Forgive me Pilot_DAR it was not my intention to cast aspersions on either yourself, your skills or to say that side slipping is wrong. I was fortunate enough to be taught sideslipping in my PPL training, a long time ago now. I honed power off side slipping and S turns on both Jodels without flaps and on experimental aircraft. I don’t remember ever using a full power on side slip to slow down or descend, but hey you learn something everyday, especially here. What I was trying to point out was that if you speak to many PPL students and low hour pilots, these days, they have never learnt or tried a side slip. Many don’t know what it is, although they might have heard of it. Many are never taught how to lean the mixture.
You say that you are the client and should ask for it. IMO many students would not ask their FI to demonstrate something they have just vaguely heard about in the clubhouse. Many students ask no questions at all, instead they just blindly follow what the FI says to do, even if the FI starts chatting with everyone until you miss your take off slot and then never explains what to do in such an eventuality.
I reiterate,the reason I originally posted this thread was because of a “return of experience” report from an FI. It made me think about what I would do in such a situation and then I began to think what that student would have done if it had been a solo nav. That then led me to ask the same question as the FI (remember he wrote the report just after having faced the problem and successfully solved it) “would it be of benefit to add some of the analysis and techniques needed in this case to the PPL syllabus”?
gallois wrote:
add …… to the PPL syllabus
And this is the heart of the matter…
The PPL syllabus has been eroded in response to concerns that it was getting too big, and too costly to attract entry level students. The regulators are thinking what to cut, not what to add. In many cases, those regulators are new genre pilots themselves, so they’re more thinking to add some glass cockpit, or pilot decision making elements to the syllabus, rather than old school ragwing techniques. I find this disappointing.
But, ultimately, who’s the client? What does the client feel that they need? Sure, today’s client may not even know what to ask for in additional training, and today’s instructor may not know what to offer. You’re flying with today’s instructor, who, well intentioned as he/she is, is thinking about training you to the syllabus, with emphasis on the elements familiar to them (so they can feel confident training it). So you’ve probably got an instructor who will excellently teach how to program a magenta line from A to B, which is vitally important to know (that’s a whole other story!), but may be minimalist on airwork and maneuvering training. Thereafter, having given the syllabus airwork and PFL’s, they focus back on the tech. They should be including an abnormal element (a PFL/short/soft field TO/landing/steep turn/stall/spin) in every lesson, as the lesson will allow. And, they should inspire that new pilot that post PPL, these skills should be practiced.
Yesterday’s flying included a 50 mile cross country, practice airwork and steep turns, stalls and a spin, descending with full power (to aquatint myself to reply here), real slow flight (fire patrol), and three practice forced landings to a stop on the ground. I was catching up, as I had not flown the previous week. I will fly one or more of those elements every week normally. I hope that every pilot places importance on maintaining their skills with practice.
As to learning those skills in the first place, the PPL syllabus is simply too short to enable an instructor to teach what must be taught, and thereafter touch on these many important peripheral topics. Most PPL students are not going to the regulator requesting that the PPL syllabus should be expanded by 20 hours, with additional elements. Instead, they’re trying to get done as quickly as possible, so they can take their significant others for a flight, and never to airwork, PFL’s and soft field takeoffs ever again – until suddenly they have to!
When I have done advanced training for PPLs (usually airwork, type training or amphibian training) I have frequently been horrified at the casual skills demonstrated, and sometimes discontinued the training, explaining that they will have to refine their basic flying precision before the next skill can be learned safely. A month ago, I was type training a tailwheel experienced MIFR instructor on a tail dragger. his flying was okay, but his first landing not precisely controlled enough. I discussed this with him on downwind, and suggested techniques he should use to improve precision. The next landing was worse, and he groundlooped us off the runway, collapsing the landing gear. I know that he understands what is needed, but he has some skill building to get there – after the plane is repaired.
So, each candidate pilot must manage their own training. This, by assuring that they receive the minimum to meet the skills required by the syllabus, and thereafter seeking out additional opportunity for skill building, and honing precision. When you watch cockpit videos of the precision aerobatic team taking off information. Don’t think “Gee, I could never do that!”, promise yourself that you will make every takeoff and landing so precise that the fresh white runway line paint is sprayed up the side of the fuselage, because you touched the wheel on the painted line, and did not wander laterally off that line, until you turned off, perfectly following the yellow taxiway line. Raise you own standards to the next level – fly with more care and precision than your instructor taught you! Read the airplane POH, make sure that you can make the plane do what the POH says it should. Do you recall that some Cessna flight manuals present a procedure for landing without elevator control? Try it at altitude, it’s a skill builder!
As for a failure to full power, very rare, but sure, have a plan, and practice it – I did yesterday!
I think this scenario belongs to being mentally prepared than a standard for the technique, I think many PPLs should be able to try themselves, you would not bother teaching anyone how to deal with max power, but a well excused PFL and rapid descents (sideslips/fire) & understanding flight envelop are keys, maybe check that they are comfortable with “cutting mixture” somewhere in the circuit and not above numbers 
?
