Since I don't control the airplane, in a contact environment, by reference to instruments, I am not a big V speed fan. With the FAA's recently greater interest in loss of control mitigation, perhaps a new one might point us in the direction of mitigation.

No!, let's just go back to rudder and stick basics. In real slow flight, with the stall warning horn on, we learn very quickly why rudder is a primary control and aileron is a secondary control. Because it is mounted on the center of the longitudinal axis and because it gets more prop blast and because it doesn't have adverse yaw problems, rudder will maintain wings level and directional control at much slower airspeed than will aileron.

Most of us who taught before integration of instrument control technique believe that rudder control should be emphasised in slow flight at altitude and especially when we are trying to slow to Vsige (Velocity stall in ground effect) to land safely and at a speed less likely to cause damage. Sorry, I guess that V speed isn't in the book either. We believe rudder leads aileron in coordinated turns and that there are many places where only rudder mitigates loss of control problems.

Yes, ineffective aerodynamic lift is still produced by the down aileron not lead by lots of rudder. With the orentation that aileron, not lead by lots of rudder, is effective enough at higher speed using limited bank with no serious gust spread, failure to take advantage of headwind component and often go around result.

Loss of control problems, including ground loop, happen often in favorable headwind component wind energy. As an instructor, I am grieved to see many airplanes touchdown at higher ground speed in favorable headwind component wind energy. God has offered a gift which is rejected.

Using dynamic reactive throttle to control sink/balloon and dynamic proactive rudder to both direct course and keep the wing level mitigates gust spread problems. Aileron should be reserved for bank into crosswind. This primary rudder/throttle orientation allows us to stay ahead of the airplane, touchdown at safe and soft and slow ground speed, and need fewer go arounds.

I've had discussions with other pilots about this rudder/throttle (R/T) control versus aileron. I'm not an instructor but have talked and ridden along just to learn how some were initially taught and observe what muscle memory remained. Some do it (the R/T) without having to think via habit.

One fun day I rode with a new pilot on floats over a river looking for black bears and various tracks on river bars. Fast and furious with lots of aileron at the tree tops (~100' agl). I suggested we slow down and elevate a bit plus use rudder to turn and throttle to maintain a safe altitude. After that it became a new learning experience for the pilot who promised to practice it at a safer altitude then try it again when he confirmed the range of control and airspeed needed to avoid terrain.

To his credit (he's an exception: self learner and maturing pilot) he later mentioned he practiced and replayed the river flights. It appears today some new pilots are taught to avoid low level flying, but when weather happens and ceilings/vis drop it's nice to have a practiced tool in the box to use.

Gary

Gary,

I have always used rudder for both longitudinal axis alignment and staying level or at constant bank angle for crosswind during slow short final. Also straight and level to free hands for map. Directing longitudinal axis or butt to target is a dynamic proactive rudder thing. Gusts and turbulence is dampened in either situation.

Butch Washtock, www.mtnflight.com, teaches what you are talking about for the very steep and crooked canyon type in the mountains flying in B.C. I enjoyed joint teaching a seminar/clinic with him in Grande Prairie Alberta last fall. He isn't an instructor either, but luckily Canada has no problem with experienced pilots sharing hard won experience.

My crop duster mechanic/operator had spent his youth in Alaska. I got the impression that necessity was the mother of invention there as well.

Having a plan to improve control and determine it's quirks and limits takes a commitment . I suggested the fellow I was flying with low over a narrow river go duplicate what he was trying to safely accomplish at altitude. Skids and slips or moderate banking at various airspeeds and flap configurations while maintaining a hard deck at required power settings.

I've done that in a few planes, but on floats as we were the day it first happened brings in a new factor - lots of potential drag and maybe some tail blanking. Cessna placards no slips on wheel skis with flaps extended (something like that) for a good reason, so why expect otherwise when on floats? So go practice at a safe altitude and expect the unexpected. Stop any uncommanded turn with rudder not aileron and see what it takes in altitude sacrifice to reduce AOA in case of a stall or pre-spin event. Then use all that later if needed. Ideally take along an experienced certified instructor as observer to note and sum up what was learned.

Alaska was once more a mother of invention than now. No different than Canada or any remote land. Lots of bust ups and sad mortality along the way. I think it's still a place to have problems as yearly accidents while flying happen. The trend with young is instant answers and demands for pre-learning but with limited experience to later fill in the gaps. Some folks just shouldn't expose themselves to risk and don't know when there's a problem lurking nearby.

Gary