I knew in my heart that this was crazy talk!!! I had never heard of this obsession with 50 feet of altitude until I got to the 121 world. I just shook my head and gave them what they wanted....

It is amazing that, with all that we have learned over so many years, we still have this kind of insanity being pushed and accepted. :mad:

Who the hell approaches to a stall anyway?

It is amazing how backwards a stall recovery in jet aircraft are taught. I'd think the only airplane where you could thrust your way out of a stall would be in a fighter jet!

This is why I think all pilots should also receive aerobatic training (as well as glider training). The very first thing that you are taught is that an airplane cannot stall at 0 G! Controlling pitch is everything.

Even in a fighter, unless it has waaaaayyy more thrust than weight (F-22; Flanker), you can't motor your way out.

Even if the Thrust to Weight ratio is greater than one, you still have to account for drag. Example: if you have a fighter with 20,000lbs of thrust, and it can do 650 indicated, then it stops accelerating, then at 650 kts, the drag is 20,000lbs.

That is a lot of drag.

I never really understood it in this case though... if the nose is pointed up, and you're going down that quickly, the AOA by simple geometry has to be extremely high. You are having massive airflow separation. Either you are in a deep stall, or the wings of the airplane are ripped off. Definitely not an overspeed situation in the airbus.

I remember as a kid reading about the X15 crash that ended the program. This guy was up at the edges of space, and if he lost heading, increased his angle of attack or increased yaw angle he would reenter thicker air in an aggravated stall, which is exactly what happened one time, and the guy never recovered and died. In his plane, however, getting laminar flow over the wings once in a deep stall/spin may have been impossible, and the airplane could stall at minimal AOA with its little stumpy wings.

Nevertheless, that vertical speed for that long, with nose up on the AI, can only mean very high AOA and deep stall.

+2 on the aerobatics training for everybody. Nice video of a flat spin, love the "snap" of the flow returning. Nose flat, going down fast.

Upright flat spin - Extra 300 - YouTube

I think what the guy were quoting was getting at was the asinine way that stall "recovery" is/was taught.

Get the shaker, max thrust, BARELY reduce AOA and motor your way out. Sometimes riding the shaker all the way till your speed increased. For the sim instructors that do it every day, it's like Hoss said, it's just a scan exercise. They can do the approach, the shaker, and the recovery without the altimeter even moving. Not sure about other airplanes, but the one I'm on it takes a very gentle/finger tip grip on the yoke to do it.

As opposed to what SHOULD be done. Lower the nose right away like is taught in primary training, even if it means an initial loss of altitude to recover airspeed.

Yes, I knew what mike was driving at. Airliners typically have about a 0.25-0.30 to 1 thrust to weight ratio. I was just highlighting that even at the ridiculous end of the T:W ratio scale (1:1 or 1.2:1), you still need to do the basics that you have stated above.

As Atlas said:

Part of the problem is the training scenarios are unrealistic. They should be practiced three ways:

1. Normal approach, distraction, inadvertantly get slow, and actually get in a stall. (Colgan 3407). Sim set-up would be so that when you come off-freeze, you are in the shaker.

2. Same as above, but engine-out!

3. Turbulence/upset/unusual attitude at high-altitude, low-speed, and trimmed very nose-up (ie, it would take considerable nose-down force to recover).