Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Stick pusher

A stick pusher is a preventive safety device installed in certain fixed-wing aircraft to avert aerodynamic stalls by automatically exerting forward force on the control column or yoke, which lowers the nose and reduces the angle of attack.^[1] This system activates autonomously when sensors detect an impending stall, typically based on parameters such as airspeed, angle of attack, and configuration factors like flap position or icing conditions.^[2] It employs hydraulic or electro-mechanical actuators capable of applying 100 to 150 pounds of force to overcome pilot input if necessary, ensuring the aircraft does not enter an unrecoverable deep stall regime.^[2] Commonly found in transport-category aircraft and designs prone to deep stalls, such as those with T-tails, the stick pusher integrates with broader stall protection systems, including the stick shaker—a vibrational warning mechanism that alerts pilots to an approaching stall margin.^[1]^[3] Developed in response to mid-20th-century accidents involving uncontrollable stalls in high-tail configurations, the technology has become standard in many commercial and business jets to enhance recovery from high-angle-of-attack scenarios.^[3] Examples of aircraft equipped with stick pushers include the Bombardier DHC-8-400, ATR 72 series, Learjet 24, and Pilatus PC-12, where it has played a critical role in stall avoidance during operations.^[1]^[4] Pilots receive specialized training to recognize and, if needed, override the stick pusher—via disconnect switches or yoke buttons—in cases of erroneous activation, such as sensor malfunctions during takeoff or landing.^[2] The Federal Aviation Administration emphasizes incorporating stick pusher scenarios into simulator-based stall recovery training to mitigate risks, as evidenced by investigations into incidents like the 2009 Colgan Air Flight 3407 crash, where improper response to stall warnings contributed to the accident despite the system's presence.^[1] Overall, the stick pusher represents a key advancement in aviation safety, reducing the likelihood of loss-of-control events by enforcing proactive angle-of-attack management.^[4]

Function and Operation

Stall Prevention Role

An aerodynamic stall occurs when the airflow over the wings separates due to exceeding the critical angle of attack, resulting in a sudden loss of lift.^[5] The stick pusher intervenes by automatically applying a forward force on the control column, which commands the elevators to pitch the nose down and reduce the angle of attack, thereby reattaching the airflow and restoring lift before a full stall develops.^[1] This system plays a vital role in maintaining safe flight envelopes by preventing stalls during critical phases such as takeoff, landing, or recovery from unusual attitudes, where high angles of attack are more likely.^[3] It ensures pilots have adequate margins for recovery by limiting the aircraft's pitch attitude autonomously, even if the pilot fails to respond to prior warnings.^[1] The stick pusher activates when the angle of attack reaches a predetermined value below the critical stall angle of attack, which varies by aircraft type and configuration (typically 16-20 degrees for the stall itself), to avert stall entry and preserve recovery margins.^[5] It often follows activation of a stick shaker, which provides tactile and aural warnings at a slightly lower angle of attack to alert the crew.^[3] In swept-wing aircraft, the stick pusher is particularly important for countering pitch-up tendencies that arise when wingtip stall shifts the center of lift forward of the center of gravity or when icing alters the airfoil shape, exacerbating stall risks.^[5]

