On a fb group there was a discussion started about the turn to final stall/spin. Apparently even cfi now can't understand simple aerodynamics. Bank angles having nothing to do with stalls it's all aoa one can make a 60 deg turn at 60 knots and not stall by making a 1 g turn the aoa stays the same as level flight at 60 kts you just find urself sinking quite a bit faster then normal. I think we need alot more whistle blowers like contact on this subject so pilots really can understand how to prevent stalls like this.

I am really disappointed that even a cfi couldn't understand how you can have a 60 bank and be at 60 knts and not be stalled.

Bank angle is preached quite a bit to students but what they fail to state is load increases with bank angle only if you are trying to maintain altitude. Let the nose fall and the load is reduced. No load, no increase in AOA. Some instructors fail to bring the second part of that home so students are stuck thinking that bank increases load all the time.

Then the student (or seasoned pilot) finds himself blown in too tight and over shoots the base to final turn. To correct, they need to turn tighter (more bank) but they fear the stall. So, they try to cheat by ruddering the plane in a flat uncoordinated turn. If they stall there, it's over.

I've been preaching about angle of attack indicators for the 6+ years I've had one. It shows graphically when the angle of attack is becoming critical. But even without it, the basic rule remains just as we were all taught in ground school: a wing can stall at any airspeed and any pitch angle. But it won't stall if its angle of attack between the wing's chord to the relative wind doesn't exceed that wing's critical angle. In most light planes, that critical angle is about 18 degrees, +/-. The real problem is that too many people, including some instructors, still equate stalls with airspeed and pitch angle.

Cary

I don't know if it was a factor in the misunderstanding you describe, but there is also a misconception that skidding in the turn to final will cause a stall/spin. Like you said, it depends on the angle of attack, g load, etc. With the nose well down in the descending turn or descending part of an energy management turn, wing over, or whatever, the stall/spin is not an issue. Too many instructors assume a level or near level turn. Descending turns and energy management turns are safe. Level turns can be dangerous, especially when skidded.

It is really, really hard to impress students how dangerous it is, when near the ground, to try to avoid allowing the nose to go down naturally in any turn. Energy management is simply cheating by trading too much speed for a little more altitude and then trading that potential gravity thrust of altitude for gravity thrust by allowing the nose to go down in the turn. Either way, the gravity thrust generates enough extra kinetic energy of pressure airspeed on the wing to make up for the extra g load and lift shifted to centrifugal force in the turn.

Two indoctrinations or beliefs have led to many accidents: We need to get up quickly and we need to stay level (stay up) when turning. When any stress (nose up, bank, reduction in thrust, etc.) affects and airplane, what does it want to do? It want to get its nose down to maintain the same relative wind/pressure airspeed on the wing. Listen to the airplane. It is designed to fly. Allow it to fly while doing whatever you need/want to do.

Pretty common problem, but does not make it any less frustrating for sure. A lot of people teaching today frankly never learned it in the first place. In fairness, it's probably not their fault. Sure, they can recite the reasoning for the test and the oral...but they never learned it in the plane. They may have done "stalls to the left, stalls to the right" but the point was never driven home for understanding via debrief.

Lastly, most instructors don't have the experience or the confidence to go let a student get out of shape in a stall at 60 degrees. Getting up at altitude and getting cross controlled and pulling with the stall horn blaring is not seen as valuable as spending hours beating the airplane senseless in the pattern and still wondering why their student "just can't figure out the flare to landing."

A guy that claimed to be a cfi maintained that no matter what a bank with increase the stall speed. How can I with less then a hundred hours know more about flying then a cfi? Now I can kind of understand why so many pilots like caps because they really don't understand how airplanes really fly

cstolaircraft wrote:How can I with less then a hundred hours know more about flying then a cfi?

You don't. But in this particular point of contention you may have him on semantics.

Zzz wrote:

cstolaircraft wrote:How can I with less then a hundred hours know more about flying then a cfi?

You don't. But in this particular point of contention you may have him on semantics.

Point well taken. It baffles me how someone could even fly with out understanding the basics of throttle= climb/decent and elevator airspeed/aoa

I am trying to visualize your scenario: holding 60 knots, at a 60 degree bank and maintaining 1 G (the same as in level flight), I would imagine your descent rate would have to be very very high, I think we need someone with an aerobat 150 to do this and give us a report.

