What are your thought's on this idea?
 

I was going to do a poll but chose instead to go this route .
What are your thought's in regards to doing actual stall and spin training along with recurrent ?
It is one thing to use the sim and an entirely different arena to doing actual training .

Fred

I think I took about 35,000 to get out of a spin. The ground stopped it.

I thought I was going to break the sim because that thing was bucking so hard. The instructor was bracing himself in the back, my sim partner was grabbing his shoulder harness straps, Jepps flying everywhere -- it was a blast, well, except for the reflection on our own mortality after the red screen. Actually, the second time around ;) I almost got it out (no lie!), but the box did get knocked off motion.

The lesson learned was DON'T GET IN THAT SITUATION. Nonetheless, never stop flying the airplane.

Stall/Spin/Upset Training
Maybe this will clarify .

Fred

I think in the sim of the aircraft you are flying is better because the techniques used in an Extra would be different. I'd think you'd want to train with what you would have in the real scenario. If you are a career CFI, who flies dozens of different GA aircraft, fly the Extra. I just think there are too many differences.

I have done it and ASA does it as part of their training. It is a good bit to have.

I agree and it is good training to have , as they say every little bit helps.

Fred

Segue
 

Fred:

Some 35-ish years ago, I was in high school and reading airplane magazines, dreaming of the day I could be furloughed from a legacy carrier.

I was reading an article in Air Progress. The subject was spin training, and had two authors with opposing views. The anti-advocate said it was hard on the airplanes, particularly attitude gyros; that we should be teaching avoidance. I think the 'pro' spin advocate was Peter Lert, or maybe Budd Davisson, two fairly well-known writers.

Anyway, the thing that stuck with me over all these years: the guy who advocated spin training said:

"It is theoretically possible, by FAR, for a guy to go from private pilot, all the way to Captain of a 747, and have never seen a spin."

At the time, I thought "Is that true?" And I hadn't yet taken my first lesson, let alone seen a spin.

But after a couple of zillion spins in the military (Air Force and Navy), and holding a 747 type rating, I can't think of any FAR that would require spin training to get to the top of the food-chain.

Both the Air Force and the Navy teach their primary students to spin and do aerobatics. It's a way to separate the queasy ones from the crowd, and to figure out who is going on to fighters. But I think it is significant that it also means every transport-category pilot in the military----or helicopter pilot---has dealt with spins, departing controlled flight (OOCF for you Navy guys), and the most unusual attitudes in upset recoveries you could imagine.

I think learning it in an airplane that is built for it helps. Once you know how to do that, see if you can conquer the unthinkable in an airliner (in the sim, of course).

Deadstick says "Just don't get there." (Paraphrasing). You can't always guarantee things.

The Navy recovered a P-3 from a spin in the last year. When the L-188 rolled over, I think they were at 9000 ft. Any Navy guys want to correct the details, jump in.

They cracked a few parts but landed and walked away. I believe it was fixable. And I think it has a direct correlation to having aerobatic backgrounds.

They shouldn't have gotten into that position. But thank God they had the experience to get out of it.

Valid comments, but I thnk that at this point (flying sweptwing jet airline aircraft) stall spin PREVENTION would be more beneficial than spin exposure. Sure, a pilot should have experienced these before getting to this level, but if any of us happen to fully stall a transport catagory jet aircraft, let alone let it progress to a spin, then exposure or recovery practice will likely do little good. Your odds of recovery are slim to none, unless you happen to MAYBE have 35,000 feet under your belt and what are you doing stalling in cruise flight then anyway.

From an both odds and risk standpoint, this type of accident is so rare, that valuable training time should go in other directions, like better situational awarness exercises and multitask/high workload scenarios.

During intial RJ training at my airline, I got to do a full stall (with the SPS system off) and it went into a tail slide, flipped inverted at the blink of an eye and then mimiced that scene in the Right Stuff where the Chuck Yeager character is bouncing around the cockpit with all these wild gyrations outside the canopy. Except it my case, it was night and all I could do was apply the typical anti-stall/spin inputs in either direction and watch as the attitude indicator spun crazily in all directions showing blue and brown in various parts of the PFD too fast to comprehend and the sim slamming back and forth against it's stops. Amazingly the sim recovered after ten seconds and I think I lost almost 20,000 feet and another 3-5,000 during the pull out, but it didn't recover because of what I did as there was no way for the brain to process any information in order to determine my situation. It was so violent and disorienting I couldn't tell if it was spinning left or right or I was in some kind of Lomcevak (tumble). I've done spins before as a CFI and some acro in a Decathelon, but this recovery had to have been a fluke.

