Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Colgan 3407 Update

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
If I have the basics correct (and I may be mistaken?)... I'm left scratching my head with the big, "What were they thinking?" Stalls and approach to stalls AND THEIR RECOVERIES!... (trying to be polite here)... are two of the MOST BASIC of all aviation concepts and maneuvers to fly.

The concepts are basic but perhaps the techniques taught and practiced are not the safest options.

The altitude standards for recovering from a stall for an ATP certificate are +/- 100'. The only reason I see to not lose more than 100' if you were to stall an aircraft by mistake in an operational setting (not training) is if you were 100' from the ground, a situation that is possible, though only happens typically twice per flight very briefly. Conversely, there will never be terrain above you so why does it matter if you recover within 100' above you stalled altitude.

What if we trained to lose 500' in a stall and climb to 1000' above the initial altitude? Seems like this is a more likely scenario outside of the training environment. We could still practice the old way (flying right at Critical AoA when we know the stall is coming), but we would be taught that it is acceptable to lose altitude when lowering the AoA. This maneuver requires much less precision and, frankly, much less skill, but a safe outcome would still be assured, maybe more so.

Thoughts...
 
I think you are onto something Drew. I think that by the time pilots are training/checking at PT 121 operators, stall recoveries are being treated as a proficiency maneuver, rather than as a potentially lifesaving semi-emergency. Nothing wrong with being proficient in recovering from an APPROACH to stall with minimal altitude loss, but it should not be at the expense of forgetting that a stall is a function of AofA and the last thing you want to be doing with stall indications is increasing AofA!

I'd say that the most dangerous stall from an altitude loss standpoint is the landing stall, with low energy and high drag needing immediate & full power application as well as minimal altitude loss. But, at 1500' AGL, losing a couple of hundred feet may cause loss of face, but probably not loss of life. So, yeah, for most situations minimizing the altitude loss should be a secondary concern.

My concern is that the way most of us train (glad to hear there are exceptions) seems likely to develop the habit of using backpressure on the controls in a stall recovery - see my earlier posts as to why I think this is.
 
Starting to sound like this one.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=DCA94MA027&rpt=fi

Autopilot leveled off from descent while throttles stayed untouched at idle.

That's easy to do if distracted, usually someone catches well before it becomes a problem though. The airplane I fly now has autothrottles; it drive me nuts when guys click them off in the descent to "save fuel" or because "they don't do what I want".

I asked one guy why he purposely gave away stall protection. He told me it wasn't stall protection...I proceeded to baby-sit.
 
What concerns me the most is that we have had two accidents since the start of this year where the crew allowed the airplane to get too slow and stall. Turkish Air, and now it seems the Colgan crash.

We wouldn't be discussing stall recovery if the crews on these flights were monitoring their aircraft's airspeed. As airplanes have gotten more technologically advance, this is what we are supposed to be doing... being systems manager. Seems to me like we need to do a better job of monitoring the airplane.
 
The article said something about a 25lb pull force applied to the yoke. Have they released anything on the where the power was during this event?
 
I find it humorous how some of you demonize reducing pitch at 1500 feet as some how dangerous. Swept wing, straight wing, T-prop, jet, big plane or training airplane, lower the pitch slightly gets the wing flying again. Trying to make the airplane maintain altitude like you were taught in the sim, or like you are on a type ride is not the most important thing unless you have VERY little terrain clearance.

As far as turning off the auto throttles, I have no problem with that. You are required to maintain proficiency in all levels of automation. There is only one way to do that. Whats next? Can't disengage the auto pilot because it increases the work load?

But yeah, you have to watch it more carefully. I guess my CRJ is completely unsafe because it has no auto throttles.
 
When we do our stall training at the first sign of a stall we push the nose down. This Captain pulled nose up in a low speed, low power, low altitude situation. Does not look like ice is going to be the cause of this accident.
What Airplane?
 
You guys keep talking about pushing or pulling... How about what ever it take to hold the desired attitude for recovery!
 

Latest resources

Back
Top