Activation and Control Input

The activation of a stick pusher begins when angle-of-attack (AOA) sensors detect the aircraft approaching a critical stall threshold, typically a predetermined margin below the actual stall AOA, adjusted based on aircraft configuration, weight, and other parameters.^[6] The stall protection computer then processes this signal through electronic logic to confirm the condition, triggering the system without pilot input.^[7] A hydraulic or electric servo subsequently applies a forward force to the control column, equivalent to at least 60 pounds of pilot force in many designs, to prevent inadvertent pilot resistance. This force translates to a nose-down input on the elevator control surfaces, lowering the aircraft's pitch attitude and reducing the AOA to avert a stall.^[3] The initial reduction in AOA allows airflow over the wings to reattach, restoring lift, with the pusher maintaining the input until the AOA falls below a reset threshold, at which point the system disengages automatically.^[9] Stick pushers integrate seamlessly with both conventional and fly-by-wire flight control systems by aligning with existing control laws, ensuring the nose-down command does not conflict with stability augmentation or envelope protection features.^[10] In fly-by-wire architectures, this may involve direct electronic signaling to actuators rather than mechanical linkages, maintaining compatibility across configurations.^[11] Additionally, force gradients in the overall stick feel system can increase as AOA nears the stall proximity, providing tactile cues that complement the pusher's action.^[12] In designs such as those used by Boeing, the stick pusher operates independently of the engaged autopilot but triggers its temporary disengagement upon activation to prioritize stall recovery.^[6] This ensures unhindered application of the corrective input, allowing the aircraft to regain safe flight parameters.^[3]

Design and Components

Core Mechanisms

The core mechanisms of a stick pusher revolve around robust linear actuators, often configured as servos, that physically apply a forward force to the aircraft's control column or elevator control cables to induce a nose-down pitch and avert stall conditions.^[1] These actuators are typically powered by hydraulic systems or electric motors in some designs.^[13]^[14] Mechanical linkages, such as direct pushrods or bellcrank assemblies, connect the actuators to the primary flight controls, enabling precise force transmission while designed to disengage or remain passive during normal flight operations, thereby avoiding interference with pilot maneuvers.^[14] This setup ensures the system integrates seamlessly with the elevator or column without introducing drag or additional control loads under routine conditions.^[1] Design variations include mechanical systems, which rely on purely physical components for actuation, and electronic versions that incorporate servo-assisted controls for finer modulation. Early implementations utilized hydraulic actuators.^[14] Redundancy is a critical feature, with dual-channel architectures employed to mitigate single-point failures, allowing the system to function even if one pathway is compromised, thereby achieving low failure probabilities as required by certification standards such as 10^{-5} per flight hour or better for major failure conditions.^[14]^[15] The stick pusher activates in response to angle-of-attack thresholds, but its mechanical core operates independently of signal processing to ensure reliable physical intervention.^[1]

Sensor and Servo Systems

The sensor systems in stick pusher installations primarily rely on angle-of-attack (AOA) vanes or probes to detect impending stalls by measuring the angle between the relative airflow and the aircraft's wing chord line. These sensors, often configured as weather-vane-style devices that pivot to align with the oncoming airflow, provide high-precision AOA data essential for timely activation.^[16] To mitigate icing risks, many AOA vanes incorporate electrical heating elements that maintain operational integrity in adverse weather, preventing ice buildup that could distort readings.^[17] Complementary inputs, such as airspeed from pitot-static systems and flap position from configuration sensors, feed into the overall monitoring logic to refine stall thresholds based on flight conditions.^[1] Servo systems form the actuation backbone of stick pushers, employing electro-hydraulic or electro-mechanical actuators to apply forward force on the control column or elevator linkage when activated. These servos operate with closed-loop feedback mechanisms that continuously monitor real-time AOA and adjust the pusher's output to achieve the required deflection, ensuring proportional response without overcorrection. In modern implementations, servo travel is limited to balance effective stall recovery with pilot control authority.^[1] Dual-redundant servo designs, often integrated with fly-by-wire architectures, enhance reliability by allowing failover between units if one experiences hydraulic pressure loss or electrical fault. Logic processing for stick pusher activation occurs within onboard flight control computers, which execute algorithms to compute dynamic thresholds tailored to variables like aircraft weight, center-of-gravity position, and flap settings. These processors integrate AOA data with other parameters—such as load factor and airspeed—to predict stall onset, activating the system when the computed AOA approaches the stall limit. In fly-by-wire aircraft, this logic resides in primary flight control modules, enabling seamless integration with autopilot functions while inhibiting activation during phases like takeoff rotation.^[1] Fault detection and isolation (FDI) mechanisms are integral to sensor and servo validation, employing cross-checks between redundant AOA probes and servo feedback signals to identify discrepancies indicative of failures, such as bird strikes damaging a vane or sensor drift. For instance, dual-channel computers compare inputs from independent sensors; if validation fails, the system defaults to the validated channel or disengages to prevent erroneous pushes. This FDI approach, often using voting logic or Kalman filtering derivatives, minimizes false activations while maintaining system availability, as demonstrated in air data system designs for general aviation and transport aircraft.^[18]