Point being, this is one situation in transport catagory aircraft that you AVOID and not recover from. Of course, that's the point of a stick pusher.

Anyone who wants to can go to a local airport, find an instructor with a Cub or similar, and do two things: Spins, and crosswind landings.

I highly reccomend both. You'll be much more proficient and fly with much more confidence. The knowledge is transferable.

Spin
 

If you get into a spin in a jet or j-3 cub most likely it will occur because you have slowed down too much during a landing sequence. In either plane it means that you are dead. A better plan is to teach awareness just like they have been doing over the last 40 years.

SKyhigh

Practicing for spins in an airliner is like practicing bleeding. Don`t go there.

In the Navy, we do stall training in the aircraft (C-9). We go to the stick shaker (or min speed), then recover. Clean, approach turn (flaps 15) and dirty (gear down, flaps 50). We also do steep turns and unusual attitude training in the jet. V1 cuts on takeoff as well...in the jet. It's great training.

Rather than dumming down to the lowest common denominator how about just raising the denominator which brings us back to the issues of experience and pay.

I guess I am just old school. Learned to spin in a 152... then spun the **** out of the T-37. Full stall training as well. Even in C-130's we went to the edge.

I just think stall and spin training is so very valuable. But thats just my opinion.

p.s. we didnt full stall/spin the T-38... that was a sure ejection situation.

Addenda
 

Herc:

We do full-stall training in the T-38. In fact, there is a graded item in the syllabus called "Full Aft-Stick Stall."

But you don't do spins:

1. It is almost impossible to get a T-38 into a spin. You have to be less than 240 knots, and go from negative 1-g to full aft-stick as fast as you can. NO RUDDER is required.
2. Once it gets into one, both engines flameout from intake disruption, so you have no flight controls to effect a recovery. Even if you did keep the engines lit, rudder has no effect on the recovery. It is ailerons (pro-spin).

Sky:

I think it was JAL, but some operator of a 747SP departed the airplane above 35,000 feet, enroute to LAX from Asia. This was about 15 years ago. It was a stab-trim problem, and finally, the autopilot said "I quit," and disconnected.

I think it pitched-up and more or less snap-rolled.

In the ensuing dive-recovery, they lost part of a horizontal stab, and I think the jet may never have flown again (as they exceeded the g-limits, although not by much), but the points are:

1. It wasn't from getting slow on landing.
2. I would think an aerobatic background--or at least spins--would have been helpful.

My first airline was Evergreen. They had an ADI malfunction on the Capt's side (the autopilot was slaved to it). The jet did a barrel-roll at night, in a milk-bowl, near Chicago, starting at about 33,000 ft.

They might have gone supersonic in the recovery, but again, they lived. Same points as for the JAL 747, above.

courtesy of wikipedia
 

On February 19, 1985, China Airlines Flight 006, a 747SP-09 (N4522V) with 274 passengers and crew onboard on a flight from Chiang Kai-shek Airport to Los Angeles International Airport suffered an inflight failure on engine number four. While the flight crew attempted to restore power the aircraft rolled to the right and started a steep descent from the cruising altitude of 41,000 feet, accelerating to 4.8 G and 5.1 G on two occasions. The captain managed to stabilize the aircraft at 9,500 feet and the aircraft diverted to San Francisco International Airport which was 550 km (343.8 mls) away. Two passengers were injured and the aircraft suffered major structural damage.
You just never know what will come up and bite you and this is a prime example .
http://www.airliners.net/photo/China...7SP-09/0067630
Fred

We all need to understand a training sim is an entirely different animal than the airplane, or even a engineering sim.

Most simulators do not correctly model the aircraft beyond critical angle of attack, nor are they required to do so.

Most airlines still teach maintain pitch angle, add power, recoveries with swept wing jets.

If it were up to me, I'd require angle of attack gauges in every single Part 25 aircraft and teach pilots how to use them. Frankly, I think AOA flying is more accurate and less prone to mistakes than using a speed card.

