Checking the NTSB no Warrior has had a stall/spin loss of control accident
I have a tapered wing Warrior too, and that plane is really impossible to get in a spin. Many years ago, when my father still had the plane, one of his friends who was a master aerobatic pilot tried to get it into a spin … and couldn’t.
Very different with a C-152: It will spin very aggressively and turn faster than some aerobatic trainers …
Airborne_Again wrote:
So where does the idea come from that you can increase the rate of turn by using more rudder with a constant bank angle?
Beats me too. I find the whole video rather strange actually.
So where does the idea come from that you can increase the rate of turn by using more rudder with a constant bank angle?
A_A I think he explained it quite nicely, it tends to be a consequence of your motor memory being confused by low level drift visual cues, especially as this accident tends to happen with a bit of tailwind component on base. Visual cues being predominant. If you have not thought through the threat, or your bum is not trained to communicate with your brain and overcome the visual cues, it is not difficult to try and yaw around as a motor reaction.
Again the US spends more formal time on briefing low level visual illusions than Europe (where it is a minor part of the precautionary landing lesson).
I like Jacko’s suggestion that run and break type approaches might be a useful teaching objective.
In basic training you are taught that you turn by banking the aircraft, right? The rudder is used only for keeping the ball in the middle (except in a deliberate slideslip, like in a wing-down crosswind landing). So where does the idea come from that you can increase the rate of turn by using more rudder with a constant bank angle?
It’s not an “idea” or a deliberate thing. It just happens because pilots are not aware of the risk. The other scenario is that they will tighten the turn with the rudder and try to hold the falling wing up … which will will result in a yaw aswell. And when the nose starts falling they pull …
I think there’s “natural” pilots who will never do that, but really the percentage of people who have very little instinct for these things is high. I once had a guy for a BFR who would fly + 45 degree banks into final … and not even coordinated. I warned him a couple of times to stop that, but two years later when we flew again … same thing. If those trainers weren’t so well mannered many more accidents would happen.
Nice explanation. However, I thought the “rudder doesn’t turn an aeroplane” is one of the first things taught. It’s elementary airmanship.
I’m curious, why no more than 20 degrees – apart from not wanting to spill passengers’ drinks?
The issue is not the angle of bank, but the angle of attack, so as long as we don’t load the wings by hauling back the stick, we can safely bank to 90 or 120 degrees if the POH and oil and fuel system permit.
So, instead of applying IF techniques to ground reference manoeuvres in the pattern we can:
1. Pick a target, say 100 m short of the runway threshold.
2. Level the wings and pull up to trade kinetic for potential energy.
3. Release back pressure and bank as necessary allowing the nose to fall towards the target.
4. Level the wings and use stick (the primary speed control) to resume cruise or approach speed.
I really don’t understand the obsession with teaching level turns for contact flying.
I’m curious, why no more than 20 degrees – apart from not wanting to spill passengers’ drinks?
Because that’s the safest way, for beginners and less experienced pilots anyway. Once you’re a top gun you can do many things, but it takes a while. Of cours eit alwso depends on the airplane. In a Warrior I’d fly a steep turn at 500 ft AGL anytime, but there’s types that are not that forgiving.
AdamFrisch wrote:
I certainly did not get any ground or air training talking about this
Which books on principles of flight have you read in preparation for your exams? I understand they are not the easiest to digest. You wouldn’t get any “air training” on this because aerobatics and unusual attitude/ upset recovery training is not part of PPL syllabus (1). Personally, I hate when someone tells me I have to/ should do something without explaining why (and I have to believe it). But some think such approach is sufficient. And they do teach you should turn coordinated (at least I hope 
). Some stress it more than others, I’m sure. So why would you intentionally turn uncoordinated? When you don’t understand what’s happening. Would you pass a skill test turning uncoordinated? I don’t remember how precisely this was explained to me but it was.
As is often said, PPL is a licence to learn. It’s advisable to take courses that teach more advanced flying. Not only you should better understand the theory, you’ll have the opportunity to test it. And those skills should be regularly exercised. There is a discussion about how forgiving trainers should be as too forgiving allow bad habits to develop.
(1) It used to be, at least some places. And interestingly, AFAIK there is a proposal at EASA to bring some of it back into PPL training.
RobertL18C wrote:
it is not difficult to try and yaw around as a motor reaction
That’s exactly what I’m asking. A “motor reaction” is an automatic reaction which is the result of training. Where does that “motor reaction” come from, if you have never been trained to turn using the rudder?
Flyer59 wrote:
In a Warrior I’d fly a steep turn at 500 ft AGL anytime, but there’s types that are not that forgiving.
When I used to tow gliders, I made steep turns to final at 300 ft AGL in a Pawnee. Of course, I held a very close watch of the ASI.