Historical Development

Origins in Aviation Safety

Following World War II, the adoption of swept-wing designs in high-performance aircraft introduced significant stall-related risks, particularly pitch-up tendencies at high angles of attack. These issues arose from uneven lift distribution, where flow separation began at the wingtips, reducing aileron effectiveness and causing abrupt nose-up moments that could lead to uncontrollable stalls.^[19] Early military jets, such as those developed in the 1950s, highlighted these dangers during low-speed maneuvers like takeoffs and landings, prompting aviation engineers to prioritize stability enhancements to mitigate deep stall conditions.^[20] The stick pusher was conceptualized in the early 1960s as a servo-based automatic intervention system to prevent stalls by forcibly pushing the control column forward when approaching critical angles of attack. British engineers at firms like Hawker Siddeley and the British Aircraft Corporation (BAC) pioneered its development for T-tailed jet airliners, with the Hawker Siddeley Trident among the earliest implementations. This innovation addressed the limitations of manual pilot response in high-speed, swept-wing configurations, marking a shift toward active aerodynamic protection systems.^[21] A pivotal event underscoring the urgency for such devices occurred on October 22, 1963, when a BAC One-Eleven prototype (G-ASHG) crashed during a stall test near Chicklade, England, killing all seven crew members. The aircraft entered an unrecoverable deep stall due to the T-tail configuration blanking the elevators, demonstrating the lethal potential of pitch-up in rear-engined designs and directly catalyzing the integration of stick pushers in production models.^[22] The accident report emphasized the need for automatic systems to enforce stall recovery, influencing subsequent safety protocols for similar aircraft.^[23] NASA's research in the 1960s further shaped early stick pusher designs through studies on pitch damping and stick force augmentation, particularly for supersonic fighters. These efforts optimized activation boundaries based on angle of attack and pitch rate, using moderate-authority dampers (gain of 0.3 seconds) to reduce transients and prevent overshoot during high-angle maneuvers.^[24] Simulator evaluations confirmed that a 30-pound push force effectively limited angle of attack to around 14 degrees, preserving controllability while informing servo-based implementations in civilian jets.^[25]

Evolution and Regulatory Adoption

The evolution of stick pusher technology began in the post-World War II era but accelerated in the 1970s with the refinement of hydraulic and electro-mechanical actuators to ensure reliable stall prevention in transport-category aircraft.^[1] By the 1980s and 1990s, advancements shifted from purely mechanical systems to digital integrations, particularly with the rise of fly-by-wire controls, which enhanced angle-of-attack (AOA) sensing and logic for more precise activation thresholds.^[21] For instance, the Airbus A320 family, certified in 1988, incorporated improved AOA-based envelope protection systems that built on stick pusher principles, using electronic flight control laws to automatically limit pitch and prevent stalls without traditional physical pushers. This transition reduced mechanical complexity while improving system reliability and integration with stall warning cues like stick shakers.^[26] Regulatory milestones for stick pushers emerged prominently in the 1970s through amendments to the U.S. Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 25, which mandated stall warning systems beginning at least 5 knots or 5% above stall speed, often requiring stick pushers for aircraft unable to achieve safe stall recovery via aerodynamics alone.^[27] These requirements, outlined in FAR §25.207 and §25.201, emphasized demonstrations of stall characteristics and recovery, with stick pushers certified to activate prior to aerodynamic stall while allowing pilot override.^[26] In Europe, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) equivalents under Certification Specifications (CS-25), updated in the 2000s through amendments like Amendment 3 in 2007, further emphasized upset recovery by requiring enhanced stall protection and handling qualities in icing and high-altitude conditions. These standards aligned with International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) guidelines, mandating stick pushers or equivalent protections for large fixed-wing transports to mitigate loss-of-control risks.^[1] Adoption of stick pushers was driven by a series of post-1970s incidents involving icing-related stalls in transport aircraft, which highlighted deficiencies in stall recovery and prompted mandatory installation in new designs certified under FAR Part 25.^[28] For example, investigations into accidents like the 1985 Air Ontario Flight 1363 crash underscored the need for automated interventions to counter ice-induced AOA increases, leading to FAA advisories and certification criteria that integrated stick pushers with icing protection systems.^[26] By the 2010s, stick pushers had become standard in most newly certified commercial jets prone to deep stall risks, reflecting widespread regulatory enforcement and safety enhancements. In Boeing designs, updates incorporated refined AOA logic akin to but distinct from the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS), focusing on stall prevention rather than high-speed stability augmentation.

