If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"Chris OCallaghan" wrote in message m... I have always entered spins through a misapplication of the controls. Various models differ in the amount of misuse they'll tolerate. For example, a Lark IS-28 will spin if you stick your hand out the clear view in a left turning stall (only a slight exageration). I must mildly object to this general characterization of the Lark, although it's possible that they vary considerably from one IS28 to another. I have never flown one that behaves as you describe. The IS28B2 that I just sold (SN 102) behaved more or less as you described the behavior of the Ventus 2bx. As such, I think of the Lark as a wonderful advanced trainer for pilots making the transition to glass. My time in the Lark made my first Nimbus flights very comfortable. Bill Daniels |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Chris OCallaghan wrote:
... I have always entered spins through a misapplication of the controls. Various models differ in the amount of misuse they'll tolerate. For example, a Lark IS-28 will spin if you stick your hand out the clear view in a left turning stall (only a slight exageration). The Grob 103 has only a very small spin entry window -- to the point that most pilots don't have the patience to find it and thus pronounce it unspinnable. And yet, once in the spin, the 103 is perhaps the most interesting. (The SGS 1-26E is, in my opinion, the ultimate spin training platform. Easy entry (big ailerons), easy recovery (just let go), and a very stable spinning motion that lets you get used to attitude and rotation rate. Only disadvantage is that you'll be teaching yourself. Start high.) ... During my recent instructor course (last September) I had some spin training in a PW6 (no other glider allowed to spin was available). I found it very easy to enter as well as to recover the spin. After that the (meta) instructor said "I guess that even if you release all controls, it will recover", so we tried it and it recovered, then I said "But we had the trim set for flight at max L/D, I guess that with full aft trim it does not self recover", we tried it and it did not self recover. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
OK, I agree with what you say and I suspect that if
the glider departed at 300ft I would be straight into recovery as well. I suppose the point I am trying to make is that departure from flight with insufficient distance between the glider and the ground is going to hurt whatever we do. We spend an awful lot of time teaching spin recovery, and rightly so. We seem to me, to spend less time emphasising the signs and symtons of approaching stalls/spins and this I feel needs to be put right. The cpncentration on keeping balanced flight when near the ground indicates that the problem has been thought about and recognised. How many glider pilots have thought that deeply and really understand that lighting fast recovery techniques will not help when close to the ground? How many are able to recognise the onset of disaster and take recovery action before it happens? The people who have been posting on this thread almost certainly have but what of the silent ones? The final turn stall/spin claims many every year. Are we really approaching the problem in the right way? As an aside it is not just glider pilots who get it wrong. I recall reading an accident report of an airliner which had taken off from Heathrow back in the 60's or 70's. The aircraft stalled at about 3000ft and hit the ground in a stalled condition. There were 3 qualified ATPL pilots in the cockpit, two of them qualified as captain on type. None of them it would appear recognised that the airplane was stalled. What chance have we mere mortals got if the gods get it wrong? At 15:06 13 November 2003, Chris Ocallaghan wrote: Don, I underestand completely your concerns. It's a subject that's troubled me for a long time, and I seem prone to flip flopping. The problem isn't so much a question of energy... you'll have less in the spin than in the ensuing dive after recovery (both of which are nose down), but having a 'procedure' that you can apply without thinking. When close to the ground, you simply don't have time to observe and react to more than a few inputs. For example, if I were to cross-control the aircraft into a stall below 300 feet, if I were over trees, I might just lock up the controls, close my eyes, and get ready for the hurt. But to do this I would have to overcome my rote training... that is, if I sense a departure, I recover immediately. I'm not sure that type of switch would be valuable. The lesson I've taken away from this discussion is that in the pattern, the yaw string stays bolt straight. An unexpected stall can be handled if the aircraft is coordinated. If not, the bottom falls out quickly. If you accept as axiomatic that a stall can happen at any speed and at any attitude, then I have to place priority on coordination fist, airspeed second, though both are clearly primary concerns in the pattern. It is a virtue, or perhaps a nuissance, of our sport, that when near the ground, the envelope narrows significantly. Between 1000 agl and 10 agl is like climbing solo. Falling is not an option, and we need to attune ourselves to that. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Don Johnstone wrote:
