1500 rule, zero 121 accidents so far
#71
It was my opinion and still is what we trained for at Colgan was recovery from slow flight rather than a recovery from a stall. We slowed, got behind the power curve, and powered out of it with some reduction in AOA. It certainly wasn't what I as a CFI taught a student flying a 152 or a King Air to do when faced with an actual stall.
There were a number of dominoes that fell that night. His actions were the last.
Marvin was one of the nicest guys you could hope to meet.
I am not defending or judging. I just miss my friend.
There were a number of dominoes that fell that night. His actions were the last.
Marvin was one of the nicest guys you could hope to meet.
I am not defending or judging. I just miss my friend.
#72
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2005
Posts: 8,898
I'm sorry I disagree with you. Perhaps you were taught that way but if you were you were taught wrong. You never yanked back on the yoke because doing so only worsened your situation. It was more of a "hold" the yoke keeping the nose up maintaining level flight while the power increase allowed for you to accelerate out or away from the stall.
The old standard wasn't unsafe, it didn't teach pilots that all they have to do is release back pressure, accelerate and you'll live another day. Had either procedure been performed that night, they would be alive. Yanking back on the yoke wasn't taught or shouldn't have been and pulling back during the stall is precisely what killed them. Raising the flaps only doomed any chance or a recovery.
The old standard wasn't unsafe, it didn't teach pilots that all they have to do is release back pressure, accelerate and you'll live another day. Had either procedure been performed that night, they would be alive. Yanking back on the yoke wasn't taught or shouldn't have been and pulling back during the stall is precisely what killed them. Raising the flaps only doomed any chance or a recovery.
It doesn't matter if you're 2,300 ft outside Buffalo or above FL350 over the Atlantic. Once the airplane approaches stall or is stalled, there is really only one viable option left. Personally I wish in many instances, instead of "fly the plane" it should be taught as "fly the wing." There are too many instances of pilots pulling back and increasing their AOA when it wasn't the appropriate - or even necessary - response to what was happening.
#73
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2005
Posts: 8,898
Students are taught from their earliest primary training that maneuvering speed represents a value at which the aircraft or flight surface or control will stall prior to imposing a critical load.
Accordingly, the pilot who made rudder inputs to counter a wake turbulence encounter did not expect to break the airplane.
#74
Yes, but I'm not I'd feel comfortable making that statement for full-reversal-continuous inputs (eg, full left, full right, full left, full right). And yes the control surface should stall, but would you not agree that mostly implies to airfoils directly facing the relative wind almost directly head on? Eg, ailerons, flaps, elevator, horizontal stabilizer. The rudder is deflected into the wind but hard to imagine a scenario in which the rudder itself would stall below 250 knots. As long as the chord line of the rudder and relative wind reach a certain angle, it should stall, but again I don't see how that applies for the rudder. The rudder induces a large side load - severe in the case of AA 587 with full left/right/left/right inputs. Even if the control surface stalls, how are you preventing the large side loads?
Who knows what he expected. American's AAMP did not teach rudder usage in this scenario, especially climbing away from the airport. Using full rudder to correct for wake turbulence is bad juju. All it's really going to accomplish is subject the aircraft to large side loading. From the NTSB report, prior pilots were interviewed who also made comments on how quick he was on the rudders when it came to wake turbulence, and in one case it was bad enough of a sideways movement that the 727 CA thought they may have lost an engine.
Who knows what he expected. American's AAMP did not teach rudder usage in this scenario, especially climbing away from the airport. Using full rudder to correct for wake turbulence is bad juju. All it's really going to accomplish is subject the aircraft to large side loading. From the NTSB report, prior pilots were interviewed who also made comments on how quick he was on the rudders when it came to wake turbulence, and in one case it was bad enough of a sideways movement that the 727 CA thought they may have lost an engine.
You're not preventing the side loads. The side loading or the relative wind smashing into the deflected tail along with the new rudder position creating a load in the same direction is what causes failure.
Using rudder during wake turbulence is not "bad juju." It is about HOW you use the rudder. I don't believe Boeing or Airbus ever said not to use the rudder during a wake turbulence encounter in their notices to operators following AA587. I believe they said not to use alternating inputs.
#75
Ich bin Pilot von Beruf
Joined APC: Aug 2016
Position: CRJ Kapitän
Posts: 616
#76
To me the scariest part of this thread is the apparent inconsistency on stall recovery/training/opinions from several posters of whom many are very high time and experienced pilots. I really hope all can find a way to get on the same page.
#77
Y
Using rudder during wake turbulence is not "bad juju." It is about HOW you use the rudder. I don't believe Boeing or Airbus ever said not to use the rudder during a wake turbulence encounter in their notices to operators following AA587. I believe they said not to use alternating inputs.
Using rudder during wake turbulence is not "bad juju." It is about HOW you use the rudder. I don't believe Boeing or Airbus ever said not to use the rudder during a wake turbulence encounter in their notices to operators following AA587. I believe they said not to use alternating inputs.
The certification criteria required that you could apply and hold full rudder deflection (rudder limiters are often needed at higher IAS). It did not require that you could bounce back and forth between the stops with the tail swinging opposite your inputs. Airbus apparently designed to the certification criteria.
#79
China Visa Applicant
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Midfield downwind
Posts: 1,919
2. There are many techniques that may all achieve the central objective; one being correct does not require all of the other techniques to be incorrect.
3. Tacos.
#80
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post