Applications and Implementations

Commercial Transport Aircraft

Stick pusher systems appeared in commercial transport aircraft in the early 1960s, following incidents like the 1963 BAC One-Eleven prototype crash during stall testing, which highlighted deep stall risks in T-tail configurations. The BAC One-Eleven series production incorporated a stick pusher, using hydraulic actuators to apply forward force on the control column to reduce angle of attack.^[29] Subsequent narrow-body models, such as the Boeing 737 series, incorporated refined stick pusher systems integrated with stall warning components like stick shakers, providing automated forward column input to avert aerodynamic stall during critical flight phases.^[30] In parallel, Airbus introduced enhanced alpha protection on wide-body aircraft like the A300 and narrow-body A320 family as part of their fly-by-wire flight envelope protection, which limits maximum angle of attack to prevent stall without a traditional mechanical pusher, instead using electronic commands to elevator surfaces for pitch control.^[31] In commercial operations, stick pushers and equivalent alpha protection systems are typically armed after takeoff and remain active through landing, with activation thresholds calibrated to the aircraft's operating weight range—often from light weights around 100,000 pounds up to maximum takeoff weights exceeding 400,000 pounds in larger models—to account for variations in stall speed and lift characteristics.^[32] These systems engage during high-lift, low-speed maneuvers such as go-arounds or missed approaches, where rapid pitch increases and flap extensions can drive angle of attack toward critical values; for instance, in Boeing aircraft, the pusher applies downward elevator deflection if unresolved stall warnings occur, while Airbus alpha protection caps pitch demand to maintain safe margins above stall speed.^[33] Calibration ensures reliable performance across gross weights by adjusting activation based on factors like flap configuration and load factor, preventing inadvertent engagement during normal rotations or flares.^[33] The integration of stick pushers in commercial fleets has significantly reduced pilot workload during low-speed, high-risk phases like approaches and go-arounds by automating angle-of-attack reduction, allowing crews to focus on thrust management and configuration changes without manual intervention to avoid stall.^[34] In Boeing designs, the system provides a forceful yet brief forward push on the control column, which pilots are trained to accept rather than override, enhancing recovery from incipient stalls in transport-category operations.^[3] For Airbus aircraft, alpha protection similarly automates pitch limits, ensuring the aircraft remains flyable on the edge of stall while minimizing crew inputs in energy-critical scenarios.^[35] Overall, these mechanisms contribute to safer low-speed handling in passenger and cargo operations by enforcing positive stability margins tailored to the demands of large-scale airliners.

