Damn the ball, just keep the wings level

Salty

Salty

Touchdown! Greaser!
PoA Supporter
Joined
Dec 21, 2016
Messages
14,263
Location
FL
Display Name
Display name:
Salty
When getting my glider rating, I learned to stall by keeping the wings level with the rudder, no using the ailerons. There is no ball, and the string is ignored.

I've noticed myself naturally doing this in powered craft since then, and it seems like a good idea. For a banked stall, obviously using the ball for coordination makes sense, but if you're going straight and keep the wings level with the rudder, you can't really be out of coordination. To me, this is a much easier and safer way to teach stalls. It's a bad idea to use aileron to level the wings near a stall, using rudder and NO aileron seems like a better way to teach stalls. And it's easier for a student than worrying about looking at a ball.
 
Salty said:
if you're going straight and keep the wings level with the rudder, you can't really be out of coordination.
Click to expand...
Because of the engine/propeller effects on powered planes, this isn’t necessarily true, even at idle.

Of course, keeping the ball centered isn’t necessarily coordinated, either.
 
The other issue I have, which is probably more relevant, is to me this technique defeats the two primary purposes of stall training.

The first is stall avoidance. How do you know what an incipient stall looks like in day-to-day flying if you only see them under a specific set of control inputs?

Second is for inadvertent stall recovery. If all of your training stalls are "wings level with rudder", is your brain going to automatically produce the correct recovery procedure for something you've never seen? I see this problem all the time, both for stalls and unusual attitudes...it's amazing what people do for the same situation when nobody says, "OK, show me a stall," or "Close your eyes and put your head down...Your airplane."
 
MauleSkinner said:
The other issue I have, which is probably more relevant, is to me this technique defeats the two primary purposes of stall training.

The first is stall avoidance. How do you know what an incipient stall looks like in day-to-day flying if you only see them under a specific set of control inputs?

Second is for inadvertent stall recovery. If all of your training stalls are "wings level with rudder", is your brain going to automatically produce the correct recovery procedure for something you've never seen? I see this problem all the time, both for stalls and unusual attitudes...it's amazing what people do for the same situation when nobody says, "OK, show me a stall," or "Close your eyes and put your head down...Your airplane."
Click to expand...

I don't understand your point one at all.

In point 2, I'm not seeing a down side to using the rudder to lift the low wing in most any stall recovery. With neutral ailerons, it seems very appropriate. It's certainly better than slamming over the ailerons.
 
Salty said:
I don't understand your point one at all.
Click to expand...
If the only stalls you see approaching are when you're holding the wings level with ailerons, how are you going avoid a stall when you're making the turn from base to final using coordinated controls?

In point 2, I'm not seeing a down side to using the rudder to lift the low wing in most any stall recovery. With neutral ailerons, it seems very appropriate. It's certainly better than slamming over the ailerons.
Click to expand...
I never said recovery shouldn't be rudder-based...but if I understood you correctly, the approach to stall is also rudder based. If you get into an inadvertent stall in a 60-degree bank in a tight thermal, again using coordinated controls, your brain may not make the connection that this is still a stall that requires the same recovery technique.
 
MauleSkinner said:
If the only stalls you see approaching are when you're holding the wings level with ailerons, how are you going avoid a stall when you're making the turn from base to final using coordinated controls?

I never said recovery shouldn't be rudder-based...but if I understood you correctly, the approach to stall is also rudder based. If you get into an inadvertent stall in a 60-degree bank in a tight thermal, again using coordinated controls, your brain may not make the connection that this is still a stall that requires the same recovery technique.
Click to expand...
I said that it's only for a wings level stall. I never said you should ONLY do wings level stalls. But I do think it's the right stall to learn about first.

By learning to use the rudder approaching the stall you train yourself to think rudder is integral to stall avoidance and recovery. For me it worked better than centering the ball, even though yes, you use the rudder to do it, it's natural now for me to lift the low wing with rudder on a stall. Before I had to fight my natural inclination to use aileron.
 
Salty said:
By learning to use the rudder approaching the stall you train yourself to think rudder is integral to stall avoidance and recovery. For me it worked better than centering the ball, even though yes, you use the rudder to do it, it's natural now for me to lift the low wing with rudder on a stall. Before I had to fight my natural inclination to use aileron.
Click to expand...
If you didn't learn stall recoveries that way in powered planes, I suggest you go tell your power instructor he shouldn't be around airplanes.
 
