Snoopy wrote:
I guess it has something to do with many crashes due to pulling up when startled/panicked instead of unloading the wing.
One of things I found interesting in my own behavior when learning to fly after a 22 year break after first solo was that my instinct was still to push forward when anything unfamiliar happened. I had learned it at age 15 and it had stuck. My new instructor at age 37 and 30 hrs TT noted it, said that was good, but… sometimes e.g. in stall recoveries I took it too far and lost excessive height.
Amazing to me how this issue of trained instinct that affected me then with 30 hrs total experience still affects those with vastly more experience flying airliners. I have to say that my first instinct is still to unload the wing, my early experience was all in low powered planes, but I’ve also learned as a result of some more recent coaching that “the throttle is also a control”. Flying higher powered planes in unusual attitudes was something different for me.
Does the Boeing procedure or simulator training provide any guidance on how much nose down pitch rate is intended with elevator only, prior to rolling?
Upset recovery training does provide guidance.
The aim of high altitude upset recovery exercises is partly also to demonstrate that unloading the wing may require significant pitch down input, far beyond what one is used too. Not pulling into a secondary stall is also part of it.
Evidence based training shifted from „keep altitude loss to a minimum“ to „unload the wing whatever it takes“.
I guess it has something to do with many crashes due to pulling up when startled/panicked instead of unloading the wing.
As far as type, power is concerned, I did my upset training in a Grob 115, which iirc has 115 hp. (That led me into doing aerobatics, but that’s another story). You can always get the nose up high if you start with enough energy, it’s just the start of a loop.
fwiw my training was as @LeSving says – roll into a knife edge, wait for the nose to drop just below horizontal, roll back, fly away.
If you really want to give the examiner something to remember, and given you’re already in the right starting attitude, you could always initiate a Lomchevak. Probably won’t work too well in a 777 though.
Snoopy wrote:
So the opposite of transport category aircraft.
The difference I see is that the Boeing procedure has forward stick applied until a (presumably slight) nose down pitch rate is achieved, prior to rolling the plane to increase the nose down pitch rate and subsequently rolling out when the horizon comes into view. Otherwise the intent looks the same to me.
Does the Boeing procedure or simulator training provide any guidance on how much nose down pitch rate is intended with elevator only, prior to rolling? Given passengers on board I could imagine the intent might be to limit forward stick to a fraction of one positive G, just enough to minimize the bank angle subsequently required to move the nose down more, but obviously that is a guess.
In a light aircraft I think it is regardless useful to know that throttle closed and hard roll input will lower the nose fast, also for collision avoidance. Something that practice brings very much into focus.
Cobalt wrote:
Germany required differences training for every type of single
Sweden did, too.
LeSving wrote:
The “standard” method in an aerobatics aircraft is the same. Roll to your wing points down without pushing or pulling, zero g is best, and the aircraft recovers by itself (no rudder needed). You will be in a dive, but no problems for an aerobatics aircraft. This doesn’t work in a spin and such.
So the opposite of transport category aircraft.
@airborne_again
My post above contains the procedure for Boeing widebody airplanes.
Ibra wrote:
was trying to solve with Aerobatics, Glider Tug ratings…if only they kept it a logbook thing
Because EASA took a “sum of all (over)regulations” approach to FCL – every rating or licence required for something in any country was translated into a rating in EASA Part FCL. It isn’t clear if that was at the insistence of the countries or just the general approach of EASA (at the time) to regulate everything that moves; probably a bit of both.
Hence we got mountain ratings, glider tow ratings, aerobatic ratings, the requirement to have an instructor rating for any instruction (rather than just instruction for issuance of a rating or licence), class ratings that are really type ratings in all but name, differences training for every individual type of twin, balloon licences, glider licences, and probably more.
In some instances, EASA-FCL removed some requirements (e.g., Germany required differences training for every type of single). But that was rare, I think.
If EASA-FCL were done now, I think it would end up less restrictive.
They’re using Saab 91 Safir around here and I think that one is Annex 1.
Airborne_Again wrote:
Should you do the same thing in light aircraft, or should you push.
The “standard” method in an aerobatics aircraft is the same. Roll to your wing points down without pushing or pulling, zero g is best, and the aircraft recovers by itself (no rudder needed). You will be in a dive, but no problems for an aerobatics aircraft. This doesn’t work in a spin and such.
LeSving wrote:
Aerobatics rating certainly can be done in an Annex 1 aircraft
Yes, Aerobatic rating can be done in non-EASA aircraft, I think even outside ATO scope, while I understand UPRT is an “approved ATO course”…
Here is the weird thing: we don’t need Aerobatic rating to do aerobatics in Annex 1 but we need one for aerobatics in EASA aircraft but you can train/teach for it in Annex1 in the meantime, then train/teach for it in EASA aircraft once the rating is issued 
Honestly, I never understood what EASA was trying to solve with Aerobatics, Glider Tug ratings…if only they kept it a logbook thing