Military and Business Jets

In military aircraft, stick pushers play a key role in envelope protection systems, particularly for managing high angle-of-attack (AOA) operations in diverse mission environments. The Lockheed Martin C-130J Super Hercules, a tactical airlifter, incorporates a stick pusher to counteract unexpected stall tendencies arising from its updated aerodynamic profile, enabling safer low-speed maneuvers such as airdrops and assault landings.^[36] This system was specifically developed and tested to address stall characteristics unique to the C-130J's enhanced performance, integrating seamlessly with the aircraft's fly-by-wire enhancements for relaxed stability.^[37] Design adaptations in military stick pushers emphasize robustness for operational demands, including higher actuation forces to overcome pilot inputs under combat loads and enhanced structural resistance to sustain functionality during high-G tactical maneuvers.^[38] These features distinguish military implementations from commercial variants, prioritizing reliability in aggressive flight regimes while sharing core sensor technologies for AOA detection. In business jets, stick pushers are standard for optimizing safety during high-altitude cruises and short-field performance. The Gulfstream G650 uses an angle-of-attack limiter as its primary stall protection via fly-by-wire envelope protection, supplemented by a stick pusher that activates to lower the nose and reduce AOA before critical stall margins are reached, supporting operations up to 51,000 feet and balanced-field lengths as short as 6,000 feet.^[39]^[40] Following flight testing insights, including adjustments to activation thresholds post-incident analysis, this system ensures precise envelope limits for the jet's Mach 0.925 cruise speed.^[41] The Bombardier Global series, including the Global Express and Global 5000, integrates stick pushers alongside stick shakers for comprehensive stall avoidance, facilitating high-altitude efficiency (up to 51,000 feet) and short-field capabilities with takeoff distances under 6,000 feet at maximum weight.^[42]^[43] These systems enhance the aircraft's long-range missions by maintaining stable handling during approach-to-stall conditions at elevated speeds and altitudes.

Training and Operational Considerations

Pilot Familiarization

Pilot familiarization with stick pusher systems begins with standardized training protocols established by aviation authorities to ensure pilots recognize stall conditions and respond appropriately to system activation. The Federal Aviation Administration's Advisory Circular (AC) 120-109A, issued in 2015, mandates comprehensive stall recognition training, including demonstrations of stick pusher activation in full-flight simulators for transport category airplanes equipped with these systems.^[33] This guidance aligns with regulatory requirements under 14 CFR § 121.423 for extended envelope training, which includes instructor-guided recovery from full stall and stick pusher activation.^[44] Similarly, the European Aviation Safety Agency's Safety Information Bulletin (SIB) 2013-02 outlines equivalent guidelines, emphasizing simulator-based training to familiarize pilots with stick pusher behavior during approach-to-stall maneuvers.^[45] These protocols require pilots to experience simulated activations without attempting to override the mechanism, reinforcing the system's role in preventing aerodynamic stalls by reducing angle of attack. Key training elements focus on realistic scenarios conducted in full-flight simulators, where stick pusher activation is demonstrated at varying airspeeds, configurations, and altitudes to build pilot confidence and procedural knowledge. Emphasis is placed on maintaining hands-off the controls during activation, as opposing the push can exacerbate stall risks; instructors guide pilots through recognition cues such as airframe buffet, stick shaker onset, and the subsequent forward force on the control column.^[33] This hands-on approach ensures pilots understand that the stick pusher typically engages near the critical angle of attack, providing an automatic nose-down input to aid recovery. The curriculum integrates angle of attack (AOA) awareness as a foundational component, teaching pilots to monitor AOA indicators alongside traditional airspeed references for proactive stall prevention. Upset prevention and recovery training (UPRT) programs, which incorporate stick pusher scenarios, combine academic briefings with practical simulator exercises.^[46] The expansion of such training was significantly influenced by the 2009 Colgan Air Flight 3407 accident, where inadequate stick pusher familiarization contributed to the crew's improper response, prompting regulatory updates to include recovery techniques from inadvertent activations in all relevant curricula.^[47]