As to your claim to know more about flying at 100 hours than a CFI...that is amusing at best, dangerous at worst. Proverbs 11:2

Headoutdaplane wrote:I am trying to visualize your scenario: holding 60 knots, at a 60 degree bank and maintaining 1 G (the same as in level flight), I would imagine your descent rate would have to be very very high, I think we need someone with an aerobat 150 to do this and give us a report.

As to your claim to know more about flying at 100 hours than a CFI...that is amusing at best, dangerous at worst. Proverbs 11:2

I think I understand the sentiment here though. My first instructor was a several thousand (3000?) hour Alaska Airline FO that was furloughed back in 2009. There were a great many things that she said and did which were directly contrary to what I had learned in ground school. Here I was as a 20 hour non-solo'd student and I was being told that I should never ever be slipping an aircraft. What do I do? My follow up instructor who finished my ticket had to unteach a lot of bad habits and wrong knowledge that she had put into me. Sometimes, not often, there are bad instructors that slip through.

Ok I think I need to explain what i meant by knowing more then a cfi. I understand about energy management and how a plane will behave at slow speeds and high bank angles at 1g and I am comfortable performing such maneuvers. This cfi on fb was 100% that it was impossible for a plane to fly in such a manner, said any turn without being coordinated is dangerous. Basically everything I had been taught and practiced during my primary was deadly.

Now I am quite sure this cfi knows way more then me about other areas of flying. But you can't tell me that the stall speed will change with bank with no increase of aoa.

Headoutdaplane wrote:I am trying to visualize your scenario: holding 60 knots, at a 60 degree bank and maintaining 1 G (the same as in level flight), I would imagine your descent rate would have to be very very high, I think we need someone with an aerobat 150 to do this and give us a report.

As to your claim to know more about flying at 100 hours than a CFI...that is amusing at best, dangerous at worst. Proverbs 11:2

I have done many turns in the 45-60 deg turns to final in a 170b. With full flaps your rate of turn is pretty quick with these angles and you aren't in the turn very long at all. I generally flew high tight finals all the time. Doing the steep turn allowed for a quick loss of altitude in the turn the vsi would show over -2000 fpm for a couple seconds the decent felt alot like slowing down to 60mph and full flaps then throwing in a full slip. Try it at altitude sometime.

"full flaps then throwing in a full slip."

I wouldn't slip the 170 with more than 20 degrees of flap. Lots of stuff on this.

daedaluscan wrote:"full flaps then throwing in a full slip."

I wouldn't slip the 170 with more than 20 degrees of flap. Lots of stuff on this.

i am aware of what is out there on the subject i was taught it was ok by my cfi who had owned the plane for over 50 years. i did always add about 100 rpm which makes the elevator very solid. i kind of feel this subject is like wheel vs 3 point on a crosswind. i have stuck pretty well to what i was taught.

cstolaircraft and 907 Pilot have valid points, but others do as well. When the indoctrinations, beliefs, and techniques taught as sanctioned procedures don't make physical sense to those who have violated those indoctrinations, beliefs, and techniques for various reasons, there is conflict of interest.

Like John Boyd's do you want to be or do question, we instructors have to choose between compliance and teaching. A teacher teaches what they know to be true and or useful for whatever reason. They cannot do otherwise. An instructor has to choose between compliance with the current school solution, generally what is in Practical Test Standards, or teaching what works most safely and efficiently in the physical world.

The Practical Test Standards didn't exist in the past and have changed, slowly, from time to time since creation. If I were a compliance oriented instructor, I would feel jerked around a bit. The system is, slowly, trying to improve. That is positive. And yes, you are being jerked around a bit. As far as the school solution for what controls glide slope and what controls airspeed, that has changed from time to time. The old solution works on either side of the power curve, the new only on the positive side. Those who make use of behind the power curve techniques need use the old.

For cstolaircraft, 907, and instructors who make their own decisions about what works most safely and efficiently, We Are Not Right. We Are Officially Wrong. That is the price of doing rather than being.

I don't think the issue is CFI's/most pilots don't really understand what makes an airplane fly.