MauleSkinner said:
If you didn't learn stall recoveries that way in powered planes, I suggest you go tell your power instructor he shouldn't be around airplanes.
Click to expand...
Only focus was keeping the ball centered. Turns out I was the first student my CFI got through check ride. I didn't know that going in.
 
I am not intending to disagree with anyone here, just give my experience and training.


I received my PPL in 1969, and the rules were quite different then, in many ways. That was the first year that you needed to have a minimum of an hour of instrument training before your check ride. I had 3 hours and 15 minutes, including navigating by radio nav aids, and 2 precision approaches to 20 feet, far exceeding the requirements. When I went for my check ride, my total time was 41 hours. I also had a spin from a stall, and at my check ride, the DPE kicked the rudder in my stall, resulting in a spin there.

The FAA discourages doing spins, and any more than an approach to a stall, apparently back in my time, there were too many instructors who did not know how to recover, and died with their students.


With that background, I was taught to keep wings level with the rudders in near stall conditions, and years later demonstrated a wings level power off stall for 5,000 feet, no spin, and repeated it with power on. The point that I was making to my passenger was a spin did not need to follow a stall, power on or off. So, yes, wings level with just rudder.

Now comes the potentially divisive opinion. Power on stalls in approach to landing required all controls in co ordination.

Elevator to drop the nose, reducing the wing load, and stopping the stall.

Ailerons to roll to wings level to decrease wing loading.

Rudder to center the ball and avoid skidding.

Power to full throttle, and carb heat off.

Pull up as soon as the stall warning resets.

Climb to a safe altitude, and restart a new approach.

My instructors trained a fully coordinated movement of all controls, to recover with the least loss of altitude.

Flying with minimum controllable air speed, the feet are doing the gentle dance to prevent a falling wing from precipitating a spin, and a light touch on the elevator to keep as much altitude as possible. The stall warning gets on the nerves, too. I do not remember if the 65 hp J3 Cub had stall warning, but the airframe and airflow kept you well aware that the plane was very unhappy as it shook and whistled.
 
geezer said:
The FAA discourages doing spins, and any more than an approach to a stall, apparently back in my time, there were too many instructors who did not know how to recover, and died with their students.
Click to expand...

They’ve backed off slightly. DPEs are allowed one stall all the way to the break on checkrides now, if desired. The rest, recover at first sign of stall.
 
denverpilot said:
They’ve backed off slightly. DPEs are allowed one stall all the way to the break on checkrides now, if desired. The rest, recover at first sign of stall.
Click to expand...

School I first went to taught stall to buffet only and recover. But they taught people how to fly to pass their DPE Checkride, not how to be a safe pilot.

The CFI at a completely different school had me do stalls and when I corrected at the buffet he said the DPE would fail me. As a student training to correct at the buffet and recovering and actually recovering from a stall was night and day difference. Before that day I realized I’ve never actually experienced a stall.

On my Checkride the DPE was specific, power on stall to the break.
 
Jamie, you finished up at a much better school. My first instructors were outstanding, and when I flew with poor ones later, I stopped at one lesson. Shortcuts are apparent on the first time, and that is training you do not want to learn.

Unfortunately, students who start with a poor school or instructor, think they are normal, and do not know better until they do fly with a good one. I only flew more than once with one really bad one, as I started my Instrument training, and complained that I was better than my instructor, to the manager, got brushed off. I went for a vacation, and when I came back, he had been fired for failing his II check ride for the third time. Next instructor was great, check ride no problem.
 
denverpilot said:
They’ve backed off slightly. DPEs are allowed one stall all the way to the break on checkrides now, if desired. The rest, recover at first sign of stall.
Click to expand...

My DPE wanted both power on and off to break.
 
Salty said:
When getting my glider rating, I learned to stall by keeping the wings level with the rudder, no using the ailerons. There is no ball, and the string is ignored.