Limitations and Override Procedures

Stick pusher systems, while effective in preventing aerodynamic stalls, are subject to limitations arising from sensor inaccuracies and operational constraints. Nuisance activations can occur due to faulty angle-of-attack (AOA) sensors, such as those immobilized by ice accumulation, leading to erroneous high-AOA indications and unintended pusher engagement. In such cases, the system may activate prematurely, as seen in incidents where icing altered AOA thresholds, prompting earlier intervention than required.^[33] Additionally, effectiveness diminishes in extreme maneuvers or scenarios involving control jams, where the system's response may be insufficient to counteract high aerodynamic loads or mechanical obstructions.^[1] To address unintended activations, pilots can override the stick pusher through manual disconnect mechanisms, including dedicated switches on the control yoke or instrument panel that temporarily or permanently disable the system.^[2] Alternatively, in many designs, the pusher can be overpowered by applying a maximum backward force on the control column, typically exceeding 100 pounds, though this requires significant physical effort and is not recommended during normal stall recovery.^[2] Following an override, pilots must vigilantly monitor airspeed and AOA to prevent re-entry into a stall condition, as the protective envelope is temporarily compromised.^[1] Safety considerations emphasize the rarity of dual-system failures, which are mitigated through redundant designs and Quick Reference Handbook (QRH) procedures tailored to specific aircraft models, ensuring continued stall protection or alternative recovery options.^[1] These protocols, such as those for inoperative pushers, often involve adjusted center-of-gravity limits and enhanced pilot monitoring to maintain safe operations.^[33] Overall, stick pusher designs strike a balance between automated stall prevention and pilot authority, incorporating disable features for non-standard flight phases like takeoff or landing, and in certified aircraft allowing temporary deactivation for maneuvers such as aerobatics via cockpit switches.^[2]