Hum... I guess I just dont remember that about the T-38... I remember the no spin .... i guess my memory is not what it was 23 years ago!! Thanks for the reminder..... I will pull some old books and take a look!!! Thanks man!!

I agree about the AOA gauages... the citations I flew recently all had the dial aoa and the fast slow indicator on the glare shield...just like in UPT...sadly few of the guys at my company really knew how to use them.... I used the fast slow indicator all the time while flying visuals....

I would disagree with that statement. We have too many pilots with no aerobatic experience whatsoever. I am not a military pilot but I do respect them a lot for the advantage they have over us in this field. There are too many airline/corporate pilots flying around and never been inverted once! I have also rarely seen a pilot recover properly with minimum loss of altitude from an unintentional stall when put into that situation! An Extra or other advanced aerobatic aircrafts is the next best thing after the military. A sim is not designed for a pilot to learn an upset. No aerodynamic data were taken in the first place to make it valid in a sim.

Just goes to show you how strong Boeing used to built airplanes.

We had a 141 that had a rudder or yaw problem...aircraft rolled inverted, went supersonic in the dive, crew pulled out at 12000.

Almost anything will spin
 

I saw a documentary recently describing how AFFTC was able to make the F-16 spin -- they used ballast to give it an aft C.G. Of course, they still had flight controls, and a spin chute (which didn't have to be used).

That's the problem with the zero-to-hero wonder crowd, they weren't flight instructors long enough for their students to get them into those interesting unusual attitudes. I've been in over-the-top spin entries a few times, less now that I have more experience instructing. However, a recent one was approximately 120° bank right and increasing the clouds partial panel, after I gave the student a simulated PFD failure. We were well above and would have been well clear of the clouds had the student not wigged out. :rolleyes:

I think we're looking at a symptom and not a cause. If one stall/spins an aircraft into the ground then the stall/spin itself was just a symptom. The cause was a violation of rule number one: fly the airplane.

Were they heading out to sea, lol?

I was a test subject for this program last month. Great experience.

:: National Aerospace Training & Research (NASTAR) Center :: Upset Recovery Training

In UPT we did spins all the time, however, I don't see an airline putting their time and money into it. The Air Force thought on training doesn't revolve around profits like an airline. If it affects the bottom line then the airlines will invest in it.

The airlines don't seem to have a bottom line. Like the man said, "how low can you go?"

That WAS an experience. VERY COOL. :p
Plus $200.00 bucks cash to boot!!!
I was in a different class I think. Only three of us showed up. We were the 2 day one, with no wires attached.
Plus to get a tour of the Space launch sim was cool.

Five for my two days, from NWA, DL, CO, Spirit, FDX. Only died once.:)

"Died" twice. Over G'd once a day!!!!
My class was Expressjet,furloughed MidEx, and me Spirit/furloughed UAL.

It's my understanding that one gains experience by doing .
And as far as the pay factor goes that's another thread all unto itself.

Fred

I've flown with Bruce. It's a real blast and you get a video to show your friends.

My impression of NASTAR's upset recovery trainer was luke warm. The same bit of training could have been accomplished in a non motion simulator. I was the last to go and as a result was able to play with the g-load sim. After, spoke with the engineer, "What is the one thing that you see done incorrectly?" He states that in a nose up, rapidly decreasing speed, in a large catagory aircraft, you should roll 90 degrees and use rudder. Apparently most would just pitch down 'nose over' the airplane. After, I recall seeing a video during training of a test flight whereby the recovery of an 'approaching stall' was to roll the airplane on it's side and rudder the airplane to yaw about the verticle axis of the airplane, to allow the nose to 'slice through the horizon'. Anyone see this video? Just 'food for thought'.

I mean... isnt that what EVERYONE is taught in nose high unusual attitudes... I was both in civ and mil training. ROLL to the nearest horizon... let the nose drop TOO the horizon.....roll into level flight.... hum not rocket science.

:eek:OUCH!......I can't imagine how uncomfortable it would be to just nose it over from a nose high attitude! Even our emergency dive recovery is an unloaded roll to less than 90 degs of bank and then a loaded roll to continue the recovery.
I agree with the previous post that mentioned AOA gauges in the aircraft and precise flying. AOA is the key factor in flying - including OCF recovery. Another friend of mine mentioned that they have indexers in the type of corporate jet that he flies but most pilots don't use them.

