These arguements have not waned since my first exposure to aerodynamics and flight instructors and will likely continue add infinitum.I happen to have been fortunate in that my instructor drilled "pitch for airspeed and throttle for altitude".He did not ignore the intricasies of the correlation of the two but "kept it simple" for a purpose. He was a stickler for not flying the trim wheel or chasing the VSI as well.It is vital for students to have a true basic understanding of what the "flight envelope" is and what its limitations are.... :(

Mods please remove one of the double posts...

Pitch for airspeed _and_ power for energy?

Here is a video which demonstrates what Kevin was talking about with the Buffalo crash. Pitch down would have saved these guys as well.

And of course, this video is another example of why the FAA, Boeing, and Air Force.................now say ......... use pitch to climb, if power is available. (edit: In this case, power wasn't available. They had already used the maximum they had)And of course....................this video is another excellent reason to carry a GPS with terrain database (wasn't available then).................as well as some knowledge aboutmountain flying. In the meantime, these guys had already ran out of options. They should have turned for lower ground much earlier. Pitching down and going intothe trees under a bit of control, has a better chance than just stalling out, dropping a wing, and spinning in. BTW--------- I'm very aware of this process. I live next door to the airport. Just a few months ago, a small plane with a small engine, attempted to make a takeoff & couldn't climb any higher than the telephone poles. A pilot friend of mine, who witnessed the accident, kept screaming ....get the nose down and go for the soccer field ahead. Of course they couldn't hear him..............and they did attempt a turn back to the airport, as the airplane was wobbling on the verge of a stall. Just as the turn was commenced, it went straight down. The non-pilot owner had just purchased the plane that day (first built and flown in 1993), and he and a flight instructor were going to re-position it across the state, to where they lived. It was fatal for both, and directly across the street from where I live. I myself, as a mountain flyer, prefer aircraft with a good power to weight ratio. I also prefer constant speed props, for more power at high altitude airports. And............I also prefer large screen moving map GPS with XM Satellite Weather. You can't beat that for all the weather changes in the mountain west area of the USA........in addition to pop up TFR's for forest fires, etc.L.Adamson

Edited February 1, 201214 yr by LAdamson

And of course, this video is another example of why the FAA, Boeing, and Air Force.................now say ......... use pitch to climb, if power is available. (edit: In this case, power wasn't available. They had already used the maximum they had)L.Adamson

