mooney

Here is the way we now teach it at Pinnacle in the crj. And all our sim instructors/PCA's had to go through a new 3-4 hour stall class when the AC came out.


3 different scenarios.

1.Takeoff stall climbing turn takeoff flaps set gear up autopilot on.
2. Clean high altitude stall AP on
3. Full dirty approach to landing stall with or without the AP.

At all cases it is recover at the shaker, which happens before AP disconnect. We stress Max Thrust, spoilers in, level the wings to zero bank, and most importantly reduce AOA. We stress there is NO PENALTY for altitude loss. Loose as much as you need to to regain airspeed and prevent a secondary shaker/stall on recovery. However some guys still feel the need to "impress" you by refusing to loose altitude (the same guys that complain that the old way of FAA stall recovery was BS). Usually by their 5th do over they learn I'm not impressed.

Std Deviation

Why would you not trade the altitude and be absolutely certain you can break the stall rather than dance on the verge of the mush by holding alt! If you look at the accident record, in almost all cases the accident crew had altitude they could trade for a certain recovery.

mooney

there's always that 1% that think they know better than the rest of us, and it hasn't happened to them...yet
Or that just like to push the buttons of someone in authority to see what they can get away with.

xjtguy

For YEARS it was that way.

As far as the bold goes, I've made this point with you on the the SAME topic elsewhere. The standard area departure, usually followed by a steep turn is/was enough of the BAW demonstration. Never mind the V1 cuts/SE approaches that come later in a PC. As it relates to the V1 cuts/SE approaches, something that's ACTUALLY real world and a pilot may ACTUALLY see. NOT intentionally setting a plane up for a stall.

All the stall entries and their completely overemphasized/misdirected entry did was to stress out the pilot on the PC it seemed.

Because all too often in the debrief if you didn't do it right, it would go something like this;

"Well, you're stall was OK, but you're entry was bad, and that's why you blah blah blah......."

Really? Seriously? If you gained 120 ft in the recovery, that's BAD? If you lost 120 ft BEFORE the shaker, but airspeed and and control was regained, that's BAD?

Amazing what it took for what's REALLY important as it relates to stalls to FINALLY be taught/demonstrated.

tomgoodman

This reminds me of the old "Dutch Roll" recovery procedure we had to demonstrate in the sim. After flailing around, getting out of phase and making it worse, and finally doing it semi-correctly, we would be told: "OK, now here's how you should really recover." The IP would extend a couple inches of speed brakes, and the Dutch Roll immediately stopped.

fjetter

Just finished an initial at HBC FSI earlier in the month. They taught the clean and takeoff entry as hand flown (flight director optional). This was largely to help gain more confidence and comfort with the plane's controllablity. The landing stall was taught with AP on and fully configured to the shaker, causes the AP to dump at this point, then recover.

Emphasis in the recovery was on positive aircraft control. Breaking the stall by lowering the AOA was one of the most important aspects of this. Then proper power and clean-up procedures based on the aircraft's speed. They viewed minimal altitude loss flexible as long as excess altitude loss doesn't occur, ie it shouldn't take you 2000'+ to recover from a planned stall.

Senior Skipper

It's unfortunate that years after Colgan, some training departments still don't know how to recover from a stall.