Most CFI's are doing this to build hrs to get a commercial flying job. You don't slip, you don't do 2000 fpm descents, you don't do 60 deg banks while carrying paying passengers.


Most private pilots want to have friends and family fly with them. You don't slip, you don't do 2000fpm descents, you don't do 60 deg banks. Unless you only ever want to fly alone.

Mark Y.,

Good point. I have to be reminded of people hauler's concerns, having never been one.

Still, I don't think it hurts to know what the airplane wants to do and how to use natural energy when flying heavily loaded, low powered, airplanes. Especially at high density altitude. And especially when hauling passengers.

A lot can be avoided and this is the safer solution. However, really bad things happen when pilots are confronted with observations/situations that go against their indoctrination and beliefs (orientation.) Weak orientation can be harmful to any pilot on any mission. Training only in avoidance with no safe experience with common flying obstacles and problems can be unsafe. Experience of only sanctioned obstacles and problems can cause a pilot to come unglued when confronted with real life ones.

The concept and indoctrination that altitude is the ultimate safety is unrealistic. We all have to take off and land on every mission. Avoidance of safe maneuvering flight techniques is like sticking our heads in the sand. Energy management turns need not be wing overs. Calm, people satisfying, gentle turns can be more safely and efficiently executed using energy management. Not necessary until heavy and or high, but safer and more efficient. And very necessary when operating low.

Upwind rather than downwind base to final is safer and more efficient as it makes natural wind energy work for us instead of against us. And guess what? Turning into the wind rather than downwind requires less bank to line up with the runway.

Again, not the school solution, not what is in PTS, will be questioned by your friends, and Always Wrong. All I can say is try it; you might like it.

Contact

Don't get me wrong, all pilots should feel what it's like to push the limits of the envelope. At least once a year or more. Getting exposed to these limits early in a flying career is also great. Just don't make it a normal routine in your daily flying, as it appears the original poster does. Especially if he is striving to become a missionary pilot. Full flap slips with power on every approach will bit you in the a$$ one day.

I think one of the issues is in a basic training program there is only so many hours a CFI has to teach all the things required to pass the PPL. 60 degree bank at 60 mph is not on the test. But doing a level turn is. Once you got your PPL how many went out with a CFI and said teach me something not on any test?? Once the PPL is done it is on to commercial, instrument and ATP. All stuff that has smooth flight with ball centered. If you are living out of the back of a van working nights to get you ATP than passing the test is what matters. Take a 50 year old new pilot out and teach him a bunch of stuff not on the test and it could just confuse him or he could use it on the test and fail. As contact points out the FAA wants there students follow/recite a program for better or worse that is what we have.
I learned in a Pacer with an old 82 Y/O CFI he showed me lots of stuff but I had the money to keep him in the plane well past solo (20 hours). I was not in a hurry and every year I try to expand and fly with CFI's with no set program. I relearn some of the stuff that 82 Y/O CFI taught me and figure out new stuff.
Every endorsement is just another license to learn, Some just stop at that point and move on to another endorsement/license without fully exploring the boundaries of the one they just earned!
DENNY

I not yet had to do a 60 bank turn from down wind to final, but it sounds like you are doing some pretty advanced flying. It sounds like you have good instructors and it sounds like you are a natural. Shoot, I tell people it takes me 100 hours to learn a plane's characteristics, 200 to get good at flying it, the cool thing is that flying up here that is only about two months.

Contact, I agree that the PTS is incorrect in areas e.g. the short field take off, hopefully the new standards coming out will be a little more like what we do in real life.

I have yet to fly a plane with an AOA indicator, and still fly 'seat of the pants' a lot. When I was the company instructor and eventually checkairman, I would have the 206 loaded to gross with soda pop, cover the Airspeed and altitude indicator and have the new pilots fly that way for a couple of hours, including a lot of my favorite, slow flight, with turns and descents etc, then steep turns, and engine outs, and then we would fly the villages still with the instruments covered. It was not a 'hazing' thing like they thought, I just wanted to get them to feel the plane when it was at its limits, and, be looking outside - you can teach/learn seat of the pants flying. Besides, all of the planes had been crashed so many times the a/s really weren't all that accurate.