So you would just pull back further on that stick, use all the pitch you can to climb. Wow. How well did that work out for Marvin Renslow in that Q400?What do you mean "if power is available?" I know what that is. That is your caveat. That is your * to your statement. That is your required asterisk because what you say does not work all the time. That is because pitch can only give you altitude at the mercy of power. And if the asterisk is forgotten, you crash.The FAA actually understands that pitch controls airspeed. http://faaflighttest.us/AC61-50A.pdf Even they very bluntly state that "Angle of attack is the primary control of airspeed" and "Power setting is the primary control altitude." Then they decided they wanted to move to a more rote learning friendly method and to move it closer to what their instrument flying handbook had to say about the use of guages in instrument flying. Therefore they took it out. And that was a mistake as we are seeing now with recent crashes. They placed the cart before the horse by focusing on pitch and power in initial training. Pitch and power techniques work fine in sedate, middle of the flight envelope, instrument based flying because of the fact that you sit in that middle part of the flight envelope where those techniques easily give desired results. But in initial training, you need to learn to control the aircraft to the fullest range of the flight envelope. And your pitch and power techniques will not work consistently across the entire flight envelope. Understanding that your elevator controls angle of attack does work consistently across the envelope. When you're done spitting out the chicken and have tossed the food tray away as the other guy flying your A330 puts it into a stall, you are not going to rely on your your ATP abilites to hold airspeed within +/- 5 kts, you are not going to rely on your Commercial abilities to fly a Chandelle, you are not going to rely on your Instrument abilites to hold a glideslope, you are going to need to be able to reach all the way back to your fundamentals learned during private pilot to push that stick forward so that you can reduce your angle of attack and get that air flowing back across the wing. That is what initial training is supposed to teach people. The raw basics. Basics that you can draw upon on a dark night in the middle of the Atlantic, with the plane plunging 10,000fpm and your dinner still partly in your mouth. Not 7 degrees nose up and 2500pph per engine to climb. Pitch and Power has its place, but it's not when you are presolo and learning the basics of flight.Boeing does not teach people how to fly planes. They assume you already know the basics. Therefore, they would rather just give you tips on how to use their products within the normal envelope.The Air Force's use of pitch for altitude lays precisely in line with their culture. The old saying is that you can't do anything in the Air Force unless the rulebook says you can. While you can do anything in the Navy unless the rulebook says you can't. The Navy and Marine Corps have a culture that fits the use of ptich for airspeed as used in their manual because it provides an understanding, instead of just a mere how-to, so that their people are more capable of using initiative to overcome and solve problems. That is their culture. That is why they rather say pitch for speed to their pilots.Your what they "now say" has been already shown out of date and the cause of crashes. In Aviation Week's 11/28/2011 issue, there is a series of articles about recently revealed problems in flight training. The article "Push for Safety - Industry moves to close pilot training gaps exposed by growing loss-of-control accidents" indicates that the industry is finally realizing the flaws of the training that has been in place. Here are some points they make.- Now the leading cause of airliner hull losses and fatalities, loss of control is driving improvements in training to help pilots recognize and recover from aircraft upsets in flight.- "Stall is the number one cause of upsets leading to loss of control. Pilots are well trained, aircraft have protection systems and yet we are still getting upsets. Why? Because loss of control in flight is rare, unpredictable and catastrophic-and pilots are not adequately trained."- The liklihood of a LOC-I accident is very low, but the likelihood of recovery from a significant upset is extremely low.- Until recently, the accepted rule in stall training was to recover with less than 100ft of altitude loss. This often required back pressure on the stick to keep the nose up, and not forward pressure on the controls to reduce angle of attack....In 2010 the FAA revised the test standard to allow altitude loss during recovery.-...has identified limitations imposed by four unwritten assumptions built into today's pilot training. "We assume the aircraft is within its normal operational envelope and not in agitated flight, that the pilots have good situational awareness, that licensing training has provided them with good aircraft-handling skills and that their psychological and physiological reactions are predictable and reliable." If one or more of those assumptions is violated, specialized training is required, the group concluded.- Commercial pilots are trained to a maximum 11.1% of the threat envelope, but actual upsets such as Colgan Air "excced training limits significantly,"Every link you've put up has been pre Colgan and Air France crashes. The industry is already realizing that the teaching of pitch for altitude is flawed.

Edited February 1, 201214 yr by KevinAu

Reminds me of the old adage.."to go up pull back on the stick, to go down pull further back on the stick...." :( Thank goodness instructors still drill "slow flight".

From my iPhone......Did I say I'd pull back, in that video? Of course not

Gee whiz, youse guys... thanks for nothing!I was going to take my nice RanchoJEN C-150 TD out for a leisurely stroll around the farm... but now, after reading this thread I'm so confused that I'm skeered I might crack up the airplane! :Shocked:Seriously though... great topic and conversation!Ben - In any event... hope you enjoyed yourself and had a good time, even with the slight missteps.Alan :(

So you would just pull back further on that stick, use all the pitch you can to climb. Wow. How well did that work out for Marvin Renslow in that Q400?

Ouch. Not too well. Not too...I think it's safe to say, Kevin, that not everyone is going to agree eye to eye. Even if your argument (as far as engineers, CFIs, airline pilots, the FAA, DPEs, myself, etc. are concerned) is correct. I think this is one of those cases.

Reminds me of the old adage.."to go up pull back on the stick, to go down pull further back on the stick...." :Nerd:Thank goodness instructors still drill "slow flight".