OK, I agree with what you say and I suspect that if the glider departed at 300ft I would be straight into recovery as well. I suppose the point I am trying to make is that departure from flight with insufficient distance between the glider and the ground is going to hurt whatever we do. We spend an awful lot of time teaching spin recovery, and rightly so. We seem to me, to spend less time emphasising the signs and symtons of approaching stalls/spins and this I feel needs to be put right. The cpncentration on keeping balanced flight when near the ground indicates that the problem has been thought about and recognised. How many glider pilots have thought that deeply and really understand that lighting fast recovery techniques will not help when close to the ground? How many are able to recognise the onset of disaster and take recovery action before it happens? The people who have been posting on this thread almost certainly have but what of the silent ones? The final turn stall/spin claims many every year. Are we really approaching the problem in the right way? As an aside it is not just glider pilots who get it wrong. I recall reading an accident report of an airliner which had taken off from Heathrow back in the 60's or 70's. The aircraft stalled at about 3000ft and hit the ground in a stalled condition. There were 3 qualified ATPL pilots in the cockpit, two of them qualified as captain on type. None of them it would appear recognised that the airplane was stalled. What chance have we mere mortals got if the gods get it wrong? I completely agree on the point that training should more focus on early detection and correction of incipient stall/spin than on recovery of fully developed ones. As my previous favorite sport was windsurfing, I developed a feeling for recognizing this situation, because in this case, if you don't react immediately, you can't avoid falling in water on the upwind side. I had a discussion with a German pilot who did the same and feels the same thing. Anyway, each time before I turn to final, I recite in my mind: "Watch your speed and symmetry, here is the place where people kill themselves", and I think I am going to say the same thing to my students. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
When a stall/spin happens or nearly happens, it is only if the pilot has the
correct reflexes that the stall is prevented, or recovery is made with minimum loss of height. But it is less likely to go wrong if there is also good understanding. There are three dangers from a stall/spin: 1. You hit something before recovery to normal flight. 2. You overstress the glider before recovery to normal flight. 3. After recovery you are not able to make a normal landing, because of the height you have lost, or the direction you are now pointing. It is essential to judge all these circumstances to know when a stall/spin must not be risked. There are four stages of an inadvertent stall/spin. 1. Avoid altogether. 2. Recognise that a stall/spin is close. 3. Recognise that the glider has stalled / is starting to spin. 4. Recover. Too many people think that to avoid a stall/spin altogether what you need is to be expert and quick at recognising that you are nearly stalled. The real problem is that the glider can depart into a steep stall/spin without any prior warning so far as the pilot is concerned; this is not because the pilot failed to notice symptoms that the stall was close, but because there weren't any. This is more likely to happen to a type known to readily spin (Puchacz, IS28) but it can happen to any type (K21, Discus). What matters is the angle of attack: a. Angle of attack higher than the critical angle, you are stalled and likely to have lateral instability (spin entry). b. Angle of attack at the critical angle, you are stalling. c. Angle of attack below the critical angle but close, you are at risk from stalling in any gust wind gradient or shear, or due to inaccurate flying. If speed is low you are more likely to stall other things being equal, but it is possible to stall at high speed, and possible to be at a very low speed and not be stalled; what is critical is the angle of attack and not the speed. Inaccurate flying of itself will only stall you if you are already at a high angle of attack, nearly stalled; the inaccuracy may tip you into the stall, and the actual departure may be more violent and more complete. At a low angle of attack whatever you do with ailerons and rudder will not stall you (but it may cause a lot of extra drag, which may lead to a higher angle of attack). Inaccurate flying makes it more difficult to hold the desired angle of attack, and to know if the angle of