References

[1]
Stick Pusher | SKYbrary Aviation Safety
A stick pusher is a device in some aircraft that helps prevent aerodynamic stalls by pushing forward on the elevator control system.
[2]
Mentor Matters: Automated callouts, shakers, and pushers - AOPA
Feb 1, 2021 · Aircraft with a stick pusher typically feature multiple ways in which the system can be disabled should it inadvertently activate. Often ...
[3]
How it Works: Stick Shaker/Pusher - FLYING Magazine
Aug 14, 2017 · The stick shaker vibrates the control wheel to warn of stall, and the stick pusher pushes the wheel to reduce angle of attack if the pilot ...Missing: definition | Show results with:definition
[4]
https://www.monroeaerospace.com/blog/what-is-a-stick-pusher-and-how-does-it-work/
[5]
[PDF] Chapter 5: Aerodynamics of Flight - Federal Aviation Administration
If the CP is forward of the CG, a nose up pitching moment is created. ... pitch down generated by the stick pusher from imposing excessive loads on the aircraft.
[6]
What is the reason for this discrepancy regarding the CRJ100/200's ...
Mar 2, 2021 · The stickpusher-activation angle of attack is stated as approximately 13.5 degrees (a value which, according to the report, would not have been altered by the ...
[7]
None
### Summary of AC 120-109 on Stick Pusher and Related Topics
[8]
https://ntrs.%5Bnasa
[9]
[PDF] development and certification of a new stall warning and avoidance ...
push force (equivalent to no less than 60 lb. of pilot force) is imparted to the pilotls control column. The push force remains constant until the angle of ...
[10]
[PDF] WARNING SYSTEMS CONTROLS AND INDICATORS Dash8-200/300
If the AOA reaches the stick pusher reference AOA, the stick pusher activates. The stall warning and pusher commands automatically deactivate when recovery from ...
[11]
Parker Aerospace: Fly-by-wire Is The Future | AIN
Apr 16, 2013 · Instead of a stick pusher, the Legacy FBW system uses an angle-of-attack limiter. This allows lower takeoff and landing speeds and improved ...
[12]
Fly-by-Wired: the FBW concept - Code 7700
Dec 15, 2023 · The "Fly By Wire" system removes all mechanical controls between the pilots and their flight controls, replacing them with digital signals along wires.
[13]
[PDF] AC 23-8C - Flight Test Guide for Certification of Part 23 Airports
Nov 16, 2011 · (ii) Stick force gradient. Airplanes with steep stick force gradients are involved in fewer “stall/spin” accidents than those airplanes with ...
[14]
System rundown: Hydraulics 101 - AOPA
Nov 1, 2018 · Quite a bit, thank you—commonly in the neighborhood of 3,000 pounds per square inch (psi), or about the ambient pressure of the ocean a mile and ...
[15]
[PDF] AC 25-7B - Advisory Circular
Mar 29, 2011 · However, depending on the airplane's stall characteristics and the stick pusher design, disabling the pusher or delaying activation of the.
[16]
A Basic “MCAS” System was installed in the Boeing 707 in the 1960s
Nov 1, 2019 · The Stick Pusher fired of two sensors, was powered by compressed nitrogen and acted directly on the control column. It could over power the ...Missing: charged accumulators
[17]
A comprehensive survey on the methods of angle of attack ...
This algorithm was limited over a flight range with an accuracy of 0.5° of AOA. Popowski presented the problems regarding the estimation of the angle of attack ...
[18]
Tech Talk: Stall-Warning Systems - IFR Magazine
The wing's angle of attack is the critical factor in determining how close the aircraft is to an aerodynamic stall. Therefore, an angle-of-attack (AoA) sensor ...
[19]
Avionic Air Data Sensors Fault Detection and Isolation by means of ...
An innovative Fault Detection and Isolation system dedicated to the isolation of faults affecting the air data system of a general aviation aircraft.Missing: pusher strikes
[20]
[PDF] Low-Speed Research on High-Speed Wings (1950)
Swept wings increase landing distance and speed, reduce lift, and have uneven lift distribution, causing low-speed problems.
[21]
None
Summary of each segment:
[22]
[PDF] Stick and Feel System Design - DTIC
aerodynamic and engine controls were truly integrated by the fly by wire system where the stick commands had direct control of three engine parameters. The ...
[23]
Loss of control Accident BAC One-Eleven 200AB G-ASHG, Tuesday ...
PROBABLE CAUSE: "During a stalling test the aircraft entered a stable stalled conditions, recovery from which was impossible." Sources: ICAO Accident Digest ...
[24]
How did the BAC One-Eleven help pave safer air travel? - Key Aero
Oct 27, 2023 · That August, pilot error led to G-ASJD crash-landing on Salisbury Plain while engaged in stall testing; an erroneous impression that the ...
[25]
[PDF] RESEARCH MEMORANDUM
Without the pitch damper, stick-pusher activation resulted in a large attitude change following activation and required break- off the tracking mneuver; but, ...Missing: 1960s | Show results with:1960s
[26]
[PDF] APPLICATION OF ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUES TO FLIGHT ... - DTIC
For the configuration without the stick pusher, a moderate-authority pitch damper was greatly appreciated by the pilot when attempting to control the airplane ...
[27]