I've always liked that proverb. Easy to understand for newbies.As far as I'm concerned, slow flight is the maneuver most easily screwed up in relation to practical test standards, and most often the reason a test applicant gets the "pink slip". You'd be surprised how many instructors don't drill this envelope of flight. I know I am...

As far as I'm concerned, slow flight is the maneuver most easily screwed up in relation to practical test standards, and most often the reason a test applicant gets the "pink slip".You'd be surprised how many instructors don't drill this envelope of flight. I know I am...

Probably would be surprised Zach but can't imagine not drilling that aspect.It is puzzling how a student could possibly grasp the "edge of the envelope" without "feeling it". :(

Probably would be surprised Zach but can't imagine not drilling that aspect.It is puzzling how a student could possibly grasp the "edge of the envelope" without "feeling it". :(

Truly. Though this seems more typical among Commercial applicant's, where I suppose the instructor takes the said student's skills for granted and leaves out the basics. That and the fact that the commercial standards constraint is +/-50ft. Just an observation. Let this thread continue to spiral further into the "pitch airspeed" conundrum!

Let this thread continue to spiral further into the "pitch airspeed" conundrum!

Ha ha, the disagreements shall continue as in the days of the Wright Brothers or Glenn Curtis. :(

Every link you've put up has been pre Colgan and Air France crashes. The industry is already realizing that the teaching of pitch for altitude is flawed.

Since the conclusions of both listed crashes are recent, I would think, that yes...............my links would be pre...However, in both situations, the pilots should have been doing what seems to be taught by all flight instructors. And that's to pitch down to gain airspeed on the backsideof the power curve. What I'm referring to, has nothing to do with their situations. They ended up just like the aircraft in the mountain video, and the airplane across the streetfrom where I live. I would expect the same out come.But...................if I'm going to do a high performance vertical climb in a Pitt's for example (which I have).................I'm not going to be using thottle (if I have any left) and wait for the nose to rise. The same for push overs on the top, etc. The throttle will be used in conjunction with the elevator............for the results I expect to obtain. I won't be thinking throttle for climb & pitch for airspeed...........as it would seem a bit silly. It's the difference between flying aircraft with a lot more performance than typical spam can Cessna 172's. I don't like them much.

think it's safe to say, Kevin, that not everyone is going to agree eye to eye. Even if your argument (as far as engineers, CFIs, airline pilots, the FAA, DPEs, myself, etc. are concerned) is correct. I think this is one of those cases.

If the argument you're referring too, is still the "pitch for speed/power for altitude"......................then all those people you've listed above, are not even close to agreement. I'm surprised you'd even say that...............unless of course, you're referencing something else entirely.

If the argument you're referring too, is still the "pitch for speed/power for altitude"......................then all those people you've listed above, are not even close to agreement. I'm surprised you'd even say that...............unless of course, you're referencing something else entirely.

I think you're incorrect, and I reject your opinion. I do appreciate your willingness to offer theory from others as well as your own, but I personally think you're wrong. It's not a slight on you! I just know I'm right. :( Fortunately the local DPE and I share the same ideas so this argument wouldn't last for too long around our FBO. For that reason, my students will learn it that way.A more interesting topic is "what makes airfoils work?". Newton? Bernoulli? Magic? I challenge you to start a topic about this!

Here is a video which demonstrates what Kevin was talking about with the Buffalo crash. Pitch down would have saved these guys as well.

Pitching down would have done nothing to save the two occupants since the terrain was out climbing aircraft. The area the plane crashed, SE of Grandby, CO is a rough area to climb through since the terrain rises very quickly. Continuing as far as they did there was no place to go and they would have struck the trees regardless.Not departing or taking a different course is the only thing that would have saved them. Unfortunately that video speaks more of the reason why low landers should get mountain flying training and use proper flight planning prior to operating in mountains or through passes. DA at sea level is nothing, DA at elevation can be a killer.