Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T02:00:30.479Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluating a set of stall recovery actions for single engine light aeroplanes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2016

G. B. Gratton ,
R. I. Hoff ,
A. Rahman ,
C. Harbour ,
S. Williams  and
M. Bromfield
G. B. Gratton*
Affiliation:
Brunel Flight Safety Laboratory, School of Engineering and Design, Brunel University, Uxbridge, UK
R. I. Hoff
Affiliation:
Brunel Flight Safety Laboratory, School of Engineering and Design, Brunel University, Uxbridge, UK
A. Rahman
Affiliation:
Brunel Flight Safety Laboratory, School of Engineering and Design, Brunel University, Uxbridge, UK
C. Harbour
Affiliation:
Brunel Flight Safety Laboratory, School of Engineering and Design, Brunel University, Uxbridge, UK
S. Williams
Affiliation:
Brunel Flight Safety Laboratory, School of Engineering and Design, Brunel University, Uxbridge, UK
M. Bromfield
Affiliation:
Aerospace Engineering Department, Coventry University, Coventry, UK
*
[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper considers four alternative sets of actions that a pilot may use to recover an aeroplane from the stall. These actions: those published by the UK CAA and the US FAA, as well as a power delayed sequence and a pitch delayed sequence, were evaluated on 14 single engine piston aeroplane types. In a limited number of types (five in cruise configuration, two in landing configuration) the pitch delayed recovery gave a safe response and least height loss, but in a greater number of types (six and eight in cruise and landing configurations respectively) it resulted in further post-stall uncommanded motion. The other sets of actions all gave a consistent recovery from the stall, but the least height loss in recovery was also consistently the CAA sequence of simultaneous full power and nose-down pitching input, which normally resulted in approximately two thirds the height loss of the FAA’s pitch first then power method, which in turn resulted in about 90% of the height loss of the trialled power delayed recovery. Additionally the CAA recovery gave the least variation in height loss during stall recovery. It was also found that all of the aeroplane types evaluated except for one microlight aeroplane of unusual design, displayed a pitch-up with increased power in the normal (pre-stall) flight regime. Reducing this to separate components it was therefore shown that pitch control is of primary importance and should be used to provide immediate stall recovery. The thrust control can additionally be used as early as possible to minimise height loss, but if the thrust control is used before the pitch control in the stall or post-stall flight regime, there is some risk of subsequent loss of control. Finally, from the discussion on stall recovery methods, questions for Regulatory Authorities are put forward that should address the current practices.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 118 , Issue 1203 , May 2014 , pp. 461 - 484
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Brownlow, J., Everett, N., Gratton, G., Jackson, M., Lee, I. and Thorpe, J. A study of fatal stall or spin accidents to UK registered light aeroplanes 1980 to 2008, General Aviation Safety Council 2010.Google Scholar
2. Joint Aviation Authorities, Flight Crew Licencing: Private Pilot Licence (Aeroplanes), JAR-FCL Subpart C AL5, 20 November 2006.Google Scholar
3. US Federal Aviation Administration, FITS Generic Private Pilot ASEL Syllabus, October 2007.Google Scholar
4. Federal Aviation Administration, Stall and Spin Awareness Training, Advisory Circular 60-67C dated 25 September 2000.Google Scholar
5. UK Civil Aviation Authority, Stall/Spin Awareness, Handling Sense leafet 02 v2, January 2009.Google Scholar
6. de Havilland Canada, dHC 1B2 Chipmunk Flight Manual, Initial Issue, dated 1 May 1957.Google Scholar
7. Royal Air Force Handling Squadron, Chipmunk T Mk.10 Pilots Notes, AP101B-5510-15 3rd Ed June 1966 AL18.Google Scholar
8. Royal Air Force Headquarters Training Command, Chipmunk T Mk.10 Student Study Guide, RAFC/251020/3/FT AL2 dated May 1988.Google Scholar
9. Pilotwise International PLC, T67M MkII Flying Instructors Handbook, change 2,a August 1995.Google Scholar
10. Roberts, S. The Dichotomy Between Certification Flight Testing and Flight Training, Proceedings of the SETP European Symposium Toulouse, France, 24-27 June 2009.Google Scholar
11. US Federal Aviation Administration, Flight Test Guide for Certifcation of Part 23 Airplanes, AC23-8C dated 16 November 2011.Google Scholar
12. United Kingdom Civil Aviation Authority, Joint Aviation Requirements Flight Crew Licencing, Notes for the Guidance of Applicants taking the PPL Skill Test (Aeroplanes), Standards Document 19 Version 06 June 2009.Google Scholar
13. United Kingdom Civil Aviation Authority, Joint Aviation Requirements Flight Crew Licencing, Notes for the Guidance of Applicants taking the CPL Skill Test (Aeroplanes), Standards Document 3 Version 08, September 2012.Google Scholar
14. UK Civil Aviation Authority, Stall Recovery Technique, Safety Notice SN-2011/08 dated 13 July 2011.Google Scholar
15. US Federal Aviation Administration, Possible Misinterpretation of the Practical Test Standards Language, Minimal Loss of Altitude, SAFO 10012 dated June 7 2010.Google Scholar
16. Gratton, G.B. A method for predicting the rate and effect of approach to the stall of a microlight aeroplane, Aeronaut J, October 2006, 110, (1112), pp 683–690.Google Scholar
17. European Aviation Safety Authority, Certification Specifications for Very Light Aeroplanes, CS.VLA, amendment 1, March 2009.Google Scholar
18. US Federal Aviation Administration, Airworthiness Standards: Normal, Utility, Acrobatic, and Commuter Category Airplanes, FAR-23 to Amdt. 23-34, Eff. 02/17/87.Google Scholar
19. European Aviation Safety Authority, Certification Specifications for Normal, Utility, Aerobatic, and Commuter Category Aeroplanes, CS.23 amendment 3 July 2012.Google Scholar
20. UK Civil Aviation Authority, British Civil Airworthiness Requirements Section S: Small Light Aeroplanes, CAP 482 issue 5 date 21 October 2009.Google Scholar
21. British Microlight Aircraft Association, Performance and handling (Section S issue 2 compliance): 3 Axis, Vd not exceeding 140 kn CAS, form BMAA/AW/010a issue 2 dated March 2003.Google Scholar
22. US Federal Aviation Administration Flight Standards Service, Private Pilot Practical Test Standards for Airplane, FAA-S-8081-14B dated Nov 2011 effective 1 Jun e2012.Google Scholar
23. US Federal Aviation Administration Flight Standards Service, Commercial Pilot Practical Test Standards for Airplane, June 2012 (Effective December 1, 2012).Google Scholar
24. Anderson, S.B. Historical overview of stall/spin characteristics of general aviation aircraft, J Aircr, 16, (7), July 1979.Google Scholar
25. Bromfield, M.A. and Gratton, G.B. Factors affecting the apparent longitudinal stick-free static stability of a typical high-wing light aeroplane, Aeronaut J, May 2012, 116, (1179), pp 467–600.Google Scholar
26. Bromfield, M.A. and Gratton, G.B. Loss of Control Testing of Light Aircraft and a Cost Effective Approach To Flight Test, Proceedings of the 41st International Symposium of the Society of Flight Test Engineers, Washington DC, USA, September 2010.Google Scholar
27. Bromfield, M.A. and Gratton, G.B. Testing the relationship between stick force gradient, workload, and loss of control in light aeroplanes, SETP Cockpit July-December 2012, pp 6–32.Google Scholar
28. Gratton, G.B. Evaluation of alternate stall recovery characteristics of single engined aeroplanes, Brunel University, UK Google Scholar