I've noticed myself naturally doing this in powered craft since then, and it seems like a good idea. For a banked stall, obviously using the ball for coordination makes sense, but if you're going straight and keep the wings level with the rudder, you can't really be out of coordination. To me, this is a much easier and safer way to teach stalls. It's a bad idea to use aileron to level the wings near a stall, using rudder and NO aileron seems like a better way to teach stalls. And it's easier for a student than worrying about looking at a ball.
Click to expand...

Try your method during a power on (departure stall) in a 250 hp airplane and tell us how it worked out.
 
Last edited:
geezer said:
Now comes the potentially divisive opinion. Power on stalls in approach to landing required all controls in co ordination.

Elevator to drop the nose, reducing the wing load, and stopping the stall.

Ailerons to roll to wings level to decrease wing loading.

Rudder to center the ball and avoid skidding.

Power to full throttle, and carb heat off.
Click to expand...
Sometimes recommended procedures are designed to overcome improper natural but natural tendencies. There is nothing wrong with coordinated aileron and rudder to recover from a wing drop. Done properly, it doesn't even look different than rudder only since initial rudder is needed to return to coordination to begin with. But rudder only is recommended to overcome the natural tendency to turn that yoke all by itself.

This isn't the only maneuver where we see this.
 
geezer said:
Jamie, you finished up at a much better school. My first instructors were outstanding, and when I flew with poor ones later, I stopped at one lesson. Shortcuts are apparent on the first time, and that is training you do not want to learn.

Unfortunately, students who start with a poor school or instructor, think they are normal, and do not know better until they do fly with a good one. I only flew more than once with one really bad one, as I started my Instrument training, and complained that I was better than my instructor, to the manager, got brushed off. I went for a vacation, and when I came back, he had been fired for failing his II check ride for the third time. Next instructor was great, check ride no problem.
Click to expand...

How does one get assigned an unauthorized instructor for instrument training?
 
Clip4 said:
How does one get assigned an unauthorized instructor for instrument training?
Click to expand...
There have been schools which have used one-Is for some training on the theory that only 15 hours needed to be with an authorized instructor. The benefit for the CFI was practice for the checkride. Unless it was at reduced rates, there was no benefit for the student; if at reduced rates, the benefit to the student was probably ok during some the later stages of training but marginal at best early on as @geezer's example shows. FAA Chief Counsel frowned on the practice in the 2010 Grayson interpretation.
 
It can be hard to find qualified safety pilots to go out and practice approaches with. But still, using a one-I as a glorified safety pilot and charging an instrument student for the "instructor's" seat time is a pretty douchey thing to do IMHO.
 
wilkersk said:
It can be hard to find qualified safety pilots to go out and practice approaches with. But still, using a one-I as a glorified safety pilot and charging an instrument student for the "instructor's" seat time is a pretty douchey thing to do IMHO.
Click to expand...

It is hard to find a fellow private pilot that is qualified to act as PIC? In some areas it might be, but in most areas I’d guess it is fairly easy.

Remember, the purpose of a safety pilot is to simply look out the window and make sure that you don’t hit anyone or anything. They aren’t there to provide any instructional knowledge. If they provide any insight into how to fly an approach I’d consider it a bonus and they are going above and beyond what their job is.
 
Low wing recovery in a stall using ailerons is almost a sure way of learning about spin recovery.

First stall lesson I always showed the students that the ailerons do almost jack at MCA on most training type aircraft. Always step on the high wing during a stall recovery. You don’t need to look at the ball to know which rudder to use. The nose and high wing will arc back to straight and level.

If we where in a spin capable aircraft, I’d show them what happens when stepping on the low wing or using ailerons.
 
Clip4 said:
Try your method during a power on (departure stall) in a 250 hp airplane and tell us how it worked out.
Click to expand...
How about you educate me before I try it?
 
denverpilot said:
They’ve backed off slightly. DPEs are allowed one stall all the way to the break on checkrides now, if desired. The rest, recover at first sign of stall.
Click to expand...
Almost. The ACS is law so it's in black and white. Private pilots must stall to the break, Commercial recover at the impending stall.
wilkersk said:
Other than the "ailerons - neutral" part of the spin recovery mantra, I don't get this...
Click to expand...
I believe he's implying that "teachable moments" about spin entries can be discovered by using ailerons. Some students have to experience the incorrect method before real knowledge is transferred. (Read: some of y'all are thick in the head)

I contend that the stalls we teach/practice/demonstrate have no bearing on the stalls that will kill us - and statistics back me up because it's still a very popular way to die in an airplane.