Other things in the category: water ditching, landing on trees/mountains, visual decent through layer, big bounce on landing/takeoff, losing windshield, bird strike, jammed controls… there are few type specific hints in the POH, but if you ask two random instructors you get two random answers, but I hardly see anyone getting tested on these (teaching PPL is mainly tailored for safe normal flying & passing the test, I guess CPL is more tailored into all sort of emergencies)
Pilot_DAR wrote:
gallois wrote:
Secondly, sidelipping seems to have disappeared from PPL teachingWho’s the client? If you, as the student, want to learn what the plane does, you should ask, and the instructor should demonstrate.
Im afraid I can tell you from personal experience that the French definitely have a bit of an issue when it comes to side-slipping. Lost in the mists of time something very bad must have happened at one or more aeroclubs with an aeroplane side-slipping. I find it difficult to accept the seriously negative attitude one gets from very many French pilots if one talks about doing it or god forbid is seen doing it from the clubhouse, that this is down to soley “its not in the sylibus anymore”.
I learned this when I was berated by a past CFI who had seen my “Glissade dangeroux!!” as he was cycling past the aerodrome and stopped by directly to have a few words with the offending pilot….me. I suspect if the Ex-Mil Aeroclub president hadnt intervened on my behalf I would have been shown the door, because the conversation was like I was on an alternate planet as I really could not understand what the fuss was about….
So I wouldnt blame @Gallois for this…
@skydriller some CFI’s are really weird or perhaps are allowed or take too much power.
skydriller wrote:
So I wouldnt blame @Gallois for this…
Very true, I do not seek to appoint blame to anyone, rather it is an industry problem, and the best people to solve a problem are the people suffering because of it. The regulators evolve syllabus, and perhaps try to streamline it. In doing that, some skills are sacrificed, when they were actually valuable basic flying techniques. When they are dropped, instructors perceive that they are no longer applicable. They’re every bit as applicable, just less familiar. But, instructors do not evolve in their teaching skills to retain these basic skills, and thus don’t pass them along. Students – the client, can request the additional training (within the capabilities of the plane), and instructors should provide the training with competence.
Sideslipping is a standard flying technique. It is not prohibited in any airplane I’ve ever known. It’s cautioned in some 172’s. However, even those 172’s allow and describe sideslipping in the POH, and most POH’s I have read refer to the crab method for crosswind landings. Crabbing an plane is the beginning of sideslipping it, just not as aggressive.
One of the things I have also realized is omitted from pilot training is very simply exploring moving every flight control gently to it’s limit – in flight. Controls have very specifically designed stops – to give enough control, without allowing too much. Indeed, the DA-42 has a variable stop in pitch, Diamond thought it so critical. So, it is intended that the pilot, on rare, and appropriate occasions, move a flight control to it’s stop in flight – that’s what the stop is for. A sideslip is a good opportunity to move rudder and ailerons to their respective stops in flight. (Pitch down can be done in a gentle bunt from a slight climb at very low speed, to less than one G, a stall prevention technique, pitch up during a soft field takeoff). Understanding when NOT to apply full control is also vitally important!
It is not prohibited in any airplane I’ve ever known.
The bulk of the training industry is on the zero to hero assembly line, where concepts like stabilised approach are drilled, with puddle jumpers flying long finals under power with flaps. It is understandable how a pronounced side slip might not meet this objective. Recall the candidate is being trained to have good hygiene/practices to fly as an FO in a multi crew environment.
Most underwing high bypass turbofans don’t allow side slips, for a variety of reasons: the stabilised approach concept, avoiding turbine surging because of the relative airflow becoming turbulent at the fan intake, un porting fuel on long laminar flow wings, and perhaps most importantly not hitting the runway with the down wing turbofan. Boeing going as far as recommending landing in the crab, and the saying ‘there is no hard landing in a Boeing’ – given the short undercarriage of the 737 one can see why side slip might not be ideal.
Students are exposed to side slips in UPRT, where they practice departure from controlled flight in both side slip, and skidding turn conditions. Departure in a side slip is reasonably benign, with the aircraft departing up and over. Some types depart more decisively than others. Perhaps some of the French aeroclub types have this characteristic?
The earlier C172 with 40 degree flap did not have a limitation, but IIRC side slips with full flaps were not recommended in the POH due to oscillation in pitch as the combination of side slip and full flaps caused blanking of the tailplane.
I am not sure one can sideslip on Boeing or Airbus given where PT & AoA probs sit? if you add few software protections to help with low & slow behaviour then one is set for an expensive $100M writeoff anytime they touch ailerons 
I haven’t slipped for real since my PPL training. Should try it again next time I get to fly.
Ibra wrote:
Recall the candidate is being trained to have good hygiene/practices to fly as an FO in a multi crew environment.
But… this is a “GA” forum, right? Sure, when you’re going to fly the big iron, follow the instructions. But we enjoy GA planes because they offer more freedom, so we should enjoy that greater maneuvering freedom while we can!
Sideslipping can be a handy skill for a later model Cessna with electric flaps, when they don’t extend – which has happened to me a few times!