USMCFLYR

MAX, RELAX & ROLL!

For reference to the discussion, selected excerpts from the Boeing manual on stalling a 757/767 and using the rudders.

Note, the manual says this about approach to stall and stall recovery: The following discussion and maneuvers are for an approach to a stall as opposed to a fully developed stall. An approach to a stall is a controlled flight maneuver; a stall is an out-of-control, but recoverable, condition. I included the full stall recovery below as well.

Approach to Stall: (different procedure then full stall)
Approach to stalls are entered with thrust set appropriate for an airspeed decrease of 1 knot per second. During the initial stages of a stall, local airflow separation results in initial buffet giving natural warning of an approach to stall. A stall warning is considered to be any warning readily identifiable by the pilot, either artificial (stick shaker) or initial buffet. Recovery from an approach to stall is initiated at the earliest recognizable stall warning, initial buffet or stick shaker.

Lateral and Directional Control
Lateral control is maintained with ailerons. Rudder control should not be used because it causes yaw and the resultant roll is undesirable.

Approach to Stall Recovery with Ground Contact Not a Factor
At the first indication of stall (buffet or stick shaker) smoothly apply maximum thrust, smoothly decrease the pitch attitude to approximately 5° above the horizon and level the wings. As the engines accelerate, counteract the nose up pitch tendency with positive forward control column pressure and nose down trim. (At altitudes above 20,000 feet, pitch attitudes of less than 5° may be necessary to achieve acceptable acceleration.) Accelerate to maneuvering speed and stop the rate of descent. Correct back to the
target altitude.

Approach to Stall Recovery with Ground Contact a Factor
At the first indication of stall (buffet or stick-shaker) smoothly advance the thrust levers to maximum thrust and adjust the pitch attitude as necessary to avoid the ground. Simultaneously level the wings. Control pitch as smoothly as possible. As the engines accelerate the airplane nose will pitch up. To assist in pitch control, add more nose down trim as the thrust increases. Avoid abrupt control inputs that may induce a secondary stall. Use intermittent stick shaker as the upper limit for pitch attitude for recovery when ground contact is a factor.

Full Stall Recovery
To recover from a stall, angle of attack must be reduced below the stalling angle. Nose down pitch control must be applied and maintained until the wings are unstalled. Application of forward control column (as much as full forward may be required) and the use of some nose-down stabilizer trim should provide sufficient elevator control to produce a nose-down pitch rate. It may be difficult to know how much stabilizer trim to use, and care must be taken to avoid using too much trim. Pilots should not fly the airplane using stabilizer trim, and should stop trimming nose down when they feel the g force on the airplane lessen or the required elevator force lessen.

Under certain conditions, on airplanes with underwing-mounted engines, it may be necessary to reduce thrust in order to prevent the angle of attack from continuing to increase. Once the wing is unstalled, upset recovery actions may be taken and thrust reapplied as necessary.

If normal pitch control inputs do not stop an increasing pitch rate in a nose high situation, rolling the airplane to a bank angle that starts the nose down may be effective. Bank angles of about 45°, up to a maximum of 60°, could be needed. Normal roll controls - up to full deflection of ailerons and spoilers - may be used.

Unloading the wing by maintaining continuous nose-down elevator pressure
keeps the wing angle of attack as low as possible, making the normal roll controls as effective as possible.

Finally, if normal pitch control then roll control is ineffective, careful rudder input in the direction of the desired roll may be required to initiate a rolling maneuver recovery.

WARNING: Only a small amount of rudder is needed. Too much rudder applied too quickly or held too long may result in loss of lateral and directional control or structural failure.

The following excerpts were cut and pasted from the Boeing 757/767 manual. Forgot to Bid is not responsible for providing accurate cut and paste information and the informaiton provided should only be used as reference. Forgot to Bid is not responsible for ensuring you know the correct stall recovery technique with ground contact a or not a factor, nor is he responsible for the reason you got into the stall or why you messed up your PBS bid or didn't bid at all. He is also not responsible for the collapse of Lehman Brothers. Not is he responsible for most of the pictures of Miss California but he may be responsible for the compromising pictures of Megan Fox.

Well that is quite a lengthy procedure for spin recovery. The truth about spinning in a 172, no action is required other than just letting go of the controls. Unless you practice spin technique in the airplane you PIC, then little is to be learned.