Having recently reinstated my CFI certificate I'm disappointed to find that the bar has, if anything, been lowered.

Flight at MCA used to mean that you flew around with the stall horn blaring and ANY increase in pitch would cause a break. Right turns used lots of right rudder and left turns used a bit less right rudder. Any bank required a bunch of power.

That apparently scares some people so now you slow down enough to hear one beep and add 5 knots and fly around demonstrating your skills. What the hell is that? It certainly doesn't teach you anything.

Bank more than 20 degrees in the pattern and your instructor's seat cushion will disappear up their a**.

I have about 100 hours in a BT-13, a plane nicknamed "vibrator" because (by some accounts) the tremendous objection it made just before stalling. Yet it also killed a LOT of pilots on base to final and during tight maneuvers at lower speeds.

I'm here to tell you that the behavior in a base to final turn is a silent killer. No noise, no buffeting no airspeed off in the deep end, no dramatic change in control feel. The only clue is a high sink rate detected by having your eyes outside on full alert. Ignore it for even a couple of seconds and you're in a spin entry at 600'. Good luck with that.

Yet with the same plane I could bank 60 degrees from base to final if I just kept the nose below the horizon and (therefore) the wing unloaded.

None of what we do teaches this. Still working on how I'm going to do it without needing to do a bunch of extra laundry.
 
aftCG said:
Almost. The ACS is law so it's in black and white. Private pilots must stall to the break, Commercial recover at the impending stall.

I believe he's implying that "teachable moments" about spin entries can be discovered by using ailerons. Some students have to experience the incorrect method before real knowledge is transferred. (Read: some of y'all are thick in the head)

I contend that the stalls we teach/practice/demonstrate have no bearing on the stalls that will kill us - and statistics back me up because it's still a very popular way to die in an airplane.

Having recently reinstated my CFI certificate I'm disappointed to find that the bar has, if anything, been lowered.

Flight at MCA used to mean that you flew around with the stall horn blaring and ANY increase in pitch would cause a break. Right turns used lots of right rudder and left turns used a bit less right rudder. Any bank required a bunch of power.

That apparently scares some people so now you slow down enough to hear one beep and add 5 knots and fly around demonstrating your skills. What the hell is that? It certainly doesn't teach you anything.

Bank more than 20 degrees in the pattern and your instructor's seat cushion will disappear up their a**.

I have about 100 hours in a BT-13, a plane nicknamed "vibrator" because (by some accounts) the tremendous objection it made just before stalling. Yet it also killed a LOT of pilots on base to final and during tight maneuvers at lower speeds.

I'm here to tell you that the behavior in a base to final turn is a silent killer. No noise, no buffeting no airspeed off in the deep end, no dramatic change in control feel. The only clue is a high sink rate detected by having your eyes outside on full alert. Ignore it for even a couple of seconds and you're in a spin entry at 600'. Good luck with that.

Yet with the same plane I could bank 60 degrees from base to final if I just kept the nose below the horizon and (therefore) the wing unloaded.

None of what we do teaches this. Still working on how I'm going to do it without needing to do a bunch of extra laundry.
Click to expand...
There’s nothing in the ACS that says you can’t teach things that aren’t in there.

Teaching the test is what makes stall training unrealistic IMO.
 
aftCG said:
...I could bank 60 degrees from base to final if I just kept the nose below the horizon and (therefore) the wing unloaded.
Click to expand...
If your wing's "unloaded" you aren't gonna be turning at all, so you can bank as steep as you want without risk. Base leg's gonna be infinitely long though.
 
dtuuri said:
If your wing's "unloaded" you aren't gonna be turning at all, so you can bank as steep as you want without risk. Base leg's gonna be infinitely long though.
Click to expand...
I’ve found that when people talk about the wing being “unloaded”, you pretty much have to ignore that part of the conversation because different people use the term differently, and most can’t explain what it means the way they use it.
 
mondtster said:
It is hard to find a fellow private pilot that is qualified to act as PIC?
Click to expand...

Yes. It was such a PITA when I was doing instrument training, I started a FB page called "Puget Sound Safety Pilots". Its still hit or miss. I have been the safety pilot more times than I've had someone else be my safety pilot.
 