attack is increasing because it disguises symptoms of high angle of attack. It will also increase drag perhaps when you do not want any unnecessary loss of energy. To avoid stalling keep the angle of attack well below the stalling angle. How? If you want to increase the angle of attack, you move the stick back (and the elevator up). If you want to reduce the angle of attack, you move the stick forward (and the elevator down), this is why the recovery from a stall or from nearly stalled always includes moving the stick forward. If you are moving the stick back you are calling for a higher angle of attack, whatever you reason for moving it back. If you are moving the stick forward you are calling for a lower angle of attack, again whatever your reason for moving it forward. Therefore to be sure of avoiding an inadvertent stall/spin, part of our flying must include monitoring stick movement and position. This is more important than monitoring speed and change of speed (which is also essential). W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.). Remove "ic" to reply. "Don Johnstone" wrote in message ... snip We spend an awful lot of time teaching spin recovery, and rightly so. We seem to me, to spend less time emphasising the signs and symptoms of approaching stalls/spins and this I feel needs to be put right. The concentration on keeping balanced flight when near the ground indicates that the problem has been thought about and recognised. How many glider pilots have thought that deeply and really understand that lighting fast recovery techniques will not help when close to the ground? How many are able to recognise the onset of disaster and take recovery action before it happens? The people who have been posting on this thread almost certainly have but what of the silent ones? The final turn stall/spin claims many every year. Are we really approaching the problem in the right way? snip |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
The final turn stall/spin claims many every year. Are
we really approaching the problem in the right way? As an aside it is not just glider pilots who get it wrong. I recall reading an accident report of an airliner which had taken off from Heathrow back in the 60's or 70's. The aircraft stalled at about 3000ft and hit the ground in a stalled condition. There were 3 qualified ATPL pilots in the cockpit, two of them qualified as captain on type. None of them it would appear recognised that the airplane was stalled. What chance have we mere mortals got if the gods get it wrong? Its something to with having 3 pilots. Too many cooks... But if you are referring to the accident I think you are, didn't the enquiry find that the two younger pilots were terrified of saying anything to the very senior captain, who was probably having a heart attack at the time? At least we don't get that in gliders, thank goodness. -- Mike Lindsay |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
If anyone wishes to read the full account of the investigation into this
accident (Trident 1 G-ARPI near Staines on 18th June 1972), it is now available on-line. BGA Website, Info for Clubs & Members, Safety, Links - http://www.gliding.co.uk/bgainfo/safety/links.htm . Air Accidents Investigation branch (AAIB) - http://www.aaib.gov.uk/ , Formal reports, Full reports, a.. No:4/73 - Trident I, G-ARPI, near Staines http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/group...cst?n=5250&l=4 . W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.). Remove "ic" to reply. "Mike Lindsay" wrote in message ... The final turn stall/spin claims many every year. Are we really approaching the problem in the right way? As an aside it is not just glider pilots who get it wrong. I recall reading an accident report of an airliner which had taken off from Heathrow back in the 60's or 70's. The aircraft stalled at about 3000ft and hit the ground in a stalled condition. There were 3 qualified ATPL pilots in the cockpit, two of them qualified as captain on type. None of them it would appear recognised that the airplane was stalled. What chance have we mere mortals got if the gods get it wrong? Its something to with having 3 pilots. Too many cooks... But if you are referring to the accident I think you are, didn't the enquiry find that the two younger pilots were terrified of saying anything to the very senior captain, who was probably having a heart attack at the time? At least we don't get that in gliders, thank goodness. Mike Lindsay |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
In this particular case, they all recognised the airliner was stalled. The
