Aviation is big on organization and planning. Check list organization and planning to the point of knowing everything about a proposed flight is mandated. Why then do we teach recovery from loss of directional control and recovery from inadvertent stall rather than prevention techniques? Why do we treat symptoms rather than vaccinate?

When the Stearman was a basic trainer in the Army Air Force, one without wings was used to orient cadets to and teach prevention of ground loop and other directional control problems. Cadets learned to use dynamic proactive rudder movement rather than non-existent aileron movement to bracket the centerline to keep the thing going straight. Gyroscopic precession, from pushing the stick forward to bring the tail up quickly, was prevented by bracketing the centerline with dynamic proactive rudder movement. Torque yaw left was prevented by bracketing the centerline with dynamic proactive rudder movement. Later, with wings attached, dynamic proactive rudder movement prevented P factor from yawing the nose left as the nose was pitched up to lift off. No need to fix things after they had already happened. Dynamic proactive rudder movement allowed rapid transition to solo.

Energy management in gunnery, both against air and ground targets, was taught. This was both to gain maximum energy and to prevent stall in steep turns to target. Stall recovery techniques, taught as resolution to the pilot stalling the airplane, resulted in recovery at altitude. It was an attractive nuisance at pattern altitude. In aerial combat, recovery training was useless as well. The stalled airplane was easily shot down. Prevention of stall involved the law of the roller coaster. Zoom up wings level and then allow the nose to go down naturally in all turns.

In cruise, rudder movement to bracket the target prevents adverse yaw disruptions from aileron usage. Aileron aggravates gust disruption. Coordination? No! Turning, coordinated or not, cannot maintain perfect direction to the target. Only the anti-turn control can do that. We certainly don't turn while engaging a ground target. We use the anti-turn control to bracket the target between our toes. Between the legs here is just too sloppy.

No, we humans will not always think of, or have the muscle memory to prevent, upsets and loss of effective control. Steering wheel muscle memory has to be extinguished with a thousand iterations of rudder only movement to direct our course and level the wing. Pulling back on the stick in all turns is unsafe and should be extinguished. Yes, we have to learn the recovery techniques. However, as instructors, we should teach prevention techniques as well.

Aviation is big on organization and planning. The problem with the orientation of Practical Test Standards, now Airmen Certification Standards, is that control usage is limited so as not to have to fully examine, practice, and explain how to use the controls most efficiently. This oversight was deemed acceptable in the interest of integration of instrument flying skills with contact flying skills. We thereby lost a lot of contact flying skills. More loss of control accidents are a result. We really don't understand directing our course to the target straight and level and how to turn without loading the wing more than 1g. Actually learning how to use the controls effectively to do those two things will reduce loss of control fatalities.

Instructors, help prevent stall and loss of control fatalities. Move the controls to see what they do best and then teach that. Where the airplane is designed to prevent stall with dynamic neutral stability, teach pilots to pay attention to what the airplane wants to do. Require zoom reserve airspeed before any pitch up and require pitch up to be wings level. On short final, use your thumb to jam the stick or yoke from being used as a steering wheel. In light to moderate turbulence, make the pilot remove her/his hands from the yoke. If the nose, butt in a crosswind, is directed to the target with rudder only; the wing is automatically level. Teach energy management, the law of the roller coaster, rather than altitude maintenance in unstable air. Average altitude maintenance, actually net gain, is more likely accomplished that way. Again, what does the airplane want to do?

There is nothing inherently wrong with flying by reference to instruments. That totally different orientation can be taught later. Until we have full auto-pilot with auto-throttle and Category III capability, contact flying is required for most takeoff and landing.

We instructors, and other teachers, ride with lots of wing waggers and few tail waggers. In the videos, so prevalent today, watch the yoke. Is it constantly moving slightly one way and then slightly the other way. This wing wagging is not helpful even if this is very coordinated small Dutch rolls. It is not helpful in the pilot's attempt to direct his course to a target no wind, in a crab, or in a side slip. Allowing the nose to wander and then using turns to resolve the problem can never resolve the problem. Rudder is the anti-turn control that most effectively directs our course to a target. 1g energy management turns, even very steep ones, make fewer people sick than does constant aileron movement in an inefficient effort to keep the wings level. We aren't shooting rockets, but anyone who ever has knows that we do not bank to bracket the target. Dynamic proactive rudder (or anti-torque pedal) movement to prevent turn (bracket target) (anti-turn) is the only technique that works. Tail waggers will cruise more efficiently, either to bracket the target or to bracket a short vertical line on the DG, than will wing waggers. Tail waggers will stay aligned with the centerline extended and centerline. Wing waggers will never be aligned with the centerline extended and centerline.. Wing waggers are constantly turning. Tail waggers are constantly yawing to bracket the target and keep the wing level (anti-turn.)

Instructors, move the controls to see what they do. And then do and teach that.

Thanks Jimmy !

I've been a member of AOPA since 1964. I got tired of old magazines laying around so went digital on the AOPA Pilot magazine. I occasionally read an article when they email me that the latest issue is up and there is a link. Otherwise I can't find the magazine on my computer.

Anyway, I read the Barry Schief safety article in the latest issue. It was January issue I think. He has evidently been listening to Jaun Browne and Dan Gryder about AQP and DMMS. He admitted that stall practice at altitude does not prepare pilots for inadvertent stall in the pattern and that, yes, stall has been practiced like an aerobatic maneuver rather than a creeping airspeed dissipation problem. He mentioned using simulators to get a feel for ground rush.

In the videos of fatal stalls in the pattern I have viewed, and in accident reports, ground rush does not cause the initial stall. It may cause a secondary stall, but I haven't seen that. Pulling back on the stick needs to be associated with zoom up wings level to start the roller coaster energy management turn and releasing that back pressure should be associated with airspeed dissipation and beginning to turn. Release back pressure in the turn, don't increase back pressure in the turn. Ground rush can be taught in low altitude energy management turns safely. Crop dusting training and aerial gunnery training both teach about graveyard spiral (started pull up before wings level) and Vne and target fixation and ground rush and how to manage the pull up wings level. How to prepare to recover from inadvertent stall should be taught with the very slow pitch up that gets the student to thinking it will not stall...and then it does. Just as important in a short winged airplane like the Ercoupe or Cherokee, that student needs to recognize how far down the VSI has gone, how fast we are mushing down, while still flying. Talk about ground rush if we finish a crop duster turn to the next swath run like that. No, not stalled. Yes, we will hit the ground if we don't push forward on the stick.

Again, learning to fly is safer than learning how to recover from a high pitch up fast stall. Learn to manage roller coaster and not fall out of them. Learn to go down when the airplane says, "time to go down now." Learn that the airplane will not necessarily climb, but it will alway fly given it's head. What if Bowing had let the pilot turn the computer off and let the airplane do what good designers design the airplane to do. I don't mind CATIII as a passenger and letting computers do what they do best, but I think the pilot should always have a switch off and become PIC option. If we always pull back in the turn, eventually we will be too slow. We should always have the PIC option to organize and prevent stall. A lot of that is simply turning loose and letting the airplane do what well designed airplanes do.