Salty said:
It's a bad idea to use aileron to level the wings near a stall, using rudder and NO aileron seems like a better way to teach stalls.
Click to expand...

I'm confused. Every CFI I've ever known would slap your hand for using aileron as roll control during a stall. I'd love to have a nickel for every time "Step on the high wing" has been uttered by a (competent) CFI during stall practice.
 
RoscoeT said:
I'm confused. Every CFI I've ever known would slap your hand for using aileron as roll control during a stall. I'd love to have a nickel for every time "Step on the high wing" has been uttered by a (competent) CFI during stall practice.
Click to expand...

“More right rudder” wins over that one. Bwahahahahaha.
 
wilkersk said:
Other than the "ailerons - neutral" part of the spin recovery mantra, I don't get this...
Click to expand...
The asymmetric condition is what is likely got the spin to start in the first place. You want the AOA on the wings to be the same and reduced while you stop the rotation with the rudder. You also want to remove energy from the system for a couple of reasons, so you close the throttle.
 
I think the issue or controversy comes with the newer cuffed wings where the inboard section stalls before the outboard section, still giving you fairly effective ailerons during an stall. The recovery from a Cirrus stall is to use coordinated ailerons and rudder to keep the wings level should a wing drop. It works but feels unnatural to me as I was taught not use the ailerons during a wing drop in a stall, but just step on the opposite rudder to level it back out.

I remember doing minimum controllable airspeed in a beech skipper 25 years ago, wing buffeting, stall horn blasting, making turns with the rudder.
With those airplanes, the adverse yaw from using the aileron in a stall supposedly could cause bad things to happen, I never tried it out, although my instructor at the time would demonstrate spins in the airplane.

In fact on my ppl checkride that many years ago, it was a really bumpy day, I was demonstrating this, hit a bump and the airplane stalled, nose drop, the full deal. So I recovered, got back to altitude and level flight. The DPE just looking at me the whole time. When everything was back to where it was supposed to be, I turned to him and said "Sorry, I stalled it, that shouldn't have happened, can I try again." He smiled, and said "Sure". He didn't fail me. ​
 
PaulS said:
I think the issue or controversy comes with the newer cuffed wings where the inboard section stalls before the outboard section, still giving you fairly effective ailerons during an stall. The recovery from a Cirrus stall is to use coordinated ailerons and rudder to keep the wings level should a wing drop.
Click to expand...
Manufacturers have been minimizing the adverse effect of ailerons in stalls for years with washout and various other aerodynamic applications. My impression of Cirrus training is that they teach you to fly a Cirrus, with no thought that you’ll ever get into anything else.
 
aftCG said:
...
Flight at MCA used to mean that you flew around with the stall horn blaring and ANY increase in pitch would cause a break. Right turns used lots of right rudder and left turns used a bit less right rudder. Any bank required a bunch of power...
Click to expand...

FWIW, this describes exactly how the CFI I've been training with over the past decade or so trained me, and still does on my BFRs. Very glad for it, too.
 
MauleSkinner said:
Manufacturers have been minimizing the adverse effect of ailerons in stalls for years with washout and various other aerodynamic applications. My impression of Cirrus training is that they teach you to fly a Cirrus, with no thought that you’ll ever get into anything else.
Click to expand...

I don't know if that is true since I learned in other aircraft and transitioned into Cirrus, I hope it's not true for primary students.
 
PaulS said:
I don't know if that is true since I learned in other aircraft and transitioned into Cirrus, I hope it's not true for primary students.
Click to expand...
Keep in mind that it is very appropriate to teach the specific techniques for a particular airplane, especially during transition to that airplane. But as you suggest, it wouldn’t be good for primary students.
 
MauleSkinner said:
Keep in mind that it is very appropriate to teach the specific techniques for a particular airplane, especially during transition to that airplane. But as you suggest, it wouldn’t be good for primary students.
Click to expand...

When I transitioned to the 22 we did a stall and the left wing dropped on me. Up until then they had all been boring. This one caught me by surprise, I'm sure I was coordinated. Anyway, as soon as that wing dropped I automatically kicked the right rudder, then remembered to add a little aileron. It was really nothing, it's funny how the training kicks in when you need it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top