believe its negative training.