airliner was a Trident, with a 'T'-tail configuration. This particular design (Ibeleiev in common with other T-tail designs) was able to get into a stabe deep-stall configration where the nose rises so high that the elevators descend into the wing wake and no longer have the authority to lower the nose and the aircarft just pancakes down. Give enough height, I think it is is possible to use the undercarriage and flaps to create enough drag to correct the situation. These poor people didn't have the height required. "Mike Lindsay" wrote in message ... The final turn stall/spin claims many every year. Are we really approaching the problem in the right way? As an aside it is not just glider pilots who get it wrong. I recall reading an accident report of an airliner which had taken off from Heathrow back in the 60's or 70's. The aircraft stalled at about 3000ft and hit the ground in a stalled condition. There were 3 qualified ATPL pilots in the cockpit, two of them qualified as captain on type. None of them it would appear recognised that the airplane was stalled. What chance have we mere mortals got if the gods get it wrong? Its something to with having 3 pilots. Too many cooks... But if you are referring to the accident I think you are, didn't the enquiry find that the two younger pilots were terrified of saying anything to the very senior captain, who was probably having a heart attack at the time? At least we don't get that in gliders, thank goodness. -- Mike Lindsay |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
"Don Johnstone" wrote in message ... the ground in a stalled condition. There were 3 qualified ATPL pilots in the cockpit, two of them qualified as captain on type. None of them it would appear recognised that the airplane was stalled. What chance have we mere mortals got if the gods get it wrong? No need to put ATPL's on a pedestal. At one of our club meetings, we had a speaker whose business is teaching unusual attitude recovery to ATPLs. To get his presentation going he gave us a number of scenarios and asked how we'd respond. After giving us half a dozen of these and having the group respond in unison with the right answer to each of them, he said "you know more about this subject than any group of airline pilots I've ever trained". Most of us glider pilots have a gut reaction in bad situations to unload the wings first. Many professional pilots apparently don't. That said, I don't mean to congratulate us all into any reduction in stall avoidance and recovery training. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Simon,
Your explanation sounds plausible but bears no relation to the accident investigation report. As far as I know, the nose never got high - they would have realised this, but it did get into the wrong configuration. They could have recovered if they had (a) realised the droop was retracted and put it down again, (b) let the system do it's job (stick shaker warned them and stick push tried to correct it but they dumped it) or (c) initiated a normal stall recovery - lower the nose - gain speed. They were too slow at every stage of the flight and somehow got into the wrong configuration, all of which was 'probably' due to the Captain's partial incapacity due to a heart attack and the crew not realising the Captain's problem. I suspect you were recalling a different incident in a similar aircraft? Rob At 16:06 16 November 2003, Simon Waddell wrote: In this particular case, they all recognised the airliner was stalled. The airliner was a Trident, with a 'T'-tail configuration. This particular design (Ibeleiev in common with other T-tail designs) was able to get into a stabe deep-stall configration where the nose rises so high that the elevators descend into the wing wake and no longer have the authority to lower the nose and the aircarft just pancakes down. Give enough height, I think it is is possible to use the undercarriage and flaps to create enough drag to correct the situation. These poor people didn't have the height required. 'Mike Lindsay' wrote in message ... The final turn stall/spin claims many every year. Are we really approaching the problem in the right way? As an aside it is not just glider pilots who get it wrong. I recall reading an accident report of an airliner which had taken off from Heathrow back in the 60's or 70's. The aircraft stalled at about 3000ft and hit the ground in a stalled condition. There were 3 qualified ATPL pilots in the cockpit, two of them qualified as captain on type. None of them it would appear recognised that the airplane was stalled. What chance have we mere mortals got if the gods get it wrong? Its something to with having 3 pilots. Too many cooks... But if you are referring to the accident I think you are, didn't the enquiry find that the two younger pilots were terrified of saying anything to the very senior captain, who was probably having a heart attack at the time? At least we don't get that in gliders, thank goodness. -- Mike Lindsay |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
Parachute fails to save SR-22 | Capt.Doug | Piloting | 72 | February 10th 05 05:14 AM |
Thanks for the Spins Rich | David B. Cole | Aerobatics | 17 | October 26th 03 08:37 AM |
Cessna 150 Price Outlook | Charles Talleyrand | Owning | 80 | October 16th 03 02:18 PM |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Piloting | 25 | September 11th 03 01:27 PM |