Why is the yawing movement the least understood part of aircraft handling???

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Anyone care to comment?

[digits]

What makes you think it is?

[Slick Goodlin]

1. Because a tricycle gear airplane will let you get away with nearly any amount of it, and

2. Because in small amounts it’s not obvious that a touch of longitudinal misalignment is the problem.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

What makes you think it is?

I t was my experience from my observation when giving flight instruction to licensed pilots.

[mcrit]

There are all the reasons cited previously in this thread, combined with the dilution of experience in the ab initio instructor pool.

The plurality of instructors teaching today were never taught to control yaw properly, hence they never pass it on to their students. Those students go on to be the next generation of instructors and so on.

It’s not a difficult problem to fix. We just need to get through to a large enough number of instructors and get them passing it on to their students. At that point the fix becomes self sustaining.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

It’s not a difficult problem to fix

Exactly, it is a very simple problem to fix.

And the fix has to be enforced by the regulator who licenses these pilots.

Why doesn't the regulator do their job?

Is it because their employees are ignorant of the subject?

When I I learned to fly in 1953 the very first lessons were attitudes and movements , and we were not taught anything else until we understood the subject and could produce and control all three attitudes.

It is basic and without a full understanding of the basics one can not become proficient in airplane handling...period.

[trey kule]

I was told by a couple of friends who renewed their instructor’s rating a few years ago, that, in fact there is an emphasis on yaw. And the whole cycle of control. Which is excellent, and makes me wonder if some of the observations maybe a bit dated.

That being said, I am not sure why this would be the regulator’s job. Other than to test the product at the end, and give feedback to the flight school.
And they more or less do that, from what I am told.

I really think the core issue is that a 172 was never designed as a training aircraft, and it is just to easy to be less than competent, and yet sort of safe enough.
Less accidents. But less well trained pilots.

The other thing, which I do,not understand is the emphasis that adverse yaw is somehow a takeoff and landing issue. Even in the puff cake 172, controlling adverse yaw in the air can be demonstrated, practiced, and perfected.

I think Digits might have a valid point. It may not be correct to assume a problem.

[mcrit]

I’ve been doing Instructor ratings in Ontario for the last few years. I’ve noticed yaw and centre line control are generally pretty weak in recent CPL graduates.

[trey kule]

Help me understand..

What do you mean by “weak”.
How prevalent is it?
How quickly do your student’s respond to correcting it? ( if this is a training issue, it seems it should be correctable very easily and quickly. If it is a habit from just being careless or sloppy, it might mean more work). Your observations would be of great interest.

As to the definition of “weak”. Can you be more specific? And clarify generalizations, as opposed to extreme examples.

[Liquid_Charlie]

Time marches on and unused skills fade to obscure memories and are no longer muscle memory. When someone has to react to a situation not normally used then one needs to try and think your way through the problem presented. Rudder skills fade to the background, like map reading, in modern aircraft. When you are told to put your feet flat on the floor front just after take-off to short final what other conclusion can you come too.

This is very likely why conventional geared aircraft have developed the status of fire breathing terrors. For those of us with a long past history it was an every day event to fly these aircraft and that's where we learned to fly. Non issue and certainly didn't need a checkout to fly a trike.

Certainly in those days there was less traffic but there were a large percentage of aircraft flying around nordo. We learned from day one that your eyes were your traffic separation tool. Radios have eroded this skill as well. Things change and now there is a reliance on tech. How many times have you seen pictures of "our new aircraft" and it's the flashy glass panel as first pic.

Flying now is in such a controlled environment. People are now more "rule" oriented than they were in the past. We are likely now to stay within limitations than in the past. Cross winds are a prime example. If you follow the rules and limitations you will never land in a xwind exceeding the "demonstrated" but how do you think you develop skills to exceed this published number by 100% or more. You have to give it a go but now we are taught that that published number is a hard point.

"Granny" gas is another hot issue. I have never run out of fuel but granny gas has saved my ass on several occasions, especially in the high arctic (north of 70N). Calculating minimum fuel requirements and uplift that fuel, well, we see the results. Jeezus I would never want to land with just reserve fuel, legal, yes but not necessarily safe. I encountered legal vs safe almost everyday.

The total irony of this present dilemma is that stick and rudder skills are eroded by tech and the biggest impact is in the level 1 carrier carrier world with the most tragic results.