[PDF] AC 25-7D, Flight Test Guide for Certification of Transport ... - FAA
Apr 5, 2018 · AC 25-7D provides guidance for flight test evaluation of transport category airplanes, including methods and procedures to show compliance with ...
[28]
14 CFR 25.207 -- Stall warning. - eCFR
Once initiated, stall warning must continue until the angle of attack is reduced to approximately that at which stall warning began. (d) In addition to the ...
[29]
https://wahsonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Log-38-3-Winter-2013-2014-Britains-Twin-Jet-The-BAC-1-11-Entire-Issue-in-Color-C.pdf
[30]
[PDF] Summary of the FAA's Review of the Boeing 737 MAX
Boeing updated the FCC software to eliminate MCAS ... FAA and Boeing informally discussed several means to silence the single erroneous stick shaker.
[31]
How does MCAS compare to stall protection systems installed in ...
Apr 29, 2019 · How is MCAS in 737 MAX 8 different from the stick pusher in MD80 or DHC8 and from the Airbus alpha protection, in terms of overall safety?What is the technique or procedure to disable/disengage the MCAS ...Can the autopilot (or stall avoidance system?) of the B737 MAX 8 be ...More results from aviation.stackexchange.comMissing: relation | Show results with:relation
[32]
Safety Innovation #7: Flight Envelope Protection - Airbus
Feb 1, 2023 · Low energy and alpha floor protection: They ensure that a suitable level of aircraft energy is maintained in flight, with corrections made ...Missing: details | Show results with:details
[33]
14 CFR § 25.103 - Stall speed. - Law.Cornell.Edu
... stick pusher), VCLMAX may not be less than the speed existing at the instant ... W = Airplane gross weight;. S = Aerodynamic reference wing area; and. q ...Missing: commercial | Show results with:commercial
[34]
[PDF] AC 120-109A - Stall Prevention and Recovery Training
Nov 24, 2015 · AC 120-109A provides guidance for training, testing, and checking pilots to ensure correct responses to impending and full stalls, emphasizing ...Missing: statistics | Show results with:statistics
[35]
[PDF] Human Factors - FAA Safety
[Figure 14-10] They later developed practical in-flight control of engine power, plus an angle of attack sensor and stick pusher that reduced pilot workload.
[36]
Control your speed… in cruise - Safety First | Airbus
α0 is the AOA for a Lift Coefficient (CL) equal to 0. On the A320 Family, Vα PROT and Vα MAX can have different numerical values on both PFDs because VC comes ...
[37]
Lockheed Martin completes final tests on C-130J stick-pusher
Oct 7, 1997 · Lockheed Martin is completing final tests of a stick-pusher system designed to beat unexpected stall characteristics with its C-130J Hercules II.
[38]
C-130 Hercules: Lockheed's do-everything transport in continual ...
Lockheed tried multiple aerodynamic solutions without success, and ended up adding an automatic stall-prevention “stick-pusher” control device that would ...
[39]
C-130 Hercules Designer Willis Hawkins | Code One Magazine
Aug 11, 2014 · We ended up installing a stick pusher, just like in a fighter, that takes over and pushes the nose down. You still can't stall that aircraft ...
[40]
New Gulfstream G650 - FLYING Magazine
May 22, 2008 · This protection is achieved in conventional airplanes with a stick pusher that slams the controls forward before the airplane can reach an ...
[41]
Gulfstream G650 Accident Report - The House of Rapp
Nov 21, 2012 · After the incident, they reviewed the data and determined that the AOA for stick pusher activation should be lowered so that it would activate ...
[42]
[PDF] Bombardier Global Express - Flight Controls Page 1 - Jett Air X
The left forward quadrant includes a cable interface with the stick pusher servo of the stall protection system. The cable circuit travels independently ...
[43]
Bombardier Global 5000 | Clay Lacy Aviation
Stall protection is provided with stick shaker and stick pusher. The 5000 carries 36,000 lb of fuel in a wet-wing box structure with left, center fuselage ...
[44]
[PDF] AC 120-109 - Stall and Stick Pusher Training
Jun 8, 2012 · Incorporation of stick pusher training into flight training scenarios, if installed on the aircraft. /s/ for. John M. Allen. Director, Flight ...
[45]
[PDF] Stall and Stick Pusher Training - EASA Safety Publications Tool
Jan 22, 2013 · Aircraft weight should be limited to ensure adequate performance for recovery from initial indications of a stall. 3.6. Stick Pusher Training.
[46]
[PDF] AC 120-111 CHG 1 - Upset Prevention and Recovery Training
Jan 4, 2017 · This AC describes recommended Upset Prevention and Recovery Training (UPRT) for pilots to prevent upset conditions and ensure correct recovery ...Missing: 2000s | Show results with:2000s
[47]
[PDF] Loss of Control on Approach Colgan Air, Inc. Operating as ... - NTSB
Feb 12, 2009 · The accident airplane's FDR recorded stick shaker and stick pusher parameters once every 4 seconds. In contrast, a QAR might be designed to ...
[48]
Airworthiness Directives: The Boeing Company Airplanes
Jan 17, 2020 · A review of recorded flight data and weather reports indicated that the cause of the nuisance stick shaker activation was immobilized AOA sensor ...Missing: pusher | Show results with:pusher<|separator|>